** This thread discusses the content article: Mykénští mluvili a psali také praslovansky **

Pane autore, ty Vaše bláboly jsou skutečně k smíchu. Pořiďte si alespoň nějaký úvod do jazykovědy. Vy snad ani nejste schopen analytického myšlení, pouze nekritického nadužívání nástroje Google Translator - copak se například v polštině "ořechy sadaře" řeknou "orchardist orzechów"??? NEŘEKNOU!!! (správně "orzechy sadownika", případně "orzechy ogrodnika") A takhle je to s každým druhým tvrzením, které z Vás vyleze. Jestliže neznáte ani základy slovanských jazyků, kdo Vám kdy může uvěřit ty Vaše nesmysly? A ta Vaše praslovanština má stejně daleko k dnešním slovanským jazykům jako k praslovanštině rekonstruované skutečnými odborníky. A že si za čárku můžete dosadit libovolný konsonant, to se Vám náramně hodí, že jo? Ale proč je "ra," zrovna "ran" a ne třeba "rab", "rac", "rač", "rad" nebo milion dalších možností??? Vy evidentně ignorujete faktor náhody a pravděpodobnostní počet. A logika Vám taky zcela jistě chybí, protože všechno definujete kruhem. Jste neuvěřitelný.

Dear Mirka,if you keep on disqualifying on a personal level, and without any notable arguments then I have to erase your posts. First you could very well learn to communicate.This forum is not meant for settling your accounts.

I'm sorry for the bitter tone, but it's been brought about by Dr. Tureček himself (moderators note: removed bad language excerpt - it is not in interest of Veneti.info to read about vulgarities in other forums). Alright, though. I will try to avoid being too personal and focus on the arguments.One of the biggest problems with the Horák-Tureček methodology has been immense circularity. Page 12, for instance:"I incidentally grasped the tablet number 10 where it says "NÁ-WÁNÁ..", and it sufficed to add to the first word the unwritten "-S", for which this syllabic script doesn't have a sign, thus "nás Wáná" (us, the Wáns, Slo-wáns), and suddently we have the ethnic name of the tablets' writers. Then it was plain enough to refine some of the sign's values as established by Ventris according to the phonology of old Slavic on the principle of "acrophony" (on which see below) - and look! - the texts suddenly began to talk in genuine archaic SLAVIC!"So, let me simplify the scheme Horák (and thus Tureček) uses:1st) There is a coincidental similarity between a portion of the ancient text and a phrase in a Slavic language2nd) This similarity is not big enough, so why don't we add an arbitrary consonant to make it more similar (=closer to our preconceived idea)?3rd) Let us alter the values of the signs on the basis of these preconceived similarities and call the result "archaic Slavic"Now, if you look at the description of the "acrophonic" principle of Horák's, you will learn that the sign "JA", for example, is "refined" to sound "JÁ", because - according to Horák - the geometric shape of the sign JA is reminiscent of yoke, which, according to Horák again, was "JÁRAM" in Proto-Slavic. Well, all Slavists reconstruct yoke as *a:rUmU. I would understand Horák's initial "j-", because it does occur in Slavic languages, but where on Earth does he get the long "á" from??? But this isn't the main problem. The real problem is that this "acrophonic principle" is totally arbitrary and subjective - I could as well take Spanish "yac", "yacija" or "yacaranda" and obtain similar and maybe even better results. There is no secure way to tell reality and coincidence apart! There are no regular (interlocking) sound correspondences, no sensible bilingual inscriptions that would confirm the readings, nothing, nada.So the scheme is as follows: 1) chance similarity 2) arbitrary refinement 3) fabricated data based on 1) chance similarity 2) arbitrary refinement and 3) fabricated data. Total circularity!

I understand your concern Mirka. Thank you for your arguments.
Of course this is no absolute way of deciphering.

But before you make a comment like this you might want to get a little bit more familiar with many scientiffic linguistic papers, where you can not only see some acrobatic decipherings, but also big ignorance what modern research is concerned (for example the AKEO case in Pellegrini and Prosdocimi). And they should be scientiffic!!!
Therefore if we take Tureček's paper as such as it is (popular-scientiffic), we see that he is only trying to give us new ideas. Therefore there is no absolute truth, it is only new ideas that are being brought by these researchers.

There are many modern scientists who are ok with a full revision of history, so why bother about this on a personal level???

>>>>>Of course this is no absolute way of deciphering.

Well, sorry, but this is not about an "absolute way". This is simply NO way of deciphering. Standard linguistic methods require rigor, interlocking soundlaws, predictivity and productivity. Horák and Tureček's methods are all about chance resemblance.

>>>>>But before you make a comment like this you might want to get a little bit more familiar with many scientiffic linguistic papers, where you can not only see some acrobatic decipherings, but also big ignorance what modern research is concerned (for example the AKEO case in Pellegrini and Prosdocimi). And they should be scientiffic!!!

Please, could you be more specific? From the little I've read on this website so far, it seems to me it is nonsense to consider the inscription Slavic in any way: some of the supposed endings are virtually non-existent in Slavic. The Pellegrini and Prosdocimi interpretation (whatever it is) might be wrong, but interpreting the text as being a Slavic one is utter nonsense.

>>>>>Therefore if we take Tureček's paper as such as it is (popular-scientiffic), we see that he is only trying to give us new ideas.

Maybe, but those ideas are completely based on chance resemblances and circularity. I can invent other "new ideas" based on chance resemblance between, say, Nahuatl and Etruscan. Will you publish my paper then? New ideas are good, I agree, but there should be a margin between fairytales and scientific hypotheses. Mr Tureček has often claimed that the hypotheses are scientific, because they are testable. This is not a definition of a scientific method, however, rather is it a complete misinterpretation or misunderstanding thereof.

>>>>>Therefore there is no absolute truth, it is only new ideas that are being brought by these researchers.

Please, see my comment above.

>>>>>There are many modern scientists who are ok with a full revision of history, so why bother about this on a personal level???

I'm ok with a revision of history, I don't mind it at all - unless we don't reject the scientific method and rigor. Moreover, it was Mr Tureček who gave me all those unpleasant names on www.Osel.cz (such as "malevolent fanatic German" - "nenávistná fanatická Němka"), even claiming that I had been promoting the term "Indo-Germanic", while the reality was far from that as any reader can find out for themselves).

And yes, the matter began to be personal when Mr Tureček started to address certain discussants using the derogatory "little boy", as if Mr Tureček was the only truth-bearer and all the critics were childish and stupid. Fine, I can refrain from being too personal, as I've said already, but I hope not to be prevented from being critical.

Mirka,
there is big misunderstanding what terminology is concerned. You have to know that when sbd. writes a popular article he would use a term Slavic for antique inscription, whether another one writing in a more scientiffic way would use the term Slavophonic or Protosclavenic.

It is only totaly wrong what some scientists do, when they refuse to see any Sclavenic linguistic remnants from before Middle Age. Such positions might be totaly in disagreement with any revision that is yet to come. They are half blind.

Of course there is a common solution for such cases called the pre IE root, but it is just not exact enough.

And I could not be more speciffic about AKEO - please get informed about this mistake also on this website. There are plenty of other cases where you find such flaws. Nothing new ... unfortunately!

>>>>>Mirka, there is big misunderstanding what terminology is concerned.

Indeed. Mr Tureček is forever misusing or misinterpreting (albeit unintentionally, perhaps) all sorts of linguistic terms. Maybe he should be able to switch between two registers - layman and professional.

>>>>>You have to know that when sbd. writes a popular article he would use a term Slavic for antique inscription, whether another one writing in a more scientiffic way would use the term Slavophonic or Protosclavenic.

Certainly not. Slavic (together with the somewhat rarer variant Slavonic) is the general adjective regardless of age. When dealing with the earliest records (as aknowledged by the majority of scholars) we use the term Proto-Slavic, Old Slavic or Common Slavic to talk about the oldest (reconstructed) (proto-)language from which all modern Slavic languages descend. Slavophonic, if used at all, means "Slavic-speaking" and may describe a "Slavophonic" country, for instance. "Protosclavenic" is NEVER used. At least not in English.

>>>>>It is only totaly wrong what some scientists do, when they refuse to see any Sclavenic linguistic remnants from before Middle Age. Such positions might be totaly in disagreement with any revision that is yet to come. They are half blind.

They are just cautious, and they are right. The purported "evidence" I have seen is virtually non-evidence. Let me be ask you a question: do you agree with the present-day reconstruction of Proto-Slavic (at least as one of the stages between the oldest level of the language after it had broken away from Proto-Indo-European and Old Church Slavonic)? Your answer is important for the clarification of your precise position.

>>>>>If course there is a common solution for such cases called the pre IE root, but it is just not exact enough.

Well, can you expand on "not exact enough" a bit?

>>>>>And I could not be more speciffic about AKEO - please get informed about this mistake also on this website. There are plenty of other cases where you find such flaws. Nothing new ... unfortunately!

Well, if you are referring to the paper I read on this website some time ago, the claims uttered therein are absolutely undemonstrated and undemonstrable. If AKEO were a verb, you would have to be able to explain ALL the supposed endings (some of which DO NOT exist - in modern-day Slavic languages and in Proto-Slavic, either).

Anyway, I'm preparing a critical review (I'll put it in this discussion) of the present paper by Mr Tureček to clarify my position and the reasons why I reject Mr Tureček's conclusions. I hope this will help you and other readers understand my points. And then you can make further objections, of course.

Mirka,
I had plety of similar responses to yours, so such a viewpoint is not realy new to me.
The main problem is that you have to understand the concept of popular research. The mainstream research on the other side is somehow presented as a regulative for a critical (scientiffic) approach, wheareas a popular researcher has every right to build his own system of logical thinking. Now of course this may lead to big discrepances, but if you write any critics you have to consider authors concept as a whole and not to evaluate his work on the basis of a critical mindset. Throughout the history it happened many times, that the scientists were proved to be totaly wrong in their concepts, so why stick to one mainstream concept solely?

PRE IE
Well exactly here we have a big problem. There is to much talking about common roots, though we have totaly different linguistic cultures to consider. The big IE and the even wider PRE IE are just excuses so that we do not need to specify a big linguistic group that influenced EU languages at most. I of course disagree with the term Indo-Germanic, but this does not mean that the language has the same number of linguistic remainings in all of the IE language groups. Some are of course more comprehensive than others.

The term Sclavenic is used by authors who take care and are exact, whether Slavonic or Slavic make to me no real sense, because they are a construct of modern paradigms. So what is Slovenian - Slavic or Sclavenic? For example we have no historical mentionings for Slavs until the 18th century to be exact. We know however about Sclavenes, Sclabenoi, etc. We have to be exact and not only semi-exact.

AKEO
you missed the point. That is the unique "bottom-up" transcription.

You can write a critical review, but it has no sense, like you can not eat soup with a fork. Instead, on popular articles it is recommended to write a concept review.
Thank you for your attention!

>>>>>The main problem is that you have to understand the concept of popular research.

If "popular research" means an a priori denial of mainstream research, we cannot really talk about a concept here.

>>>>>The mainstream research on the other side is somehow presented as a regulative for a critical (scientiffic) approach, wheareas a popular researcher has every right to build his own system of logical thinking.

Well, there may be and are many disagreements WITHIN the "mainstream" camp, because that's what science is about. Talking about an "own system of logical thinking" is nonsense, however. There's just one logic. Only the arguments can differ.

The logic of claiming that AKEO is a Slavic verbal root is circular, for instance, because it is built upon an ad hoc premise that the tablet must be Slavic, while there is no other evidence that would confirm that. Moreover there are a number of other explanations, none of which can be excluded. Only when we have got rid of those, can we claim that the Slavic explanation is the right one.

Now, you still haven't answered my question concerning the Proto-Slavic reconstruction. It is based on solid data, regular sound correspondences and observed sound laws. It is not an ad hoc assumption, because it is a model that is based on observation of reality. It's a system that is both predictive and productive (thus it can predict the shape of a word, say, in Slovene, based on its shape in, say, Polish, Russian and Macedonian, and is productive in that it leads to repeated confirmation of the previous assumptions).

I don't mind claiming that Slavs where among the first nations to populate Europe - provided that I have solid evidence at hand.

>>>>Now of course this may lead to big discrepances, but if you write any critics you have to consider authors concept as a whole and not to evaluate his work on the basis of a critical mindset.

Of course I know the basic premises of Mr Tureček. There's nothing wrong in formulating hypotheses. If you want to prove them, however, you need logical arguments. And I'm afraid Mr Tureček's arguments lack this rudimentary logic. Remember that logic CANNOT BE SUBJECTIVE. "Personal logic" is an oxymoron.

>>>>>Throughout the history it happened many times, that the scientists were proved to be totaly wrong in their concepts, so why stick to one mainstream concept solely?

Notice, however, that their systems got stuck and could not advance any further. Mainstream linguists are discovering new things again and again. The framework, albeit not perfect, works fine.

>>>>>PRE IE

Why exactly are we talking about Pre-IE now? That's totally irrelevant.

>>>>>Well exactly here we have a big problem. There is to much talking about common roots, though we have totaly different linguistic cultures to consider.

And you think linguists do not realize the cultural differences between us and the IE speakers?

>>>>>The big IE and the even wider PRE IE are just excuses so that we do not need to specify a big linguistic group that influenced EU languages at most.

Linguists do realize that what has been provisionally labelled "Pre-IE" may have been (and probably was) more than one linguitic group. (I just hope our understanding of those terms doesn't differ too much).

>>>>>I of course disagree with the term Indo-Germanic,

So do I, what's the point?

>>>>but this does not mean that the language has the same number of linguistic remainings in all of the IE language groups.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Can you please be more specific? What do you mean by "linguistic remainings"??? Do you mean substrata? Or epigraphic finds?

>>>>Some are of course more comprehensive than others.

The inscriptions, you mean?

>>>>>The term Sclavenic is used by authors who take care and are exact,

Just ad hoc labels with political connotations. "Slavic" is neutral.

>>>>>whether Slavonic or Slavic make to me no real sense,

They are just labels, what sense do you what them to make???

>>>>>because they are a construct of modern paradigms.

Aha, so should we call the Germans Teutons? Or should be call the French Romans? Or should we call the Pakistani Indians? Sorry, but this is a rather silly (pseudo-)argument.

>>>>So what is Slovenian - Slavic or Sclavenic?

Slovenian is Slavic, of course.

>>>>>For example we have no historical mentionings for Slavs until the 18th century to be exact.

We have no mention of quantum mechanics in the 15th century so quantum mechanics is a bad label. That's the same type of argument, can you understand that?

>>>>>We know however about Sclavenes, Sclabenoi, etc. We have to be exact and not only semi-exact.

Considering what I wrote above, I don't see the point.

>>>>>AKEO you missed the point. That is the unique "bottom-up" transcription.

I don't see how I missed the point.

>>>>>You can write a critical review, but it has no sense, like you can not eat soup with a fork. Instead, on popular articles it is recommended to write a concept review.

I'll write a review anyway.

Mirka, thanks for the debate, but I unfortunately lack time to answer you to every single question and to be comprehensive. I had such debates already many times and usually the problem is in the concept or terminology solely. So I'll stick with that.
Below are my answers:

Mirka napisal:
1 If "popular research" means an a priori denial of mainstream research, we cannot really talk about a concept here.

2 Now, you still haven't answered my question concerning the Proto-Slavic reconstruction. It is based on solid data, regular sound correspondences and observed sound laws. It is not an ad hoc assumption, because it is a model that is based on observation of reality. It's a system that is both predictive and productive (thus it can predict the shape of a word, say, in Slovene, based on its shape in, say, Polish, Russian and Macedonian, and is productive in that it leads to repeated confirmation of the previous assumptions).

3 Notice, however, that their systems got stuck and could not advance any further. Mainstream linguists are discovering new things again and again. The framework, albeit not perfect, works fine.

4 And you think linguists do not realize the cultural differences between us and the IE speakers?

5 >>>>but this does not mean that the language has the same number of linguistic remainings in all of the IE language groups.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Can you please be more specific? What do you mean by "linguistic remainings"??? Do you mean substrata? Or epigraphic finds?
>>>>Some are of course more comprehensive than others.

6 Aha, so should we call the Germans Teutons? Or should be call the French Romans? Or should we call the Pakistani Indians? Sorry, but this is a rather silly (pseudo-)argument.

7 Slovenian is Slavic, of course.

8 >>>>>AKEO you missed the point. That is the unique "bottom-up" transcription.

I don't see how I missed the point.

1 Nothing is apriori. What I meant is building new concepts.

2 To some extent I am ok with that, but only as far as main principles of the language conservation (Alinei) are concerned. There are some tweaks.

3 Dissagree. Ussualy it was amateurs who got the brightest ideas. The framework of Medieval mass migrations is a humbug, therefore I do not agree. And this concept is a base for 90% of mainstream theories.

4 They do not have time to investigate that in a more exact or correct way due to the misconcept above.

5 Some modern languages have seem to have originated from what we now call IE, though some which we count as IE seem to have a non-IE root. The latter are based on assimilated autochtonous languages, which brought to them the seemingly IE form. So what we call IE did actually originate in EU and not Asia. This is my theory.

6 Do not exagerrate. If there is an original word known, we should use the oldest known and not a constructed term. Teutons were not Germans BUT GERMANIC -totally inappropriate illustration - sorry.

7 Wrong again. Now we call it Slavic. It used to be called Sclavenic, that's why it remained as a name by people as Kashubians, Novgorod Sloveni, Slovaks and Slovenians. If you lack facts -please read this article8unfortunately in Slovenian only) : www.hervardi.com/pojem_slovenija.php

8 You missed the point again. AKEO is no reading at all. It is only a lousy construct. Sorry about that ...

Mirka say: "I don't mind claiming that Slavs where among the first nations to populate Europe - provided that I have solid evidence at hand."

Obenem pa se ne obotavljate bojevito trditi nasprotno brez "solid evidence at hand." Cestitam za znanstveno logiko, (ki je, kot pravite: samo ena).