> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Thanks Avry. Questions:
> > It's difficult to draw an assessment of that
> > list of hieroglyphics without understanding the
> > context relevant to your claim. For example, could
> > you please cite where any of those names appear on
> > inscriptions dated during the Old Kingdom?
> To ask such a question only comes from doubting.
> It's as ignorant as it is insulting. That without
> a citation of where they can be found you are
> willing to discount them? Absurd. There are plenty
> of different locations and media where they were
> written. Start with the Giza cemetery. Put your
> scholastic research nose to the grind and find
> them yourself. I have no reason to doubt the
> source I used to print up the list for you, so
> there's no reason for me to repeat that author's
> research just so we can dig them out for you.
And yet you won't even cite the source where you got the list. Duly noted.
> But we know you all too well, Philip. Even if I or
> we dig out the actual photographs, you would
> continue to naysay to infinity.
You know no such thing. It never ceases to amaze me how many people here claim to be able to read minds. Why can't you just consider the posted words on their own merit? Why is it always so important to visit the poster's intention rather than let the words speak for themselves? If I state my opinion about Merer's log, why isn't a simple "I disagree, here's how I see it" warranted instead of engaging in a long childish string of name calling and ad hominem attacks?
What do you find so threatening about disagreement? Especially when the disagreement comes from someone who you claim is so ignorant of the subject matter.
> You have no moral
> nor intellectual capacity to reach the point where
> evidence has been confirmed. It's always 'yeah,
> but ...' with you.
...speaking of personal attacks.
Anyway, you talk about "confirmed" evidence, but have you actually cited any confirmed evidence?
> > Do you believe that the "pyramid" glyph maintains
> > the same meaning all throughout the dynastic era,
> > or did it change meaning during those millennia?
> > Does the glyph have the same meaning wherever it's
> > used (e.g., determinative vs. other element)? If
> > not, what is the basis for attributing different
> > meanings to it?
> Same question twice. Answer: The same. Consistent.
It is not the same question twice. The first one is about whether the glyph maintains the same meaning as it was used over the centuries. The second is about different grammatic uses of the word, e.g., determinitive, verb, noun, as it's used within the same document. If you can't see the difference between those two questions in my post just minutes before you wrote about it, then on what basis should I assume that you are imbuing credibility in other authors any more diligently?
> > You directed to Garder. What is Gardner's basis
> > for asserting that the so-called pyramid glyph is
> > used to specifically identify a true pyramid?
> That it looks like a pyramid would be the easy
> clue, then followed by the context of the sentence
> or title it is found in. It's 'Gardiner', by the way.
Sorry for that typo. Of course, it's spelled correctly in my other posts that mention him:
No other post from me using "Gardner" or "Garder".
That aside, you say it's a pyramid because it looks like a pyramid? I assume that's not how you interpret a man with the head of a jackal. Meanwhile, that horizontal rectangle doesn't look much like a pool or lake. Is N40 a walking lake? And assuming that djed isn't referring to an electrical insulator, it seems to me that your method for translating glyphs isn't really so formulaic.
And regarding the "context of the sentence or title", how does "Akhet-Khufu" provide sufficient context to render a "pyramid" glyph following it to mean a physical "pyramid"?
> > I see many inconsistencies
> > and oddities in so many translations that it
> > raises the question of the accuracy of the
> > translation methods.
> No, you don't see them. Only an understanding of
> hieroglyphs would allow you to determine where
> errors or alternate translations/interpretations
> might be.
You are incorrect. I see them very clearly in the translation of Merer's log, and they must be reconciled before factual events can be gleaned from them, unless you're claiming that Tallet is incompetent with the translations he publishes.
Regarding your requirement that we must understand hieroglyphs before we can discuss errors in translation, what do the OK hieroglyphs say about how G1 was built in the 3rd millennium BC?
What OK hieroglyphs have been translated to say Khufu built a pyramid?
Why are the various king's lists inconsistent with each other? Is that a problem in translation?
> You are being spoon-fed by people who
> have no clue about them, and are accepting their
> positions without question.
What I'm being "spoon-fed" by is all that physical evidence that defies the translations. I'd love to see glyphs that state "The man known as Khufu was King of Egypt in 2550 BC when he commissioned the construction of his tomb which is the largest man made structure ever built up to that time". As far as I know, nothing in any translation of OK hieroglyphics come close to saying that.
> Example: Japanese script. There is a person who
> can read them, and a person who cannot. You choose
> the interpretation of the person who cannot.
Not relevant to this discussion about comparing translations to the physical evidence. If a translation claims that the base of the pyramid is round but we see a square pyramid in the physical evidence, which are you going to believe? If a translation speaks of a "man with the strength of 1000 men", what are you going to make of that?
> How else can we explain your choice expect through
> blind devotion to them?
If you mean "except", then what are you accusing me having "blind devotion" to? I certainly accept physical evidence, and if it conflicts with a translation of hieroglyphics, there's a pretty good chance I'd put more credence in the physical evidence over the text translation, mainly because physical evidence is tangible, can be independently verifiable by others, and whether it exists is not merely subject to the interpretation of others. Whether you consider that to be "blind devotion" is simply your assessment.
> Funny how you question
> evidence that has contextual support and strong
> academic standing to your ends of logical
> absurdity, but receive 'evidence' with no
> contextual support nor academic standing by mere
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Please cite specific examples.
Regarding contextual support, if I get drunk on scotch and water, and then get drunk on whiskey and water, context might lead someone to conclude it's the water that got me drunk. But as erroneous as such a contextual association would be, I still haven't seen anyone produce "contextual support" to the notion that a man named Khufu built a pyramid as his tomb ca. 2550.
Your comment about "strong academic standing" is very curious. How do you think new discoveries are made unless mainstream academia is challenged?
- Academia strongly held that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it.
Academia strongly held that it wasn't possible to exceed the speed of sound.
It strongly held that the atom was the smallest particle in the universe.
It strongly held that light is a wave and not a particle.
It strongly held that the world has no use for desktop computers.
And don't get me started about academia's stronghold on that disastrous "food pyramid".
Likewise, it strongly held that pyramids were built with the aid of massive construction ramps, themselves consisting of 2x to 3x the mass of the pyramid itself.
What academia holds in strong standing is very often wrong. Indeed, challenging such strong academic standing is exactly how new discoveries are often made.
> > If you believe I am not entitled
> > to a meaningful opinion until I know how to
> > translate hieroglyphics, then we need to agree to
> > disagree about that.
> That you are entitled to have an opinion does not,
> by default, make your opinion correct.
When have I decreed I'm right and you're wrong vs. voicing my opinion just as you voice yours? More importantly, when have I ever flown off the handle and gone all medieval on someone just because they disagreed with me? I'm pretty sure if you review these debates you will see that you quickly derail when you encounter disagreement (as do a few others here). The record clearly shows that I graciously handle disagreement. I am on record as disagreeing to a greater or lesser extent with many users here, including Jon, Audrey, cladking, DUNE, Merrell, Eddie, Brian, Steve Clayton, Scott Creighton, etc. regarding each of our interpretations of the evidence. But the agreement is done in a productive, respectful, and far more civil discourse.
Can't say the say about your demeanor when you encounter disagreement.
> You are entitled to think whatever you want, but not
> entitled to think it is correct when it is clearly
> demonstrated it is wrong.
I assume you don't realize how humerous that comment is.
> > Regarding Gardner, I am sometimes reluctant to
> > look up something by an author and accept it as
> > fact without knowing the basis for that author's
> > conclusion, especially when disagreement about
> > what is published is expressed by others, or when
> > what the author published doesn't seem to align
> > with other cognate evidence.
> From who? Scott Creighton and Sam Petry?
> Brain-melted, drug aficionado Preston Peet? The
> Tooth Fairy?
Yes, Avry, from the Tooth Fairy; congratulations, you've cracked the code!
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 26-Jan-18 04:51 by Origyptian.