Talk:Szarvas inscription

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * That might be true if your theories were in any way mainstream. But they're not. Some of your edits might even be suggestive of a conflict of interest, and distort scientific fact in favour of the kinds of fictions you are trying to promote. They aren't accepted mainstream linguistics. And neither is the book you wrote, I am sorry to say. -- Evertype·✆ 08:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Evertype and have removed the entire section Unicode. There was no text in it, merely external links to your own self-published papers. It was against the guidelines in the Manual of Style, External links, and Reliable sources. I moved the link to the most recent paper to the External links section, where it may be more appropriate. As for adding your recently published book to the References section, that is also inappropriate. There is no evidence that the contents of the book have been on any way used to reference this article. Nor is there any indication that it is the type of source that is recommended by Wikipedia, as you are not a recognized and widely published scholar in Hungarian linguistics. I have moved it to a further reading section and I have replaced the link to the Hungarian language google books with one to the English version. This entire article is currently skewed to promulgating a theory (which is not accepted by the majority of scholars) and misleading because it represents your original research and synthesis as accepted facts. See  the section wherin you wrote:
 * ''"Carpathian Basin Rovas script, the Alsószentmihály inscription was written with Khazarian Rovas"
 * There is no evidence that such scripts even exist as distinct entities, and the articles you created on them were deleted, . You have made no effort whatsoever to balance this article or to detail the mainstream views on the subject. That is why other editors are reverting and/or editing your additions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To vypadá na staroslovenské runové písmo. Dám to nejakému slavistovi preložiť?
 * It looks like an Old Slovac runic script. Shall I give to Slavist translate it? Bynk. 178.41.63.67 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)