> This image was posted just a few days
> ago. It shows the logogram for ramp, st3w.
> The word is written on an incline surface on which
> a load is also seen and the symbol itself is
> written here with a slash at an incline. It could
> not be more obvious. The word Ro-stau has the word
> ramp embedded.
The only two logograms I know for "ramps" are shaped like "ramps". Is st3w really a logogram at all?
> If you continue to
> read this spell there is mention of Mafdet
> in the House of Life which kills Apep. The
> insinuation is actually quite poetic...since
> dragging themselves is what snakes do when they
> are in retreat. This is the context you did not
> consider, but of course this is not a surprise.
In actuality it is Egyptology that ignores context. It's not only that the literal meaning is wholly discounted but that there is no assumed logical and coherent meaning TO ANYTHING AT ALL. There is no sense at all to phrases, sentences, paragraphs or utterances. I am the one who assumes they all make perfect sense in WHOLE AND IN PART. I assumed going in they made sense in terms of their premises. Egyptologists ASSUME THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE AT ALL EXCEPT AS RELIGION AND MAGICAL INCANTATION. THEY EVEN CALL THEM "INCANTATION" AND "SPELLS". I'm saying they do make sense but only in context and only if they are not parsed like you do with this sentence and ALL MODERN LANGUAGE.
> You simply have no understanding of this language
> and that is because you've never put in the time
> to learn it. No pressure, but if you want to use
> the language as evidence for you theory, that is
> the first thing you should be doing. There is not
> short-cut with Mercer.
I believe it is Egyptology who have no understanding of these "spells" because there are no spells. These are RITUALS read at the kings' ascension ceremonies and they are written in a language with no abstractions. The FACT that there are no abstractions prove the language is unlike ours. The fact Egyptologists never noticed there are no abstractions and it breaks Zipf's Law proves they are the ones wrong, not me.
How did they never notice that there are so few words in the language? I'll tell you exactly how; they parsed it and by assigning different meanings to words it seemed there were more.
> Mercer's translation is false. The words hr hr.k
> mean "On you face". And the tj ending after
> sth3 is the stative second person singular
> suffix ending. There is no word for either "back"
> or "laid" in this sentence.
> Look Cladking, on this one you are wrong
> completely. I understand that you don't want to
> give an inch because years of your theorizing
> would fall apart. You are all-in.
I can be wrong about anything at all and at some point have probably been wrong about everything. But I do give Egyptologists the same benefit of the doubt I give EVERYONE; they always make perfect sense in terms of their premises. Since their premises are wrong they are only right in a left handed sort of way.
This is very simple; reject the premises and everything looks completely different.
It's the premises you need to support and not the conclusions. I often call us "Homo Omnisciencis" but could call us "Homo Dunning-Kruger" or "Homo Equine Cart" or "Homo Circular Argument" and the list can go on ad infinitum because we all end up in exactly the same place which is ALWAYS EXACTLY where we started. It is thew nature of a species whose brains are programmed with abstraction rather than knowledge.
> I get it.
> However, there are other people who use actual
> evidence to make up their mind and they can do
> that now because otherwise they only have your
> word to go on.
We all use the same evidence and logic and we all process it in terms of our beliefs. Egyptological beliefs are illogical and they are wrong.