Middle Egyptian Grammar - Hoch-gctid200797

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

This is from Nana Ipuwer (from the forthcoming book).

 

He says that Kmt will not be given over to sand. Do you @awenef and @kevlew think he knew that eventually it would be given over to sand and sand-dwellers?

Also, do you think our Kmtyw Nananom (Ancestors) knew that their bodies would now be housed in the dens of thieves called museums throughout eureurasia while the bodies of others were devoured by krakkkaz? 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-gruesome-history-of-eating-corpses-as-medicine-82360284/

 

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

I think Nana Ipuwer was speaking towards a specific period of isft, foreseeing that they will recover and overcome it. Which they did. So KMT was not given to sand-trekkers as he predicted. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the "prophecy" entailed "never will..." because then the negation would have to be nn zp and not just nn. I take this to imply that as long as the future generations have the same mental clarity and commitment then the condition would continue to hold true, but if they lose touch with reality in their contemporary situations then it would not necessarily be true anymore.

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

Kwadwo, I don't think that Nana Kwaku's definition of power means the same thing as what you are saying.

The definition implies that to have power you must

(1) be able to define reality.

(2) have others accept that definition as their own.

This means that

(1) potentially there are as many definitions of reality as there are "others."

(2) you cannot have power until you have others over whom you can impose your definition (i.e. you need a cultural other).

(3) power is, ultimately, the ability to impose definition (either by force or deception).

(4) reality is subjective and the definition is authenticated by it's coming from self and is validated by it's being made acceptable to others if it it is their own.

The whole model is basically based on afrocentric theory and inverted colonialism. It's problematic.

To illustrate just how problematic it is let's take this example of how he applies the definition to "convert" a word/concept from its eureurasian meaning and reclaims it to become "Kmtyw." This is from a talk he gave in 1993 in Ghana at the National Conference of Black Studies (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL2JtOgTW9M). The concept is "romance," which, from it's etymology alone is noticeably krakkka.

By defining power as the ability to define (and redefine) reality, Nana Kwaku proceeds to supposedly exercise that power and reclaiming the word so that it becomes Kmtyw. From around 32:00 he says: "See, power is the ability to define reality, so I'ma reclaim the notion of romance and suggest to you that romance is a state or a condition where in one holds values and treasures another. So if I hold value and treasure things Kmtyw then I have a romance with Kmtyw, I am in fact romantic because in romance you have self-in-colletive cherishment."

So we see the implications of that definition. It means exactly that reality is anything we choose to define it as because we have the power to do so. So we can define a non-Kmtyw word to become Kmtyw. How far does this go? What would stop us, since we have the power, to even "define" the whole language, in this case english, to be Kmtyw? Many have, in fact been claiming that they have done this and, thus, don't need to learn an Kmtyw language. Power is the ability to define reality: we define Russian to be Kmtyw. We define Islam to be Kmtyw. We define god to be Onyame. And so on. That definition makes it possible for us to retain all baggage by simply "defining" and "redefining" "reality" to conform with what we want it to be as is obvious from how Nana Kwaku applied it in that context by simply "reclaiming" a non-Kmtyw concept rather than finding an authentically Kmtyw one and rejecting the non-Kmtyw. It is one of the most used definitions/quotes in Kmtyw scholarship so now simply take it for granted.

Also, what will happen when we defeat our enemies, how are we going to exercise power? Who are we going to have accept our definitions of reality as their own so that we can have power? Who are these "others" going to be? And why would we defeat our enemies if we need them so that they can allow us the possibility of having power by providing us with the "other" that should be accepting our definition? Definition must satisfactorily answer the implications.

 

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Posted by: Awene

I think Nana Ipuwer was speaking towards a specific period of isft, foreseeing that they will recover and overcome it. Which they did. So KMT was not given to sand-trekkers as he predicted. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the "prophecy" entailed "never will..." because then the negation would have to be nn zp and not just nn. I take this to imply that as long as the future generations have the same mental clarity and commitment then the condition would continue to hold true, but if they lose touch with reality in their contemporary situations then it would not necessarily be true anymore.

Good answer! What of their bodies being shipped off to Eureurasia and eaten by krakkkaz? 

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

Posted by: Ọbádélé Kambon, PhD

Posted by: Awene

I think Nana Ipuwer was speaking towards a specific period of isft, foreseeing that they will recover and overcome it. Which they did. So KMT was not given to sand-trekkers as he predicted. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the "prophecy" entailed "never will..." because then the negation would have to be nn zp and not just nn. I take this to imply that as long as the future generations have the same mental clarity and commitment then the condition would continue to hold true, but if they lose touch with reality in their contemporary situations then it would not necessarily be true anymore.

Good answer! What of their bodies being shipped off to Eureurasia and eaten by krakkkaz? 

I answered part 1. I left part 2 for @kevlew 

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

@awenef, part 2 was for you too.

     

Do you think that this meant that Nana Sanhat would not die on the desert for a period of time or that eureurasians would not bury him or he would not be wrapped in the skin of a ram for a set period of time under which conditions of mental clarity and commitment hold true? 

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

Here's my take. In Twi

túmi - power

tumí - to be able

In the Twi language, we see a clear relationship between power and ability. Nana Kwaku Berko I has chosen to define power along the lines of being able to express ability in the specific manner that krakkkaz have done so, which, as @awenef states, can be a very problematic proposition given the implications. If someone has power (i.e., ability), does one necessarily have to express it in the particular way that krakkkaz have done? In our case, if we have actual power (i.e., ability), do we even need to have krakkkaz in the picture at all. 

Ɔwɔ wɔ nyansa; ɔde ka nipa. Kotokrodu wɔ nyansa; ɔde boro nipa. Wowa wɔ nyansa; ɔde yɛ ɛwoɔ. Ɛdeɛn na wode wo nyansa no bɛyɛ? 

The snake has wisdom; he/she uses it to bite people. The wasp has wisdom; he/she uses it to sting people. The honeybee has wisdom; he/she uses it to make honey. What will you use your wisdom for? 

 

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Let me take the time to read this. I am seeing your point. Appreciate the response. 

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Takes me a little time lol. On it. 

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

Posted by: Ọbádélé Kambon, PhD

@awenef, part 2 was for you too.

     

Do you think that this meant that Nana Sanhat would not die on the desert for a period of time or that eureurasians would not bury him or he would not be wrapped in the skin of a ram for a set period of time under which conditions of mental clarity and commitment hold true? 

I am not saying that 'nn' negates things "for a period of time given certain conditions." I am saying 'nn' simply means 'will not,' and does not mean 'never will...' which is negated by 'nn zp' (although we know that mdw ntr does not always consistently follow rules statically, so there might be exceptions). As far as i presently know the general rule is: 'nn' = "will not," 'n zp' = 'never did,' 'nn zp'= 'never will'. So I am saying that the text is not saying 'KMT will never be given to the sand-trekkers' but simply that it "will not." And I say this implies for me that he was speaking to specific conditions and was not making a general, eternal, pronouncement. So the aspect of specific time/context given certain conditions I have added in my analysis of what I think the text is speaking to and is not necessarily inherent in the form of the negation itself.

Additionally, there needs to be clarity as to whether 'Say' ('nmyw Say') refers to eureurasians (i.e. non Kmtyws) or whether it referred generally to the people who inhabited that area, including Blak people, or, even, whether it only referred to the Black people while, for instance, Aamw referred to the non-Kmtyw people. In terms of identity, I don't think these are really clear. If Say refers to krakkkaz then we to deal with the fact that this Ancestor went and married a krakkka and made children with them, and fought for and with them, contributed greatly to their welfare and then was simply welcomed back to KMT. There are serious implications here so certainty of identity becomes important. In the Kmtyw origins Nana Diop says the area was populated by Blak who had many 'ups and downs' against 'the white tribes' before eventully blending with them (Kmtyw Origins, p. 107-108). So it could be that 'Say' should not be translated 'eureurasians'.

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

For some reason the video link has an error when I tried to play it. 

[Ɔbenfo Ọbádélé]

"I will not eat faeces for you, I will not drink urine for you"

@awenef, Do you add the aspect of specific time/context in your analysis here as well? Does the text imply for you that the text speaks to specific conditions rather than a general, eternal pronouncement?

     

CT de Buck and Gardiner + Faulkner translation

 

Nana Sanhat's contradictions aside, Say is literally sand. Check, check it: 

 

Do you get the sense that Nana Ipuwer or others were able to foresee that their preparations for the dwAt would come to this? 

 

[Twikila Komesho Awene]

I'm not sure we are understanding each other. So... Maybe it's best we take it to voice?

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

I can definitely agree that I see the anti-Kmtyw implications of the example you posted in attempting to Kmtywize eureurasian words...anything eureurasian for that matter.

  I am understanding that in terms of dealing with our enemy there is no consideration to try to get them to accept an Kmtyw reality at all.   Nana John Henrik Clarke told us "You have no friends".  This is not and should not be an aspiration.  

What my lingering question is then is how do we phrase what will be necessary to restore Ma'at on the continent and world if not to call it power? How do not use this term without the conceptual implications of it meaning the same thing?  Is it to seperate it "having others belief reality as if it is their own" that is the issue?  Is our lack of power the reason for our inability to rid krakkas from Kmt? 

 

Me thinking out loud.  Not ashamed to not know. Ashamed if I didn't know and didn't want to. 

[Kwadwo Tòkunbọ̀]

Very important discussion