Talk:Lemnian language

Comments

I reverted the recent additions by an anonymous user who presented the pseudo-scientific work of some individual who claims to have translated the Lemnian stele by using an Albanian dialect. Be on the lookout for such claims resurfacing in the article. Alexander 007 9 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

Anatolian hypothesis

Zmehmed, why the hell are you reverting the Anatolian hypothesis? I am not presenting it as fact. Frankly, I don't believe in it. But Steinbauer, who we give as a reference, forwards the hypothesis, so it is certainly no fringy crackpot idea. If you want, say that most linguists consider evidence inconclusive (I certainly do), but don't just censor the article, for crying out loud. dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Leaving Zmehmed and his undue censorship aside, I can't imagine Lemnian being an "Indo-European" language in any meaningful sense. See: [1]. I'd prefer to strip down the marginal "IE" suggestion in the article to the specific linguists who propose it. From reading the link and from my memory of other such references, it seems to me that the Anatolian similarities may as well be due to a pre-IE substrate in Anatolian, but who knows. ---Alexander 007 15:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't accept Lemnian as an Indo-European language either, but perhaps it should be mentioned because it is a part of what goes on in Lemnian studies. There are, for good or for bad, still some who swear by the IE connection. It's best to have a brief mention of it and to simply call it "highly unlikely" or such so that people can see this information. If they are so swayed, they will also see that it is not considered sound by a majority of linguists. Other subjects have these sorts of asides so I don't see why Lemnian should be treated differently. --Glengordon01 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation

The translation looks plausible, perhaps not far off, but cite your sources for such text. A question I have, for example: this particular translation of Lemnian ewisth-o (*evisth-u, "praised") and zeronai (*šerunai="the official"): what's it based on? only context? I see a question mark after the Etruscan equivalent or possible equivalent (=Zeri ?). I don't see a meaning given. If this translation turns out to be original research, it will have to be removed from the article and posted on the talk page instead. Alexander 007 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

While this decipherment is unsourced, such a thing called 'new learning' does exist for some online, albeit perhaps outside of this collection of Wikipedian memes. This text has been cross-referenced with several other known Etruscan words, which to it can be further added CIE reference numbers to ensure the source of the association. Expecting that in all situations a citation of published references, when they may not yet have been written, is unreasonable. Some subjects, such as this one, lack a plethora of published books to choose from because of the obscurity of the subject, the disinterest of the general public on such technical issues as translation, and the popularity of fluff science. On the other hand, Mayani has published several books of inferior quality connecting Etruscan with Albanian, something immediately dismissed by linguists, but believed by many unknowing readers. This strange state of affairs, combined with a wrongful folk impression that because something is 'published' it must therefore be more trustworthy than that which isn't, readers thus blindly follow these underlyingly inconsistent authors without ever doing what a reader should always do in the first place -- Question! Cross-referencing with already known facts should indeed be viewed as a valid 'source' by the Wikipedia! If facts can't be trusted, but published authors blindly so, the world is truly gone crazy -- Comment from an anonymous visitor (User:Glengordon01)

Hey Gordon, I'm not criticizing your translation. It looks plausible, and may be as good as any other proposed translation out there. But Wikipedia has rules:Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:NPOV. And I agree that many cranks get published (Mayani, Alinei), while sounder work may still be unpublished. I certainly do not judge work solely on the basis of it being published or unpublished. It's about content. But in Wikipedia, policy is policy. Alexander 007 10:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

it is not unreasonable to expect citations of published sources in all instances, for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Otherwise, Wikipedia would become a research journal, which would be cool, but which is beyond the scope of the project. You don't need to publish an entire book, it is enough to get an article published in some journal. If the journal accepts your article, Wikipedia will be proud to quote you. YOu don't even need to get it printed -- as far as I'm concerned, pdf documents on preprint servers qualify as publications too. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That said, I agree of course that cross-referencing facts is part of our job on Wikipedia. Only, cross referencing the fact that Etruscan "mul" means "to bless" is one thing. Claiming that this has anything to do with Lemnian "mav" is quite another thing, and nobody short of an expert on the matter will be able to evaluate if there is any merit to the claim. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, while some translations seem sound, others like ewistho ("praised"), zerunai ("an official"), mav ("blessed") don't have that much connective tissue (now, I am criticizing the translation), at least from what's been presented. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying they may be correct, or they may be incorrect. Alexander 007 11:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

oh dear, Glengordon; Wikerosion wasn't such a good idea. Comparing us to amoebae because we asked for a bleeding reference (just publish your thing and we'll have it. How is that an "unreasonable belief system"?) -- that somehow spoiled the sympathy I had for you and your translation, and I'm afraid I support Alexander's removal. Wikipedia isn't "meant to appeal to everyone no matter how untalented, unwise, uncaring, unsociable or unknowledgeable" -- you can defend any sort of unpopular nonsense if you just have a published reference. I wish you had your translation published, you know, but it's hardly our fault that you (apparently) have not. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This Glen dude may be an amoeba, for all anyone knows.He posts original research in an internet encyclopedia that doesn't accept original research. He presents information in POV, dogmatic formulations, when many things are far from definite ("there is no doubt" that the Pelasgians are one of the Sea Peoples mentioned in an Egyptian text, etc. etc.). He used unencyclopedic casual slang in the article ("the jury is still out", etc.)...Ho hum. Alexander 007 11:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And how can I forget this gem, that Pelasgians was, to quote GG, "an inclusive category used for anyone considered to be non-Greek". Since when? Does this mean that Romans, Thracians, and Egyptians were also referred to as Pelasgians? Please dude, that sentence of yours leads people to suspect that you are incompetent, not that you are competent. Alexander 007 12:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Pyrgi Tablets may have similar issues, but I don't want to get involved there, let others see to it. dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Alexander says: "This Glen dude may be an amoeba, for all anyone knows."

Clever like a bratty preschooler. Is it possible for you to be civil, Alexander? Drop the ego. Sifting through Alexander's own senselessly angry dogma, I'll quickly respond to each of his points.

"He presents information in POV, dogmatic formulations, when many things are far from definite ('there is no doubt' that the Pelasgians are one of the Sea Peoples mentioned in an Egyptian text, etc. etc.)."

Dogmatic formulations? Ludicrous. In some people's orwellian minds, certainty is automatically suspect. Do we dismiss quantum physics by the wave of an arrogant hand because it's 'just a theory'? That's not a healthy attitude as a scholar. Some things are certain and many other things are by nature uncertain. History, psychology, linguistics, etc -- These are subjects that automatically deal with theories. Some theories nonetheless are better than others. We can't do anything about the inherent uncertainty of history. All we can do is choose the likeliest theory. The one that accounts for all the facts known thus far.

Now, why not formulate an educated rebuttal to the above? Tell us why Pelasgians are not connected to one of the Sea Peoples mentioned during the reign of Merneptah. Hell, why not contribute an add-on about why they aren't! That would be super. This angry nonsense only paints you as the overdone catty online personnage to the chagrin of the healthy population. Please just talk about what you have found in your research. I'm open and here to learn because I enjoy this subject without needing to beat up others to soothe my ego.

So who are the "prst" if not Pelasgians that the Egyptians are refering to then? Are you a part of the Phillistine camp perhaps? Surely you don't just go "Well, it's all so uncertain so I'm simply not going to pain myself to decide"!

And how can I forget this gem, that Pelasgians was, to quote GG, "an inclusive category used for anyone considered to be non-Greek".

Yes, the "gem" that you try to use to make yourself feel superior because your self-esteem is ailing even though you're not really contributing much to the Lemnian subject. Again, don't act like a nasty jerk about it and take a proverbial chill pill. Shed the anger. This is a hate-free zone.

Since I love facts and truth, I will be the first to admit that you're correct. Mea culpa. I was writing in haste and was too focused on the Sea Peoples at the time. I wasn't thinking about Romans, Africans and all the other cultures surrounding the ancient Greek world that of course were not called Pelasgoi. Perhaps "native non-Greek" would have been safer, but however you can make these descriptions more accurate is always appreciated. Thank you for spotting that. Glengordon01

It is quite obvious that I became "Catty" only after you made your amoebae comparison (where you tried to put yourself on a pedestal). I have no regrets. You're the first one to cross the line, not me or dab. I was polite and patient and even supportive before you made that move of yours, so I don't see your point. Alexander 007 10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't you talk about Lemnian? Why are you obsessed with me? Why are you here at all?? So far you're just being an angry troll. The internet is full of them. We don't need one more. --Glengordon01 14:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'm angry, why do I have a grin throughout this exchange? Your Wikerosion article was a provocation out of nowhere, and it brands you as the troll here, my friend, if anyone is. BTW, don't delude yourself and think that I am at all interested in your person. Alexander 007 14:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

(removed a link posted by Gordon01)

You linked Wikerosion into the Lemnian language article, and this act of yours brought on the edits from me on this talk page that you find disagreeable, so it was very relevant to link that. What you are linking is off-topic, and I removed it as I said I would, and it's within policy to remove it. Alexander 007 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

That said, I agree of course that cross-referencing facts is part of our job on Wikipedia. Only, cross referencing the fact that Etruscan "mul" means "to bless" is one thing. Claiming that this has anything to do with Lemnian "mav" is quite another thing, and nobody short of an expert on the matter will be able to evaluate if there is any merit to the claim. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fine, for this particular word. I admit this is an iffy one. However, there are many other things that I fear can dissolve into "uncertainty" that are not truly uncertain. For example, there is a constant myth going around that Etruscan <un> is the 2nd person pronoun. Others publish other values for this word which are equal nonsense. These values in fact completely contradict what is already known about Etruscan grammar since the word is declined as what can only be an inanimate noun (<un-e> "with X", <un-χva> 'many X'). The <-χva> suffix is only used for inanimate nouns. We never see *<unar> (the expected animate plural). So this is a perfect example where so-called "Etruscanology experts" are getting their work published and then worshipped as infallible deities. Yet their work is provably self-contradictory as in this case, breeding a new generation of senselessness by those that fear to question because they think they lack competency (as if to say there is a magical level that can be attained at which one is completely competent).

So I happen to think that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a replacement for thought. It's supposed to inspire thought and yes, dagnammit, new ideas, even unpublished but sensible ideas that will in turn create further inspiration and civil discussion.Glengordon01

There are plenty of places for new research to be included, but not in a Wiki article. Wikipedia:No original research. If you don't agree with the policy, goodbye. Alexander 007 10:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Imaginary enemies

Alexander 007, why are you making imaginary enemies? I have no personal issues with you. As I've said, I think some of your points are valid but, whether you're right or wrong, everything you've been saying so far on this page is tainted with hideous amounts of anger. It's not healthy and doesn't gain you respect.

All I am saying is that I disagree with your view about how these pages should be allowed to evolve, at least in the case of Etruscan and Lemnian studies in particular. That's it. I can't help it if you find difference of opinion threatening but difference of opinion is supposed to be the strength of Wikipedia, not the weakness you perceive it to be. By continuously responding to people in a toxically angry manner for disagreeing with you, you help to erode the functionality of this forum. There are in fact many articles already made talking precisely about this devolution because of the hatemongering of a petty few. It's a serious issue.

I've given examples showing for those that wish to look it up that indeed, Etrusco-Lemnian studies are plagued with published works that are of low-quality and replete with self-contradictions. I'm not saying that everything should be tossed out the window. I'm saying that people need to question the so-called facts, look them up, track all the relevant data down. I have, which is why I notice some problems and the persistent myths that continue on (cf. the case of <un>).

You can use whatever excuse to justify being catty, but you're still catty and in the real world, people don't respond well to cattiness. They shun those people. I also notice a pattern with you: You don't have facts to back up your claims. User:Glengordon01

PS, just in case more anger ensues, I want to state that I understand the rules and have in fact followed them so there's no need to constantly attack me further, sheesh! User:Glengordon01

Who's catty? You're imagining things. I have no desire to make enemies or to take jabs at people unless they take a petty jab first (as you did). I have not made any original claims regarding the Lemnian language. I'm not sure what you are requesting of editors here to do with your research, however. Alexander 007 12:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, you make false statements: "everything you've been saying so far on this page is tainted with hideous amounts of anger"---really? My first post on this talk page regarding your edits was that I gave your translation a "provisional stamp of approval", till I realized it's original research and it cannot be used in the article. Your charges of "cattiness" don't stick. What you call "catty" I call "putting a **** who thought he was superior in check" (cf. [2], [3]). Alexander 007 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And I quote: "I have no desire to make enemies " ... "putting a prick who thought he was superior in check". You're toxic. Why aren't you banned yet? --Glengordon01 13:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well gee, being called "catty" is as bad as being called a ****, so what's your point. Alexander 007 14:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. Catty is an assessment of behaviour whereas prick is quite obviously an offensive slur referring to genitals. So, I think Alexander 007 should be reprimanded for abusive language. --Glengordon01 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Catty" is an attack. By the way, men don't request that other editors be reprimanded for such things. Alexander 007 14:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Men, wha'? Now you're clearly ranting like a fool. --Glengordon01 14:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if I were ranting, at least I'm not crying for mommy. Alexander 007 14:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

More windows to your soul. I hope you get help with your behavioural disorder. --Glengordon01 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this one of Alexander 007's "edits", [[4]], speaks volumes about Alexander 007's real intent here to create anarchy. Picture of Hitler, eh? Oh yeah. You've got deeper problems than I thought. --Glengordon01 14:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooooooooooh. It was a reference to how some have perceived me as a forum-fascist. Excuse me if I'm strict about some things. User:Deucalionite once asked if I wanted a goosestep salute from him, after I repelled his edits from the Pelasgians article, for example. Alexander 007 14:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I will leave that link you posted, but I will delete any others unless they are links within Lemnian language or Talk:Lemnian language. You're straying off topic. I'm already finished with this debate. Alexander 007 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretending to be a nazi? Calling people pricks? Mocking women? You know that's all over the line. Editing Deucalion's input was reasonable, for sure, but aligning yourself with one of the biggest mass murderers of all time as a joke? For pete's sake, you've fallen off the deep end, dude. --Glengordon01 14:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for calling you a ****, though writing Wikerosion then linking it into Lemnian language was reminscent of that term. Now, that's that, I trust. Alexander 007 14:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so. --Glengordon01 15:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This is a good article, well-written and interesting, and obviously a lot of work went into it, but it is very POV in places. For example:

  "Let's undo some of the myths that continue to rear their ugly head."
  "No, <mav> is not a numeral"
  "One of these overly debated words is <mav>"
  "Some common sense is in order"
  "So in all, it's likelier"

Part of the reason for this is a lack of ability to cite references in their absence as discussed above. Also, it would be better to pick "stela" or "stele" and stick with it. THB 03:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the subject of Lemnian knows very well that published works relating to it, putting aside sensible published works, are a handful in number. Everyone wants to flambé me because I "lack references" as if there are any references! If they exist, they're hard for the general public to access. As for being "POV" (that's NewSpeak for 'having a point of view'), I'd rather have a point of view than run around with my head cut off and trolling the efforts of others with problems and no solutions. Why don't you contribute, rather than just nag? What is your solution then? How would you reword this article. I admit to being dramatic in print at times so let's work together to reword this article in a less dramatic way, people! No more nagging. Oh, also both "stele" and "stela" are acceptable spellings and since multiple people are editing this website, it will be an effort to enforce a spelling standard for something so trivial :) --Glengordon01 21:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO That whole section should just be deleted. It's original research. If the material of that section can be posted online somewhere in such a way that it constitutes a "reputable source" of some kind, then a link to that posting should be provided in this article. But the material itself does not belong in this article. -The Sarcastic Fringehead, Aug 29 2006

The translation of Nicolae Densusianu

Should be necessarily added. Nicolae Densusianu , despite his mistakes, tryed to reconstruct in Dacia Preistorica the history of the ancient peoples in the Balkans (aka pelasgians. At least like an hypothesis, his translation should be added. Acttualy, all the translation attempts should be put in, especially since none is flawless.I`ll come up in a few days whith it. Macedon19

Lack of /u/ is normal!

Very nice, kids. Now the text reads, "Like Etruscan, the Lemnian language appears to have had a four-vowel system consisting of "i", "u", "a" and "e". Having a contrast between front and back vowels, it would appear to lack a high back vowel (a "u"-like sound)" which merely contradicts itself directly.

It is true that five-vowel systems /i e a o u/ are the most common ones around the world, but when, please, did any linguist think the presence of /u/ was universal? Lots and lots of Native American languages, as different as Navajo and Pirahã, have /i e a o/ systems. So I removed this.

Nevertheless, as I wrote, this may be a shared innovation of Etruscan and Lemnian -- Etruscan has /u/ but lacks /o/. This kind of drift (in both directions) is expected; for example some Cree dialects have /o/ while others have /u/ instead.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 13:23 CET | 2006/3/20

Sorry! I was wrong. Pirahã only has /a i o/.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 13:27 CET | 2006/3/20

Better reference for Cree phonemes: Western Cree syllabics.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 13:33 CET | 2006/3/20

Actually, contrast maximization is what makes vowel systems like {i o a e} rare at best. Naturally the height contrast between a low-back "a" and a mid-back "o" is less favourable to a contrast of "a" and "u" (high-back). However, I do agree with you that my wording was inaccurate. I was obviously not speaking about *every* language that exists. I didn't mean to refer to centralized languages where there is no front-back contrast and only high-mid /i/ either since this is outside the topic of Lemnian. I was specifically speaking of languages with front-back contrast and I suppose "/u/" should rather be reworded as "high back vowel", or a "u"-like sound.

In regards to Cree et al, it's a matter of idiolect as to whether /o/ or /U/ might be chosen. However, this doesn't mean that it lacks "u". Roman orthography insists on "o" but this is not necessarily reflective of reality. On a whole, contrast maximization wins and favours a "u"-like sound over an "o"-like sound to maximize height contrasts. This is a universal tendency.

Lastly and more damaging, you already admit that Etruscan and Lemnian are related. You can see that Etruscan positively lacks "o", not "u". Can you not also see that since Herodotus' account of Tyrrhenian origins in Lydia is likely (considering commonality in architecture, aesthetics, divinatory customs, religion, etc) that the languages that happen to be around that area, namely Hittite and Akkadian, also lack "o"? Clearly then, your edit is premature and you need to learn more about this subject before getting proactive. --Glengordon01 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Albanian ilk

I cut out someone's ESL rambling. I'm not sure what he's trying to say except that he's one of those Pro-Albanian oddballs who is more interested in nationalism than logical truth:

 "Is very interesting, how nobody didn't prefere pregreek language - illyrian (dardanian language,
   Language of Zeus and Olymp God's Language), besides Etruscan language. [...] To translate any script 
   of any stele, as an Lemnos stele, help already, Old Albanian Language - Gegenian Language, or as 
   called Dardanian Language, [...] This theory have accepted and today's Europian Arceology."

Whatever. Try another website to spout this nonsense, buddy. Your theory would be more believable if you knew how to spell and respected the grammar of human language. We have to be vigilant against these kinds of irrational pet theories that pervade the field of Tyrrhenian linguistics. --Glengordon01 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A little decency, please

I stumbled upon this article by chance, and don't get me wrong - I am no expert in this field! However - the use of language and POV is UNWORTHY of the standards Wikipedia strives to achieve, and if one is not altogether that familiar with common usage of the English language, perhaps one ought to REFRAIN from writing articles in it.

I like the article, but felt I had to make at least a few changes to the blatant vulgarisms I found.

Apart from that - keep up the good work!

--Sparviere 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The use of language is unworthy of the standards Wikipedia strives to achieve? Hahaha. That's a classic. Strangely, it's ominously true in a 1984 kinda way. Don't worry Sparviere, at the rate things are going soon everyone will be assimilated into a common collective where everybody will be forced to talk, dress, look and act the same way or be shot to death. --Glengordon01 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

hm, I don't get your point. Sparviere did some straightforward stylistic edits. There is a lot of this sort of work left on Wikipedia, and of course it should be done, that's no big deal. dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes, no big deal. It's great. But can't I indulge in 1984 symbolism without Big Brother giving me some mega miniluv? Sheesh, it's like I made a thoughtcrime or something... --Glengordon01 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Stela vs stele

I substituted "stele" for approx. three instances of "stela" for consistency reasoning that stele is Greek and stela is Latin so considering the time and place, Greek is more appropriate. -THB 23:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Reference"

I saw this reference in there (the only one):

• Dieter H. Steinbauer, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen 1999, pages 357-366.

The custom now is to put the page references in notes and the work under bibliography. What prevents me from doing that is the lack of any statement as to what material is covered by the pages! So I am going ahead and converting it to a bibiography item without the pages and when you gentlemen can tie the substance in to the pages, go ahead and create notes for it. You can follow my example(s).

I'll be putting in a lot of citation requests. This rather long and detailed article has no citations! No lack of words is evident either in the article or in the discussion. The point is to be putting in authoritative words. Remember, no original research allowed.Dave 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eteocypriot and Eteocretan (Minoan)

This whole subsection looks like original research to me. This author has these things in several articles and offers us free decipherments of the unknown scripts but he nowhere gives any citations on any of it. So, until such time as the citations appear, I am taking it out and putting it here.Dave 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Beyond Etruscan and Rhaetian, further relationships to Lemnian become more tentative and highly debated. There is a possible affiliation of Eteocypriot to the above Tyrrhenian grouping. Texts in Eteocypriot (few are known, making it difficult to determine language affinity) have been found in the vicinity of the Lemnian language sphere, amidst the Aegean islands.

Debate continues on concerning the relationship of Eteocypriot and Eteocretan (Minoan) to this family. The Amathus bilingual written in Eteocypriot shows important structural similarities bearing what appears to be a genitive in -O-SE (Etruscan "-as" and Lemnian "-š") as well as a 3rd person animate pronoun A-NA (Etruscan "an" 'he, she'). The meager text however makes it difficult to prove a kinship for certain. Eteocretan likewise shows grammatical similarities and vocabulary terms but again the number of texts are meager. Since Minoan texts are also few and far between, any grammatical similarities with Etruscan are always tentative. However it has been noted by some online that the oft-repeated Minoan u-na-ka-na-si and u-na-ru-ka-na-si may bear resemblance to what would be written in Etruscan as *unχva cenase "bearing libations" which is surprisingly reasonable considering that the objects on which this is consistently written are in fact libation tables. (The value of "un" as 'libation' is proven by its repeated usage in the Liber Linteus.) Time will tell whether these connections bear fruit." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC). It isn't actually unsigned but I forgot and then added the signature.Dave 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back

I got to leave this for the moment but there are a lot of organizational issues and oh by the way don't forget to put your page numbers in there.Dave 01:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

halil- the fact that the runes are almost identical to the orkon yenissey runes shows that the xiognu and god knows what are not the first turks. turkic history was written 200 years ago, and i doubt that there was much proof used, as opposed to speculation. e.g there is no archaelogical proof that the gokturks ever existed, but then again who asks? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.139.211 (talk) 13:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

WTF is this ?

What is this turkish theory (http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/lemstelea.html) thing? are kiding? Who the hell is POLAT KAYA and why is he credited? By whom is he considered a serious scientist? is he scientist at all?

Can I put something too in the text? About the extraterrestial origins of the Lemnians? or about the Atlantian herritage of them?

I 'll get rid of the link and the quote, but it's allready the second time I have to do it!

--Yangula 11:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Indo-European theory + Etruscan Influence

See Greece transliteration on Russian page. Approximate translation with dictionary has correlation with IE roots and afixes. The language is IE language of separate IE family (like Anatolian) with Etruscan influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.43.110 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Greek alphabet Transliteration with approximate translation

On the picture

hολαιε:ζ:ναφοθ:ζιαζι

To Hol, from nephew, that

μαραζ:μαF

died (five)

σιαλχFειζ:αFιζ

(In age of) sixty five years,

εFισθο:ζεροναιθ

to be seen in the picture

ζιFαι

here.

ακερ:ταFαρζιο

it was done with Tourses

αναλασιαλ:ζεροναι:μοριναιλ

unforgettable in the picture memorable.

On the tablet

hολαιεζι:φοκιασιαλε:ζεροναιθ:εFισθο:τοFερονα

To Hol, Yes will be reposed (with peace), in the picture to be seen, represented

ρομ:hαραλιο:ζιFαι:επτεζιο:αραι:τιζ:φοκε

with hand with grave digger here, that what is humbly in the ground been reposed

ζιFαι:αFιζ:σιαλχFιζ:μαραζμ:αFιζ:αομαι

here. Years sixty with year of death how I am well.

Dictionary

hολ Hol name, -αιε Dative case
ζ < *de from; it is used here because of difficulties of definition of case of following word ναφοθ < *IE.népot grandchild/nephew, -θ Ablative case
ζια-ζι < kʷi di which, what, that
μαρ < *IE.mor(t)-, -αζ<*oti Initial completion of 3-го persons of single number of preterit, -αζμ Instrumental case of noun on -t-
μαF ~ etr. maχ five
σι ~ etr. śa six (or four), -αλχF ~ etr. alk teen (from word "to add"), -ειζ Genitive from locative on ei + Ablative case on *HD; there can be combination of cases or local + particle used for time
αFιζ < *IE.wet- year, in etr. avil, also plural number of years marks (it is seen because of α-)
Fισ < *IE.weid- see (s<*d before t) base of aorist, ε- augment, -θο end of supine
ζερον ~ etr. sren picture, -αι- Locative case single number, -θ Ablative; combination of cases or local + particle used for instruction of surface
ζιFαι ~ etr. 0ui here
ακερ < *IE.kʰer- to do, form without completion impersonal, passive
ταFαρ Tyrsenoi < *IE.*teu-t/Hr-eH₂- tribe, people, -ζιο Instrumental case of noun from adjective on -t-
ανα- not, λασ- forget, lose (to eng. lost), -ιαλ Instrumental case of possessive adjective
μορ < *IE.mor- memory, -ιν- suffix of adjective, -αιλ Local case of possessive adjective; substantive noun with value on "monument" (cmp. marble)
ζι yes
φοκ repose, -ια Desirable mood, σιαλε — indicator of reflexive (self, himself)
τοFερ ~ etr. tuer to picture, -ονα suffix of adjective
ρομ < *IE. arm- рука, (-μ Instrumental case single number?)
hαρα ~ rus. хоронить, -λ- <*IE.-dl- instrument of action suffix, -ιο Instrumental case single number of noon
επτε ~ greec. υπτι- submissive, -ζιο Instrumental case of adjective on -t-; how adverb acts
αρ ground
τιζ that
φοκ repose, -ε completion of 3-th persons of single number of perfect
αο be in good health(to lat. ave), -μαι completion of 1-th persons of single number of mediapassive

Explanation

First what is thrown in eyes this is that very much many marks ζ. What gives satem character of language, then there are palatal *K and *T went in *dz(*tz). Second, this is bad difference of sonorous and deaf, what is characteristic for many south indo-european languages: hettite, toharian, and (non-indo-european?)Etruscan. These statements is in agreement with that, that pelasgian word "goat" it is testified in number of greek dialects (ιξάλη, ιζάλη, ιζάνη, ισάλη, ισσέλα, ιτθέλα, ισθλη, ισσέλη),that shows alternation ξ(ks) and ζ(dz), with gradual loss of stops in τθ, σθ, σσ, σ (that is characteristic for all satem languages). In IE the word was "qogʲ-éloH". Then *q>0, *o>i by umlaut of following e, *gʲ>ξ, *é>(e/o/ə/0), *l>l>n, *oH>ā/ē.

It is possible to do finding that before us indo-european language IE rather early parting from other languages, like anatolian languages, but forming own family of languages. Big correlations can be explained with etruscan with primordial relationship or sub (or ad) stratic relations, to consider etruscan out of dependence from that like indo-european with big admixture of non-indo-european, or on the contrary.

Complex locatives are bound with that, that sooner than all genitive and local cases were not separated in indo-european from other cases and / or did not have completions. So or in all languages they otherwise are new formation (let even very ancient) from other cases. Locative semantics is sufficient is complex and not to dispense with one case for expression of space ratios within language. Then it is possible to say the most also about genitive.

I am a native English speaker (and a former school textbook editor), and I do not properly understand what you are trying to say here. It looks as if it might be interesting and useful, so please, if you can, find a more fluent English speaker/writer to re-write your text, so that we can understand what you are suggesting. (I do not mean to insult you - I cannot write your language at all! :-) ) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Helmeted?

Let me confess at the outset that I have never seen the Lemnos stele /stela. But I have seen two different reproductions. And I must say that the chap looks bare-headed to me.

--Mjhrynick (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from here, and I don't entirely disagree. However, several good images are now available on Google Image search, and show the line down the middle of the face, indicating that the depicted person is wearing some head covering, whether it be cap, cowl, coif, or helmet. It is absolutely not a helmet as we recognize it, and was probably made of hide or fabric. Ironlion45 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Stele of Lemno from Albanian in English ..!

MOURNING, we are in full mourning, anguish, ill luck all over, women covered with black veils. Grief you have given to the kinship, oh kinsman! He belongs to our stock, Ah! , Oh! He was torn away from us, what misfortune. But in order which guilt, this disaster? Gelid is his golden throne, Ah! Of his fame we were proud, Oh! Grief, grief in the whole world, tearing him away, we are beheaded! This grief struck us suddently, ah! Alas, who knows for what fault? Oh!

Our kinsman he was, Why ever did he struck us with such grief? In Grief and despair, ah! tears choke us, Oh! He, who kept up our stock, for what fault, now does he extinguish it? Ah! Oh!

Oh! precious he was, knife wounds, oh misfortune, he suffered so much! In Silence, never uttering an insult! Ah! Oh! You, kinsman, you have beheaded us, Oh! You, great affliction you have given us, Ah! Oh!” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.222.8 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Different transcription

Transcription symbols š and s is different in Lemnos stelle and Efestia inscription. Best way is in using Greece alphabet as on Russian site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.156.18 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Vowels contradiction

As it stands the section 'Vowels' states that Lemnian had ' "u" ' (ie what I've put in single quotes) and that it lacks '/u/'. I know nothing about Lemnian (or Etruscan for that matter) so maybe this makes sense to a specialist in that particular field, but it seems contradictory to me. Dougg (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Unmotivated "However", or missing reference to abandoned hypothesis.

I have not followed the development of this article. However, now, the second sentence of the introduction states:

However, fragments of inscriptions on local pottery show that it was spoken there by a community.

I'm going to remove the "However", since there is nothing in the first sentence to which it contrasts.

I do have a guess, though. From what I've read "somewhere" (and no, I'm not able to recall where), the obvious similarity to Etruscean and the isolated find of just one inscription made someone (who, I don't remember) suggest that the text had been written by temporary Etruscian visitors, e. g., merchants. If my memory is correct, then the meaning of the "However" might have been to intoduce a refusal: Since later there were finds of other types, there must have been a community of lemnian-speakers living there, as opposite to only temporary visitors.

If this indeed was the idea of the "However", anyone with more knowledge (and their sources in better order:-) than I have would be welcome to write a section about the history of the finds and the development of the present hypotheses and understanding of the langue, from the very first find and hypothesis, and onwards. I do not think that there will be any need for mentioning such older hypotheses in the introduction, though. Best, JoergenB (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Its Slavic talk.

//http://www.martinus.sk/?uItem=28259.html //http://www.zvedavec.org/klasika/2009/01/2979-o-slovanech-uplne-jinak.html

ŽIjAŽiJÍ

MjÁ RAŽ:MAV-

UJÁC CHVĚJÍŽ: AVÍj: Z-

ĚVÍU HÓ: ZĚRO NA IH

ŽIVÁJI

„žijúci

mne rozmlúv-

ajúc chvejúc, abych z-

javil čo pozorujúc na nich

živých“

HÓCAJ Ě Z NÁŠČ-CH

ÁKJER-j TAVÁRŽIČ

VAMJÁCAUJAČ ZĚRO NÁJ MÓR ÍMAJÍC

„hoci je z našich

akrov (polí) tovariš

vynucovač, zíram naň, smrť majúc.“

HÓCAJ VŽJÍ POKJÁ SIJÁCĚ-j ZĚRO ZA IH ĚVIJU HO

TO VĚRÓ NA-

ŽÍVAJÍ AVÍJ-Ž SIJÁC CHVÍJ-Ž MARÁLM-j AVÍJ-Ž

Á O MAJ-

RÓM-j HARÁČIJÓ-j ČIVÁJ ĚCTĚ ŽIJÓ Á RÁJI TICH:POKĚ-j

„Hoci všetci, pokial sejú, pozerám za nich a zjavujem, čo

to vierou na-

zívajú? Aby sme sejúc chvejúc mreli. Aby sme

aj o mŕt-

vich bojovníkoch hlásali: dívaj, ešte žijú a v raji, tichý, pokojný.“

195.91.14.140 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Bynk