3734Re: [ANE-2] Re: Richard Steiner and the London Medical Papyrus
- Jan 29, 2007At 10:29 PM 1/29/2007, Andrew Fincke wrote:
>Ariel,No, let's not. Sorry. Two reasons.
>Let's compare Steiner with Mercer and Faulkner at Utterance 232, the
>first one of Steiner's.
In order to verify Steiner's work at the specific sign level, you
need the source he used. He says he used mostly Allen, "The Ancient
Egyptian Pyramid Texts", 2005. And he says that in some cases he
preferred other translations, but these cases are not specified
explicitly in the lecture. For those cases you'd need a "regular"
paper with bibliographical references and footnotes explaining why
Steiner chose a specific translation over Allen's recent one.
The second reason is personal. I have basic knowledge in Egyptian but
I haven't worked on Egyptian texts in many years, I'm not up to date
on recent developments (which are not trivial) and I don't have the
necessary reference books on Egyptian. I'm not in a position to
criticize Egyptian translation choices.
>At 232 Steiner's Demotic translation ..."Demotic"?
[100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]
Ariel L. Szczupak
AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>