R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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,
> Audrey.

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
> hieroglyphic
> 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
> English.

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)

Quote
Wiki
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.....
[www-01.sil.org]

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".