Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> No, Doctor, there you go again,
> rewriting the discussion. It started 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.


As I said, never mind.


Does anyone else know the why the other cartouches are followed by painted ("crew name") glyphs but this half cartouche is not?

Also, there is at least one instance of such glyphs in a lower chamber that seem to not be associated with any cartouche. Does anyone know the meaning of those glyphs when they're not associated with a cartouche?

I'm simply trying to understand what the translation luminaries believe are the connotations of each different format that we see in Campbell's Chamber:

- cartouche without crew name
- cartouche with crew name
- crew name without cartouche

Thanks.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 15-Mar-17 13:41 by Origyptian.