Hans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:


> 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.

No. If it were complex then I couldn't understand it.

It is simply a matter of solving terms in context while reverse engineering the pyramid. A child can solve terms in context and reverse engineering is not complex but merely requires a greater understanding of science than the designer and fabricator.

> 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

If I say it's 3:42 PM CST do I have to produce my research papers? When I say the sky is blue you will gainsay it.

This is all so simple it doesn't require "research". When the builders say the kings tomb is in the sky I don't even need to diagram the sentence and can just say that my contention is it was meant literally. Your objections are smoke screens and obfuscation. The evidence is as it exists and it does not support the assumptions that gave us pyramids as tombs. This is why they never once said the pyramid is a tomb but they said over and over that the pyramid is the king and his tomb was in the sky. They said this in more ways than I can even count and they said it lterally over and over. Your gainsaying of it is irrelevant and your constant repetition of the belief that pyramids are tombs is equally irrelevant,.

> 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'?

No. I can not read the language because the very definition of "read" requires that one parse the language and AL can not be parsed without losing its meaning. They said the kings tomb was in the sky and if you parse or "interpret" it then the meaning is changed. The language was literal. You continually ignore parts of what I am saying about how to understand AL:. It just means what it says and you can't parse it. They said the "king is the pyramid" but you choose to parse the words and you continue to ascribe beliefs and thought to them even though they didn't have a single wortd that meant or implied they ever experienced "thought". How is it possible to have something so fundamental (to us) as thought but they lacked the concept?

When you think like an Egyptian you simply don't experience thought.

This is alien to us but it's the nature of all other life on the planet.

"love" is also an emotion and it's an emotion that is experienced by many species. A goose will mourn over the body of a dead mate for days. A whale will keep a dead calf afloat for days. Do you think a goose understands abstraction?

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

Everything we say has a different meaning to every single listener. AL had a single meaning and everyone who understood science as well as the speaker or better got the exact same 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
> lly by stating the part of speech and explaining
> the inflection (see inflection sense 2a) and
> syntactical relationships"

To properly diagram a sentence it must be understood.

This argument isn't about semantics it's about the pyramids and why they said the pyramids are kings and the kings ascended from the iskn on the smoke of incense. They said the king was a star and a pyramid.

They said the pyramid is a tomb. They never implied the pyramid is a tomb. There is no direct physical evidence of any type that any great pyramid was intended or used as a tomb. But they repeatedly said pyramids were not tombs.

> 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?

How many times have I told you it breaks Zipf's Law and this is the first time you noticed.

Try taking out an unabridged dictionary and marking all the words that appear in any ancient source up to 2300 BC. There will be pages and pages without a mark on them.

There were few words including no abstractions,. no taxonomies, no "thought,. and no "belief". There were no words for reductionism because this isn't how their science worked. There were no words for induction because they used only deduction. Vast categories of words didn't exist in AL. Why did Egyptologists and other linguists never notice this? They didn't notice because they assumed ancient people thought just like we do even though they didn't experience thought at all. They even said so in several round about ways but nobody noticed because it is so alien to us.

> Okay show us the statistical
> study that show the PT breaks ZL.

ROFL

> There are lots of abstractions in the English
> version of the PT you are using.

Then why don't you list one and I'll show there is a nonabstract meaning associated with it. Surely you can see that even words that "seem" like abstractions are remarkably few in number.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.