[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

Cladking believes that this law shows that ancient Egyptian violates the idea that it doesn't have enough of the right words. Why does he believes this? Because he convinced himself that the AE spoke a completely different non-standard 'Ancient Language' which only he can see and read but he insists he cannot translate but does so by detecting meaning in context' he however has been refusing to demonstrate this magical power for 15 years. However, he screams and yells that he can do so.

Why does he believe this?

""More accurately I claim to be the only one to understand Ancient Language. Even more accurately I don't really understand it because my brain is programmed just like everyone else's because I had to unlearn natural language in order to learn English. But I can model Ancient Language and derive author intent from this modelling. Anyone could do it.

I'm not mind reading. I'm, merely interpreting the literal meaning of what they said. Their words were all meant literally and we they said they needed a boat to fly up and alight this is EXACTLY what they meant.

I believe other interpretations are the special pleading. Words change meaning in each usage and over time between translators. "Ramp" is interpreted differently by each reader, translator, and scholar and its very meaning changes with each new generation.

I'm suggesting every single word had one single distinct meaning that never varied in any way or by any nature. Each thing had three words and each word a single meaning. This is just one of the reasons the language breaks Zipf's Law.

We are trying to understand a digital reality and a digital language (ancient Egyptian) with an analog science. Without sufficient data our analog science has fallen flat on its face. Our understanding of ancient people is derived from writing we can't even understand and no one even noticed is wholly and utterly unlike modern language.

My contention that Ancient Language can't even be translated is obviously true, otherwise these inconsistencies would have been noticed. ""

[www.hallofmaat.com]

[www.hallofmaat.com]

Besides screaming a lot about this he is never clear what he means. He thinks it shows something. Key point he has never been able to show the statistics he says shows it break said law. He refuses to explain how he knows this - he just insists - he is right.

Given that the PT doesn't contain the entire ancient Egyptian language some words would be missing but he refuses to research and tell us the specifics and he doesn't even know how many unique words are IN the PT or what percentage they are of the full language. All he ever screams is that the PT and Old Egyptian break this law - in some way known only to him.

We are fortunate that he made this 'discovery' recently and so has only made this claim 14 times on this board and 86 times at Hancocks.