Hi Eikerværing
Yes, the two pages are in conflict with one another - or so it seems to me for the simple reason that they suggest completely different interpretations, e.g. the 'Turkish' article interprets the Blekinge stone as
'he (who was) brave (and) lived through many hardships (of) army, committed not flight (or did not desert his post of duty) lies herein...'
and the 'Semitic' article as 'This pot of my want and the declined child:
'Desire! And the child becomes agile. Desire! And the child became agile
and rose (to), that which is overflowing of fulness, my fissure of fulness.'
I would be rather sceptical of both, but I find the 'Semitic' article particularly suspicious - why would there be 'Semitic' writing on Rune Stones in Scandinavia?? No Semitic people ventured into this area at this early date (or even at later dates in any significant number that I know of) and I don't know why Scandinavians would have been carving Semitic mysticism. This seems to me to be like the pages of people who claim that Sumerian and Basque are related, or that Sumerian proves the existence of space aliens in early Mesopotamia! Though I could be not understanding something and doing this author a diservice, I dunno.
The 'Turkish' article is perhaps plausible - but not necessarily particularly interesting. What this is to say is that all alphabets appear to ultimately be related. The Roman alphabet and Cyrrilic alphabets come from the Greek, which in turn comes from the Phoenecian, apparently a south Semitic development. But in fact all alphabets appear to descend from some Semitic invention, including the various Indian scripts, including Devanagari used for writing Hindi & Nepali [see, here's the 'khukuri' thread to the posting
], even those used to write non-IndoAryan languages such as Telugu or Tamil. Interestingly the oldest deciphered alphabet of India, Brahmi, looks surprisingly like the Roman in many of its letter forms -- have a dekko at it here:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/brahmi.htm
Other writing systems, such as Chinese, Egyptian, Sumerian, &c., are not related, but are also not alphabets but rather some sort of pictoral scripts of varying kinds. So the alphabet appears to have only been invented once!
So all of this is to say that all alphabets are ultimately related through the Semtic source, but I do not know whether the Turkic and Futhark are particularly closely linked or not - the pictures show some similarities.
Interestingly, the futharc runic alphabet appears to have derived its peculiar form from the type of material originally most frequently used for inscriptions in Scandinavia/Germania = wood. This is why there are no right-angles to the runes, as these would be difficult to carve into wood in such a way that they would not split the wood or be difficult to see. Similarly the 'serifs' of Roman script are byproducts of carving into stone and I suspect the letter forms of Brahmi are a similar story, as Brahmi inscripts are also (mainly?/all?) in stone. Whereas modern Indian script seems to descend from the system developed for writing with pen & ink. Etc., etc.
I hope this long-winded reply is helpful..
cheers,
Ben
p.s hi Andreas - I missed greeting you earlier, but have seen your posting -- guten tag da im Bayern! Funny about Attila 'little father' - you're right, but I wonder where Gothic Atta 'father' comes from? It doesn't look much like other IE 'father-words' which usually have a P (e.g. Lt. 'pater', Skt. 'pitr', &c.) or other labial (like F in Germanic, e.g. Eng. 'father', Germ. 'vater')... B.
