atul.seth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Ancient Language had the same natural logic as
> mathematics
> > because it was based on the wiring of the
> brain.
> > ..............
> > They didn't have words to depict their
> > mental models because they had no mental
> models.
> > ...............
> > They experienced reality directly rather
> than
> > through thought as we do so, of course, they
> > didn't even have words like "thought".
> > .............
> > But they could see reality and its
> > interconnections and they identified these
> with
> > names like "nun", "shu", or "nut" (water,
> upward,
> > or sky).
> > ..............
> > These names were a part of language and
> > defined how the language was formatted.
>
>
> Hello cladking,
>
> Hope you don't give up now and keep trying to
> formulate and express your ideas precisely that
> apparently only you seem to have a clear notion of
> and of obvious importance and significance to you.
> Good luck.
>
> I found the above statements especially the first
> quite interesting and think they need to be
> explored in more detail. Please expand upon your
> ideas and share your thoughts as clearly as
> possible. Illustrations would definitely help.
>
> thanks

No, thanks. Nothing at all has changed except one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable posters has averred that my lack of training and understanding in language somehow negates my ability to read the literal meaning and thereby solve word meanings in a language everyone can translate but no one can understand. Such a claim doesn't change the fact that the PT are translated with word meanings from the "book of the dead" and the resultant translations make no sense and have never yielded any useful information of any sort. Meanwhile the literal meaning makes important predictions such as the thermal anomaly and might lead to proof that water filled counterweights were used to build the great pyramids if real science is ever done at Giza.

It's a safe bet Egyptologists will continue modifying the words they find carved in stone and correcting the grammar that isn't wrong. And they'll continue not to notice that a book of incantation yields nothing and makes no sense at all. Even if they ever do successfully find author intent in the PT Egyptology will know nothing more than they did in 1883 when it was found.

This thread which I've protected for many years is probably too trashed up to delve more into the nature of the language. If a new one is started I'll be sure to link back to our exchanges here which virtually began my attempts at communicating the thinking of people who used a language with no words of cognition or superstition.