> I have no background in the Egyptian language, or
> Egyptology, but I do have background in
> Assyriology, and can read and translate Sumerian
> and Akkadian cuneiform. As such, I provide here an
> example of the Sumerian language, from roughly the
> same time as the PT.
Thanks for the time and effort here.
The question that pops immediately to my mind is whether or not there is any writing in Sumerian from such ncient times that you don't understand or for which the translation suggests numerous meaning dependent on one's understanding of the gods and script. Even if I agree that the passage here is correctly translated and comprehensible, it could merely mean that this is not Ancient Language.
> made a survey, (and) set up a (boundary-)stone.
> USH, the ruler of Umma, took the oath frivolously.
> He ripped out the (boundary-)stele (and) marched
> into the territory of Lagash. Ningirsu, warrior of
> Enlil, at his (ie, Enlil's) just command, made war
> with Umma (and), at the command of Enlil,
> overwhelmed (them) with the great battle-net.
> Tumuli (with enemy dead) were then heaped up on
> the plain." (The inscription continues with 5 more
> One can observe some fundamental differences
> between OK Egyptian and Early Dynastic Sumerian.
> Whereas OK Egyptian had VSO syntax, Sumerian had
> SOV syntax.
This could merely be accounted for by being the nature of the specific dialect. I certainly don't consider it conclusive proof that they are distinct languages.
> There was no grammatical gender in
> Sumerian, but rather varying degrees of animacy.
I don't believe there was a "grammatical" gender in Egyptian. Rather it appears that gender was determined by the perspective of the speaker. If referring to rod shaped object the gender was masculine but when referring to the interior of the same object the gender was feminine. Perspective was always defined and then meaning appeared within this perspective.
> I have given this Sumerian passage as an example
> since little contextual evidence from literate
> peoples other than OK Egyptians has generally been
> offered, so as to demonstrate the unlikelihood of
> a common linguistic identity. I remain unconvinced
> that OK Egyptian and Early Dynastic Sumerian could
> have been merely "dialects" of only one Ancient
> Language, "the same except [for] a few
> pronunciations", given distinct scripts, and
> especially differences in grammar and syntax.
It's merely an assumption that there was a single language based on the idea that I really do understand the PT. There must be some reason that the meaning is visible to me but others see only religion nd magic. It is also based on logic since any people who existed in ancient times who depended on superstition would always have their lunches eaten by people who employed science and logic. Even if there were other languages I would believe that they were still based on a natural logic that underlies mathematics and theory developed through observation.
> Apologies for issues with posting.
No apologies necessary. It's a superb job and especially for a first post.
Of course I lack the expertise to make my case linguistically though I continue to see hints that there could really have been a single simple language that was metaphysical in nature and natural to the human species. I'm sure there are numerous very good reasons experts don't agree but I'm still struck by the fact that experts see error upon error in the ancient writing that seem to disappear when it's interpreted as being literally and logically correct.
It's quite possible that there are more than one Ancient Language and each are based on math and logic. It's entirely possible that the PT is a sort of poetry that doesn't even apply to common speech so there was no Ancient language. The hypothesis that there was a single language is merely a best fit explanation for all the evidence and as a bonus explains the ancient stories about a fundamental change in "language" that rendered it "confused".
God knows our current languages are all confused.