Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
So there is a phonetic
> alphabet, phonograms, and there are logograms. The
> logograms act both as words and can also be
> determinatives, context symbols.

Clear Manu, with this kind flexibility it's easy to mix and match any meaning you'd like. But it's even worse since Egyptologist use even more flexibility to derive meaning.
The language you describe isn't a language. A language is a fixed set of coherent definitions. The dynamics you describe, is what is wrong with the translation system. And it starts with fusing sounds since this causes loss of meaning. You cannot compensate with flexibility to derive meaning. The base you working from is wrong.

Where are the sane Egyptologist?
I tell you, there aren't any since the all are working from the same base which, by method, have lost a lot of meaning. Now they have come up with some abracadabra translation but they aren't able to explain the rationale behind the choices to fuse sounds. Instead, the create a system to insert all flexibility needed, yet the results still render incoherent.

Like I said: You cannot solve half a puzzle and claim to have a proven rationale while most of it's results are incoherent. And I don't need an Egyptologist telling me I'm wrong while the complete scientific world is behind me.

edit: Spelling



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01-Dec-18 16:24 by Duketown.