> Cladking, look at Mercer's translation versus
> Sethe and Allen
> The problem is that Mercer didn't even touch the
> original text in presenting this. He mistranslated
> Sethe, who wrote "Geh nach Pe zum Thoth-Ort" which
> is what Pepi's ka is to tell Thoth if he
> encounters him in his evil coming. Allen
> translated the original text into English and it
> amounts to what Sethe read saw there....This is a
> command to be given to Thoth not an instruction to
> Osiris-Pepi by PT 534 to "let him go to Buto , to
> Hri-Dhwti". At least those two translators are on
> the same page, Mercer is not. His reading is
> completely different because he missed the fact
> that this was a spell to be uttered by Pepi's Ka
> and not an instruction to Pepi by the text on the
> corridor wall. You cannot even say that Mercer's
> reading is different because he had better insight
> into the original text, it's different because he
> misread what Sethe read. If you are correct that
> all are wrong, then Mercer is wrong twice removed
> from the true meaning....and what does that say
> about any analysis you might take away from
> Mercer? Mercer missed the big context in this
> utterance. The big context is that Pepi is given a
> spell to tell to an aspect of Thoth. It matters
> not if Sethe and Allen are right or wrong. It
> matters that Mercer is for sure wrong, even if
> they are right.
I understand Mercer was no true scholar but then he did do an excellent job of translating a lot of Sethe into English while maintaining the integrity of the original writing. I am familiar with many of his flaws but his PT largely speak for themselves: That he sliced and diced and failed to translate words notwithstanding.
Perhaps I'll "interpret" this utterance later. The problem is I miss a couple key lines in it so the sense of it is incomplete for me.
> I note that this is just the very first example I
> am looking at and it was chosen by you not me.
> What else might there be in Mercer's translation
> which makes not sense2.
I can't account for the nuances of the language but it seems I could get a pass on this since my contention is that the meaning is dissimilar to what linguists believe it to be. But far more importantly Egyptologists can't show that any of their interpretations of this writing is correct since it does not solve questions like how the terms originated or even the meaning of most of the terms. It merely shows to Egyptologists how the beliefs evolved to become the book of the dead. Meanwhile my theory explains many of the words and "all" the phrases. It explains the sceptres and icons. It explains where the beliefs expressed in the book of the dead arose as well as virtually all modern beliefs.
Ancient Language appears to be a different way to understand reality. It is a way from which some things are more easily seen.
> Your reading of the Pyramid Texts, your entire
> thesis, is based on a translation of a translation
> of the inscription Maspero discovered.
I've read all the translators including Oakley, Schmakov, and many many others. It is not based solely on Mercer though initially I did try to confine it to his. I've also studied the Coffin Texts and some other writing including even scraps that can be traced to the 4th dynasty.
> The context
> you think you are extracting from Mercer's
> translation, which you believe is at odds with how
> Egyptologists are reading this and which you use
> to build your own thesis that this is about
> building the king's ka, could just be a figment of
> Mercer's mind.
Certainly I have considered the possibility that this is all a figment of Mercer's imagination. This is why I've spent some time studying Mercer. But for me to find a consistent meaning here is far more indicative of this being a product of my mind than his. Even more likely is that it is a product of the original authors' minds.
Sethe and Mercer are far more consistent with my interpretation than later translators but the fact still remains that Faulkner is nearly as consistent and while Allen is not he does translate some things EXACTLY in agreement with my theory. For instance there are several lines that I believe refer top the rainbow that encircles the primeval mound (nb.wt). I find this line quite telling since it implies spraying water at the site of the mound. Rather than "bow", "celestial expanse", "light scatterer of the sky", "step of light", or other terms used by others he translates it as "arcs of the sky". I believe all these translations mean the exact same thing; rainbows.
I believe it to be original intent simply because it is consistent. The texts consistently say the exact same thing and it is in accord with what we call the laws of nature. Obviously confirmation bias is a powerful thing but it's just as powerful (if not moreso) for James P Allen as it is for me. I'm not claiming I must be right. I'm claiming my theory is the only one that has been making predictions.
> I know I'm not the first to point this out to you.
> I merely wanted to take you to the heart of the
> problem for you to see it with your own eyes so
> that you don't have to take it from others' you
> don't believe including myself. I think your
> thesis is interesting, and the general topic it
> breaches in any event is, but I am worried that
> it's based on someone else's errors. Like I said,
> unless you show me the rule you believe is correct
> and you apply to the original text for me to see
> how you extract a pyramid building opus form it I
> have nothing to go on and neither does anyone else
> here from the looks of it.
I contend these "utterances" are merely rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies and there are implications for how the pyramids were built if you look for the consistencies in the writing. Look for consistencies with what we call the laws of nature.