Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a perfect example of why Cladking's method
> is flawed. He will say you cannot parse but there
> is no need to parse.
> He will say you can derive the context from
> Mercer's English translation and as Lee points out
> Cladking's context is flawed.

There is a need to parse it; We can't understand language until we parse it. "Parsing" is what we learn when we acquire language. We learn that every word affect each other word in a sentence and thereby defines author intent. But Ancient Language was like a mathematical equation and the moment one term is taken in the wrong order or is misinterpreted or modified in any way the entire intent of the author evaporates.

> All you have to do is look at the actual
> Hieroglyphic text and I promise that all of you
> regardless of whether you've laid eyes upon one
> hieroglyph will immediately see the problem and
> have a good laugh, for all including Sethe,
> Mercer, Cladking, and even Jim Allen missed this
> one.
>
> The word jt with determinative snake
> (usually phonetic "f") means father. The
> jtw are the forefathers. The word wr
> means great. This has nothing whatsoever to do
> with "saw". So where does this idea come from?
> Well for starters the word pronounced jyt which
> sounds like jt means knife and so the knife symbol
> is both a logogram and a phonogram. That is the
> first important piece of information. Gardiner T30
> is placed here after jtf3 and before
> wr. So what is the context represented by
> T30? A shrine....a monument made to the memmory of
> the forefathers.

Since there is literal meaning in this writing even after it is parsed there is a strong tendency to still be able to see some of the various dimensions to the thought of the speaker. We interpret these dimensions as "puns" but there are no errors or puns in the ancient writing. "Errors" are a product of misunderstanding and "puns" are a product of partial understanding caused by the fact we correctly translate and interpret much of the vocabulary but none of the "grammar".

> Second, in the original text first used by
> Teti and all which follow the word is
> determined by the symbol which I know at least Lee
> knows well...the Pr-wr shrine. I strongly
> encourage all of you to verify what I am saying
> for yourselves to let this be a lesson "thou shall
> not forget"...that you have to check original
> sources and don't let academics or heretics alike
> ideologically influence your own better
> judgement.

There are a few words I haven't translated yet and one is "shrine". I suspect it means something like "mnemonic" but there is not yet enough logic and evidence to establish it.

> So why did Sethe think this is a" Saw Palace"?
> Look at it and have a good laugh.

Any attempt to "translate" this language might actually translate ANY of the dimensions of the thinking of the author. You could say every translator gets it right but then you have to find a meaning that makes every translator correct. I would remind you that modern language is confused so searching a meaning that corresponds to ever translation would probably be an impossibility.