- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Sunday, September 25, 2022
A Video by polýMATHY on Old Egyptian
Ancient Egyptian Chronology | What is Ancient Egyptian?
19th Sept. 2022 | polýMATHY
1:51 3300 - 2600 BC (according to uniformitarian chronology, highly dependent on carbon dates).
If I go to my post "New Tables" (to which I link back from very recent post "Near Prague"), on my blog "Creation vs. Evolution" - I can look these carbon dates up.
In 1868 BC, the carbon 14 level was just above 84 pmC, so the carbon date 3318 BC.
In 1678 BC, the carbon 14 level was c. 89.5 pmC, so the carbon date has less extra years, and lands at 2598.
The latter is of course if by "2600 BC" you speak of uncalibrated carbon dates, if you meant the calibrated one for Djoser's burial, that's dealt with as 1700 BC = raw date (with Cambridge half life) 2800 BC. I am aware the uniformitarian calibration takes this raw 2800 BC and puts it at calibrated 2600 BC.
I put it at 1700 BC, a few decades after the end of Genesis' main action on the Joseph-in-Egypt plane.
Identifying Djoser as Joseph's pharao is based on identifying Joseph as the reality behind Imhotep, based on the Hunger Stele parallelling the real story of Genesis.
2:05 2000 - 1350 BC.
Carbon 14 levels are rising, I put the place where they reach 100 pmC (carbon dates start coinciding with real dates) at Fall of Troy. Unsurprisingly, the latter limit will be only some decades younger.
1610 BC (100 years before the Exodus event, 20 years before Moses was born) = "2020 BC" as carbon 14 level is at 95.2 pmC
1319 BC = "1359 BC" with carbon 14 level now at 99.5 pmC.
For more exact values, see the actual post.
[Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
We associate spellings with words 4:50 and that's not actually how language works. 4:54
When I use mid-19th C. spellings for Swedish (still - in a butchery context "hvem vill ha halfvan af en kalf" - now "vem vill ha halvan av en kalv;" and still "hesten hjelper gerna" for "hästen hjälper gärna") I am sometimes asked how I pronounce this.
Nothing weird at all - if I were challenged to motivate the 4 spellings of the V sound, I would pronounce the F-free spellings as W, and it wouldn't sound weird, just dialectal. The TJE-sound (in Finland Swedish basically like CH) also had four spellings, and the SJE-sound (in Finland Swedish but not in Sweden like SH) I think 7 or 8, perhaps even 9, also true of the yod-sound.
And in short syllables or after a yod sound or both, Swedish has only the open E sound which in long vowels is spelled Ä, hence no reason to spell it Ä rather than E, since by default E in those positions must be pronounced Ä, and E is easier to write. Ä is used for etymology (båta-bättre) or distinction (en vs än = Danish en vs end).
8:50 My reaction, in terms of similarities, is a bit to the Waste Land insertions of Sanskrit by TSE. Probably the very first word strikes that Sanskrit vibe, and the rest being "same language" doesn't break it.
I think I have heard reconstructed Hittite pronounced a bit like this too.
However, obviously, in more grammatical terms (vocabulary and morphology and syntax) it's very different from either, as not classifiable as IE.
13:41 You might enjoy some Assyriologists from Finland.
Not only were Nuntii Latini made by Latinists from the same University, but "blue suede shoes" were translated into ... Sumerian.