Common                Dictionary                Main                Mistakes-Champollion

 

Introduction to new translation of Rosetta Stone

translated by Dr. Ossama Alsaadawi

 

I- Preface:

in name of the God most merciful

 

Hieroglyphic Text of Rosetta Stone

 

 

---------------------

 

Comment, on Guardian BB:

By Avry Wilson on Saturday, January 1, 2000 - 09:18 am:

Ossama,

On your diligence in removing "Ptolemy" from the RS, I commend you.

Once again, I have to note (to others) that I myself reached the same conclusion without using Ossama's method.

It is quite simple to see that when a primary key is removed, later works therefore become obsolete.

 

---------------------

 

The following is an abstract from a lengthy message posted by Avry Wilson on Guardian BB:

By Avry on Monday, December 20, 1999 - 11:26 pm:

Hi all,

> Champollion did not discover the cartouche/name relationship. It was hypothesized by A.Kister in the 16th century, and Champollion drew on this source.

The method employed by him was furtherance of what Young first implemented. The method is extremely flawed. There are many examples to prove this, but I'll begin with just a few:

First of all, let's assume that the cartouche idiom is correct. By finding corresponding cartouches in the upper portion and equating them through approximate position within the texts to the lower Greek "Ptolemy" and "Cleopatra", he cross-referenced the phonetic sound of the Greek into each individual glyph within the cartouches. But what he found was that the cartouche for "Ptolemy" had more glyphs than the letters/phones in the Greek name. This leaves "blank" phones in the hieroglyphs. The same with "Cleopatra". But instead of assuming that the hieroglyphs would have separate phones of their own (meaning the Egyptian phones do not match the Greek), he immediately proposed that what was written in the cartouche for "Ptolemy" was the Greek pronunciation-> "Ptolemais".

He was comparing a Greek name to a Greek name, not allowing the hieroglyphs to assume a phone indigenous to Egyptian. Furthermore, he was "making" it fit, instead of letting play out it's own.

Right off the bat he should have noted that the phone per glyph transition did not align, and should have tried a different approach. HE DID NOT. He continued with the same premise, using "Cleopatra" as a follow up. (He did not get "Cleopatra" from the RS, he got it from the Banke(sp?) Obelisk. Even there, the cartouche does not match the Greek through the individual number of components. There were "left-over's", and instead of thinking the transition was wrong, he equated them as being some sort of determinative; therefore the creation of the component). This compounds the error right from the beginning. As this continues, it gets worse and worse, because of the literary foundation. This is why even today the work is confusing and unable to decipher unknown glyphs, and why known glyphs continue to be interpreted differently.

His singular "letter to letter" cross-referencing must assume a continuation. In other words, if you begin that way, you have to continue the same way. You follow the code. If it doesn't work, you need to try a different code. He didn't <


"kgbltco7595079675&^RFIU&R&%&*)%^(O^ (L".
"Hello. The sky blue termite foot splash".

This is not a joke. It's exactly what he does

Avry

-------------------------------------

 

 

follow the peaceful creed of Abraham

 

----------- 

Introductory note:

some selected parts and little modified version of the following essay was posted online on the board of Guardian's Egyptology on January 1st, 2000

 ----------- 

 In God the believers should trust

 

From the Land of Egypt

 Ossama Alsaadawi declares the following historical introduction to new translation of the Hieroglyphic Text of Rosetta Stone.

 Introduction to new translation of the Hieroglyphic text of Rosetta Stone

 

I- Preface:

 

I.1- This historical translation is to be posted on the Guardian Bulletin Board

sponsored by Mr. Andrew Bayuk,

Hieroglyphic section, on Saturday; January 1st, 2000 AD

 

It comes due to a friendly request from some respected savants to inspect an alternate translation of Rosetta Stone in light of Ossama Alsaadawi's theory on Egyptian Hieroglyphs.

I.2- Rosetta Stone was made, in Egypt in year 196 BC, of basalt stone. Its present dimensions are nearly 118 cm-H, 77 cm-W and 30cm-D. It is now settled in The British Museum. Also, a well-made copy of it is presented by The British Museum to, The New Great Library of Alexandria.

I.3- Rosetta Stone "RS" includes three independent texts written in three different lines:

* Hieroglyphic line, upper text.

* Demotic line, middle text.

* Greek line, lower text.

I am concerned only with Hieroglyphic text.

I.4- One can observe the following remarks:

* It is composed of 14 non-complete Hieroglyphic lines.

* The writing direction is from right to left.

* The lines are formed in a nearly triangular shape due to stone breaking.

* 6th line contains three cartouches, 12th line contains one cartouche and 14th line contains one cartouche.

I.5- Legend:

I shall use the following notions as a convention for detecting tones of certain Hieroglyphic signs that have no equal phones in English language:

 Numeric symbol [7], or capital [H] will be used to indicate Hieroglyphic sign [V28], the wick, which has the phone - h'. That means [7] or [H] will be pronounced as h', which is a magnified guttural (h)

 

Numeric symbol [3] will be used to replace Hieroglyphic sign [D36], the arm, which has the phone of  (3ayn) - a'.

 

Numeric symbol [2] will be used to replace Hieroglyphic sign [G1], the vulture, which has the phone of - a, like first sound of word "apple", at any position within one word.

 

II- Introduction:

The Hieroglyphic text of Rosetta Stone is divided into two parts, separated by one very important shorthanded word, which is:

 It is exactly equivalent to the famous Dtt word, and has the near meaning:

* those were verses from the eternal divine book *

 this word is placed nearly in the middle of the 10th line of RS

Each section has an independent idea that we shall explain them in some detail in the following sections:

 

III- Part 1

 by: Ossama Alsaadawi

 

III.1- The main idea of the text:

 

Part-1 of the Hieroglyphic text written in Rosetta Stone is mainly a divine spiritual "forecast" that speaks about some specified sacred great character that will come sometime in far future, "on the land of Egypt", to reestablish, reconfirm and re-maintain Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and rituals.

The forecast is styled in form of some religious and spiritual calls and invocations.

This ultra important divine forecast summarizes and incorporates the whole Ancient Egyptian Religion, which is mainly peaceful creed of Abraham

This fact is definitely proved in the cartouche embedded in RS text known wrongly as 'Ptolmis' cartouche, which includes the following very important expression:

this famous frequent AE word reads 'ftaH-mri', which exclusively means:

* then follow the peaceful creed of Abraham *

Egyptologists offered this word the meaning of 'beloved of PtaH' !!

Another decisive conformation to this fact comes from just the preceding Dtt word, which means that primary text of this basic cartouche is not a name at all, but in fact it is an obvious religious text that is chosen carefully. The whole cartouche may refer to rule period of a specified Greek king.

That pre-promised divine character has been described by some Hieroglyphic symbols, words and indications that have some common meanings such as:

the selected, the chosen - the dispatched - word of God - the supported - light - mercy to all nations

the mediator, intercessor - of praised status - herald - witness - preacher - Warner

etc, etc

example

 

III.2- Apparent reading:

 

Apparent reading of AE words leads to phonetically distorted and meaningless readings and translations, either for texts or names. AE's used to pluck off certain letters or signs out of their Hieroglyphic words according to some conventional rule that they kept secret for some reasons which are beyond our research work here. On the other hand, to reach true meanings of words and expressions one should extract precise phonetic values of those words and expressions. For that reason Egyptian Hieroglyphic written language is a very difficult one. Hence, any slight mistake in translating or detecting up phonetic values of Hieroglyphic signs, letters or symbols will lead to disastrous results, giving completely different meanings of translated texts.

Moreover, current Egyptian slang language should be studied carefully in order to recognize Egyptian expressions easily. My in-depth studies proved that Egyptian "oral" language has not basically changed since far pre-dynastic eras, because those words and expressions are based on spiritual and religious bases, and are still used among Egyptian peoples literally up today.

 

to be followed:

Ossama Alsaadawi

 

The following message was posted by Canadian savant Avry Wilson on January 1st, 2000 on the Guardian discussion board as a cmment on Alsaadawi's introductory translation of Rosetta Stone:

By Avry  ( - 207.181.72.220) on Saturday, January 1, 2000 - 09:18 am:

Ossama, I am truly stunned by your presentation. I stand in awe.....speechless.

It's not just because of what you've so beautifully done here, it's because it makes me think about what it means for the rest of the texts from Ancient Egypt. It also makes me wonder about Ancient Religion.

I must ask one question:

Is the translation in section V.1(received kindly by the grace of Rick Baude) "N1" a translation of the Greek or the hieroglyphs? I ask because I can see that it is not what the Greek portion says, so I have to assume it is from the hieroglyphs.

On your diligence in removing "Ptolemy" from the RS, I commend you. Once again, I have to note (to others) that I myself reached the same conclusion without using Ossama's method.

It is quite simple to see that when a primary key is removed, later works therefore become obsolete.
Of course this is only preliminary, but it has a great deal of merit. I can do nothing more than offer support at this point, as I personally see the difficulty in arguing the case.

Feedback from other sources is first needed in order to wager any furtherance. I highly anticipate that any upcoming posts will begin to solidify the efforts produced by Ossama.

Even though I am in agreement, I still hold reservation toward the implications which may arise in the future as a result. Yes, I admit fear in what could change; it is a natural reaction.

Let's wait and see shall we?

May the Spirit of Millennium Day live forever.

Avry