> What would say if I claimed, "I am the only
> authority in the world who can do proper head
> transplants." ?
> I would expect you to tell me I am a delusional
> nutcase, especially if I tried to make it seem I
> was indeed serious.
And you'd be wrong. First of all, I wouldn't be disrespectful to you for making that claim. Frankly, I wouldn't respond at all. I'd simply ignore your post.
> SO when Sam claims he is the
> one world authority on hieroglyphics, where is
> your skepticism? Hmm?
No idea what you mean by that. For that matter, where is my agreement? I've not voiced an opinion one way or the other. And why are you deflecting to someone else? I'm talking about your reply to my question about literal translations.
> >... in
> > my opinion, Egyptology needs a wake up call from
> > the expertise of cognate disciplines such as
> > engineering, materials science, physics, and
> > chemistry.
> Sure, it would help. Cross-training is very much
> worth considering. Personally, I do not think
> Egyptology has got all the correct answers, in
> fact I am thoroughly disturbed by some
> conclusions. This is a minority view, though.
Of course it would help. And part of that cross-training is communication across disciplinary boundaries. If you want to know about engineering, physics, etc., then ask people who know something about that field. And if I want to know about the translation methods used on a dead language, I ask people who who know something about those methods. How could my question about literal tranlations get you that fired up to the point of telling me I have no standing to ask the question? Especially when you just acknowledged that input from cognate fields "would help" because the "cross-training is very much worth considering"?
> > ...We see new questions about the provenance of Baalbek,
> > new complexities in G1 that further stress a 3rd
> > millennium BC provenance, scrutiny revealing doubt
> > over past decrees involving g7000x, el Jarf, boat
> > pits, the true provenance of Menkaure's "Mortuary
> > Temple", the question of whether the royal boats
> > ever actually touched a drop of water in their
> > day, etc.
> Questions, mind you, that come to light because
> people of little to no knowledge of the subject
> tend to create radical conclusions before getting
> the answers. The more anyone learns about
> something, the more these radical conclusions
> begin to fade away.
What "radical conclusions" are you inferring that I've made just from asking you about comparing several literal translations of the PT?
I'm curious who you are referring to by "people of little to no knowledge of the subject". And before you point to Sam, recall that we're talking about you telling me I have no standing to ask about hieroglyphic translation methods.
Meanwhile, let me tell you what I've observed here. I see discussions that present traditional beliefs which then prompt further investigations that revisit the basis behind those beliefs. These discussions often address whether due consideration has been given to real universal parameters such as mass, space, time, and energy. And very often the traditionalists get hostile when disagreement ensues.
And so, to repurpose your earlier comment, what I've observed far too often among Egytological orthodoxy at GHMB is that "people of little to no knowledge of the subject tend to create radical conclusions before getting the answers". They do not consider the intricate, complex, and precise design and construction of those structures. They don't consider the resources required to accomplish such daunting, long-term, resource intensive projects. They don't understand the forces of Nature that need to be overcome in order to create such beasts. They don't understand the economics and infrastructure required to sustain such projects over the 200 year period during which all those pyramids were allegedly constructed. And yet several of them adhere to what appears to some of us as "radical conclusions before getting the answers".
> > The narrative, the timeline, and
> > hieroglyphic translation methods are by no means
> > "settled". And if anything, I think they will
> > become far more unsettled before the dust clear.
> > In my opinion, anyone who claims otherwise is
> > trying to sell something.
> Like Sam? Like his claim he is the one world
> authority on hieroglyphs?
Again with Sam. I'm not talking about Sam. I'm talking about your claim that I have no standing to ask any questions in a field I haven't been formally trained in.
> > Avry, this is a discussion forum, and it is full
> > of people with various expertise in some areas and
> > total lack of expertise in others. That shouldn't
> > preclude our ability to ask questions across
> > disciplinary boundaries.
> The problem is that when people get the answers
> they seek, they refuse to accept them.
Well, sorry, but that's the deal, Avry. Where does it say that you must accept (i.e., as fact) all the answers you get? If you ask Chris Dunn what he thinks G1 is, and as a professional mechanical engineer and machinist he tells you it's a giant sonic wave generator, are you going to "accept" that answer? If you tell me G1 was designed to be a tomb in the 3rd mill BC, am I not permitted to "not accept" that answer? How is answering a question depend on whether that answer is accepted? Answering a question simply inserts additional information into the discussion. It allows others to make their own assessment. Some will read it and not understand it, others will accept it, and others will reject it (of course, others might even ignore it). Are you saying you don't like answering a question unless you're sure the questioner will agree with your answer?
> When you
> stand in line behind Sam, it makes it look like
> you're only trying to give the appearance of
> wanting to learn. A pretender.
Please show where in this discussion I've stood "in line behind Sam".
> ...If you *really* want to learn, source material
> is whereyou should start, NOT with SAM PETRY.
I haven't asked him anything about the language. Sure, in the past I've asked him about his interpretations, just as I asked you about the consistency of literal translations.
> If you continue to think HE is the one to learn from,
> what a sad, silly, state that would be. If you
> have little to no experience in these matters, you
> can no more defend Sam than you can disagree with
> me. If you know nothing of hieroglyphics, then how
> can you defend him? You are incapable of judging
> his errors because you don't have the education to
> see them.
> It's common sense, Philip.
You and I might have a different definition for 'common sense'. What strikes you as common sense strikes me as you starting out with a preconceived notion, and then passing each post through that filter. You don't see me arguing - or agreeing - with Sam, and yet you assume I've embraced his notions and am standing in line with him. You claim that input from other disciplines and cross-training is a good thing, but when I ask you a simple question about literal translations, you take umbrage and reject passing information across disciplines.
One doesn't need to study the language to understand that the degree of similarity between multiple, independent "literal translations" can be used as a qualitative metric that reflects the precision of the translation method(s) applied across the discipline.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Apr-17 16:48 by Origyptian.