heiroglyphs

[et's daddy]

just how sure are we that all heiroglyphs have been translated accurately ?

could we be off a word or two ? which may or may not make much difference

or could we be way off here ?

just curious what people think

personally im not sure either way

[Conspiracy]

good point, but im pretty sure modern egyptians can read it and that... but maybe thier off the words also... very good point you got there

[zandore]

Sometimes even being off a little will make a big difference.

[marduk]

This is called the rosetta stone. The Rosetta Stone was the key that unlocked the mysteries of Egyptian hieroglyphics. Napoleon's troops discovered it in 1799 near the seaside town of Rosetta in lower Egypt, and it eventually made its way into the British Museum in London where it resides today. It is a slab of black basalt dating from 196 BC. inscribed by the ancient Egyptians with a royal decree praising their king Ptolemy V. The inscription is written on the stone three times, once in hieroglyphic, once in demotic, and once in Greek. Thomas Young, a British physicist, and Jean Francois Champollion, a French Egyptologist, collaborated to decipher the hieroglyphic and demotic texts by comparing them with the known Greek text. From this meager starting point a generation of Egyptologists eventually managed to read most everything that remains of the Egyptians' ancient writings.

So in short we can read "most everything"

Edited March 30, 2005 by marduk

[et's daddy]

ok i know what the rosetta stone is

and you claim that having this deciphered through the greek inscription proves that all our current heiroglyph translations are correct ?

1. how can you be certain its the exact same message written in all 3 languages if you only know one of them ?

2. im sure the message didnt contain all words known in the egyptian world so there must still be guess work going on

3. i know french canadians dont speak the exact same french as the people in france same with spanish in puerto rico and spain, is it possible egypt had different dialects ?

[aquatus1]

It's possible, and even likely, however, as Marduk pointed out, the Rosetta stone was the starting point, not the be all and end all. From there, hundreds of other documents have been translated, and they all make sense contextually, meaning that the chances of any individual mistake occuring repeatedly and not being noticed is very low. Also, remember that, while language might have dialects, literacy was a rarer thing, and the scribes all generally were taught by the same royal scholars, meaning that the written language of the Egyptians was not as subject to cultural deviation as the spoken language.

[marduk]

Since the discovery of the Rosetta stone we also know how to translate akkadian cunieform. It is a language that doesn't allow for simple errors to be made.

Which is why it was the diplomatic language throughout egypt and mesopotamia.

Egyptian Hieroglyphs are easy.

now this stuff is hard

[Neo2005]

I think that if the words in english sound right .

You know like they make sense in order they just go with it

[Elfstone810]

^Interesting. Where are they from?

[et's daddy]

interesting marduk you seem to have avoided answering my questions

[marduk]

interesting marduk  you seem to have avoided answering my questions

549192[/snapback]

were they adressed to me i didn't realise sorry

besides aquatus1's explanation sounded fine to me

Elfstone its a map of the plain at Nazca

No one's deciphered just what it means yet, or even if there is anything to actually decipher

[Adramaleck]

Elfstone its a map of the plain at Nazca

No one's deciphered just what it means yet, or even if there is anything to actually decipher

549254[/snapback]

The most recent theory on the lines is that the lines are representations of their gods. The nazcans would dance, and walk the lines as a form of prayer. Many of the lines (there are actually lines too, not just pictures) point in the direction of the about nintey pyramids of Cahuachi - which was the Nazcan Mecca. The last I heard, only six of these pyramids have been excivated.

Also - we know that in english one word may (and usually does) mean more than one thing. Take the word star for example. It could either be an insult or complement depending on your interpertaion - large, gasious and visible from thousands of miles away, or one who excells. This could be possible of hyroglyphics as well. But then again it could also be false, because it's one of the first written languages ever.

Although we do know a lot about hyroglyphics, I'm sure there's still things we do not know. Since it's a pictoral language, there may be hyroglyphics we have not even seen yet in a temple we have not yet discovered.

[marduk]

Elfstone its a map of the plain at Nazca

No one's deciphered just what it means yet, or even if there is anything to actually decipher

549254[/snapback]

The most recent theory on the lines is that the lines are representations of their gods. The nazcans would dance, and walk the lines as a form of prayer. Many of the lines (there are actually lines too, not just pictures) point in the direction of the about nintey pyramids of Cahuachi - which was the Nazcan Mecca. The last I heard, only six of these pyramids have been excivated.

Also - we know that in english one word may (and usually does) mean more than one thing. Take the word star for example. It could either be an insult or complement depending on your interpertaion - large, gasious and visible from thousands of miles away, or one who excells. This could be possible of hyroglyphics as well. But then again it could also be false, because it's one of the first written languages ever.

Although we do know a lot about hyroglyphics, I'm sure there's still things we do not know. Since it's a pictoral language, there may be hyroglyphics we have not even seen yet in a temple we have not yet discovered.

549348[/snapback]

Have a look at your last statement again. How many english letters didn't you use

The hieroglyphs uncovered and translated would fill a large library.

If we have missed anything. It isn't important.

some people however seem to doubt what the Egyptians tell us despite the fact that they wrote it down in plain language and often accompanied their glyphs with pictures for added emphasis. Things like How they built the pyramids for example.

Thats not their fault. Its ours

[Adramaleck]

Have a look at your last statement again. How many english letters didn't you use

The hieroglyphs uncovered and translated would fill a large library.

If we have missed anything. It isn't important.

some people however seem to doubt what the Egyptians tell us despite the fact that they wrote it down in plain language and often accompanied their glyphs with pictures for added emphasis. Things like How they built the pyramids for example.

Thats not their fault. Its ours

549373[/snapback]

The amout of letters I used is inconsiquential.

Hyroglyphics more closeley represent a tie between greek and oriental letters, they are not individual letters, but more of words and sounds represented by a single hyroglyphic.

[marduk]

Have a look at your last statement again. How many english letters didn't you use

The hieroglyphs uncovered and translated would fill a large library.

If we have missed anything. It isn't important.

some people however seem to doubt what the Egyptians tell us despite the fact that they wrote it down in plain language and often accompanied their glyphs with pictures for added emphasis. Things like How they built the pyramids for example.

Thats not their fault. Its ours

549373[/snapback]

The amout of letters I used is inconsiquential.

Hyroglyphics more closeley represent a tie between greek and oriental letters, they are not individual letters, but more of words and sounds represented by a single hyroglyphic.

549380[/snapback]

You mean words and sounds like "a"

or the sssss that adding s makes

Yes Of course what a fool i've been

"The amout of letters I used is inconsiquential"

well there you go with your opinion again.

I take it you've made a study of hieroglyphs mate

You sound like you have

[Adramaleck]

You mean words and sounds like "a"

or the sssss that adding s makes

Yes Of course what a fool i've been

"The amout of letters I used is inconsiquential"

well there you go with your opinion again.

I take it you've made a study of hieroglyphs mate

You sound like you have

549410[/snapback]

Yes, I've done an elementry study on them.

[aquatus1]

I think what Adramaleck was getting at was that the Egyptian wasn't a phonetic alphabet, like the one we are using now, in which each letter represents a sound and several letters strung together form a word. Rather, it was a pictographic alphabet, much like Japanses Kanji, in which individual symbols represent entire words, concepts, or representative sounds (onomonopeia: words that represent actions, such as 'boing!' represents a bouncing sound). Pictographs, because they represent concepts, can convey their meaning without the full range of characters being used, and even by using different character to mean the same thing (or, just to make it even more confusing, using the same characters to mean different things. Ain't language fun?)

[Elfstone810]

I tried to take a Japanese course in college. The section I wanted was full so they shunted me to another class that turned out, when I got there, to be Chinese. Aieee! I didn't take it. I just don't have the ear for Chinese. I mean, one syllable can be five different words depending on inflection!

I had a Chinese roommate my freshman year and we spent the whole year having a variation on this conversation:

"Hey, Li!"

"No, it's not Li, it's Li."

"I said Li!"

"No, you said Li. It's Li."

"Li."

"No, Li."

"Li."

"Li."

"Li!"

"Yes! That's right!"

"Dang it, Li!"

"No, you've got it wrong again."

[Bio-Mage]

The Rosetta Stone is actually written in greek as well. I can actually read it for the most part since I had ancient greek as a subject in school. As far as I know the stone has the same thing written in three languages If I could decipher most without being remotely qualified, my guess is that experts can be damn sure what the other language symbols actually translate to. Still errors with hieroglyphs can be expected since cross references like the Rosetta stone are very very rare. So far however they have not done that bad in using what was written on there to establish facts that have been verified by other findings.

So maybe not 100% accurate but we do understand a great deal

[marduk]

The Rosetta Stone is actually written in greek as well.

549882[/snapback]

Didn't somebody already say that ?

[LarryOldtimer]

One thing to keep always in mind is that there have to be words in the language of the translator to depict properly what was being said at the time the writing being translated was written. For instance, in the 1930s, penicillin was discovered, and not long before that, sulfa drugs were also discovered. This was the very first time in western history that effective anti-biotics were known or used. So . . . suppose that some relatively ancient culture had discovered a form of penicillin and there was a very old writing describing its use. Prior to about 1920 or so, any translator would have translated it as being some mythical magic potion . . . nothing like it was known to the translator, so it couldn't be properly translated with true meaning. Or suppose that some ancient culture had stumbled onto the concept of the germ theory of disease and wrote a treatise on it. How do you think someone in say 1800 would have translated this treatise? I dare say that that translation would have no resemblance to what was originally written, but would have nevertheless made sense from a lingual standpoint. On the other hand, if the translation was done after the germ theory of disease had been widely adopted, the translation made at that period of time would be reasonably accurate. This is true of any other aspect of technology. Face it, there was damn little technology in the 1800s when a whole lot of these ancient writings were translated. Moreover, once something has been translated, no matter how badly, it is rare indeed that at a later date that it is translated anew, particularly when the original translator was considered to be a major authority at the time he/she did the translations. Just something that needs to be taken into consideration.

[marduk]

suppose that some relatively ancient culture had discovered a form of penicillin

funnily enough most ancient cultures knew about penicillin.

Theres plenty of evidence to suggest that the sick in ancient times were given mouldy bread to eat

Mouldy bread contains penicillin and a host of other antibiotics.

[et's daddy]

thats a great point larry ty

marduk cant seem to give credit where credit is due

[marduk]

thats a great point larry  ty

marduk cant seem to give credit where credit is due

551323[/snapback]

and you can't seem to stop sniping at Marduk

even when he's being helpful

[Adramaleck]

Not only did the ancients know of penicillin, they new of asprin as well - the root or bark of a willow tree. But the point it seemed he was making, was about the actual product that did it - not knowing blindly that mold or this certain root made you feel better. In fact there were shaman of their time, who were much like the scientists of our time.

In short, you're both right. They did know of healing techniques, but on the same token, if another culture developed a more advanced method (such as distilliry), it may be only be able to be discribed as magic when only the end product is seen, or it is quickly discribed. Only would it be properly cited when the technology was assimilated into culture, or just the writer himself had a grasp of it.

Edited April 1, 2005 by Adramaleck