Re: I Need JTEM Like a Hole In My Head

No it isn't, its worlds different.  Having a "pretty good idea" and
"knowing for certain" are different things and describe different states
of knowledge.

So?  Are you saying that ancient Egyptian and its descendants changed at
the same rate that English did in the medieval and modern periods?  Your
evidence for such a claim (since English is well known to have undergone
significant change due to a number of factors), and that early Modern
English was pronounced very close to what modern English is?  And that
even if one doesn't know that "love" and "prove" rhymed, that the l, p,
v, and all sounded like they do now, one would still understand the meaning.

Yes, the expert who knows NOTHING about Akkadian, ancient Egyptian, or
Shakespearean English has spoken.

I'm not misquoting him, you pathetic little twirp.

Maybe I misphrased him -- meaning, I didn't use the
Exact. Same. words -- but the meaning is identical.

QUOTE:

But the last of the true Coptic speakers were about four
times as far removed from LATE Egyptian as we are
from Shakespearean English... though Shakespeare spoke
"Modern English."

Oh:  Nobody really knows how Akkadian was pronounced,
either.

And here we have the explicit use of JTEM's strawmen by misquoting
Dragonblaze.

Hey, everyone, it's Egoblaze!  You know, the retard
who originally pretended to be a language expert,
yet not only could never support a goddamn thing he
ever said, but came out with some real whoppers.

Like, well, like "We know how ancient Egyptian was
pronounced," and worse:  "We know it from Coptic."

Sure, that's enough to fool someone who wants to be
fooled -- like an "imipak" -- but nobody normal.

What a twat!

[snip]

Hmm.... Maybe I should let JTEM the Right Man Syndrome poster boy out
of my killfile. It appears from the quotes that he is currently
emptying whole clips into his foot. Might be fun to see how badly he
manages to embarrass himself with his nonsense.

I'll think about it....

This is why its so fun to deal with you JTEM: even when you're so wrong
that your "cites" prove you wrong in the first 3 paragraphs 3 different
times, you still come out swinging pretending that its all the other guy
who's wrong.  It is quite the funny show you put on!!!

What's it like, your "reality" so weak, so feeble that
acknowledging any weakness, any mistake threatens
to tear the whole thing down?

Because you and Egoblaze did pretend to be a couple
of language experts, yet you're both so out of touch with
the real world of languages that you thought that the
correct pronunciation of ancient Egyptian was known.

I'm laughing at you.

Still no sign of intelligent life from JTEM

Nope, still no cite and you're still not man enough to
admit that nobody knows how to pronounce ancient
Egyptian. My, you are a pussy....

Ah, intellectually and morally bankrupt, JTEM once again turns to
snipping and lying.....

Exactly. You couldn't offer any cites because aliens
ordered the Elvis clowns to hide them from you.... or
something like that. Clearly you're not man enough
to admit that they don't exist, that you're wrong (as
per your usual).

Yes, it's because you couldn't understand them; you can't even
understand the position or the sources of knowledge much less citations!

When it comes to the pronunciation of ancient
Egyptian, our "knowledge" is as thick as the
list of your cites.

And there's a reason why you couldn't offer any
cites...

Good thing our knowledge doesn't only come from Coptic then, eh?

So?  If you knew the issues involved 1% as well as you think you do,
you'd know that that has been factored in, and pertains to vowels rather
than consonants.  You apparently don't know the difference.

Here's the kicker...if as you claim we can't know how Coptic was
pronounced, how do we know it was heavily influenced by Greek and
Arabic....I expect you'll snip this so as not to answer.

YOU CAN COUNT!!!!  Oh JTEMETTE!  There just might be a glimmer of hope
for you yet!

But, um, the Mesha Stele is written in Aramaic, not Egyptian, so
distance in time is no difference in this case.  Further, length of time
doesn't matter, what matters is how much information and what kind of
information one has about the language.  According to your "reasoning",
I use the term very loosely when applied to you, a reader of Latin in
the 21st century in Russia often using Russian pronunciation can not
possibly read Plautus at a remove of some 2300 years or even older Latin
inscriptions.

Oh, they all do....its just that you keep
misrepresenting/misunderstanding the positions that DB and I hold as
well as those "cites", creating a situation where you're complaining
that we're saying something we're not and that your cites are saying
something they're not.

No, no...that's your procedure.  The author pretty explicitly said
exactly what Dragonblaze said in almost the same terms and using the
same examples.  That you can not enlarge your mind to take a wider view
than a footnote you've misunderstood is not problem of ours.

Because it's been twice as long since Coptic died
as it's been since Shakespeare died, and we both
know how much English has changed since then.

Coptic has been heavily influenced by Greek and
Arabic, but that's not all....

The time of the Mesha Stele? Well, that was only
two times as far from the beginnings of Coptic as
Shakespearean English is from us... about 2,000
years removed from the end of Coptic.

Then there's all the cites, not one of which supports
you.

So, yeah, it's no coincidence that the best you could
do is mine from & misrepresent one of my cites.

But, go on, pretend that you're male, and an adult, and
construct a case using cites.

Why not? It should be good for a laugh...

Aw, you're sweet on me, that's why you keep coming back for more!

And yes, it was.

How would you know since you don't know either language, anything about
linguistics, and are taking a footnote out of context?  And why do you
insist that our only knowledge of how ancient Egyptian was pronounced
comes from Coptic?

 In fact,

Exactly.  That's because ancient Egyptian didn't represent VOWELS.  You
do know the difference between a vowel and consonant, don't you?  Well,
from this discussion, apparently not.

Yes, in fact, I invite any reader interested to read the WHOLE page, and
not quote mine like JTEM.

Also take note that the page that JTEM here points to said exactly what
Dragonblaze said in almost exactly the same words, but JTEM says they
contradict each other.

No, honey, it's not.

Coptic isn't pronounced like ancient Egyptian. In fact,
Coptic isn't even pronounced like classical Coptic,
or at least as far as anyone knows.

As a matter of fact, the convention is to always insert a
letter 'e' in ancient Egyptian text, when a vowel is needed.

Anyways, for anyone interested in facts and not the
psychotic episodes of Larry/Weland here, this is the
cite he's misrepresenting:

http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm

Non sequitur....but logical fallacy is part of the usual JTEM mode.

Ah, there's that lack of reading comprehension we've come to expect from
our champion spinner in the wind!

Since you can't understand either one, distance in time is immaterial.

Which you've again misread and misunderstood...oh dear.

Nope, the point is that you haven't a clue what you're babbling about,
and can't even read the cites you give.  But no matter, I wasn't
involved in that discussion....and I won't be now, simply because you're
attempting a bait and switch.  You got caught, you refuse to admit it,
so now you switch topics.

Uh, actually that's your modus operandi, demonstrated time and again.
And the sad part is that most of your cherries are rotten.

You should tell us....that's all of what you say in any forum, just
your own made up nonsense.

Which proves that you're an idiot.

Then you're back to NOT agreeing with it. Amazing how
fast that worked out...

Coptic is a great deal more removed from ancient
Egyptian than Shakespearean English is from us.
Or at least that WAS true, but nobody really knows
how THAT Coptic was pronounced, as per the cite:

Unless you're pretending that the pronunciation is the same
regardless of which vowel you use,  you have no point.

But it doesn't matter. It doesn't end in the next sentence nor
the next paragraph. You're simply cherry picking in order to
make it artifically appear as if you have a case...

Skipping down even five paragraphs, all the ambiguity remains,
while you pretend it's gone by the end of the first... Sheesh!

What's it like have to make things up, because you're too
much of a pussy to admit that you're wrong?

I never disagreed with it, I just pointed out I didn't participate in
that discussion, you were wrong.  As usual.

No, actually, Coptic is but one place, already made clear to you.  Oh,
wait, you snipped that too.

You should read the rest of the paragraph, and take note especially that
what controversy there is deals with vowels.  You do know what vowels
are, don't you?  Or is that too much for you?

Okay, so now (for THIS ONE POST) you're back to agreeing
with it, holding the position that you do in fact know the
proper pronunciation of ancient words, including ancient
Egyptian.

And, oh, you get all this from Coptic.

You're completely full of sh.t, of course, and will most likely
flip-flop yet again, granted, but I'll prove you wrong for the
time being, and you being a pussy will never accept it:

Pointing out your misattribution...I wasn't involved in any discussion
about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, and for you to claim I was
is your typical JTEMery of misattribution, miscitation, and baseless
argumentation.

Oh, I stand by pointing out that I wasn't involved in the discussion you
claim I was involved in.  Once again, it just illustrates your lack.

Translation:  You FLED from the claim, distanced yourself
from it. Here, I quote you:

Then again, given your tenuous (at best) grip on reality,
you will now invent a new position and never so much
as acknowledge your previous claims....

WOW!!!!!  I said Dragonblaze and I were agreed on the issue, and
Dragonblaze said "Agree there", and in JTEM's poor little mind that
means I disagree with Dragonblaze!! Now, that's pathetic!!!

And I pointed out your error, saying I had never said any such thing in
spite of your attribution to me.  I never said that I disagreed with it
or that it was wrong.

Ah, poor JTEM....er Giwer, er Cinnabon.....gets it wrong again....

JTEM can't read Shakespeare!  God that's funny!

That he doesn't bother to read.  In the section of Dragonblaze's post
that JTEM snipped, Dragonblaze says: "From these sources we can know
that the snake sign which is transliterated as d or dj was pronounced as
"j" as in the English "jump" earlier (voiced palato-aveolar
affricative).  It can also correspond to a "j" (jîm) in Arabic."

The site JTEM points to says this about the snake sign transliterated as
d or dj: "The picture of a snake, this has become a "d" or a "t" in
Coptic, but is thought to have been a "j" as in the English "jump"
earlier (voiced palato-aveolar affricative). It can correspond to a "j"
(jîm) in Arabic."

Huh, both say that the sign represents a voiced palato-aveolar
affricative.  Huh, both Dragonblaze and JTEM's cited site say that the
sign is thought to have been pronounced like a "j" as in English "jump".
Most would find this a confirmation of Dragonblaze's statement, as if we
needed it.  But not JTEM!  No, in JTEM's world where two people agree
stating the same thing in nearly the same words, they actually disagree!

Just like the site you cited!!

    ....before he said anything.

You missed it, Egoblaze, but the guy was just
DISAGREEING with you.

Oh, I know, you're far too stupid, and fat too consumed
in a personalities game (rather than historical truths)
to notice, but I'll explain it for you... and you'll fail to
grasp it anyway...

I had mistaken YOUR sorry-a.s, lame as hell argument
to the effect that "Djehuty" and "Jehuti" couldn't be the
same word because they're pronounced differently for
HIS sorry-as, lame as hell argument.

(Psst, nobody knows how the ancients pronounced their
words, and that goes double for the ancient Egyptians).

You're full of sh.t, as per your customary lack of any
supporting cites there, Weland...errr...Larry... Egoblaze.

For starters, we're talking about a span of 3,400 years. If
anyone has any difficulty grasping what that means:  Pick
up a 400 year old copy of Shakespeare, for crying out loud!

What you're trying so hard to avoid -- if I'm not granting you
too much intelligence here -- is the incredibly backwards
argument your kind usually rely on....

See, Akkadian is actually the best indication of how ancient
Egyptian words were pronounced -- and the Amarna letters
in particular:

http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm

OO!  A cite!  Imagine that, JTEM always supports what he
says with cites....

Anyhow, sh.t for brains, at the heart of your position isn't
Coptic, it's reading what you want to read. What tells you
that the Akkadian/Assyrian/Babylonian is pronounced
differently? Your desire for it to be pronounced differently,
and nothing else.

As for "Backwards".... where these languages usually tell
us how to pronounce the Egyptian, you're insisting that
they should only ever be pronounced differently than
ancient Egyptian.

I betcha that's *Far* too subtle for you though, isn't it?

Nimrod.

[snip]

Agreed there.

As regards Egyptian pronounciation, if JTEM had not so little
knowledge that he is a positive menace to mankind, he might be aware
(if that idiot can be said to be aware) that we do have a pretty good
idea of what the Egyptian phonemes were like. Coptic (though I doubt
he has ever heard of it) is the late stage of Egyptian, written in
Greek alphabet with some special characters added. We also have quite
a few Egyptian names recorded in other texts, such as Akkadian and
Greek. From these sources we can know that the snake sign which is
transliterated as d or dj was pronounced as "j" as in the English
"jump" earlier (voiced palato-aveolar affricative). It can also
correspond to a "j" (jîm) in Arabic. But never let it be said that
JTEM would let facts change his opinions.

Ah poor JTEM, who himself says nothing original confuses original with
factual.  You see, ol' Dragonblaze, who is not me, and I both agree that
facts are better than the  daydreams  your drug addled sh.t pile produces.

Are you sure you're not "egoblaze" there?

It's so hard to tell you apart. Perhaps if either one of you
decided to say something original...

I made no such claims.

No, you sh.t for brains. He claimed that the Egyptian
"Djehuty" and everybody else's "Jehuty" couldn't be the
same because they were pronounced differently, when
nobody has any idea how either were pronounced.

You frigging retards....

Actually, he's saying we can't read them because we can't pronounce
them. Which tells you a lot about JTEM's reading level - most people
have learned to read silently by the age of 5.

"AH, JTEM, I think you confused me with that guy staring at you in the
mirror!"  Perhaps JTEM's confusion is what causes his consistent
misquoting of all kinds of sources?

I've already explained it to you, several times.  Even other posters
have told you so.  Oh wait, what JTEM snips ceases to exist...yeah,
right.  I'm not going to explain it again just to have you snip and
ignore it.  Go back, stop snipping and sniping, and read my previous posts.

<snip typical JTEMery>

HA!  Like you citing a book that is talking about something completely
different than you are, yet somehow it proves your point...yeah, that's
evidence.  Its like today's sports scores proves that life on Mars is
possible.

Um, I've never made any such claim and haven't been involved in any
discussion about the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian.

 and nobody really even knows

So, according to you then, there are no records we can understand other
than Greek and Latin, and that anything we say about history in Assyria,
or Sumer, or Cyrpus, etc is all wrong because we don't what those
records say.  Is that what you're saying now?

You confused? So what else is new... Sheesh!

Anyhow, you STILL refuse to tell us how you pull
the exact same bible names out of the ancient
text that the bible thumpers (using the bible as
their "source") found.

As has been pointed out:  When you claim to find
the name of a specific person, you are tying that
text to a very specific time and a very specific
place where that person existed.

Originally I explained this as the explicit/implicit
claims.

You can't explicitly state that you bought something
in Paris, for example, without the implicit claim that
you traveled to Paris and back.

So, again, tell us how you are mapping these bible
names to the times and places where these bible
characters & places actually existed.

      ....AFTER that, we'll move on to trying to teach
you what is and is not "Evidence."

You know, like your idiotic claim that "Jehuty" was
pronounced differently from the ancient Egyptian
"Djuhty," when nobody knows how ancient Egypt
should be pronounced, and nobody really even knows
how *Any* words were pronounced more than 2,000
years ago.

AH, JTEM, I htink you confused me with that guy staring at you in the
mirror!

The problem was, and still is, your deliberate, dishonest misuse of that
poor text to make it say something it doesn't say at all.  Such
dishonest citation is pretty clear that your idea of truth is whatever
you happen to need it to be at that particular moment....or in other
words, JTEM, you're an amoral, hatemonger whose only claim to
intelligence...well, who has no claim to intelligence, not even creative
insults.  You're pathetic, and if it weren't for your entertainment
value, you'd be killfiled long ago.

Oh, give it up. It's pretty clear that your idea of
"Truth" is whatever you happen to need it to be
at THAT particular moment... and HIGHLY likely
to change.

You know, EXACTLY like the way you both agree
and don't agree with the "century old text,"
depending on what answer you require in order to
pretend that you're "Right."

Yes it was.  I introduced it.  The point I was making that you kept
snipping was that Assyriology has not stood still and that current
investigators can not be charged with being "bible thumpers"...in
response you cited a 134 year old book.

 Secondly, the fact that you exactly mirror

Because the measure isn't whether they were bible thumpers or not, but
rather what the evidence bears, and in this situation, they were by and
large correct in their decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform.  (Much less
the fact that those who worked on the decipherment weren't "bible
thumpers", but that's another story.

Oh indeed...just brighter than you.

No it wasn't. Secondly, the fact that you exactly mirror
there bible thumping doesn't exactly jive with "Not
dependent on them."

Then again, you've never been very bright...

Indeed, and the topic was how modern Assyriologists are not dependent on
what 19th century scholars did and the field has not remained static.
In response you cited a 134 year old text.  A tad out of date...and note
that the problem isn't with the text, it is with your use of it as if it
said something about the state of Assyriology in 2009.

Poor JTEM, the literacy challenged.  Rather than repeatedly refuse, I've
repeatedly done so.  But JTEM just snips and carries on like everyone
reading doesn't know that he's been proven wrong.

Already been addressed...though I do appreciate the moving of the
goalposts.  Heck, we're still laughing at you for citing a text that had
nothing to do with what you claimed it did!  Rich stuff, JTEM!

Oh, it isn't.  But it does take knowing the languages....

 The nutters are claiming

Gee, JTEM, you mean mentioning the guy, calling him a king, naming his
capital city, and dating the damn inscription all of which matches the
other text isn't doing just that?  Huh....

Let's see what Larry-turned-Weland was saying
about my cite, my "century old text" only a few
short weeks ago...

Another time he almost sounded like he has an
I.Q. in the double digits, but there was a huge
problem...

Here's the problem:  There's no "verification." In
fact, the loser was challenged, challenged again
and again to justify his interpretation, but steadfastly
refuses to do so... while squaking about 'Gs' and
then claiming he has.

As has been pointing out to him, the explicit claim,
"I found the name of Omri in the text" includes an
implicit claim that you can map the text to a very
specific time and place.

This isn't rocket science here. The nutters are claiming
to find a biblical king: You have to connect
the text to the place where this king supposedly was,
at a time he was supposedly there.

But none of the bible thumpers do this. They can't do
it. You have never done this.