General historical axioms

• Egypt played a dominant role in an international power-network for over 2000 years
• The Egyptian culture has strong connections to Semitic, European and African cultures
• The Egyptian language has strong connections to Semitic, European and African languages
• The Egyptian language(s) continued to influence other languages from 3500BC to 500AD
• The (Proto)-Indo-European languages continued to influence other languages from 4000BC
• The role of PIE in Mesopotamia and Egypt has to be rethought
• Independent innovations are very rare / unlikely :
• If a technology appears almost simultaneously in two different locations, it has one source

DO NOT BREAK WORDS INTO components! Examples: Lapis chariot

Linguistic axioms

• There is a high (but not perfect) correlation between languages and genes
• Paleogenetic and modern data will yield hints towards language developments.
• The 'tree' metaphor for languages is inadequate and should be replaced with modern 'flow' theories.
• There are different kinds of relatedness, all denoted by '>' here
• The exact nature of relatedness between Egyptian words and modern reflections is (almost) never certain.
• If words from the same language family look similar on the surface they are most likely related:
• even if the reconstructions seem to be divergent on first examination.
• If words from language families with historic close contact look similar on the surface they are likely connected
• if only through phono-semantic-matching
• enforcement: if a native community has several synonyms, foreign communities influence and repeatedly select the word which has the closest perceived relative in their native language. sheriff (shire + reeve) ⇔ sharif Might be an example
• opposites are often related, because in a orthogonal semantic dimension they are identical (guest⇔host …)
• many things can be understood just using the Alphabet
• words connected with those letters were hyper conserved (changed very little)
• words connected with the alphabet formed conserving, re-converging clusters
• words connected with those signs underwent alphabetic-change
• For many Gardinger signs we use some different readings, based on the corpus and rules of determinants
• The phonetic readings reconstructed are an echo of a more complicated history
• By its very nature the pronunciation can always only be a cluster approximation
• Any 'precise' vocalisation of Egyptian is complete speculation and bears no authority.
• Any linguistic method or argument relying precise vocalisation is invalid
• Large scale comparisons and cluster analysis akin to universal sound-change are valid
• Connecting individual words outside Coptic remains thus forever tentative
• On the other hand tentatively connecting individual words outside Coptic cannot be dismissed via 'formal arguments' but should be subject to historic plausibility.
• Most Gardinger signs assumed to be silent receive a pronounciation.
• Determinants often had a vocalisation which was optional: akin to New York (city).
• Puns and the rebus principle lead to wrong etymologies
• This kind of wrong etymology is a true etymology in the sense of influence
• Confusion of signs lead to wrong readings
• After centuries of consistent wrong readings, they become true, if adapted by the populous
• Ambivalent readings can be both correct
• The ultimate reading of some gardener signs is not fully determined
• Once a European connection is accepted, European suggestions are allowed Pyr⇔Fire 𓍑
• Most letters had a full (original) reading and an alphabetic one
• The vowels where mostly lost, the consonants blurred out 𓏏 Delle=tell 𓏏𓏏 dad=tit 𓏏 dough=Teig
• Some signs had different associated entities
• All phonetic readings should be understood as instantiations of binomial cluster distributions
• Combinging these distributions can lead to a wildcard fallacy] {one sign generating all}
• In two related languages if two words sound similar they are probably related somehow
• The alignment of one word alone is rarely evidence enough
• The alignment of whole clusters of words can be prove
• Deus, Theus and Zeus are related period. Anyone who thinks differently must stop reading
• The Egyptian language and Grammar is rather simple.
• Over the course of three millenia, most universal sound changes did occur
• Many signs exhibited a quantum state: the reading would flip with the context. Two completly different but harmonious readings might have occasionally occured.
• After the last dynasty the Egyptian system was already riddled with ambiguities, corruption, confusion and dialectic readings, not just in the modern meaning but truely literally dialectic (see Sumerian signs).

The reconstructed Alphabet is the most crucial part of Egyptology
We mostly follow the conventional reading of the letters
With some minor shifts and with the exception of
'v' letters: 𓇋 as fE, 𓍢𓅱 as wə with dangling 'on', 𓆑 as vhe or φhethn