Duketown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No Manu,
> Your are assuming you know the reason why language
> is invented but you don't know.

I will repeat: The earliest Egyptian language records so far discovered relate to trade. The reason is they were attached to goods and the some of the labels identify locations in phonetic script. if there was writing before, the reason for its use is unknown, but the earliest writing we know was used for trade and accounting. If you don't accept it that's fine with me, but this isn't something you have to accept from me anyways. This is independently verifiable.


>And I don't contradict myself. I'm
> copying > Champillion's
> method to determine the meaning for glyphs. The
> aim is to deduct Abrahamic perspective and
> generate some more modern perspective.

That has nothing to do with the Pyramid Texts because Champollion didn't know them. You are way off track. Do you honestly believe that Sethe, Gardiner, Polotzky, and Allen were reading Abrahamic scripture into the PT's? Examples please. Allen doesn't even want to use the word "heaven" and instead uses "sky" to translate "pt" to not burden the text with religious metaphors. Look Duke, there are so many misconceptions about Egyptologist floating around in the Alt History camp it's all based on a lack of actually learning about the field. There are plenty of real mysteries in Egypt. There is no need to make them up just to have boogey-man to beat up and promote your own off-the-wall ideas.

Meanwhile,
> I let you decide what is Corpus and then I'll make
> you that table.

If you want a representative corpus of texts from the Old Kingdom, you cannot just pick the PT's. You have to look at all the texts and I listed most of them. You are not getting this part of Cladking's theory. He claims that the application of Zipf's Law to the PT's allows one to conclude that Old Kingdom Egyptians did not have a concept of a certain type of words. The PT's are a highly skewed sample of Egyptian literature.
In any case, it's not my project Duke. It's Cladking's. Whether or not you buy into it makes no difference to me. I hope that makes sense, right?

> Cladking's theory can only be proven if the glyphs
> that are wrongly interpreted are revealed. You
> need a reference set to work with or remain in
> unprovable circle arguments forever. But he, that
> needs some work.

This is incorrect. Cladking has not produced a step-by-step process to take anyone from glyph to geyser. You are not going to bend reality here, Duke. A sound theory has to have a logical process to take a reviewer from assumptions to conclusions. I can learn the rules and words of the Egyptian language an Egyptologist and with a lot of time an patience end up with a translation... and someone in another part of the world can end up with a very similar translation using the same instruction manual. On the other hand, no one in this world will be able to translate the PT's like Cladking without him telling you what you should be reading....and that's the key difference. His theory is not independently verifiable and it rests entirely on his subjective experience. His reference set is his construction theory. The language aspect of his theory is a pawn on a chess board whose king is a geyser-fueled funicular stone lifting contraption.

Look, the fact that you and I are debating his theory and he cannot explain why Shu means upward says it all. Don't be knocking on my door. Knock on his and let him show you the goods first.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 29-Nov-18 01:32 by Manu.