Talk:Szarvas inscription: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:12, 10 February 2012

Hungary C‑class Mid‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems C‑class Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 July 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Unlikely translation

Why is it given in IPA transcription? Why not in transcription as is usual? What language is it supposed to be in? What is the normal transcription of that language? Doesn't the unlikely translation suggest that this is an incorrect decipherment. I've seen more likely translations of the Phaistos Disc. -- Evertype·✆ 11:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the IPA transcription, since I supposed that in the international use this is the most appropriate. But I will include the Hungarian phonetic transcription soon. This is Ancient Hungarian from the second half of the 8th century. Previously, I consulted with Hungarian linguistic scholars, they checked it.-Rovasscript (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate. It is never used when transcribing ancient scripts into Latin letters, for any script I know of. It looks like either a lack of awareness of how historians of writing and decipherment actually do their work, or it looks like an attempt to obfuscate the data to make it look scientific. -- Evertype·✆ 15:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppositely. The IPA theoretically is a very accurate system and it is useful for transcribing texts from different languages. However, in every country there are own transcription systems, which are more popular, but not more precise. -Rovasscript (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This just goes to show the amateur nature of this work. IPA, especially at the level of detail you give, is used when there is access to a spoken language. There is not with ancient inscriptions. Evidently you are not aware of the universal practice of genuine linguists, and have used IPA because it "looks" scientific. -- Evertype·✆ 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA can be used for earlier inscriptions, as well. The advantage of he IPA that it uses individual symbol for each sound. The languages of the Rovas inscriptions are not only Hungarian, but also Oghur, Slavic, Common Turkic and As/Alan (Preossetic). (However, in case of the Carpathian Basin Rovas, the clear majority is in Ancient Hungarian.) Consequently, an international phonetic notation is rational in this case. In the Wikipedia, many sites uses the IPA: Old_Turkic_script, Aramaic_script, Hebrew_alphabet. It is another question, that the pronunciation of the old words sometimes is uncertain. Especially the vowels. For instance, the /o/ and /u/ vowels in the Turkic languages. Unfortunately, the Rovas scripts do not denote the short vowels in many times. -Rovasscript (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it is done:

A reading example: — inscription (Right To Left)

T²NGR²I — transliteration

/teŋri/ — transcription

teñri / tanrı — record with modern Turkic alphabet

the skygod or the eternal blue sky indicating the highest god — ancient meaning

God — modern meaning

OK? Not as you have done it. -- Evertype·✆ 12:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article Carpathian Basin Rovas had not been deleted a similarly usable alphabet would be available as it can be found in the article Old Turkic script. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Hello,

This article seems very biased towards the "protochronic" Rovas script and the theories of authors such as Vékony, but it presents very little of opposing positions such as Róna-Tas'. Moreover most scholars agree that Avars spoke a Turkic language (when not the Latin, Greek or some other language of their subjects), though some scholars suggested also Iranic - Johanna Nichols, or Tungusic - Eugene Helimski. Daizus (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

Dear Colleagues,

Please, do not revert all the editions of anybody without discussion. E.g. Edward321 reverted all my latest contributions. However, the article is relatively short, and my contributions gave important additional information. E.g. Edward321 deleted the information about the official encoding proposal of the Hungarian Standards Institution. It is noteworthy that this document obviously contains important data about the Szarvas inscription. Consequently, it is useful to refer it in this article. If somebody does not agree with that contribution it is possible to describe the alternative opinion. But deletion is not an acceptable way to solve a scientific debate. I am open for any discussion, but the automatic deletion of the alternative opinions is not the right solution of a discussion. Rovasscript (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:37, 10 February 2012 edit Rovasscript (talk \| contribs) 736 edits →‎Contributions: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:12, 10 February 2012 edit undo Rovasscript (talk \| contribs) 736 edits →‎Contributions Next edit →
Line 38:		Line 38:
	Dear Colleagues,		Dear Colleagues,

	Please, do not revert all the editions of anybody without discussion. E.g. Edward321 reverted all my latest contributions. However, the article is relatively short, ~~therefore~~ my contributions gave important additional information. E.g. Edward321 deleted the information about the official encoding proposal of the Hungarian Standards Institution. It is noteworthy that this document obviously contains important data about the Szarvas inscription. Consequently, it is useful to refer it in this article. If somebody does not agree with that contribution it is possible to describe the alternative opinion. But deletion is not an acceptable way to solve a scientific debate. I am open for any discussion, but the automatic deletion of the alternative opinions is not the right solution of a discussion. [[User:Rovasscript\|Rovasscript]] ([[User talk:Rovasscript\|talk]]) 06:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)		Please, do not revert all the editions of anybody without discussion. E.g. Edward321 reverted all my latest contributions. However, the article is relatively short, and my contributions gave important additional information. E.g. Edward321 deleted the information about the official encoding proposal of the Hungarian Standards Institution. It is noteworthy that this document obviously contains important data about the Szarvas inscription. Consequently, it is useful to refer it in this article. If somebody does not agree with that contribution it is possible to describe the alternative opinion. But deletion is not an acceptable way to solve a scientific debate. I am open for any discussion, but the automatic deletion of the alternative opinions is not the right solution of a discussion. [[User:Rovasscript\|Rovasscript]] ([[User talk:Rovasscript\|talk]]) 06:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)