> 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?
To ask such a question only comes from doubting. It's as ignorant as it is insulting. That without a citation of where they can be found you are willing to discount them? Absurd. There are plenty of different locations and media where they were written. Start with the Giza cemetery. Put your scholastic research nose to the grind and find them yourself. I have no reason to doubt the source I used to print up the list for you, so there's no reason for me to repeat that author's research just so we can dig them out for you.
But we know you all too well, Philip. Even if I or we dig out the actual photographs, you would continue to naysay to infinity. You have no moral nor intellectual capacity to reach the point where evidence has been confirmed. It's always 'yeah, but ...' with you.
> 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?
Same question twice. Answer: The same. Consistent.
> 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?
That it looks like a pyramid would be the easy clue, then followed by the context of the sentence or title it is found in. It's 'Gardiner', by the way.
> I see many inconsistencies
> and oddities in so many translations that it
> raises the question of the accuracy of the
> translation methods.
No, you don't see them. Only an understanding of hieroglyphs would allow you to determine where errors or alternate translations/interpretations might be. You are being spoon-fed by people who have no clue about them, and are accepting their positions without question.
Example: Japanese script. There is a person who can read them, and a person who cannot. You choose the interpretation of the person who cannot.
How else can we explain your choice expect through blind devotion to them? Funny how you question evidence that has contextual support and strong academic standing to your ends of logical absurdity, but receive 'evidence' with no contextual support nor academic standing by mere assertion.
> 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.
That you are entitled to have an opinion does not, by default, make your opinion correct. You are entitled to think whatever you want, but not entitled to think it is correct when it is clearly demonstrated it is wrong.
> 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.
From who? Scott Creighton and Sam Petry? Brain-melted, drug aficionado Preston Peet? The Tooth Fairy?