> My question was why does he place so much emphasis
> (as evidenced in a multitude of posts over the
> years) on:
> (a) a word which is grammatically understood
EVERYTHING Egyptologists BELIEVE about the ancient Egyptians would be highly insulting to those people if I am correct about the meaning of the Pyramid Texts. There is simply nothing that Egyptologists believe about the Egyptians which THEY would find as both accurate and complimentary. No, I'm not really insulted for the ancients but I'm sure the few who haven't had their tombs desecrated are spinning in their graves. They are being ascribed characteristics that aren't true and are highly insulting. How would you like to belong to a culture that is one day said to be so primitive that we could only have used ramps and wasted vast resources with no crop in the ground to drag tombs up ramps for a dead king who squished his toes in corpse drippings?
The paradigm is wrong and every time I refer to "stinky footed bumpkins" this is exactly what I'm trying to convey. Many people still have difficulty imagining that I don't agree with Egyptologists. I say that when "tefnut" is solved by context it means "the natural phenomenon of the effect of the normal force on unsupported objects" (downward) and they treat me to a wiki article that says Tefnut means moisture. No! I DON'T AGREE. I say Egytologists think tefnut means downward because it was tefnut that returned the water of atum to the earth and they tell me that the book of the dead is clear on this and Tefnut was moisture. We just go back and forth so I remind them often that Egyptologists think they were stinky footed bumpkins.
Rather than address the actual argument they tell me what Egyptologists believe. I KNOW WHAT EGYPTOLOGISTS BELIEVE and I believe they are WRONG.
> and (b) has twisted the meaning of another word
> (secretion) to fit his critical viewpoint, when
> other plausible synonyms could be used.
Did you already forget Faulkner used the word "corruption". Egyptological belief here is very clear.
> Thirdly, the plural "they" does not appear in
> Mercer's translation.
My contention is that if the people believed their gods stank to high heaven and squished their toes in corpse dripping then it's logical to assume that people who dragged tombs up ramps often or usually had a foot odor problem. Then figure they were jammed cheek to jowl in a tiny little builders village and it stands to reason the entire society stank too. Of course deductions such as this could be wrong but I imagine that if they really believed in stinky gods and eyes with a foul odor that they had more need for the Nile than just warm muddy drinking water.
> As well,
> he attributes this viewpoint to "Egyptologists".
> Nowhere in the literature have I found any such
I believe it is obviously mistranslated and Egyptologists are wrong about everything.
> Cladking has built the "stinky footed bumpkins"
> paradigm on a folly of his own but is adamant
> about "author intent."
According to experts this stuff is just incantation. They are the ones basing an entire paradigm on a book of magic interpreted and translated in terms of writing that wouldn't exist for 1000 years.
Author intent in incantation is a meaningless concept that flies in the face of logic, common sense, and reality itself. I am telling you that there is a logical and sensible solution to the PT that doesn't make it incantation.
> Surely, as a learned person yourself, you must
> discern the difference between scholarship and
> mere opinion.
"Scholarship" is always irrelevant. What is important is facts and logic and all of the facts and all of the logic is on my side. It's not me against Egyptology and stinky footed bumpkins. It's all of the facts and logic against a paradigm that incorrectly calls them stinky footed bumpkins.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19-Oct-17 22:27 by cladking.