Talk:Pedra da Gávea: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →Sources: new section |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
See also [[:pt:Teoria da presença de fenícios no Brasil]]. --[[User:Pdms|Pdms]] ([[User talk:Pdms|talk]]) 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
See also [[:pt:Teoria da presença de fenícios no Brasil]]. --[[User:Pdms|Pdms]] ([[User talk:Pdms|talk]]) 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Sources == |
|||
Some good work here thanks to a hard working editor, but I'm dubious about using Cyclone Covey's self-published book and am not convinced this will do for a GA article. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:00, 18 September 2013
 | Pedra da Gávea is currently a Geography good article nominee. Nominated by Gen. Quon (Talk) at 20:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
 | Skepticism Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Untitled
I don't understand -- is the inscription in letters of the Phoenician alphabet, or in letters of the Latin alphabet? If in the Phoenician alphabet, then what have professional paleographers said about the purported ancient inscription? If in the Latin alphabet, in exactly the letters given in the article, then there are a lot of linguistic problems... AnonMoos 09:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The inscription is illustrated here. Feel free to add Phoenician character display to the article. As the article says, this is in no means a verified inscription: it's most likely a crude forgery from the 19th century. There don't appear to be any proper archaeological investigations into the site, it makes absolutely no sense for a Phoenician ruler to have been immortalised in this way without clear examples of Phoenician influence in the locality... you may well find the entire inscription in a book collecting (and translating) Phoenician inscriptions known in the early 18th century, if you have time to track down and read such a thing. You might try Wilhelm Gesenius as a starting point. 172.215.44.40 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then, "FOENISIAN" is totally and utterly bogus -- the Phoenicians called themselves Kana`nim ("Canaanites"). It was the ancient Greeks who called them Phoinikes ("people of the Palm tree"), and in ancient Greek and Latin "ph" was NOT pronounced as "f", and a "k" sound did not ordinarily become an "s". I'm not sure what language "FOENISIAN" is, but it's not anything that Phonicians would have called themselves, and it's definitely not even ancient at all... AnonMoos 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Taken into account - thankyou. If there's anything else wrong with the translation please do add it to the article, because I don't have a clue about that whole language group. :) 172.215.44.40 07:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It's silly what you guys are talking about, trying to overanalyze it. Why can't you admit the obvious? Stop trying to fit in data with your preconceived notions of what the Phoenicians could or couldn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.21.176 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
See also pt:Teoria da presença de fenícios no Brasil. --Pdms (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Sources
Some good work here thanks to a hard working editor, but I'm dubious about using Cyclone Covey's self-published book and am not convinced this will do for a GA article. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)