> "Cladking is a self deluded individual, who is
> completely ignorant of even the basic principles
> of ancient Egyptian writing, let alone the
> language , and the reason for his persistent
> lunacy is unknown "
"Deluded" is a condtion of the "mind" and as such requires "thought". They had NO word for thought.
In this usage "completely" is reductionistic and they had no such words.
"Ignorant" is a word for "thought" as it is used here.
"Basic" in this usage is reductionistic.
"Principles" is taxonomic.
"Reason" is reductionistic and would need to be replaced with "by means of".
"Unknown" implies a "thinker" and would need to be replaced with "not known" (specific) or "knows not".
"persistent" is reductionistic.
"Lunacy" implies thought.
Even if all the words were correct it suggests not a state but a belief. They had no beliefs and no way to communicate, form, or "think" about beliefs.
"Cladking is a ... individual, who is
... of even the ...
of ancient Egyptian writing, let alone the
language , and the ..."
It is our belief that you don't need words for "belief", "thought", reductionism, or taxonomies in order to communicate just like us. But the fact is we use words that are symbolic and take their meaning from context. If Ancient Language worked the same way they couldn't even write magic spells that made any sense. And there you have it; they never wrote magic spells or any kind of gobbledygook. They wrote in a different kind of language with a highly limited vocabulary. They didn't need a large vocabulary because meaning was expressed mathematically like computer code.
Most of the Coffin Texts adheres to most of these rules but not all of it. All of the more ancient writing from the great pyramid building age adheres to it.
To say Egyptological interpretation of the writing is not realistic is a great understatement. Let me ask you this; If Allen or some other Egyptologist ever got a "perfect translation" of the ancient writing how would anyone know it? If they finally understood every word in the Coffin Texts how would they or anyone know it? Egyptologists say they can only "circumscribe the meaning" but how will they ever parse "Cladking is a ... individual, who is... of even the ... of ancient Egyptian writing, let alone the language , and the ..."?
The simple fact is hieroglyphs have never been translated and never will be because you can't set mathematics to English.