cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.