Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Those who made sense of ancient Egyptian took from
> other languages the idea that it had nouns and
> verbs, never mind so superficial a thing as a
> cartouche. Believe it or not, there are analogies
> between languages. There may even be such things
> as

The problem is you are assuming that anyone ever made sense of the ancient language while this is patently and obviously false. What they actually did was translate each word in terms of later usage and present the resultant gibberish as some sort of incredibly complex religion and incantation.

None of this resulting gibberish is in any way comprehensible. Despite the fact that we know beyond doubt the pyramids were tombs built with ramps not even the titles of the builders support said foundational premises! You can't get worse than this for supporting our hard won beliefs.

Indeed, the only corpus that survives is totally incomprehensible and is inconsistent.

You can't show any evidence that that the language of the great pyramid builders is understood so why should we accept that the name "Khufu" is understood? Don't try turning to the Palermo Stone since even if it's accept as it's purported to be (pre-4th D) it includes such gems as "birth of min". It's a list format and makes no more sense than titles, labels, or the PT.

> This is about language users making sense of what
> other language users were doing. A simple-minded
> empiricism and a naïve falsificationism aren’t
> up to theorising what’s going on.

Again you're assuming all languages are like modern language. If this assumption is false then we may be on the wrong road to understanding the ancient writing; revolutionary translations are taking us further away from author intent which the translators already admit they can only "circumscribe".