cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Manu Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your basis for saying this was
> > "thou hast no mother [Mercer]". I can cite you
> > way
> > more compelling proof than that which falsifies
> > this. This proof says that the Thoth of the
> > Pyramid Texts was the Moon. If you cannot show
> > how
> > you got from Djehuti to human progress in PT534
> > using the original text you have nothing to
> > show,
> > Cladking. Forget me, forget about the Moon
> > (Krauss). A reasonable person has to be able to
> > reproduce your process.
>
> It is not my contention that "thot" means human
> knowledge and human progress in any specific usage
> or can be determined by any specific use. It is
> my contention that in Ancient Language the word
> "thot" represented the "natural phenomenon of
> increasing progress and knowledge" in every single
> instance and it belonged to a class of words that
> defined the subject of the sentence. It is my
> contention that this was found by finding what
> word fit in context every time it was used.


The fact that we know thot has no mother (since they said so) has almost no meaning in real life just like every other word in the Pyramid Texts. It means nothing and is no help in solving the meaning of "thot" using my process.

But the concept is icing on the cake and does show my process worked. Simply stated only thot has no mother. Horus (Jr) had three mothers listed. Even atum had a father, nun, and mother, I3.t-wt.t from some perspectives.

But to a mind that uses metaphysical language its logical basis (mother) is invisible. Just as most people don't understand how math works they didn't understand or see that their language was formatted in the wiring of the brain just like all other life.

Phraseology in Ancient Language was highly fluid in that ideas could be expressed from many perspectives. But once a perspective was chosen the words had to conform to a very precise grammar.