posted
look brainless, I am losing patience with you. A scholar uses the historiograpic method to examine arguments to try to arrive at the best conclusion possible. What is about this concept that you cannot understand? I honestly do not understand how you get up in the morning and put your pants on.
Let me make it simple. It is not about YOU presenting facts. You do not have the skills to use facts in that way. You present the arguments of top scholars WHO DO have the skills.
When the kemet issue came up I looked to see how top scholars in that field treated the issue. If they had said it was 'black people' then it would have been black people....they did not. That is the way you handle these issues.
Thus Doug, it is your job, in line with good historiography, to show what top scholars think and frankly YOU SHOULD NOT CARE IF IT IS BLACK LAND OR PEOPLE.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! Language is not history. Genetics is not history. Biology is not history.
You are a dunce. We have different fields of study because NO ONE SCHOLAR can pretend to know everything. A historian is not a biologist, is not a geneticist and is not qualified to reject scientific studies of biology and genetics by the "histriographic method". Any attempt to do so would be most likely ridiculed as NON SENSE.
Stop trying to act as if you know what you are talking about because you don't.
Not once have you defended ANYTHING on this board and the only stuff that comes out of your mouth is NON SENSE.
You are not a historian, linguist, biologist or anything else. Therefore what YOU feel as being valid is irrelevant.
When someone questions the validity of a linguistic analysis the only response is linguistic analysis of facts and evidence not the "historiographic method".
And if you knew what you were talking about you would know that Historiography refers to HOW history is written in terms of different WAYS of interpreting past events as opposed to the ACTUAL events themselves. Historiography is not actual HISTORY it is HOW history is written.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! You were done when you started because you never had anything to say to begin with.
You call yourself a scholar yet haven't produced one inch of scholarship. You don't even know the difference between historiography and history. Therefore, the only one that is stupid based on ignorance of the facts is YOU my man.
By definition:
Stupid
quote: 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
All of which apply to you. You refuse to learn, make poor decisions on interacting in threads, show carelessness in your replies and act dazed and stunned when presented with facts you cannot refute, all of which proves your posts as pointless and worthless.
Thank you very much and have a nice day.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KING, The view of top scholars all give the definition as land. You need to present scholarly articles backing up your view. If you are correct that should not be hard to do.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: LOL! You were done when you started because you never had anything to say to begin with.
You call yourself a scholar yet haven't produced one inch of scholarship.
If this is true then why are you arguing with him for so long? Are you just as stupid as he?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: KING, The view of top scholars all give the definition as land. You need to present scholarly articles backing up your view. If you are correct that should not be hard to do.
It does not matter how many scholars reiterate it, it is still incorrect. And no all scholars DO NOT repeat that nonsense. And in fact many scholars don't. As an example, Champollion, the father of modern Egyptology and the first to translate the rosetta stone was the FIRST to translate KMT as being literally a reference to the "black nation" meaning black people. And he was not the last SCHOLAR to make such a suggestion.
NO linguist of any merit would seriously claim that KMT means LITERALLY black land, because it does not. The most literal translation is BLACK NATION. Those who refer to KMT as "black land" are paraphrasing and NOT providing a literal translation.
Definition of literal:
quote:
Main Entry: 1lit·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1literal Pronunciation: \ˈli-t(ə-)rəl\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter Date: 14th century
1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual <liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo> c: free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth> d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts <a very literal man> 2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters 3: reproduced word for word : exact, verbatim <a literal translation>
The translation for KMT meaning "black land" as a literal translation CANNOT stand, because in order for it to BE LITERAL there HAS to be a word for word basis of the translation from ancient Egyptian to English. That means that EVERY word in the ENGLISH translation must also exist in the Egyptian. Therefore, seeing as the Egyptian word for LAND does NOT occur in the term KMT, it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim that KMT literally says black land. It does not.
The claim for KMT meaning "black land" is not literal it is a result of paraphrasing:
quote:
Main Entry: 1para·phrase Listen to the pronunciation of 1paraphrase Pronunciation: \ˈper-ə-ˌfrāz,ˈpa-rə-\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, from Latin paraphrasis, from Greek, from paraphrazein to paraphrase, from para- + phrazein to point out Date: 1548
1 : a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form
NOTHING in KMT literally says land. It only says black nation and those scholars who claim otherwise are giving a meaning based on INTERPRETATION of other words and texts, some NOT even from the Egyptians, in order to come to such a meaning. However, linguistically, such a meaning is NOT LITERAL at all.
Therefore, those who keep saying this is a literal translation are doing nothing but LYING.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MAN: See that wise student arguing with that unlearned fool? WOMAN: Which is which?Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Hence why I don't respond to Patriot. I just wait for him to actually post where KM.T has the word for land in it. His ally Ayisha can also respond, but she is only use to insulting others and has no clue about Ancient Egypt.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: look brainless, I am losing patience with you. A scholar uses the historiograpic method to examine arguments to try to arrive at the best conclusion possible. What is about this concept that you cannot understand? I honestly do not understand how you get up in the morning and put your pants on.
Let me make it simple. It is not about YOU presenting facts. You do not have the skills to use facts in that way. You present the arguments of top scholars WHO DO have the skills.
When the kemet issue came up I looked to see how top scholars in that field treated the issue. If they had said it was 'black people' then it would have been black people....they did not. That is the way you handle these issues.
Thus Doug, it is your job, in line with good historiography, to show what top scholars think and frankly YOU SHOULD NOT CARE IF IT IS BLACK LAND OR PEOPLE.
I know this is directed toward Doug, but I've been asking for information as to which scholars are you talking about that has undeniable proof that the word KM.T has the word[s] 'Land/Soil' in it.
So what I've been asking is - can I see this information that you speak so highly of which identifies the word 'Land/Soil' in the word KM.T ... its really that simple. All of the rambling doesn't do anyone any good so lets try it again. Can I have the information that will debunk everything that has been written on this forum in regards to the word KM.T. If you have this information and you feel confident in it as you say you feel then this request shouldn't be a problem.
You don't have to debate - let them debate through their literature. Just post how they found that the word KM.T has land/soil in it.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My last post is riddle with request so anyone who comes to this forum seeking an answer will see that you have willfully denied information that suggest you and your scholars have a legitimate claim if my request remains unanswered. This question wasn't asked by someone who has the knowledge that any of these posters have and I've been objective in the matter so without a proper explanation based upon my question, you have given up the rights to calling yourself and those whom you call scholars; scholars.
You cannot call yourself a scholar without scholarly information that provides answers to the foundation from which you stand upon. You haven't even given adequate proof to so-called intelligent racist who depends upon your responses. So again - information please!!!
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No , you are wrong. A scholar does not have all of the answers, scholars seek the answers. If you go to college in any country in the world you will find in place a system for seeking the truth. That system starts with historiography. The pulling together the views of the top people in the field to arrive at the best conclusion possible. That is why in the typical college graduate level class you will often be asked to write a 20-40 page paper comparing the views and arguments of top historians.
What you find on this board is mostly nonsense. Most of these guys have put together a position, often from talking to each other. It is as far removed from scholarship you can get. They are ideologues and their black focused views have to be defended at all costs. If I asked them to do scholarship on something that supported their views they would do it quickly. They are very much like religious fanatics in that their dogma is more important than truth. In reality the world is not watching and they are the stars of egyptsearch and for many of them that is good enough.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there some debate as to the actual meaning of the symbol used for black? The stairstep symbol. It seems like I read somewhere that it could also mean the limit or end of something. Perhaps it meant the limit of where they resided was along the black soil of the Nile and no further as to beyond the black soil and into the red desert?
Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Isn't there some debate as to the actual meaning of the symbol used for black?
No. There is no debate amongst linguists over the word and symbol for Black in mdw ntr.
Now, there is much ignorance and confusion on the internet.
But that's another issue.
quote:It's not a stairstep it's crocodile scales
^ And Black Face is also a reference to the crocodile in mdw ntr, and a reference to Osirus, and for the same obvious reason.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am very familiar with the 20-50 page disquisition/Dissertation personally as I've had to write two of them. I understand what you are saying but it does not give a solution to the question that I posed. It has been agreed that KM.T has a religious connotation based upon the fact that 'black' was a color of spiritual superiority unlike the concepts European countries carried. It should be extremely clear that those whom we call 'black people' are by majority 'brown'in skin color.
Here's the questions once more.If the word 'KM.T' was seldom used as it was then what was the alternative that they used to identify KM.T and its people? The question just posed was a two fold question.
If you look at the ancient Kemetic arts you will see that they used a wide range of colors to properly identify each person, place or thing. They've even painted outsiders the so-called color white so I know that its not an issues of loose color interpretations.
I use this picture to show that they had the paint to draw their skin colors properly so I'm looking for a logical explanation as to why the ancient Egyptian, Grecian and Roman didn't know what they were talking about and secondly a logical reason as to why the word 'Kemet' has the word 'Land/Soil' in it.
Thanx in advance.
As a side note What I've learned up to this point is that 'KM' means black which is something that all scholars agree to. Again, I do not debate this issues but I'm only giving you what ALL scholars agree to and that is the word 'KM/KEM/KAM' means 'Black'. Can we agree to this TheAmericanPatriot as do all of the scholars? If so then please tell me how does the 'T' in KM.T describe land?
I've heard scholars say that the word has only been used in a context that is dealing with 'land or soil' but under those condition it seems logical that it would be talking about a peoples land. I come to this assumption based on the fact that .et or .t represents the plural so then 'blacks land' would be logical as to say the 'land of black people.' If this not so then please give a logical rebuttal.
Again, thanx in advance
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't know 'rasol' and 'alTakruri' gave responses - I was writing while they responded but please TheAmericanPatriot give me the dignity of answering the questions.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Meti if you are correct show me the papers published by egyptologists agreeing with what you guys say, that is what I am asking. I posted data from leading Yale scholars which said that kemet meant black land. I could care less what you guys think the word means. Most of the experts I am reading say black land over and over. They say it means dirt, soil etc if a professor assigned you a paper on the subject what Doug, rasol, Djehuti etc would not work.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Primary documentation beats everything else. Produce primary documentation from whoever that show KM.t in association with any hieroglyph that means dirt/soil.
Irks you to no that neither you or the bruised reeds you lean on can do no such thing.
Failing that produce a dictionary or lexicon that lists soil/dirt as a translation for nwt as in KM.t{nwt}. We've been waiting for years and we're still waiting.
Anything less is more filibustering* from the gentleman from Texas. No matter how lengthy, all filabustering comes to an end and the session resumes its work.
* filibuster -- a tactic for pirating or hijacking debate.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: So Meti if you are correct show me the papers published by egyptologists agreeing with what you guys say, that is what I am asking. I posted data from leading Yale scholars which said that kemet meant black land. I could care less what you guys think the word means. Most of the experts I am reading say black land over and over. They say it means dirt, soil etc if a professor assigned you a paper on the subject what Doug, rasol, Djehuti etc would not work.
I have a full understanding as to what these scholars are saying but that's not what I'm asking from you. I'm asking you to show me where does the word[s] land and or soil enter into the equation? Its not enough to tell me that these scholars,"They say it means dirt, soil etc ...". What disturbs me about the position you are taking is that you have no reasonable explanation for why you accept these scholars writing except the fact that they teach at prestigious universities. The theme of your post and responses up to this point has been, "if they say, then I believe ... .
Your beliefs are based on hear-say with no personal research to verify their illogical and what seems to be distorted information. All I've asked you to do is to give me a reason why I shouldn't believe the posters on here and you have not given me any informative information but if they say, then I believe ...
Thank you for sharing I guess but I cannot be as you are by accepting information without any personal research.
This is how your information should be presented so that all can make a clear decision as to what is and isn't true:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
You proclaim to be a professor so then you should know better then to use the tactics you're using. You would not accept a students paper who brings you hear-say when you are asking for facts. Since my level of education is equal to if not surpassing that of yours I will tell you teacher to teacher that your methods deserve a 'F' for lousy presentation and illogical reasoning.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignorance driven at full speed will lead to a fatal wreck - Dr. Herman PattonPosts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your post was good. I have to say that you ain't the only person waiting for Patriot to show what he really knows about Ancient Egypt. Welcome to egyptsearch.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Meti, there is a lot of ignorance around here, for sure. Let me try to be more clear because this is obviously wizzing right over your head. You displayed several pages of Egyptian writing and it looks good BUT the point is it is worthless to you and me. We are not specialists in Egyptian writing. Now listen closely.....we do not have the skills to discus it at the highest level. That is why we use the historiographic method to work our way thrugh problems that are out of our field. What is it about this concept you do not understand??? To understand the issue you gather the views of TOP SPECIALITS to reach some understanding of the issue. When this subject came up that is what I did. The top people in the field, as you noted, say it means black land. Data from top scholars is NOT hear-say, the views of Doug and the other guys ARE hear-say.
You guys know you are out of step with mainline thinking on this issue. Now find me tracks on the issue from top mainstream scholars who say it means black people. If you could do that, you would.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still waiting for actual data in the form of a primary document written by the Ancient Egyptians or failing that a dictionary or lexicon entry for black soil/dirt in hieroglyphic.
The three dictionary/lexicon examples above are ample displaying scores of KM terms none of which remotely resemble the word 'black' with a 'land' determinative.
Why is that? Oh, yes. The compilers of these works used by Egyptologists and linguists must not be 'top scholars.' And true they are not. They do not roll dried leafy vegetation in Top papers, light up and puff as you most assuredly have been doing for pages already.
posted
The choice paper of 'top scholars' like TexasReactionary. Unfortunately these are not the kind of papers we reference around here. Our papers are not full of Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Takruri, Primary documents are great WHEN you have the ability to work with them. When you take a position that is out of step with mainstream scholars we have to question your ability to use those documents.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:. Now listen closely.....we do not have the skills to discus it at the highest level. That is why we use the historiographic method to work our way thrugh problems that are out of our field. What is it about this concept you do not understand??? To understand the issue you gather the views of TOP SPECIALITS to reach some understanding of the issue. When this subject came up that is what I did
Now that I've read closely what you've had to say, it time for you to listen up.
When gathering information you review the information, test the information and analysis the information with a fine pick. Egyptology is a subject of choice for me and thus I've been studying it for 5 years + (been on this site for 5 years) as a hobby but it wasn't until a few years ago that I actually started learning something. If the subject of choice means enough to you then grab books, dictionaries, translators, etc ... and spend time going through text - word for word until you've come to an understanding on the subject of choice. Using your logic, listen closely to what people say and you will become an expert in your area of choice like a street mechanic who can fix a car just as proficient as one who went to school for it.
You have neglected to do as such and therefore you cut and paste, providing debunked information as though your on to something big. You bring a sense of naive Egyptomania to a list of well read and studied student of Egyptology yet you speak as though you have the answers. I spotted this much earlier so I decided to test your knowledge and you have presented absolutely nothing even in the face of one whom you thought knew absolutely nothing about Egypt. This is a testament to the purpose of your being here. You are not in the business of teaching or learning for that matter because your intents are surround with a disruptive nature. I figured you would present something to someone who doesn't know much but that wasn't the case which was most surprising to me given the fact that as a teacher you should be INSTINCTIVELY inclined to teach. This cause for concern which should make one challenge your Ph.D or whatever professorship you claim to have.
Now to point number 2, you said I said and I quote:
quote:The top people in the field, as you noted, say it means black land
When I said:
quote:Originally posted by Meti Sutn Anu:
What disturbs me about the position you are taking is that you have no reasonable explanation for why you accept these scholars writing except the fact that they teach at prestigious universities. The theme of your post and responses up to this point has been, "if they say, then I believe ... .
Please if your going to misuse what I say as though I'm going along with your ideal of "top people", please do a better job. When I say "prestigious universities" this does not translate as 'competent teachers'. I don't believe mainstream scholars (which is what they call themselves) want the truth out which is why they neglect or just don't have an answer to their 'black land' philistinism.
I've made enemies not intentionally on this site and friends but to those who know me, know I don't give into Afrocentrism nor do I give into Ethnocentrism because I actually study content objectively so don't try to make me into an Afrocentric; that argument doesn't work with me. I've been on this site longer then a lot of old timers but I have the least amount of post because I'm always in the learning mode which is something you should try. I leave you with this, there are three things which you can do:
1.) Shut up and learn something 2.) Keep talking kemetic illiteracy 3.) Go to your stormfront and spread your b/s
Either which way you have placed yourself in this position and sooner or later you will pick one. I will be in the shadow waiting to see which is it.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your post was good. I have to say that you ain't the only person waiting for Patriot to show what he really knows about Ancient Egypt. Welcome to egyptsearch.
Peace
Peace bro
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meti, You are NOT an Egyptologist, nor do you have the skills to deal with complex primary sources. I commend you for your interest but I question your motives. Are you actually interested in Egyptian history OR are you interested in a black Egypt? Many on this board could care less about Egypt except to the extent that they can use it to further their racial politics. Anytime you hear someone talk about "Eurocentrics" you have a full blown black racist on your hands. In any event you have no advanced degree in the subject nor have you come anywhere close to getting one.
If you did get one your professors would require you to do EXACTLY what I am asking you to do.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Meti, You are NOT an Egyptologist, nor do you have the skills to deal with complex primary sources.
First let us start of with reviewing your reading comprehension. What I said is that I've been studying for a little over 5 years but I didn't start learning anything until the last few years. Where and how did you get that I was proclaiming to be an Egyptologist out of this? Reading comprehension exercise it.
quote:I commend you for your interest but I question your motives. Are you actually interested in Egyptian history OR are you interested in a black Egypt?
Are you actually interested in Egyptian history OR are you interested in a White Egypt?
Secondly, my true interest in Egypt has absolutely nothing to do with color but purely religion and its traditions so then my motives have been brought to the forefront. What is your purpose for being her?
quote:Many on this board could care less about Egypt except to the extent that they can use it to further their racial politics.
As far as being a pyschic I'm not so I couldn't tell you the intention of the posters on here and neither can you, but I can tell you my intention as I have done and now I'm waiting to hear yours.
quote:Anytime you hear someone talk about "Eurocentrics" you have a full blown black racist on your hands.
Does this also apply to someone who always talk about Afrocentrics? Are they full blown white racist? What makes a so-called white man who talks about Afrocentrics any thing less then an Afrocentric who talk's about you? You talk about Afrocentrics - are you a full blown racist?
quote:[/QB]In any event you have no advanced degree in the subject nor have you come anywhere close to getting one.
If you did get one your professors would require you to do EXACTLY what I am asking you to do. [/QB]
Now at what point in our discussion did I tell you that I was going to go back to school to study Egyptology? I thought I laid out the ground rules to the method I use to study Egypt. There was nothing more or less. I also told you I hoover in the background listening and learning which is what I do on this and other sites.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Meti, You are NOT an Egyptologist, nor do you have the skills to deal with complex primary sources. I commend you for your interest but I question your motives. Are you actually interested in Egyptian history OR are you interested in a black Egypt? Many on this board could care less about Egypt except to the extent that they can use it to further their racial politics. Anytime you hear someone talk about "Eurocentrics" you have a full blown black racist on your hands. In any event you have no advanced degree in the subject nor have you come anywhere close to getting one.
If you did get one your professors would require you to do EXACTLY what I am asking you to do.
Parrot, stop running your middle-school educated trap and present the evidence/reasoning/dogma/agenda of the "top scholars" that say Km.t means black soil. Nobody is asking you, the non-scholar, non-historian, non-professor for anything personally, and CERTAINLY not asking your personal opinion.
Simply asking you to bring to the forum the REASONS/EVIDENCE these scholars you parrot call it "black land/soil". Surely they didn't just say/write this and leave you hanging did they? Surely they provided their exhaustive evidence for this didn't they? Sure they did. BRING IT HERE for us to see. (Pssst...I already know why they do it, but I want you to bring it).
This should be an easy homework assignment for a "professor"...shouldn't it?
You squawk the squawk, but can you walk the walk?
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Gaul. if I am involved we are going to do this correctly. If you want to prove the point provide information from at least six top scholars and some who disagree with them when possible. The burden is on you since you are talking a position that seems counter to the mainstream accepted view and that is that Kemet means black land.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our goal is not to convince you. As far as any kind of debate over this topic you are clearly the loser. All unbiased surfers who weigh evidence presented to them have declared you not only a loser but a clueless parrot to boot.
It is you who need present primary text, dictionary/lexicon entries, and AEL grammar to support your point of view.
Do that and cease filibustering with your Bull Durham unsustainable opinion. The request is a quite simple one. One your ghostly silent anonymous 'top scholars' should be able to give you as readily and easily as they could give you the time of day.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Takruri, Being judged the loser by the regulars here is almost a badge of honor. I have offered scholars who maintained that position, I have recieved none from you. I do not believe they exist. I have been looking at this board for a long time and you guys almost NEVER suppy what scholars would call adequate historiograpical explanations.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What has been received from me is a perfect model of original objective scholarship.
Look up word in dictionary. Examine word's usage in lexicon. Obtain lexicon's primary document sources. Locate word within proper context in primary documentation. Transliterate, literal translate, and grammatically translate the subject word/phrase.
It is you who need present primary text, dictionary/lexicon entries, and AEL grammar to support your point of view.
This request is a quite simple. Your sources must be able to show how they arrived at their opinion by direct investigation and analysis. I'm sure they can do no more than say they got it from some other book that said so but not from using primary texts and application of the tools of translation against those texts.
Repeating a handed down lie doesn't make it true no matter how much it may protect their tenure.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Takruri, Being judged the loser by the regulars here is almost a badge of honor. I have offered scholars who maintained that position, I have recieved none from you. I do not believe they exist. I have been looking at this board for a long time and you guys almost NEVER suppy what scholars would call adequate historiograpical explanations.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not Takruri. You need the historioraphic study. Ideally that would be a 30-40 pae paper comparin the views of at least six top scholars, both pro and con. Your views are worthless in this situation, as would be the views of any layman.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You guys are all fools chasing Pat's ding-a-ling. The goal is not to convince Pat or keep catering to him as if he's the credential certifier. One thing and one thing only settles this whole issue:
quote: Crust of the bisquit:
primary documentaion exists for KM.t as a community, ethnonym, and as an adjective for body parts
no primary documentation exists connecting the word km.t and any AEL word for land/soil, to my knowledge.
Everything else is nonsense. Until one, just one, shred of valid evidence in the form of contextual primary documentation written by the Ancient Egyptians themselves is shown with km.t affixed to a glyph or word for land is presented then the fact remains there is no expression 'Black Land' in the Pharaonic Egyptian Language, bottom line.
posted
bogle, you have no qualifications to make those judgements. grow up and demonstrate some maturity.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Laymen like me are where professors find new avenues and breakthroughs. How many a post-secondary student has seen his work appear in his prof's course the following year or two later or has had a decent enough prof ask him to fill in a class? Who? Those of us chosing not to use the assigned text but skillful and imaginaive enough to uncover works unknown to prof that then appear in prof's next bibliography.
Of course never having gone to university you wouldn't know about that.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It is not Takruri. You need the historioraphic study. Ideally that would be a 30-40 pae paper comparin the views of at least six top scholars, both pro and con. Your views are worthless in this situation, as would be the views of any layman.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic