Scott Creighton Wrote:
> Morten: Show one assertion wrong and another
> immediately pops up.
> Except, no assertion of mine has been shown to be
> Exactly how many esteemed Egyptologists who
> understand the AE hieratic language will it take
> for it to sink into your head that hieratic script
> is written right-to-left?
Creighton pretends to care what “esteemed Egyptologists” say, with the obvious exception of what they say about the inscriptions in the pyramid.
> So out of several hundred pieces of hieratic
> script (from Abusir) you find the odd piece of
> script written left-to-right. How exactly is that
> supposed to disprove my "assertion"? All it
> potentially shows is that some AE scribe was
> mucking around with script; perhaps saw a line of
> hierglyphs written left-to-right and copied it for
> practice - who knows?
Modus tollens. (You asked.)
Modus tollens is the valid argument form exemplified when a counterexample “disproves” a generalisation. Creighton’s “assertion” is such a generalisation and it only takes one counterexample to knock it down. Creighton knows this perfectly well, else he would not have tried to explain away the counterexamples.
His explanation being that the scribes who wrote from left to right were “mucking around” or (below) “larking around”. Yes, folks, it really is this pitiful.
Unless Creighton can project himself back into the minds of the scribes (an ability he has not been shy in claiming before now) and come back and show us what they were thinking, it is also entirely empty. Doubtless the scribes had all kinds of moods and motivations, but they are not part of our empirical data. What is part of that data is what they wrote and what they wrote refutes Creighton’s generalisation.
> But that categorically does not show my
> assertion is wrong - it might indicate that
> these numbers MAY have been written left-to-right
> cause some scribe was larking around with the
> numbers and decided to break the normal convention
> for hieratic script which virtually every scholar
> will tell you was written right-to-left. All the
> other pieces of hieratic text in the GP chambers
> where the direction is clear are ALL
> right-to-left. But suddenly you think they decided
> to start writing left-to-right for the numbers?
> Utter baloney and you know it is.
Justification for the word “categorically” here? And who are “they”? Justification for assuming that the same scribe or scribes wrote the numerals as wrote the ˤprw names?
We may also wish to remember that the numerals having been written from left to right is entirely a product of Creighton’s huff-puff insistence.
> Over and above which, merely presenting this
> nonsense as a possible explanation DOES NOT show
> my "assertion wrong". To do that you have to prove
> your OWN assertion is correct, Mr
> whack-a-mole. So--get to it.
Reminder to Mr Creighton: the “nonsense” and the “baloney” are coming from you—from a straw-man scenario you made up.
Allow me to remind you also that CAPS does not make it true. Except when I do it.
> Oh, and I suggest you think through the logical
> consequences of what your latest possible
> explanation implies--follow it through. Right to
> the end. Hint: it doesn't work.
Creighton on logical consequences.