Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I have done
> here is to
> "parse" the translation word by word to help you
> get started. In the annotations I included the
> grammatical justification based on my own
> understanding of the current state-of-the-art for
> those who know this and may disagree or add.
>
> The most important syntactic feature of this
> phrase is that it is in the subjunctive mood, or
> at least that is the interpretation based on the
> verb form used. I point that out for those who
> know what that means in terms of dealing with your
> thesis, namely that conditional thinking "if A
> happens, then..." "if not, do not" was not part of
> the tool box of the ancient Egyptians. Does the
> subjunctive mood, as far as its use by the AE can
> be proven, falsify Cladking's thesis?
>
> So here are the questions:
>
> 1) Based on this literal translation, are Sethe,
> Mercer, and Allen reading this passage correctly,
> well enough...?

No!

The words are essentially correct but the meaning they see doesn't exist. The nature of words changed when the formatting of language changed. The words are INTENDED literally and our job is to deduce that intention.

> 2) what is the meaning of the "not your mother",
> "warded-off your testicles?. Is this supposed to
> be taken literally or is it a word-play, something
> Cladking argues does not happen?

It's not "word play". It looks like it when this language that is impossible to translate has modern symbolic words translated into it. "Not your mother" is "no mother" and "warded-off your testicles" Probably has a literal meaning such as "temporarily impotent" which is related to his "evil manifestation".

> 3) How else could this be translated and change
> the meaning significantly?

The grammatical rules of Ancient Language are highly enigmatic. This is just a book of ritual read to the crowds and I can't translate it either. It is impossible to translate AL into ANY modern language because the formatting is different. As a rule the "translations" are correct but the intended meaning is LITERAL because they had no abstractions.

> 4) Cladking, you say no parsing. Your
> understanding is based on context. I gave you the
> word by word literal translation. What is the
> context the way you see it and what meaning do you
> derive from it which is so different?

Human progress is not always linear nor is it necessarily "progress" at all. Sometimes we must take a half step back to go forward at all. Sometimes we invent petards on which to hoist ourselves or things just go wrong with our knowledge and technology. Progress has always had "evil comings".

Thot mean progress. Thot is the "first derivative of the human progress".

[grahamhancock.com] -"breath of life" in this very thread.



I can not translate a language that is impossible to translate. I can not deduce all the rules of grammar by merely modeling the literal meaning of what they wrote in a book of ritual. There's a fair chance most of these rules can be deduced but it will take years of intensive study by smarter people than me.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03-Sep-20 20:16 by cladking.