Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Origyptian Wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Origyptian Wrote:
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > I'm referring to the glyphs [sic] that follow the
> > > > > cartouches throughout the RCs as discussed in
> > > > > Roth's thesis. That half cartouche isn't followed
> > > > > by glyphs [sic] the way the other cartouches are.
> > > >
> > > > Those are not phyle names. Suggest you read
> > > > again, with emphasis on the difference between
> > > > names of ˤprw and names of z3w (phyles).
> > >
> > > As I more specifically said, I'm referring to the
> > > glyphs [sic] such as those that follow the cartouches
> > > per Roth's thesis.
> > >
> > > Never mind.
> >
> > Never mind what, Femano⸮ That your conceit is
> > making a clown of you again⸮ Why would I⸮
> >
> > What Roth actually says (on page 125): “A
> > few of these texts may contain
> > traces [my emphasis] of a phyle name
> > followed by a division mark, . . .” In a
> > footnote, she gives exactly two (2) examples, both
> > from the west end of Nelson’s, where the marks
> > are not well preserved. The first of these
> > follows an ˤpr name based on the Horus
> > name of Khufu, Ḥr-Mḏdw—not a
> > cartouche name—while the second is ambiguous.
> > Both are questionable.
> >
> > That’s it. The other characters following the
> > cartouche names (and the non-cartouche Horus name)
> > are not phyle names and have nothing to do with
> > phyle names. They are components of the
> > ˤprw names.
> >
> > On page 127, we find this: “The first clear
> > references on the blocks of a building to phyles
> > as an integral part of the system of gangs and
> > divisions occur in the mortuary temple of Menkaure.”
> >
> > Enough of your Dunning-Kruger foolishness.
> >
> > M.
>
> "Dunning-Kruger foolishiness"? There you go again.
> I'm only trying to understand why there are no
> such ˤprw names or other markings after
> the half cartouche since the other cartouches are
> accompanied by such marks.
>
> Never mind. I don't want your answer, even if you
> know.

No, Doctor, there you go again, rewriting the discussion. It started here, with your asking this question: “Any explanation for why it appears without a phyle name?” It has taken four (4) posts to put you right on your misuse of the word “phyle”.

It is Dunning-Kruger foolishiness when you (vastly) overrate your own competence and fail (or refuse) to recognise the competence of others, in fields in which you have barely begun to learn.

You still haven’t got how an ˤprw name is formed. Hint: the royal name is part of it.

How you can presume to affect superior wisdom on these matters escapes me.

M.