cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> The words "belief" and "thought" simply don't
> appear in the PT nor do any other abstractions.

Wrong there are English language abstraction in the PT since you provide no evidence that AL exist - you fail again. AE does have abstractions.
>
> > However, lets fix your 'opinion' first - so
> give
> > us your definition of what an abstraction is?
>
> This is a highly complex and abstract question due
> to the very nature of modern language.

No it very simple you try to pretend its super complex because you are trying to hide you are making stuff up that makes no sense.

It
> couldn't be asked in Ancient Language because the
> words themselves and the question are abstractions
> and they had no abstractions.

That is just silly. Dude remember you cannot read the language and you looking at it in English and the English version has what you call, abstractions. There is no AL and reference by you to it is childish make believe.

Please link to your study, paper, book or website that shows evidence that AL exists? What you never did that its easier to just make a baseless claim? Yeah we know...lol

Words weren't
> defined they were named and every word had a
> single fixed meaning as "defined" by their names.

No you are lying again Cladking. Remember your SHU experiment we did as YOU directed and substituted your made up meaning for SHU in all existing PT examples and guess what it didn't work. REMEMBER?

No matter how much lie about it it still happened.
>
The differences between the languages
> is absolute and they can not be translated and
> never will. The differences can never be
> reconciled.

Yet you do it with ease - do you know the word 'contradiction' and 'really silly'?
>
> But the concept of "abstraction" is simple enough;
> it is a referent that is not palpable. You can't
> touch or feel "abstract" or "concrete" but you can
> touch the "concrete" of which a sidewalk is
> composed. You can touch a "car" but not your
> "personal transportation".
>
> When I say "there are no abstractions in Ancient
> Language" it must be properly parsed just like all
> sentences in modern languages. I certainly don't
> mean that "love", for instance, is an abstraction
> in every sense of the word. In human terms, and
> Ancient Language speakers were fully human,
> emotions are very real and originate in the
> amygdala as the vector sum total of our
> relationships and state of being. "Love" in this
> sense is quite palpable and produces everything
> from poetry to children.

....and love is an abstraction no matter how much you flap your jaws about it while trying to avoid the obvious.
>
> To understand the Ancient Language you must
> recognize that the words can not be parsed, that
> there are no abstractions, and that the meaning
> isn't stated but implied.

'Implied'? You just said and have said they had one meaning ???

I don't think you understand what parsed means

"" 1a : to divide (a sentence) into grammatical parts and identify the parts and their relations to each other
b : to describe (a word) grammatically by stating the part of speech and explaining the inflection (see inflection sense 2a) and syntactical relationships"


You must recognize that
> words have a single meaning and are
> representative.

Nope proven by your SHU experiment to be untrue - you know this and are still lying about it.

You must model the language on
> this basis.

No I don't AL is something you made up it doesn't exist and your own experiments shows it doesn't work.

> The reason there are so very few words in Ancient
> Language is simply that it was formatted like
> computer code so needed very very few words.

WTF? Going really weird doesn't help - so show us all these 'few words'? What oh after 15+ years you still don't have a list of these huh....just to hard to make up all that stuff huh?

It
> breaks Zipf's Law because it is digital and words
> are all related mathematically in nice neat
> equations.

Cladking you don't even know what Zipfs law is. Nor do you understand how one shows that something 'breaks Zipf's law'. Okay show us the statistical study that show the PT breaks ZL.

What you don't have that?

Yeah we know its because you are LYING.

You've been asked this before each time you run away - we know you are lying about this - so what is the point of making the claim when each time I point out you are lying?

> There are simply no abstractions in Ancient
> Language because there was no way to format such
> things in a digital language.

There are lots of abstractions in the English version of the PT you are using. The AL doesn't exist and since you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show your research and data (and give us a 'translation in context' of the PT. You fail yet again. Stop lying Cladking.

Well 616F blew up in your face

You can see Merer's used a pyramid symbol in his name of the great pyramid

How many more things do you want to fail at?

Lying doesn't work Cladking. Personally I believe you should be banned for constantly lying. This is a science board not a forum for you personal delusional fantasies.