cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans_lune Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > The original test:
> >
> >
> [www.maatforum.com]
> >
>
> No. That is not it.

Yes, it is you can lie about it all you like but its right there for everyone to see - the complete failure of your idea
>
> You lost the argument yet have bleated on about it
> for years.

You lost it and no matter how much you lie about it your idea remain debunked. If you had won you'd be showing the test to everyone that you were right instead you fled from it and never mention it.
>
> "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".

Oh you mean they are abstractions - you assigned the meaning of upwards to that one word. If you want to apply other meanings that means you are wrong about 100% fixed meaning and that they had abstractions.

You idea remains fully debunked
>
> 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.

Sorry we don't believe you as you've never established that the didn't AE think they were Gods. Your amateur opinion on this is not fact, as a matter of fact it is goofy.
>
> 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.

Because I did - when we did this originally you ran away, now you are saying you have to 'adjust' the meaning of other words - we both know you aren't going to do that as it will simply prove you made all this nonsense up and those new meanings won't fit 100% when applied to the rest of the PT.
>
> 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.

Yes we do wonder why you think people would believe you when you clearly made up all this BS! LOL

> 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.

I have and your idea remains completely debunked and shown to be nothing more than the unscientific opinion of a person who cannot read a language he is trying to change the meaning of.

Goofy language not ancient language.