Разговор:Македонско дешифрирање на средниот текст од Каменот од Розета: Разлика помеѓу преработките
Избришана содржина Додадена содржина
→Delete this article: аман бре луѓе |
→Delete this article: comments, suggestions |
||
Ред 46:
::I don't have time to argue with anyone, so I'm only going to say one thing about this (that means don't go to my talk page). Basically, everything that FP has said is correct. No, he's not pro-Greek, and he doesn't ''want'' mk-wiki to be shut down. He's just telling it like it is. Everything that Brainmachine has said is correct. To all the contributors, if you want mk-wiki to keep running, then maybe you should adhere to NPOV, and even more importantly, copyright. If mk-wiki were to be shut down because of the inability to handle an issue like this (it won't, because you are all able to cooperate), there will be a list of people personally responsible. Neither Brainmachine nor FP would be on that list. So sort this out. '''[[Корисник:Balkanec|<font color="navy">Балканец</font>]]'''<sup>[[Разговор со корисник:Balkanec|<font color="darkred"> What man, what?</font>]]</sup> 02:31, 1 ноември 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Not much to add to what Brainmachine and Balkanec said. My own proposal, ''if'' you want to keep an article on this topic:
* Rename it to a title that doesn't already presuppose the validity of the contentious hypothesis. So: not '''''Ancient Macedonian alphabet''''', but perhaps '''''Macedonian decipherment hypothesis of the Rosetta Stone''''' or something like that.
* Start the article with something like:
*:''The '''Macedonian decipherment of the Rosetta Stone''' is a hypothesis proposed in 2006 by authors X and Y. They believe that the middle text of the Rosetta Stone, an ancient Egyptian artifact, is written in a language they identify as "Ancient Macedonian", and which they reconstruct as being very similar to modern Macedonian and other Slavic languages. This hypothesis contradicts the established views in scholarship that the text of the Rosetta Stone is written in Demotic Egyptian, that Ancient Macedonian was never a written language, and that Ancient Macedonian had no relation to Slavic but was closely related to Greek.''
*Shorten and restructure the presentation so as to make it clear it's presenting a hypothesis. Something like:
*:''The authors hypothesise that the script, while identifiably identical with the Demotic Egyptian script, was used with entirely different sound-symbol relationships in writing other languages such as Macedonian. They identify a repertoire of X basic symbol shapes, each of which can occur in 4 or 8 orientations in space. According to their interpretation, the symbol shapes each have a constant meaning, denoting intial consonants of a syllable, while the orientations in space systematically denote an accompanying vowel. Thus they arrive at a repertory of Y distinct syllable signs. To these syllables, they arbitrarily assign sound values, guided by the preconceived hypothesis that the text is Macedonian and that Ancient Macedonian was similar to Slavic, and in particular to Modern Macedonian. In this way they reconstruct a number of words, among them words that they claim stand for ''gospodar'' ('master'), ''bozhe'' ('god'), [...]''
It's going to be difficult to provide a fair assesssment of how "mainstream" or "fringe" this hypothesis is. The problem as I see it is, it's so obviously fringe that mainstream scholarship won't even bother to refute it. If you search for the names of the authors on Google Scholar or Google Books, you'll find not a single hit. They are roundly ignored. You won't even find a scholar who bothers to say it's crap. With a slighly more serious marginal minority view, you'd at least find scholars quoting them. So, what do we say? ''"The hypothesis has found no echo in mainstream scholarship"''. But how do you provide references for the non-existence of references?
[[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Future Perfect at Sunrise]] <small>([[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|разговор]])</small> 09:01, 1 ноември 2008 (UTC)
| |||