Talk:Basque language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Aspect

Is -t[z]en a mark of imperfective aspect or of habitual aspect? The grammatical aspect article mentions the possibility of imperfective habitual aspect, but I think of it more as habitual, unless you group it with the -t[z]en ari izan which is continuous aspect. --Error 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Basque Language: A Practical Introduction, by Alan R. King, p. 393 lists it as habitual. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed. --Error 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Influence in other languages: V/B, F > H

lack of "v" sound (replaced by "b")

It is highly questionable if it is really due to Basque influence. Remember that Sardinian language considered to be the closest romance language to Latin even today, does NOT have a bilabial V sound either, only B. Plus, bilabial V sound has never existged in Latin either. So I don't think it is Basque influence in Spanish. 80.85.50.28 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that idea that Sardinian is closest to Latin in its original form. Sardinian seems the only Romance without direct Basque influence that also shows another "Vascoid" trait: only 5 vowels.

Notice that Romances do not derive directly from classical Latin but from Vulgar Latin, which ignored declensions and had a lot of other modifications like pronouncing "v" as consonant:

The former semivowels written in Latin as V as in vinum, pronounced /w/, and I as in iocunda, pronounced /j/, came to be pronounced /v/ and /dʒ/, respectively.

There are exceptions to this rule obviously but, apart of odd and isolated Sardinian all are in the fringes of the Basque speaking area (Spanish, Gascon, Aragonese), the same that happens with the reduction of the 7 vowels of "standard" Vulgar Latin to the 5 of Spanish, Gascon, Aragonese and Western Catalan dialects. Plus other clearly Basque-influenced modifications like the initial F>H transformation (fablar>hablar) or the differentiation between two aceptions of "to be" (1. to exist, to have qualities; 2. to be in/on/at, to stay), natural in Basque and also normal in Basque-influenced Romances (only). --Sugaar 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The two forms of "to be" in Romance languages have existed since Latin: most of them came from esse and stare. Also, Romanian features the same pair of copulas, though one is derived from fiere instead of esse, and there's no Basque influence there. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Also "stay" exists in English (sometimes can be used as alternative to "be in/on/at") but no Romance I know of (maybe Romanian?) makes such a radical distinction between the two verbs except Basque-influenced ones, it seems. I mean such difference does not exist in French or Italian or even Catalan or Galaico-Portuguese. --Sugaar 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference does exist in Catalan, Italian, and Portuguese (see Romance copula). As for French, the difference did exist until the two verbs merged through phonetic change. By the way, which languages are you referring to by "Basque-influenced ones"? You seem to have excluded everything but Spanish. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also heard that some linguists consider this F>H transformation a normal insider transformation, as similar transformations happened also to several other languages regardless of their origin. The most particular is, e.g., the S>H transformation in Greek and other Eastern languages, that also happened in Spanish in some words: Latin BASSUS > Spanish BAJO [báxo], Latin SAPO > Spanish JABÓN [xawón], etc. so maybe the initial F>H transformation is just another insider and proper evolution form.
Another good example could be the modern Greek language, that has almost EXACTLY the same fonetical system that Castillian Spanish, however, modern Greek has nothing to do with Spanish neither with other romance languages, nor with Basque influence. If you listen to Greek speech, it sounds like Castillian Spanish, but you will not understand the words. Fonetics are almost exactly the same with the same particularities. (Aspirated and week [d] and [g] like in Spanish, the [s] is alveolar but not dental, closer to English "sh", like in Spanish, the original Ancient Greek B is pronounced V, you can also find the English "th" sound like in Castillian Spanish spelled Z or C before E and I, the [x] sound like the one spelled in Spanish as J, etc.)
Besides, don't forget that Basque as a minority language has also been influenced by the Romance languages surrounded during its long history, and this influence may be larger than the substrate Basque had in Spanish and other languages. The main problem is that we don't know if basque language in its original form had or didn't have the F and H consonants, and in modern Basque dialects H is also mude like in Spanish, but it DOES have F!
Zoltan 80.85.57.120 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We do know that Latin loans have lost f-. ficus → piku, fagus → pagu. However I do not remember cases of Latin f- → Basque h- as in Castilian and Gascon. I read somewhere of some Basque scholar with an alternative explanation for some of the coincidences, but could not find it again. If you can provide a reference to an alternative explanation mention it in the article. --Error 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just found the following article section in the classical Latin Wikipedia, it is worth to read:

H venit a littera F (H which comes from letter F).

I don't know if you speak Latin; the article explains that some latin words beginning with H had F in their oldest forms, like HOSTIA and HOSTIS. If it is true, the basque influence in Spanish can be questionated again. —Zoltan

The transformation rule is different but the aversion for the letter "f", specially at the beginning of word, is the same one.

Whatever the case, it is Spanish scholars who defend the Basque influence in the formation of Castilian language, and explain on it its unusual "dynamism" that makes it evolve faster and more innovatively than other Ibero-Romance languages that have remained somewhat closer to Vulgar Latin. --Sugaar 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Basque and Hungarian (?)

Let me tell you that my native language is Hungarian, and maybe it sounds funny, but I have found some definitive common characteristics that would make people consider Basque to be an Uralic language (as Hungarian and Finnish). Let's see some examples:

• In both languages (Basque and Hungarian) the plural mark is a -k.
  • B: euskaldun, euskaldunak / H: baszk, baszkok; B: mendi, mendiek, mendiekin / H: hegy, hegyek, hegyeket [hedj, hedjek, hedjeket]
• There are some words that sound similar.
  • B: bake / H: béke [be:ke]
  • B: hiru / H: három [ha:rom]
  • B: zortzi / H: nyolc [njolts]

Besides, there are some similarities in the morphology and sintaxis, too. Zoltan 88.209.204.157 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. These kinds of random similarities are absolutely irrelevant in comparative linguistics, and they do not indicate any historical connection between these languages: they're just due to chance. Please see Pseudoscientific language comparison for more information. Note also that Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. --212.50.147.101 12:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section. Even if these comments can be considered far-fetched there's no reason to delete content from a talk page. If you wanted to delete your comments you should rather use strike-through text (<s>text</s>). Or just make a further comment retracting.

Personally I have read on this before and there seems to be very little to connect. Nevertheless I am also skeptic of coincidences and when there is some more than annecdotic connection, even if the languages are clearly not related, the hypothesis of substrate or distant indirect connection can well be explored, rather than just pretending that "Basque is Uralic".

Hungarian is said to be the more "Turkic" among Uralic languages, whatever the reason, and I have also found the odd connection with Turk (aita-ata, for instance). While it's obviously not enough to get anything consistent, the data should not be just ignored. After all proto-Basques, must have come from Asia at some point in prehistory (c. 35,000 BCE probably) and also one can think in other pan-European (see Vasconic languages or Neolithic substrates (iri/iru/uri-ili/ilu-urbs-ilion-iri-uri for town/city for instance). All very hypotehtical but... who knows?

Just trying to give a more constructive perspective than just the typical systematic denial of most linguists. --Sugaar 07:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Phonological Chart

Let's get charts of the full consonantal and vocalic inventory of the Basque language happening! It would improve the article a great deal. Will someone qualified to do so, please do?65.102.39.177 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to post the same suggestion, but now I'll just reiterate this one -- a chart of the phonological inventory would be a fantastic addition to this article, and I'm not qualified to make one. Froboyd 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A song

Can somebody provide a transcription of this song? I want to learn to read the language. http://www.vanillae.de/chala/media/CHA-LA_HEAD_CHA-LA_-_Euskara_TV_Version.mp3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.54.181 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Banoa Hemendik / Leo's Lyrics --Schuetzm 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Im Basque/Spanish young man but in fact my euskara is not as good as I´d like. Anyway, I can tell by now that the song you have linked here its just a basque version of the famous dragon ball Z opening theme, broadcast some years ago in the ETB - Euskal Telebista. The author of the song refers to a man (goku) that begins this journey across the planet (banoa banoa... im leaving...) and... well... you know, I´will talk with some friends of mine in order to provide you a decent traslation. See you.

Its influence on Spanish

I read somewhere that Spanish overall stress and pitch is based on the Basque one (as Spanish as a separate language seems to be born in a former Basque speaking area in La Rioja). Is this correct? if so, it may be interesting to note it in the article. Mountolive | Talk 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Basque stress varies regionally, so it would be difficult to decide. --Error 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Basque lettering

Also, despite not having a separate alphabet whatsoever, Basque is often written in distinctive letters, specially in signs. Some mention/info about this would be interesting. Mountolive | Talk 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided some lines and links in Spanish. Don't know if there are similar pages in English. A clearer image than the stela would be good too. --Error 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Clear" Basque influences?

In the case of Castilian (Spanish), we find the following clear Basque substrate influences:

• lack of "v" sound (replaced by "b")
• simple five vowel system
• transformation of initial "f" into mute "h": fablar → hablar (this is even more marked in Gascon)
• differentiation between two meanings of "to be" (exist and stay): ser and estar (like Basque: izan and egon)

The second and fourth "influences" don't really convince me. Latin only had five vowels, too (although it had phonemic vowel length). The distinction between ser and estar came straight from Romance. Italian has the same thing with essere and stare, and French used to have the distinction as well. In any case, these supposed influences are anything but "clear". - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put a link to History of the Spanish language#Possible Basque influence that mentions a non-Basque hypothesis. Can we remove the dubious tag? --Error 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Basque grammar and Basque verbs

Fulfilling a promise I made to Sugaar last year, I have finally started uploading an article dedicated to Basque grammar. Because it is such an extensive subject, I have split off the section on the Basque verb and made it a separate article. There are good precedents for this in Wikipedia since the more fully described languages not only have a separate grammar article but also a special article covering the verb in detail. Even so, the main grammar article is going to be very long because there is a lot to say! (I have a long-term project to put up grammars of a growing number of languages; you can see which ones I've finshed so far on my user page.)

The grammar article is still incomplete. I actually wrote the material I've just posted last year, but I didn't finish the grammar then, so there are still some parts missing. I consider the noun phrase section complete, and also the verb article, but the syntax section is incomplete. The next subtopic within it is supposed to be on Grammatical Relations, a very important issue not properly covered in what I have posted so far. This should include a discussion of Basque ergativity and transitivity types, but also a general explanation of how grammatical relations are expressed in Basque through both case markers and (for the nuclear cases) verbal indexing; both case marking and verb indices have been presented already (under noun phrases and the verb, respectively) but not the larger picture of how these work together in the Basque sentence. The subject/object pro-drop issue should also be treated here.

Following that, my plan would be for the rest of the Syntax section to go through Coordinating conjunctions, Relative clauses, Complement clauses, Conditional and concessive clauses, Circumstantial clauses...

The grammar article could conclude with a section on the Basque lexicon, discussing general issues (loanwords, neologisms...), derivation and lexical compounds.

I have omitted phonology because this is already covered in the main Basque language article (unless it is thought better to move that section to the grammar article?).

Other elements are also missing or incomplete, for instance the bibliography is for now only a token bibliography, and a lot of references could be inserted. Anyone care to help? Any feedback? Alan --A R King 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a language isolate

Basque language is considered to be rooted in Spanish and French, why would they call this a language isolate since it is obviously influenced by these two cultures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.247.42.124 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly it is untrue to say that Basque is considered to be rooted in Spanish and French - Basque is believed to have existed in the Iberian peninsula long before the arrival of the Romans. Secondly the definition of a language isolate is not related to whether a language has been influenced by its neighboring languages or not, it has to do with the languages origins - whether it has any sister languages so to speak. While it is true that Basque has been influenced by Spanish and French during the past centuries no actual sister languages of Basque are known.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Counting - Celtic similarity

I am certainly not suggesting that Basque is related to Celtic (obviously it is not), but could there be some borrowing as regards numbers and counting? The Basque word for 'twenty' is stated to be 'hogei', which seems remarkably similar to the Welsh 'ugain' (pronounced "eegain" in south Wales, though in north Wales "u" is pronounced somewhat as in French). More particularly, Basque like Welsh uses multiples of the word for 'twenty', to denote 'forty', 'sixty', etc. Thus the Welsh for 'sixty' is 'trigain' (literally, 'threetwenty'). Is such a system used in other languages? Digressing, I can relate to the comment about learners of Basque having the problem that Basque speakers are fluent in French or Spanish and readily revert to one of those languages. Likewise, Welsh speakers are fluent in English and all to readily speak in English! Alvintim (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

==

Systems based on twenty are and were quite common, that's no proof of genetic relationship. Irish used to use a system based on 20, Gaelic still does, French has a hybrid system using 20...

I'd seriously recommend that before anyone comes up with another magic link they read Larry Trask's History of Basque!. Quoting page 275 on hogei: There have been various attempts at deriving it from Celtic, given the existance of Brythonic forms like Middle Welsh 'ugeint', Cornish 'ugens' and Breton 'ugent', but the reconstructed Proto-Celtic '*wi-kant-i' is a phonologically impossible source, and Michelena [...] categorically rejects a Celtic origin.

Just a general hint: when you're coming up with a possible etymology, remember that you're dealing with history here so unless you're talking with a modern, recent loan, you must compare the forms that would have been in use when the word was borrowed. Plus, you always have to provide at least a theory on what the motivation for borrowing this particular term would have been. One can see why the Basques would borrow a term like errota (mill) from Latin as this was a new thing for them. But borrowing the word for 20 would be quite odd, since the whole system is native Basque up to 999 and you'd have to come up with a really good reason for this. --Akerbeltz 11:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]

There is also the coincidence of bi (2) and Latin bis. Probably Latin etymology has an explanation, though. --Error (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvintim (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)I am at a loss to know why Akerbeltz lays down a rule that "you always have to provide at least a theory on what the motivation for borrowing [a] particular term would have been". If one can provide a TENABLE theory, obviously that's fine. When a language goes back into pre-history,though, any such "theory" is likely to be mere speculation. Why cannot one propose a link even in the absence of a theory?Alvintim (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, insert the word 'tenable'... it's what I meant but omitted because I thought that would be obvious. You can speculate of course but it's helpful to make it clear that you're speculating. It's not "my" rule by the way, go to any linguisitic lecture on etymologies and you'll hear about this, it's one of the "golden rules" of how-to. Thing is, speculation is easy to do, far too easy perhaps, and then other people usually end up having to mop up afterwards because other people love to take specualtion as theory, theory then becomes "truth" and suddenly the papers are writing about "conclusive evidence that Basque is related to Ossetian". I guess it's "speculation fatigue" to some degree about the "Basque word X is from Y". --Akerbeltz 13:26, 17 February 2008 (GMT)]

You can propose all the links you like without any theory, actually thats seems to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to proposals of basque relations to other languages. But if you want to investigate a languages past proposals that are not based in a tenable theory are of no use. And as akerbeltz says for a theory to be tenable it has to not only be possible but also probable. Probability rises with the number of arguments provided in favour of a theory. For an etymology to be probable it should not only present likeness among two words but also have a motivation - starting with proving that the two languages between which a relation is proposed has in fact been in contact. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

__________

In my opinion, coincidences such as the one mentioned by Alvintim, if are not mere coincidences, probably reflect a Basque > Celtic borrowing, and not the opposite: advancing Celtic culture would have absorbed terms from the pre-existent (and hypothetic, of course) Bascoid substratum if anything.

In any case, you need a scholarly reference to reflect any theory in Wikipedia. Self-research is not valid. So, either find a valid source or let it be. --Sugaar (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would research more before charging in with these grand revelations about Basque and it's relationship to the language of dolphins. Basque bi derives from earlier biga via regular (in Basque) loss of intervocalic g. Could I please suggest to anyone who is interested in the question of the relationship between Basque and the rest to read either Mitxelena's Fonetic a Historica Vasca or Trask's The History of Basque? If nothing else, they're fascinating books that deserve reading but they'll also explain why you can't just look at the modern shape of two words from two different languages and say hey presto. Akerbeltz 22:44, 05 April 2008 (UTC)]

References?

I've just added a small section on the numbers used by Basque millers, I have the necessary references but I can't work out how to creat the link >.<. The work I'm referencing to is

Aguirre Sorondo, A "Tratado de Molinología: Los molinos en Guipúzcoa" Donostia: Eusko Ikaskuntza, 1988

Any help would be welcome, eskerrik asko :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akerbeltz (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Check: WP:Footnotes.

Or in other words:

<ref>insert reference here</ref>

This code can be generated with the corresponding button on top right of the edit box.

In the References (or Sources) section there must be the following code:

<references/>

... or:

{{reflist}}

--Sugaar (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Aran Valley it's not a basque name. The name Aran provides from Aranosios or Arenosios, the ancient celtic tribe of the valley. The basque word haran,(valley), is only a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.20.106 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Aran is the basque word. It's a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.195.82 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A study concerning Basque language and its potential relations

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/ainu.htm

according to the link the studies that lie beneath, Basque language is to be related to Dravidian, and Ainu. The most relevant point is the language comparison between Ainu and Basque vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.197.86 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that's linguistic junk of the highest degree. It's just another random comparison of random words. Whoever this person is, they haven't even bothered to eliminate clear loanwords and establish some crazy link between Basque ponte and Ainu, even though ponte is a clear loanword from Latin. The rest is no better. Ignore. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just eliminated a section called: Basque on the internet

I just deleted the following from this article:

Basque on the Internet

One in a thousand (0.1%) websites are in Basque.

It appears no such information existed in the chicago Sun times on that date.
Furthermore, if even close to .1% of all webpages are written in basque that might add up to something like 20-100 pages per native basque speaker. (using ~600,000 basque speakers, and 4billion or so web pages) please delete this post if you agree, or restore the text if you disagree with my edits.

--196.2.90.125 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Interesting fact that for now, I feel, just doesn't fit in the article

The first book written in Basque did not appear until 1545.

• Jansen, Wim (2002). "Introduction". Beginner's Basque. New York, NY: Hippocrene Books, Inc. pp. p. 7. ISBN 0-7818-0933-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |pages= has extra text (help)

In a roundabout way there is, it's there but hidden on the Bernard Etxepare page (which needs a good cleanup). I think we need a page on Basque publishing or at least Basque literature. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dialects

I've added some info on the language name and its variants. This section is getting quite large, any thoughts on whether we should shift most of the dialect stuff to a new page Basque dialects? Akerbeltz (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dialects again - similarities, differences, correspondences

Hello everyone! I think it would be wonderful if we created a table of of correspondences between the individual dialects. I don't think it would be necessary to mention the reconstructed phonemes, although it would be highly interesting, of course - the problem is that various scholars reconstruct the common ancestor of the Basque dialects somewhat differently, hence Luis Michelena's Pre-Basque is a bit different from Larry Trask's Pre-Basque, which in turn is quite different from John Bengtson's Proto-Basque (which might represent an older stage of the same language, judging from the phonotactic restrictions Trask described in his etymological dictionary).

So, the table should be totally "scholar-neutral", showing ONLY the correspondences WITHOUT attempting to reconstruct proto-phonemes or to ascribe specific phonological features to them. Your opinions?

Oh, I'm not sure the main article is the right place for this, but I wonder what you all think about this idea, anyway.

Please, leave me a message if you are willing to help. I'm not a vascologist, just an interested linguist, so any help will be welcome, as I would like it to be as accurate as possible. Thanks for any help or advice in advance!--Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the dialect section currently and will probably start a Basque dialects page, currently it's all still stuck on User:Akerbeltz/sandbox - feel free to have a look and chip in I don't think there's enough data to reconstruct the individual verb forms for PB... well, I've never seen anything like it in print anyway. I'll see if Michelena and LT have anything for the naiz-haiz paradigm in the present tense perhaps. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. I've created a page on Basque dialects and moved most of the dialect stuff there. I'll be working to expand it when i get my head back after finishing my current translation job. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Runestone with Basque inscription?

A language professor from Sweden has tried to decipher a runestone in Denmark from around the 11th century, and by comparing with numerous languages, he has come to the conclusion that it was carved in Basque. http://www.spraktidningen.se/art.lasso?id=08209d

According to the article, the text fragment above is supposed to mean something like this: "Basa carved these runes for her husband Etxe­hegi, and Isifus for his aunt Izeba"

Unfortunately I don´t have any more information on this, but it sounds interesting indeed...

McLoaf (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm thanks for that. I found the inscription and stone here http://www.christerhamp.se/runor/gamla/dr/dr187.html It looks like a typical case of "this rune carver was clearly mad and we can't read him so it must be Basque". This looks nothing like Basque, Pre-Basque or Proto-Basque to me. Let's see:

m- * srnes-sn : urn=u=kb(h) -a=si ¶ s(n)rþmi : itssih(k)i × li isifuþrlak * iseRa * li

"Basa carved these runes for her husband Etxe­hegi, and Isifus for his aunt Izeba."

Ok by the looks of it he picks urn=u=k for urnak, b(h) -a=si for Basa, s(n)rþmi for senarrari "to the husband", itssih(k)i × li for Etxehegiri, isifuþrlak for Isifu?rlak and iseRa * li for izebari "to the aunt". Aside from the "bam, here's the translation but no interlinear version"

No f in Pre-Basque, that makes Isifu and unlikely Basque name. If the reads the -þrlak as -ak ergative, then why is Basa not marked as ergative but shows up as Basi? No m in Pre-Basque either, so ¶ s(n)rþmi is also impossible from that angle. itssih(k)i - I don't think i- vowels ever show up in Basque dialects in etxe "house", current or reconstructed.

Ok, I'm no expert on runes but it looks... unlikely to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PS yes, it may not be Pre-Basque but Stig hasn't provided a date for the inscription. Aquitanian has m of course and the vikings are post-roman but it still looks unlikely to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, it would be a good idea to read the original scholarly articles on the inscription in order to see what the author actually says? This might save us from possible inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.188.232 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)