cladking Wrote:
-
> This isn't true. I did use Mercer's translation
> almost exclusively at first but have sine seen
> more Sethe, become familiar with Faulkner, and
> read most of Allen. I've also read many other
> translations including alt translations like
> Harvey.

This sounds highly unlike because don't you still quote from Mercer's?
>
> As I've said many times Ancient Language can't be
> translated so it doesn't really matter which you
> use. But bear in mind that the intended meaning
> is similar to the literal meaning so the old
> translations are far better. Sethe is probably
> the best but my German is poor and Mercer's was
> not.

Assumption: How do you know its "far better"? Since you cannot read the language you cannot know if the translation is good or not - you are just making stuff up....I thought you didn't like assumptions - please explain this contradiction?

So all your stuff is made up by your special rules which you refuse to tell anyone?
>

> Since it can't be translated it simply doesn't
> matter. Egyptologists say you need an eight year
> degree to understand the translations but it
> appears to me that a child could pick out the
> literal meaning in the older "translations".

So, why have you decided to keep all these insight only you can see secret why haven't you published your 'meanings' of the PT yet? Why haven't you explained your methodology? Why are you keeping it secret? Is it because this all make believe?
>

> I could list the ritual number. Nobody ever
> complained before. I can't cross reference Allen
> but I can list the ritual number.
>
Many many people have complain about the incompetent way you do your 'business' mainly your refusal to share your earth shaking secrets with others
>
> I am NOT translating anything differently. I am
> merely discovering word meanings in context and
> interpreting the LITERAL meaning.

Which means you are translating the words to your new made up meanings - but refuse to explain how you do this. One cannot blame us in thinking you are faking this due to your not sharing your methodology.

You simply
> can't "read" Ancient Language because it is
> formatted entirely differently. Instead of
> subject > verb > predicate it is subject + object
> > meaning. When "translated" properly the literal
> meaning is very similar to the intended meaning.

Well show us Einstein no one believes you can do this because all you do is show the utterance as written.

Pick you utterance
>
> I would love to talk about this further but it is
> off topic in this thread so will probably not
> reply in the thread even to a well stated
> response.

Nope as the OP I give you full and complete permission to wow us with your ability to obtain meaning from context and demonstration of your 'meanings'