The Rosetta Stone

**George S.** · 03-06-2011, 08:37 AM

i thoght that the rosetta stone was written in macedonian/?

**Soldier of Macedon** · 03-07-2011, 02:17 AM

"There are about 20 grammar rules, such as formation of singular and plural, with superlative adjectives, forming a passive form of the verb. Here I met and the characteristics of Bitola speech in relation to membership of the nouns. Namely, Bitola is said to be unable to speak literally, not put 't' at the end of nouns, for example, chair, pencil and more. We proved that this irregularity is attributed, in essence, keeps roots from the ancient Macedonian language ", says Bosevski.

The 't' at the end of those words comes from the definitive article (suffix) 'ot'. Interestingly, even though the definitive article minimised the use of Macedonian cases, the drop of 't' in dialects from Bitola, Prilep, Lerin, etc actually brings it phonetically closer to the cases it replaced. For example:

- Gradot Prilep (with definitive article)
- Grado Prilep (without the 't' in definitive article)
- Grada Prilepa (with cases) *Depending on dialect and circumstance, it can still be said this way in Macedonian.

That said, if anybody can help in deciphering the suggested 'decipherment' of Bosevski and Tentov, please do so. The way I see it at the moment, their findings appear dubious because they have not done enough to explain their methodology, their comparative studies or final results. Here is a link to their works:

http://rosetta-stone.etf.ukim.edu.mk/en/node/294

Here is an example. Is it only the capital letters that should be considered? All of them?

Here is what is accepted in the 'mainstream' based on the works of western scholars, according to wikipedia:

At the time of the stone's discovery, the Swedish diplomat and scholar Johan David �kerblad was working on a little-known script of which some examples had recently been found in Egypt, which came to be known as Demotic. He called it "cursive Coptic" because, although it had few similarities with the later Coptic script, he was convinced that it was used to record some form of the Coptic language (the direct descendant of Ancient Egyptian). The French Orientalist Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de Sacy, who had been discussing this work with �kerblad, received in 1801 from Jean-Antoine Chaptal, French minister of the interior, one of the early lithographic prints of the Rosetta Stone, and realised that the middle text was in this same script. He and �kerblad set to work, both focusing on the middle text and assuming that the script was alphabetic. They attempted, by comparison with the Greek, to identify within this unknown text the points where Greek names ought to occur. In 1802, Silvestre de Sacy reported to Chaptal that he had successfully identified five names ("Alexandros", "Alexandreia", "Ptolemaios", "Arsinoe" and Ptolemy's title "Epiphanes"),[C] while �kerblad published an alphabet of 29 letters (more than half of which were correct) that he had identified from the Greek names in the demotic text.[D][35] They could not, however, identify the remaining characters in the demotic text, which, as is now known, included ideographic and other symbols alongside the phonetic ones.

Silvestre de Sacy eventually gave up work on the stone, but he was to make another contribution. In 1811, prompted by discussions with a Chinese student about Chinese script, Silvestre de Sacy considered a suggestion made by Georg Zo�ga in 1797 that the foreign names in Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions might be written phonetically; he also recalled that as long ago as 1761, Jean-Jacques Barth�lemy had suggested that the characters enclosed in cartouches in hieroglyphic inscriptions were proper names. Thus, when Thomas Young, foreign secretary of the Royal Society of London, wrote to him about the stone in 1814, Silvestre de Sacy suggested in reply that in attempting to read the hieroglyphic text, Young might look for cartouches that ought to contain Greek names and try to identify phonetic characters in them.[61]

Champollion's table of hieroglyphic phonetic characters with their demotic and Coptic equivalents (1822)Young did so, with two results that together paved the way for the final decipherment. He discovered in the hieroglyphic text the phonetic characters "p t o l m e s" (in today's transliteration "p t w l m y s"), that were used to write the Greek name "Ptolemaios". He also noticed that these characters resembled the equivalent ones in the Demotic script, and went on to note as many as 80 similarities between the hieroglyphic and demotic texts on the stone, an important discovery because the two scripts were previously thought to be entirely different from one another. This led him to deduce correctly that the demotic script was only partly phonetic, also consisting of ideographic characters imitated from hieroglyphs.[I] Young's new insights were prominent in the long article "Egypt" that he contributed to the Encyclop�dia Britannica in 1819.[J] He could, however, get no further.[62]

In 1814, Young first exchanged correspondence about the stone with Jean-Fran�ois Champollion, a teacher at Grenoble who had produced a scholarly work on Ancient Egypt. Champollion, in 1822, saw copies of the brief hieroglyphic and Greek inscriptions of the Philae obelisk, on which William John Bankes had tentatively noted the names "Ptolemaios" and "Kleopatra" in both languages.[63] From this, Champollion identified the phonetic characters k l e o p a t r a (in today's transliteration q l i҆ w p ꜣ d r ꜣ .t).[64] On the basis of this and the foreign names on the Rosetta Stone, he quickly constructed an alphabet of phonetic hieroglyphic characters, which appears, printed from his hand-drawn chart, in his "Lettre � M. Dacier", addressed at the end of 1822 to Bon-Joseph Dacier, secretary of the Paris Acad�mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres and immediately published by the Acad�mie.[K] This "Letter" marks the real breakthrough to reading Egyptian hieroglyphs, not only for the alphabet chart and the main text, but also for the postscript in which Champollion notes that similar phonetic characters seemed to occur not only in Greek names but also in native Egyptian names. During 1823, he confirmed this, identifying the names of pharaohs Ramesses and Thutmose written in cartouches in far older hieroglyphic inscriptions that had been copied by Bankes at Abu Simbel and sent on to Champollion by Jean-Nicolas Huyot.[M] From this point, the stories of the Rosetta Stone and the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs diverge, as Champollion drew on many other texts to develop a first Ancient Egyptian grammar and a hieroglyphic dictionary, both of which were to be published after his death.

**Po-drum** · 03-10-2011, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post

Here is an example. Is it only the capital letters that should be considered? All of them?

That's also explained. Here: http://rosetta-stone.etf.ukim.edu.mk/en/node/84

**Soldier of Macedon** · 03-10-2011, 06:04 PM

Here are some of their 'explanations':

We assume that the sound values of the consonants and vowels, as mostly not liable to changes, have retained the same pronunciation up to the present day.

Modern Macedonian demonstrates evolution and changes from Old Macedonian (Church Slavonic), therefore, to assume that the pronounciation in modern and ancient Macedonian has remained the same is incorrect. Even well documented languages like Greek have underwent a number of sound changes over the centuries. Furthermore, Paleo-Balkan languages such as Thracian and Illyrian demonstrate certain characteristics that are (naturally) more akin to Proto Balto-Slavic than modern Slavic languages.

Using more than one hundred words from the contemporary Macedonian language, all 13 (thirteen) asymmetrical signs were wired for sound with corresponding consonants.

How did they determine the sounds for each symbol? It appears that they did a 'trial and error' with them based on words from today's Macedonian language. What they should have done is measure this script against words from Proto Balto-Slavic, Proto Baltic, Proto Slavic, Common Slavic and Old Macedonian (Church Slavonic), in addition to today's Baltic and Slavic languages.

The information on the link you provided above appears to confirm that they have applied anachronism to a task which required a more scientific approach.

**The LION will ROAR** · 03-10-2011, 10:01 PM

Here are some more information on the Rosetta Stone..
I think we should really find the truth about this important Stone..

ROSETTA STONE -The evidence that wasn't destroyed

The Rosetta Stone is a black granite slab with the following dimensions:

Height: 1.44 m
Width: 0.72 м
Thickness : 0.28m
Weight: 762 кг

The special decree that had been inscribed on it, according to contemporary scholarship, was issued by the priests in order to glorify the pharaoh Ptolemy V Epiphany Eucharist one year after his coronation, more precisely, according to present-day calendar on 27th of March 196 B.C.

The text is written in three languages: ancient Egyptian, ancient Macedonian, and ancient Greek.
For a long time no one could decode the ancient Macedonian script.

Professors Aristotel Tentov and Tome Bosevski made a great discovery when they succeeded to decode the middle text from the Rosetta Stone, and as their scientific proves say, it turns out to be in ancient Macedonian language, that royal Egyptian Macedonian family (originates from Ptolemy I, Alexander the Great's General) used together with the ancient Egyptian and ancient Greek languages.

The perceptions and results of the research of the academician Aristotel Tentov and Tome Bosevski in analyzing and deciphering the middle text of Rosetta Stone are presented here, starting from the assumption that the text in the demotic script was written in the language of the ancient Macedonians, i.e. in the ancient Macedonian language.

http://rosetta-stone.etf.ukim.edu.mk/

**The LION will ROAR** · 03-10-2011, 10:02 PM

Some of the Macedonic words equal to todays modern Macedonian language, transliterated from the Rosetta stone:

nashe - ours

Some of the Macedonic words equal to todays modern Macedonian language, writen on the Rosetta stone:

nashe - ours

nashion - of ours

bog - god

ze - light, sight, view, sun

bozhen - of god, god's

gospod - master

prv - first

gyupzave - these egyptians

danaive - these greeks

nalea - to pour

nadezh - hope

nariza - lament

moi - mine

voi - yours

toi(toy)- he, him

seme - seed, family

samo - only

javi(yavi)- to let know, to communicate, decreed

deca(detza)- kids

ime - name

naj(nai)- the most

na - on, of, above, onto, to

naziv - named, called

naiub'o - the most beautiful, preetiest

nadezh - hope

zmija(zmiya)- snake

zhelya(zhelba in Modern Macedonian)- a wish, order

tato - father

veze - embroide

naveze - to embroider, write beautifully

http://rosetta-stone.etf.ukim.edu.mk/

Rosetta Stone Demotic Text

http://issuu.com/petro_invictus/docs/rosetta_stone

Rosetta Stone Demotic Text reading

Rosetta stone Demotic text deciphered

http://issuu.com/petro_invictus/docs/boshevski-tentov-appendix

appendix to the study of Tentov and Boshevski

**The LION will ROAR** · 03-10-2011, 10:04 PM

Nobody was able to decipher the middle text of the stone.

The French knew ancient Hellenic. The Greeks still need the French to translate ancient hellenic into modern day Greek, because the Greeks don't know their own ancient language.

Because the French knew how to read Ancient Hellenic (which is not modern Greek), the French were able to understand Egyptian Hieroglyphs.

No one was able to understand the middle text, only that we knew that the three messages were the same.

The Greeks in all their wisdom, and knowledge were not able to translate the middle text, because the Greeks don't understand Macedonian.

Thanks to Tome Bosevski (MANU) and Prof. Dr. Aristotel Tentov, you can now learn the ancient Macedonian language all by yourself, and see that "Today, with little effort, we could understand the language of the Antic Macedonians".

Rosetta stone Demotic text deciphered

Rosetta stone Demotic text deciphered

http://issuu.com/petro_invictus/docs/boshevski-tentov-appendix

appendix to the study of Tentov and Boshevski

**The LION will ROAR** · 03-10-2011, 10:05 PM

Ancient Macedonian Words Found in the Modern Macedonian Language
Interview with Professor Tome Boshevski

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/ristova/rosetta_stone_boshevski.html

Courtesy, Liljana Ristova
Editor, Canadian Macedonian News
(Translated from Macedonian to English and edited by Risto Stefov)
Did the Slavs come to the Balkans from behind the Carpathians or did they cross the Carpathians fleeing north to avoid the Roman invasions? This is a problem that can be easily and logically remedied.
After five Macedonian-Roman wars fought in the second century BC with Philip V and his son Perseus, a large number of Macedonians including most of the elite and ruling class, fled Macedonia and headed north away from the conflict. Fearing a slaughter from the Roman armies descending on Macedonia from the south, from Peloponnesus, they fled the Balkans and resettled north as far as Siberia. No people leave their homes voluntarily on masse unless they are coerced. This massive evacuation was certainly coerced by the violent Roman invasion which accounted for about half of Macedonia's population leaving Macedonia. The other half still remained and lived on Macedonian territory.
We cannot accept the notion that the Macedonian-Roman wars "cleansed out" the entire Ancient Macedonian population as much as we cannot accept the notion that the Ancient Macedonians who fled the conflict disappeared altogether. There are well documented historic facts that prove that Ancient Macedonians not only survived the Roman invasion but many who fled north in fact, over time, returned to their ancestral lands in the Balkans.
Professor Boshevski, you and your colleague Professor Aristotel Tentov, a while ago, made a sensational discovery of great importance to the Macedonian people and to world history. You were able to successfully decipher the center text on the Rosetta Stone, which for over two hundred years, no one was able to decipher. Even though you are not a linguist by profession you are obviously very much interested in the subject. What compelled you to take on such a great task?
Professor Boshevski: With regards to the decipherment, we were not the first to attempt the center text translation. There were other translations made before us but we were not content with their results. I worked for forty years in the field of nuclear energy and I am no stranger to the types of methods necessary to solve complex problems. I investigated other's attempts at the translation but their analysis fell short of meeting our expectations.
The idea that drove us to the assumption that this indeed may be the writing of the Ancient Macedonians is that we refused to believe the notion of mainstream science that the Ancient Macedonians were illiterate and had no writing system or language of their own. To us it was illogical to assume that two-thousand years ago a people capable of creating an empire with all the elements of a complex civilization could not read and write in their own language! It would be impossible for such people to build grand libraries like never before and populate them with such great knowledge if they were not able to read and write.
It is illogical to assume that if we have no knowledge of something that it doesn't exist! Many things from that period for various reasons are still not known and have not been identified. The center text on the Rosetta Stone is a good example where something discovered over two hundred years ago is still an enigma to this very day for many scientists, including the world authorities on ancient languages.
Having said that however, it is well accepted that the center text on the Rosetta Stone is a distinct language with distinct writing. Since it was found in Egypt it is assumed to be an Egyptian language and because it appeared to be rare, it was assumed to be an official Egyptian language. Regarding the language's use, the academic world seems to be divided with some believing it is an Egyptian demotic or a peoples' language yet others believing it is an official Egyptian language.
If this language was indeed an Egyptian official language then it must have been used by the then Egyptian rulers and the Pharaoh himself to write his decrees. Interestingly, the Egyptian rulers of the time were the Ptolemaic dynasty which lasted for about three hundred years. It is well known, especially in the academic world, that the Ptolemaic dynasty was a Macedonian dynasty that originated inside the Balkans or more precisely inside Macedonia in a town today called "Ptolemaida". The name of the dynasty comes from Ptolemy Soter, the first Ptolemy. Ptolemy Soter was one of Alexander the Greats' generals. He inherited Egypt, a part of Alexander's empire, after Alexander's death. Ptolemy Soter's family name comes from his town of origin located about fifty kilometers south of present day Bitola, Republic of Macedonia.
The language Ptolemy Soter spoke was the language of the Pelagonian plain. The Pelagonian plain is located in the triangle between Lerin, Voden and Bitola. So it is not unusual to assume that some words or linguistic elements from Ptolemy Soter's time, survived the two-thousand years and may be present in the Macedonian language of today. If our assumption was correct that Ptolemy Soter's descendents ordered the center text to be inscribed in the Ancient Macedonian language which he brought with him from the Pelagonian plain, then we should be able to find clues of it in the modern Macedonian language or at least in the Macedonian dialectal language of the Pelagonian plain. If indeed this was the language of the Ancient Macedonians than its roots are not Egyptian but Balkan. Ptolemais, from Ptolemy Soter to Cleopatra VII the last Macedonian ruler of Egypt may have used this language for as long as they ruled Egypt. These were our first assumptions.
It is understandable that as in science or in mathematics, the first step to solving a complex problem is to devise a sound theory and then look for evidence to support it. Our theory was based on the above premises which we believed were sound, logical and would lead us to the right solution.
We cannot say that the problem was not complex. It was quite the opposite. Besides being faced with deciphering the meaning of each symbol, we also had to identify sounds and figure out how they would fit into constructing a language. It was a puzzle with many undefined elements but luckily we found that today's science does have knowledge of this kind of writing which exists in the larger territory of Europe. Almost all ancient European writing comes from the Pelasgians, the Etruscans, the old Dannans and other ancient northern people who had syllabic writing similar to that identified on the Rosetta Stone. Our latest findings have indicated that the Canadian Eskimos too had a writing system with markings which in large part are similar to the ones on the Rosetta Stone. This kind of information is widely available even in encyclopedias. All you have to do is look up any title or literature with references to the writing of the Canadian Eskimos and other American indigenous people or to the writing of the ancient European people.
There is no need to dispute the syllabic nature of this writing system. It has been in official use for long periods of time in Europe before the Roman period and before the arrival of the Latin script on the European continent.
On account that you have established that the writing is syllabic, what is the most appropriate name to call it?
Professor Boshevski: We have not given it any particular name; we call it by its characteristics "syllabic writing" or "the center text on the Rosetta Stone". This is a script of a very old civilization spanning the territory of Europe and Asia Minor which at some point in time was brought to the North American continent and was widely used by many nations. The Ptolemais used a downscaled sophisticated version of it with a reduced number of symbols. This way its keepers would have had an easier time remembering its rules and keeping track of them.
Our job was to unravel this language's mystery which meant that we needed to identify its grammatical rules. After some investigation and by using today's Macedonian language as reference, a certain number of grammatical rules began to surface such as the formation of the superlative adjective with the prefix "na" (on, upon, to, up to, at, against) or its plural "nai". More about this can be found in our publication "Po Tragite na pismoto i jaziko na antichkite Makedontsi" (Tracing the Ancient Macedonian Writing and Language). Interestingly we found the term "na" in use three times.
This discovery gave us some confidence that we were on the right track and that this may be the language of the Ancient Macedonians. This may indeed be the syllabic writing of the Ancient Macedonian language whose roots place it in the center of the Balkans on the Pelagonian plain. If so then this would be a script of European origins, older than the Roman civilization and from an aspect of writing, preceding the Glagolic and Cyrillic scripts of Kiril and Metodi which by the way, also originated in the same region.
According to one of our most recognized cultural activists, Chernorizets Hrabar who by the way also was one of our motivators for starting this project, the people of the Balkans, before the brother saints Kiril and Methodi gave us our current writing, wrote in "cherti i retski" (lines and incisions). Interestingly we also found this term in the Pharaoh's decree. The actual term was "nareitsi" which by just looking closely is similar to the term "narestsi" and "cherti" and "retski".
Russian literature describes the "cherti i retski" (lines and incisions) as a form of pre-Slav writing but does not tell of its time or how widely it was used. However in view of our discovery we know for certain that the inscription on the Rosetta Stone was made in 196 BC. From this we can conclude that this type of writing existed before the second century BC.
Professor Boshevski, you made reference to this language as being older than the Roman civilization as in "pre-Roman". But we know that before Rome there was Macedonia, a state with all the components of a civilization which lasted a long time. Why has no one used the term "Macedonian Civilization"?
Professor Boshevski: This is a question for which I have no logical answer. Our contemporary educators tell us that there are verifiable Egyptian and Persian civilizations. It is well known that the Macedonian Empire followed the Persian Empire just like the Roman Empire followed the Macedonian Empire. We also know that the Persian Empire to a large degree existed within the Egyptian Civilization. So if we line them up we have the Egyptian, Persian, Macedonian and Roman Empires which in part or in whole, ruled the European continent for long periods of historic time.
It is sad that our contemporary educators have shown little or no respect for the Macedonian Civilization. This is another reason which motivated us to pursue this project.
All prior and subsequent empires carried the ethnic name of the people who initiated them, however, only the Macedonian Empire is called "Alexander the Greats' Empire". Doesn't this negate the Macedonian identity?
Professor Boshevski: I can't say I fully agree with all of this. No one can challenge the name of the Ancient Macedonians like they question their ethnic identity. The name by itself "Ancient Macedonians" no one dares to dispute. When we began to solve this problem, we thought that we would provide a great contribution to science and build a database of knowledge with which one can learn to read the texts written by the Ancient Macedonians and find out for themselves who these people were, how they spoke and naturally use this knowledge to write Macedonia's history. Thinking along those lines, our initial aim was to identify the actual writing with which the text was written, to become familiar with its meaning and then create a methodology for reading and writing in that language.
As most people know by now, there are three different texts written on the Rosetta Stone; the top text is written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, the bottom text is written in the language of the Dannans, a writing closely resembling that of today's Greek alphabet, and the center text, which was deemed by some scholars to be the "Demotic" or "peoples" language of the Egyptians. I just want to mention here that the name "Dannans" was what the Ancient Macedonians called the people who understood the bottom language on the Rosetta Stone.
We know in essence this is syllabic writing, which some analysts referred to as "a writing with which the laws were written". In today's terms that means it was the "official writing" of the authorities who at the time were the Ptolemaic dynasty. In other words, the Ancient Macedonians.
As it is in nuclear physics where the construction of matter consists of protons and neutrons where protons are the carriers of individual characteristics of each chemical element, and neutrons serve as their binds, so is the construction of a language where we have the consonants and vowels. Consonants are the carriers of the contents of the word, and vowels serve as their binds constructing the flow of pronunciation. In some of our trials we deciphered ordered letters with only consonants and assumed the vowels. We were successful in deciphering 26 different symbols which turned out to be consonants. Then by rotating each consonant 90 degrees on its plane, we were able to connect it with 4 vowels. And then by mirroring it we were able to connect it with 4 more vowels for a total of 8. For example let's say an asymmetrical symbol represents the consonant "r". In its vertical position it may assume the vowel "a" for "ra". By rotating it clockwise 90 degrees it assumes another vowel say "o" for "ro", Rotating it again 90 degrees clockwise it assumes a their vowel say "i" for "ri". Rotating it one more time by 90 degrees will assume a fourth vowel, say "u" for "ru". Above these four rotations we can now mirror each image of the rotated consonant and assume four more vowels.
By using this technique we were able to define a method for writing where a single symbol by being rotated and mirrored on its plane could assume up to 8 vowels thus creating up to 8 syllables.
Of the 26 symbols we identified as consonants, 13 are asymmetrical, with the dominant position being on the vertical line. Symmetrical symbols can be rotated but cannot be mirrored thus giving us only 4 vowels. Once we developed the above method, we were ready to start wiring for sounds.
We were hoping to have connected all the consonants in the Cyrillic alphabet, which to this day have been used in the Balkans and wider. We have defined the most characteristic consonants in the Macedonian language, including "?", "?", "?" and others but not "?". We have identified some letters from the Cyrillic alphabet, which are in use today by the Macedonian language, like the symbol "??" (sht) which is predominant in Macedonian dialects, especially in those of the Ohrid region. "??" is also found in other Slavic languages such as the Slovenian, Bulgarian and others.
In today's Slovenian literary language for example, there are 8 consonants from which 5 are found in the Macedonian literary language and the other 3 are present, to a large degree, in the dialects (such as the "Mijachkian", "Rechanskian" and others) of the Macedonian language.
In other words, I can say that we created a syllabic alphabet consisting of 26 consonants and 8 vowels and ordered it in a regular fashion of writing and then we were ready to turn our attention to reading parts of the text.
I also want to mention that this text was written in a contiguous line from right to left with no spaces between words, no capital letters and no start or end marks to signify beginning or end of sentences. In order for us to identify words we had to identify re-occurring groups of symbols. We were hoping to identify about a couple of hundred of these, enough to be able to adequately test their meaning against today's Macedonian language.
I am happy to say that we identified more than enough and when we wired them for sound we were able to reconstruct 160 words. The meaning of most of which has been preserved in our contemporary Macedonian dialects.
We were always of the opinion that we did not need much to reconstruct the language of the Ancient Macedonians.
Were you successful in uncovering the entire meaning of the text?
Professor Boshevski: As you know the uncovering of the meaning of the text was done some time ago as a result of our decipherment but I must tell you it does not have the identical message as the other two texts. There are assumptions out there that all three texts have the same meaning but here we are talking about a Pharaoh's decree. If you consider the Pharaoh was Macedonian he could not have possibly given the same message to the rulers, the Macedonians, as he gave to the ruled, the Egyptians. Among the Egyptians were the Dannans who were also ruled by the Macedonians. The message for the Egyptians written in hieroglyphs and the message for the Dannans written in what we call "Greek" today were written for the people the Pharaoh ruled. The center text was directed to the rulers that is why the messages are different. Had we assumed the texts to be identical or similar, we would have not been able to appropriately translate the center text. The pharaoh had addressed his compatriots, the Ancient Macedonians, in a different manner than he had addressed the Egyptians he ruled. We could see that the order of the sentences like the order of the words within the sentences were not the same. The order of the address to the king was not the same either. For example, after the designation of the pharaoh, in the Dannan text there is a last name, whereas in the center (Macedonian) text there was one more epitaph and after that was a name. The dynasty or family name was at the end. It would have been very risky and we would have made fundamental errors had we assumed the meaning in the texts to be same.
What was most interesting is that we found an expression in the Pharaoh's text which has a similar meaning in Macedonian today. For example when the Pharaoh ordered the text to be scribed on the stone he used the expression "da se naveze" meaning "to embroider". Interestingly this expression is still in use in some parts of Macedonia today to refer to "well written" letters.
Can you mention some words you found on the stone that are similar to today's Macedonian language?
Professor Boshevski: The three upright dashes, or vertical lines as we call them, refer to "God". We recognized this designation because we had seen it before in a Russian publication called "Slavianska Pismenost" (Slavian Literacy). Here Russian scientist Grinevich talks about the existence of old writing found in Russia, the Ukraine and Poland and in this writing he eludes that the three vertical lines are a reference to "God". We found over one-hundred occurrences of this in our text so we were pretty convinced we were on the right track. We also found evidence in a Vincha stone artifact from 7,000 BC where the three vertical dashes were prominent and possibly meant "God".
All in all we had three different sources from three different regions which was sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that we were on the right track. Not being one-hundred percent certain though, since the Vincha writing and the Russian texts were not proven, we set out to find our proof on the Egyptian text. There we found an adjective written with the symbols which we identified to mean "Bozhen" (devine). Similarly in front of Alexander the Great's name we found "Bozhenstveniot" (devine). By then we were convinced we were on the right track.
I just want to add that this writing which we found in Egypt, and no doubt was brought there by the Macedonians, we believe has its beginnings in the Balkans. It lasted a long time until it was replaced by Kiril and Metody's Cyrillic script. In the words of Chernorizets Hrabar this was the language in which "the Slavs wrote and foretold".
I believe this writing system began to decline first as a result of Roman intervention and later as a result of the interference of the Catholic Church. Roman authorities forbade use of this writing fearing that the Macedonian State may rise again. Romans used every opportunity to make sure that the name of its preceding empire was never mentioned. That's why Rome divided Macedonia into four pieces and that's why it forbade communication and travel between those four pieces. The Romans even forbade marriages between Macedonians separated by their artificially imposed borders. Along with forbidding the writing, the Romans also destroyed artifacts written in this language.
In this Ancient Macedonian text there are many words which are used in today's Macedonian language. Is the ancient Macedonian language a precursor to our modern Macedonian language?
Professor Boshevski: We believe that the Ancient Macedonian language is a precursor not only to most modern Balkan languages but also to all of today's Slavic languages. We believe, and time will prove this, that all these languages have descended from the Ancient Macedonian language. Let's say that the Ancient Macedonian language is a proto-Slav language.
Until now we were led to believe that the Slavic speaking populations arrived in the Balkans around the seventh century AD speaking a "Slavic language". With your discovery we now have a basis to establish a new idea, the idea that the so-called "Slavic languages" have their roots in the ancient Macedonian language. Are we now faced with a great contradiction?
Professor Boshevski: It appears that we have come to the same conclusion. In the beginning of the interview I said that we wanted to identify the writing on this stone and if possible reconstruct its language which we naturally assumed would be the language of the Ancient Macedonians. We wanted to know what the Ancient Macedonians themselves had to say, in their own writing, in their own language, not to learn about them from other sources. Based on our discovery, on the evidence we found, we have to come to our own conclusions even if they don't agree with mainstream science. We must apply the facts as we see them even if we need to push aside the mistakes of history with regards to certain migrations of people, origins of people and origins of languages.
Here is a text left by the ancients which is satisfactorily long and rich, which gave us the opportunity to reconstruct and bring to light an alphabet and the rules for reading and writing and to reconstruct what was thought to be a lost language.
All discoveries up to now tell us that this is the text of the Ptolemais who ruled Egypt for about 300 years. We know the Ptolemaic dynasty was Macedonian. We know their origins are from the Balkans, more precisely, from the Pelagonian valley.
The next step for us is to have these facts acknowledged by world science. We need our world contemporaries to verify our work and what we have found and then to appropriately revise science as required.
There are remarks made by some who believe it's impossible to have two thousand year old words survive in a language when speaking about our current Macedonian language. In other words they say two thousand years is far too long for Ancient Macedonian words to have survived in the modern Macedonian language. If that were so then I pose this question to them: "How can some words, such as those from the third text on the Rosetta Stone, survive two thousand years and be present in today's modern Greek language?" Why is no one disputing that fact and better yet why are they not making remarks about it? Why does it bother people that in today's Macedonian language there are words the Ancient Macedonians spoke?
No one can now deny or destroy the writing on the Rosetta Stone. Once our methodology is verified and proven, then no one will be able to contest it.
With regards to your discovery what kind of reaction did you get from the Macedonian intellectuals and from corresponding world institutions?
Professor Boshevski: Up no now there has been no significant reaction. The publication we printed was well accepted and is receiving attention in creating interest locally as well as in some European circles. We sent an electronic version to various world centers, including the Institute of Eastern Languages in Chicago, to Oxford, to London and to Germany. We can't expect immediate reactions; it takes time to interpret our results before people can truly understand our discovery. What we found will shake the foundations of our contemporary understanding. Everything up to now that has been written about the Ancient Macedonians can't easily change. A great deal has been invested in the creation of our current understanding and now we appear with our findings out of nowhere telling everyone they were wrong. A lot of time will pass before people are comfortable with the idea, before it sinks in and before we see any reactions. In the meantime we will stand by our convictions and be at everyone's disposal to conduct dialog and eventually solve this problem.
This article appeared in the newspaper "Canadian-Macedonian News" in Toronto in January 2007

**Soldier of Macedon** · 03-10-2011, 11:10 PM

We need to get the Greek text and then compare it to the middle text, so we can see if the so-called translation of Tentov and Bosevski even matches up to what is written in Greek. I will do this, but have some reservations as I am not sure if it is worth the time, lest it ends up being another Iljov-type 'discovery'. The signs thus far aren't promising.

I would encourage all Macedonians with a healthy interest for such matters to start being a little more critical of things that apparently appear in our 'favour'.

**Soldier of Macedon** · 03-10-2011, 11:27 PM

Here is something interesting:

Just a moment...

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/r/the_rosetta_stone_translation.aspx

......the decree should be written on a stela of hard stone, in sacred writing, document writing, and Greek writing, and it should be set up in the first-class temples, the second-class temples and the third-class temples, next to the statue of the King, living forever.

No doubt the sacred writing is Egyptian, but the term 'document' is open to interpretation. Macedonian wasn't used as a literary language by Alexander, is it reasonable to assume that it was in later times? Where are the other examples of ancient Macedonian being used as a literary langauge? These are some of the questions which will face those asserting that the middle text is Macedonian. I am not ruling anything out just yet, but all sides of the argument need to be explored.

Another translation provides the following:

Text of the Rosetta Stone -- Courtesy of Return To Glory...

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/rosettatext.htm

Text of the Rosetta Stone -- Courtesy of Return To Glory...

This decree shall be inscribed on a stela of hard stone in sacred and native and Greek characters and set up in each of the first, second and third rank temples beside the image of the ever-living king.

So, is it native or document writing? That's another question.

**Vangelovski** · 03-11-2011, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post

Here is something interesting:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore...anslation.aspx

No doubt the sacred writing is Egyptian, but the term 'document' is open to interpretation. Macedonian wasn't used as a literary language by Alexander, is it reasonable to assume that it was in later times? Where are the other examples of ancient Macedonian being used as a literary langauge? These are some of the questions which will face those asserting that the middle text is Macedonian. I am not ruling anything out just yet, but all sides of the argument need to be explored.

This is a layman's question - Are there any samples of ancient Macedonian anywhere? Do we have any text that has been conclusively attributed as ancient Macedonian?

**astibo** · 03-11-2011, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post

This is a layman's question - Are there any samples of ancient Macedonian anywhere? Do we have any text that has been conclusively attributed as ancient Macedonian?

Yes, and further more, how many ancient Macedonian state documents are found so we can see on what language they are?

**Vangelovski** · 03-11-2011, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by astibo View Post

Yes, and further more, how many ancient Macedonian state documents are found so we can see on what language they are?

I think that topic has been dealt with.

**Soldier of Macedon** · 03-12-2011, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post

This is a layman's question - Are there any samples of ancient Macedonian anywhere? Do we have any text that has been conclusively attributed as ancient Macedonian?

There are only a limited amount of Macedonian words that have been recorded, and there are others which are clearly loanwords from Greek. The problems are that they come from foreign sources, they're mostly nouns and verbs, and there are no written sentences (or at least none that have been discovered or revealed to date), which means that the syntax, grammar, etc remains unknown to a large degree. We can, however, make some confident observations based on comparisons with other Paleo-Balkan languages, Balto-Slavic languages, Greek, Albanian and Romance languages.

The Rosetta Stone

The Rosetta Stone

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment