I’ve tried to work out the statistical chances of finding the names
of 4 Olympians on the tablet, with an arbitrary grid and rules of
orthography, and they’re astronomical. But it may nevertheless be
tripe! Another of Chadwick’s suggestions is  pu [*50] = pu, which
gives us a-pu-do-si = apudosis and pu-ro = Pulos.
                             If I had to go back to the begining and start again, I
should cling to the identification of pa-te/ ma-te de = pater / mater de
on An42: I just can’t see any other explanation for the balancing
of a masculine and a feminine “trade” name in the different phrases.
Are you convinced?! The second starting-point would be the contrast
between ta-ra-si-ja ekhontes and a-ta-ra-si-oi on Jn01 etc, and between
ekhousi and ekhei and on En02 etc. Finally, the correlation between
the inflexions of the different declensions and the Greek ones:

	          (f) - a	  (m) -as          	-os	-eus	-ter	-on	-or
Nom:	-ja -ia	-ta -tas	-ro -os	-u -eus	-te -ter	-o -on	-no -nor
Gen:	-ja -ias	-ta-o -tao	-ro-jo -oio	-wo -ewos		-o-to -ontos	-no-so -noros
Dat:	-ja -iai	-ta -tai	-ro -oi	-we -ewei		-o-te -ontei	-no-re -norei
Nom Pl:	-ja -iai	-ta[i] -tai	-ro[-i] -oi	-we -ewes	-te-re -teres	-o-te -ontes	
Gen Pl:	-aj-o -iaon	-ta-o -taon	-ro -on	-wo -ewon			
Dat Pl				-u-si -eusi	-te-si tersi		
                                                                                     invariably preceded by -e-.            

      The condition where the genitive and nominative are the same, but
distinct from the dative, could only occur, with the spelling rules
assumed, in words in -ops and -oks; and it is a hell of
a coincidence that the only Pylos word which clearly shows this, a3-t-jo-qo,
resolves itself so nicely into the equivalent of Aithiops.
      Anyway, let’s see what the new tablets hold in store. The diggers
seem to have burst themselves to provide new material this year, and
the least we could do is to try to decipher it for them before the
year’s out. The trouble now is that I’ve got so mentally confused with
Hroznyesque concentration on particular phonetic values that I’ve lost
the stomach for a purely disinterested statistical analysis; and we
must rely on you to keep that up. 

                                                                             Yours sincerely, 

                                                                                                    Michael Ventris

PS: 2 more starting-points which I shouldn’t like to give up in a
‘second attempt’: ko-wo = korwos  /  -wo-qo = -worgos ; -me-no =
passive participles. 
Incidentally, Chadwick independently arrived at the reading
tossa phasgana for the Knossos to-sa pa-ka-na *233, 
and this seems much better than the imaginary word given in my vocab.