[Egyptian] Some general considerations

[Nigel Strudwick]

Thank you. I was about to shout STOP!


On 25 Jul 2016, at 12:15, Marwan Kilani <odusseus at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Sorry Marwan, but we leave on different planets: your observation was general (along the line ‘no linguistic meaning for the organization of the hieroglyphs'), I provided general examples about the facts that it is not the case...
> 
> … according to your interpretation of those cases ;-)
> Because other interpretations could led to different conclusions, as for the t&w wt/tw case: it is enough to interpret the t&w as a single glyph as was done in the original unicode set, and your problem/case disappears.
> And just to clarify, I am not arguing that t&w is truly, in its "essence", a single glyph, i am not talking about what it *is*, I am talking about how we can interpret it in a practical way... we can agree that this was probably not how ancient egyptians "truly" saw those two signs, but it is a very *practical* and *efficient* interpretation - and the same stands true for the other cases you suggested, in different ways: the rower with water can be interpreted as a variant of the standard rower as semantically the water does not seem to me add anything -as as far as i know it is implicit for rowers to row in water- and in the case of ptah it is the choice of the signs with which the name is written (earth-god-sky) that allows to say that we are dealing with the demiurge and not with an ordinary ptah, and this stands true whether you write this sequence horizontally or vertically or in circle (actually thank Gods egyptians did not use "circular groups").
> 
> But yes, let's follow Nigel's suggestion and let's stop here
> 
> Marwan
> _______________________________________________
> Egyptian mailing list
> Egyptian at evertype.com
> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com