> Risible, ridiculous, nonsensical—a thoroughly
> bogus travesty of an argument.
> This is like saying that if you understand French,
> then you must understand Derrida and Deleuze—or,
> if you understand German, then you must understand
> Hegel and Heidegger—texts with which most native
> speakers would struggle, if they made the attempt
> at all. I know. I’ve tried it with them.
I didn't say that if I don't understand it then it doesn't make sense.
What I said was there is no world where these two translations are in any way compatible;
> Before the doors close again the gate to the path
> over the fire, beneath the holy ones as they grow dark
> As a falcon flies as a falcon flies, may Unis rise
> into this fire
> Beneath the holy ones as they grow dark.
> They make a path for Unis, Unis takes the path,
> Pull back, Baboon’s penis! Open, [sky’s door!
> You sealed the door, open a path for Unis] on the
> blast of heat where the gods scoop water.
> Horus’s glide path--TWICE--will Unis glide on,
> in this blast of heat where the gods scoop water,
They are embarrassingly different yet you maintain that one or both is "understandable". In every single case the translations are so dissimilar as to be laughable. They don't even seem to have translated the same source in some cases. Yet you seem to be maintaining that only translators can possibly understand such highly complex religion and magic. I'm simply saying that if they really understood it then they'd know what the ankk was or the mks-sceptre... ...or something... ...anything at all.
They don't understand it because they translated this language in terms of the book of the dead. So your "cultural context" and your "language" are nothing more than gibberish translated in terms of the book of the dead.
Egyptologists only agree that this stuff shows highly superstitious people and admit it's only incantation. Yet they themselves choose to understand a whole culture based on a book of gibberish. This is Egyptological methodology. They take meaning from language 1000 years after the PT was written and force fit it. Then if anyone points out flaws they whip out a little cultural context.
> I see no reason at all to suppose that such
> specialised and esoteric material as the Pyramid
> Texts would be any easier for native speakers of
> ancient Egyptian.
I believe every single listener to these rituals read at ascension ceremonies understood the broad outline and every utterance. Of course there were subtleties that only the more intelligent or better educated would understand.
> Not exactly a student of Wittgenstein (or anything
> else much), are you, Sam⸮ He’d call stuff
> like this language going on holiday. The core of
> a language is the simple, everyday stuff.
No, I'm not. If you want a hoot then read "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science". The shorter sentences come in at about 100 words and most words have as many syllables as a normal sentence.
> Allow me to remind you that your entire
> acquaintance with the Pyramid Texts is one of
> parasitical bellyaching.
I am the world's only expert on the literal meaning of the PT. Of course when they said the king needed a boat to fly up and alight it's obvious someone could catch up to me in short order if ANYONE cared about the literal meaning of the PT.
> If you don’t like the translations, then go to
> source and read it. Can you? Would you even know
> where to begin?
I study the source a little bit but much less since they removed the hieroglyphic dictionaries from the web.
> Then produce your own translations and enlighten
> us all.
One of these days I'll publish a translation based on Mercer and the original author intent. There's not much interest now but this will change probably.
> Believe what stuff? What you’ve made up? I
> would not presume as your position requires you
> to to tell people that they don’t understand
> their native language if they don’t understand
> the most difficult things written in it.
I'm not sure anyone really understands their native language. All modern languages are confused and are the perspective of thought. Stepping outside your own language might not be possible but doing it without understanding the very nature of any language is almost certainly impossible. I don't know.
I do know you don't understand that paragraph.
You believe the PT is understood because that's what you're told. You don't expect to understand every nuance because it's just superstitious gobbledty gook anyway. It's curious how believers dart back and forth from saying it's understood to saying it's just incantation. When I put two and two together it sounds just like they're saying they understand gibberish.
To each his own.
> I’ve already told you that I don’t share your
> primitive superstitions on what definition can
Oh, I never said that defining terms can establish communication. I said modern language is confused and usually impossible to establish communication without defining terms.
I'm funny that way. I'd hate to ever get in a conversation and then find out we were talking about two different things. I've seen people do this many times. I'm kindda adept that way.