cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > We have been waiting for 10+ years for you to
> show
> > us all your solution - why do you refuse to
> > present your full translation of the PT -
>
> Sethe and Mercer did an excellent job of
> translating these "Rituals of Ascension". The
> problem is interpretation. The rituals were meant
> literally and we are taking them metaphorically
> and as abstractions.
>
There is no problem with interpretation that is YOUR claim which you have never supported. You also claim the utterances were meant literally - again a claim you've never supported - no one has taken you seriously because you've done no serious work to support your claims.

The one test we did here of your claims showed that your 'solutions' don't work. This falsifies your idea.

> All my work is in the nature of observation and
> interpretation.

A fancy way of saying, 'I make stuff up and refuse to support it with anything but my opinion' yeah we know that - you've been telling us that for 10 years - and since you won't provide evidence to support your claims they are dismissed. Yet when we take what you've made up and apply it to the PT - it doesn't work. Care to explain?

There is a trail of bread
> crumbs anyone can follow and I'll be happy to
> address concerns, objections, or to elaborate on
> any point.

Provide your full research and data along with a complete translation of the PT. As noted we've done an experiment here and your ideas failed spectacularly - what is left for you to elaborate on?

Shall we test some more of your word solutions? You one and I'll pick one.

> > So? Everyone but you knows the PT is only one
> set
> > of text and not the entire language - you don't
> > seem to be able to understand this...
>
> This is irrelevant.

It's a key point: it indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. Does the PT contain the entire AE language? Can you answer that? You seem to imply it is so why don't you elaborate on that?
>
> I am saying that there are "no" words for
> "thought" or "belief" attested in the entire
> language. They didn't have taxonomies and there
> were no reductionistic words.

Oh then tell us when they appeared and where. I mean you're claiming to be an expert on the AE language right?





This should be easy - all you need to do is refer to your research you did to verify this before you said it.........

Despite the huge
> number of words recorded in the Pyramid Texts such
> words are unattested in the entire language from
> the great pyramid building age.

Evidence shows those words are in the language just not the PT. How many separate words in the PT vs the full language? Tell us what it is.