Hans_lune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The original test:
>
> [www.maatforum.com]
>

No. That is not it.

Neither is this;

.and did(st) spew out as Shu,
Shu, lift N. up on high;
Shu will draw him up
those who have lifted themselves up like Shu are come
Waters, which were brought by Shu and lifted up by the two sources,
Shu, lift N. up to heaven
Shu, thou envelope(st) all things within thine arms.
Shu stands on thy fetters.
the arms of Shu (were) under the sky as he lifted her up
upon Shu of Nut ( "nut" is the sky)
his two thighs belong to Shu and Tefnut;(One lifts and sets things down with one's legs/ thighs).
Aker stands up for thee; Shu dries (lit. something like. "lies down," Wb. V 366) for thee. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses; (Shu dries the earth by tossing the inundation.)
Thou art Shu; thou art height, (Thou art "upward" not a void)
Shu, lord of the upper mnst (the word here is "trajectory)
thou art above thy father Shu
Shu lifts me up;

You lost the argument yet have bleated on about it for years.

"Shu" is in a category of words that defines the subject of every sentence. I could call them anything I want but I call them "scientific words" because they each represent a theory discovered by observation and logic. As I've said many times no ancient word can be translated because they each have a fixed meaning. If we could "think like an Egyptian" (we can not) then "shu" would mean something pretty close to "upward". There is no translation but the meaning is fixed (think set in stone). Because of its meaning the word often appears in sentences that have a literal meaning of "lift", "height", "stands", "above", "sky", "upper", "draw up", "spew out", "upon the sky" etc, etc. Again, look at the list above and then compare it to its companion word that means "downward"!!! "Tefnut" appears in sentences to define the subject as "downward".

Neither "shu" nor "tefnut" are gods. These words merely belong to a class of words which we usually mistranslate as being religious or magical. There are three classes of words to define the "subject", verb, and "predicate" in AL. You can not parse these words or their sentences without destroying author intent.

If I do the work for you or not of comprising the list of usages for "tefnut" you will still claim you won the argument.

I know it's hard for people to understand an entirely different type of language is even possible; a different way of thinking, and a different way of acting. Most people don't even notice they are parsing sentences and acting on their beliefs. They never notice anomalies or language inconsistencies such as even the sentences that contain the most "truth" can be deconstructed as being false or gibberish. They don't question fundamental assumptions. We don't notice when communication fails.

If you really want to talk about this (I seriously doubt it) then just reply to at least one thing in this post otherwise I have no intention of following you off topic.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2022 08:57AM by cladking.