Talk:Linear B

i want to add a important link, but

i had tried to add a new link, that is considerable important for this article and the Mycanaean greek article, but, a stupid bot, deleted it several times. i give you the link for your consideration, that i think, and many of us i suppost, is extremely relevant:

Glossary of Linear B —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans soplopuco (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Hans, you present us with a problem worse than the Palmer-Boardman dispute. If this pdf were accessed from an allowed source, then I for one think it should be in there, as it seems to be scholarly, taking material from scholarly sources. But you aren't telling us everything. This file is being published from a commercial site selling tourism services. It lists a number of interesting articles but they are not distinguished from the tour guide business. Everywhere you look it is buy this, buy that. I have allowed (every editor has the power to delete except for entire articles) linked articles to stand when published by a business provided you can get to it without going through their website and it does not talk about the business. Not so in this case. Who shall we say published it? Now, if you look at the pdf, there are only a few pages of vocabulary items. The whole dictionary is many pages. So, what the author is doing is offering us a small taste in order to get us interested in his business (or his employer's business). There is no evidence that he is a scholar in the field. I do not know why the man behind the bot (there is one you know) targeted this link but right now I would have to agree with his decision on the ground that it is inextricable from the commercial site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of commercials no matter how appealing to the intellect. That is about the best I can say buddy. If you want to make an issue just keep putting it back on the grounds that you were not given any reasons. Make sure you keep us posted in the discussion here. You need to use the cite web template, which unfortunately will expose the publisher. There is an appeal process but my guess is after a few times back an administrator will take a hand. What does everyone else think? What is the judgement of public opinion such as it is found here? Feel free to chip in, people. Keep the link or no and why?Dave (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. The original link was to a tour guide business. This link is to a personal site, which is just as bad. That means it is not an encyclopedic source. Blogs, personal sites, things of that nature, aren't allowed. Who is that author and what is his claim to authority on Wikipedia?Dave (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Linear B like Chinese or Japanese?

I would admit that I don't know Linear B. But if it is as described as "poor compliance with the phonemic principle" and is partly syllabic, with additional logographic signs that are "determinative", or "designational" (yielding "classes", and "types"), it is more like Chinese than Japanese.

The Japanese kana is pure syllabic and forms complete words while kanji (literally, Chinese word) is imported complete word. The interleaving of kana and kanji serves as word delimiter since Japanese does not have "space" as modern European languages.

A significant numbers of Chinese words are phonemic with determinative, though most of them are poorly compliant with phonemic principle.

To claim that Linear B is like Japanese is to say that Linear B consists of phonemic symbols interleaving with foreign words such as Egyptian hieroglyphs.

---

I can't read any of the signs on this page. I think we'd need images for all the signs, since most people viewing this page will not have the appropriate fonts installed. Pfalstad 05:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know. Unicode Linear B is hardly supported by any system. If you can find a copyright-free image, or create one yourself, it would be most welcome dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The conclusion drawn by User:Spryom, "that all early civilizations in the eastern mediterannean areas (mainland Greece, Aegean, Cyprus, Crete and Ionian coast) were actually Greek.", is unwarranted. I adjusted accordingly. Mycenaean-age settlements that show material culture of Mycenaeans suggest Greek-speaking cultures in specific Aegean sites, but I thought that was getting offtopic. --Wetman 16:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that my phrase was quite bad and I certainly won't insist on it, but your wording greatly weakens the archaeological significance of the deciphering and doesn't show a united Greek world of the Mycenean times. My view is that more than "that a Greek-speaking Minoan-Mycenaean culture existed on Crete", the deciphering of Linear B showed a united (at least culturally) Greek world in the area. Evans thought that the Cretans and Myceneans were enemies of different cultures. Linear B showed that they were the same tribe. This also unites them under a common civilization, with the Cypriots and the Ionian coast, where we also know that Linear B and A was used. It appears you're a native english speaker, would you consider another go? --Spryom 09:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

---

This article needs a lot of work - it should address both issues just raised - and include the link above.

And foremost, it should give dates for Linear B - not just "Late Bronze age" in the date space in the right column. I know I've seen citations several times regarding these dates.

I personally think Linear B conforms to the statistical requirements of a phonetic alphabet, and I'm certainly not alone in that idea. LK (UTC)

Cypriot Syllabary

The important role of the Cypriot syllabary in the decoding should be described. (See Chadwick, John (1958). The Decipherment of Linear B).

see Template:sofixit :o) dab (ᛏ) 13:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Archeology, Crete, Linear B

I started to try to clean up this section, but then I wondered if it should be included at all, as it appears there may be some original research here with verifiability problems:

The major cities, and "palaces" of Crete, kept annual, yearly, or other{ ? ) records, for disbursements of goods. Wool, sheep, and grain were some common items, often given to groups of religious people, and also groups of "men watching the coastline". It is known that the tablets were kept in groups, and in baskets on shelves, because some of the palaces burned, see Knossos, and/or earthquake and volcanic events, also precipitated largescale fires. The fires, from catastrophes, made "fired-clay tablets", of a percentage of the tablets found. Impressions of the basket weaving, have been left in the clay.

One of the interesting categories of tablets, or records(the Logogram for "Chariot Wheel"), concerns wheels for chariots. I am pretty sure that the chariot was like a "backpack". The wheels were recorded as "pairs", and their quality recorded, as their usage caused lifetime wear. I presume that administratively,..a trip out to outlying areas used up supplies on the outward trip, and returned with other supplies, on the return trip. In other words, the unfortified palaces of Crete had this administrative system, that lasted for many generations, on an island that was nearing the end of the Minoan period. (Possibly the volcanic eruption of island Santorini, just centrally north of Crete, (and subsequent multi-year earthquake events?) brought the end to this era.)

First of all, the syntax needs to be cleaned up, as I can't possibly believe that all of those commas are grammatically correct. Secondly, the second paragraph uses the word "I", which both violates our encyclopedic style and makes me wonder if someone has added their own personal theories here. Any thoughts, because this isn't anywhere near my area of expertise. Func( t, c, @, ) 00:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is User:Mmcannis's reading of material in the Chadwick title that he added to the References, is it not? Re-editing might be done with an eye to the source (Chadwick) that is being reported in this text. --Wetman 02:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I totally agrre that this is probably irrelevant material and non-encyclopedical - at least to the eye of the reader. I think it should be left out completely too. A simple link to Minoan culture would be fine by it's self.

---

Regarding the opening, which states that Linear B was derived from Linear A, this is not the consensus currently, rather that they developed simultaneously or at least on similar time scales. For example, some of the signs in Linear B are more primative than their counterparts in linear A. (unsigned comment by User:Dr_Eng1ish 2006-02-19 20:25:22)

Bennett left out

Emmett L. Bennett, Jr., had a lot to do with the grid which led to Ventris's solutions. In the books about the decipherment, in the index Bennett is mentioned more times than Kober. I'm not a scholar, so cannot provide an article. I do have a personal bias here, as Emmett is my oldest brother. But I think the bias is worth paying attention to.

Myron Bennett--72.49.92.221 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Chadwick The Decipherment of Linear B (CUP), in which Bennett is mentioned 12 times, Kober 7. I'll look into it, as I have a copy to hand - and thanks for mentioning your personal bias.--Nema Fakei 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, he's in for the beginning. I think Blegen deserves a mention too, and I'll look at both their subsequent contributions during the decipherment process. Thanks for pointing this out!--Nema Fakei 21:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Myron. I learned recently that Bennett was still alive and I was totally astounded, as he knew everyone worth knowing who is deceased now. Bennett was a leading figure when I was just learning some Greek. If this were Japan he would be declared a national asset. These Wikipedia articles grow by successive revision. I have seen articles so stupid I just threw up my hands in despair but sooner or later something appeared there that could be worked with. Vandalism was a terrible problem for a long time but they seem to have it more under control now. What I am saying is, eventually Bennett should show in just about every Linear B article.Dave (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the Q stand for

and the "q" series is used for indo-eurpoean /kʷ/, /gʷ/, /kʷʰ/ and /gʷʰ/: Isn't the above sentence inaccurate? Also is /Tegway/ correct? Should it be Tēg^wai?

I don't see what's inaccurate about the first statement, apart from a small typo. I'm not sure in what tablets Thebes is actually mentioned, but if it is, it should either be recorded as te-qa-a (-ai can never be directly attested: a2 is only found word-initially), or a proper phonological reconstruction /tʰēgʷai/ --Nema Fakei 10:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Thanks, I just didn't like the "y" at the end and also the missing superscripts. Also is the final "iota" for the dual or for the plural? Can you please put back the corrected version or should I do it?
2. What is the reasonging for including Thebes pronounciation in that section? Why not all the cities?
3. Also in the sentence about labio-velar Indo-European consonants /kʷʰ/ should not be included or ot should be something like "/kʷ/, /gʷ/ and /gʷʰ/, the last one being devoiced in Greek to /kʷʰ/". Unfortunately in Greek alphabet we only have qoppa to represent all of them. There should be a goppa and a qhoppa :) --Kupirijo 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(1&2) I don't know why someone's addes Thebes in and none of the others. I would therefore say it would be better to leave the Myc version out of it entirely. The final 'i' is for the plural - the dual would be /-ā/.

(3) Ah, I'm being a dunce. We can't reconstruct voiceless aspirates for IE, so it's just /kʷ/, /gʷ/ and /gʷʰ/. Thanks. --Nema Fakei 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you corrected it the other way out. I am going to correct it OK? --Kupirijo 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignore some of my previous comments about place names. --Nema Fakei 13:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy ignored?

The article fails to reflect that Ventris's alleged decipherment was controversial and is considered by some experts to be incomplete. --Nate Levin

Saying it here does not make it so. We can read Linear B. Ventris deciphered it. It is no longer controversial. There are some characters we don't yet know. -- Evertype·✆ 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"The use of the word tends itself to create controversy where none may have authentically existed, acting as a self-fulfilling prophecy.'- Wikipedia, "Controversy". --Wetman 01:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Technical assistance? [glyph problems]

This isn't really about the article as such--it's about how to read the article. I can't see the Linear B glyphs, possibly because I don't have the right font. I get a weird symbol, the same one for all the glyphs. So I'm curious which font I should obtain. I also notice that the glyphs aren't templated, and it seems like there ought to be a template similar to {{polytonic}} or {{Script/Cuneiform}} for Linear B script. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Hm, I'm actually seeing two glyphs--one which looks like an ax, and another one that looks like a tripod. All the syllabic signs look like an ax, and the ideograms alternate between tripods and axes. Weird. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer my own question, the font Code2001 ([1]) has Linear B characters, and works on Windows and OS X. Additional fonts can be found here. That page is specific to Windows, but the same site has pages on fonts for OS X and Linux/Unix. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I get the usual beautiful array of square boxes. Can somebody upload some images, please? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried installing the necessary font files, but in IE it still shows up as square boxes. In Firefox, however, I see all the cool symbols. I have IE set to Unicode encoding but still no go. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-22 12:44Z

Same problem here, I have downloaded and installed these fonts, but still what I see is just boxes... Kapnisma ? 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

O damn, I use Firefox and after installing the font I don't see the usual question marks (the Firefox equivalent for square boxes) but instead I get a lot of identical sort-of-hooks. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see exactly the same problem: on Safari 2.0.4 (pretty current) none of the glyphs render. Somebody's going to have to redo the tables as images, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.233.233 (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and Safari 3.0.2, and I see the proper glyphs on both. (This is on OS X 10.4.10.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

For me, the glyphs are displaying all as the same character -- Unicode 10000 -- in the first two tables, and as a different one -- probably Unicode 10080 -- in the third one. (FF 2.0.0.15, OSX 10.5.3) I did a little research, and found another page with the exact same problem. What happens in both places is, the browser sees the first Unicode character, renders it properly, and then renders all succeeding Unicode characters on the page (or table) using the exact same one. If you view other pages on that site, you'll see the same thing happening. So, my guess is that Firefox has a bug. (I tried Safari. It doesn't even get as far as that. It just displays empty boxes for the Unicode.) So my conclusion right now is that Wikipedia is not at fault. It's a browser problem. (That also means: installing more fonts will probably not help.) OTOH there's Akhilleus's statement just above that says he was able to get it to work. More experimentation is in order :-) thundt (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

yo listen up, this may work for you, i had the same problem viewing Linear B here. In fact, μουπρηξετ@@μεχρινατοβρω, it took me 5 long minutes which is far more than my attention span. so.
1. you go there [2] and download the Aegean .otf file. it's called Aegean font and it's the Linear B syllabary font [3]
2. you Go to Start > Control Panel » Fonts and install the font by moving/copy-pasting the Aegean .otf file you downloaded in the window "Fonts" that you'll see already has many .otf files.
i don't know about internet explorer problems, i use firefx3, IE and google chrome and this worked in them all, for me..i used to see boxes with 4 tiny numbers inside
i also propose a link to these sites>[[4]]& [[5]]
to be put in the article -somehow-, as a solution to viewing problems, as wikipedia does to other possible media problems in articles ..CuteHappyBrute (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

missing

where is a reference to Cyrus Gordon's work showing that Linear B is Semitic? - 4.249.198.63

There isn't one, presumably because Ventris' decipherment has rendered it obsolete. You're welcome to include the book's details in the bibliography, and include a note in the appropriate section that Gordon tried to prove it was Semitic. Are you sure it was Linear B he claimed was semitic, not Linear A? --Nema Fakei 09:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact Linear A, as I happen to have his main books on the subject. His approach is totally etymological; he picks out a small repertory of place names he believes were linked to Semitic equivalents. The possibility is not dead yet. In any case, not relevant here.Dave (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Todo

• Finish updating the logograms/ideograms to include the 3/4 letter transcription approved by CIPEM.
• Do the weights and measures
• Either complete the logograms/ideograms or note that it is not complete
• Sort out the reference to AGS

i.e. Aravantinos, V. L., 2001, Godart, L., Sacconi, A., Thèbes, Fouilles de la Cadmée I. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Edition et Commentaire, I, Pisa & Rome

• Add to transcribed additional syllabic signs their LB graphemes

Updated: Nema Fakei (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Logograms

Ah, forgot about JAC and HAS being two different things. The latter is Unicode D8, 𐃘. Thanks for picking that up. On *233=PUG, the minutes and resolutions of CIPEM in (I think) 1972, which I was working from, it being the last full signary published, has *233=PUG, 234 (the single bladed version) unnamed - do you know when it was changed?

As to the ideogram going at the end of the line, I am afraid I can't think of a single example off the top of my head of an ideogram that does not precede a numeral, with the exception of tablet breaks, so I don't follow your edit to that sentence at all. --Nema Fakei (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I changed it. If you can think of a better way just change it. I know a British pound sign follows and the dollar sign precedes so I thought that part was unclear. The intro is pretty well written; in fact, the whole thing isn't bad at all. I'm just giving an edit therefore, except for the expansion. The reader ought to know what, when, where and why. I jump around a lot so I won't be here too much longer, maybe too long already. I won't get all the work done. By the way I'm not getting any symbols on my reader, just little lines and boxes. Is that just me? The Deutsch Wikipedia has a template, LinearB, for putting in symbols and it seems to work. I won't be doing that this session.Dave (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

PS No, I don't know the answer to your question. I must say also I am not working from the latest; all I have are Ventris and Chadwick, Bennett about the time of Wingspread, Ruijgh, decipherment and a few other things on the Knossos tablets. So, I lack a lot of the 3-4 letter abbreviations even though in most cases I can get the Latin name from Ruijgh. Ventris does not like Latin names and Ruijgh does not like abbreviations. If you know what they are, put them in there will, you? But don't guess, of course. ThanksDave (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS Well I've been probing around and the first thing I notice is the CIPEM site, which I had hoped would lead into some modern charts of what CIPEM has been doing. Well I don't know very much more than when I started except possibly Palaima is interested in Dylan and Willie Nelson; in fact, for a moment there I thought I was on a folk-music site, although what relevance Bob and Willie now have to anything whatsoever much less Linear B I do not see at all. Moreover Palaima seems to be using the site to sell his anti-war ideas. It seems as though something is still wrong in Texas. If you follow down the CIPEM links they are almost all dead and the rest of them lead nowhere. Just what the h. is Palaima doing over there and why is HE in charge of the site? Then I read that Cynthia wants to know where we go from here. Where does she want to go from here? I'm sure there are lots of places to go if anyone might be interested in going there. I always knew classics could be dull. For myself I would like to see Linear A finished up but apparently we can't do that without a new set of fundamental assumptions as the old ones are pretty old now and have had no result. The CIPEM site leads ultimately to a great bibiography but it has one drawback. None of it is accessible and none of it is for free. Apparently CIPEM never heard of Google Books and reviewability. Someone wants to make sure only the rich or a hereditary caste of classicists can read their stuff. The social net designed to keep the wrong persons out wraps around them like a fishnet and keeps them all in or wrapped up or whatever. That being so I am afraid I cannot check us against the very latest. Somewhere in the stuff I have read Ventris complains that the sword is more of a dagger. That is as far as I can go. Nothing that might enlighten me can be reviewed on Google or costs less than $250. Why, when the Decipherment came out, it was a paperback I think you could get for a quarter! There are a couple of libraries I can visit if I can find a place to park but that will have to wait. So, it is up to you! I can only help out with some of the work but you will have to edit at least for now. What I would like to see is a chart that tells you everything you would otherwise have to take a $3000 classics course to learn or buy a few thousand worth of books to find out. So, for now I am going as far as my notes carry me and then you or the next person will have to take up the story while toasting marshmellows by the fire.Dave (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A very minor point

The last sentence in the paragraph headed "Decipherment" doesn't quite make sense:-

"...and presented Greek in writing some 600 years earlier than what was thought at the time."

I don't really know what the writer means, or I would amend the ending myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.66.122 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

it means the Linear B script which was proved to be Greek language showed that the Greek language was written in the 15 century BC, as opposed to the earlier evidence of the time before Linear B tablets were found, that it was firstly recorded in the 9th century with the Greek alphabet.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Obection

The tablets are not enciphered. Translating them should be called translation, not decipherment.A.times.B,equals (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In real life, the word decipherment has the meaning, among others, "2. To find out, so as to be able to make known the meaning of; to make out or read, as words badly written or partly obliterated; to detect; to reveal; to unfold." [1913 Webster] Whatever it should mean, it is being used with a standard English meaning when we speak of deciphering the tablets, and Google Books has many examples of it being used in exactly this context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but Chadwick's own book is called "The Decipherment of Linear B". – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

- When oh when will wikipedia editors learn that simply finding a word in a certain usage via a google search does not mean that it is the correct usage - many words are more commonly used incorrectly than correctly (thus, the "ask google tactic" is futile). This is one of wikipedia's greatest failings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.35.114 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello buddy. Ventris was a code-breaker during the war and one of things they used to do is "decipher" ancient scripts (or try to) for fun and practice. I dare say they ought to have practiced more often. So that is how Ventris got to use the term. As far as the general meaning is concerned, sorry, but the language has got past you and is now zooming away into the future with you still looking backward. Well Mr. Bellamy, any rendition of thought into language is now encoding and any comprehension of it is decoding. You can probably thank AT&T for that (and MIT). Any rendition of communicative signs into or out of a standard is encoding or decoding and encipherment or decipherment (which started with numbers or ciphers) is only a form of coding. The signs sure do code the language and reading the language sure is a decoding although you are right in one sense, that decipherment originally meant the first readings. But the convention is well-established so quit looking backward and let us hear no more about it. You can't rewrite English on you own (unless you are one of a handful of men).12.4.26.248 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Denial

Grumach and Beattie denied that Ventris's work was correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.146.16 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Give us break, hey? Why don't you go to the next convention in Paris and explain all that? Until then, be the strong, silent type.12.4.26.248 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unicode section

I seem to be back cleaning this up. The unicode section is totally unnecessary. How many times shall we repeat those signs? The lead-in box links to pdf's stating the codes and the unicode section has the same links. Now, it seems, we are to repeat them in the article? This is a waste of time and space. If no one objects I am going to take out that section as redundant. The signs once in the article is enough and if they want the unicode equivalences they can click on the pdf links in the box.Dave (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I object in a big way to a lot of what you are doing. You removed a link about "commercial fonts" which was not a link selling fonts and some of those were free. You've taken the Unicode characters OUT of the table and replaced them by svg images only. At a minimum I want BOTH the actual character and the svg image. -- Evertype·✆ 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello buddy, this needs to be resolved because if you do it one way you cannot do it another. I will check the site for the free fonts - but commercialism is not allowed - for the other part, most of us cannnot get the characters you term as "actual" - they appear as two parallel lines - the discussion is full of complaints about it. Second, those are not the "actual" characters and the svg are not the "non-actual". If you check the ref I gave you in Ventris and Chadwick you will see that for each of the Bennett numbers are a number of scribal variants. The unicode is only a standardization, not the "actual." I suppose you might mean the "actual" unicode. But, those unicode characters are linked in pdf files in plain sight in the box. Why do they have to be repeated in the text? So, I object in a big way to your objecting in a big way and if we cannot work it out I am going to start throwing tags on here. There are two points - first, I am trying to make this like Ventris and Chadwick. You are trying to make this like the unicode table. The two are not compatible - if you want we can put the unicode section back in - I presume you know how to find it. Adding the unicode to the last table will work all right, but what about the first table? You can't have it both ways. Just what in the dickins is the point of repeating the sign twice? Second, the last two tables I did not complete - it was basically splitting the wide table into the two tables recommended by Ventris and Chadwick. Those need to be finished. Third, you or someone give instructions how to install fonts on my machine - or anyone's machine - that will allow reading unicode characters. If I find one has to purchase those fonts we are not going to agree here at all and someone will have to settle it. Meanwhile, you want the unicode and I want the svg. I can compromise on both - but! how to work this out? The main problem appears to be the grid - have you got a solution? My time on this is limited but I would like to see what you got - want to just put the unicode back in? First I need to check to see that you are not requiring us to buy fonts or use the fonts of some company you favor. If you are I am just going to put the commercialism tag on here and bring it to the attention of the administration. But, one thing at a time. You will not hear from me until I check out the fonts. Meanwhile, let's see what you want to do. Later.Dave (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I really wouldn't worry about "commercialism" when it comes to Linear B fonts. By "actual" I mean the real encoded character alongside the svg glyph. Only the real encoded character is "text". (An image of the Latin letter A is not "text" but the encoded characters we type are.) The value of having it there is for instance that people can copy and paste it if they want. If you see "parallel lines" it means that you don't have a Linear B font installed. (It makes sense to have BOTH the character and an SVG glyph available.) Many of the Writing Systems articles on the Wikipedia do this, so it is not all that unusual. You can see at Linear_B#Special_and_unknown_signs what I mean. For some of those you have SVG images (one of which I cannot identify). I am not sure which of your many edits deleted the Unicode section. Just because there is a link to the Unicode site PDFs does not mean that the Unicode characters should be excised from this article. Most of our writing systems articles have this material. Compare Phaistos Disc. -- Evertype·✆ 11:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't adequately respond without spending some time on it. I can put the section back if you wish - you look down in the history section, not very many entries ago- copy the section from the version as it was then and repaste it. I'll do it if you like - but I need to go to work now. If we do that, we don't need to repeat them in the other tables. It seems as though we would need a note stating what these representations are and how they relate to Bennett. I don't know if you have Ventris and Chadwick - it is a sort sine qua non in the field. I have it so I can fill in if you don't have it. I think the ideogram section is going to need it more as unicode does not cover them all. I think your "actual" argument is sort of contorted - but you don't need to go to that extreme. If you want them in so they can be copied that's fine. We do need that note tipping the reader off that this is not the "actual linear B", only a standardized representation. My main concern right now is that those two last tables are messed up as I did not finish splitting and correcting the wide table according to Ventris and Chadwick. I got to go now - so the way it stands, we are putting back unicode, taking it out of the other tables, and I am trying to get the fonts on my machine according to the discussion without having to purchase them. I do have Linear B fonts but they do not seem to work in Wikipedia. I think maybe two standard representations might not be so bad as there is considerable scribal variation and we don't talk about it yet but there are combinatorial ideograms as well. The reason why the ideogram list is not complete is that it is fairly long. There aren't unicodes to cover them all. So keep discussing so everyone can have the opportunity to be in on the forum and the decisions and we can avoid head-butting.Dave (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC) PS - if one has to purchase the fonts I think we can handle it by noting that "for those who already have the unicode fonts installed" or some such thing. What we can't do is tell them where to purchase the fonts - sorry, against Wikipedia policy.Dave (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the actual characters back to the code chart. Please understand the character glyph model. The Unicode characters are the real Linear B characters. Their exact shape is a matter for the glyph, but the code positions uniquely identify the characters, not the glyphs. What displays to the user will depend on what font he has installed. It's just like Latin letters or Cyrillic or whatever. Which "Ventris and Chadwick" publication do you mean? Combined ideograms are meant to be handled by ligatures. As far as "missing" ideographs... well, if there are, perhaps this will assist in getting them encoded. -- Evertype·✆ 12:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that font link, most are free, one is shareware, have a heart. -- Evertype·✆ 12:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. evertype. This is Dave typing unlogged in on a different system. Wikipedia is all about having a heart. When I as an ordinary man open up an article on Linear B and hope to find out something about it I am sadly disappointed to find out I have to be an IT professional to install the fonts on my system and then when I find out I have to BUY those fonts, I say to you, have a heart! Now, for the site, if they offer free Linear B fonts, they stay, if not, they GO! Sorry. This is not a font clearing house. Now, for the issue of the tables, well, what I care about right now is being able to see the gosh darn signs. I don't know what you are talking about, the "real Linear B characters." NO, they are not that. The real Linear B characters are scratches in hardened clay, wouldn't you agree? Everything else is a representation. I understand, the ancients had no printing press and what the fonts offer is a kind of printing press- a standardization of the characters. That does not qualify them as "real." Their supposed "reality" gives them no more authority than any other representation. The validity of ancient representations is a matter of scholarly debate, so how can it be any different now? Anyway you can see the situation is going to change with the removal of the ideograms. I got no doubt they will be removed; there is no other way to handle it. Wikipedia does not like scroll lists and it is too long for the article. I was going to restore the Unicode section but you have decided you would rather see them in the tables. The Ventris and Chadwick I am talking about is the one everyone who knows anything at all about it uses, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (1973). So, I want the tables and I want them in the form Ventris and Chadwick have them on the cited pages. I guess I do not care if the unicode characters are there as long as I the ordinary reader can see the characters, which we have not been able to do. Someone generously contributed svg files and I would expect them to stay. All this is subject to my not finding out you can only buy those fonts and buy them from one company. Frankly from your aggression and strange arguments about "the real LInear B" and the fact that you don't seem to know some basics I am beginning to suspect you are commercial agent. For now I opt for your solution of both sets of characters until I can check it out. I am going to finish those last two tables so they will be accurate but I leave it up to you to put in the characters no one can seem to display - non-characters I should say. I will keep you posted on my investigations. Thanks, and by all means, have a heart.12.4.26.248 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, the site offers free fonts and does not require any one to buy them, OK? And none of them are mine. (My fonts are used in the Unicode PDF by the way.) I really don't need you accusing me of being a "commercial" agent. Regarding "real characters", you have to listen now and learn something. We use computers. Computers process characters. Latin letter A is a character. Linear B syllable DA is also a character. Computers recognize the two codes as different, and the codes are guaranteed to always mean A on the one hand and DA on the other. Graphic images do not have an identity. A graphic image can be anything at all, but you can't search for it for instance. You can search for Linear B text, and that is what I mean by "real". An image of Latin A is not the character Latin A, and an image of Linear B DA is not the character Linear B DA. Please do not "remove" the ideograms. I object to the removal of content from this article. We may need to re-format, but we should not remove. I am going to ask other members of the Writing Systems project to watch over this article now. -- Evertype·✆ 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found the free fonts. I think I will put those links in cite web format. As to whether you are a commercial agent, I do not know. For the other stuff- I'm not sure it is relevant. No one used a computer in Mycenaean times. All we have are the graphic images scratched on clay. Insofar as the computer characters conform to those we are on solid ground. If they do not we are not. You may have a system of computer characters here and you may find it useful for such purposes as electronic searching. Linear B is not about computers and searching and such things are only useful for finding scholarly information. The articles are about scholarship. This article is about Linear B scholarship. We can't reinvent Linear B, it is too late. Thank you for explaining the uses of Unicode characters. Now that I know what you intend I will try to respect that. As for asking others to oversee, I am happy you decided to do that. Your concern is for the computers. Mine is for the topic, Linear B and there are still some scholarly issues and unfinished work. I would suggest you do not need so many links to the pdf files. If you take a good look at this article you will see that it is primarily my work. My concern is for excellence and accuracy. Thank you for your computer efforts. I will go on trying to achieve excellence and one requirement is the ability to read the script. I suggest therefore that you leave the svg files. They may not be computer-searchable but they are readable and they represent the script as accurately as the computer characters. The splitting of the wide table into two tables needs to be completed so don't get excited if I complete it. And finally, stuff that is wrong or commercial needs to be deleted and while I may respect your wish to keep the site and the codes you cannot stop me from deleting or tagging material that is wrong. Since you are making an issue I think that I will tag, which requires you to discuss. That does not mean I currently have anything to tag. Well I think we have used up this conversation. If you think of anything else relevant be sure and let me know. Otherwise I will not address you further. There are plenty of people to take up where I leave off. Dave as 12.4.26.248 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia article. It doesn't matter that dead people didn't have computers. Living people use computers, and articles about Writing Systems on the Wikipedia take the computer representation of scripts into account. I really want to ask you to STOP EDITING Linear B until you have gone and read through some of the other Writing Systems articles, so you can understand the encyclopaedic context you are working in. You've suggested that "these articles are about scholarship" and "Linear B is not about computers". You are wrong here. The article is about all aspects of Linear B. The article about Linear B can and must discuss its encoding for modern use. It is also wrong for you to dismiss me by saying my "concern is for the computers" while yours "is for the topic". PLEASE consider the context of this article with regard to the other articles on writing systems. See Runes, Phaistos Disc, Gothic alphabet, Cyrillic, and others. I'm concerned that you point out that this article is "primarily" your own work. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I don't know why you asked me not to delete the SVG files. I never suggested I was going to do so. And I really do not understand why you keep harping on the "commercial fonts" issue, as the link we were talking about was not a commercial one. So please do not quote Wikipedia rules to me, or make declamations about your right to delete things. That's not civil. -- Evertype·✆ 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert on this topic but two things: I have known the work of Evertype for years - his pedigree in the world of linguistics and related computing stuff is spotless. He's not a commercial agent. For all it's worth. Secondly, I disagree with the "Linear B people didn't have computers". Scores of Wiki articles are about things that happened long before the advent of computing, including scripts ancient and/or long dead. Ogham uses a text font, Chu nom does... Encyclopedia are used by many people and many linguists, including myself, often use Wiki as a quick copy and paste source for characters that otherwise you'd have to trawl for in the Unicode chart book or get fuzzy eyes trying to locate in on screen in a character table. It is SO useful when writing a paper or handout. So please, by all means, leave them in! Akerbeltz (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions folks. I vowed I would not reply but this one seemed worth replying to. Thanks for vouching for Evertype; those commercial people are very clever. I happen to know and know of some. The world of advertising looks for every opportunity for free advertising and does not care what we may think about their ethics. They don't have any. Sorry Evertype. The main problem is, and reason why I was suspicious is, no matter what we do we do not seem to be able to get those fonts to display! I went to the free site and I downloaded all relevant fonts I could find - unicode, linear B, aegean, what have you, and nothing, but nothing, seems to work. I have not seen it working on any other computer with which I have dealt. There are nothing but complaints in these articles. Achilleus says he had it going so I take his word for it. You couldn't prove it by me. You can scold me for not doing the proper tweaking and what not but the point is, good Lord, just what does the ordinary user have to DO to see LInear B on Wikipedia at no additional cost? So I am perfectly willing not to mess with the computer-readable codes (I am glad something can read it) but I definitely think the representations from commons, which anyone can read, ought to be in there. And anyway I think you can set your minds at ease. Maybe you noticed DBachmann has slipped inobtrusively in here (his bedside manner has improved) and you can be sure of getting his strong opinion of anything of which he does not approve. As for the other issues, well, these are beyond me for now. One article at a time please. My main task here as I see it will be to supply refs where you experts seem to have ignored that little matter, and add clariying phrases or whatnot - you can't assume everyone knows what you are talking about. Then I will be off again (don't be too quick to cheer if you want good articles). I will be back on the ideograms after the transition has been made. As for my right to delete, well, you have the same rights. It is in fact a limited license. As far as I can see you responded appropriately and made the right moves. I will not attack along these lines again. So I think we are more or less in agreement now (as I see it). I just need to complete splitting the former wide table and do some polishing. I work pretty closely with my Ventris and Chadwick pubs and I have some key works given to me long ago by a man worthy of my respect (I respect a lot of people). Well, Evertype, all I can say is, be careful you don't get into original research here and thanks for your hard work. Ciao.Dave (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you engaging in a personal attack on me? Why are you accusing me of being "a commercial person"? Because I objected to your deletion of a link to other people's free fonts? This is extremely uncivil on your part. And you justify it because you can't get the fonts to work on your computer? Have you considered asking people for help? Without insulting or attacking them? So far I will be happy to say that I have a lot more respect for DBachmann than I have for you. You have been pushy and belligerent. And now you're accusing me of Original Research? What did I do? I restored missing Unicode characters which you deleted. I'm really wondering whether any of your edits aren't your own Original Research now. Sheesh. -- Evertype·✆ 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm thank you for suggesting you're the only person smart enough to smell a "commercial agent". Where that leaves me, a common mortal, I'm not sure. I have known Evertype's work since before 1995, I believe that does entitle me to a reasonably qualified judgement. Since your contact with his work seems to be limited to the Wiki Linear B page, I shall stick with the sentiment in the wider Celtic world and stick up for someone who has done a lot of good work for nothing but the benefit of the community. Back to the topic... the characters are useful. Even IF the only fonts currently available that display Linear B were commercial one's, you can be sure they'll appear in a free font somewhere soon. So the current link may be a moot point but the presence of the characters alongside the graphics isnt't. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, calm down. I hereby apologize to anyone and everyone for everything and anything. The arrangement we have I believe is to leave the fonts in the way they were, supplemented by the svg files for those (like me) who can't get the graphics displayed. I cannot vouch for anything anyone else might do. I'm going on now to "stick up for" high-quality articles the best I can. If you lived around me I would invite you to tea to discuss fonts. That not being so, I fear we shall get out of touch as I do not always read the discussion page. You know how to leave me a message if you feel it is urgent - that is, you have an article matter you need to discuss. Good luck in your Wikipedia and other efforts and in general. Goodbye.Dave (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I got about halfway through this discussion and gave it up as pointless. Wikipedia is a computerized encyclopedia, and Unicode is the standard for computerized fonts (at least in the West), so this article needs to be Unicodified. For obscure scripts most people do not have the appropriate fonts, and it's unreasonable to ask the casual browser to install a different font for each obscure script article they come across, so we need images as well, but they are secondary. That's pretty standard. If the day ever comes when Windows or IE comes with LinB installed, we can drop the latter, but Unicode needs to be the spine of the text. As for Greek vs. Roman transcription, we need the Roman, while teh Greek is optional—though it does help somewhat with coordinating the article with the refs. kwami (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I second this. However, I feel the unicode numbers should be removed from the tables that are not in the "Unicode" section, as the unicode designation for each ideogram is not pertinent to a discussion of the ideogram itself. 24.205.53.113 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, IP, and I have reverted the your deletion of the code points. They are useful, and belong properly to tables. Indeed they are more useful now than Bennett numbers. I see that they have been removed from the top two tables as well. I object to this, and want them restored there. Are you, IP, the person who has massively re-written the article? For my part, I am waiting for that person to stop, so that the article can be read and if necessary re-written. But there is no point at least for now. -- Evertype·✆ 09:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I am http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riffraffselbow ; I prefer to browse and edit anonymously. I feel that both of the numeric values are of "niche" interest, with the difference being that the Unicode values are redundant (They are available further down the article via the PDF), while the Bennett numbers are only listed once. I also feel that the Bennett numbers are arguably more relevant to an encyclopedia article regarding the language, as they are of historical significance to Linear B (They are the identification under which the language was rediscovered), whereas Unicode values are merely a technical concern, something more fitting of a manual than an encyclopedia. I still believe they have a place in the article, I just don't believe they deserved to be duplicated 24.205.53.113 (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split

Top-notch idea! YES is my vote. This is one of those extended topics Wikipedia handles very well by its lists. It WILL get longer, much longer.12.4.26.248 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The "sign" in the title does not fit as the syllabic signs are signs but are not included. I suggest for clarity the conventional "ideograms" rather than "logograms" as everyone in the field will know immediately what is meant.Dave (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Greek is allowed

I object to your summary removal of Greek text and replacement of it by transliteration. Please restore the Greek text. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

also, ideally the unicode Linb characters should be marked with the {{script}} template, e.g. {{script|Linb|𐀀}}: 𐀀. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, putting the Greek in is one way to go. Not everyone reads Greek so I usually put in the transcription instead of the Greek. However, if you want the Greek, by all means have it. I was thinking of consistency. If the Greek goes in in one example it should be in all examples. That is a bit more work. I am sure you would agree examples enhance the article. Similarly the Linear B character would be definitely an enhancement. Thanks for your suggestion on that, DAB. There is no way to get around it, this article is taking a lot of work. I would say, if you feel inclined to contribute further on it, that would push us along a bit further. My goal for this pass was a general clean-up and enhancement of what was there, including updating, formatting and supplying refs. I can work on these suggestions but currently in only small chunks of time. I may have to be back on other passes. So I thank you both for your suggestions; the problem is getting it done. I will put the Greek back; maybe the inconsistency will stimulate others to assist.Dave (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ideogram vs logogram

I cleaned up this section based on what it already said. We should call these what they are. If they are logograms that are called ideograms within the LinB community for historical reasons, then we should say that (as I just did). However, Emmett Bennett (what a name!) says they actually are ideograms: they were not used as logograms in texts, but rather in inventories, and did not have phonetic values. We have something similar with Egyptian, a logographic script that uses ideograms rather than logograms for numerals. I don't know myself, but if Bennett is correct and these are ideograms, then we should not use the word logogram at all, except perhaps in a clarifying footnote. kwami (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. The professionals are in fact convinced they are ideograms. Chadwick was Greek linguist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.26.248 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That previous comment was me on another computer. To go on, actually we have encountered a bigger topic than a sentence (maybe a paragraph). Are they ideograms, logograms, why, what would be the diff, is the terminology still valid, was it ever valid? I need to come up to date myself. I already said I was going to defer working on this until after the move to another article. As the logogram article has a references tag on it also this is likely to become more than a clean-up. So in the interest of objectivity and in the spirit of inquiry I hope no one takes it personally if I put a cite template on the question until someone can do the look-ups and cite the literature. This section I notice has no refs so it will need some. If you want to beat me to the question by all means do!98.216.127.219 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A Greek linguist would not necessarily know the difference between a logogram and an ideogram, esp. when the decipherment was made: at that time Chinese characters were commonly called "ideograms". The Bennett article in Daniels & Bright makes it pretty clear that they actually are ideograms, but I wanted to make sure. I'll take him as authoritative and convert to 'ideogram'. kwami (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding.Dave (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware some people make big deal of the distinction logogram vs. ideogram, and I happen to think it is an artificial distinction that cannot be made consistently. There are cases where the context makes it desirable to make the distinction, yes, but then the splitters came and tried to pretend they were objective categories rather than terms used to express which aspect of a sign you want to focus on at the moment. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Decpherment split

I thought this section needed to be enhanced because in summarizing the decipherment process in one paragraph or less, Internet editors, who all copy wach other, in copying would guess at facts not stated by the original author and over time the accumulation of guesses amounted to a total myth. At this point I can see that to present the milestones in the process giving due and accurate credit to the major players is really the subject of another article, so that is what I am suggesting, another article. I wanted to call it Decipherment of Linear B but there is a book by Chadwick of that name and this is not about Chadwick's book so I thought of the one I suggested. Now I have to leave it alone for a while so that you can react.Dave (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)