> If you want to prove it you must have a process to
> go from symbol to meaning. You disagree with the
> process discovered by 180 years of studies and I
> have absolutely no problem with it and I wish you
> good luck with your quest.
(again) Correction Manu..
If you (= cladking) want to prove it (= alternative translation theory) you must have a process to go from symbol to meaning with coherent and reproducible results. This last part you purposefully forget because you don't apply the scientific method. Since you can't explain the rationale, you only repeat word-lists with an added repertoire of tools to bent interpretation in the direction of your masters' imagination.
Besides and more importantly, you forget to mention there is a process from sound to symbol underlying your statement. Your topic title (From Ancient Symbol to Modern Sound) by itself shows your lacking understanding of interpreting ancient languages. That symbol you start with, is the representation of underlying sounds which represents the language and it's meaning. That's why you don't understand my remarks about your fake fixed points. You don't understand were translating starts. You start somewhere in the middle. You believe this is a fixed point but it isn't: Sound is the LANGUAGE; not your broken interpretation of those symbols.
Current interpretation of glyphs isn't perfect and Champillion reference of thinking (culture, religion, knowledge, experience etc) ofc influenced his choices in grouping those symbols into single letters belonging to the Greco alphabet. He learned those magnificent skills, like fluently reading foreign languages, on religious schools, paid for by his crusading government. This didn't contribute to this man's open mind.
To be more specific: Those 19th century egyptologists laid the foundation of your believes and those crusaders were god-fearing and believing in slavery at the same time.
In other words: they had broken worldviews and still, you don't have the rationale to elevate yourself to sanity. You are required to have a rationale, since language is an expression of reason. Yet, you have the arrogance judging other men's interpretations.
To bring egyptologist back into sanity, it's time for them to understand that they can't make any linguistic claims without explaining the rationale of why a certain sound represents a certain letter; ancient languages can be reasoned otherwise it's "no language without a message".
You cannot solve half a puzzle and claim to have a proven rationale while most of it's results are incoherent. In reality, the proof only leads to one conclusion: Champillion didn't understand the sounds; he was really eager to prove Egyptians destroyed Jerusalem and he first wrote down a story about Egyptian religion, BEFORE he even could decipher the description of the mummy of Bakt-en-Hor.
You fail to prove your own rationale. You refer to 180 years of Egyptology as some proof but those 180 years delivered sub-optimal results. A provable reason you, and thus 180 years of study, fail, is that you are working from a wrong base: you can't fuse multiple sounds without losing meaning.
If you don't understand: try to articulate /t/ and /d/ and understand those letters are almost opposite in articulation, yet that Charlatan fused them. I need to know why!
The underlying sounds still aren't understood, only improved by trail-and-error and not deducted with reasoning. And even with an added repertoire of tools, egyptologist still delivers results that are sub-optimal at best.
Look Manu, your interpretation follow the same style of reasoning as you display on this forum: drenched with assumption. If you want to judge Cladking, prove your own rationale. Why do you continue this insanity? I already explained this 20 times. While you ignored 18 of them, the 2 times you tried to explain yourself, you only proved you have a broken method, derived from a broken worldview.
Are you really sure that "kwak" has the same meaning as "kwik"? And how come "kwek" became "kwak"? Why fuse 3 ducks into 1? They are 3 individuals; not 1. I don't believe "kwek" and "kwik" are happy becoming "kwak".
Linguists (i.e. Loprieno) classifying these non-languages is also unscientific. They should understand that it's the glyph sound itself that represents language; not the imaginary interpretation of egyptologists. Whether linguists call it abracadabra or Semitic, the sounds remain the same. Treating it as a language-isolate doesn't justify their unscientific reasoning. Believing that Champillion's interpretation is more important than the meaning of the sound that glyph represents is insane. All Egyptologists are charlatans or unscientific disciples and that include the linguists who doesn't care to explain their fundamental rational. I will gladly retract this statement: Proof that there is no meaning lost when sounds where mapped to letters.
Language isolates also need justification. You can not even classify something as a language if you can't explain what the sounds mean. That's why birds tsjilp instead of speaking. Clearly, Egyptologists treat that what they can't understand as a language. I already explained extensively that means we need to have a rationale. Sure, any sane egyptologist or linguist recognize this but they can't explain beyond Charlatan. They believe they don't have to but science knows they do.
As it stands now: The glyphs Egyptologists and linguists are trying to interpret can't even classify as language. A language is a fixed set of coherent definitions. The dynamics egyptologists use, is what is wrong with the translation system. And it starts with fusing sounds since this causes loss of meaning.
Egyptologists compensate this with flexibility to mix and match interpretations, resulting in incoherent meaning. The base egyptologists working from is wrong. The incoherence I mean isn't the incoherence resulting from wider interpretation of glyphs; I mean incoherence due to broken phonogrammatic system, with incoherent rules, and a translation system which include a repertoire of tools to bent interpretation in any direction, etc.
Why this post?
Egyptologists can't deny the problems around the phonogrammatic system that I showed Manu. You can't claim to understand without even having a rationale. You can't demand prove without proving yourself.
I think it's time that egyptologists stop keeping humanity disconnected from their roots. They have no scientific base and need to give room to so-called alternative researchers. In reality, the alternative researcher are the real researchers and the egyptologists are the pseudo-scientists. Working from an unscientific base has huge implication for scientific debate, patronizing alternative researchers. I know I use of harsh words but I think the best describe what's the case. Someone only had to spell this out.
I like to compare egyptologist to a mechanic with 2.000 tools, only to deliver a broken car. Instead of reconsidering their skill set, they buy more tools to only add to the confusion without fixing the car.
I hope this post will help to make sure Egyptologists and linguists become scientific and it's their burden to prove their rationale. As it stands now, the alternative researcher has all reason to speculate while egyptologist are in no position to judge. An open mind is needed. Just accept the fact we don't know and don't become like religion or science.
I proved information is lost and explained there is no rationale using the scientific method. Both statement are scientific 100% correct but this isn't reflected in current day reality. You can not argue with science and yet Egyptologists and linguists know better. You can not hide behind broken assumptions.
trail-and-error updates to Champillion's list: (but rationale for phonogrammatic system is still missing)
The Omega assignment is false. standard transliteration that is a "w" sound not a "o"
The seat is "p" not "phi"
Only the first two symbols are correctly pronounced "S". The next three symbols are "z"
Rho is only the mouth symbol
The Lion is "rw" in Old Egyptian see the very text I posted for a tandem of it
"l" in Late Egyptain as per Ptolemis
The next one up is correct. That's p and comes from Ptolemy as well
Ditto the sling
The next one looks like "ks" and "kz" , but the sound in Greek is more like "kh" if that's supposed to be an X
The wavy line is n, but the jar is nw
M looks correct
The lion in late Egyptian is "l" looks good. The flower symbol looks like a lotus, but not sure.
Kappa is correct for the first four symbols, the rest are wrong
I and H look ok for the dual reed but the arm symbol is wrong. This also came from Ptolemis
J (Greek epsilon) is ok for the single reed
D and T are not delta, only d
Gamma is wrong. Neither symbol sounds like a g
The leg is ok for b, not the other two symbols as far as I can make them out.
The first row is the worst. The best match for a Greek A is the arm. All the others are wrong from the looks of it.
They are "d", "t", and the word "dj" which is not a letter.
The reason why Champollion converged them into Greek "t" is that this was the version on the stone he could read. I can assure you that no egyptologist, heck no tourist learning glyphs in Cairo, would read a "rdj" as "t". "rdj" means to give. It's a verb, not a letter.
A nice quote from forum member and Semitic tongue expert & egyptologist Martin Stower
> > To labour the obvious, the difference between /t/
> > and /d/ and /s/ and /z/ is voicing. Otherwise
> > same point of articulation, so it could be
> > difficult in the early stages to differentiate
> > sounds with this much in common.
Say what? Just one of countless example of incompetence of Martin Stower. People like him are the reason I took the time to make my point.