The Cipher Theory

[William Schryver]

The Egyptian Counting document is part of Smith's project to create an Egyptian alphabet.

Baseless assertion.

Neither Smith nor Phelps (nor, for that matter, even most scholars of the time) were sophisticated enough to know that there were all these various flavors of Egyptian script that you describe above. To these guys, Egyptian was just some romantic and mysterious ancient language that nobody knew much about.

Baseless assertion.

You appear to have an inexhaustible supply ...

[Cobalt-70]

Baseless assertion [that Smith and Phelps would not have been aware of the various flavors of ancient Egyptian such as Demotic, Coptic, and "Archaic Egyptian"].

Do you really believe that Smith and Phelps understood the difference, for example, between Middle Egyptian and Late Egyptian? I think you overestimate the state of popular understanding of Egyptology in 1835 Ohio.

[wenglund]

The answer is no, but that is irrelevant.

It is relevant to what Will was arguing in his FAIR presentation--which just happens to be the topic of this thread. As the discussion progresses, we will see if it is relevant to what Joseph or whomever thought was "Egyptian" or not. Your attempts to prematurely dismiss opposing views and poison the well, aren't helping the discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The Egyptian Counting document is part of Smith's project to create an Egyptian alphabet. A dictionary of numbers is not that different from a dictionary of letters.

So, the only reason you can give me for assuming that Smith was involved in producing the EA is a circumstantial tie-in to another document that Smith was only one of several participants? Interesting.

Neither Smith nor Phelps (nor, for that matter, even most scholars of the time) were sophisticated enough to know that there were all these various flavors of Egyptian script that you describe above. To these guys, Egyptian was just some romantic and mysterious ancient language that nobody knew much about.

Aside from being somewhat wrong (it is quite possible that they had some familiarity with modern Egyptian, if nothing more than the knowledge that it was different from ancient Egyptian, and it is also possible they may have had some knowledge of Coptic as well, and let's not forget reformed Egyptian) you are missing the point of the question. So, let me ask it another way: which of the two or three "real" Egyptian languages they may have been familiar with (ancient or modern), if any, did Joseph or whomever "obviously" have in mind? (Hint: the bolded part is important) And, on what basis do you make that claim?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 7, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

At any rate, either tomorrow or the next day I will start a new thread that should prove quite interesting to those who are interested in this topic ...

Excellent!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The answer is no,

Great! Then you agree with what Will said during his FAIR presentation: "As I pondered the ramifications of these facts, the conclusion became obvious to me: what we have here is a tool not intended to decipher Egyptian [meaning, real Egyptian, or rather ancient Egyptian on the papyri]".

This means that you and me, and likely Kevin (it is uncertain at this point where floatingboy stands), agree with the first two points of Will's so-called "cipher theory".

I am pleased to see the discussion progressing so well. Perhaps in my next several posts I can quickly advance it along to fruition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 7, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

In the interest of speeding things along, instead of me continuing to ask for individual agreement on each and every point, it may be more efficient to lay out Will's argument in its entirety, using compassionate reconstruction, and then ask if there are any points to which anyone here may disagree. Okay?

Here is Will's syllogism:

1. The Counting document is called "Egyptian," and may well have been thought to be "Egyptian" (or "pure language") by Joseph and Phelps and whomever.

2. The "Egyptian" in the Counting document is different from the ancient "Egyptian" on the papyri. And, for simplicity sake and to avoid confusion, let's refer to the former as CE and the later as PE:

CE = Counting document "Egyptian"

PE = Papyri "Egyptian"

3. Since CE is so different from PE, CE cannot be used to decipher ancient Egyptian papyri.

4. With the possible remote exception of the Anthon Caracters, there is no known extant texts, predating July of 1835, that were written in CE.

5. As such, the CE could not have been used to decipher anything written prior to July of 1835.

6. If the CE in the Counting document couldn't be used to decipher anything written prior to the creation of the Counting document (i.e. it couldn't be used to decipher texts written in the then past), then one may reasonably ask what, exactly, the Counting document could then be used for?

7. The Counting document could then be used to encipher new texts in the then future, and later decipher those new texts. In other words, it could be used as a cipher key, or rather a tool for translating future texts, from English to CE or the other way around.

8. The intent and purpose of the Counting document, was implicit in what it could then be used for, and not what it couldn't.

9. Hence, the intent and purpose of the Counting document was to be a cipher key or translation tool for future CE texts.

Do any of you disagree with any of these points?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 7, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

By extension:

1. The EA/GAEL is alled "Egyptian," and may well have been thought to be "Egyptian" (or "pure language") by Joseph and Phelps and whomever.

2. The "Egyptian" in the EA/GAEL, while the same as in the Counting document and sharing only a few characters and sound with the "Egyptian" on the papyri, it is different from the ancient "Egyptian" on the papyri. And, for simplicity sake and to avoid confusion, let's refer to the former as KE and the later as PE:

KE = Kirtland "Egyptian" (including the Counting document and EA and GAEL)

PE = Papyri "Egyptian"

3. Since KE is so different from PE, the KE could not have been used to decipher ancient Egyptian papyri.

4. There is no known extant documents, predating May of 1835, that were written in KE. (I say May instead of July because of the Specimen in the Phelps letter)

5. As such, the KE could not have been used to decipher anything written prior to May of 1835.

6. If the KE in the EA/GAEL couldn't be used to decipher anything written prior to the creation of the EA/GAEL (i.e. it couldn't be used to decipher texts written in the then past), then one may reasonably ask what, exactly, the EA/GAEL could have been used for?

7. The EA/GAEL could have been used to encipher new texts in the then future, and later decipher those new texts. In other words, the EA/GAEL could have been used as a cipher key, or rather a tool for translating future texts from English to KE and the other way around.

8. The intent and purpose of the EA/GAEL was implicit in what it could have been used for, and not what it couldn't.

9. Hence, the intent and purpose of the EA/GAEL, as with the Counting document, was to be a cipher key or translation tool for future KE texts.

Do any of you disagree with any of these points?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 7, 2011 by wenglund

[floatingboy]

I am fine with the notion that the Egyptian counting document wasn't seen by JS et al. as a means of translating the papyri. But I don't think that the GAEL was meant only as that. I am also personally not invested in the idea that the KEP came first and the text of the BofA came second. I don't see it as mattering. My personal feeling is that JS, who was keenly interested in language from the start--particularly Egyptian--and also keenly interested in Joseph and Abraham, became extremely excited by the prospect of the marriage of these two great interests in the form of the scrolls and mummies that arrived in Kirtland. I believe that he produced the text of the BofA drawing on a number of sources, but crafted it into something somewhat original. Whether or not the KEP came first or second, to me, is irrelevant. The text came from him, not the papyri. Not from the extant portions, not from any missing portions. How do I know it didn't come from the missing portions? BECAUSE HE COULDN'T TRANSLATE EGYPTIAN. Therefore what is or is not on the papyri is irrelevant. ALL of it is an exercise in fabrication.

Based on the foregoing, I see the KEP as an attempt by very curious and interested people to reconstruct/revive a dead language, but without the wherewithal to do so. They were not alone in trying to understand Egyptian. And if someone is trying to create a grammar and alphabet of a language, of course it's going to include basic numbers, ergo the Counting document. They don't have to show up on the papyri. That there is some interdependence between the counting doc and the BofA/facsimile text, Kevin has shown with "eh" = "one", but even that doesn't have to mean that the Counting document was used to generate that translation.

But what I still can't buy is that there is any sort of cipher happening. I will give you the fact that the numbers are the only thing in the KEP that could possibly be a cipher, since they allow for a flexibility that the large chunks of text from the other characters do not. But I still see no reason to believe that they are a cipher. Wouldn't you expect to see some documents or the mention of some documents that were enciphered using the characters from the KEP? Is there such a record somewhere? I'm talking about text that was produced in English, the encoded using these symbols. That is, after all, what you mean, right?

[William Schryver]

The text came from him, not the papyri.

I agree.

... I see the KEP as an attempt by very curious and interested people to reconstruct/revive a dead language, but without the wherewithal to do so.

I agree.

That there is some interdependence between the counting doc and the BofA/facsimile text, Kevin has shown with "eh" = "one" ...

The interdepedence is not between the EC and the BoA text, but between the EC and the EA/GAEL. I consider Graham's example of "Jah oh eh" dubious. There is a much better example: character #2--"Pha eh" (the first man, or Adam).

But what I still can't buy is that there is any sort of cipher happening.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The EC and EA/GAEL are typical of what is known as a cipher key. Or, perhaps better stated, their function is, in effect, like a cipher key.

I will give you the fact that the numbers are the only thing in the KEP that could possibly be a cipher ...

The Egyptian Counting document is unquestionably a cipher key, or, as Phelps would no doubt have termed it, a translation key.

But I still see no reason to believe that they are a cipher.

The Egyptian Counting document is unquestionably a cipher key, or, as Phelps would no doubt have termed it, a translation key.

Wouldn't you expect to see some documents or the mention of some documents that were enciphered using the characters from the KEP? Is there such a record somewhere?

There are examples within the EA/GAEL itself (although, in one instance, Phelps mistakenly employs the sound for the number "52" to represent the number "25").

I'm talking about text that was produced in English, the encoded using these symbols.

The implied methodology of the Egyptian Counting is practicable. (I'm increasingly inclined to believe the EC document was the earliest-produced document of the KEP--perhaps even produced prior to the arrival in Kirtland of the papyri themselves.)

On the other hand, the methodology of the EA/GAEL is inherently flawed; it is incoherent; in practice, it simply cannot work. Undoubtedly, that is why the project was abandoned before it could ever be used in the fashion you suggest.

Edited December 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[floatingboy]

To my understanding, a cipher key is what is needed in order to decipher something that has been enciphered/encoded. For example, I could write

27 9755!

No one would know what this means, unless they have the following cipher key:

1=C

2=H

3=M

4=O

5=L

6=A

7=I

8=T

9=W

0=R

What sort of cipher do you think the EC document helps to unlock?

[William Schryver]

To my understanding, a cipher key is what is needed in order to decipher something that has been enciphered/encoded. For example, I could write

27 9755!

No one would know what this means, unless they have the following cipher key:

1=C

2=H

3=M

4=O

5=L

6=A

7=I

8=T

9=W

0=R

What sort of cipher do you think the EC document helps to unlock?

You should read up a little on ciphers.

You could start here: Substitution Cipher

A cipher key is used on both ends of the process: to encipher and to decipher.

In any event, you and your friends just can't seem to get this one simple point through your heads (as restated in my post above):

The EC and EA/GAEL are typical of what is known as a cipher key. Or, perhaps better stated, their function is, in effect, like a cipher key.

(emphasis added)

Phelps only known explicit attempt to employ the Egyptian Counting "translation key" is attested in character #67 of the GAEL, Iota ni tah veh – Ah que. The explanation of character #67 is given as: "I saw twenty-five persons."

"Iota" is character #13 in the GAEL and its explanation is given as "I see".

Ni Tah Veh is actually the sound given in the EA for the number "52", as opposed to Veh Tah Ni, which is "25". Phelps's system obviously confused even him!

Phelps never bothered to define Ah que for us, but its apparent meaning is "persons".

Edited December 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[floatingboy]

so, are two languages, say english and italian, potential ciphers of each other? as in, the cipher key for understanding italian is a dictionary and grammar book?

i will now give the cipher key to your sig line:

la= the (f)

verità=truth

è=is

una=a (f)

scelta=choice.

and i guess it is.

Edited December 7, 2011 by floatingboy

[floatingboy]

You should read up a little on ciphers.

You could start here: Substitution Cipher

A cipher key is used on both ends of the process: to encipher and to decipher.

thanks for the tip! i guess i just got lucky when i enciphered that message to you.

you and your friends

i don't know anyone here.

[William Schryver]

so, are two languages, say english and italian, potential ciphers of each other? as in, the cipher key for understanding italian is a dictionary and grammar book?

I think that stretches the analogy too far.

On the other hand, a simple glance at the Egyptian Counting manuscript all but screams out "cipher key". Or, if you'd prefer, "translation key".

Besides, I gave you a perfect example of Phelps using the dang thing. What more do you want? Sometimes you people can be so intransigent in the face of the incontrovertible.

[Cobalt-70]

It is relevant to what Will was arguing in his FAIR presentation--which just happens to be the topic of this thread. As the discussion progresses, we will see if it is relevant to what Joseph or whomever thought was "Egyptian" or not. Your attempts to prematurely dismiss opposing views and poison the well, aren't helping the discussion.

Your argument is that because the Egyptian Counting document does not contain real Egyptian numbers, then Smith and Phelps did not intend the Egyptian Counting document to be about Egyptian counting. Don't you see that this is a non sequitur? It assumes, without proof (and for that matter, despite proof to the contrary) that Smith and Phelps were skilled enough Egyptologists to know how to actually count in an Egyptian script. Nowhere have I seen you or Will attempt to provide evidence of this presumption, probably because you know as well as I do that no such evidence exists. Moreover, there is proof to the contrary, such as Smith's explanation for item 11 of Facsimile #2.

[floatingboy]

But the Phelps example sounds just like a beginning student of a language trying to piece together a simple sentence. Why is that somehow a cipher? And if you say that I can use "translation" if I prefer, why do you prefer cipher? To me they are not perfectly interchangeable, in spite of the similarities in meaning.

Please just TRY for once to not be so incredibly condescending with phrases like "you people". I am making an effort to try to see how one might consider it to be an actual cipher but have so far not been able to. I realize that you are an intelligent person so that's the only reason I'm even putting forth the effort. The least you could do is extend the same respect to me.

That being said, the closest I have been able to come to bringing the word "decipher" into play in this scenario is that they were trying to figure out an unknown language. Champollion and his colleagues were said to have deciphered the Demotic and hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone (because it was previously not understood). But now that hieroglyphics are understood, do you really think that if someone chose to write down a passage in hieroglyphics, it would be considered "enciphering"?

Edited December 7, 2011 by floatingboy

[LeSellers]

so, are two languages, say english and italian, potential ciphers of each other? as in, the cipher key for understanding italian is a dictionary and grammar book?

i will now give the cipher key to your sig line:

la= the (f)

verità=truth

è=is

una=a (f)

scelta=choice.

Not really, because, in a cipher (although I prefer cypher), there is direct substitution: "la" always equals "the" and "the" always equals "la" in your example. (There are exceptions. For instance, in one specific military 5-character cypher, the strings A9EEL, 6THJQ, and RBTP7 may all mean "platoon" but that's a rare exception, to avoid the cypher's being decrypted. Anyone trying to decrypt the message would find "platoon" as the plain-text equivalent for either string. The encoder would choose, at random, either string whenever the word "platoon" showed up in the original message.) But, in Italian, there are six words that mean "the" and they also mean him, her, its, them, their and so on. (il, lo,l', la, le, gli, and I think I've forgotten one other one).

Take the French phrase "on s'est mis à table" (literally "one has put himself at (the) table"). The words do not have a one-to-one correspondence with any good English sentence. We'd say "you/we sat (down) to eat". "Il faut que j'aille" means "an external force, over which I have no control whatsoever, compels me to go". We'd say, "I have to go" and be done with it, no blaming an externality, no lack of control over self.

In Greek, nouns and adjectives have case and gender. All the words associated with one concept share the same case, and they conform to the gender of the noun in the noun phrase. If a noun is that object of the verb, the adjectives modifying that noun have the objective case and the gender of the noun. This would make for a huge number of Greek words, but as it happens, there are thousands of words that do not mean the same thing but that have the same spelling. How would anyone know which of the alternatives is meant unless he knew Greek as well as English/French/Arabic/whatever? Cyphers must be unambiguous.

While a good speaker of any language can express any idea in that language, two languages will rarely express a single idea in such a way that either can be thought of as a cypher of the other.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

So, the only reason you can give me for assuming that Smith was involved in producing the EA is a circumstantial tie-in to another document that Smith was only one of several participants? Interesting.

No. This is just one of the reasons why the fact that Smith didn't specifically mention the Egyptian Counting document in his records is not proof (as you claim it is) that he had nothing to do with creating it.

Aside from being somewhat wrong (it is quite possible that they had some familiarity with modern Egyptian, if nothing more than the knowledge that it was different from ancient Egyptian, and it is also possible they may have had some knowledge of Coptic as well, and let's not forget reformed Egyptian) you are missing the point of the question. So, let me ask it another way: which of the two or three "real" Egyptian languages they may have been familiar with (ancient or modern), if any, did Joseph or whomever "obviously" have in mind? (Hint: the bolded part is important) And, on what basis do you make that claim?

It's you, not me, that is assuming that Smith and Phelps were sufficiently grounded in real Egyptology so as to have been familiarity with two or three varieties of real Egyptian script. My point is made by disputing your presumption that Smith and Phelps were experts in real Egyptology, so why should I adopt that presumption myself? If Smith and Phelps were not competent Egyptologists, then the foundation of your argument that "it ain't real Egyptian, therefore it couldn't have been meant to be real Egyptian" falls into a black hole.

[William Schryver]

But the Phelps example sounds just like a beginning student of a language trying to piece together a simple sentence. Why is that somehow a cipher? And if you say that I can use "translation" if I prefer, why do you prefer cipher?

I don't prefer "cipher." I prefer "translation." It's a translation key. I shall never again utter the word cipher ... for at least ten minutes.

To me they are not perfectly interchangeable, in spite of the similarities in meaning.

In the context of the EC/EA/GAEL, they are perfectly interchangeable. That's the whole point.

Please just TRY for once to not be so incredibly condescending with phrases like "you people".

How about "you folks," instead?

I am making an effort to try to see how one might consider it to be an actual cipher but have so far not been able to.

No you're not. You're advocating for a position. You haven't the least intention whatsoever of altering your perspective on these questions. You're an apostate evangelist--and I don't mean that pejoratively. I simply use the phrase as an accurate descriptor. I am an apologist evangelist; you and "your people" are apostate evangelists. Let's call a spade a spade here, shall we not?

I realize that you are an intelligent person so that's the only reason I'm even putting forth the effort. The least you could do is extend the same respect to me.

I respect all my apostate evangelist friends. Truly.

That being said, the closest I have been able to come to bringing the word "decipher" into play in this scenario is that they were trying to figure out an unknown language.

I have previously acknowledged that my having used the term "cipher" has proven an obstacle for many people to understand what I was really saying. I don't entirely understand why that is, but it is. Even so, the Egyptian Counting table clearly functions in the same fashion as does any other substitution cipher. The "characters" in column 1, and the "names" in column 2 function as the cipher text. The "explanations" in column 3 function as the plain text. It's really no more complicated than that.

Champollion and his colleagues were said to have deciphered the Demotic and hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone. But now that hieroglyphics are understood, do you really think that if someone chose to write down a passage in hieroglyphics, it would be considered "enciphering"?

I'm afraid I'm scratching my head on this question. It's a non sequitur.

Again: the Egyptian Counting table clearly functions in the same fashion as does any other substitution cipher. The "characters" in column 1, and the "names" in column 2 function as the cipher text. The "explanations" in column 3 function as the plain text. It's really no more complicated than that. Character #67 in the GAEL (Iota ni tah veh ah que - "I saw twenty-five persons.") is an example of how Phelps intended for the table to be used.

Now why exactly is this so hard to grasp?

[Cobalt-70]

Great! Then you agree with what Will said during his FAIR presentation: "As I pondered the ramifications of these facts, the conclusion became obvious to me: what we have here is a tool not intended to decipher Egyptian [meaning, real Egyptian, or rather ancient Egyptian on the papyri]".

This means that you and me, and likely Kevin (it is uncertain at this point where floatingboy stands), agree with the first two points of Will's so-called "cipher theory".

I am pleased to see the discussion progressing so well. Perhaps in my next several posts I can quickly advance it along to fruition.

You already responded to my statement, but in the prior response, you didn't delete the clause that followed it: "but that is irrelevant." I have no doubt that Will pondered these ramifications, and came to a conclusion that seemed obvious to him." I just don't agree with that conclusion. You can't skip from the fact that the Egyptian Counting document isn't real Egyptian to the conclusion that it was not intended to be real Egyptian. That is called leaping to conclusions based on a presumption (that Smith and Phelps were competent Egyptologists, and would have recognized a real Egyptian number if they saw one). Will did not address this presumption or offer any proof.

[William Schryver]

Not really, because, in a cipher (although I prefer cypher), there is direct substitution ...

This is true in simple ciphers (or "cypher" if you're from the UK). The Egyptian Counting table is a simple cipher key. The EA/GAEL appear to grant more leeway to the writer to take the basic explanation and expand upon it. Phelps describes the methodology here: Methodology Pages - Fifth Degree

I have previously commented on the reasons this proposed methodology is entirely inpracticable:

Incidentally, I've mentioned this before, but I think this would be a good time to remind people of this fatal problem with the EA/GAEL: its own instructions (to I've posted a link above) say that a writer using it needs to be adding "parts of speech" to the meaning of any given character in order to "convey the full sense of the writer". Critics, including Chris Smith, have seized upon that statement as supporting the notion that Joseph Smith and his scribes believed a single Egyptian character could be translated into a full paragraph of English words. But they have seized upon what they think is the concept without reading all the way through what it is that Phelps actually wrote. You see, Phelps specifically identifies what "parts of speech" means in the context of his methodological instructions. "Parts of speech" are specifically defined as verbs, participles, prepositions, conjunctions, and adverbs. Well, aside from the fact that %22particples"]"particples" are not technically one of the "parts of speech" (they are verb cases functioning as adjectives or adverbs), the following parts of speech are still excluded from Phelps's list: nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and interjections.

Phelps's methodological instructions indicate that the meaning for any character in the EA/GAEL must be augmented by five of these parts of speech (nouns, pronouns, adjectives, or interjections). If there is a horizontal line placed above the character, then the writer must add to its base meaning 5 x 5, or 25 "parts of speech". If there are two horizontal lines, the writer must add 5 x 25, or 125 "parts of speech"; three horizontal lines mean 5 x 125, or 625 "parts of speech".

Well, this is entirely impossible in the English language! Why? Because the ratio of verbs, participles, prepositions, conjunctions, and adverbs to the other parts of speech is a little over 2 to 1! (I reached this figure by going through the text of the Book of Abraham and counting each word in its appropriate category.)

So even at the "base" level of 5 to 1, Phelps's system won't work. 25 to 1 or 125 to 1 or 625 to 1 would be perfectly ridiculous!

At any rate, this may not even be the most nonsensical aspect of Phelps's methodological instructions, but it's one that is easy to quantify. And, as you can see, the system simply cannot work. I can see why this speculative "project" was abandoned almost as soon as it was begun.

Link

[wenglund]

Hi floatingboy,

Not to belabor Will's point, but in a way all languages (including computer languages) and writing and speaking systems (including stenography and sign language) are ciphers and codes, and require enciphering and deciphering and encoding and decoding. Such is the nature of language, particular languages we don't know and are learning. This means that, in a way, all dictionaries are cipher keys and code books.

Even though what I just said is true, we often don't think of languages in those terms because we tend to associate the words "cipher" and "code" and "cryptography" with the intent to keep messages secret, whereas we tend to view languages as intended to facilitate open and ease of communication.

With this in mind, what I think you may be questioning is whether the EC and EA and GAEL were created with the intent to keep messages secret. That is a topic of interest and open to debate.

Also, contrary to what Kevin suggested earlier, both Will and I haven't exactly been silent online regarding our beliefs about the relationship between the Counting document and the GAEL or the EA's for that matter. In fact, we have taken the discussion several steps beyond Paul Osbourne's findings, and have talked about the use of "ni" and "tah" as well as "eh" and "veh" (see for example HERE).

In that linked thread I didn't get around to comparing the Counting document characters/sounds/explanation with the character/sounds/explanation of the EA and GAEL counterparts, to see how well they aligned. However, I just did a cursory analysis, and it looks like the characters don't match up so well, though the sounds/explanation do.

I mention this because while the sound "Jah-oh-eh" is, as Kevin said, in explanation #1 of facsimile #2, the GAEL character for that sound (a circle with the cross in the middle) is not in the section of the facsimile marked as #1. As it is, if I recall correctly, the character for that GAEL sound is said, I believe by Chris Smith, to have been derived from an astrological calendar. So, while the EC and EA/GAEL sound can be tied to the Facsimile #2, the EC and EA/GAEL character cannot. As such, Kevin's earlier point about the literal and canonized translation, doesn't apply to the character he provided as an example. As Will and I noted, the EC/EA/GAEL character wasn't from the Egyptian Papyri and was not ancient Egyptian.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 7, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

In the interest of speeding things along, instead of me continuing to ask for individual agreement on each and every point, it may be more efficient to lay out Will's argument in its entirety, using compassionate reconstruction, and then ask if there are any points to which anyone here may disagree. Okay?

Here is Will's syllogism:

1. The Counting document is called "Egyptian," and may well have been thought to be "Egyptian" (or "pure language") by Joseph and Phelps and whomever.

2. The "Egyptian" in the Counting document is different from the ancient "Egyptian" on the papyri. And, for simplicity sake and to avoid confusion, let's refer to the former as CE and the later as PE:

CE = Counting document "Egyptian"

PE = Papyri "Egyptian"

3. Since CE is so different from PE, CE cannot be used to decipher ancient Egyptian papyri.

4. With the possible remote exception of the Anthon Caracters, there is no known extant texts, predating July of 1835, that were written in CE.

5. As such, the CE could not have been used to decipher anything written prior to July of 1835.

6. If the CE in the Counting document couldn't be used to decipher anything written prior to the creation of the Counting document (i.e. it couldn't be used to decipher texts written in the then past), then one may reasonably ask what, exactly, the Counting document could then be used for?

7. The Counting document could then be used to encipher new texts in the then future, and later decipher those new texts. In other words, it could be used as a cipher key, or rather a tool for translating future texts, from English to CE or the other way around.

8. The intent and purpose of the Counting document, was implicit in what it could then be used for, and not what it couldn't.

9. Hence, the intent and purpose of the Counting document was to be a cipher key or translation tool for future CE texts.

Where the logic skids off the rails in at item #7, and then by item #9 it becomes a train wreck. Item #7 is a false conclusion, because nobody has shown that the Egyptian Counting document could have been used as a cipher key. In what world do there exist cipher keys that substitute the numeral "5" for "5", "4" for "4", and "8" for "8"? If they were intended to encrypt information, this is not a very smart way to do so.

I don't understand item #8, so let me skip to item #9, which is a non sequitur. Even if the Egyptian Counting document could have been, in some strange universe, used as a cipher, it is a great leap to suggest that it must have been intended for use as a cipher.

[William Schryver]

You already responded to my statement, but in the prior response, you didn't delete the clause that followed it: "but that is irrelevant." I have no doubt that Will pondered these ramifications, and came to a conclusion that seemed obvious to him." I just don't agree with that conclusion. You can't skip from the fact that the Egyptian Counting document isn't real Egyptian to the conclusion that it was not intended to be real Egyptian. That is called leaping to conclusions based on a presumption (that Smith and Phelps were competent Egyptologists, and would have recognized a real Egyptian number if they saw one). Will did not address this presumption or offer any proof.

Actually, it is quite likely that Phelps, Smith, et al. were informed as to the nature of Egyptian as it was understood in 1835. The 1818 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica had an excellent multi-page entry, complete with extensive illustrations, of Egyptian as it was understood at that date. It cites extensively from Thomas Young's work. It is available via GoogleBooks at this link: Egypt.

Edited December 7, 2011 by William Schryver