L Cooper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So exactly what sort of empirical evidence do
> you
> > have that Faulkner, Allen, Shmakov et al are
> > getting closer and closer to author intent?
>
>
> That is not the way it works. The authors you
> mention have each presented their own cases for
> their interpretations - neither I, nor anyone
> else, need to justify their translations.

If you can't show some kind of evidence that translations are approaching author intent then it might well be because they are not. If you can't answer basic questions about the meaning of their icons, sceptres, and word origins then maybe the writing is misinterpreted. If author intent isn't giving you clues about their culture and their artefacts then you might not really be "circumscribing author intent". If you can't show the language obeys Zipf's Law then maybe there's a very fundamental reason it does not.

> However,
> if you should disagree with any part of their
> translations, then the onus falls on you, the
> disagreer, to make the case in each instance as to
> where and how they may have erred, and how and why
> your alternate interpretation is to be considered
> more valid.

I've shown there is a consistent literal meaning that agrees with the laws of nature. I've shown why it breaks linguistic laws and contains so few words (and most of them nouns).

My interpretation is "obviously" more valid because it makes predictions and it shows what some icons, most sceptres, and some word origins are. This interpretation eliminates mysteries rather than creating them. It shows how there is an equivalency, for instance, between "bows", "celestial expanse" and "sky arcs". This equivalency between translators exist because of the nature of the ancient word for "rainbow" and different individuals' translation of that word. ie- every translator is right in a left handed sort of way. But every translator completely misses author intent which is "rainbow". Every translator completely misses author intent on most words and every single sentence.

Without an understanding of the nature of Ancient Language it is impossible to interpret or translate it correctly. Indeed, because of this nature and the fact that words had a single meaning and were representative it is impossible to translate AL at all!

> Shmakov's work is a perfect example of this
> approach. You cite Shmakov, but have you actually
> read his "New Readings"? He disagrees with many of
> the specifics of Allen's PT translations, and in
> each case he then details his argument - providing
> numerous textual examples to help explain and
> support his reasoning behind each suggested
> improvement.

I disagree with all of Allen's and Shmakov's translations and interpretations. Shmakov is parsing a language that can't be parsed because it's meaning evaporates if you try.

"Textual examples" mean nothing when the text is incantation. They are playing with words and comparing them to their meaning in later times. They have turned the Pyramid Texts into the oldest version of the "book of the dead". They have used bad methodology by interpreting and translating this work in terms of much later works rather than trying to understand it only in terms of the Pyramid Texts itself as I have.

> He is very clear, very specific, and
> very thorough. There is much to be learned by
> studying his approach. May I suggest that such a
> methodology would serve you infinitely better than
> your apparent penchant for simply relying on
> Mercer as your touchstone.


Shmakov has merely built upon the work of those who came before. Unfortunately for him all those who came before are wrong. Each generation is getting more wrong.

I can't understand why none of these translators noticed that vast categories of words are missing. They never noticed that words for "belief", "thought", and even taxonomic words are missing. I can tell you exactly why but nobody wants to hear it. They are missing because ancient people were nothing at all like us or Egyptologists. They didn't experience "thought" and had no conception of "belief". They didn't organize their knowledge in taxonomies as we do. Ancient people thought in a mathematical language from which they couldn't even see they were thinking. They organized their knowledge using various mnemonics (such as naming) and they saw the world in terms of this reality that had developed from 40,000 years of primitive science based on observation and the logic of their mathematical language. We see the world only in terms of our beliefs so seeing the meaning in Ancient Language is difficult for us. We're not accustomed to speaking a language that is like computer code and we can't imagine reading a sentence without parsing it.




____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2019 01:57PM by cladking.