Scott Creighton wrote:

> SC [sic: MS]: Which merely reasserts your conclusion.
>
> SC: A conclusion based on the evidence. Don't forget the
> evidence, Martin.

You’re the one selectively forgetting it, Scott: your conclusion merely reiterates the presuppositions you’ve imposed on the evidence.

Recommendation: add Introductory Logic and Epistemology 101 to your growing list of remedial classes.

> SC: The solar disc - as I'm sure you well know - can be
> depicted with or without the centre dot.

Oh. So you do know about variant orthography.

I trust you’ve profited from my posts on variant writings?

Please don’t injure yourself in your haste to apologise for suggesting that I was lying about it.

> This is evidenced by
> the solar discs in the names of Djedfre, Khafre, Menkaure etc
> in the Abydos King List which also do not bear the dot in their
> solar disc.

You really don’t know what a circular argument is, do you?

But how appropriate that you should offer one on the topic of a disc.

> SC: Are you suggesting the "featureless discs" for "Khufu's"
> successors are not solar discs? That they are not, as Gardiner
> and others tell us, "Re"?

If Gardiner’s authority settles the question, you’re done, Scott—but at least you’re moving in the right direction, by looking, not just at the character, but also at the context in which it appears . . .

> SC: Is this some AE phonetic you are describing here? Haven't
> heard of it before. Care to elaborate?

Scott's attempt at sarcasm. Duh.

> SC: And yet the centre dot is NOT depicted in the names of
> Djedfre, Khanfre, Menkaure, etc.

Where exactly, Scott? Specify.

> There was no need since -
> evidently - the plain circle is also indicative of "Ra".

How do you know?

> But you know this.

I know nothing of the kind. I know that it is considered to be so in some contexts (which is something quite different from your unqualified claim).

> Or are you trying to suggest that a
> "featureless disc" is NOT indicative of "Ra"? Are you
> suggesting that the "featureless disc" of Djedfre etc are NOT
> solar discs; are not Ra? If so, then on what basis? How would
> this change the names of these kings if this "featureless disc"
> was not a solar disc (Re)?
>
> MS: If the dot was dispensable, . . .
>
> SCL Clearly the evidence tells us the dot was indeed
> dispensable otherwise the dot would be present in the solar
> disc of the King's names immediately adjacent to Khufu's in the
> Abydos King List.

No, you really don’t know what a circular argument is . . .

> MS: why not the striation of Aa1? Now why is that?
>
> SC: Because a missing dot from the solar disc does not change
> the meaning of the glyph - it is STILL Ra without the centre
> dot. The missing lines of glyph Aa1 would indeed change the
> meaning of the glyph hence why it would have been absolutely
> ESSENTIAL that such lines were carved into the disc to ensure
> the correct meaning was imparted. That such lines are not
> extant in "Khufu's" "faetureless disc" tells us that such
> lines were not required because because is is meant to be read
> as "Re".

Which (yet again) is merely reasserting your conclusion (yet again).

Now I know that some people don’t like links to other boards, but this is irresistibly funny:

[www.hallofmaat.com]

So much for your great discovery.

But let’s open another line of inquiry. Aa1 is one of the more common hieroglyphs and it would be surprising if there were not at least one elsewhere on the relief:

[commons.wikimedia.org]

Get looking!

M.