For interested parties, I would like to present an understanding of why the translations of the Pyramid Texts by Samuel Mercer (available online) should not be used as definitive resource material, unless only as a comparative tool in researching the history of Pyramid Text translation attempts, i.e. the progression of early translations (like Maspero, late 1800's) to Allen (2005).
Mercer published his version in 1952. Shortly thereafter in 1954, George Allen wrote a review of the work in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol 13, no 2, pp.119-120.
Here is part of what Allen wrote:
Allen goes on to say:Quote
"Dr Mercer's four volumes, comprising translation, commentary, excursuses, indexes, etc., are well organized and excellently printed. To judge by the works mentioned or listed in Volume IV, 226-42, he has consulted practically everything that has been written by others on this subject. Would that the contents of these handsome volumes were fully in keeping with their appearance!" (italic emphasis mine. The exclamation point is Allen's.)
"But besides the innate problems, Dr Mercer has occasionally introduced new ones. These spring from two main sources: faulty translation of German and violation of Egyptian grammatical principles. Mercer himself states (I, 10) that analysis of the utterances has not "been too meticulous in unessential matters"; the truth is that his definition of "unessential" has been far too liberal."
Allen provides numerous and specific examples of Mercer's errors, and let us note Mercer was not translating the original glyphs, rather he was translating from German (which is what Sethe's version is written in, c.1910) into English. It must therefore be highlighted that further 'translation' of the error-ridden English translation by Mercer is not only foolhardy, but to be disregarded in full. Proper discourse should be attended by the original glyphs directly from the walls of the pyramid chambers, supplemented by keen attention to ancient Egyptian grammar and multiple academic resources for comparison and review.
Since the pure, original language of the ancient Egyptians is long gone, we should recognize there will be moments of natural errors, however, this is a far, far cry from meaning 'completely wrong' in every way. Modern translations of ancient Egyptian texts can never be 'perfect', but they can be regarded as generally fluent. Thus, while Mercer can provide ample opportunity for study, the works should not the basis upon which any intrepid 'glypher' should rely.
Citation: Allen, T. George. “Journal of Near Eastern Studies.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1954, pp. 119–120