Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lrbguy, post: 3077878, member: 88829&quot;]Thanks to Ed Snible for posting the notes and links he did.&nbsp; The same question you asked occurred to me and I have started a little quest to see what I can find.&nbsp; Here is a link to a body of early text called the Rabatak inscription: <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Rabatak_inscription.jpg" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Rabatak_inscription.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Rabatak_inscription.jpg</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Here are some isolated word entries from that text:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]774519[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>In all but one case the letter Phi is the normal Greek form, and not formed by adding a circle to the Bactrian added letter (þ) used to transcribe the š sound.&nbsp; Since both letter forms were native to Bactrian from early on, there would be no reason to do a modified engraving of it for use in the countermark.</p><p><br /></p><p>Based on this preliminary result I am inclined to read five letters instead of four.&nbsp; But I have not yet looked at the Schnädelbach argument, and am holding off judgement.&nbsp; How about you?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in