19-10-2020, 06:00 PM
For now I would just like to make a few preliminary comments in light of the Polish historian's comments on my interpretation of the passage.
First of all, I appreciate the fact that Rene sought out this feedback from a Polish scholar.
Second, insofar as the discussion is at the level of my opinion vs. that of a Polish historian, obviously I cannot expect anyone to believe me against the Polish scholar. Of course that much is quite clear to me.
Nevertheless, I believe it remains possible that my interpretation may still reflect the presence of some actual West Slavic language or dialect in the text, whether it be Polish or Silesian or something even more obscure (or perhaps unknown). A combination of the obscurity of the language, the difficulty and archaic nature of the text, and my own mistakes in some details of the interpretation could very well make it seem unrecognizable or nonsensical to a Polish scholar. When Ventris first claimed to have deciphered Linear B as Mycenaean Greek, even many Greek scholars did not believe him and claimed that his deciphering did not look like Greek. Please note: I am not trying to compare myself to Ventris! I am just making an observation about the initial stages of scholarly reaction to his claims.
Of course it is obvious that I will have to find Polish or West Slavic scholars who agree with me, in order to expect anyone to take my theory seriously. That necessity is and always has been completely clear to me.
It is understandable that the "transcribed" text does not look much like Polish. Likewise, the literal transcription of Linear B does not look much like Greek either: For example, the Greek word "skhoinos" appears literally as "ko-no" in Linear B! The Greek word "basileus" appears literally as "qa-si-re-u" in Linear B; the Greek word "grawes" appears as "ka-ra-we".
Whether the "transformed" version makes sense or not is the much more serious issue. Again, it is my responsibility to convince a Polish or West Slavic scholar that it can make sense, in order for the theory to receive more serious consideration.
It is possible that my interpretations of the words "laluś" and "biedactwo" are mistaken. In the case of "biedactwo" it was perhaps already rather a stretch to derive this meaning from the literal text of "bec~wo" or "bec~ w o". It is possible that the text reflects some older word with a similar root and meaning, without the same middle syllable as the more modern word. And perhaps "laló" may reflect a different word, perhaps a proper name or simply an archaic word or term that is unknown now.
Again I wish to thank Rene and the Polish historian for providing this critical feedback on my interpretation of the passage.
Geoffrey
First of all, I appreciate the fact that Rene sought out this feedback from a Polish scholar.
Second, insofar as the discussion is at the level of my opinion vs. that of a Polish historian, obviously I cannot expect anyone to believe me against the Polish scholar. Of course that much is quite clear to me.
Nevertheless, I believe it remains possible that my interpretation may still reflect the presence of some actual West Slavic language or dialect in the text, whether it be Polish or Silesian or something even more obscure (or perhaps unknown). A combination of the obscurity of the language, the difficulty and archaic nature of the text, and my own mistakes in some details of the interpretation could very well make it seem unrecognizable or nonsensical to a Polish scholar. When Ventris first claimed to have deciphered Linear B as Mycenaean Greek, even many Greek scholars did not believe him and claimed that his deciphering did not look like Greek. Please note: I am not trying to compare myself to Ventris! I am just making an observation about the initial stages of scholarly reaction to his claims.
Of course it is obvious that I will have to find Polish or West Slavic scholars who agree with me, in order to expect anyone to take my theory seriously. That necessity is and always has been completely clear to me.
It is understandable that the "transcribed" text does not look much like Polish. Likewise, the literal transcription of Linear B does not look much like Greek either: For example, the Greek word "skhoinos" appears literally as "ko-no" in Linear B! The Greek word "basileus" appears literally as "qa-si-re-u" in Linear B; the Greek word "grawes" appears as "ka-ra-we".
Whether the "transformed" version makes sense or not is the much more serious issue. Again, it is my responsibility to convince a Polish or West Slavic scholar that it can make sense, in order for the theory to receive more serious consideration.
It is possible that my interpretations of the words "laluś" and "biedactwo" are mistaken. In the case of "biedactwo" it was perhaps already rather a stretch to derive this meaning from the literal text of "bec~wo" or "bec~ w o". It is possible that the text reflects some older word with a similar root and meaning, without the same middle syllable as the more modern word. And perhaps "laló" may reflect a different word, perhaps a proper name or simply an archaic word or term that is unknown now.
Again I wish to thank Rene and the Polish historian for providing this critical feedback on my interpretation of the passage.
Geoffrey