Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless you present what I asked you I am not going
> any further with this.
>
> 1) Use whatever sentence you like, but it should
> contain a verb and know the original text source
> So we can look at the hieroglyphic text later.
>
> 2) The focus shall be the six dimensions of
> information carried by this verbal predicate. You
> have to address all six. If you believe ancient
> scribes did not encode one or the other, say so.
> Here they are again: Tense, Mood, State, Voice,
> Gender, Number....and while we are at it what
> about person (I, you, s/he...).
>
> 3) You must formulate your theory in a few
> brief sentences starting from here for
> example, where I can make out the beginnings of
> it:
> [grahamhancock.com],
> 1171029#msg-1171029
>
> 4) You must formulate a brief description
> of how you imagine Egyptian symbols were lined up
> to encode this information, i.e. not the lexical
> information of the text, but the information I ask
> in 2). I asked you this here:
> [grahamhancock.com],
> 1171058#msg-1171058
> For example, this description should make it clear
> what you consider parsed meaning and what is
> contextual.
>
> We cannot go on unless I see this in place,
> wherever you like to put it. Put it all in one
> post please.
> This is not to trick or set you up, no worries.
> You and I, and the other posters alike might find
> out a few surprising new things about the Egyptian
> language. To make this really good we have to
> first clearly define the expectations going in and
> then see how they are fulfilled or not.

I really appreciate both your willingness to help and all the effort you've put into it.

But I do not understand either the questions nor how answering them can lead toward your understanding me nor my understanding you. It seems like you want me to parse the translations. It's simply impossible for me to understand the grammar of the language (mood, tense, etc) from understanding the meaning. I've learned what I can about the translators to try to factor out their influence but how am I to factor the influence of the original writers when it is their thinking I pursue?

I never learned any of this stuff. You might as well ask me how the ancient words interconnect in boolean geometry. I studied other languages but picked up most of the grammar from reading and the process of osmosis. It all looks like Greek to me. I envy you your structured understanding of English but I can hardly diagram a sentence.

This probably won't help but it appears to me that the translators have done an excellent job of rendering the writing into English (of course I don't know this). But the translators are missing the meaning right in front of them because the meaning is literal. Most of the tenses, moods, etc could be exactly correct and even if they aren't it wouldn't usually change the meaning. "Bring me the boat that flies up and alights is little different than "you will have brought me the boat that flies up and alights" in most contexts. The meaning of the sentence has little to do with tenses and moods and everything to do with context and perspective. I would guess that most tenses and moods in the language are simply an aid to locating the verb in the sentence and for identifying the verb.

Modern language is so complex largely because when you just say what you mean many shades of meaning must be employed. Modern language is complex to reflect simple metaphysics and Ancient Language was simple to reflect complex metaphysics. Of course the language itself was metaphysical so it acquired complexity.

I'm sorry for the wordiness here but I don't understand you. I know no other way than to use more words.