The principle of cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B & logical fallacies:

cross correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B vocabulary

The principle of cross-correlative cohesion operates on the assumption that terms in Minoan Linear A vocabulary should reflect as closely and as faithfully as possible parallel terms in Mycenaean Greek vocabulary. In other words, the English translations of Minoan words in a Minoan Linear A Glossary such as this one should look as if they are English translations of Mycenaean Greek terms in a Linear B glossary. I have endeavoured to do my best to achieve this goal, but even the most rational and logical of approaches, such as I take, does not and cannot guarantee reciprocity between Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B terms. It is precisely for this reason that I have had to devise a scale of relative accuracy for terms in this Linear A Glossary, as outlined in KEY at the top of it. The KEY reads as follows:


Minoan Linear A words deciphered with a very high level of certainty (75-100%) are in BOLD.
Minoan Linear A words deciphered with a reasonable degree of certainty (60-75%) are in italics.
Minoan Linear A words for which the decipherment is uncertain (< 50%) are in plain text.

Now, according to the principle of cross-correlative cohesion between terms in Minoan Linear A and their (approximate) counterparts in Mycenaean Linear B, not only should the Minoan Linear A vocabulary exhibit an internal cohesion which appears to be parallel with the Mycenaean Linear B vocabulary with which it conceivably corresponds, but also this parallelism should make the cross-correlative or external cohesion between the Minoan Linear A and the Mycenaean Linear B appear even more closely knit. Examining the chart above, The principle of cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A & Mycenaean Linear B vocabulary, it appears, at first glance, that the parallelism is intact. But appearances can be and usually are, deceptive. Unless any particular Minoan Linear A word which I have deciphered has a scalar value > 75%, meaning that it has been deciphered with a high level of certainty, the apparent parallelism between the Minoan Linear A word and its suppositious Mycenaean Linear B counterpart is just that, apparent. In the chart, while I have had to flag some of the less reliable Minoan Linear A decipherments with dotted lines -------> (a3, a4 & a7), other Minoan words have been successfully deciphered with a high degree of certainty (a1, a2, a8 & a10). But can one assume that the latter, those terms deciphered accurately, will de facto necessarily be exactly parallel with their Linear B counterparts? Not really. That all depends on whether or not their Linear B counterparts (b1 to b11 abc) have themselves been accurately deciphered. What can I possibly imply by that? I can hear you say, “I thought Mycenaean Linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris et al. from1952 onward.” Yes, they did get it... almost all of it, but not all of it. While at least 90% of Mycenaean Greek words have been deciphered with a high degree of accuracy (> 75%), a considerable number have never been adequately deciphered.

To cite just a few (Latinized)from Chris Tselentis’ Linear B Lexicon, we have:

aeitito – not used?
akitito – untitled?
duma – official title?
Maka – Mother Earth?
opa – workshop?
outemi – without edges?
porodumate – family groups?
samara – monument, burial grounds?

In cases like this, it becomes virtually impossible to decipher any single Minoan word which might conceivably be parallel to any of the aforementioned Mycenaean Linear B doubtfuls, since the scalar degree of reliability in the latter (Linear B words) is clearly < 50%.

Moreover, while the Minoan Linear A words in the left column appear to be as rock-solid as their Linear B counterparts (a1, a2, a8 & a10) in the right column of the chart above, all falling within the ambit of a high degree of certainty (> 75%), I must still sound a note of caution. Who is to say for certain that I have teamed up the correct Minoan word in the left column with the clearly correct Mycenaean term in the right column? In all of these instances, it definitely looks like they all line up perfectly. But we can never really be sure. To summarize, I contend that cross-correlative parallelism between Linear A terms and their Linear B counterparts, however logical it may appear, may in fact be deceptive. Why so? Perhaps I am leaping to conclusions in one, some or even all of these apparently sound decipherments of Minoan words which seem to line up so neatly with their Mycenaean equivalents. The operative word is “seem”.

The inescapable pitfalls of logical fallacies:

In short, no matter how air-tight our inductive or deductive logic is, it is not necessarily always a done deal. We humans have a regrettable tendency to follow “lines of logic” which are not straight lines at all, and often not even circuitous ones. In fact, all too often they are broken lines or worse yet severed lines. This is why I have resorted to dotted lines (-------->) in all cases where the either the Minoan Linear A or the Mycenaean Linear B term is in some doubt, or far worse yet, both of them are. Fortunately, the Minoan Linear A words daropa, kanaka, pazeqe, puko and sedina are all almost certain (75%-100%), almost perfectly mirroring their Mycenaean Linear B equivalents kararewe, kanako, dipa anowe/dipa anowoto, tiripode and serino, all of which also fall in the 75%-100% range. But this almost air-tight parallelism is rare indeed in any attempt at cross-correlative cohesion between Minoan Linear A and Mycenaean Linear B. Ergo the extreme delicacy of the task of deciphering any Minoan term, fraught as it is with vulnerabilities and loopholes.