Talk:Rosetta Stone

Typos in the "Full Text of the Stone" ?

The "Full Text of the Stone" section has very many spellings that don't - to this amateur - appear to be merely archaic constructs.

Examples: "Stabalizer" "recieving" "recieved" "Pyolemy" "Osirus" (twice) "consentrated" (seems like it should be "consecrated," anyway!) Other possible problem: "to all those subjects to his rule"

Where did this "Full Text" come from?

Peter 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The errors appear to be corrected and the subsection is now titled "English translation of the text (synopsis translation)", not "Full text", but I still would like to know where it came from. The text is very different from that at British Museum Rosetta Stone webpage linked from the References section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgan002 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

The text listed in the main article reads in part:

“Since King Ptolemy, the ever-living, beloved by Ptah, the God Manifest and Gracious, the son of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoë, the Parent-loving Gods, has done many benefactions to the temples and to those who dwell in them and also to all those subjects to his rule, being from the beginning a god born of a god and a goddess—like Horus, the son of Isis and Osirus, who came to the help of his Father Osirus—being benevolently disposed toward the gods, has concentrated to the temples revenues both of silver and of grain, and has generously undergone many expenses in order to lead Egypt to prosperity and to establish the temples... the gods have rewarded him with health, victory, power, and all other good things, his sovereignty to continue to him and his children forever”[4]

A question arises whether the idea expressed by the English word “concentrated” in the translation might be better expressed by the English word “consecrated”. Would this proposed alternate English word be a more contextually appropriate expression of the idea or concept that was contemplated in the original text, by the original authors, given the overall tone of the text taken in its entirety, and considering the position and context of the English word as it appears in the translation.

Definitions of the two alternate word choices as they are commonly used in English;

Consecration is the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service, usually religious. The word "consecration" literally means "setting apart." Persons, places, or things can be consecrated, and the term is used in various ways by different groups.

Noun1.consecration - a solemn commitment of your life or your time to some cherished purpose (to a service or a goal); "his consecration to study" allegiance, commitment, loyalty, dedication - the act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" 2.consecration - (religion) sanctification of something by setting it apart (usually with religious rites) as dedicated to God; "the Cardinal attended the consecration of the church" sanctification - a religious ceremony in which something is made holy faith, religion, religious belief - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

con·cen·trate (k n s n-tr t ) v. con·cen·trat·ed, con·cen·trat·ing, con·cen·trates v.tr. 1.

a. To direct or draw toward a common center; focus.
b. To bring into one main body: Authority was concentrated in the president.

2. To make (a solution or mixture) less dilute. v.intr. 1.

a. To converge toward or meet in a common center.
b. To increase by degree; gather: "Dusk began to concentrate into full night" Anthony Hyde.

2. To direct one's thoughts or attention: We concentrated on the task before us.

n.

A product that has been concentrated, especially a food that has been reduced in volume or bulk by the removal of liquid: pineapple juice concentrate.

Given the religious “grounding” of the text, and the apparent effort to connect the proclamation to Deities and acts on Deities’ or their priests’ behalf, the substitution of “consecrated” for “concentrated” is suggested for discussion.

Litigo 14:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

============

Hi, there. If some body ever prove authenticity of Rosetta Stone? I read a lot about this "stela" and it looks like from the beginning Rosetta Stone was excepted as artifact. What if it is fake? Who may need to right on Stela by Hieroglyphs and 'demotic' shrift in ones? Apparently there is not other examples has been discovered, otherwise this stone was not so popular. In time the stone has been made it had practical means, to inform public about decree. It may be have sense to right Greek and local public language (that demotic was). But what sense it make to write by religious, sacral script, that may be understood by priests only? It similar if in period of Second World War, during German occupation of Russia, some body start to write documents by German, Russian and Cyrillic at once. It make no sense because none Russian, except Orthodox priests may understand old language. I a little familiar with philosophy of science and I know what Egyptology's have to say about it. But try to look on this stone like you are first man who see it.
Alex.
P.S. Champollion "could read both Greek and Coptic". Coptic will not help to read 'demotic' Egyptian because Coptic alphabet was changed by Coptic Orthodox Church. It looks like there was attempt to develop united alphabet for all Orthodox Churches, similar to Latin alphabet of Roman Church. That is why Coptic dose not help to much to understand 'demotic'. Trying to recreate Egyptian from Coptic it is same as try to recreate Hebrew from Jewish. It impossible, because Jewish, basically German that include Hebrew words. Similar to this, Coptic may be basically Greek (or Arabic or both)that include Demotic words. Most likely Coptic has been changed too hard to help to understand Demotic. The fact, that translator of Demotic part of Rosetta Stone text (Silvan de'Sasy ) was specialist in modern Arabic but not in Ancient Egypt also could make us think about authenticity of this artifact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.142.23 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The UK Gothic Rock band

I've added a disambiguation link to Rosetta Stone (band), an influential British gothic rock music band from the 1990s who used Ancient Egyptian imagery and other ancient myths in their works. I note that there is a "See Also" section, but the Manual of Style states that a disambiguation section at the top of the article is preferred. If there is a strong consensus towards moving the goth link to the See Also section, then I'd be happy for that to happen, provided it is discussed here first.

evilandi

2003-01-03: I note the disambig link has been repeatedly removed, so I've moved the goth band link to the See Also section. Again I plea that if anyone disagrees with this, please discuss it here first, otherwise I'll assume it is mindless vandalism and restore it.

evilandi

Hi Res Images

Is there any high-resolution images of the stone? All the ones I found are either small, or of low resolution so you cannot read the writing at all. Naelphin

You can go to this link. http://www.bgst.edu.sg/realia/rosetta.htm There is an over all picture with smaller ones focused on details of the 3 types of writting on the stone. -Wikipedia user

Is this really how big it is, or is this a reproduction?  : http://www.slower.net/pl.php?photo_id=1232 Koyaanis Qatsi 00:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, the real thing is over six feet long, according to the British Museum. --MIRV 00:27, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You can also find the book Cracking Codes the Rosetta Stone and Decipherment by R. Parkinson. It has it's percise dementions.-Wikipedia user

Try the Google image search at

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Rosetta+Stone%22+images+jpg&btnG=Google+Search

---

When my browser window is a "normal" width, the headline "Use as metaphor" and many lines below it are overwritten by the smaller of the two pictures. Can someone good at tables fix this? Tempshill 05:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The larger image was floating (which it shouldn't have been, judging by its size), so I've confined it to its own table. Also spaced things out a little and repositioned the insertion points of both images. If the overlap isn't fixed, I suppose the larger image can be moved up even higher. Failing that, I don't see any harm in removing the smaller image (though I'm not bold enough to do so myself). Hadal 06:05, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Basalt or granite?

Paragraph 1: The Rosetta Stone is a dark granite stone (often incorrectly identified as "basalt")

Paragraph 3: Pierre-François Bouchard (1772-1832) found a black basalt stone when guiding construction works in the Fort Julien...

So... which is it?

From http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/conservation/cleaning2.html -

Analysis of the stone has shown that it is a granite-like rock and not a basalt as it has previously been described.

Wizzy 16:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this yesterday, and had planned a cleanup, but (obviously) never got around to it. The section on provenance (I see you've corrected the heading) really should be re-written completely, but at least it, the article ((sic) no) longer contradicts itself. Austin Hair 17:26, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

The ( 6 ) stelae listed for stone types are: fine limestone, white limestone, dark granite, sandstone, dark granite, limestone; See the section for "3-Stone Series"..Mmcannis

deciphering of the hieroglyphs

Did modern scientists use computer technologies to check the deciphering for accuracy? The multilingual wikipedia here works like a Rosetta stone too. However, if you read wikipedia articles written in different languages on the same topic, you'll notice it is not easy to map the meaning word for word unless the entries are presented in dictionary form. Different language have different sentence structure and grammer. The deciphering was done in 1822 with no help from advance technology. Nowadays, the century old work can easily be checked by computer for consistency. Perhaps many historical accounts will be rewritten if errors are found in the deciphering. Kowloonese 19:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Modern computational techniques, etc etc are indirectly based on the work done by Champollion and Young. Of course many researchers have revisited the discoveries made in 1822-23 and continue to improve our understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Tafinucane 18:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the only way to refine the translation is to do the "pairings" translated line-by-line, and translate the "pairing" texts simultaneously:

• Demotic w/ Hieroglyphs
• Demotic w/ Greek
• Greek w/ Hieroglyphs
• and also all ( 3 ) in a "triplet" Demotic w/Hieroglyphs w/Greek

That's 4 categories of translating. (Note: The demotic with its abbreviated shorthand words is informative.)

Just another note:

I just found the Text corpus page (and it needed a 'Major' edit omission), but it leads an Individual to POS tagging. Part-of-speech tagging synchronized with commas, or end of sentences, is what one does in these pairings. The root of the word ( the lemma?) is all that is important. The thread and direction of the story is the Important thing. The "Rosetta Stone" page never mentions that there are 22/23 Reasons for honoring the Pharaoh, and 10 Actions in Reward, including the Erection of the Stone for all to know (Greek, gnostic..)(( This is also the Egyp. god Saa, who "sees". "Knows" the way forward. The hieroglyph is above his head for Saa. )) ..The word "kathidra" as a seat, or chair, or to sit is presented, like the word Cathedral is in the Rosetta Stone. Of the 23 reasons, no one mentioned the "Rebels" who are impaled on wooden stakes... " for everybody to know the error of The Ways (against Pharaoh) "(The complete story is in the Demotic text). These are the foreshadowings of the whole Christian thing. In the Canopus Stone, Ptol III, leap year is implemented. (238 BC,..Caesar then did it for real in 55 BC.) Any how translating these pairings, are all about Part-of-speech tagging.M McAnnis,YumaAzMmcannis 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I made pages with " Greek vs/Hieroglyphs ", for each 1/2 line, lines 1.00 to 1.50, then 1.50 to 1.100 (the mid point has to be chosen as a mid-point for end of sentence, or comma in sentence.) (The last (2 pages), line 14.00 to 14.100 has the 3 languages, the erecting of the stone in temples of order I, order II, order III, so how many stones actually got produced? ) For lines 1-14 of Rosetta Stone, that's 28 pages. It takes some months. I did it for various lines in the Decree of Canopus, as a trial run, specifically the "kosmos" lines with Leap Year ( 2 of 26 lines)( 4 pages). Michael McAnnis,YumaAZ

The "Decree of Canopus" is 100 percent complete, and could give an excellent study ( of 4 comparisons ). Yet to be completed...Mmcannis

Importance

I'd like to see more about the importance of the stone. For example, according to one of the linked articles, "For 1400 years, no one knew how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs. Virtually all understanding of this mysterious script had been lost since the 4th century AD..." That really drives home what a special and historic find it was.

• Seconded The reason the Rosetta Stone is special is because up to that point people had been unable to read hieroglyphics. But the linguistic signifigance is barely mentioned in this article. I'd like to know: Why hieroglyphics had been lost, what were the difficulties in learning from the Rosetta Stone, and what gaps in our knowledge of hieroglyphics still remained.
• Thirded It seem like this should be a whole section, possibly the most important section. This article as is, completely misses the point of the stone. 63.238.141.34 21:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, but am confused - the article on Egyptian hieroglyphs says "The discovery in 1799 of the Rosetta Stone by Napoleon's troops (during Napoleon's Egyptian invasion) provided the motivation to study the script, but the text on the stone was of almost no use in decipherment." So it wasn't actually that important, if this is true. I don't know enough to know which article is correct - anyone? Steve --195.137.91.247 10:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• That is true, but unrelated to the findings of Jean-François Champollion. Before him, no one could make sense of the hieroglyphs. He was the first one to understand the the parallels, and deciphered the word Ramses. This led to further discoveries. It is because of his work that this stone become useful. -RockMaster-talk|contribs 13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Clunky prose

A note on the W of Ionian: many languages have the EE, double E, long E, or I sound; modern Russian is an example. But the common Ionian with short i, might be more properly understand, as double E, EEonian, though spelled Ionian. The U, Y in Greek, and the W used for Egyptian (translating only), may all be sometimes more properly understand as EE, in some situations. Note EEonian.

What? EE, double E, long E, or I sound? Instead of this amateurish roundabout description, why not just say "[i]"? And what's the rest of the paragraph trying to say? The U, Y in Greek, and the W used for Egyptian (translating only), may all be sometimes more properly understand as EE, — the "Y" in Greek? You mean the letter "upsilon"? And what's the "W used for Egyptian, translating only"?

This paragraph really needs a bit of reworking. Can someone who knows the situation well rewrite it? -- ran (talk) 00:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same thing. Makes no sense to me. — KayEss | talk 14:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the phrase "There are approximately two copies..." in the Contents of Stone section. This seems like a very odd thing to have an approximate number of, and I think it should be re-phrased. I would do it, but I dont know what exactly is approximate about it.

The first paragraph reads a little clunky to me. I've slipped a line break in, and when I have a little more time I'll try to make it make a little more sense. I don't know much about the stone or Ptolemey so I wont alter the content, just the structure. Strato

Is it granite or basalt?

Earlier this week I posted a comment on the Wikipedia talk page that said "how can I trust Wikipedia?". After reading tons of sites about this stone, I have two questions: Why are stones so popular in history, like the Sorcerer's Stone and the Rosetta Stone? And my second question is: it the Rosetta Stone made of basalt or granite? Other sites say it's basalt, others say granite, but now Wikipedia says "incorrectly sited as basalt" . . . how do I know basalt is incorrect? Janet6 31 January 2006, 12:19 PM it's granite i looked at a british site and they had it

user neosurfer2695

Examples

The examples given are ridiculously obscure.

Hey i got a ? where is the stone now?

There were more Metaphor examples previously. They were removed and also condensed. They are lacking (my opinion).MichaelMmcannis 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

dimension

Does anyone have any idea of the dimensions (in dm) of the stone? I always thought it was small, but on the second picture, the stone looks quite big. (unsigned)

Sign your name. (edits) --Mmcannis 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

One Question

I just have one question wikipedia, what does the Rosseta stone say? What were the degrees?

You can sign ur name you know with 4 tildes ( ~ ). And since the word "chair", Grk: 'kathridra', is used: as in, ... "and the statue (of Pharaoh Ptolemy V), will be "seated" ( i.e. verb usage of "chair") next to the other statues. ...." Are you, or is any one really interested in the true, knowledge, or scholarship, of our ancient peoples? They constantly used the word "..Know", as in 'be cognizant', or "Gnostic", obviously just the common usage (keeping the religious stuff out of it). I find the scholarship of people today lacking. Do your own translating. The grandfather's stone, for Ptolemy III used Gk: syngoge, (synagogue). (i.e. To Gather) Michael M in YUMA,AZ,usa--Mmcannis 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)one editMmcannis 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting info about discovery of the stone.

The article has some conflicting info about the discovery and history of the stone, see the second paragraph of the "Use as a metaphor" section. It looks like somebody was just having some fun. Should this section just be removed?

earl 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed the offending text, thanks.

earl 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It was cute, kinda like Stream of consciousness. It's too bad creativity like that wouldn't actually be used to program a rock-chiseling-machine to engrave real stone with Cuneiform, or Egyptian hieroglyphs. A la the designs that can now be put into wood-inlay. --Michael--Mmcannis 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I moved this from the article. It looks like yet another 'hot' new discovery which will be forgotten within a year.

On June 29, 2006, two scientists from MASA (Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts) found that the second script on the Rosetta stone is the official language of Ptolemy dynasty and is not at all Egyptian ptolemaic demotic. They have found grammar rules, sounds, and all meanings. Most of the advancement had been around identification of the position of one letter in the sentence which gave clear meaning of every word and sentence. That pointed out to clear language identification. Middle script is written in a language which had live words in conemporary Macedonian dialects, Old Slavic, and language "Jotovanje," present in Balcan Slavic languages. Both scientist pointed out that situation in this area is full of confusion and they have helped to clear some of the smoke with clear identification of 167 words from Rosetta stone. Script in middle text on the Rosetta stone is Syllabic with syllables of type Consonant-Vowel. Behind all ready sounding of consonants for the first time, they introduced the sounding of vowels. Identified and sounded have been 25 consonants and 8 vowels, half of the consonants (12) form syllables with all 8 vowels. The rest of the consonants have 4-5 vowels only. Identified have been four pictographical signs and use of ligatures with purpose to cover multiple uses of "to". ("Contributions XXVI 2 MASA - Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts Academician Tome Boševski and PhD Aristotel Tentov")

The second text of the Rosetta Stone is written in the script and language of the then-masters of Egypt – the Ancient Macedonians.

The results of the research from the project "Decyphering the second text of the Rosetta Stone" were presented in the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences (MANU) Thursday.

Academic Tome Boshevski and prof. Aristotel Tentov conducted the project was conducted under MANU auspices.

The Rosseta Stone, the researchers stressed, was discovered in 1799 in Egypt. Made of granite, 1.44 m tall, 0.72 m wide and weighting 762 kg. Text's contents is a decree by Ptolemy V Epiphanes written in three scripts: hierogliphic, "demotic" and ancient Greek in the year 196 before Christ. Currently the stone is stored in the British Museum in London.

"Contemporary science has mainly adopted the stance that there are no traces remaining from the script and the language of the Ancient Macedonians," Boshevski said. "Thus, the Rossetta Stone is considered as written with three scripts in two languages, in the following order: Hieroglyphic in Ancient Egyptian, Demotic in Ancient Egyptian, and Ancient Greek in Ancient Greek [Ionian]. Our starting premise was that it is unlikely that there's not a single complete sentance in the language and the script of the Ancient Macedonians preserved. Based on this, we hypothesized that the text on the Rosetta Stone is written in three languages, in the following order: Hieroglyphic in Ancient Egyptian, with a syllabic alphabet in Ancient Macedonian, and with a phoenetic alphabet in Ancient Greek."

The researchers came to these conclusions by comparing the basic characteristics of the writing in that period. The texts of the time did not contain interpunction characters in the contemporary sense, the alphabets consisted of capital letters only, and all was written in an unbroken series without spaces between words. The texts on the stone have the following characteristics, as indicated by the researchers: the Hieroglyphic and the "demotic" text are written from right to left, while the Ancient Greek text is written from left to right. They also indicated the following characteristics of the second text: it is written in with dominantly syllabic alphabet with very few pictographic characters, the syllables exclusively consist of consonant-vowel pairs, there are also characters for writing isolated consonants and vowels, and besides the standard writing order of syllables one next to the other, they could be written one above the other, too. Exceptions in the text are the names of two gods, which were written as they were pronouncend in Ancient Egyptian language.

At the end, by way of conclusion, the authors stressed that the script of the second text of the Rosetta Stone is syllabic with syllables consisting of consonants and vowels, besides the consonants there are letters for vowels – with 25 consonants and 8 vowels identified. Almost half (12) of the consonants form syllables with all of the 8 vowels, while the rest with 4-5 vowels only. They also identified four pictographic characters, and use of ligatures to cover the frequent use of the article "of". Using the defined reading and sounding rules the researchers identified over 160 words. From all this they conclude that the second text is definitly written in the script and the language of the then-masters of Egypt, the Ancient Macedonians. P.S.I will remind you after one year...

ancient macedonian =/= contemporary slavic macedonian biggest joke ive heard in a while :D

Hahahahaha!!! I agree 100% with your last statement. What a JOKE!!! Now this really is pathetic. :D : Apro 13 September 2006

Moved from the article

Non-mainstream theories

The government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, through its Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, is promoting a theory put forward by two professors in Skopje that the "Demotic" script is, in fact, a form of Old Slavonic text. This contradicts all previous interpretations of the Stone, and the mainstream scientific belief that Slavic speakers did not reach Macedonia until the 6th Century CE. This promotion is part of a wider effort by scientists in the former Yugoslav Republic to link the Ancient Macedonians with a Slavic-speaking people, despite all evidence to the contrary [1][2][3]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barbatus (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Thomas Young

• My source says that Thomas Young linked some of the hieroglyphs to specific names in the Greek version in 1818 but in article the year 1814 appears. Igor Skoglund

move 'the three decrees, the three-stone series'

The 'three decrees, the three-stone series' section seems to only add confusion as its not about the rosetta stone per se; I suggest that it be moved to its own article, or moved under the ptolmeic dynasty artice, and the reference shortened to a sentence stating that the rosetta stone was part of a series of decrees...

Also, and unrelated, the artice says the stone was a 'copy of the decree' sent to whichever city. Isn't it the actuall decree? or is it a copy? wgh 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)dialectric

'three-decree series'

Is there any evidence that this was a three-decree series? As far as I can see, it's just the fact that they're all trilingual and written by three succeeding pharoahs. Unless there's something in the texts themselves (which I don't think there is...) the 'three decrees' is unproven. Re also the article on 'three decrees', which is a mess. I would change it but don't have time and I'm not sure how. ~~visitor~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.127.31 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

What you 'R unaware of "Sir of the signed, but unknown", is that Ptolemy II, had a memorial Decree, and that his son, grandson, and great-grandson Ptolemy V patterned theirs, post His creation. I believe, as most of these Stelae are, that it was basically autobiography-oriented and was his Memorial. His progeny took it 3-Decrees further (and thank goodness), and thank goodness, for Stone, and Scribes. (And for wiki-pedians: --The–common–folk)... from the SonoranDesert of Arizona ..--Mmcannis 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is the Precise Format:

Intro

List of reasons for Honoring Pharaoh-(the list made by the Priests, etc.)

The List of rewards TO Pharaoh

including/ the Decree, erected, and written in three scripts, two languages-(so that everyone will be 'cognizant', Know: Gnostic-verb in Greek).

This is not mentioned in the great "Rosetta Stone" article, except in passing. ..from the ArizonaDeserts ..Mmcannis 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

I nominated this article for ACID's collaboration. If you think that B-class is a poor condition of an article of this importance, you can go there and vote. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 00:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the text

The full translation contains the phrase "has consentrated to the temples revenues both of silver and of grain". I can guess that "consentrated" is a typo for "concentrated", but unfortunately that makes little or no sense. There are a couple of other passages that aren't really proper English either. It would be good if an expert could fix these. Matt 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

• It struck me later that maybe it's a typo for "consecrated"?? Matt 10:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

It says Rosetta Stone#Full text of the Stone, but it isn't the full text. Compare to the 6 times longer translation in the External Links here. The ellipsis (...) near the end of the shorter version actually skips most of the second paragraph of the longer version. The last paragraph of the longer version is removed without even an ellipsis in the shorter version. 3 choices: call it something like "partial translation" not full text, use the whole translation, or take it out relying on the external link. Art LaPella 07:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rosetta Stone, (the Decree of Memphis (Ptolemy V)) is equivalent in length to the 1st Decree of the Series: Decree of Canopus. That decree's length, is about the same length. See English version here: The Canopus Decree, modern English version.

It is of note, the last line of the Decree of Canopus also has it written in: script of the egyptian hieroglyphs, egyptian Demotic, and Greek. --(from the Arizona-deserts)--Mmcannis 14:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What is Kooolll is, you get different length versions from the 3--different scripts, (The vagueries of the Scribes adding, or omitting some information.)--Mmcannis 14:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The external link doesn't work today, neither here nor at Decree of Canopus. But anyway you are aware of the difference. Art LaPella 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire, about 2000 word text was available. Sorry about that. --Mmcannis 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

AID: Improvement tips

Using AndyZ's automated peer review, here are a few suggestions if you're not able to contribute to the article in terms of new content:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 676 pounds, use 676 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 676 pounds.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• lease reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Thanks, CloudNine 20:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Meaning

I just glanced at this article, not in depth, and I couldn't seem to find where it said the stones purpose was in ancient times. Shouldn't there be a section for what it was used for within the Egyptian society, and it's effect? If it's there, maybe it should be mentioned in the intro section as well. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just replied in the 3-stone series section above which gives a partial answer to your query. from the ArizonaDesert(Sonoran)... --Mmcannis 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki links from words in translated text

It would be great if an expert could create links from the various mysterious words and names that are in the synopsis of the text, such as "Hephaestus the Great", "Alexander", "Areia" and so on. I tried to do that, but most of them did not have an entry on Wikipedia, some had entries that did not seem to relate to the context and some had more than one entry. -Pgan002 06:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem....Non-mainstream theories

The government of the Republic of Macedonia, through its Academy of Sciences and Arts, is promoting a theory put forward by two professors in Skopje that the "Demotic" script is, in fact, a text in a Slavic language. This contradicts all previous interpretations of the Stone, and the mainstream scientific belief that Slavic speakers did not reach Macedonia until the 6th Century CE. This promotion is part of a wider effort by scientists in the former Yugoslav Republic to link the Ancient Macedonians with a Slavic-speaking people, despite all evidence to the contrary [4][5][6].

Is this a 'serious' theory? Are these people (T. Boševski, A. Tentov) actually professors and members of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republic of Macedonia? Is this page (http://rosetta-stone.etf.ukim.edu.mk) a truly academic one?

This sounds so ...ahem ridiculous that it's not even funny AccidentalTourist 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Facts are:

1. The Academy of Sciences and Arts is a fully-government funded institution of the fYROM which exists by parliamentary decree.
2. The proposed translation is clearly into a Slavic language, written right-to-left. For example see [7].
3. The paper clearly goes beyond advocating that the text is in Ancient Macedonian. It proposes a translation based on the identification of words as being the same or similar to words in a modern slavic language. It explicitly points out that the syntax of the text is Slavic or "contemporary Macedonian" [8][9]. The document, as posted on the website of a state university [10] is as clear on this point as it is absurd. sys < in 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the article taken from the Vest newspaper does mention the Old Slavonic, but just read the phrase carefully in its context: "The basic symbols (consonants) are in 8 positions and, depending on the position i.e. the angle they are at, the syllable is read with the vocal pronounced, like a kind of iotting in the Old Slavonic language" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say it is Old Slavonic! And "Tracing the Script and the Language of the Ancient Macedonians" (their main piece) doesn't even mention Slavic language.--Barbatus 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted a link to the paper itself. It clearly states that the vocabulary [11] and the syntax [12][13] is "contemporary Macedonian", i.e. Slavic. Especially on the vocabulary issue, every page has examples of the claim. Every effort is made in the article is to identify the script with "contemporary Macedonian" (clearly a Slavic language). The primary source, the paper itself, is clear on the subject, regardless of what secondary sources add to or subtract from that claim. sys < in 15:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying those "professors" are right. But I think you don't understand what is their real goal. They are not trying to prove that the Ancient Macedonian was Slavic, or that the Ancient Macedonians were Slavs, quite the opposite: that the contemporary Macedonians are direct descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the land. ... So, unless you can cite their article where it claims that the Demotic part of the Stone is Slavic, I'd prefer to call it Macedonian.--Barbatus 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we agree that they are not right, and you are now putting the word "professors" in quotes. So it is pseudoscience, is it not? They clearly try to make the point, over and over again, that Ancient Macedonian == Contemporary "Macedonian". And since all serious linguists agree that the contemporary language spoken in the FYR is a Slavic one, well, it is simple math. They even state the connection with Slavic explicitly in the paper[14], lest there be any doubt. sys < in 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But of course it is. If you go back to the history of this article, you'll find that it was me who removed that claim when it first appeared here.--Barbatus 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And you we right to remove it, as it was uncritically stated as a fact. Now that the claim is under a proper heading (pseudoscience) and with proper references as to what is being claimed, there is no need to "soften" the position of the "professors" to make them sound less unscientific. Doing so only gives them undeserved credibility. Regards, sys < in 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The work of the two professors is completely their effort and there is no funding or any other help/backing by the state institutions. The fact that there was a promotion of their book in the hall of the Macedonian Academy of Science and Art does not mean governmental/institutional support. Many independant studies and books have had a promotin there.

Dear anonymous: The Academy of Arts and Sciences is a state institution created by parliamentary decree [15]. The "Professors" are in the faculty of a state university. The "paper" is hosted on the site of a state university. Saying that the publication, hosting and staging of symposia for the "professors" does not constitute "funding" is quite odd. In any case, the article did not use the word funding, but the word "promote", which is exactly the same word you used. Just admit it, the FYR government screwed up this one, badly. Instead of trying to deny that it happened, please admit reality, and perhaps try to get the FYR to retract these absurd claims. Censoring facts from WP is not the answer. Regards sys < in 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see that there is no point arguing when you are committed to bash the Republic of Macedonia in any way. You don't accept any facts and you are painting a false picture on purpose. You also make up a lot of stuff. It is sad seeing that the "Greek community" here at Wikipedia misuses its purpose and turns it into a weapon of a chauvinistic agenda against its neighbor. There are much more Greeks here than Macedonians, so I guess this sad situation will remain as such, simply by using numerical superiority to paint a picture that is desirable for "Greek national interests". But remember that the truth can not be changed on the basis on what is written on Wikipedia. With this I'm stopping my attempts to confront you with the facts, because it is obviously useless and because you will keep hanging here, instantly changing the info you dislike, no matter what the factual situation is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.205.10.135 (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Dear anonymous, please look at my explanations above. This pseudoscientific claim is so preposterous that I have to footnote every few words (and I do), otherwise even I wouldn't believe that this claim is being made. Clearly you recognize how absurd these "professors" are, otherwise you would not be so embarrassed about this claim. Your problem is with the government of the FYR, not with me. Don't blame the messenger. Regards, sys < in 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sysin, I said that I will leave this discussion and the article text to "your mercy" (simply because there is no point confronting you with any facts and you will use numerical superiority to paint the picture that suites the Greek side). You probably took this as some kind of encouragement and now you pushed your agenda even further by renaming the Republic of Macedonia in the article. I checked and the name used in wikipedia is the constitutional name of the country. I dont want to enter in a what you call here edit war, so I ask you kindly to stick by wikipedia rules and correct yourself by changing it to the proper name: Republic of Macedonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.205.10.135 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Claims and counterclaims in sci. community should be rule for expresion of these type of points.Obviously this is current event in development and there are still not in exsistence counter claims,nor sci. papers with oposite view.Science most of the time is dealing with facts ,and not with labeled or baseles opinions without proper content criticism.Until the time when sci.community give their opinion on this paper Wikipedia should maintain neutrality and describe basic theory with note that sci.community have still not responded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.43.226.11

Dear Anonymous, Anonymous, Sturceto & co.,

Your concerns have already been answered above. To summarize:

• The "Academy of Arts and Sciences", which is promoting the book [16], is a government organization as per their website [17]. The "professors" teach in a government university. The paper is posted on the site of a government-owned university [18]. It is thus clear that the FYR government supports funding for the promotion of this theory directly and indirectly.
• The theory, as posted on the government site, clearly and explicitly supports a translation to a language with a slavic vocabulary and syntax [19][20][21]

Please present any evidence to the contrary here, before making unsupported claims on the main article again. Regards, sys < in 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Greek POV pusher Sysin and co.(UTC)

The book was promoted in not by [22] Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The authors are real professors and their theory is hosted on the faculty where they work. That doesn't make them funded by the government. Their research is independent and please give me proof about their government funding.(UTC)

Their theory is unproven, but doesn't make it Pseudoscientific. If something is different than Greek POV, that doesn't automatically mean that is pseudoscientific.(UTC)

They don't claim that the language is the same as Macedonian language. They claim that some words from Ancient Macedonian language exist today in modern Macedonian. That doesn't make it Slavic language(UTC) User:Sturceto 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about calling it a fringe theory, see also WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Domitius 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

fringe theory has pejorative use, but recent unproven or just unproven will be ok. Regarding the NPOV... the short text is much more NPOV (since doesn't push any view). Regards Sturceto 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Read your own reference: "Academic Tome Boshevski and prof. Aristotel Tentov conducted the project was conducted under MANU auspices.". Bad grammar aside, "under the auspices" signifies financial and moral support.
• The paragraph did not state that this was in "modern Macedonian" The article stated that the paper proposed a "Slavic language" for the text. Which it clearly and explicitly does [23][24][25]
• This theory contradicts the works of Thomas Young (scientist), and all the known translations of the stone for the past century. That's exactly why the paragraph did not state that the theory was false, but that the theory "contradicts all mainstream interpretations of the Stone" sys < in 16:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a source (besides this unfair page created in wikipedia of course) where it says that this theory is pseudo-science...

I added again in the article the part about the pseudo-scientific theory. (Why it was deleted in the first place? Was it decided in a different talk page?) In general all theories that support not mainstream and imaginary views are considered pseudo-science. The fact that those two engineers from Skopje supports that the Demotic Egyptian script is actually Slavic it is alone a strong support for the pseudo-science "title". Do you want to propose a different title or a different version of the article? Seleukosa 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author of the removal, and insisting on keeping it out. We have tons of these eccentricities concerning the Balkans: some of these are notable, and as such are inserted, while most are ignored and refused mention because they don't respect WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. This is a typical example of the latter. Please remember: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"; to go on "exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources", and please remember, "If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." To go on "Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories". Now the point here is exactly notability. Give a look also to WP:SCI and WP:PROF; and please remember this "Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas". On these grounds I'm reverting.--Aldux 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aldux for your quick reply. Before your reply, I thought that the “pseudo-scientific” part of the article was deleted by the anonymous user above. Since you wrote why you reverted (and in a way that convinced me!) I have no objection. Especially the part: “Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas". Before I read that I did tried to find some reliable sources about the reaction of the scientific community in the “theory” but I was not able (till know) to find any. Seleukosa 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Synopsis"

A synopsis is meant to be an explantion or and overview - this reads like an excerpt from the introduction. Could someone offer us an explanation of the stone's contents?. WA Burdett 08:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a more concise synopsis would be helpful.--Sevilledade 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

remove products?

Do Apple and other companies really deserve a free ad in this article just because they chose to use its name? Do we want to encourage companies to conduct this type of marketing? Is it really significant to the subject? I believe products should be in the disambiguation page at best. 60.240.128.119 15:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed the text. Links to them can be found on the disambig for rosetta.User A1 05:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

possible copyrighted material?

I just read the wiki page and subsequently followed the link the the british museum site. I noticed that are a couple of sentances that are nearly identical between the two. They are the ones that talk about the stones brief time away from the museum during World War I. Does the British Museum allow Wikipedia's use of their text? or perhaps the British Museum copied Wikipedia?

Just thought I should bring it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.144.122 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian?

There is a recent edit claiming that one of the texts is Ancient Macedonian. I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this plausible or commonly accepted? Mlouns (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a tiny-minority view promoted by User:Ireland101, who has also raided a raft of other articles with the assertion that ancient Macedonian was the progenitor of the unrelated modern Slavic language. Both claims lie well outside the scholarly consensus. Removed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The two scholars that wrote the report were not electrical engineers, they were professors[26].Ireland101 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask where the evidence is that these two people are professors? Ireland101 has claimed this is a thesis, something not normally associated with professors, but students. The paper doesn't state any titles against the writers names, something unusual as for academic papers it is normal to state your credentials. Also has this paper actually been published in any academic journals or publications other than that of the writers? If so where? If not then it doesn't really put itself into the realms of verifiability or even notability. Ben W Bell talk 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. All we have is a website run by a couple of guys from the University of Skopje of unknown credentials. A single comment about them on a random blog does not satisfy WP:V, I'm afraid. The paragraph should be removed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It has received academic attention for example with Richard Bangs [27]. Ireland101 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)