5 ms·
If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them,
by moloch-hai 4y ago
If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them, or talking about comparing them? The only possible objection is that you don't like what might come from it.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoThey've been compared and nothing of note was found. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34494938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34494938
- moloch-hai 4y agoThat work was all done without this new evidence. New evidence might reinforce old conclusions, or undermine them. Nobody knows without the work having been done.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoWhat new evidence.
- moloch-hai 4y agoIt is called TFA, around here. I have copied the link for your convenience. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sensational-runestone-discovered-in-norway-may-be-the-worlds-oldest-180981470/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sensational-runest...
- bazoom42 4y agoDid you mean to reply to somone else? I have not objected to comparing anything.
- moloch-hai 4y agoComparing scripts is the only way to identify similarities and differences. We can be confident Korean is not an influence just on geographic grounds, but all Mediterranean scripts are in play, because whoever started using runes could have been exposed to any or all of them. You may say nobody can prove a negative, but cocksure deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here.
- bazoom42 4y ago> deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here You seem to be very upset about something, but it is not really clear what. “Deniers” is usually used about people who deny evidence, but this does not seem to be the case here.