atul.seth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree that the "oral" ancient languages like AE
> & also Sanskrit were in a sense natural but do you
> believe at some level that in case of ancient
> egyptian language there is a possibility that the
> creators of the Rosetta stone artificially
> assigned the hieroglyphs to the greek & coptic
> alphabet possibly based on their own limited
> understanding of the original oral language or
> maybe a deliberate act?

I believe the question has no bearing on the reality.

I believe that ancient science and ancient language were essentially the exact same thing. It was based on observation and the natural logic of language was the tool to test hypothesis. Theory was composed of observation and logic and this was tested by repeatable observation. This means that language itself was the metaphysics of the science. As science progressed the metaphysical language became increasingly complex until it failed. About 2400 BC the ancient language began its death spiral as more and more people became unable touse the language. About 2000 BC it appears that only modern language could be used for official purposes and this caused ancient language to pass rapidly from use. The old language remained as the language of science but it became more complex with each passing year until nobody at all could use it. No doubt there were many attempts to save the ancient language and even more attempts to translate it. But everything failed because these languages are naturally incompatible.

By the time the Rosetta Stone was inscribed it was forgotten there even had been an ancient language except for a few myths and some ancient writing that wasn't comprehensible. Now it's all gone except for the PT. People didn't save the ancient writing because it was incomprehensible. The Greeks apparently had access to some of it but they didn't understand it either. The authors of the book of the dead had better appreciation for it than any others but even they saw much of it as old wives tales and myth. The writing itself was incomprehensible but they had accounts passed down through the centuries. They drew things like boats standing on columns of water but didn't understand the nature of the source material.

> I would appreciate if you can explain briefly the
> background history of the origin and usage of
> hieroglyphs.

Well, my knowledge is quite shallow here but I do "know" a few of them. The ankh is a representation of the column of water known as the "duat" (d3.t) which is a circle with an "imperishable star" (bubble) in it. The djed was a hollow sycamore log wrapped in haffagrass rope used as a control device on the water. The glyph for "pyramid" was red at the bottom due to siderite staining. The "cartouche" was a belaying loop used for hooking stones and meant "unite". F46 to F50 heiroglyphs were links of chain used to transfer forces across the pyramid top. There are several others in which I have less confidence. I believe most of the glyphs willbecome much more apparent whenb studied in light of their intended meaning.

> I have similar notions about oral Vedic Sanskrit
> which was "restructured and its grammar theorized
> into law" by Panini in writing at about 400BC
> using a local script. He had a "dream" and the
> logic was shown to him?

I believe the human mind can process ideas outside of language in part of the brain. This part of the brain might operate in stage 3 sleep an account for the need to "sleep on" some problems.

I don't know.

I do know that many people come up with some very obscure truths and there's no apparent means to derive them from known science.


> Both the languages post restoration have resulted
> in translation of texts that are very 'dense' in
> complicated philosophy & mythology.Is this a
> coincidence?

I doubt it.

Perhaps it's a form of ancient language or it could be an attempt to preserve ancient thought in modern language that succeeded. Without knowing details all I can do is guess.

There are lots of things from ancient times that deserve a harder look. Even things from after 2000 BC should not be simply cast aside as the ramblings of sun addled bumpkins which usually happens.