> Also see Gardiner, under 'p' for 'pyramid'.
Thanks Avry. Questions:
- It's difficult to draw an assessment of that list of hieroglyphics without understanding the context relevant to your claim. For example, could you please cite where any of those names appear on inscriptions dated during the Old Kingdom?
Do you believe that the "pyramid" glyph maintains the same meaning all throughout the dynastic era, or did it change meaning during those millennia?
Does the glyph have the same meaning wherever it's used (e.g., determinative vs. other element)? If not, what is the basis for attributing different meanings to it?
You directed to Garder. What is Gardner's basis for asserting that the so-called pyramid glyph is used to specifically identify a true pyramid?
Sorry if you consider these questions naive, useless, or coming from a "stupid" and non-scholarly mind, but I consider those questions to be relevant and important. I certainly am no expert in hieroglyphic translation, but I do know something about linguistics, archaeology, physics, and engineering, and I do see many enigmas in the traditional narrative about the ancients. The timeline, the tomb and ramp hypotheses, the architecture/infrastructure, the math, science, and technology, and the translations all introduce many contradictions, questions, and doubts about the orthodox paradigm, and that includes the language.
As I've said before, I see many inconsistencies and oddities in so many translations that it raises the question of the accuracy of the translation methods. I realize you have great faith in them and insist they are correct, and I have no doubt they serve to answer many questions for Egyptologists, but I have a different opinion about how they are being used to portray actual historic events. If you believe I am not entitled to a meaningful opinion until I know how to translate hieroglyphics, then we need to agree to disagree about that.
Regarding Gardner, I am sometimes reluctant to look up something by an author and accept it as fact without knowing the basis for that author's conclusion, especially when disagreement about what is published is expressed by others, or when what the author published doesn't seem to align with other cognate evidence.
I'm not arguing with you, or calling you names, or reducing to sarcasm or feeble attempts at intimidation. I simply express my concern when I come across a claim that seems tenuous when considered with the physical evidence, and I see the translation methods as one of those areas that perhaps isn't all that we've been led to believe.
If you are prone to consider such an assessment as crazy, ignorant, or stupid, or that I secretly believe aliens built that stuff, or that I "want" it to be true that the Old Kingdom didn't build those things, or that there are no such ambiguities or inaccuracies in the translation methods, that's your privilege. But if you persist in your hostile reply to any such perspective, then that's your problem.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 25-Jan-18 14:59 by Origyptian.