tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4767357888024925874.post3088747717401190851..comments2023-07-18T14:32:43.701+02:00Comments on Agyagtábla, papirusz: Beszámoló az 56. RAI-ról 2. (A plenáris és hettitológiai előadások)Agyagtábla, Papiruszhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15738504655961960836noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4767357888024925874.post-90515928762431968172011-12-11T13:41:51.456+01:002011-12-11T13:41:51.456+01:00kösz a választ :-) I wish I had more time to reall...kösz a választ :-) I wish I had more time to really learn Hungarian...FGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08800445924835858492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4767357888024925874.post-34214760230435661252011-12-10T07:49:24.698+01:002011-12-10T07:49:24.698+01:00Hi Federico,
I'm happy that you started to re...Hi Federico,<br /><br />I'm happy that you started to read Hungarian, this makes my life much easier :-) I hope other colleagues will also follow you and we can introduce Hungarian as a new official language in Hittitology :D<br /><br />Put aside joke, if you check the date of the post, you can see that it was written after the conference, six months before I read your preliminary draft where you managed to convince me in some points.<br /><br />As for your remarks here:<br /><br />1) I did not say here that the reading DOMINUS is "impossible" (don't rely upon translator programs in case of Hungarian), I simply maintained here that it is a HATTI sign - and in my view this is still open to discussion, and its reading depends on that of the entire context.<br /><br />2) In our discussion I admitted that reading that sign as LABARNA is in theory indeed possible.<br /><br />3)As for the word-divider idea, autopsy was referring to the HATTI/DOMINUS question. I said here that there is no parallel for this type of word-divider (don't trust translator programs) - since its first part is missing. You can, of course , assume a scribal mistake, just you know... And if it is VIR2, it does not change the reconstruction but leads to a rare and problematic construction (R.D. VIR2)<br /><br />By the way, the new chronology of this sign established by Hawkins (if you accept it) also seems to argue for a reading as VIR2.<br /><br />Finally, I think you politely overestimated the number of scholars who accept my theory, because I know only one :D However, it's true, the majority still prefers the very problematic suggestion of Hawkins.Simon Zsolthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10051386983578802090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4767357888024925874.post-82969173818066954562011-12-10T00:33:33.324+01:002011-12-10T00:33:33.324+01:00As this is a publc post I was unaware of, I'd ...As this is a publc post I was unaware of, I'd like to make a quick and friendly reply (which is not meant to start a quarrel :-D), pointing out that: (1) the statement that the reading DOMINUS is *impossible* requires neglecting several occurrences of the sign without horizontal bottom line and relying entirely on the normalised shape of the signs in the signlists; (2) the statement that reading the sign in A/B as LABARNA is *impossible* is a generalisation and requires neglecting a couple of geographically relevant occurrences that do not contain the two small central signs; (3) the objection to the word-divider-idea is obscure: how would an autopsy (which I also performed, by the way) reveal an omission? Or is my skill at translating Hungarian too poor for me to understand? However, even if the title were to be read VIR2, this would not change the rest of the reconstruction.<br /><br />All in all, there will be further discussion on this subject; some scholars have accepted Simon's theory, some appear to be accepting mine, the majority still seems to follow Hawkins: a date and an interpretation that I consider to be highly unlikely.FGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08800445924835858492noreply@blogger.com