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

> I think the reason why you don't understand the
> obvious is that you are looking at this as a
> purely lexical issue to serve another purpose.

I don't think like you do. I've never studied language from your perspective. My only purpose has been to determine how the Great Pyramid was built.

> You
> want the Pyramid Texts to mean something which
> supports your pyramid construction theory.

No. I do not.

I believe I discovered the meaning of the text by simultaneously solving it through context and reverse engineering the pyramid. I really wouldn't care if the PT was just gobbledty gook and incantation.

> Since
> that does not jive with the traditional
> translation, you question the method of
> translation.

The methodology to translate the PT is necessarily flawed and I've shown this numerous times. Words that are used a single time in the PT are translated exactly the same as if they had appeared in the book of the dead. No matter how many times "neter" is translated as "God" it is still a "natural phenomenon" if the ancient people made sense in terms of their premises and the literal meaning of their words means anything.

> Your theory's logic is actually
> reverse. You are bending language theory to fit
> your construction theory.

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT LANGUAGE THEORY. But common sense says that a language without taxonomies, superstition, and cognition is nothing like any modern language even if it didn't break Zipf's Law.

What you call my "language theory" is just the simplest explanation I can devise to explain the meaning I see in the PT and why Egyptologists are blind to it. You say real theory makes prediction yet I was the only one who made accurate predictions about the thermal anomaly and its existence. I even predicted Hawass would drop it rather than care about science or reality.

> As a result, you claim
> the language cannot be translated as is and only
> your interpretation is correct.

Ancient Language can not be translated into any modern language period..

You can't translate a computer program either. If you could translate these the result would look like a flowchart no one would understand.

> In
> the past, I also detected anthropological biases
> which you either brought in or extracted from this
> approach.

I believe everyone makes perfect sense in terms of their premises. I could never understand Hanslune for instance but if I did I would need to first understand where he's coming from.

> Instead, the lay-out of the chambers and the
> theology which may have inspired that is much more
> in line with what the texts say: Why the
> pyramid was built and what it represents.

The texts say it is the king's ka and it says it is no tomb or grave. It says this over and over in many ways.

Maybe I could start another thread on this subject.

> If your theory had anything to do with the
> language per se', you would/should have long
> thought about what I am asking you to do, which is
> fundamental and basic in any theory development.

Let's just say you're much more a polymath than I am a nexialist. These terms are in no way synonyms. You take things apart to understand them using rules developed over many millennia. I know nothing of these rules and I view things as a whole based on two sciences and metaphysics. I often bemoan the problem of specialization but that's not the issue here because you command so many specialties. Our lack of communication is different than that which I typically encounter. Of course it's very disturbing you don't agree with anything but then I'm not certain you can see these things outside your rules and processes. You're 0obviously not in any way close minded but everybody sees his models preferentially to anything else. You've given me leads on several occasions but useful information less commonly.

> There is actually a lot to be learned about the
> thought structure from the way the Egyptians
> handled verbs, but this is not something you will
> be interested since you are operating on a
> foregone conclusion based on your construction
> theory.

No.

Perhaps I could learn a lot about the verbs but first I'd have to learn the nomenclature and rules. I probably won't try to learn this for the simple reason that I doubt it would be productive. Not incidentally it's not how I work and I avoid taxonomies. This may seem pretty strange to a polymath but I just don't believe in taxonomies. This may well be just one of the reasons that it was I who discovered this; I already used a pidgin form of ancient science and their language doesn't look wholly alien to me.


I've debunked ramps and have a pretty good argument that the people were not superstitious. I've got a million predictions and Egyptology has none. Every time a prediction is borne out my theory gets further support. Every time a new discovery is made it can be bolted on to the teflon paradigm to which no fact will adhere. Every new discovery constitutes a whole new mystery and then Egyptology wonders why they are beset by cranks and splitters.