Category: LEXICONS & GLOSSARIES



Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 7, probably inscribed in New Minoan, i.e. the Mycenaean superstratum:

Linear A tablet HT 7 Hagha Triada 620

Linear A tablet HT 7 (Haghia Triada) may have been inscribed entirely in New Minoan, i.e. in the Mycenaean superstratum, and not in the Minoan substrate language at all. The decipherment does makes sense in proto-Greek, but I cannot account for the presence of the numbers 3 & 4, which casts doubt on it.
There is also the problem of human sacrifice. Some historians allege that the Minoans practised human sacrifice, but there is no proof of this at all. Besides, I find a bit strange that a civilization as advanced as the Minoan would have indulged in such a barbaric practice.  But you never know.


Supplement to the Comprehensive Linear A Lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: Onomastics and Topomastics: +12 = 904 - 916

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

It is understood that I have personally interpreted the words below as either eponyms (personal names) or toponyms (place names), but some of them may be neither, being perhaps merely words. It is also possible that one or more of the 3 terms I have listed as onomastics may be topomastics, and that any number of those I have classed as topomastics may be onomastics (or neither).

Onomastics: 

Kanajami
Tateikezare
Tidiate

Toponomastics:

Akanu = Archanes (Crete)
Dawa (Haghia Triada) 5
Dikate = Mount Dikte
Idaa = Mount Ida
Kura
Meza (= Linear B Masa)
Paito = Phaistos (= Linear B) 10
Sukirita/Sukiriteija = Sybrita
Winadu = Linear B Inato 12

TOTAL for the Comprehensive Linear A Lexicon = 916


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 801-903 = TI - ZU

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

tikuja
tikuneda
timaruri/timaruwite
timasa 
timi 
timunuta
tina
tinakarunau
tinata (common)/tinita
tinesekuda 810
tininaka
tinu 
tinuka
tinusekiqa
tio
tiqatediti
tiqe/tiqeri/tiqeu
tiraduja
tirakapa3
tira2 820
tire
tisa 
tisiritua
tisudapa
tita
titema
titiku
titima
tiu
tiumaja 830
tizanukaa
toipa
tome
toreqa 
tuda
tujuma
tukidija
tukuse
tuma/tumi/tumitizase
tunada/tunapa 840
tunapa3ku
tunija
tupadida
tuqe
turaa
turunuseme
turusa
tusi/tusu/tusupu2
tute
tutesi 850
udamia
udimi
udiriki
uju
uki 
uminase 
unaa
unadi (common)
unakanasi
unarukanasi/unarukanati 860
uqeti 
urewi
usu
uta/uta2
utaise
utaro
uti
waduko
wadunimi
waja 870
wanai
wapusua
wara2qa
watepidu 
watumare
wazudu
widina
widui 
wija 
wijasumatiti 880
winadu
winipa
winu
winumatari
wiraremite
wireu 
wirudu
wisasane
witero
zadeu/zadeujuraa 890
zadua
zama/zame
zanwaija
zapa
zarse/zaredu/zareki/zaresea
zasata
zirinima
zudu
zukupi
zuma 900
zupaku
zusiza
zute 903


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 701-800 = SI - TI

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

sina
sinada
sinae
sinakanau (common)
sinakase
sinamiu
sinatakira
sinedui
sipiki
sipu3ka 710
siriki
siwamaa
sokanipu
sudaja
suja
suniku (common) 
sure
Suria
suropa
siru/sirute 720
sirumarita2
sitetu
situ 
sokemase
sutu/sutunara
suu
suzu
taa
tadaki/tadati
tadeuka 730
taikama 
tainumapa
ta2tare
ta2tite
tajusu
takaa/takari
taki/taku/takui 
tamaduda
tamaru
temeku 740
tami/tamia/tamisi
tanamaje
tanate/tanati 
tani/taniria/tanirizu 
taniti
tanunikina
tapa 
tapiida
tapiqe
tara/tarina 750
tarejanai
tarikisu
taritama
tasa/tasaja
tasise
tata/tati
tateikezare
ta2merakodisi
ta2re/ta2reki
ta2riki 760
ta2rimarusi
ta2u
tedasi/tedatiqa
tedekima
teepikia
teizatima
tejai 
tejuda
teke/teki
tekidia 770
temada/temadai
temirerawi
tenamipi
tenata/tenataa
tenatunapa3ku
tenekuka
teneruda
teniku
tenitaki
tenu/tenumi (common)  780
tera/tere/teri 
teraseda
tereau
terikama 
teridu
tero 
teroa
terusi (extremely common)
tesi/tesiqe 
tesudesekei 790
tetu
tetita2
tewirumati
tidama
tidata
tiditeqati
tiduitii/tiisako
tija
tika 
tikiqa 800


							

Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 601-700 = RE - SI

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

rezakeiteta
ria (common)
ridu
rikata
rima
rimisi 
ripaku
ripatu
riqesa
rira/riruma/rirumate 610
risa
risaipa3dai
risumasuri
ritaje
rite/ritepi
ritoe
rodaa/rodaki
roika 
roke/roki/roku
romaku 620
romasa
ronadi
rore/roreka
rosa 
rosirasiro 
rotau
rotwei
rua
rudedi
ruiko
rujamime
ruka/rukaa/ruki/rukike
ruko
rukue
ruma 
rumu/rumata/rumatase
rupoka
ruqa/ruqaqa (common)
rusa (common/rusaka
rusi 
rutari
rutia
ruzuna
sadi
saja/sajama
sajea
saka
sama/samaro
samidae
sanitii 650
sapo
sapi
saqa
saqeri
sara2/sarara
sareju
saro/saru/sarutu
sasaja
sasame
sea
sedire
sei
seikama
seimasusaa
seitau
sejarapaja
sejasinataki
sesasinunaa
sekadidi
sekatapi 670
sekidi
semake
semetu
senu
sepa
sekutu
sesapa3
setamaru 
setira
Setoija 680
sewaude
sezami
sezanitao
sezaredu
sezatimitu
sia
sidare/sidate
sidi
sidija 
sii/siisi 690
siitau
sija
sijanakarunau
sika 
siketapi
sikine
sikira/sikirita
sima 
simara
simita 700


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 501-600 = PI - RE

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

pitara
piwaa/piwaja/piwi
posa 
potokuro 
puqe 
pura2 
pusa/pusi
pusuqe
pu2juzu
pu2su/pu2sutu 510
pu3pi
pu3tama
qaka
qanuma
qapaja/qapajanai
qaqada
qaqaru 
qera2u/qara2wa 
qareto 
qaro 520
qasaraku
qatidate
qatiki
qatiju
qedeminu
qeja 
qeka
qenamiku
qenupa
qepaka 530
qepita
qepu 
qequre
qera2u
qerosa
qeta2e
qesusui
qesite
qesizue
qesupu 540
qeti/qetieradu
qetune
raa
rada/radaa/radakuku/radami
radarua
radasija
radizu
radu 
ra2rore
raja/raju 550
rakaa
raki/rakii
rakisi/raku
ranatusu
rani 
raodiki
rapa/rapu
rapu3ra
raqeda
rarasa
rarua
rasa 560
rasamii
rasasaa/rasasaja
rasi
rata/ratapi 
ratada
ratise
razua
ra2i
ra2ka
ra2madami 570
ra2miki
ra2natipiwa
ra2pu/ra2pu2 
ra2ru
ra2saa
rea
reda (common)/redamija/redana/redasi
redise
reduja
reja/rejapa (common) 580
rekau
rekotuku
reku/rekuqa/rekuqe 
rema/remi 
rematuwa
renara/renaraa
renute
repa 
repu2dudatapa
repu3du 590
reqasuo
reradu
reratarumi
rera2tusi
rerora2
resi/resu
retaa/retada
retaka
retata2
retema 600


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 401-500 = NA - PI

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

nasi
nasisea
nataa/nataje
natanidua
natareki (common) 
nati 
nazuku/nazuru
nea/neakoa
nedia
nedira
neka/nekisi 410
nemaduka
nemaruja
nemiduda
nemusaa
nenaarasaja
neqa
neramaa
nerapa/nerapaa
nesa/nesaki/nesakimi
nesasawi 420
nesekuda
neta 
netapa
netuqe
nidapa
nidiki/nidiwa
niduti
nijanu
niku/nikutitii
nimi 430
nipa3
niro/niru
nisi 
nisudu
niti 
nizuka 
nizuuka
nua
nude
nuki/nukisikija 440
numida/numideqe
nupa3ku (extremely common)
nupi
nuqetu
nuti/nutini
nutiuteranata
nutu
nuwi
odami/odamia 450
opi
osuqare
otanize
oteja
pa (common)/paa
padaru
padasuti
pade
padupaa
pa3katari 460
pa3ni/pa3nina/pa3niwi
paja/pajai 
pajare
paka (very common)/paku (very common)/pakuka
pamanuita 
panuqe 
para
paria 
paroda
pasu 470
pata/patu 
pa3a/pa3ana 
pa3da 
pa3dipo
pa3kija
pa3ku
pa3pa3ku
pa3roka
pa3sase
pa3waja 480
pa3qa
panuqe
parane
parosu 
pasarija
pase
pasu
pata 
patada
patane 490
pia/pii
pija/pijawa
piku/pikui
pikuzu
pimata
pina/pini 
pirueju 
Pisa
pita/pitaja 
pitakase/pitakesi 500


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: 301-400 = KU - NA

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

kureju
kuro
kuruku
kuruma
kutiti 
kutukore
kuzuni
maadf
madadu
madi  310
mai/maimi
masaja 
majutu
makaise/makaita
makarite
makidete
mana/manapi (common) 320
maniki
manirizu
manuqa 320
maru/maruku/maruri 
masa 
masi 
masuri
matapu
mateti
matiti
matizaite
matu 
masuja 330
maza/mazu
meda
medakidi
mepajai
mera 
merasasaa/merasasaja (very common)
mesasa
mesenurutu
meto
meturaa 340
meza 
mia
midai
midani
midamara
midara
mide
midiu
mie
miima 350
mijanika
mijuke
mikidua
mikisena
minaminapii
minedu
mini/miniduwa
minumi
minute 
mio/miowa 360
mipa
mireja
miru
mirutarare
misimiri
misuma
mita 
miturea
mujatewi
muko 370
mupi
muru
musaja
naa
nadare
nadi/nadiradi/nadiredi
nadiwi
nadu
nadunapu2a
naisizamikao 380
naka 
nakiki
nakininuta
nakuda
namarasasaja
nmatiti
nami
namikua/namikuda
namine
nanau 390
nanipa3
napa3du
narepirea
naridi
narinarikui
narita
naroka
naru 
nasarea
nasekimi 400


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the third one hundred = 201-300 = JA - KU

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

jatituku + jatituku
jatoja
jawi
jedi
jeka
jemanata
jua
judu
juerupi
juka 210
juma/jumaku
juraa
jureku
juresa
jutiqa
juu
ka (extremely common)  
kada/kadasaa
kadi
kadumane 220
kae
kai/kaika 
kairo
kaji/kaju
kaki/kaku 
kakunete  
kami 
kana 
kanatiti
kanau 
kanita
kanuti
kapa/kapaqe 
kaporu
kapusi
kaqa/kaqe
kara
karona
karu 
karunau/karunau 240
kasaru
kasi
kasidizuitanai
kasikidaa 
katanite
kati
kaudeta
keire 
kekiru 
kero 
keta/kete 
ketesunata
kezadidi
kida/kidi 
kidaro
kidata
kidini
kidiora
kii/kiipa
kikiraja 260
kija
kika
kikadi
kina
kinima/ kinite
kipaa
kipisi (fairly common)
kiqa
kira/kiro/kirisi/kiru 
kireta2 270
kiretana
kisusetu
kitai 
kite 
kitiqa
koiru 
koja
kopu 
koru
kosaiti 280
kuda
kuja
kujude
kuka 
kukudara
kumaju
kumapu
kunisu
kupa/kupi
kupatikidadia 290
kupa3natu
kupa3nu
kupa3pa3
kupa3rija
kupaja
kupari
kupazu
kura/kuramu
kurasaqa
kureda 300 


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the second one hundred = 101-200 = DI - JA

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

This is the most comprehensive Linear A Lexicon ever published on the Internet. 

This lexicon comprises all of the intact words in John G. Younger’s Linear A Reverse Lexicon (which is far from comprehensive) plus every last intact word on every single tablet or fragment at his site, wherever any of the latter are not found in the former. By my count, there are 903 words, though I may have made the occasional error in addition, since I had to subtract some repetitive words and add others from the tablets, which are not in the Linear A Reverse Lexicon. Although Prof. John G. Younger has tallied some 903 Linear A words on his site, Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription, his actual lexicon is far from complete. Consequently, it has been necessary for me to draw all of the intact Linear words from every last Linear A tablet and fragment on Prof. Younger’s site. The difficulty here is that his lexicon includes even those Linear A words containing unknown syllabograms, many of which are assigned numeric values only, e.g. *309 *318 *319 *346-348 etc. And there are a number of them. The problem with all of these syllabograms is that no one knows what their phonetic values are. So it goes without saying that every last Minoan Linear A word which contains even one of these unknown syllabograms should, properly speaking, be disqualified. Moreover, there is  redundancy in some of the vocabulary, since quite a few Linear A words on his site are simply variants of one another. To cite just a few examples, we have: daka/daki/daku/dakuna; maru/maruku/maruri; nesa, nesaki, nesakimi; and tami, tamia, tamisi. Consequently, I have also eliminated all of the variants on any given term. This leaves us with a remaindered total of 903, exclusive of onomastics (personal names) and topomastics (place names).

Words which are apparent variants of one another are listed as one entry, e.g.

daka/daki/daku/dakuna 
dakusenete(ti)
japa/japadi/kapaku
kira/kiro/kirisi/kiru
maru/maruku/maruri 
merasasaa/merasasaja
nesa/nesaki/nesakimi
piku/pikui/pikuzu 
reda/redamija/redana/redasi 
saro/saru/sarutu
tami/tamia/tamisi
zare/zaredu/zareki/zaresea

The following entries have been deliberately omitted:
1. Words containing any syllabograms which are either partially or wholly numeric, since we do not know what the phonetic values of these syllabograms are.
2. Strings of syllabograms > than 15 characters.

NOTE: I have already deciphered well over 200 Linear A words, but none of these are tagged in this comprehensive Linear A Lexicon. I shall be posting my decipherments at a later date.

dipa3a
diqise
dirasa
diredina
dirina
diru
disa
disipita
ditajaru
du/dua 110
duja
dumaina
dumedi
dunawi
dupa3na
dupu3re
dura2
durare 
duratiqe
durezase 120
dusi/dusini
dusima
dusu
duti
duwi
duzu
edamisa
eka
epa3
ero 130
esija
ezusiqe
ia
Ida/Idaa
idada
idapa3
idamate/idamete 
idarea 
idunesi
iduti 140
ijadi
ijapame
ika
ikesedesute
ikurina
ikuta
ima 
imeti
inajapaqa
inaimadu 150
ipinama
ira2  
iruja
isari
ise
itaja
itaki 
itijukui
itinisa
ititikuna 160
izurinita
jaa
jadi/jadikitu
jadireja
jadisi
jadu
jadurati
jai 
jaiterikisu
jaitose 170
jainwaza
jaja
jakisikinu
jako/jaku/jakute
jamaa
jami/jamidare
januti 
japa/japadi/japaku
japametu 
japarajase 180
japanidami
jara2qe
jare/jaremi
jarepu2
jarete
jari/jarina/jarinu
jaripa3ku
jarisapa
jaru/jarui
jasaraanane 190
jasaja
jasapai
jasamu
jasasarame
jasea 
jasepa
jasie
jasumatu 
jata/jatai/jatapi
jate/jateo 200


Comprehensive Linear A lexicon of 903 words in Linear A: the first one hundred = 1-100 = A - DI

Complete Linear A Lexicon banner

This is the most comprehensive Linear A Lexicon ever published on the Internet. 

This lexicon comprises all of the intact words in John G. Younger’s Linear A Reverse Lexicon (which is far from comprehensive) plus every last intact word on every single tablet or fragment at his site, wherever any of the latter are not found in the former. By my count, there are 903 words, though I may have made the occasional error in addition, since I had to subtract some repetitive words and add others from the tablets, which are not in the Linear A Reverse Lexicon. Although Prof. John G. Younger has tallied some 903 Linear A words on his site, Linear A Texts in phonetic transcription, his actual lexicon is far from complete. Consequently, it has been necessary for me to draw all of the intact Linear words from every last Linear A tablet and fragment on Prof. Younger’s site. The difficulty here is that his lexicon includes even those Linear A words containing unknown syllabograms, many of which are assigned numeric values only, e.g. *309 *318 *319 *346-348 etc. And there are a number of them. The problem with all of these syllabograms is that no one knows what their phonetic values are. So it goes without saying that every last Minoan Linear A word which contains even one of these unknown syllabograms should, properly speaking, be disqualified. Moreover, there is  redundancy in some of the vocabulary, since quite a few Linear A words on his site are simply variants of one another. To cite just a few examples, we have: daka/daki/daku/dakuna; maru/maruku/maruri; nesa, nesaki, nesakimi; and tami, tamia, tamisi. Consequently, I have also eliminated all of the variants on any given term. This leaves us with a remaindered total of 903, exclusive of onomastics (personal names) and topomastics (place names).

Words which are apparent variants of one another are listed as one entry, e.g.

daka/daki/daku/dakuna 
dakusenete(ti)
japa/japadi/kapaku
kira/kiro/kirisi/kiru
maru/maruku/maruri 
merasasaa/merasasaja
nesa/nesaki/nesakimi
piku/pikui/pikuzu 
reda/redamija/redana/redasi 
saro/saru/sarutu
tami/tamia/tamisi
zare/zaredu/zareki/zaresea

The following entries have been deliberately omitted:
1. Words containing any syllabograms which are either partially or wholly numeric, since we do not know what the phonetic values of these syllabograms are.
2. Strings of syllabograms > than 15 characters.

NOTE: I have already deciphered well over 200 Linear A words, but none of these are tagged in this comprehensive Linear A Lexicon. I shall be posting my decipherments at a later date.

a
adai
adakisika
adara/adaro
ade/adu
adunitana
aduza
ajesa
aju
akaru
akanuzati  10
aki
akipiete
akumina
ama
amaja 
amidao/amidau
amita
ana 
anatu 
anau 20
anepiti
aparane
apaki 
api
araju 
aranare
aratu
arauda
aredai
arepirena 30
aresana
ari/arinita
aripa 
arisu 
arote 
aru/arudara
aruma 
arura 
asamune
asara2/asararame 40
asasumaise
ase/asi
aseja
asadaka
asidatoi
asijaka
asikira
asisupoa
asuja
asupuwa 50
atanate
atare 
ati 
atika 
atiru
aurete
awapi
azura
daa
dadai/dadana 60
dadipatu
dadumata
dadumine
daku/dakuna
dai/daina
daipita
dajute
daka/daki/daku/dakuna/dakusene(ti)
dami/daminu 
dame/damate 70
danasi
danekuti
daqaqa
dare 
darida
daqera
darunete
daserate
datapa
datara/datare/datu 80
dea 
deauwase
dedi
dejuku
demirirema
depa/depu
deripa 
detaa
dide/didi
dideru 90
didikase/didikaze
dii
dija/dije 
dika 
dikime
dikise
dima 
dimedu
dinaro
dinau 100



Proto-Greek or Mycenaean kiritai = barley on Minoan Linear A tablet HT 114 (Haghia Triada):

Like many other Linear A tablets, HT 114 (Haghia Triada) does not appear to be inscribed only in the Minoan language. The proto-Greek or, more accurately, the Mycenaean word, kirita2 (kiritai), which means barley and which is almost exactly equivalent to Linear B, kirita, meaning the very same thing, appears on the very first line of this tablet. The only difference is that the Linear A word, kiritai, is plural, whereas the Linear B, kirita, is singular, as we can see here:

Minoan Linear A tablet HT 114 Haghia Triade

While the rest of HT 114 is inscribed in Minoan, the appearance of this one Mycenaean word gives pause. Was Linear A the syllabary of proto-Greek or of Mycenaean Greek just before the advent of the new official syllabary, Linear B? The fact is that it was not. However, this does not mean that there was not proto-Greek or Mycenaean vocabulary on Linear A tablets. How can this be, when the language itself is not proto-Greek?

The phenomenon of the superimposition of a superstratum of vocabulary from a source language (Mycenaean in the case of Linear A) onto a target language (Minoan), is historically not unique to the Minoan language. A strikingly similar event occurred in English with the conquest of England by William the Conqueror in 1066 AD. Before that date, the only English was Anglo-Saxon. This is what is called Old English. But after conquest of England in 1066 AD, over 10,000 Norman French words streamed into the language between 1100 and 1450 AD, altering the landscape of English vocabulary almost beyond recognition. In fact, believe it or not, only 26 % of English vocabulary is Germanic versus 29 % is French, 29 % Latin and 6 % Greek. So the latter 3 languages, amounting to 64 % of the entire English lexicon, have completely overshadowed the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) Germanic vocabulary, as illustrated in this Figure:

origins of English vocabulary

This phenomenon is unique to English alone among all of the Germanic languages. While the grammar and syntax of English is Germanic, the great majority of its vocabulary is not. A strikingly similar event appears to have occurred when the Mycenaeans conquered Knossos, is dependencies and Crete ca. 1500 – 1450 BCE. Just as the Norman French superstratum has imposed itself on Old English, giving rise to Middle and Modern English, Mycenaean Greek operated in much the same fashion when it superimposed itself on Old Minoan, leading to New Minoan vocabulary, which is proto-Greek or Mycenaean. I have already isolated no fewer than 150 proto-Greek or Mycenaean words out of 510 intact words (by my own arbitrary count) in the Linear A lexicon. Again, while the Minoan language itself is not proto-Greek in its grammar and syntax, but is of another, to date still unknown, origin, a large portion of its vocabulary is not Old Minoan, but instead proto-Greek or Mycenaean, as I shall demonstrate in no uncertain terms in my decipherments of numerous Linear A tablets to follow this one. One striking feature of New Minoan is this: the percentage of proto-Greek or Mycenaean vocabulary in Linear B comes to 29 %, precisely the same level as Norman French in English. Although this is sheer co-incidence, it is quite intriguing.


Proto-Greek Decipherment of Minoan Linear A silver pin from Mavro Spelio (Middle Minoan III = MM III) in the Heraklion Museum, Greece:

epingle-argent-kn-zf-31 620

This decipherment of Minoan Linear A silver pin from Mavro Spelio (Middle Minoan III = MM III) in the Heraklion Museum, Greece relies rather heavily on the debatable notion that Minoan Linear A is by and large proto-Greek, a theory espoused by Urii Mosenkis, one of the world’s most highly qualified linguists specializing in diachronic historical linguistics, including, but not limited to Minoan Linear A. Accordingly, I have deliberately interpreted ample chunks of the Minoan Linear a vocabulary on this silver pin as being proto-Greek, even though such a decipherment is surely contentious, at least in (large) part.

While the first line of my decipherment makes sense by and large, the second is more dubious. It is apparent that the Minoan Linear A word dadu on the first line is almost certainly not proto-Greek, but the last two syllables of dadumine, ie. mine appear to be the dative singular for the (archaic) Greek word for month, i.e. meinei (Latinized), such that the decipherment of this word at least would appear to read  in the month of dadu. There is nothing really all that strange or peculiar about this interpretation, since we know the names of the months neither in Minoan Linear A nor in Mycenaean Linear B. However, a definite note of caution must be sounded with respect to the decipherment of this word, as well as of all of the other so-called proto-Greek words on this silver pin, since none of them can be verified with sufficient circumstantial evidence or on the contrary. Hence, all translations of putative proto-Greek words in Minoan Linear A must be taken with a grain of salt.

While the second line on this pin, if taken as proto-Greek, makes some sense, it is much less convincing than the first, especially in light of the trailing word at the end, tatheis (Greek Latinized, apparently for the aorist participle passive of the verb teino (Latinized) = to stretch/strain, which actually does not make a lot of sense in the context.

Nevertheless, it would appear that at least some of the Minoan Linear A words which I have interpreted  as being proto-Greek or proto-Mycenaean may in fact be that. I leave it up to you to decide which one(s) are and which are not, if any in fact are. Additionally, even if a few or some of them are proto-Greek, they may fall within the pre-Greek substratum. The most dubious of the so-called proto-Greek words on this pin probably are qami -, tasaza & tatei, since none of these are likely to have fallen within the pre-Greek substratum. 

But if the Minoan language itself is not proto-Greek, then what is it? I shall have ample occasion to address this apparently thorny question in upcoming posts and especially in my second article on the decipherment of Minoan Linear A, which I shall be submitting to Archaeology and Science by no later than April 17, 2017. 


Minoan Linear provides significant evidence of the presence of proto-Greek or even (proto) – Mycenaean in its vocabulary:

Minoan Linear provides significant evidence of the presence of proto-Greek or even (proto) – Mycenaean in its vocabulary, as attested by this Table (Table 2a & Table 2B), which I have had to divide into two parts because it is so long. So we have

Table 2a Minoan words of apparent proto-Greek origin… or are they in the pre-Greek substratum? A-M:

 

Minoan Linear A apparent proto-Greek Table 2 a 620

and Table 2b: N-W:

Table 2b minoan apparent proto-greek 620

It is readily apparent from this Table in two parts that all of the words listed in it may be interpreted as proto-Greek or possibly even (proto-) Mycenaean. But the operative word is may, not certainly. This is because (a) Minoan Linear A, like Mycenaean Linear B, makes no distinction between Greek short and long vowels and (b) like Mycenaean Linear B, the Linear A syllabary is deficient in representing a number of Greek consonants, which otherwise might have been the initial consonants of the successive syllabic series, e.g. da de di do du, ka ke ki ko ku, ta te ti to tu etc. The following Greek consonants, first illustrated in this table of the ancient Greek alphabet including the archaic digamma, which was in widespread use in Mycenaean Linear B, are tagged with an asterisk * :

 

ancient Greek alphabet with digamma

and here Latinized for accessibility to our visitors who cannot read Greek, i.e. b, g, eita (long i) , ksi, fi (pi), chi (as in Scottish loch), psi and omega. Because of these lacuna and the notable ambiguities which arise from it, it is not possible to verify that the so-called proto-Greek or (proto-) Mycenaean words listed in Tables 2a & 2b are in fact that. However, chances are good that they are proto-Greek. Additionally, it is not possible to verify whether or not a few, some or even all of the words in Tables 2a and 2b, which appear to be proto-Greek actually fall within the pre-Greek substratum. If the latter scenario is true, then it is more likely than not that a few, some or even all of these words are in fact Minoan. There is no way to verify this for certain. Nevertheless, numerous international researchers into Minoan Linear A, most notably, Urii Mosenkis, one of the world’s most highly qualified linguists specializing in diachronic historical linguistics, including, but not limited to Minoan Linear A, who stands in the top 0.1 % of 40 million users on academia.edu:

 

Urii Mosenkis academia.edu

have provided significant convincing circumstantial evidence that there are even hundreds of proto-Greek words in Minoan Linear A, which begs the question, is Minoan Linear A proto-Greek? But the answer to the question is not nearly so obvious as one might think, as I shall be demonstrating in my second article, Current prospects for the decipherment of Minoan Linear A”, which I will be submitting to the prestigious international annual journal, Archaeology and Science (Belgrade) by no later than April 17 2017, the deadline for submissions.

There is no positive, indisputable proof that there are any number of proto-Greek or proto-Greek words in Minoan Linear A, any more than there is any positive proof whatsoever that, as Gretchen Leonhardt would have us believe, that there are any number of proto-Altaic or proto-Japanese words, if any at all, in the Minoan language. As for her hypothesis, for which there not even any substantive circumstantial evidence whatsoever, it is my firm belief and contention that she is, to use the common expression, wasting her time and energy barking up the wrong tree.


Is the Minoan language proto-Altaic or proto-Japanese? The vast bulk of current diachronic linguistic research stacks up squarely against this hypothesis:

According to Ms.Gretchen Leonhardt of: 

Konosos.net

and I quote:

While there has been much debate about the underlying language of Linear A, I disagree that LinA does not resemble a known language. Despite its similarities to Japanese, historical linguists dismiss a correlation for at least two reasons: (1) the apparent lack of genetic evidence and (2) the universally held belief that LinA is an Indo-European language. Regarding the first justification, if linguists are looking to mainland Japan for genetic evidence, they are looking too far north. By whatever means, it appears that, around 1000 BCE, the Minoans entered Japan from the southern islands, and gradually moved north. Regarding the second justification, Minoan scholarship generally agrees that the Minoans migrated from the Anatolian region**, which suggests an Altaic origin or influence. Likewise, Japanese scholarship suggests that the Japanese language belongs to the Japonic-language family, which is believed to have an Altaic origin or influence.

General consensus dates the demise of the high Minoan civilization as late as 3,500 years ago, with the widespread destruction of the palace centers, while Neil Gordon Munro dates the commencement of the Yamato culture, which is the presumed progenitor of modern Japanese civilization, as early as 3,000 years ago. According to Munro, the origin of the Yamato culture is unknown but had arrived in a highly advanced state. The culture is notable for its grave goods–bronze arrowheads, bells, and halberds. The culture is also notable for its wheel-thrown pottery, which employed “restrained” decoration with “subdued color” [1908:4].

Comment:
Munro was writing in 1908, when linguistic assumptions about Altaic languages were in their infancy! Modern scholarship has all but refuted the assumptions about Altaic languages in vogue at the beginning of the twentieth century, i.e. 100 years ago!

She continues:
The Okinawan (Uchina’a) Japanese remain culturally, genetically, and linguistically distinct from the mainland (Yamato) Japanese, although the two cultures are believed to share a common proto language. This forum will provide support–through disciplines such as archaeology, architecture, art, genetics, and language–for my dual theories that LinA is proto Japanese and that the Minoan civilization provides a rich backdrop for Japanese history, which, for millennia, has been shrouded in mystery.

I hasten to add that in the preceding passage, Ms. Leonhardt has made egregious errors with respect to Minoan Linear A. These are:
1. On the one hand, she claims to disagree that LinA does not resemble a known language.
2. and then goes straight ahead to flatly contradict herself by decrying “the universally held belief that LinA is an Indo-European language. Universally held? Very far from it. The controversy over the origin and language class Linear A purportedly belongs to still rages on, as attested by innumerable studies on academia.edu alone which contradict one another with respect to the language family or class to which Linear A purportedly belongs.  All this after she has just lament the fact that Linear A does not resemble any known language (1.)
3. She goes on... it appears that, around 1000 BCE, the Minoans entered Japan from the southern islands, and gradually moved north. Regarding the second justification, Minoan scholarship generally agrees that the Minoans migrated from the Anatolian region** (Does it? Perhaps in 1908, but I sincerely doubt this is the case today), which suggests an Altaic origin or influence. But what she obviously overlooks in this statement is the distinct probability, and indeed strong likelihood that the Minoan language almost certainly had already existed for some 1,200 years before the Minoans migrated to the southern Japanese islands, if they ever did so in the first place... which is a highly contentious claim. Moreover, while a few researchers still claim that the proto-Japanese dialect she is referencing belongs to the Altaic class of languages, the majority of current researchers number are convinced that this cannot be so.

And I quote (all italics mine):

Altaic Wikipedia TI

Micro-Altaic includes about 66 living languages,[9] to which Macro-Altaic would add Korean, Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages for a total of about 74. (These are estimates, depending on what is considered a language and what is considered a dialect. They do not include earlier states of languages, such as Middle Mongol, Old Korean or Old Japanese.)
Opponents maintain that the similarities are due to areal interaction between the language groups concerned. The inclusion of Korean and Japanese has also been criticized and disputed by other linguists.
The original Altaic family thus came to be known as the Ural–Altaic.[13] In the "Ural–Altaic" nomenclature, Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic are regarded as "Uralic", whereas Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic are regarded as "Altaic"—whereas Korean is sometimes considered Altaic, as is, less often, Japanese.

In other words, proto-Japanese, including the dialect with which Ms. Leonhardt is concerned, may not be (proto-) Altaic at all.

Altaic Wikipedia sometimes

4. Moroever, the following timetable seems to be the most realistic for the appearance of written Japanese (italics mine):



(3) Timetable:

To illustrate the prehistory of Japan, I'd put two lines on the timetable. The first line comes around 400 to 300 BC. This is the time when wet rice culture and iron processing came to the Japanese Islands, and the way of life there changed. Yet an older form of the Japanese language started to be spoken from that time. I'd call this phase of the language "proto-Japanese", which later evolved to our Old Japanese.

Comment:
Now it is clear from this diachronic timeline that proto-Japanese appeared at least 1,800 years after the first attestation of the Minoan language ca. 2200 BCE. 

And again (italics mine):

Japan

Along with the foreign faith, Japan establishes and maintains for 400 years close connections with the Chinese and Korean courts and adopts a more sophisticated culture. This new culture is essentially Chinese and includes literature, philosophy, art, architecture, science, medicine, and statecraft. Most important is the introduction of the Chinese writing system, revolutionizing Japan, which heretofore had no writing system of its own, and ushering in the country’s historical period.  (Comment: in other words, writing appeared in Japan only after 500 AD, some 2,700 years after the advent of the Minoan civlization.

5. Leonhardt continues, Minoan scholarship generally agrees that the Minoans migrated from the Anatolian region**, which suggests an Altaic origin or influence. after asserting in 1. above that LinA does not resemble a known language. and in 2. above, touting the universally held belief that LinA is an Indo-European language.  Good God, can she make up her mind? Is it 1. 2. or 5.?
6. Leonhardt then cites research a century old! (again, italics mine) She states, “According to Munro, the origin of the Yamato culture is unknown but had arrived in a highly advanced state. The culture is notable for its grave goods–bronze arrowheads, bells, and halberds. The culture is also notable for its wheel-thrown pottery, which employed “restrained” decoration with “subdued color” [1908:4].

For confirmation of the general span of dates of his publications, see:

Japanese race

Munro was writing in 1908, when linguistic assumptions about Altaic languages were in their primitive infancy! Modern scholarship has all but refuted the assumptions about Altaic languages in vogue at the beginning of the twentieth century, i.e. 100 years ago! And he wrote in this very journal.

7. But the most damning evidence against her thesis comes from (italics mine):

Paleoglot: How NOT to reconstruct a protolanguage

how not to rcon a

Paleoglot: ... So let's go through my cheeky list of important strategies that we can follow (using examples from the Tower of Babel project) if we want to isolate ourselves and be rejected by all universities around the world.
1. Use "phonemic wildcards" obsessively! Cast the net wider and you might catch something!

The abuse of mathematical symbols like C, V, [a-z], (a/é/ö), etc. are an excellent way to make your idle conjecture look like a valid theory. It might be called "reconstruction by parentheses" since parentheses are either explicitly shown or hidden by a single variable. An example of this is *k`egVnV (claimed to be the Proto-Altaic word for "nine" in the Tower of Babel database). Obviously, if V represents all possible vowels in this proto-language and there are, say, ten of them possible in either position, then the fact that there are two wildcards in the same word means that the word represents a humungous, two-dimensional matrix of ONE HUNDRED possible permutations (10*10=100):

*k`egana, *k`egena, *k`egina, *k`egüna, *k`egïna, etc.
*k`egane, *k`egene, *k`egine, *k`egüne, *k`egïne, etc.
*k`egani, *k`egeni, *k`egini, *k`egüni, *k`egïni, etc.
*k`eganü, *k`egenü, *k`eginü, *k`egünü, *k`egïnü, etc.
etc. language

Since no single form is actually being posited when wildcards are present, any claim of regular correspondence by such a theorist can be easily identified as fraud. If such linguists can't take themselves seriously enough to hypothesize a structured and testable theory, why then should we take them seriously in turn? 

It is this very method, if you can call it that by any yardstick of scientific methodology that Ms. Leonhardt indulges in:  

Leonhardt kira kiro kura juro

Wiktionary Proto-Japonic

as we can see all too clearly from this chart of her derivations of Minoan words from so-called Altaic roots:

To summarize, Ms. Leonhardt has seized herself in a web of self-contractions, severely outdated research and claims with respect to the authenticity of southern proto-Japanese as a so-called proto-Altaic language which cannot possibly stand the test of valid scientific methodology. I short, her pretensions that southern proto-Japanese is at the root of the Minoan language are just that, presentions, and egregious to boot.

So what are the alternatives? What language family or class might the Minoan language fall into? We shall address that question head on in the next post.


Can quantum computers assist in the decipherment of Minoan Linear A?” Keynote article on academia.edu

(Click on the graphical link below to download this ground-breaking article on the application of potentially superintelligent quantum quantum computers to the decipherment, even partial, of the ancient Minoan Linear A syllabary):

can-qauntum-computers-assist-us-with-decipherment-of-minoan-linear-a

This is a major new article on the application of quantum computers to the AI (artificial intelligence) involvement in the decipherment of the unknown ancient Minoan Linear A syllabary (ca. 2800 – 1500 BCE). This article advances the hypothesis that quantum computers such as the world’s very first fully functional quantum computer, D-Wave, of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, may very well be positioned to assist human beings in the decipherment, even partial, of the Minoan Linear A syllabary. This article goes to great lengths in explaining how quantum computers can expedite the decipherment of Minoan Linear A. It addresses the critical questions raised by Nick Bostrom, in his ground-breaking study, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford University Press, 2014),

nick-bostom-superintelligence

in which he advances the following hypothesis:

Nick Bostrom makes it clear that artificial superintelligence (AS) does not necessarily have to conform to or mimic human intelligence. For instance, he says:
1. We have already cautioned against anthropomorphizing the capabilities of a superintelligent AI. The warning should be extend to pertain to its motivations as well. (pg 105)
and again,
2. This possibility is most salient with respect to AI, which might be structured very differently than human intelligence. (pg. 172) ... passim ... It is conceivable that optimal efficiency would be attained by grouping aggregates that roughly match the cognitive architecture of a human mind. It might be the case, for example, that a mathematics module must be tailored to a language module, in order for the three to work together... passim ... There might be niches for complexes that are either less complex (such as individual modules), more complex (such as vast clusters of modules), or of  similar complexity to human minds but with radically different architectures. 

... among others respecting the probable advent of superintelligence within the next 20-40 years (2040-2060).

This is a revolutionary article you will definitely not want to miss reading, if you are in any substantial way fascinated by the application of supercomputers and preeminently, quantum computers, which excel at lightning speed pattern recognition, which they can do so across templates of patterns in the same domain, to the decipherment of Minoan Linear A, an advanced technological endeavour which satisfies these scientific criteria. In the case of pattern recognition across multiple languages, ancient and modern, in other words in cross-comparative multi-language analysis, the astonishing capacity of quantum computers to perform this operation in mere seconds is an exceptional windfall we simply cannot afford not to take full advantage of.  Surely quantum computers’ mind-boggling lightning speed capacity to perform such cross-comparative multi-linguistic analysis is a boon beyond our wildest expectations.



A partial rational translation of another Minoan Linear A tablet on crops:

Ms. Gretchen Leonhardt has correctly pointed out that this decipherment I have assayed of what I took to be one Linear A tablet is in fact two entirely unrelated Linear A tablets, and  as such it must be considered as completely invalid. I am truly grateful to Ms. Leonhardt for bringing this serious gaffe to my attention. Once I have cleared the matter up, I shall repost my decipherment of both of these tablets in two separate posts.

a-partial-translation-of-another-minoan-linear-a-tablet

This Linear B tablet clearly deals with various crops, with the lead in crop being grains or wheat, just as one would expect on either a Mycenaean Linear B tablet. By the same token, there is no reason to suppose that a Minoan Linear A tablet dealing with crops would not deal first and foremost with grains and wheat. The units of measurements identified on this tablet accord with those tentatively tabulated by Andras Zeke on the

minoan-language-blog

I have already tentatively deciphered both adu and adaru in my Glossary of 107 Minoan Linear A words to appear in Archaeology and Science, Vol. 16 (2016), which is to be published sometime in 2018, since the publication date of this compendious international annual always lags behind by at least 18 months from the approximate date of submission of articles by authors, which in my case was November 2016.


Can super efficient quantum computers be of assistance at overcoming the seemingly insurmountable obstacles facing us in even a partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A?

Quantum computers, as exemplified by the fantastically powerful D-Wave computer system invented by Canadians and now fully operational in 2017 (Click on their banner to jump to their site):


d-wave-logo

most probably will prove to represent or in fact be a revolutionary development in the power and artificial intelligence of computers even now, as early as twenty-first century (say bu 2025 or so). The D-Wave computer is purported to be 10 million times faster than the most powerful supercomputer on earth! It was recently put to the test to solve an exceedingly complex protein synthesis model, and it did so 3,600 times faster than the the most powerful supercomputer on earth! That is a simply astonishing feat. In fact, quantum computers are purported to be able to solve seemingly impossible problems totally beyond the ken of the fastest supercomputer in the world.

If this proves to be so, is it not conceivable that applying the smarts of a quantum computer such as the D-Wave might lead to real advances in the potential decipherment of Minoan Linear A?

Take for instance my recent analysis and synopsis on the practically unimaginable formidable obstacles facing us in even beginning to get a handle on the syntax and semiotics of Minoan Linear A:

postobstacles

Is it not conceivable that a quantum computer such as the D-Wave might be able to at least make a dent in the potential decipherment, however partial, of Minoan Linear A? Or is it not? The question is not hypothetical. Proponents of the awesome power of quantum computers purport to be able to resolve supremely complex problems completely beyond the reach of even the most powerful of conventional digital supercomputers, as illustrated in this composite:

quantum-computers-intelligence-applications-decipherment

However, there may very well remain possibly insurmountable obstacles even for quantum computers in tackling a seemingly unsolvable problem as fractious as the decipherment of Minoan Linear A, however tentative. Some of the truly form obstacles that can and almost certainly shall practicably stand in the way of quantum computers being able to tackle this redoubtable challenge are:

In spite of the astonishing claims that proponents of quantum computing make for its potential in solving intractable problems which even the most powerful supercomputers cannot even hope to address, what is the substance of these claims? This scenario needs to be logically parsed.
1. Just because quantum computers have unquestionably proven to be able to realize exponentially more efficient leaps in some (and I lay the emphasis on just some) activities, this does not necessarily mean that these quantum leaps imply a parallel or even corresponding quantum leap in AI (artificial intelligence) learning.
2. Even if such a corresponding quantum leap in AI (artificial intelligence) learning were to prove practicable, and in effect take place (possibly by 2025), what is meant by AI (artificial intelligence) or to take the proposition even further, what is implied by the admittedly vague term superintelligence?
3. Do advanced AI or superintelligence necessarily have to conform to or mimic human intelligence, or might they possibly constitute a  discrete, self-contained phenomenon in and of themselves?
4. And if so (i.e. if 3), then would such a superintelligence (or 1 among many) be able to resolve problems, such as specifically, the potential decipherment, even if merely partial, of Minoan Linear A, (anywhere near) as well as human intelligence can? Or put another way, can quantum computing AI or superintelligent learning strategies mimic and even complement human learning strategies?
5. Or if they cannot (i.e. accomplish 4.), can they perhaps accomplish something along the same lines as human learning strategies just because they may in fact not actually resemble human intelligence?

These are just a few of the factors we must absolutely take into consideration if we are to make any assumptions whatsoever over the potential for quantum computers, no matter how clever they may turn out to be and in what sense clever, to accomplish a task as mind-boggling as even the partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A. I shall have plenty more to say about the potentialities of quantum computing in the realm of diachronic linguist decipherment in future, but the introduction suffices for now.


KEY POST! The truly formidable obstacles facing us in even a partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A:

Any attempt, however concerted, at even a partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A is bound to meet with tremendous obstacles, as illustrated all too dramatically by this table:

minoan-linear-a-prefixes-roots-stems-suffixes

These obstacles include, but are not prescribed by:

1. The fact that there are far fewer extant Minoan Linear A tablets and fragments, of which the vast majority are mere fragments (no more than 500), most of them un intelligible, than there are extant tablets and fragments in Mycenaean Linear B (well in excess of 4,500), of which the latter are mostly legible, even the fragments.

2. The fact that Mycenaean Linear B has been completely deciphered, first by Michael Ventris in 1952 and secondly, by myself in closing the last gap in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B, namely, the decipherment of supersyllabograms in my article, The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B, in the illustrious international archaeological annual, Archaeology and Science, ISSN 1452-7448, Vol. 11 (2015), pp. 73-108, here:

cover-as-2015


This final stage in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B has effectively brought closure to its decipherment.

As illustrated all too conspicuously by this table of apparent roots/stems and/or prefixes of Minoan Linear A lexemes and their lemmas, we are still a long way off from being able to convincingly decipher Minoan Linear A.

At the categorical sub-levels of the syntax and semiotics of Minoan Linear A, we cannot even begin to determine which categories to isolate, let alone what these categories are. Allow me to illustrate in discriminative terms:

3. As the table of Minoan Linear A so-called roots & stems + prefixes above all too amply highlights, we cannot even tell which first syllable or which of the first 2 syllables of any of the Minoan Linear A words in this list is/are either (a) roots or stems of the Minoan Linear A lexemes or lemmas which it/they initiate or (b) prefixes of them, even if I have tentatively identified some as the former and some as the latter (See the table).

4. In the case of roots or stems, which ones are roots and which are stems? What is the difference between the two in Minoan Linear A? Let us take a couple of entries as examples to illustrate my point:

4.1 The 3 words beginning with the apparent root or stem asi, (I cannot tell which is which), the first 2 syllables of asidatoi, asijaka & asikira may not even be roots or stems of these words at all, but prefixes of 3 probably unrelated words instead. Who is to know?
4.2 If asidatoi, asijaka & asikira are either nouns or adjectives, what is the gender and number of each one? To say the very least, it is rash to assume that asidatoi is plural, just because it looks like an ancient Greek masculine plural (as for example in Mycenaean Linear B teoi (gods) or masculine plurals in any other ancient Greek dialect for that matter, since that assumption is based on the most likely untenable hypothesis that Minoan Linear A is some form of proto-Greek, in spite of the fact that several current linguistic researchers into Minoan Linear A believe precisely that. The operative word is “believe”, since absolutely no convincing circumstantial evidence has ever come to the fore that Minoan Linear A is some form of proto-Greek.
4.3 The conclusion which I have drawn here, that Minoan Linear A may not be proto-Greek, arises from the fact that almost all of the Minoan words in this table bear little or no resemblance at all even to Mycenaean Greek.
4.5 But there clearly exceptions to the previous hypothesis, these being words such as depa and depu, of which the former is a perfect match with the Homeric, depa, meaning  “a cup”.

On the other hand, depu is less certain. However, in my preliminary tentative decipherment of 107 Minoan Linear A words (which are to appear in my article to be published in Vol. 12 of Archaeology and Science, 2017-2018), I have come to the tentative conclusion that the ultimate u in almost all Minoan Linear A words is quite likely to be a macro designator. If this were so, depu would be larger than depa. So a translation along the lines of [2] “a large cup” or “a libation cup” might be in order. Still, I could be dead wrong in this assumption.
4.6 However, the lexeme depa does appear to reveal one probable characteristic of Minoan Linear A grammar, that the ultimate for the feminine singular may very well be a, as in so many other languages, ancient or modern (let alone Greek). If that is the case, then words such as asijaka, asikira, keta, kipa, saja, sina and tamia may possibly all be feminine singular... that is to say, if any, some or even all of them are either nouns or adjectives, clearly a point of contention in and of itself. Who are we to say that one or more of these words may instead be adverbs or some person, singular or plural, of some conjugation in some tense or mood of some Minoan Linear A verb? On the other hand, at least one or more or even most of these words and the other words in this table ending in a may be nouns or adjectives in the feminine singular. But one again, who can say at all for sure?
4.7 If the ultimate u is supposed to be a macro designator, how then are we to account for the fact that [3] maruku, which very much looks like a (declensional) variant of maru, means “made of wool”, which itself has nothing whatsoever to do with a macro designator, if at the same time the apparent lexeme maru actually does mean “wool”? After all, one might conclude, maru looks a lot like Mycenaean Linear B mari or mare, which as everyone knows, does mean “wool”. But it is just as likely as not that the assumption that maru means “wool”, and its variants maruku “made of wool” ? (a guess at best) and maruri = “with wool” have nothing whatsoever to do with wool in Minoan Linear A.
4.8 In fact, the hypothesis that maruri = “with wool” is based on yet another assumption, namely, that the termination ri is dative singular, similar to the commonplace dative singular oi, ai or i in Mycenaean Linear B. But if that is the case, this implies that Minoan Linear A is probably proto-Greek, for which there is no substantive evidence whatsoever. So we wind up mired in a flat out contradiction in terms, in other words, an inescapable paradox.  
4.9a Next, taking all of the words beginning with the root or stem? - or prefix? sina [4], what on earth are we to make of so many variants? Perhaps this is a conjugation of some verb in some tense or mood. If that is the case, we should expect 6 variations, first, second and third persons singular and plural. Or should we? What about the possible existence of the dual in Minoan Linear A? But here again we find ourselves smack up against the assumption we have just made in 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 & 4.8, that the putative Minoan verb beginning with the so-called root or stem sina is itself proto-Greek.

But I have to ask out loud, are you aware of any verb in ancient Greek which begins with the root or stem sina? Well, according to  Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, there are in fact 2, which I have Latinized here for ease of access to those of you who cannot read Greek, and these are, (1) sinamoreo (infinitive sinamorein), which means “to damage wantonly” and (2) sinomai, “to plunder, spoil or pillage”. The problem is that neither of these ancient Greek verbs bears any resemblance to or corresponds in any conceivable way with the 7 Minoan Linear A variants post-fixed to sina. So I repeat, for the sake of emphasis, are these 7 all variants on some Minoan Linear A verb or are they not?

4.9b What if on the other hand, all 7 of these variants post-fixed to sina are instead a declension of some Minoan noun or adjective in Linear A? It is certainly conceivable that there are 7 cases in the Minoan language, in view of the fact that plenty of ancient and modern languages have 7 cases or more. Latin has six: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative. But ancient Greek has only 5, nominative, genitive, dative and accusative and vocative, the ablative absolute (which occurs in Latin) subsumed under the genitive absolute. From this perspective, it would appear quite unlikely that the 7 Minoan Linear A variants on sina are proto-Greek declensions, especially in light of the fact that, once again, none of them bears any resemblance to the ancient Greek, sinapi = “mustard”, sinion = “sieve” or sinos = “hurt, harm, mischief, damage” (nominative).

5. Moving on to taniria and tanirizui [5], we could of course once again draw the (most likely untenable) conclusion if taniria is a feminine singular noun, then tanirizui must be/is dative singular, following the template for the dative singular in Mycenaean Linear B (i, ai or oi). But once again, there is no word in ancient Greek bearing any resemblance to these critters. And once again, even if Minoan Linear A had a dative singular, why on earth would it have to end in i?

6. However, when we come to the 4 words reza, adureza, kireza and tireza, we are confronted with another phenomenon. 3 of these 4 words (adureza, kireza and tireza) each in turn apparently are prefixed by adu, ki and ti. Makes sense at first sight. However, once again, appearances can be terribly deceiving. 

Nevertheless, in my preliminary decipherment of Minoan Linear A, I have drawn the tentative conclusion that all four of these words are intimately interconnected. And in the actual context of the few extant Minoan Linear A tablets and fragments in which these 4 terms appear, it very much looks as if they are all terms of measurement. But you will have to await the publication of my article on the tentative decipherment of 107 Minoan Linear A words in Vol. 12 (2017-2018) of Archaeology and Science to discover how I came to this conclusion.

7. Notwithstanding the fact that almost all of the words in this highly selective table of Minoan Linear A lexemes and lemmas (whichever ones are which), with the exception of depa and depu, as well as winu, which may be the Minoan Linear A equivalent of Mycenaean Linear B woino = “wine”, appear not to be proto-Greek, that does not imply that at least a few or even some are in fact proto-Greek, based on this hypothesis: a number of words in Mycenaean Linear B, all of which appear to be proto-Greek, disappeared completely from later ancient Greek dialects. Among these we count a number of Mycenaean Greek words designating some kind of cloth, namely, pawea, pukatariya, tetukowoa and wehano [pg. 94, The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B, in Archaeology and Science, Vol. 11 (2016)], plus several other Mycenaean Linear B words listed in the same article, which I do not repeat here due to space limitations. However, I must toss a wrench even into the assumption that the words designating some kinds of cloth (but which kinds we shall never know) are Mycenaean Linear B Greek or even proto-Greek, when they may not be at all! What if a few, some or all of them are in the pre-Greek substratum? If that is the case, are they Minoan, even if none of them appear on any extant Minoan Linear A tablet or fragment? Who is to say they are not?

For instance, there is another so called Mycenaean or proto-Greek word, kidapa, which may very well mean “(ash) wood” or “a type of wood”, found only on Linear B tablet KN 894 N v 01. This word has a suspiciously Minoan ring to it. Just because it does not appear on any extant Minoan Linear A tablet or fragment does not necessarily imply that it is not Minoan or that it at least falls within the pre-Greek substratum.

CONCLUSIONS:
It must be glaringly obvious from all of the observations I have made on the Minoan Linear A terms in the table above that the more we try to make any sense of the syntactic and semiotic structure of the Minoan language in Linear A, the more and more mired we get in irresolvable contradictions in terms and paradoxes. Moreover, who is to say that the so-called proto-Greek words which surface in Minoan Linear A are proto-Greek at all, since they may instead be pre-Greek substratum words disguised as proto-Greek. We can take this hypothesis even further. Who is to say that the several so-called proto-Greek words we find in Mycenaean Greek, all of which disappeared completely from the ancient Greek lexicon in all Greek dialects after the fall of Mycenae ca. 1200 BCE, are also not proto-Greek but are instead in the pre-Greek substratum or even, if they fall into that substratum, that they are instead Minoan words or words of some other non Indo-European origin? We have landed in a real quagmire.

So I find myself obliged to posit the hypothesis that, for the time being at least, any attempt at the putative decipherment of Minoan Linear A is inexorably bound to lead straight to a dead end. I challenge any philologists or linguist specializing in ancient languages to actually prove otherwise even with circumstantial evidence to the contrary.



Archaeology and Science annual: the Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B, the last & most formidable frontier in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B:

cover-as-2015

For the past 65 years since Michael Ventris first deciphered Linear B, one phenomenon has eluded historical linguists and philologists. This is the supersyllabogram, which is always a single syllabogram, being the first syllabogram, i.e. the first syllable of a particular Mycenaean word in any one or more of the major economic sectors of the Mycenaean economy: agriculture, military, textiles and the vessels and pottery sector, along with a few religious supersyllabograms. Supersyllabograms are always independent; they always stand alone on extant Linear. My discovery, isolation and classification of supersyllabograms represents the final frontier in the decipherment of Mycenaean Linear B. Some 800 tablets from Knossos alone contain primarily supersyllabograms, with a subset of these incised with supersyllabograms and nothing else. It is difficult to decipher the former, and impossible to decipher the latter without fully accounting for the presence of supersyllabograms. The decipherment of supersyllabograms accounts for the last and most difficult remaining 10 % of Mycenaean Linear B to be deciphered.

inset-as-2015

editors-as-2015

intro-article-as-2015

You may also download The Decipherment of Supersyllabograms in Linear B here:

archaeology-and-science-download

This article is 35 pages long (pp. 73-108) in a 29 cm. x 22 cm. format, which is far oversized compared with the standard north American format for research journals (ca. 20 cm. vertical), meaning that if it had been published in the standard north American format, it would have run to some 50 pp., which is the size of a small book.

The Editorial Board consists of 21 peer reviewers, all of them matriculated professors and researchers at the Ph.D. level or higher, from Ancona, Belgrade, Belgium, Bologna, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A., Moscow, Münich, Philadelphia, U.S.A., Rome, Warsaw & Trieste. Every author must pass muster with the majority of these peer reviewers if his or her article is to be published in Archaeology and Science. That is one tall hurdle to overcome.

Note also that I am ranked in the top 0.5 % of all researchers and publishers on academia.edu

richard-vallance-on-academia-edu

 

Akhelas Writing

Myriad Musings of Austin Conrad

THE SHIELD OF ACHILLES

Artistic Reconstruction and Original Translation From Homer's "Iliad" by Kathleen Vail

Be Like Water

Music, Film and Life

Little Fears

Tales of whimsy, humour and courgettes

Im ashamed to die until i have won some victory for humanity.(Horace Mann)

Domenic Garisto/havau22.com / IF YOU CAN'T BE THE POET, BE THE POEM (David Carradine) LIFE IS NOT A REHERSAL,SO LIVE IT.

Φιλολογικά φύλλα

... από την περιπέτεια της θεωρίας, της ερμηνείας και της διδασκαλίας

Le Blog BlookUp

Imprimez et transformez vos contenus digitaux, blogs et réseaux sociaux, en magnifiques livres papier !

Diwiyana's Dreamscape

Just another WordPress.com site

The Evolutionary Mind

Live a Mindful Life, and Stay Motivated

pseudopr1me

Just another WordPress.com site

Adham Smart

Often written, sometimes read

Elder Mountain Dreaming

Dreamers Collective, Shaman's Dream Journeys, Soul Circles, Spiritual Artist Retreats, Art Residency, Traditional Plant Medicine & Food Gardens, 13 Moon Workstudy, Seasonal Sweats, Folk Healing, Dreaming Syncronistic-Symbolism

archbhoo

Just another WordPress.com site

Memnison Journal

Jim Rittenhouse's semidaily journal of news, commentary and reports

Under the influence!

Myths, legends, folklore and tales from around the world

archaeologythimbleful

...in small doses

AFRICAN HOMAGE

CONTEMPORARY ART GALLERY

peiraieus

A Mental Repository

My Blog

This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas

Hidalgo & Suárez - Estudio de Historia y Genealogía

Genealogista profesional en España - Professional genealogist in Spain - Généalogiste professionnel en Espagne

If It Happened Yesterday, It's History

History, Art, Film, Music and more....

Virginia Views

Country Living for Beginners

Varina's Moon Rising

To Strive, To Seek, To Find, And Not To Yield

uerbavolant

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

ArchaeoFox: Exploring the World Through the Past

Follow the research of an Archaeology Phd student over the next four years: The things he discovers, the places it brings and the people he meets along the way. (Site spelling variations; Arceofox archeofox archeryfox)

Rafael Tenório

Jornalista | Escritor | Redator

hipmonkey

He Come Groovin' Up Slowly

A Closer Look

This is the blog where I read, think about reading or complain about it.

Simple Pleasures

Visual Poetry, Photography and Quotes

SFoxWriting.com

Something For Everyone's Needs

joeseeberblog

This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas

Top 10 of Anything and Everything!!!

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More

My Blog

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

The Neighborhood

Society online's creative conscious.

%d bloggers like this: