The Phaistos Disc And The Believability Of A Convincing Text

The Disc is considered as unsolvable at many Proto-Indo-European linguists, but when looking closer at it one can recognize that as an ending the combination of the buckler and the helmet appears very often (primarily at the side A), which offers the conclusion that this is the typical Greec ending -os. ( und ).

One can consider the Disc as a combination of picture- and comb-crossword puzzle, where it is stated by the picture: „Find a Greek word for....”, where the beginning of the searched word adds one or two letters to the searched text. Here naturally all rules are valid that are to be applied when solving a crossword puzzle, and also all knowledge that can be obtained by this.

One of it is: The shorter the Text, the more possibilities exist to interprete it, the longer the solved text, the more prooved is the result.

Or the other way round: One picture as a character is ambiguous, but is strongly focussed in the context of a word. With its occurrence at many places it gets fixed to its meaning.

Criterium for the proper solution is of course the resulting text, and it is convincing.

Why ma interpretation of the Disc is not accepted by the Proto-Indo-European linguistics cannot be considered in a rational way. Their objection that at the time of the Disc the alphabet did not exist, least of all the minuscules, is a statement that cannot be prooved, for no scripture finding says anything about the time before its creation. The evidentiary value of an authentic text is always stronger than the interpretation of younger script findings, which are already randomed by their nature.

The assumption that I might have misinterpreted a Minoan text has no basis, for the Disc demands the following requirements:
1. for every picture there must found be a (Greek) primary word
2. the word separators are predefined
3. every letter is precisely fixed in its position
4. the resulting text must fit at that time
Anyway, every solver of guessing games would see clearly that with those precise requirements the validity is guaranteed.

What does „reinterpretation of a Minoan text„ mean in fact?

1.	The Minoans have used for their text only those signs that can be read as Greek lettes at side A completely, at side B in most instances.
2.	They have used as many sorts and kinds of signs that on side A a also Greek text was created.
3.	They did it in a way that the Greek „caption„ is in accordance with the Greek funeral ritual.
4.	Here also the Greek text can serve as a pattern for later grammar rules.
5.	And in spite of it all they succeeded in writing their own version of the content of side A with the same signs at side B.

How believable is that all?