cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Show us how you do it Cladking - prove you're
> not
> > just making up nonsense?

I see you refuse again - it is pretty obvious that you are A fake and your claims are pure BS

However, once again show us how you 'detect meaning in context'?

Show us what this means and how you do it

Utterance 25

17: He goes who goes with his ka. Horus goes with his ka, Seth goes with his ka. Thoth goes.
To say four times: "He goes who goes with his Ka!
Horus goes with his Ka,
Seth goes with his Ka,
Thoth goes with his Ka.
The God goes with his Ka,
He-With-Two-Eyes goes with his Ka,
You yourself also go with your Ka.
O Unas, the arm of your ka is before you.
O Unas, the arm of your ka is behind you.
O Unas, the leg of your ka is before you.
O Unas, the leg of your ka is behind you.
Osiris Unas, I give you the Eye of Horus, that your face may be adorned with it, that the perfume of the Eye of Horus may spread towards you.

[www.pyramidtextsonline.com]

What? You cannot do it because you are fake and are lying about your magical ability to do so....gosh what a surprise!!!

> For this reason and the fact that
> Egyptologists work mostly on trying to extend
> understanding of the PT even farther back in time
> statistical analyses were not performed on the PT
> and other writing from the most ancient times.

Then if this wasn't done how do you know the results? Cladking could you at least try and pretend you know what you are talking about?

> The lack of data and more than a handful of titles
> and one word sentences also impeded any such
> analyses. Reading "incantation" and building a
> "cultural context" from it is obviously not
> scientific and it wouldn't be even if we
> understood its meaning.

But your making stuff up is better and of course what you say about this isn't true.
>
> If analyses of the writing and language had been
> done the inconsistencies would have been noted.

I would say that this was done and you are simply pretending it wasn't and making up the 'inconsistencies'. Nonetheless please provide evidence that this wasn't done and no linguist studies have never been done on Old Egyptian. Can you do that? Nope.

> That Ancient Language wasn't even a language by
> our definitions would have been seen.

Old Egyptian is a language and can be read. You are prancing about saying things you both don't understand and cannot support. Some people call in 'making stuff up' but I call it what it really is, 'deliberate lying'.

That the
> meaning is not being translated at all would be
> suspected.

In your opinion based on your bias and grossly inadequate basis of knowledge you are talking about a language you CANNOT READ. This appears to be a either a delusion of yours or more correctly a deliberate attempt at intellectual fraud.

WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH AND DATA THAT SUPPORTS THIS?
>
> I solved the PT in its own terms.

No you made up stuff - if you solved it please show us the completed 'retranslation of meaning' for the entire PT....what you don't have that? Then stop pretending you do.

Using
> nothing but deductive logic and science it was
> possible to discover word meanings which show the
> literal meaning is the intended meaning.

You made up stuff and YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO SHOW YOUR WORK AND METHOD. You are hiding your data because you don't have any.

This is because you made it up.

It was a
> simple process of determining what each word meant
> in order that the writing was coherent and
> logical.

Sorry don't believe you at all show us how it is done with detailed notes and the finished product...oh wait after 15 years you still don't have anything to show - now do you?

As such the solution shows the
> utterances are not incantation but are mere
> rituals written in a language best described as
> being scientific, metaphysical, and literal.

Oh? Please show us this 'solution' saying you can do something then never demonstrating it clearly paints you as a fraud and liar.
>
> It doesn't necessarily even matter that a
> scientific means of understanding Ancient Language
> exists;

It doesn't and the term ancient language is entirely meaningless

what is relevant is that the assumption
> that the first incarnation of something that went
> through a 2000 year evolution is identical to its
> last is NOT science.

No idea what you are talking about but I'll guess you are saying is, what you are a saying, is complete baseless crap and yes we agree.

So no explanation of Zipf's law as it applies to Old Egyptian - you avoided that because you have no idea what you are talking about and you cannot even provide a definition of abstraction.

So the typical Cladking post, endless claims not a shred of evidence all coated with lies, delusion and mental confusion. Yeah lovely.

NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED AT ALL JUST FLAPPING HIS LIPS AGAIN.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2021 11:00AM by Hans.