10-07-2024, 09:30 PM
[quote="Aga Tentakulus" pid='60471' dateline='1720631744']
[Distinguish between drawings, symbols and writing.
For example, wavy lines can mean water. Regardless of the form, it is not writing.
Only when different symbols follow one another in a row can we speak of writing, as it explains a certain intention.
This symbolic writing has developed in sedentary cultures. The best known are probably the Egyptian hieroglyphs. 3300 BC.
But the Mayan or Chinese hieroglyphs are also symbolic or pictorial scripts.
And the runes in Cyprus are Greek. They came with the Greeks from Anatolia.
So you have already told something that is not true.
The runes near Ankara are Celtic 4th century. In fact, there are also Turkmen runes. They are from the 9-10th century, but of Mongolian origin, and come from north of the Caspian Sea.
You bend everything to suit your needs. That is not science.
Get used to it, the Turkmen only arrived in the 11th century.]
Dear Tentakulus
Neither I nor other researchers who touch upon the same details reflect historical events in a distorted way. We are trying to put the inconsistent historical and linguistic explanations, which are far from reality and written with personal inferences and interpretations, into order as they should be.
In pre-writing periods (early periods when there was a need to describe topics or events with signs), established cultures on the way to the discovery of writing did not probably feel the need to contribute to this discovery, because it is unlikely that people living side by side felt the need to invent writing while they could communicate verbally. However small nomadic groups had to record information on land because they were always geographically distant from people who spoke their language. People in this situation needed to transfer/transmit information to a remote person. This is why nomads invented writing. In other words, the settled people did not need to invent writing because they could communicate verbally with those next to them, but since the nomads moved in families and small groups, the only way to convey information to their distant relatives was to produce signs with expressive value. If you have difficulty using your logic to perceive and understand this detail and cannot understand the difference, there is no need to tire yourself. In this case, it's okay if you continue to believe in the fairy tales you know, but unfortunately, the facts are not like the fairy tales you were told.
I don't expect you to understand these because you are not yet at the point of understanding even simple VM-specific proofs. To understand that a finding is truly evidence, it is necessary to first examine the data presented free of prejudgment.
Egyptian Civilization used Hieroglyphic writing. The Sumerian civilization, on the other hand, used a script called cuneiform that offered some first syllabic signs too, and the roots of this script were older than Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Sumerian script experienced its first phase when cuneiform symbols and shapes were printed on clay tablets as tokens representing certain items. Some scientists take the Sumerian script back to much older periods, and it is possible to say that these signs included an increasing number of syllabic sounds in the relatively more recent periods of this language.
So, Sumerian writings are generally considered older than Egyptian writings. The earliest examples of Sumerian cuneiform date back to around 3400 BCE, whereas Egyptian hieroglyphs appear around 3200 BCE.
{See; The earliest examples of Sumerian cuneiform date back to around 3400 BCE (Glassner, Jean-Jacques. "The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer." Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).}
What you are talking about as Celtic writing from the 4th century near Ankara is not Celtic writing anyway. To determine if such writing near the Ankara area is genuinely Celtic and what evidence supports this claim, you would need relevant linguistic & archaeological proofs which are not been invented yet.
Additionally, those who say that Turkish Rune signs are of Mongolian origin are also making things up. These are Turkish Runic writings, and Mongols and Turks are close people who are related to each other. Turkish and Mongolian articulated language roots are also the same.
The Cypriot Syllabary script is not Greek because it was not possible to read this script correctly in Greek. However, imaginary history has been written based on many fabrications.
Various ancient civilizations influenced Cyprus, leading to diverse languages and scripts. The Cypro-Syllabic Script, known as the Cyprus Syllabic Script, represents the Eteo-Cypriot language and was used between the 10th and 2nd centuries BC. Comparison is made between the Cypro-Syllabic Script and the Turkish Runic Script in terms of syllabic nature and writing direction. The study by M. Turgay Kürüm analyzes and reads inscriptions in Turkish through a comparative linguistic approach.
[Distinguish between drawings, symbols and writing.
For example, wavy lines can mean water. Regardless of the form, it is not writing.
Only when different symbols follow one another in a row can we speak of writing, as it explains a certain intention.
This symbolic writing has developed in sedentary cultures. The best known are probably the Egyptian hieroglyphs. 3300 BC.
But the Mayan or Chinese hieroglyphs are also symbolic or pictorial scripts.
And the runes in Cyprus are Greek. They came with the Greeks from Anatolia.
So you have already told something that is not true.
The runes near Ankara are Celtic 4th century. In fact, there are also Turkmen runes. They are from the 9-10th century, but of Mongolian origin, and come from north of the Caspian Sea.
You bend everything to suit your needs. That is not science.
Get used to it, the Turkmen only arrived in the 11th century.]
Dear Tentakulus
Neither I nor other researchers who touch upon the same details reflect historical events in a distorted way. We are trying to put the inconsistent historical and linguistic explanations, which are far from reality and written with personal inferences and interpretations, into order as they should be.
In pre-writing periods (early periods when there was a need to describe topics or events with signs), established cultures on the way to the discovery of writing did not probably feel the need to contribute to this discovery, because it is unlikely that people living side by side felt the need to invent writing while they could communicate verbally. However small nomadic groups had to record information on land because they were always geographically distant from people who spoke their language. People in this situation needed to transfer/transmit information to a remote person. This is why nomads invented writing. In other words, the settled people did not need to invent writing because they could communicate verbally with those next to them, but since the nomads moved in families and small groups, the only way to convey information to their distant relatives was to produce signs with expressive value. If you have difficulty using your logic to perceive and understand this detail and cannot understand the difference, there is no need to tire yourself. In this case, it's okay if you continue to believe in the fairy tales you know, but unfortunately, the facts are not like the fairy tales you were told.
I don't expect you to understand these because you are not yet at the point of understanding even simple VM-specific proofs. To understand that a finding is truly evidence, it is necessary to first examine the data presented free of prejudgment.
Egyptian Civilization used Hieroglyphic writing. The Sumerian civilization, on the other hand, used a script called cuneiform that offered some first syllabic signs too, and the roots of this script were older than Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Sumerian script experienced its first phase when cuneiform symbols and shapes were printed on clay tablets as tokens representing certain items. Some scientists take the Sumerian script back to much older periods, and it is possible to say that these signs included an increasing number of syllabic sounds in the relatively more recent periods of this language.
So, Sumerian writings are generally considered older than Egyptian writings. The earliest examples of Sumerian cuneiform date back to around 3400 BCE, whereas Egyptian hieroglyphs appear around 3200 BCE.
{See; The earliest examples of Sumerian cuneiform date back to around 3400 BCE (Glassner, Jean-Jacques. "The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer." Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).}
What you are talking about as Celtic writing from the 4th century near Ankara is not Celtic writing anyway. To determine if such writing near the Ankara area is genuinely Celtic and what evidence supports this claim, you would need relevant linguistic & archaeological proofs which are not been invented yet.
Additionally, those who say that Turkish Rune signs are of Mongolian origin are also making things up. These are Turkish Runic writings, and Mongols and Turks are close people who are related to each other. Turkish and Mongolian articulated language roots are also the same.
The Cypriot Syllabary script is not Greek because it was not possible to read this script correctly in Greek. However, imaginary history has been written based on many fabrications.
Various ancient civilizations influenced Cyprus, leading to diverse languages and scripts. The Cypro-Syllabic Script, known as the Cyprus Syllabic Script, represents the Eteo-Cypriot language and was used between the 10th and 2nd centuries BC. Comparison is made between the Cypro-Syllabic Script and the Turkish Runic Script in terms of syllabic nature and writing direction. The study by M. Turgay Kürüm analyzes and reads inscriptions in Turkish through a comparative linguistic approach.