> Deftly done.
> Unfortunately, if you are in the vicinity of a
> brick wall, it would be easier and arguably less
> painful for you to bang your head against than to
> convince Cladking of the flaws in his
I know no answers. I'm quite dense and often tend to overlook the obvious and this even applies when presented with arguments against my theory. But it is apparent that in order to show that any meaning extracted from the Pyramid Texts is consistent with ANY language that one understands both the nature of the language and the intended meaning of the PT. Even if Atugablish could prove that the languages are distinct it would still be nearly meaningless until we are certain of the meaning of both languages.
For reasons already specified I don't believe it has been established that Sumerian has been properly translated nor has it been established that there might not exist two forms of Sumerian as I propose exist in Egyptian. How ironic we just had an AOTM (MDaines) who maintained (and scholarly at that) that Sumerian is not at all understood. Until the meaning of any language at all can be expressed in terms that speakers of another language can understand it is unreasonable to suggest it has been translated. You might call this moving the goalposts but I'd call it common sense.
I can't contribute much to any translation unless I am right about the intended meaning.
You act as though I'm married to my beliefs when the exact opposite is the reality; I have no beliefs. It merely appears that the writers of the PT meant everything they said literally and that the language in which they said it is metaphysical in nature. I am left to cast about for best fit "guesses" as to why this might be. Atugablish's argument is sound but this doesn't make it decisive or true. It merely makes it relevant.