> > Plus the note (i): "I am not convinced by
> > interpretation of b33 as 'hole' ... "
> > according to Sethe would mean 'empty'. Faulkner
> > disagrees because a hole cannot have 'honour'
> > be white.
> If the referent is the empty sarcophagus then
> "empty" fits better than hole.
But it's not talking about a sarcophagus. What part of the Utterance (or this section) do you find the sarcophagus represented by?
Even if it was, the phrase you get is 'O white empty', which doesn't make sense, however, 'Your honour is taken away, O white spirit, by he who comes from the nose of the snake.'
> Normally only processes and people would be
> ascribed terms like "honour" by the Egyptians.
> But this doesn't seem so very far out of
> character. The "honor" of a sarcophagus might be
> rooted in being empty and having a pyramid built
> around it. It is now going to be put to human
> purposes to hold the ashes of the king who escaped
> the worms.
I don't feel an inanimate object would have 'honour'. But a person - rather a version of their soul - most certainly can.
> > Followup with Gardiner p.563 we find D58 G29
> > D58 G29 N33 'hole' 'hiding place'.
> > But when we view N33 (the determinitive),
> > references Z8, therein we find 'form' 'mould',
> > Gardiner is contradicting himself, or not
> > the glyph is a kd root.
> Both these terms seem to fit as well.
Neither 'hole' nor 'hiding place' work.
> > At the end, fnt(tch) is not rendered
> > correctly. Should be fnd(dj), i.e.
> > (of the snake).
> "Nose of the snake" certainly would change the
> intended meaning. It wouldn't be the sarcophagus.
> However, as I understand the language it would be
> rare to never that anyone would ever speak of
> "nose of the snake".
Why? To me, it makes sense when seen as an issuance from the nose of the snake (a snakebite), or the 'tip' of something 'dangerous'. Given the preceding Spruch, there is a good argument they were speaking about a lava flow.
It would probably be a
> mistranslation of "nose of the serpent" which was
> very unusual in the ancient language since it
> referred to the destruction of stone from the
> perspective of that which destroyed it.
Citation for this?
> the snake" would refer only to the literal nose of
> a snake. "worm" is more likely the correct
> translation but since I don't know I understand
> the utterance this is merely the probabilility.
> Once you understand them then you can have more
'Snake' might make more sense in that the deceased was passing through hours of the night where many snakes are come upon.
> > But you
> > see how I find where disagreements exists even
> > with key hieroglyph interpreters?
> This disagreement is rampant. Each translator
> says they can only "circumscribe the meaning"
> because it is a dead language that isn't
Somewhat agreed. There is enough there to get a good grasp on what was written. It's not perfect, no.
> I simply believe it isn't understood
> because it's not really translatable.
Disagreed. :) See previous comment.
> When ancient people spoke communication was near
> perfect. If one said something that wasn't
> understood it would simply sound like word soup.
> If there was a grammatical error or a misstatement
> of reality the entire utterance wouldn't make any
> sense. If an individual heard it wrong it would
> make no sense and sound like a conglomeration of
> words rather than a sentence. We follow word
> meanings and they followed the reality modeled in
> each other's minds. We can interpret words to
> force something to make sense but they couldn't
> model the same reality unless the words were
> right. This is why the PT is such an enigma; we
> don't understand it and are trying to force it to
> make sense. It looks like a book of incantation
> only because it isn't understood.
I don't think it's a mis-translation, rather an incomplete rendering of what was meant.
> I'll try looking at the utterance again today but
> my heiroglphic dictionary doesn't work any longer
> and I have to use one that is a mess and I haven't
> figured out yet.
What/who are you using?