> Yes, they are, Audrey. Nice of you to both delete
> the links I gave that show the correction, then to
> attack Wikipedia. Check any dictionary, then,
Do you understand a "word for word" translation? Do you understand a "literal" translation was asked for, which I'd love to see.
> What's your point, Audrey? Are you suggesting that
> because you haven't or can't see the reference
> with your own eyes I am lying about what it
> presents? Then go find your own examples of
> translation/transliteration/transcribing on the
> web. They are easy to find, and free. I mentioned
> Budge as part of an answer to Philip, you
> questioned it, so I ponied up the citation. The
> better question is what's up with
> you. and your little conniption fit?
A link to a book for sale is NOT a citation. I gave an example of a literal translation and it flew over your head.
> > That book does not have a literal translation.
> Yes it does.
> So, do you have visual access to it, or don't you?
> To say what you did here implies you read it after
> I supplied the link.
Well that would make me one hell of a speed reader wouldn't it. Unless you mean I read your link, which took 2 seconds and was a joke of a citation.
> Earlier you had a problem
> with me linking to it, but now you don't?
> Whatever. It's right there for anyone to see.
There to see in the book for sale that you linked too? You must be kidding.
> The hieroglyph(s), underneath is the phonetic, and
> underneath that is the literal translation in
Of some words, the book does. But the entire passages are not literal. Now if you had linked to the actual book, and not an advertisement, everyone could see this.
> Like Sam, Philip and you? Metaphysically
> redefining the English language to try and mask
> your ineptitude?
What kind of leap in logic is that? You're not making sense. No one was "redefining" the ENGLISH language. And I certainly wasn't using metaphysics. Boy you guys really twist things around.
> Do you even own a book on hieroglyphs? Access to
> one or more? What one(s)?
Don't worry about what books I own, have downloaded or have read.
Worry about transliterations being the method of Egyptologists and how that differs from a literal translation.
> ps. My response to you was respectful, with
> clarity, links and citations.
Link to a book for sale does not count for anything. What citations?
This is a citation...(since you like Wiki so much)
Literal translation is the translation of text from one language to another "word-for-word", rather than giving the sense of the original. For this reason, literal translations usually mis-translate idioms. For example, a literal English translation of the German word "Kindergarten" would be "garden of children," but in English the expression refers to the school year between pre-school and first grade.
This is a real link.....
Now I've given you 2 examples of literal. Is that enough or is it starting to sink in?
> Your vitriolic
> response says it all -- yet again. If being wrong
> is too much to handle for you, and can't admit an
> error, well, Audrey that's a problem you should
> reflect on. This sub-thread is now a mere useless
> tangent against the original point: Philip asked a
> question. He got an answer. Then you three go off
> on transcendental whirlwinds about AE grammar ...
> and it's all the more hilarious because you think
> you know more.
You can't even link to a real example of a literal translation of a pyramid text. Don't presume to lecture when you cannot grasp the concept of "literal".