Subject: Re: Spiral ramp on GP (was: Neolithic Stonehenge road?
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 03:15:11 -0700
Frank Doernenburg wrote:
> Hi!
> Jiri, I'm somewhat concerned bout your style in writing. You mix things up
> which do not belong together, so lets keep stright on line. We are discussing
> pyramids and how they could be built with lo-tech, so lets forget about Nazca
> or the communistic manifest, OK?
The subject title says 'Re: Spiral ramp on GP', our subject the last
time. However, U barely mention the Spiral ramp in your post below.
I must have done a good job of straightening the Spiral ramp idea out.
You still discuss how the pyramids can be constructed with lo-tech,
I always discuss the GP, and other world wonders from the viewpoint of
my discovery of prehistoric Science-Art, and how Hi-Tech must have been
used in at least some aspects of the GP's building.
OOPS!!! Just what makes you mention the communist manifesto? Because I
don't follow your oft repeated "Please, accept it" advice? Clearly,
you employ a patronizing tone, and I dislike it.
My mention of Czech protestants not giving in to the patronizing Rome,
and (mostly German) crusaders, has induced you to dub Czech protestants
communist? Just because they didn't agree with selling indulgences and
thought that clergy should live modestly, and not in ostentatious
luxury?
Hence, you must be prepared for calling Jesus Christ a communist too..
BTW, smearing me with communist allegations is perceived by me as an
especially serious insult. Check my address. It's Canadian, right?
I have been a Czech emigre since a few months after the Soviet invasion
of my homeland, and like the vast majority of all such emigres from
communism (in an under-statement), I have a strong dislike for
communists
(past, or present)!
Therefore, I feel strongly compelled to ballance the books by parrying
your DEADLY insult with a counter-insult.
However, I'll give this conversation another chance. But, associate me
with communism yet once more again, and U will assume the role of
"that lil gall-trooper, or squall-trooper, or hail-trooper? I mean
some kind of a storm-trooper", because only a person on the extreme
edge of the right-wing could possibly see me as a Red.. Politically,
I am as White as a lily. If it were up to me, I would have never
disbanded the Austro-Hungarian empire after the war, but I would
preserve it as a European federation, open to other European countries
like Russia, or Germany, or Georgia to join on a desired level of a
common union.
Sorry, but wasn't it Germans (Hegel, Feurbach, Marx, Engels), who had
plotted, and paved the autobahn to godless communism? Thanks, guys..
> Jiri, do you know that there are two fantastic things on eart which allow
> to look into the future? They are called "Physics" and "Mathematics".
Mathematics also allows you to see the past, as in Science-Art.
However, you reject Sci-Art completely, as you always claim to be late
for
lunch. Thus, your enthusiasm is supect. (What do you do after lunch, or
is your lunch so heavy (wurst), you can't think clearly thereafter? Try
the nearest vegetarian restaurant, and you will yodel all day long,
while
studying my pages without a slightest trace of a typical skeptical
headache :)
> No,
> you cannot forsee the coming of the antichrist or the end of the world,
> but if you want to know how long a stone needs to fall from the heright of
> a roof, you donot need to climb the building, you can simply calculate the
> outcome.
> The same can be used by taking a look to the posible pyramid construction.
> So before you polemise, please try to understand the following calculations.
> The pyramid problem consists of several individual to solve parts. First they
> needed about 2.5 million blocks to build with.
2.3 Million core blocks + 115 Thousand casing blocks = thanks for
generously
rounding the number of the blocks up.
> Second, they needed to
> transport these blocks to the construction site. Third they needed some
> construction to carry the stunes up to each construction level. Aside from
> this they needed enough workers to do this, enough food for them, and enough
> time to do all the work. Are you agreeing with this? Fine.
Because a thousand things were needed, which you didn't mention - Of
course,
I am not agreeing with you, but go ahead and polemise.
> Lets start with the stones. Once I visited a marbel quarry in Itali, near
> Carrara, where they break blocks for sculptors. It was fascinating to see
> which primitive technique they used. No power drills or motor hammers, just
> muscle work. The quarry looks like a big stair, the steps are arranged in
> heights of the typical needed blocks. They are marking the sides of the
> blocks they need on top of a step with roughly the needed height. Than two
> workers are taking a pick and work a narrow ditch along these marked
> outlines, as deep as the block should be high. Then they simply drive wedges
> into the bottom of the front side and use poles to put pressure from behind
> the ditch. After a few seconds the block is free. Some free hand work with a
> "Dechsel" (German name for a tool, looks like an axe with a 90 deg. rotated
> blade), and a nice pyramid stone is ready.
> When I was there, 10 men were working on a "rod", 6 meters long with a height
> and depth of 90 centimeters each, which was then divided into 5 pieces of
> equal lenght (almost Giza-format!). The whole process took about one day!
> Only to transport the ready blocks they used modern equipment. I documented
> this on video, and I believe that the quarries in Tura are working today with
> this technique, too.
OK, put down about 4.6 million workdays just to obtain the 2.3 million
smaller, roughly hewn blocks. In other words, you would have to keep
about
500 men quarrying the small blocks every day for twenty years.
Next, of course, you have to take them a considerable distance down to
the river, but your job is eased by the slope.
> Keep in mind that the "typical" pyramid block was only raw hewn and not
> polished, as some self called experts claim, so more work was not needed for
> a typical building block.
And keep it mind for other, supremely important purposes!
> So we have 10 workers, who could produce 5 pyramid
> blocks a day. The stone in Giza is much softer than the hard Carrara marble,
> so I find its legitime to assume, that an Egyptian worker group could be
> smaller, maybe 6 men.
Precisely! Because of their low quality, it's legit to see why only a
smaller
proportion of the core blocks comes from Giza. You are in serious error
on
this account.. That a difference does make!
> 6 men produced 5 stones a day (transport groups, blacksmiths, handy men etc
> excluded). They needed about 400 blocks a day, so with just 8 groups or
> 480 quarry men they could produce all this! OK, let's say they were not as
> fast as today (no iron, only copper picks etc).
Copper in pure form is too soft for the job. But, whether copper,
or bronze, the tools had to be highly tempered to make chisels
required for engraving of fine letters on hard granite, such as
the pink-diorite Rosetta-stone. Today, our metallurgy despite
all its advancement, still doesn't know of any such method!!!!!!!!!
Hmm, there is a serious flaw in arch. rationalisations for you!
How dare we surmise that Egyptians of 4,800 BP had SUPERIOR bronze
metallurgy? What could they have had that we didn't try yet?
Orichalcum?
(Plato scores again :)
> So what, then they needed
> 1000 workers, whats the big deal? Even with von Daenikens own pessimistic
> figures (10 workers make 1 block a day) it would work. Then they needed about
> 4000 workers in the quarry. So what?
> OK, to handle and transport these blocks you need handy men, but lets include
> them later.
BTW, your argument is not with Erich, but with me..
As Mokottan and Turah and Maura quarries are some distance from the
Nile,
you are ignoring a lot of necessary labor.
> Lets assume, that 600 hard working Egyptians in the quarry could produce all
> the needed stones each day.
> Problem two: The transport to the pyramid. You wrote
> JM>For sure, after all, we are talking Pyramids. But, don't forget that
> JM>most blocks come from Mokottan and Turah mines across the Nile, and
> JM>about 15 to 20 miles away. So the blocks have to be dragged up the 120
> JM>feet vertical difference to the Giza plateau! C'mon, we're talking too
> JM>much work.
> Thats simply wrong. Only a few per cent came from the other side of the Nile,
> the outer blocks.
The outer blocks, yes, but most of the core blocks as well. Check your
sources.
Lauer calculated this amount to about 130000 tons, or 17
> tons or five blocks a day. (Cut!)sic
Weren't you just speaking of the outer casing blocks as belonging to
the Large-category?
How can you allow only One-hundred-thirty thousand tons for 115,000
casing
blocks, all of which weighed at least 10 tons, and many of which weighed
over 15 tons - would you kindly accept that you are missing well over
a million tons somehow? Please, accept that Lauer outdoes Daeniken.
> The other stones, aside from the granite blocks,
> were from several quaries around the GP, typical distance 400 meters. And
> this distance could be covered with sleds on ramps, like they could be found
> all around the Giza plateau.
What do you think of the modern optician's precision (1/100 of an inch),
with
which these stones were planed on all surfaces, and made to conform to
an
exacting angle? How would we do it with Lo-Tech of 4,800 BP?
Most archaeologists would have to agree that the casing stones were
prepared
on the ground, therefore, one must not damage the fine edges in
transport.
One cannot place these stones from the outside, because then the fine
outer
edges would be frequently damaged. Thus the stones would have to be
eased
in from the inside, which thus had to be free of the core stones.
How do you guarantee all this with Lo-Tech, and how do you take the
stones
up, since there is no side-ramp (which we found impossible to have in
our
particular case)?
And how long an eternity would you take to accomplish all these tough,
and
rather impossible to accomplish tasks?
> So to problem 3: How to transport such things up a pyramid. I dont understand
> your arguments against the spiral ramp, sorry. It sounds like much wishi
> washi mixed with pure lack of technical understanding.
Sure, I'll try again. The point is that you can't very well have the
side-ramp winding up the mirror-smooth lily-white limestone mantle.
On each level, the mantle blocks have to be placed first, so we don't
interfere with their precise positioning. Then comes the layer of outer
blocks, which we see today.
If you build the core of the pyramid first - because of the very fact
you
mention yourself that the core blocks were roughly hewn - you will not
obtain the perfect leveling needed for placement of the mantle blocks.
What's so hard to understand on this idea?
Like I said. Why don't the skeptics operate en masse with the side-ramp
idea? Obviously, they are aware of the technical difficulties in doing
that
associated with the mantle blocks having to be placed first.
> Lets concentrate first on the totally normal 2.5 ton block, which made up
> more than 99% of the whole transport problem. Lets speak about the big blocks
> later.
With the reminder that you have misplaced over a million tons of the big
blocks in incredibly accurate mantle. So let's say that the pyramid had
weighed 7,000,000 tons. The mantle took care of at least 1,300,000 tons
of the total, or 18.57 percent, almost a fifth of the total.
> I dont know your background in physics, so I will lose a few words about it.
> If you place a weight on an inclined plane, such as a ramp, the weight force
> becomes splitted to two separate forces: The parallel force pulls the weight
> down the ramp, the normal force presses it to the ground. Both forces are
> orthogonal and equal, when added as vectors, the weight force. The parallel
> force is (weight * sine inclination), normal force is (weight * cosine
> inclination). On a "perfect ramp" without friction you would only have to
> work against the parallel force to move a block up a ramp, with a 4 deg. ramp
> this would be (0.0697 * weight). For a 2500 kg-stone 174 kg, for a 70 ton
> stone 4.88 tons.
> Unfortunately our world is not ideal, so we have to deal with friction.
> Friction is a force and a microscopic effect resisting the movement and is
> caused by the interlockings between moved object and ground. The highest
> friction occurs when an object doesn't move, called "static friction". When
> an object glides, the friction is smaller and is called "sliding friction",
> the smallest friction ist the "rolling friction". These frictions are
> dependent from the force with which the object presses to the ground, and a
> constant, caled "friction coefficient" which depends on the materials moving
> against each other. This coeffiecient can be measured with simple devices
> such as spring balance.
> If you pull a stone on a firm rock surface, you are working against sliding
> friction. If you cover the ground with fine gravel, you can pull the stone
> with much less effort. Why that? Because the small gravel particles *roll*
> against each other and against the stone, so some of the sliding friction is
> converted to the much smaller rolling friction. And if you wet this gravel,
> the friction becomes even smaller, because the particles get greased. I
> measured the coefficient of wood on gravel to be between 0.15 and 0.3, in my
> calculations I'm now using the value, 0.25.
> With this knowledge we can calculate the friction of a transport sled to
> (0.25 * cosine inclination * weight), for a 2500 kg block to 623.5 kg, for a
> 70 ton block to 17.5 tons (forgive me, that I give all the forces in
> kilograms and not in Newton, I do this to make it more comparable to the
> weight forces).
No sweat, just don't forget that gravel, or anything easing friction
also
detracts from the pulling ability of the workmen, who need solid
footing..
Correct? So, I repeat that you are to have no luxury of lubrication,
gravel, etc. The stones come to rest after each heave, so you have to
work against the static friction constantly. You get no rolling
friction.
> So to pull a stone up a ramp you need with a 2.5 ton block about 797.5
> kilogramms (parallel force plus friction). Lets say 25 workers pull one
> normal stone, each one would have to pull 32 kilogramms.
> 400 stones a day, each worker could do even the longest trip twice a day, so
> you needed 5000 workers for transport.
> All in all 1000 quarry men, 5000 tranport workers. Lets say the same amount
> of handy men on the construction site and in the quarry, makes about 15000
> workers. Or, with some added bakers, brewers and other workers 20000
> workforce alltogether. They could do the work easily in the needed 20 years.
> From these, only 1/4 were needed to do the rough jobs!
> If you can't find any mistakes in these calculations, please accept them. It
> has nothing to do with "conquering" but with simple, deduceable and
> measureable facts.
Please, wake up. You are dreaming - please, accept it.. :)
> You said, that "people are no machines" and you simply denied the fact, that
> a man can move such a weight a long time. In fact, you wrote
> JM>If you don't believe me, go to the Rockies, and walk up a small but
> JM>steep mountain with nothing else than yourself to drag up.
> Hm, I'm a hobby mountaineer. Never went to the Rockies, but the Alps, several
> times to the Himalaya and the Andes. I always travel with my own backpack
> with typically 25-30 kg, and the ways there are much steeper than 4 deg. Have
> you ever been to the Himalaya? Seen any Sherpas carrying weights uphill you
> couldn't believe? They are carrying 40-50 kilogramms, 8 hours a day with a
> speed you cannot believe. Not with modern backpacks, but with a simple
> transport basket, mounted with a single strip around the head. So your
> argument shows only your total lack of what people can accomplish.
The Sherpas are exceptionally bred and trained mountaineers, who do this
job only occasionally, and definitely not every day. If you personally
can
lug 30 kilos up a steep mountain, then you are a trained athlete.
You also don't do this every day, or even every month. To you it is
recreation. Please, don't tell me that people can carry a Hundred-twenty
pound bag suspended over their heads uphill for eight hours a day.
Unfortunately, you cannot be a sportsman, if you don't know that
constant overwork of selected muscle groups in a human body invariably
leads to a painful syndrome making it impossible to remain on the task?
> With 30 kilograms dragging force I could easily climb 4 deg. with a speed of
> some kilometers per hour. And now its time to get to Mark Lehner and his
> experiment. You fabulated about thousands of workers Lehner used. I have his
> video documentation here and looked at it again. He definively used 14 quarry
> men and 30 farmer from around to simulate tha typical worker mix suggested
> during the construction.
Don't be arrogant! The TV film here said that fifteen-thousand strong
workforce was engaged on the task for three months, and yet has managed
to built only the equivalent of the part missing from the top of the
pyramid. I'm sure, others will remember this part too.
It makes sense. Someone had to build the approach ramp. Wood had to be
logged and brought to shipyards. Someone had to build the boats. Someone
had to bring the blocks down to the river from the quarry, and load the
boats. Unload them. Cook. Police. Replace the sick. Etc., etc, and so
on.
Who's gonna believe your figures after my critical perusal?
> In the video they tried several transport methods. Fist they rolled a 2.5 ton
> block with a lever. 8 workers were enough to do this. Then they tried to pull
> the stone without sled through the sand. It was hard work, and 16 people
> could move a block very slowly, maybe two meters a minute. Then they tried a
> sled on round logs, and could pull with only 10 men with a speed of about 1.5
> kilometers per hour, even hillup! And it didnt look like splintering wood.
It didn't? Never mind, it was doing exactly that..
> Next they tried a sled on gravel. Result: again with 10 men they could pull
> the 2 ton-sled so fast, the workers were nerly overrun! 15 men could walk
> quite easily with strolling speed around the area!
Two hundred kilos per man? I play hockey with a guy weighing 280 pounds.
I know exactly how hard it would be to pull Big George on any kind of
non-teflon sleds on any surface other than ice, or snow, especially if
working up any, no matter how slight, incline. You are imitating baron
Munchhausen a little, aren't you? Admit it, please.
> Oh, he said things about the quarry, too. He said, that 12 of the quarry men
> were working in Tura to break the necessary 196 stones with traditional
> methods.
What did they use for chisels, picks, adzes?
> They needed 3 weeks for 196 stones. That makes 196 stones in 18 days
> (sundays off), or 11 blocks per day. So a six man group got 5.5 stones a day,
> as I predicted.
> Again to the ramp. You argued, that a sled would simply splinter if dragged
> across a ramp. Again you show all the world your absence of essential
> physical knowledge.
> This is wrong because, as I told you, the sled is pulled across gravel.
Gravel is slippery for people, but to the sled it is more abrasive than
sand paper. Good grief, take your snow-skis and go follow some
roller-bladers
for a kilometer, or two. Then check your skis..
> But
> the sled is no matter point pressing down with 3 tons on a square millimeter,
> the runners have a measurable area. Therefore the normal force of the stone
> and sled is distributed to the whole area.
> Essential for the abrasion of the sled is not the total force, but the
> pressure per square centimeter! An optimal constructed sled would have a flat
> surface resting on the ground, as big as the whole sled. Let's say the sled
> is 1.5 meter wide and 2 meters long, the whole area is 30000 square
> centimeters large. 2700 kilogramms (Stone plus sled) would give a total
> pressure of 0.09 kilogramms (or 90 gramms) per square centimeter.
> I weight 70 kilogramms and have shoes with size 5, this is (measured) about
> 357 square centimeters for both feet. This means, that I press with 196 grams
> per square centimeter to the ground, more than two times of the pressure of an
> ideal sled!!!
> Do you know the famous wood shoes of the netherlands? Do they splinter under
> the pressure of a normal person carrying one of them? Like when they dance a
> wood shoe dance on a folk festival? No? I never saw such a thing, too.
I saw neither walking, nor dancing pyramid blocks, .. But I rapidly wore
one
pair of thick-soled clogs down, right through the protective rubber
sole.
> To measure the abrasion of a typical sled, get 2 boards with 28 centimeters
> length and 14 centimeter width each, tie them to your feet and drag these
> slow, with 1 km per hour along the ground.
No way! You would have to have yourself dragged like a waterskier to
emulate the sledding drag.
> Prefereable on a running arena
> (gravel). I did such measurements and found, that 5 centimeters could
> withstand about 2500 kilometers,
Bah, you'd wear down five pairs of stilts-thick boards in real life.
> this are about 2000 stones moved to its
> place per sled. 2.5 mio stones divided by 2000 makes about 200 used-up sleds.
> Lets say 500, because some broke earlier or were made from thinner wood. 500
> sleds would need 300 cubic meters or around 280 tons of wood in 20-30 years.
> This are about 230 trees, or 10 trees a year. Yawn, big deal.
> If you find no mistake in my calculations, please accept them, too.
Good, because I found plenty.. Accept that!?
> So now we
> haved covered the quarrywork, transport way, the forces to be pulled and the
> lifetime of a sled. Lets go on to your fabulous 70 to monoliths.
>
> The heaviest stones are the ones in the roof of the king's chamber: 9 Blocks
> with a total weight of about 400 tons - that makes about 44 tons each.
The smallest of those blocks weighs over 50-tons!
> 5
> chambers makes 5 floors plus one extra saddle ceiling, or about 50 blocks
> with 44 tons each. Where are the sources for your 70 ton blocks?
> For 44 tons you must pull about 14 tons (see my formulas), or 440 workers are
> needed for one block.
How about, if I will be more inclined to trust the figures of F.M.
Barber
a naval engineer, who had considered all the problems on the spot?
Why is he outdated? Because he lived a hundred years ago? Is Newton
outdated in newtonian physics then?
There really are blocks that big over the King's chamber. Check the
books!
> and its typical for you to quote outdated sources. Do you think that our
> knowledge today is the same as 100 years ago?
The Pyramid is still the same (more or less). Our knowledge is also
unchanged in many aspects. We still don't know how to make better beer
than the Czechs in Plzen (Pilsen) or Budejovice (Budweiss) of a century
and a half ago..
> So, but now I lost my motivation to answer to the rest of your mail If you
> behave well, maybe I will ;-)
You cannot avoid my reports on ancient Science-Art for long.
You've had your forty-winks ;)
> Bye,
> FD
Whew, that was labor intensive, like dragging you up the ramp to the top
of the Pyramid. Good riddance.
Auf Sehn,
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: Egyptian Tree Words
From: Saida
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:08:34 -0500
Troy Sagrillo wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > Troy Sagrillo wrote:
> >
> > > Not at all! `ayn is a general phoneme found in most Afro-asiatic languages,
> > > Semitic and Egyptian included, but also Berber languages.
> >
> > I don't know about Afro-asiatic at all, but I do know about Semitic.
> > They certain do have the "ayin" but, then again, they also have the
> > hard, burring "r". Of course, we have not clear idea what ancient
> > Hebrew speakers once employed for their "r" and in modern Hebrew it has
> > become pretty weak, probably due to the Germans who revived it, with
> > their deep-throated "r" sound.
>
> The keyword here being, IMHO, "revived". Modern Hebrew is not of great
> utility for determining the phonology of Semitic languages -- too much has
> been losted (though I suppose Modern Hebrew spoken by Yemeni Jews might be
> more useful than that of Germans ;-) ).
I didn't mean to imply by any means that the accent lent to modern
Hebrew by German-Jews has any bearing on how the ancient language was
pronounced. I wonder about the usefullness of taking any clues from
Yemenite Jews, either. Their dwelling in an Arabian land for so long
gave them an Arabic accent, although my personal guess would be, too,
that the Yemenite accent is closer to the original.
>
> > I strongly feel, as I said, that the
> > Egyptians did not have the strong, forward "r" and their vocalization,
> > identified as "ayin", seems to have been heard by Hittites, Greeks and
> > others as a sort of nasal sound, i.e. "Ozymandias" for User-Ma'at-Re.
> > Perhaps the trouble was their unfamiliarity with this gutteral. As you
> > can see, the "r" in User did not make much of an impression. Sure, the
> > "ayin" might have been there, but with Egyptian, I wouldn't take
> > anything for granted.
>
> Hmmmm, I get the impression (perhaps wrongly), that you are confusing `ayn
> with /r/; there is no `ayn in /wsr/ (your "user"). `ayn is a fairly strong
> sound (unlike /r/) and is clearly used in Egyptian (as is demonstrated by
> Semitic cognates and loanwords) -- though it does seem to fall out with
> Coptic. Some Semitic loans in Egyptian with `ayn:
>
> Egyptian /`yn/ (spring, well) from Semitic `ayn
> Egyptian /`mq/ (valley) from Semitic /`mq/ (eg. Arabic `amq, Ethiopic
> `emaq)
> Egyptian /`nb/ (grape) from Semitic /`nb/ (eg. Arabic `inab)
>
> But regarding the /r/, yes, by Late Egyptian it was not pronounced as can
> be seen in the change in spelling for many words, Egyptian words in non-
> Egyptian Languages, and in Coptic.
Troy, if I can prounounce the "ayin", I am not going to confuse it with
an "r":) "User" has no "ayin". I was referring to the "r" sound that
was not heard by the Greeks. My point simply was: I don't trust the
idea of giving Semitic or perhaps Arabic pronunciation to ancient
Egyptian. If the Egyptian "r" and the Arabic "r" are not the same, why
should the Egyptian symbol that we read as "ayin" have necessarily been
pronounced in the Arabic way?
>
> > BTW, I still can't find anything better for "palm tree" than the "yam" I
> > gave before. Why would I pronounce it like that? Despite its varied
> > spellings, the clue is provided by the spelling *reed, vulture, owl*.
> > That is very clear, no question. Where there is an "i" before a vowel,
> > it must be pronounced "y". That is only logical.
>
> Nope, it is not. All three letters (/i3m/) are consonants NOT vowels,
> including the so-called "alif"-vulture /3/! The early Egyptologists (Budge
> among them) treated /3/ as the vowel "a" but this is now known to be wrong.
> Your "yam" may very well have been pronouced */ya:Rm/ in Middle Egyptian
What! The vulture is no longer an "a"? I daresay the people in
Ptolemaic times thought it was, as it is clearly visible (twice) in the
name of "Kleopatra". That ought to be a telling clue as to what the
glyph was used for or the Greeks would have adopted another closer one
for spelling out the name of the queen. What evidence, preceeding this,
makes linguists think the vulture was not an "a"???
> (assuming of course that /im3/, the form given in dictionaries, is *not*
> the correct rendering). Other examples with Arabic cognates (other cognates
> in other languages very possible):
>
> b3q (bright, white) = Arabic baraq (shining, lusterous, sparkling)
> bk3 (morning) = Arabic bakir (early); bukrah (early morning)
> k3m (vineyard) = Arabic karm (vineyard, grapevines)
> zb3 (flute) = Arabic zamr, zummarah (flute)
> w3D (green) = Arabic waraq (foliage, greenery, leafage)
>
> Moreover, the /i/ in /i3m/ need not be "y" either. Yes, sometimes it was:
> Egypt. /imn/ (right) = Arabic "yamin". But it could also be a glottal stop
> (hamzah): /idn/ (ear) = Arabic " 'udhn"
>
> Anyhow, I gather from some of your other posts, you are tired of this
> thread, so feel free to drop it if you want! :-) It's been fun.
There are two things (at least) that I never grow tired of
discussing--ancient Egypt and languages. Yes, it has been fun and I
continue to be available for further discussion unless you get me to the
point where I am speechless with astonishment at the turns Egyptian
linguistics are taking, Troy!