Middle Egyptian Grammar - Hoch-gctid200797

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

http://libgen.io/ads.php?md5=AF1724ADBB88BC4CDA36192537B58878

Sent from my Uhuru Accu using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

I found this to be the best Grammar to begin with. Certainly easier than Baba Ankh Mi Ra's "Let the Ancestors Speak" as well as those of Allen and Gardiner. The chapters are laid out in a "Lesson-plan" format that is easy to follow alone.

[Bonotchi Montgomery]

hotep my brother, Yes Hoch is a good grammar book. I use some of his lessons in my class. His book is easier because it is less wordy and dense, therefore, students fine it easier to understand. I would recommend doing the exercises in all three, even if you do not read them the grammar rules still apply.

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Checking this out. 

[Okunini Talawa Yawo Adodo]

I have a strong suspicion that Ankh Mi Ra intended to do a Second Volume but was not able to do so (being that he misses some things). I still like to use it to introduce basic grammatical concepts because he highlights the Kmtyw context of the language, whereas Hoch is very deceptive (in that respect). 

That said, I agree that Hoch gives great lessons and his detailed explanations (he covers stuff that most Egyptologist grammars do not). 

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

This definition of power is very problematic.

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

I'm not sure that the incompleteness of the book is enough to suggest that Nana Ankh was going to write a second volume. That being said, I think you are speaking to the exact issue that is the problem with this grammar: it seems rushed and incomplete both in format and content. Hopefully we will eventually come up with a grammar (and dictionary) that actually works, that will allow us to become liberated from the non-Kmtyw ones.

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Care to elaborate?

[Okunini Talawa Yawo Adodo]

Yes, we definitely need our own. It's one of my goals.

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

It implies that if you can't impose your definition of reality on someone else and have them accept it as their own then you cannot have power. Well... is that not what "white supremacy" i.e. white terror domination has defined power as? Isn't that why they consistently seek to impose their definitions onto us? Seems to me this definition suffers from Conceptual Incarceration.

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Brother Awene, first thank you for the response.   I feel it might be best to post the video for Baba Wade Nobles to be heard in the context of the discussion where this quote is from.  Actually he may have stated it elsewhere as well.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4801&v=yuvPo8yzz4A

about the 1:20 mark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

He has said it in many other places, both in lectures/talks and in writing. Perhaps you should explain what you understand by it. That quote implies, for instance, that if we are to have power then we must seek to get krakkkas to respond to our definition of reality as if it were their own. That sounds to me like a very dangerous definition of power. Any definition of power must be operational. What does it entail, in terms of operationalisation, how do we go about trying to get krakkkas to accept and respond to our definition of reality as if it were their own? How and why is that desirable?

We might have to consider the fact that maybe it's because we thought we could get them to accept/respond to our values as if they were their own that we got destroyed in the first place. So the Ancestor does not say "Behold the miserable eurasiatic... he fights since the time of Hrw... teach him our values and have him accept them as his own." No, rather, the Ancestors built a wall to bar them and keep them away from us. That conception of power does not involve them seeking to get eureurasians to accept/respond to Maat. It involves recognising them for what they are - agents of isft - and keeping/driving them away. In that case, Power is the ability to understand and defend Maat. There is no illusion that they can be persuaded to know/accept/do Maat. (see Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 1, 143-144).

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Meda wo ase for your feedback.   At the time I posted that quote my understanding was he was speaking from a psychological perspective involved the ability to  control, manipulate, influence thoughts and by extension actions for the benefit of you even if those actions are against your best interest.  Maybe "soft power " so to speak.  Outcomes of this are manifested in worshipping a krakka on a stick, skin bleaching, self hate, wearing krakka hair while practicing a krakka system of law , etc etc.   I do understand as Dr. Bobby Wright coins it this is mentacidal.   I understand these to be spider webs and not addressing the spider to use Nana Khalid Muhammad's analogy.  Symptoms of the problem, not the problem.   "The most potent weapon in the hands of the enemy is the mind of the oppressed"  Nana Steve Biko.  This is my interpretation of the quotes implied meaning.  

To your question about trying to get krakka or any eureurasian to have our reality be theirs I am in total agreement ....we can't anf shouldn't waste time thinking it can be done. They are agents of isfet and ultimately to rid ourselves of the above mentioned spider web, this spider needs to be driven away.   (This goes for their agents from within our people as well). I do agree this was and still is an error in judgement when relating  to eureurasians.  Nana Malcolm made that a point in his analysis as opposed to Nana Martin Luther King Jr.  appealing morally to a people who have no morality.   

 

Our goal as stated is to restore and defend Ma'at - I agree.  

 

 

Thank you for the clarity.   

 

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

Ewa. There is also the question of whether one should define reality or whether one should understand it. Which might not necessarily mean the same sing. Does reality exist (and thus one should seek to understand and adjust one's life according to it) or is it whatever one defines it as (in which case it is whatever we say it is)? Are there different modes of "reality" created by different peoples/cultures or does reality exist regardless of our conceptions? It seems most of us are not clear on this issue especially in this subjective/multi-culture/individualistic/non-conforming/self-made/do-your-own-thing deception times. But maybe this is an issue for another time.

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

I would think that to define something, in this case reality you have to have an understanding first. In other words your understanding is based on serious focused inquiry of your environment.  To use and exanple of our ancestors, the creation stories are examples of centuries of first observation, analysis...then to relay the outcomes they define their understanding in terms of definition that can be transmitted. We see this is the story of Nun, the creation of the calendar, clock...all aspects.  Further because as Kmtyws we have a common environment and Ancestral observations we have an underlying cultural unity in terms of understanding and thought. The definitions are different but related as those understandings have to be communicated in terms of understanding. We see these cultural connections in all parts of the Kmtyw continent but manifest in different interpretations.  Further to relate to what Nana Cheik Anta Diop called the two cradle theory we see that these core understandings are foundationally impacted by our geographic orientation. This is where we can see the difference in our " realities" and where we can see that to adhere to a eureurasian "reality" is anti -Kmtyw.  We see Ma'at as our foundation they cannot. 

We see the Kmtyw continent infected by the eureurasian "reality" of money, religion,and other anti-Kmtyw concepts that although we are still in our "cradle" we are adhering to a reality that benefits our enemies.  This has us thinking we are poor because of lack of money when pre- eureurasian we didn't have this issue.  

I think the cultural understanding across the continent and linked to Kemet or better yet the Hapi Valley is what ties us. Our varying definitions of this understanding is unique but based on one core Kmtyw Thought. 

 

P.S. what does ewa translate to?