Science cannot solve the final mystery

[ecco]

It is impossible to translate Ancient Language and always will be.
...

But Ancient Language can be "interpreted" and I've already come to be able to interpret (understand) the majority (85%) of the little that survives.

You sound a lot like another poster in terms of "ancient stuff". He too asserted it was impossible to translate Ancient Language. He too, if memory serves, was able to understand it.

I'd sure like to introduce you to each other. Unfortunately, he seems to no longer be here.

 

[cladking]

You sound a lot like another poster in terms of "ancient stuff". He too asserted it was impossible to translate Ancient Language. He too, if memory serves, was able to understand it.

I'd sure like to introduce you to each other. Unfortunately, he seems to no longer be here.

Really?!

There is a growing chorus of voices that say we wholly and utterly misinterpret everything from ancient times.

It's unlikely but it wasn't CH Harvey was it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. If I can understand something then most other people can as well.

People have a lot of preconceptions that make it difficult.



Whether we understand the ancient writing or not it still had meaning to the individual who wrote it. It is this, author intent, that is supposed to be the goal of all translation.



Then you should be able to state in exactly what "conspiracy" I believe. I wager you can't and you can't because I believe in NO CONSPIRACY.



When words arise naturally such as in animals then "naturally" they have properties of what they represent. The monkey word for "tiger" might well be an approximation of the sound a monkey makes when caught by a tiger. I DON'T KNOW! Perhaps the word for "mother" is so similar in so many languages because of something natural like it being one of the first vocalizations of infants. If they thought like us mebbe we'd call babies "mims" instead of babies.



That's very convenient for you. Understanding a language that says "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" when they really mean "literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights" might be too complex anyway so why bother trying?

There is the conspiracy about Egyptologists that are withholding results of the testing of your hypotheses. That is a conspiracy.

I do not know that words arise naturally in animals and even in man, it must have developed and evolved over time. I know of no evidence that any human word is conceptualized and utilized by any entity or intelligence other than our own and that words exist in some word space naturally. Certainly, I do not know of animals that use words and language the same way that we do. What I conclude is that you have a belief system that you have based around an idea with no evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really?!

There is a growing chorus of voices that say we wholly and utterly misinterpret everything from ancient times.

It's unlikely but it wasn't CH Harvey was it?

Name some sources of this growing chorus. Just saying it and repeating it is not convincing. Some scholars with a track record and a cogent argument with evidence might be a good start.

 

[cladking]

There is the conspiracy about Egyptologists that are withholding results of the testing of your hypotheses. That is a conspiracy.

There are a couple huge errors here.

First off is that despite the fact I've been giving them a hard time about not doing in real science and not doing the infrared testing, I'm quite sure they didn't finally do it 4 years ago to test my theory. Dr Zahi Hawass referred to my theory as "other unscientific theories on the net" in 2009 and would most assuredly not take any part of it seriously. I'd guess he only read parts of it because of my interpretations of the Pyramid Texts and finds the bulk of it laughable at best. No doubt he is aware of the ramp debunkment as well since there has been comment related to several parts of it. Some of this has gotten attention from those working at Giza and elsewhere but I seriously doubt that any Egyptologist takes any of this seriously, or at least that they took it seriously in 2015 when they finally did the infrared imaging.

I called for this imaging because I knew the results would exclude "every" other hypothesis about construction and it would support mine. There are several reasons they did it but chief among them is it was free, paid for in artefacts, and they were sure it would disprove the internal ramp theory (which it did). It had very little to do with me other than I was focusing a spotlight on them. Even this may have been insignificant.

More importantly though is that this is all the action of one man so there is no conspiracy. Hawass is in charge of this and he isn't releasing the data because it doesn't conform to Egyptological belief. Of course it can never conform to beliefs because it is Egyptological peers who determine reality and the data are withheld from them as well.

There is no definition of "conspiracy" which makes this term a referent for anything I believe.

Yes, it's true that there are thousands of Egyptological peers who are not crying bloody murder in unison as they should be. But I doubt these guys are meeting behind closed doors and agreeing to work in the dark until such time as Dr Hawass deigns to release the data. Rather the far simpler explanation is that they simply don't care. The list of things that people and Egyptologists don't care about is quite long and, believe it or not, very few Egyptologists care anything at all about the nature or means of construction of G1. They simply already know EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO KNOW (it is a tomb dragged up ramps by changeless and stinky footed bumpkins). Rather than systematically running tests for the last century they simply assumed "they mustta used ramps" and went from there. This is what humans do; we don't test assumptions. Even when we accidentally get data that don't conform to our assumptions we don't notice and this goes ten times over BECAUSE EGYPTOLOGISTS DON'T CARE HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT.

Even after I point all this out to people there is no uprising and there are no phone calls back and forth to coordinate not caring. They simply don't care because they assume;

1.,= science has self correcting mechanisms that will always steer it in the right direction.
2.,= science is being led with the latest technology and best intentions.
3.,= people are smart and the smartest are Egyptologists.
4.,= all of our beliefs fit a single pattern based in experiment so every pronouncement made by science is correct.
5.,= we understand the ancient writing and it speaks of superstition written by the moribund.

Since each person believes this there is simply no need to believe in conspiracies. The fact is that it's all wrong. The reality is that nobody really likes change and "peer review" has come to be an enshrinement of the status quo. Now even peers aren't allowed access to information that might crumble a perfectly crafted status quo. This is simply the reality that has evolved but it required no two individuals to bring it about. It is highly improbable that any kind of conspiracy could have created the 21st century mess we call "science" even through intention and the cooperation of millions. The real world doesn't work this way. In the real world when ideas arise that challenge the status quo they are attacked, called "woo" and "conspiratorial". The originator is ridiculed, excommunicated, and ignored. So far everything is right on schedule.

The one thing different this time is that data are being withheld from peers. But, one more time, I don't believe this is a conspiracy, per se. It is merely a fact that they used century old technology in 2015 and still have not released results.

I'm "sure" I know what the results of the testing are and posted it a few times. There will be some details I can't predict at this time but if they withhold it long enough I might. Odds are good it is being withheld largely because all this data is in very close agreement with my theories and shows other theories are wrong. It is the final nail in the coffin for ramps.

 

[cladking]

Name some sources of this growing chorus. Just saying it and repeating it is not convincing. Some scholars with a track record and a cogent argument with evidence might be a good start.

No Egyptologist can possibly say we wholly misinterpret ancient writing without being excommunicated. It is professional suicide.

I said "educated people" are making this claim not "scholars".

They will only be considered "scholars" if they are proven correct.

 

[ecco]

But I doubt these guys are meeting behind closed doors and agreeing to work in the dark until such time as Dr Hawass deigns to release the data. Rather the far simpler explanation is that they simply don't care. The list of things that people and Egyptologists don't care about is quite long and, believe it or not, very few Egyptologists care anything at all about the nature or means of construction of G1.

You dismiss Hawass. Do you also dismiss the findings of these people...

This 4,500-Year-Old Ramp Contraption May Have Been Used to Build Egypt's Great Pyramid

This 4,500-Year-Old Ramp Contraption May Have Been Used to Build Egypt's Great Pyramid
By Owen Jarus, Live Science Contributor | October 31, 2018 10:40am ET
Now, they may have discovered the system used to haul massive stone blocks into place some 4,500 years ago.

according to the archaeologists working at the site, from the Institut français d'archéologie orientale (French Institute for Oriental Archaeology)in Cairo and from the University of Liverpool in England.
​

Have you ever done any actual on-site fieldwork?

 

[cladking]

You dismiss Hawass. Do you also dismiss the findings of these people...

This 4,500-Year-Old Ramp Contraption May Have Been Used to Build Egypt's Great Pyramid

This 4,500-Year-Old Ramp Contraption May Have Been Used to Build Egypt's Great Pyramid
By Owen Jarus, Live Science Contributor | October 31, 2018 10:40am ET
Now, they may have discovered the system used to haul massive stone blocks into place some 4,500 years ago.

according to the archaeologists working at the site, from the Institut français d'archéologie orientale (French Institute for Oriental Archaeology)in Cairo and from the University of Liverpool in England.
​

They "may have" huh?

I shot this nonsense down when it was new. The facts actually support my theory about how the pyramids were actually built rather than those ramps that "mustta been used". Just remember that since 2006 Egyptology has lost every argument, sometimes looking foolish in the process.

I'm not going to talk about it in this thread but I'd be happy to write up a post to show how it conflicts with the idea of ramps and supports the simple facts and logic that ancient people dragged weights up hills from a distance. In many cases they used a motive force to do the work and this applies to every single great pyramid and possibly to this very quarry. I would do this in the "Ancient Reality" thread but not here.​

 

[cladking]

I do not know that words arise naturally in animals and even in man, it must have developed and evolved over time. I know of no evidence that any human word is conceptualized and utilized by any entity or intelligence other than our own and that words exist in some word space naturally. Certainly, I do not know of animals that use words and language the same way that we do. What I conclude is that you have a belief system that you have based around an idea with no evidence.

I wasn't there. I don't know how ancient words came into being. I merely proposed how they may have and how animal language became metaphysical. Obviously proto-humans without complex language of any sort didn't sit around a campfire talking about how to invent a metaphysical language that didn't have words for "thought" or "belief". This would be an impossibility.

Obviously if I am correct the language almost certainly arose naturally around the workings of the human brain. But, without complex language people were "animals" in that they had no ability to pass complex knowledge from one generation to the next. They were just as "intelligent" as us and probably moreso since consciousness is the only means animals have of survival. If they survived they were more "intelligent" (conscious). How would representations of things (REMEMBER THEY HAD NO THOUGHT AND NO BELIEFS SO NO ABSTRACTIONS) arise in animals? I don't know but the sounds would almost certainly represent something inside the brain that is representative of the meaning. Animal languages arise naturally just as complex language in humans was probably the result of a mutation (IT AROSE SUDDENLY suggesting a sudden change).

This language was necessarily closely related to the nature of the brain and it necessarily was the means the brain used to experience consciousness. All higher mental processes in all animals occur in "language". When complex language arose these early humans still couldn't sit down and discuss how it should work because they still didn't have the accumulated knowledge necessary. The original complex language was merely an elaboration on the simple animal language that came first. As the language became more complex it became far more difficult for individuals to use it. Agriculture and cities made it less necessary to be "conscious" so more individuals were less suited to thinking in three dimensions as the language became increasingly complex. A pidgin form of the language arose circa 3500 BC leading to the necessity of writing and a medium for dispensing decrees to those who communicated in these new languages. By 2000 BC there were no longer enough people who could speak Ancient Language to run the states and the official language everywhere changed from Ancient Language to the many new and mutually unintelligible pidgin language (think PIE).

Everything is different to someone who thought in Ancient Language because not only do we think in language but PERSPECTIVE is everything and still is but from our perspective it's hard to see that perspective is everything. We see what we bwelieve and they saw reality directly because they saw what they knew. Of course they didn't know much which was severely limiting to their vision but they saw bits and pieces of reality (amun) directly.

Today metaphysical language is utterly impossible for humans because there is far too much knowledge to build it into a language (that can be maniputed by humans). But we can still see from ancient reality and we can still rediscover what they knew and find things that are applicable to us and our science. I believe we can still recover all 40,000 years of pre-history and gain a better insight into the nature of "humanity" and our own civilization. We can still learn how science and religions arose and seek the reality we know exists in the former and most probably exists in the latter. Both are confused but reality exists in them.

 

[cladking]

You dismiss Hawass.

I do not "dismiss" Hawass. He is a real scholar and real researcher with a real doctorate. He is nobody's fool and when he has an opinion that pertains to my work or ancient Egypt, I am all ears. Dr Hawass is simply wrong about everything concerning the pyramid. That doesn't make him a troglodyte, it merely makes him wrong.

I could be wrong and Dr Hawass could be mostly right but we can't both be right and I'm 70% sure I am generally correct. If I use him for a whipping boy it's only because I don't want to use every Egyptologist as an example of modern folly. He is the head of Egyptology so his head sticks up higher than others.

 

[ecco]

They "may have" huh?

I shot this nonsense down when it was new. The facts actually support my theory about how the pyramids were actually built rather than those ramps that "mustta been used". Just remember that since 2006 Egyptology has lost every argument, sometimes looking foolish in the process.

I'm not going to talk about it in this thread but I'd be happy to write up a post to show how it conflicts with the idea of ramps and supports the simple facts and logic that ancient people dragged weights up hills from a distance. In many cases they used a motive force to do the work and this applies to every single great pyramid and possibly to this very quarry. I would do this in the "Ancient Reality" thread but not here.​

So, just to confirm, you disagree with scientists/researchers other than Hawass. That's surprising because previously you wrote...

More importantly though is that this is all the action of one man so there is no conspiracy.

Now we have shown that it is more than one man, it is more than one team. So, by your own admission, that puts your beliefs right into the conspiracy theory column.

 

[ecco]

I do not "dismiss" Hawass. He is a real scholar and real researcher with a real doctorate. He is nobody's fool and when he has an opinion that pertains to my work or ancient Egypt, I am all ears. Dr Hawass is simply wrong about everything concerning the pyramid. That doesn't make him a troglodyte, it merely makes him wrong.

I could be wrong and Dr Hawass could be mostly right but we can't both be right and I'm 70% sure I am generally correct. If I use him for a whipping boy it's only because I don't want to use every Egyptologist as an example of modern folly. He is the head of Egyptology so his head sticks up higher than others.

Your own words...

• He is a real scholar and real researcher with a real doctorate
• He is nobody's fool

Dr Hawass is simply wrong about everything concerning the pyramid

Somehow you, with no degree and with no on-site experience, know more than a real scholar and real researcher with a real doctorate.

Somehow you, with no degree and with no on-site experience, know more than other groups of real scholars and real researchers with real doctorates.

It boggles the mind.

 

[cladking]

So, just to confirm, you disagree with scientists/researchers other than Hawass. That's surprising because previously you wrote...

The paradigm is wrong... ...long live the paradigm.

This is really quite simple. Egyptologists believe changeless, moribund, and stinky footed bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps. They are simply wrong on every single point. They are even wrong about when people who weren't stinky footed didn't drag nonexistent tombs up nonexistent ramp[s as shown by C14 dating. The Egyptological paradigm is wrong but the paradigm is not the result of a conspiracy but rather a collaboration. If it applies to the great pyramids anything said by an Egyptologist (other than dig reports) is wrong. No conspiracy is necessary to make an individual or group wrong. In the 1860's surgeons all believed that washing their hands was a waste of precious time. That almost all their patients died shows they were all wrong; just as wrong as Egyptologists. Surgeons nor Egyptologists conspired to kill people in the 19th century or the 21st but this is the result of their beliefs (not washing hands and stinky footed bumpkins).

​

No conspiracy. There are very few conspiracies in history and they are usually political. Now days some conspiracies take place virtually in the open because people don't care. There is no conspiracy in hand washing or the belief in tombs and ramps.

 

[cladking]

Somehow you, with no degree and with no on-site experience, know more than a real scholar and real researcher with a real doctorate.

Somehow you, with no degree and with no on-site experience, know more than other groups of real scholars and real researchers with real doctorates.

It boggles the mind.

It's not "somehow". I've said a million times EXACTLY how I did it and left a trail of bread crumbs so anyone can falsify it.

I reverse engineered the great pyramids while simultaneously solving the meaning of the Pyramid Texts in context. Using this technique I found that highly scientific people used linear funiculars to build mnemonics for the dead kings. No fuss, no muss, and no stinky footed bumpkins except for modern people.

The reason there is no evidence for how the pyramids were built is very very simple; the evidence is everywhere but we can't see it. We can't even understand the concept of a metaphysical language and the infrastructure that survives looks like religious artefacts because we are the stinky footed bumpkins. We are each and severally stinky footed bumpkins. We all see what we believe and I succeeded where Egyptology utterly failed because I BELIEVE all people make perfect sense in terms of their premises. Once you can understand ancient premises then you too can understand Ancient Language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder what the dog word is for rotisserie chicken? How about the platypus word for binary fission? Maybe the red oak word for quantum mechanics is gillzbut.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wasn't there. I don't know how ancient words came into being. I merely proposed how they may have and how animal language became metaphysical. Obviously proto-humans without complex language of any sort didn't sit around a campfire talking about how to invent a metaphysical language that didn't have words for "thought" or "belief". This would be an impossibility.

Obviously if I am correct the language almost certainly arose naturally around the workings of the human brain. But, without complex language people were "animals" in that they had no ability to pass complex knowledge from one generation to the next. They were just as "intelligent" as us and probably moreso since consciousness is the only means animals have of survival. If they survived they were more "intelligent" (conscious). How would representations of things (REMEMBER THEY HAD NO THOUGHT AND NO BELIEFS SO NO ABSTRACTIONS) arise in animals? I don't know but the sounds would almost certainly represent something inside the brain that is representative of the meaning. Animal languages arise naturally just as complex language in humans was probably the result of a mutation (IT AROSE SUDDENLY suggesting a sudden change).

This language was necessarily closely related to the nature of the brain and it necessarily was the means the brain used to experience consciousness. All higher mental processes in all animals occur in "language". When complex language arose these early humans still couldn't sit down and discuss how it should work because they still didn't have the accumulated knowledge necessary. The original complex language was merely an elaboration on the simple animal language that came first. As the language became more complex it became far more difficult for individuals to use it. Agriculture and cities made it less necessary to be "conscious" so more individuals were less suited to thinking in three dimensions as the language became increasingly complex. A pidgin form of the language arose circa 3500 BC leading to the necessity of writing and a medium for dispensing decrees to those who communicated in these new languages. By 2000 BC there were no longer enough people who could speak Ancient Language to run the states and the official language everywhere changed from Ancient Language to the many new and mutually unintelligible pidgin language (think PIE).

Everything is different to someone who thought in Ancient Language because not only do we think in language but PERSPECTIVE is everything and still is but from our perspective it's hard to see that perspective is everything. We see what we bwelieve and they saw reality directly because they saw what they knew. Of course they didn't know much which was severely limiting to their vision but they saw bits and pieces of reality (amun) directly.

Today metaphysical language is utterly impossible for humans because there is far too much knowledge to build it into a language (that can be maniputed by humans). But we can still see from ancient reality and we can still rediscover what they knew and find things that are applicable to us and our science. I believe we can still recover all 40,000 years of pre-history and gain a better insight into the nature of "humanity" and our own civilization. We can still learn how science and religions arose and seek the reality we know exists in the former and most probably exists in the latter. Both are confused but reality exists in them.

I wonder what we can learn from Dr. Doolittle?

 

[gnostic]

I wasn't there. I don't know how ancient words came into being. I merely proposed how they may have and how animal language became metaphysical. Obviously proto-humans without complex language of any sort didn't sit around a campfire talking about how to invent a metaphysical language that didn't have words for "thought" or "belief". This would be an impossibility.

Obviously if I am correct the language almost certainly arose naturally around the workings of the human brain. But, without complex language people were "animals" in that they had no ability to pass complex knowledge from one generation to the next. They were just as "intelligent" as us and probably moreso since consciousness is the only means animals have of survival. If they survived they were more "intelligent" (conscious). How would representations of things (REMEMBER THEY HAD NO THOUGHT AND NO BELIEFS SO NO ABSTRACTIONS) arise in animals? I don't know but the sounds would almost certainly represent something inside the brain that is representative of the meaning. Animal languages arise naturally just as complex language in humans was probably the result of a mutation (IT AROSE SUDDENLY suggesting a sudden change).

This language was necessarily closely related to the nature of the brain and it necessarily was the means the brain used to experience consciousness. All higher mental processes in all animals occur in "language". When complex language arose these early humans still couldn't sit down and discuss how it should work because they still didn't have the accumulated knowledge necessary. The original complex language was merely an elaboration on the simple animal language that came first. As the language became more complex it became far more difficult for individuals to use it. Agriculture and cities made it less necessary to be "conscious" so more individuals were less suited to thinking in three dimensions as the language became increasingly complex. A pidgin form of the language arose circa 3500 BC leading to the necessity of writing and a medium for dispensing decrees to those who communicated in these new languages. By 2000 BC there were no longer enough people who could speak Ancient Language to run the states and the official language everywhere changed from Ancient Language to the many new and mutually unintelligible pidgin language (think PIE).

Everything is different to someone who thought in Ancient Language because not only do we think in language but PERSPECTIVE is everything and still is but from our perspective it's hard to see that perspective is everything. We see what we bwelieve and they saw reality directly because they saw what they knew. Of course they didn't know much which was severely limiting to their vision but they saw bits and pieces of reality (amun) directly.

Today metaphysical language is utterly impossible for humans because there is far too much knowledge to build it into a language (that can be maniputed by humans). But we can still see from ancient reality and we can still rediscover what they knew and find things that are applicable to us and our science. I believe we can still recover all 40,000 years of pre-history and gain a better insight into the nature of "humanity" and our own civilization. We can still learn how science and religions arose and seek the reality we know exists in the former and most probably exists in the latter. Both are confused but reality exists in them.

You are still making up history in your own imaginary world.

There were no single Ancient Language prior to 2000 BCE, which your imaginary Tower of Babel supposedly exist.

There were already multiple languages spoken prior to 2000 BCE:

• Egyptian, along with hieroglyphs and hieratic being the written languages since 3050 BCE.
• Sumerian is isolate language, with Sumerian cuneiform being developed around 3100 BCE, evolving from earlier primitive cuneiform, with the discoveries of pre-Sumerian or proto-Sumerian inscriptions found on one of temples of Inanna in Uruk, c 3400 BCE. Many cultures and civilizations were to adopt Sumerian cuneiform in their own versions, as described below (eg Akkadian, Elamite).
  • Sumerian lost its importance as the dominant language in Mesopotamia during the Akkadian dynasty, but with the the 3rd dynasty of (c 2112 - c 2004 BCE), Sumerian language experienced a revival, that archaeologists referred to as the Sumerian Renaissance. It was during this dynasty that the story of Gilgamesh (Bilgames) appeared in their written forms for the first time (5 clay tablets were discovered on Bilgames).
• Akkadian was a Semitic language, developed from the Akkadian dynasty c 2334 - 2194 BCE. The Akkadians adopted Sumerian cuneiform to form their own cuneiform words.
• Earlier than the Akkadian dynasty, in western Iranian coast, Elamite was spoken as early 2800 BCE, like Sumerian is isolate language. They didn’t have their own writing system, until they adopted Akkadian cuneiform around 23rd century BCE. The reasons why knew of the Elamites 2800 BCE, because of the Sumerians occasionally trade with the Elamites or make wars with them, and Elamites appeared in Sumerian writings.
• The Amorites who originated in Jebel Bishri, in northern Syria, were nomadic people, that both the Sumerians and Akkadian have encountered during the 3rd millennium BCE. They spoke Semitic language, like the Akkadians, but they were in this millennium. But by near the end of 3rd dynasty of Ur, which they were responsible for Ur’s fall, conquered Sumer, and made Babylon it’s capital. The Amorites established a new dynasty, the 1st dynasty of Babylon (1894 - 1595 BCE), but they adopted the Akkadian dialect as their own language, replacing the Amorite language. This dynasty was responsible for Old Babylonian period. The Middle Babylonian period started, when the Kassite conquered Babylonia and new dynasty arose in Babylon. Like the Amorite dynasty before them, they adopted and spoke the Babylonian dialect and use and wrote in the Akkadian cuneiform.

All these languages that I have mention in the 3rd millennium BCE, were contemporary to the Egyptians of the Early Dynastic period (1st to 2nd dynasties) and Old Kingdom period (3rd to 6th dynasties).

There were multiple contemporary languages spoken prior to 2000 BCE, not a single language.

Your Ancient Language conspiracy theory don’t hold much weights, because there were no single spoken and written language prior to 2000 BCE.

 

[cladking]

There were multiple contemporary languages spoken prior to 2000 BCE, not a single language.

No. You are ignoring the fact that I said none of the Ancient Language is understood. It can't be translated so when we attempt to do it we get gobbledty gook that isn't understood. Writing was invented to communicate with those who spoke the pidgin form of the language. These pidgin dialects were like ours and can be translated reasonably well but unlike Ancient Language (which also existed in dialects) the pidgin languages were not only "confused" like ours but were not mutually intelligible. All writing that exists before 2000 BC is not written in Ancient Language. Indeed, there is extensive surviving writing in the Egyptian form of modern language dating back nearly to the great pyramid building age. There is very little Ancient Language preserved from ANY era at all because this writing was studied extensively by later people to try to figure out ancient science and ancient wisdom. Most people are surprised to learn that there is (virtually) NO WRITING of any sort that survives from the great pyramid building age or earlier. Even the Pyramid Texts which I solved to find Ancient Language is really from the after the great pyramids. But these rituals were very old when they were recorded in later times. Only those individuals who spoke Ancient Language would have understood them. Others would understand very very little and would have understood nothing except they heard AL a lot and had to try to communicate with AL speakers sometimes.

Animal languages spread with each ancestor to Homo Sapiens. These were simple languages and each individual spoke this same simple language but there would be differences in dialects especially in far flung populations. But when complex language arose this would have spread genetically. From whatever point it spread (north central Africa) it required a descendant of the individual who had the mutation that tied the speech center to higher brain functions (think "Adam" or "S3.h".).

Just as change in species ignores consciousness and LOOKS like survival of the fittest to us, the original language undergoing a structural change and splintering into its dialects LOOKS like there were just many languages that are the same as we have today. Appearances can be deceiving and this is why metaphysics says experiment is fundamental to our ability to "know", "create", and "understand". Without experiment we don't know what we are LOOKING at. This is the nature of confused language speakers. It is the height of madness to assume we can know anything at all about the great pyramid builders by parsing a "book of magic" and it is illogical to assume all ancient writing is properly translated when it makes no sense at all.

I am fully aware that scholars BELIEVE they understand ancient writing but there simply is no way to tell. They translate the oldest writing in terms of newer writing and then assume the old writing is a direct cause of newer writing. It is illogical to make any deductions from superstitious twaddle but our entire culture is founded on the belief that you can.

 

[cladking]

I wonder what we can learn from Dr. Doolittle?

Funny you ask.

I've been in touch with a few scientists who study "foreign" languages trying to devise an experiment to prove my theory. So far this field is in its infancy and no apparent means has yet arisen. Eventually a species with the correct behavior will be found and such an experiment easily conducted. All that's needed is to toss an individual that speaks a different dialect in with a population and see if they can establish communication. If they do it is strong support for the idea that language is species specific. By that time though my theory is likely to have already become established or shown to be wrong.

 

[cladking]

I wonder what the dog word is for rotisserie chicken?

"Chokey"(?) , but I don't know how it's expressed in Dog.

Of course the only word a puppy would know for "rotisserie chicken" is "food".

Dog probably has fewer than 500 words.