Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 95 (recto/verso) almost intact

Decipherment of Linear A tablet HT 95 (recto/verso) almost intact:



Even though there is only one word of probable Mycenaean derivation, saru, from Greek saro, which literally means “a broom”, and in this instance, which refers to a threshing floor or the process of threshing wheat, almost all of the remaining Old Minoan words on this tablet can be deciphered more or less accurately. The Minoan word kunisu definitely means “emmer wheat”, while dideru is “roasted einkorn”. Even though we do not know exactly what the other types of grains or wheat, dame and minute are, it is highly likely that both of these words are the plural of the diminutives damai and minuta2 (minutai), which in turn implies that these terms refer to fine grains. I take it from context that dadumata means “harvesting”.

And so the decipherment flies.

Here are illustrations of emmer wheat and roasted einkorn:

Partial decipherment of Linear A tablet ZA 15 (Zakros) and the phenomenon of orthographic adjustment of superstratum words in the substratum language

Partial decipherment of Linear A tablet ZA 15 (Zakros) and the phenomenon of orthographic adjustment of superstratum words in the substratum language:



This decipherment of Linear A tablet ZA 15 seems to add up overall. I have divined that the word qesizue, of which there are 57, means “goblets”. The plural in e is common in Linear A, and appears to be the plural of feminine diminutives, which in the case would imply that the singular is qesizuai = “goblet”. The decipherment certainly fits the context. The translation of itinisa as “in wicker/baskets” is less certain. Samidae can be construed as Old Minoan genitive singular for “from Samos”. Recall that when words derive from the superstratum, which means Mycenaean derived words in the case of Linear A, the orthography of the derived words must be altered from their Mycenaean spelling to Old Minoan Linear A spelling conventions. So in this case, Mycenaean Samoio (genitive sing.) could conceivably become Samidae in Minoan. 

We should not be at all surprised at this metamorphosis of orthography from the superstratum (Mycenaean derived vocabulary) to the substratum (Minoan vocabulary derived from the Mycenaean superstratum). After all, when superstratum French words are imported into English, their orthography undergoes the same metamorphosis. For instance, we have:

French to English:

albâtre = alabaster
bénin = benign
cloître = cloister
dédain = disdain
épître = epistle
forêt = forest
fanatique = fanatic
gigantesque = gigantic
gobelet = goblet
loutre = otter
maître = master
plâtre = plaster
similitude = similarity
traître = treacherous

and on and on. This phenomenon applies to every last substratum language upon which a superstratum from another language is imposed. So in the case of Old Minoan, it is inevitable that the orthography of any single superstratum Mycenaean derived word has to be adjusted to meet the exigencies of Minoan orthography.

The most striking example of this metamorphosis is the masculine singular. Mycenaean derived words in Minoan must have their singular ultimate adjusted to u from the Mycenaean o. There are plenty of examples:

Akano to Akanu (Archanes)
akaro to akaru (field)
kako to kaku (copper)
kuruko to kuruku (crocus/saffron)
mare (mari) to maru (wool)
Rado to Radu (Latos)
simito to simitu (mouse)
suniko to suniku (community)
Winado to Winadu (toponym)
woino to winu (wine)
iyero to wireu  (priest)

Partial decipherment of Linear A inscription PH 1 (Arkalochori Axe):

Partial decipherment of Linear A inscription PH 1 (Arkalochori Axe):



My decipherment is partial. The only candidate for Mycenaean derived vocabulary is the word uro = entire, whole, i.e. total, a synonym of kuro = reaching, attaining, i.e. total.
The  word jaku obviously refers to the cargo.

Invitation by Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics ISSN 2411-6459 to submit my first article

Invitation by Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics ISSN 2411-6459 to submit my first article:

Click on the banner to visit their site:


https://culturalanthropologyandethnosemiotics.wordpress.com/

I have just been invited by the international quarterly, Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics ISSN 2411-6459, to submit my first article. Since this is the second new journal to have invited me to submit, I will not be able to write my first article for them until the autumn of 2017. Thus my article will not appear in Cultural Anthropology and Ethnosemiotics until the summer of 2018.  I am deeply honoured by this unsolicited invitation. This article will doubtless focus on my ongoing efforts to decipher Linear A, at least partially.

POST 1,500: Phaistos fragments in Linear A, # 3 = 8a/8b (recto/verso), harvesting olives and wheat with a team of oxen

POST 1,500: Phaistos fragments in Linear A, # 3 = 8a/8b (recto/verso), harvesting olives and wheat with a team of oxen:

Phaistos fragments in Linear A 8a/8b apparently deal with the harvesting of olives from 8 olive trees + 2 bushel-like units of grains or wheat by 11 harvesters employing a team of oxen. It certainly makes perfect sense. There is also mention of 1 bushel-like unit of sharia wheat. When I say “bushel-like”, I am merely making an approximation, since we have no idea of the exact actual standard unit of dry measurement for grain was in Mycenaean times. Note that since this fragment is from Phaistos, it is much more likely that it is inscribed primarily in Mycenaean than in Old Minoan, since Phaistos was a Mycenaean settlement. So once again, we are faced with the prospect that we have here a fragment inscribed in Linear A just prior to the adoption of Linear B as the official Mycenaean syllabary, and once again, the fragment probably dates from ca. 1450 BCE. This happenstance, if that is what it is, lends further credence to the hypothesis that a number of Linear A tablets were inscribed either in an admixture of Old Minoan, the original Minoan language, and New Minoan, the Mycenaean derived superstratum. In this particular case, I would even go so far as to contest that even the word sara2 (sarai) is an Old Minoan hold out which leaked into Mycenaean Greek. As I shall demonstrate in the next post, there appear to be at least two score Old Minoan words which survived into Mycenaean Greek. This phenomenon is analogous to Anglo-Saxon words surviving into Medieval and Modern English, even though Germanic (i.e. Old English or Anglo-Saxon) comprises only 26 % of all English vocabulary, the other 64 % + being either of Norman French, Latin or Greek provenance.

The probability that latter-day Linear A fragments appear to be inscribed in a mixture of Old Minoan and New Minoan (the Mycenaean derived superstratum) lends further credence that the Linear A syllabary, in its latter-day existence, just prior to its abandonment in favour of the new official Linear B syllabary, was simultaneously the syllabary of both Old Minoan and New Minoan, at least by ca. 1450 BCE.

This is post 1,500, in a long run of posts since the inauguration of our major Linear A, Linear B and Linear C site in the spring of 2013, making this the premier Internet site in its league.

Rational partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 117 (Haghia Triada) & the first real glimpse of Minoan grammar actualized

Rational partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 117 (Haghia Triada) & the first real glimpse of Minoan grammar actualized:

This albeit partial decipherment of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 117 (Haghia Triada) incorporates an approximately equal admixture of Old Minoan, i.e. the original Minoan language, also known as the Minoan substratum (of which I am unable to decipher most of the words) and of New Minoan, i.e. the superstratum of words of probable Mycenaean provenance, most of which I have been able to decipher with relative ease. While some of the New Minoan translations obviously appear to break the grammatical rules of Mycenaean Greek, such as mitu for “mint”, which is after all mita (and feminine) in Mycenaean Greek or daminu for “in 1 village”, which is damo in the nominative in Linear B, these adjustments can be readily accounted for by the fact that Old Minoan grammar is not at all the same beast as Mycenaean grammar. Although we are not yet familiar with much of Old Minoan grammar, which is after all the grammar of Minoan, just the same as modernized Anglo-Saxon grammar is the grammar of English, in spite of the enormous superstratum of French, Latin and Greek words in the latter language, this tablet alone perhaps affords us a first glimpse into the mechanics of Minoan grammar. Thus, it would appear that mitu may be the Minoan accusative of mita, and daminu may be the locative of damo in Minoan. Although there is no scientific way for me to substantiate this claim, I believe I am onto something, and that I may be making the first cracks in the obdurate wall of the grammar of the Minoan language substratum. If this is so, then I may be actually pointing the way to unravelling at least a subset of Old Minoan grammar. To illustrate my point, let us take a look at these phrases in English, as adapted from their Norman French superstrata. In French, the phrases would read as follows:

“ avec la menthe”& “ dans le village”, whereas in English they read as “with mint” & “in the village”. Take special note of the fact that, while the Norman French superstrata words in English, “mint” and “village” are (almost) identical to their Norman French counterparts, the grammar of the phrases is entirely at odds, because after the grammar of French, which is a Romance language, and of English, which is a Germanic, cannot possibly coincide. But here again, I must emphatically stress that English grammar is an entirely different matter than English vocabulary, of which the latter is only 26 % Germanic, but 29 % French, 29 % Latin and 4 % Greek, the latter 3 languages, namely, the superstrata, accounting for fully 64 % of all English vocabulary! We must always make this clear distinction between English grammar, which is essentially Anglo-Saxon modernized, and English vocabulary, which is only minimally Germanic.

If we carry this hypothesis to its logical outcome, we can readily surmise that the same phenomenon applies to the Linear A syllabary. Where grammar is concerned, the Linear A syllabary is Old Minoan, i.e. the original Minoan language or substrate. Where vocabulary is concerned, Linear A represents an admixture of Old Minoan vocabulary, such as uminase, kuramu, kupa3nu (kupainu), tejare and nadare (all of which I cannot decipher) and of New Minoan Mycenaean derived vocabulary, such as makarite, mitu, sata, kosaiti and daminu on this tablet alone. The orthography of the latter words is not actually consistent with Mycenaean grammar, because constitutionally it cannot be. Once again, the grammar is always Minoan, whereas the vocabulary often falls into the New Minoan (Mycenaean derived) superstratum.

In the case of makarite, it would appear that, if the word is dative in Minoan, the Minoan dative is similar to the Mycenaean, ending as it seems to in i. The ultimate te in makarite appears to be the Mycenaean or ancient Greek enclitic te (and). In the case of mitu, which is mita and feminine in Mycenaean Greek, it would appear that the Minoan word is either masculine or that in this case at least, it is instrumental, meaning “with mint”, in which case the Minoan feminine instrumental appears to terminate with u. The word kosaiti appears to follow the same lines. The first two syllables, kosai, apparently are Mycenaean, but the ultimate ti is Minoan, and once again, instrumental (plural). Again, daminu appears to repeat the same pattern. The word damo is masculine (or neuter) in Mycenaean. But the ultimate is inu here, which appears to be the Minoan locative, inu. To summarize, we must make a clear-cut distinction between any New Minoan vocabulary on any Linear A tablet, and its orthography, which must of necessity follow the orthographic conventions of the Minoan language, and not of the Mycenaean, from which any such words are derived. I intend to make this abundantly clear in subsequent posts.

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

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



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.

First of 6 extremely rare Linear A fragments from Phaistos: 12a 12b 12 c

First of 6 extremely rare Linear A fragments from Phaistos: 12a 12b 12 c



Above is the first of 6 extremely rare Linear A fragments from Phaistos: 12a 12b 12 c. The text is extremely difficult to interpret, but I have done my level best. 12a is pretty much indecipherable. 12b consists of fractions. 12c  consists of the single syllabogram TE, which might possibly be the supersyllabogram TE, which usually stands for tereza, a large standard unit of liquid measurement. It would mesh well enough with 12b, since that fragment is all fractions. But there is no way we can confirm this at all, since 12c is a fragment, doubtless with almost all of its original text absent. So without context, we cannot be sure of anything.

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

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



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

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



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

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



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: 501-600 = PI – RE

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



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

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



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

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



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 second one hundred = 101-200 = DI – JA

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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):

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.

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):

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:

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

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:

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.

A ‘fairly accurate’ rendering of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 86a, according to Gretchen Leonhardt

A ‘fairly accurate’ rendering of Minoan Linear A tablet HT 86a, according to Gretchen Leonhardt:


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



Ms. Gretchen Leonhardt of



has duly advised me that (and I quote) “your "recto" tablet is a fairly accurate rendering of HT 86a, but your "verso" tablet is an inaccurate rendering of HT 87.... ” She is of course entirely correct in informing me that the so-called verso side is not the same tablet at all, but is in fact, HT 87 (Haghia Triada). I am nevertheless astonished that she would accord me a fair degree of accuracy in my decipherment of HT 86 a, in view of the fact that  (a) I do not even know what the Minoan language is;
(b) Ms. Leonhardt claims to have conclusively deciphered the Minoan language as being proto-Japanese, categorically stating as she does that “overwhelming evidence keeps me steadfast in this view...”, a claim which I intend shortly to refute in no uncertain terms, by bringing to bear on it reasonable circumstantial, though not conclusive, evidence to the contrary and;
(c) she concedes that my decipherment of HT 86 A is fairly accurate, in spite of the fact that I am apparently flailing in the dark, since I know nothing of the Minoan language. Yet if I am, how on earth did I manage to achieve even a fairly accurate decipherment, I have to ask her.

Although Ms. Leonhardt claims that my knowledge of Linear A is “in its infancy” (as everyone’s, including her own, must of necessity be), as a historical philologist specializing in the decipherment of ancient syllabaries such as Linear A, Linear B and Linear C, and unlike Ms. Leonhardt along with numerous other researchers who purport to have definitely deciphered the Minoan language, I neither have ever made nor would ever make the rash and untenable claim that I have deciphered it, given the exiguous size of the lexical database with which we have to work. I have said as much over and over, as for instance in this citation from one of my own works to be published in the next year or so, and I quote:

Conclusions concerning the many failed attempts at deciphering Minoan Linear A:

The worst of all the pretensions of the authors of the aforementioned monographs and tractata are their untenable claims that they have in fact deciphered Minoan Linear A. How is it even remotely possible that these soi- disant decipherers of Minoan Linear A can claim to have discovered the so-called magic bullet in the guise of the proto-language upon which their decipherment has been based, when the proto-languages they invoke are soà wildly disparate? These decipherers have turned to a number of proto-languages, some of them Indo-European (such as proto-Greek and Proto-Slavic), others non proto-Indo-European, running the gamut from Uralic (proto-Finnish), proto-Niger Congo to proto-Semitic and Sumerian all the way through to proto-Altaic and proto-Japanese. While it is patently impossible that all of these proto-languages could be at the base of the Minoan language, it is nevertheless remotely conceivable that one of them just might be. But which one? Given the tangled  mass of contradictions these so-called decipherments land us in, I am left with no alternative but to pronounce that none of these so-called proto-languages is liable to stand the test of linguistic verisimilitude. All of this leaves me with an uneasy feeling of déjà vu.

Instead, I have adopted the unique approach of declaring that it does not matter what proto- language Minoan derives from, or for that matter, whether or not it, like modern Basque, is a language isolate, meaning a natural (spoken) language, ancient (dead) or modern (alive) with no demonstrable genealogical or genetic relationship with any other language whatsoever or alternatively, a language that has not been demonstrated to descend from an ancestor common with any other language in the world. (italics mine).

and again:

In an article of this nature, which is the first of its kind in the world ever to deal with the partial, but by no means definitive, decipherment of Minoan Linear A, I must of necessity focus on those Minoan Linear A terms which offer the greatest insight into the vocabulary of the language, but not the language itself. Anyone who dares claim he or she has “deciphered” the Minoan language is skating on very thin ice. Any attempt to decipher the Minoan language is severely trammelled by the incontestable fact that no one knows what the language is or even what language class it belongs to, if any.

“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):

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),

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.

The Arcado-Cypriot Linear C keyboard template & the significantly revised timeline for (proto-) historic ancient Greek society

The Arcado-Cypriot Linear C keyboard template & the significantly revised timeline for (proto-) historic ancient Greek society:

This image of the Arcado-Cypriot Linear C keyboard template has been downsized to 620 pixels to fit the restrictive exigencies of Word Press image size. You may request the full-sized 1200 pixel Linear C keyboard template by contacting me at:

vallance22@zoho.com

The Arcado-Cypriot Linear C keyboard template reveals several fascinating characteristics of this extremely important and highly tenacious syllabary. These are:

1. The Arcadians and Cypriots thoroughly redesigned Linear C, almost completely abandoning the Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B syllabograms, but only in superficial appearance.
2. The only Linear C syllabograms which bear resemblance with their Mycenaean Linear B forbears are: NA SE PA & PO.
3. But almost all of the rest of the syllabograms in Linear C bear the same phonetic values as their Linear B forbears.
4. The DA series of syllabograms in Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B has completely disappeared from Arcado-Cypriot Linear C.
5. The RA RE RI RO (RU) series of syllabograms in Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B has split into 2 discreet, separate series: LA LE LI LO LU & RA RE RI RO RU. But what was the reason for this deliberate split? Here is my hypothesis: it would appear that the Minoans and Mycenaeans were unable to distinguish between the liquids L and R, pronouncing L something along the lines the Japanese did.
6. The syllabograms XA and XE, and the syllabogram GA are non-existent in Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B.
7. Arcado-Cypriot Linear C abandoned ideograms completely. This makes for a much more -
8. streamlined syllabary.
9. The Arcado-Cypriot Linear C syllabary was diachronically extremely tenacious, lasting 7 centuries (ca. 1100 BCE – 400 BCE) co-existing in parallel with the Arcado-Cypriot alphabet.
10. philologists and linguists expert in ancient Greek are accustomed to drawing the timeline for the first appearance of written Greek from 800 BCE onward (ca. the time of Homer’s Ilad to Attic Greek, ca. 400 BCE).

But I am in fundamental disagreement with this hypothesis. Since Arcado-Cypriot Linear C came to the fore ca. 1100 BCE, a mere 100 years or approximately one century after the fall of Mycenae and the demise of the Linear B syllabary, it is surely open to doubt whether or not the so-called Greek “Dark Ages” actually lasted at least 400 years (ca. 1200 – 800 BCE). So we have to wonder whether or not that small gap of a mere century or so between the demise of the Linear B syllabary (ca. 1200 BCE) and the sudden appearance of Arcado-Cypriot Linear C (ca. 1100 BCE) makes much of a difference at all in the actual timeline for written ancient Greek, which to my mind runs from 1600 BCE, with the advent of Mycenaean Linear B, all the way through to 400 BCE, i.e. for 12 centuries – 1 century (because of the 1 century gap between Linear B and Linear C), i.e. for 11 centuries! This makes for a huge difference between the previously held timeline of a mere 4 centuries from 800 – 400 BCE. It sets back the timeline for Greek civilization 500 years, receding back from 1100 BCE to 1600 BCE. I also strongly object to the commonly held notion that Mycenaean and Mycenaean Minoan Greece was a prehistoric civilization. Since writing did exist in the form of the Linear B syllabary, albeit only in scribal format, I believe we can safely conclude that the Mycenaean civilization was proto-historic. And there is more: if we also take Minoan Linear A into account (which we definitely should), then the proto-historic period, if we are to include the pre-Greek substrate of Minoan society, recedes several centuries more into the distant past, to at least 2,900 BCE! Just because we cannot read the Minoan language does not mean it not also proto-historic phenomenon.

That Arcado-Cypriot Linear C lasted for such a very long time attests to the fact that syllabaries such as Mycenaean Linear B & Arcado-Cypriot Linear C itself were much more suitable to inscribing or writing ancient Greek than most philologists or diachronic historical linguists would care to admit. I shall have plenty to say about this in the article I shall soon be posting on my academia.edu account:

Templates for the layouts of the Minoan Linear A, Mycenaean Linear B & Arcado-Cypriot Linear C fonts.

You can download the Linear C font here:

Tag: minoan

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: