Thursday, April 24, 2014

Why the Hor Sensen Papyrus Characters were derived as Alphabet: The Characteristics of a Sign List Called an Alphabet

An alphabet, of course, is a sign or character list that is used for various purposes, but primarily to represent phonetic sounds.  The ancestral characters to the Semitic Alphabet from whence ours came (the Proto-Sinaitic) were selected from among the myriads of Egyptian Hieroglyphs to represent sounds in the Semitic alphabet by acrophony (i.e. the sound represented by the sign is the first sound in the name of the thing of which the sign is a picture).  As I have shown in various posts in this blog, there is some evidence that certain of the signs of the alphabet were selected because they were signs representing constellations that belonged to calendars or zodiacs from the ancient world, or perhaps didn't belong to zodiacs, but just were on various sign lists.  It is difficult to determine which Zodiac they came from in particular, if at all, because some match up with the conventional Solar-Zodiacal signs, and some match up with constellations from an ancient Babylonian Zodiac, and as time goes on, some other kind of pattern may appear.  Some people have made attempts at matching things up in the past (for example, Moran and Kelley).  I believe Kelley was on track for what he was doing with the Mesoamerican calendars, but I do not believe that Moran had things right with his matching up of the Solar and Chinese Lunar Zodiacs with Alphabetical characters.  I think in that the general ideas in their theories were generally right, but were very wrong in specific things.  The biggest problem was that they didn't use the signs of the Proto-Sinaitic as the baseline of their research (which is the oldest alphabet stemming directly from the Egyptian), but rather opted to use other ancient forms.  This is mostly because Moran was against the Egyptian origin theory, that signs were selected because they represent Zodiacal constellations.

So, I have done what I have done in my own research using their general theory, that the signs are astrological/astronomical, but employing what I believe is a more solid methodology for doing the matching.  The reason I think that that general theory holds water is not only because I have had success in my own research, but also because the Joseph Smith interpretations of Egyptian Alphabetic characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar are overwhelmingly associated with astronomical themes.

There is some evidence that the signs of the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet may also match up with signs from a tradition of an ancient Lunar Zodiac/Calendar, because Moran's research on the Lunar Zodiac seems to have been right in a few instances (but only because of sheer luck, not because of a solid, systematic methodology).  But as for the Lunar Zodiac in general, my research on that is preliminary.  I have had more luck matching things up with the Babylonian and Solar Zodiacs.

Anyhow, most of the modern alphabets (Latin, Greek, Cyrllic, Hebrew, Arabic, etc.) all have a traditional order, descending from what is called the "Northern Semitic Order."  Some are specifically abjads, meaning that they only represent consonantal sounds, and if there are any vowels specified at all, they are with other marks that were invented afterward that sort of resemble something more like punctuation, and are not necessarily required.  We read:

For all the adaptations and mutations, the alphabet's order of letters has been relatively stable. In the 1920s, archaeologists found a dozen stone tablets used in a school in Ugarit, a city in what is now Syria, that are from the fourteenth century BC and preserve two orders of the Ugaritic alphabet. One, the "Northern Semitic order" is related to the Phoenician and Hebrew alphabets and features bits and pieces of an order familiar to Modern English speakers: a, b…g, h…l, m…q,r.
As the alphabet traveled around the world, those who adopted it did very little to change the basic order. Looking at this animation from the University of Maryland, you can see how things have remained largely the same between the Phoenicians and Latin. Long strings of letters, like abcdef, remain untouched for thousands of years.
So the order has ancient roots, but where does it come from?
I hate to disappoint you, but we're really not sure. The practice of having the letters in an established order makes sense: It’s easier to teach and to learn. Why some ancient people put them in that specific order, though, is unknown. Whoever did it didn’t leave any record that we know of explaining why they lined the letters up like that.
But this isn’t to say we’re at a total loss. Scholars have plenty of hypotheses about the order, relating to everything from astrology, musical scales, numbers, and poetry. (

There is also the "Southern Semitic Order."  Here are these traditional orders of the characters:

North Semitic

ʾa b g d h w z y k š l m n s ʿ p q r ġ t ʾi ʾu s2

South Semitic

h l m q w š r t s k n b ś p ʾ ʿ g d ġ z y


The order of the Latin and Greek alphabets are different, of course, but generally descend from the North Semitic order.  Other alphabets, such as the Geez alphabet in Ethiopia, use the South Semitic order.  The Proto-Sinaitic alphabet may or may not have used the North Semitic order.  There is no certainty there.  But ancient Abecedaria (alphabetic sign lists) from Ugarit are found in both traditional orders.

Now, the Egyptian Alphabet itself consists of lists of characters that represent uniliteral sounds (one consonant), biliteral (two consonants), triliteral (three consonant) forms and determinatives (signs that have the purpose of helping to show/elucidate the context and meaning of other characters and also act somewhat as punctuation/word dividers and pronunciation helps).  However, these particular characters do not generally match up with the list of characters that were chosen for the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet, and do not represent the same sounds.  However, from evidence in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, there are affinities in the names of characters, such as Joseph Smith's Gamel (Egyptian Kham, Semitic Gamel), Joseph Smith's Beth (Semitic Beth), Joseph Smith's Iota (Greek Iota, Egyptian Irt), and Joseph Smith's Ho-Ha-Oop (Semitic Ho/He).

In the Egyptian system, what we think of as traditional alphabetical characters are the one-consonant forms (uniliterals).  Evidence exists for sign lists of these uniliteral characters that follow closely to the South Semitic Order.  Similar to the Proto-Sinaitic, the evidence in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar shows that these characters also have astrological/astronomical implementation.  But the South Semitic Order and the Egyptian names of the signs also seems to be some inspiration from acrophonic lists of birds, of all things, derived from poems or recitations where bird names were paired with the names of tree, plants or place-names that they were associated with, that started with the same sound acrophonically.  There is some evidence that ancient sign lists from Egypt had 25 basic uniliteral characters in them.  So, the original idea for the abecedaria (calendrical/astrological/phonetic sign lists) seems to have originated in Egypt. (

However, the evidence from Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar shows that other sign-list orders existed that were invented or customized for a particular context or situation.  Rather than recitation of some poems, these lists were mnemonic and acrophonic and acrostic.  In the case of the Psalms in the Bible, it is acrophonic and acrostic.  In the case of the Hor Sensen Papyrus, it is also somewhat acrophonic and acrostic.  But the inspiration/purpose for the particular ordering of the signs in the sign lists in the columns around Facsimile #1, it is simply the identity and genealogy of the owner of the Papyrus.  The same is so in other similar sections of other copies of the Sensen Papyrus.  The important thing is that the sign list in the Hor Papyrus contains many of the uniliteral and determinative characters from the Egyptian Alphabet, and they are identified as being "alphabetic" characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, although the usage of these characters the Sensen document is more properly described as pictographic.  So, while it is true that the Sensen Ordering of the Egyptian Alphabetical Characters is different than either the North Semitic or South Semitic traditional orderings, it is still a derived sign list of what may properly be called alphabetic characters.  The fact that there were additional orderings in Egypt shows that while some are traditional, others are fluid.  Therefore, the Sign List or Abecedarium derived from the Sensen Papyrus is in very deed the Egyptian Alphabet, just in a custom order.  And the ancients used it in this very way.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Joseph Smith Called Indo-Iranian Language Forms "Egyptian": The Implications

As I have pondered my research from last week, where I identified the Egyptian Counting vocalizations as Indo-Iranian, and that the glyphs for the numerals are both Indic as well as Hieratic Egyptian, it seems that the conclusion is clear.  Very early on, there was some kind of interchange between far-flung centers of priestly learning, enough to influence Egyptian Priests to adopt Indo-Iranian pronunciations for the shared Indic/Hieratic numerals.  It is quite clear that this had to be a priestly interchange, because it was not the common knowledge of all in Egypt.  Whatever the case, the vocalizations of the numerals are foreign pronunciations that were adopted at some point in time into Egypt to where they would appear in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and called "Egyptian."

Or another possibility.  While we have narrowed down the numerals to a language family, still, an a couple of outliers exist in the form of the number two (Ni from the Sino-Tibetan) and the fact that there is an H form for the number seven in most Indo-Iranian forms, yet in the EAG,we have an S form like in the minority of Indo-Iranian forms.  These facts may indicate odd internationalizations and mixing and matching akin to the fact that in the Book of Abraham, we have the Priest of Pharaoh practicing human sacrifice in Chaldea, on a hill with an Egyptian name:  Potiphar.  (See Abraham Chapter 1.)  It was an international outpost of the Egyptian religion in the region.  Now remember, in the Book of Abraham, Abraham comes out of Chaldea and goes to Egypt, and in theory, spoke to the Egyptians in their own language.  Abraham himself is knowledgeable in the Egyptian language.  Would he not be knowledgeable in other languages of the day?  Already, we have the odd coincidences that we have documented of Abraham's followers very early on among the Iranians and the Indians, so there were followers of his from a very early stage that spoke a nascent, emerging language of the Indo-Iranian family.  We have to remember that it was a very small world back then, where the first languages of the major families had barely or hardly solidified themselves, having just emerged right after the time of Babel.  In fact, in a lot of Abraham traditions, it is the mighty hunter, Nimrod, king of Babylon, who is Abraham's foe, and so we have to remember what time period this is.  It is right after Babel, in the very first generation.  Abraham, as Nibley tells us, is Kosmokrator, a very learned man with no small reputation and no small standing in society.  It makes sense that there is a hodge-podge of influence in Abraham's world.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Constellations, Zodiacs, Alphabets and Abraham

I have done quite a bit of research to demonstrate the plausibility of the connections between Constellation sign lists and the Alphabet.  The research is ongoing, and demonstrates that some things between Zodiacs and the most ancient of Alphabets can be definitively linked and others are more elusive.  The point was not to link up each and every letter with some particular Zodiac.  The main point was to demonstrate that the most ancient of Alphabets, both Egyptian (the Uniliteral, Biliteral and Triliteral phonetic signs) and the Proto-Sinaitic, belong to a genre or type of sign list that was anciently associated with calendars and constellations and the stars in general.  This demonstrates the plausibility that the alphabets were originally derived from sign lists of this type.  Since Abraham concerned himself with the stars, it makes sense that he was also associated with alphabets.  And this is why, the Sensen Papyrus, being an alphabet (sign list) and being that it is associated with other alphabets, was associated with Abraham.  This is why in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, there is such a great amount of association of various characters with astronomical themes.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

The "Egyptian" Counting Vocalizations in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Part Three: Reducing the Cognate Comparison Down to a Language Family: Indo-Iranian Hybrid with Sino-Tibetan Outliers

In summary:

When I first started studying the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, I knew Anti-Mormons were always trashing on Joseph Smith's numerals saying that they are just made up.  I knew they were wrong, because I knew in my gut that some of them had patterns that I knew of from other languages from Europe and Asia.  And I am also a martial artist since age 14, and knew how to count in Japanese.  And I knew that the Japanese number two was Ni.  And I knew that was more than a coincidence.  Joseph Smith would not have just threw in the Japanese number for two for nothing.  Japanese was the last thing on Joseph Smith's mind when he was doing what he was doing.  So I knew that this had something more to do with an ancient convergence of language families in some region.  And I knew intuitively that the language family that the Japanese numerals ultimately belonged to had something to do with the puzzle.

Here is my post on the Sino-Tibetan Ni form for the number two, to which the Sino-Japanese numeral vocalizations belong:

You also may want to look at this link:

And I also knew that other people had no clue, so there was some complexity behind this.  It was a puzzle to be deciphered, not a crazy man's idea to be dismissed.  Hugh Nibley again and again showed us the necessity for a wide-ranging comparative study.  And so, I needed to nail down patterns and cognates (similar sounding words from other languages).  Little did I know at the time that I would actually end up having to scan through cognates from all the world's language families to narrow this down.  And, so, I knew in my gut that if Japanese still testified that Ni was a real numeral in some languages, that the rest of the cognates would show up somewhere, and we could nail this thing down.  Thankfully comparative charts are found at

The surprise is the geographic area where these cognates converge.  It is not Egypt.  It is the Himalayas.  I know that is strange, but stay with me here, because if the language is not classic Ancient Egyptian that is represented by these numerals, then it had to belong to some language family, didn't it?  And if the Lord is allowing the Anti-Mormons to hang themselves with things like this, it would have to be real and true without being obvious.

This article narrows down the language families of the number vocalizations in the Egyptian Counting Section of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers to Indo-Iranian (a sub-group of Indo-European) and Sino-Tibetan (i.e. Chinese/East Asian/Japanese family) rather than from Ancient Egyptian.  As I showed in a different article, the numeral characters are also strangely from the Indo-Arabic numeral family, while being closely tied to hieratic numerals.  This points to a origin for these vocalizations and numerals from the Tibet/India/Persia area where Indo-Iranian and Sino-Tibetan numeral vocalizations geographically overlap.  Only further research can show why Joseph Smith would have produced this, and what it has to do with the Book of Abraham.  What we can say at this point though is that he did NOT make these numerals up, because they do actually belong to existing language families.

Here are the Ancient Egyptian Numerals that have been Egyptologically reconstructed.  These are NOT the same as in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers:

1 = W' ("Oua")
2 = Shnwai ("Shinway")
3 = Khmt ("Khamta")
4 = Fdw ("Fda")
5 = Diw ("Diyaw")
6 = Sis ("Seis")
7 = Sfkh ("Safakha")
8 = Khmn ("Khamana")
9 = Psd ("Pisida")
10 = Md ("Muda")

A cognate comparison to Hebrew, Akkadian and African languages shows that these vocalizations are clearly from the Afro-Asiatic language family.  In contrast to those, here are the vocalizations/pronunciations for the numerals in the Egyptian Counting section of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers:

1 = Eh
2 = Ni
3 = Ze
4 = Teh
5 = Veh
6 = Psi
7 = Psa
8 = A
9 = Na
10 = Ta

Trying to get these to fit in the Afro-Asiatic family is to jam a square peg in a round hole.  These simply have no relation whatsoever to "Ancient Egyptian" numerals as Egyptologically reconstructed.  Ancient Egyptian is related to other languages of the region, such as Akkadian and Hebrew, and other African languages in the Afro-Asiatic family.  The numerals in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are simply not from the same language family, at all, and do not relate to Egyptologically reconstructed Ancient Egyptian, nor do they relate to later Coptic cognates.  They are simply something else.  It is true that the numbers 6 and 7 are somewhat similar, but the rest are simply not related at all, to the degree that it is quite apparent they are clearly not even in the same language family.  As with all the rest of Joseph Smith's reconstructions, this is not surprising. Anti-Mormons would stop here and declare victory and call Joseph Smith a fraud without actually doing anything else, but of course, that is a lazy mindset.  This type of thing has never stopped us before, and it has never meant that they are not actually Egyptian.  It just means they are a different system, from a different language family, and need a different explanation.  And by actually doing our homework, and taking Joseph Smith at his word, we will see that they are actually real, and actually belong to some family of numerals.  Just because they are different does not mean they are not what they claim to be.  We will see that they are indeed "Egyptian," just not "Ancient Afro-Asiatic Egyptian."

If you remember, in the first part of this series of posts, we mentioned that in Greek, forms such as Tessera for four start with "te" just like in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers numeral set.  (Compare for example, the English word Tesseract, the name of the hypercube in geometry/mathematics, which derives from the Greek word--

Also, we see that in Germanic, we have A forms for 8, N forms for 9, and T forms for 10.  In the EAG, we have this "a, na, ta" triplicate for 8, 9 and 10.  Forms that are similar to this triplicate occur in things such as the Pashto variants of Indo-Iranian languages.  In the following examples, the parts that are the most similar are in bold.  For example, in the Wakhi Pashto variant, it is "at, na:wdhas."  The Proto-Indo-Iranian reconstruction is "*ashta:, *nawa, *daca."  In Proto-Germanic (the reconstruction), these are "*ahto:,*niwun, *tehun."  The Indo-European reconstructions are "*okto:, *newn, and *dekm."

For 6 and 7, we have a pair that is "psi, psa", which is essentially an "S, S" pair.  These types of pairs for 6 and 7 occur in families such as Germanic, Italic, etc.  In Italic, we have "Si, Sa" variants, such as in Dalmatian, Franco-Provencal, and even in Germanic such as in English with "Six, Seven" and so forth.  The West Frisian is "seis, n."  The Proto-Indo-European reconstruction is "*sweks, *septm."

In the EAG, the numeral for 5 is "veh," a bi-labial fricative.  For the number five, in Greek we have "pente."  Other Indo-European forms for bi-labial fricatives such as this are Cypriot "bende."  The Indo-Iranian Pashto variants have forms such as "panj" or "penj."  Rimella is "venve."  Proto-Celtic-Gaulish (reconstruction) is "pempe."

Scanning through the other variants throughout language families, it is clear, based on these comparisons that the language family that most of Joseph Smith's EAG numerals belong to is the INDO-EUROPEAN Language Family.  But not all.  So what does this indicate?  We shall see.

Now, to proceed further on zeroing in further on the sub-language groups that these numerals belong to, we will focus in on the number three.  In the EAG, Joseph Smith's numeral for three is "Ze."  In a search among Indo-European variants for a Z or an S form for the number three, we find it in the Indo-Iranian variants.  Such as the Pashto Parachi variant "she" and the Pashto Ormuri variant "she."  It is however, particularly in the Western Iranian Variants that we find most of them.  We find the "se" form in the Yazdi, Natanzi, Khunsari, Gazi, Sivandi, Vafsi, Sangisari, Gilaki, Mazanderani, Talysh, Baluchi, Rakhshani (Western), Kermanji (S) Kurdish and Zaza (N) Kurdish, and others that are very close, such as Bajalani which is "sa."

Note in particular, the Kurdish variants here.  We will come back to this to focus on it in later posts, because it is very important.  But "se" forms also exist for Southwest Iranian forms as well such as in variants like Farsi, Isfahani, Tajik, Tati, Fars, Lari, Luri.  So, based on the number three "Se" variants existing exclusively in Indo-Iranian variants, we can surmise that most of Joseph Smith's Egyptian numeral vocalizations belongs to the Indo-Iranian sub-family of Indo-European, with Western Iranian forms being very similar.  However, we will also take notice of a Sino-Tibetan triplicate later on in this article, where that triplicate is very close to Joseph Smith's "outlier" numerals (i.e. those that do not fit with Indo-Iranian).

The only outlier out of all the numerals is the number two, which is Ni.  However, throughout many Indo-Iranian and Indian forms, the numeral is either "di," "dvi," "dwi" or "dwa."  These are one-syllable particles, very similar to Ni, with the consonant only being slightly different.  And as I pointed out in the previous post, the "Ni" variants in Sino-Tibetan languages are well-attested as in almost a majority.  It can be explained as being something that was an interpolation inherited from or influenced by Sino-Tibetan forms, which overlap geographically in the same part of the word as the Indic forms of Indo-Iranian, across the Himalayas into the Indian-Sub-Continent.

The numeral one, in many forms in Indo-Iranian, is just simply "i", just like Joseph Smith's "eh" for the number one.

Here are examples for comparison from this language family that ranges from Persia to India.  Take note of general patterns, not getting hung up on particulars (the parts most similar to Joseph Smith's Egyptian are highlighted):

Talysh i(1) du(2) se(3)  cho(4) penj (5) shash(6) håft(7) hasht(8) nav(9) (10)

Kermanji (S) Kurdish yak(1) du:(2) se:(3) chwa:r(4) pe:nj(5) shash(6) hawt(7) hasht(8) no:(9) da(10)

Zaza (N) Kurdish e:k(1) dô(2) se:(4) cha:r(4) pe:nj(5) shash(6) haft(7) hasht(8) na(9) da(10)

Gilaki yek(1) du(2) se(3) chår(4) penj(5) shish(6) haf(7) hash(8) noh(9) da(10)

Banjari (Lamani) ek(1) di(2) tin(3) caar(4) paanc(5) cho(6) saat(7) aaT(8) naw(9) das(10)

Marathi ek(1) don(2) ti:n(3) char(4) pac(5) seha(6) sat(7) ath(8) neu(9) deha(10)

Lahnda hikk(1)do:e:(2) träo(3) cha:r(4) pañ(5) ch`e:(6) satt(7) att`(8) ~(9) da:h(10)

Even though some of the forms of Indo-Iranian 7, there is a "ha" form, it is still essentially a match, because even in Ancient Egyptian to Coptic, some of the numeral pronunciations shifted from "kha" to "sa" and so forth.  The shifting of the sounds sometimes like this is immaterial.  Other closely related cognates show the presence of "sa" in the group.

In some of these Indo-Iranian forms, the number 4 is a ts, c form or ch which are close to a T.  Now, once again, we show the EAG numerals for comparison:
Eh(1), Ni(2), Ze(3), Teh(4), Veh(5), Psi(6), Psa(7), A(8), Na(9), Ta(10)

Now, as an example of how these two language families intermix geographically in this region (Sino-Tibetan and Indo-Iranian in the Himalayan area), I give two examples here, that both have the A, Na, Ta (8, 9, 10) triplicate with a Ni form for the number two, and a b form for the number 5.  This is the Central Himalayan language called Magari (Again, the closest forms to Joseph Smith's Egyptian are highlighted.):

kat(1) nis (2) som(3) buli(4) ba-nga(5) ch`a(6) sa:t(7) a:th(8) nau(9) das(10) (

Just like the Banjari and the Lahnda Indo-Iranian forms, this Magari counting has a ch form for the number six.

Even though the Magari numeral for one has no initial vowel, it still starts out with a K, which is found in several of the the other Indo-Iranian forms that we have shown.  Interestingly also, it is found in a number of Sino-Tibetan forms for the number one as well.

As you can see with these language forms, the numerals for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, are practically identical with the Indo-Iranian forms above, yet there is a Ni form for the number two.  It is in very deed a hybrid between the two language families.  And that, contrasted with another (called Chepang) in the same region that obviously has more classic Sino-Tibetan roots:

Chepang jat-zho?(1) nis-zho?(2) sum-zho?(3) plaj-zho?(4) po-nga-z'o(5) kruk-(6) chana-(7) prep-(8) te-ku0(9) gjip-(10)

Now the same appears for several West Himalayan languages (see (again with similarities to Joseph Smith's Egyptian highlighted), these are clear hybrids between Sino-Tibetan and Indo-Iranian, just like Joseph Smith's Egyptian:

Kanashiidi(1) ñish(2) shum(3) pu(4) nga(5) tso(6) saot(7) ath(8) nou(9) das(10)

Thami: diware(1) nis(2) tin (3) cha:r(4) pa:nch(5) ch`au(6) sa:t(7) a:t`(8) nan(9) das(10)

Bhramu de:(1) ni(2) swo:m(3) bi(4) ba:nga:(5)

Just like the Banjari and the Lahnda Indo-Iranian forms, and the Central Himalayan Magari, the Thami has a ch form for the number six.  And the Kanashi form has a ts, which is very close to ch.  However, it also manifests that it is essentially similar to an S form, which is what other Indo-Iranian forms have for a number six.

The Kanashi number 5 has a nga form, which is the second syllable in these other forms.  It shares this in common with many Sino-Tibetan forms of the number five.
Instead of a K in the number one, these forms consistently have a D form where the K form was in the Central Himalayan forms that are related to Indo-Iranian.

And now, we contrast those from others in the same region that are more true to the Sino-Tibetan forms:

Chitkuli i(1) nisi(2) homo(3) pä(4) nga(5) tu(6) tish(7) rE(8) gui(9) sE(10)

Kanauri it(1) nish(2) sum(3) pli(4) nga(5) tug(6) stish(7) raj(8) zgui(9) sej(10)

Manchati (Pattani) icha(1) jut(2) sumu(3) pi(4) nga(5) trui(6) nhizi(7) re(8) ku (9) sa(10)

Chamba i:tti(1) jur.(2) shum(3) pi(4) nga:(5) tru:i:(6) hni(7) hre:(8) ku:(9) sa:(10)

Rangloi (Tinani) ica(1) ngizi(2) sumu(3) pi(4) nga(5) trui(6) ngicce(7) gyeidi(8) ku(9) sa(10)

Now, there is one more point that I want to make about Sino-Tibetan.  And that is, in a lot of these forms, it is mostly the first three numerals that have any similarity at all to Joseph Smith's Egyptian. In some Sino-Tibetan forms, we have something similar to the "eh(1), ni(2), ze(3)" triplicate as is found in Joseph Smith's Egyptian.  A more obvious example is Sino-Japanese (the usual way of counting in Japanese--once again similarities to Joseph Smiths Egyptian are highlighted):

ichi(1) ni(2) san(3) shi(4) go(5) roku(6) sichi(7) hachi(8) ku(9) ju(10)

Now, reconstructed Old Chinese:
*?jit(1) *njis(2) *sum(3) *s(p)jij/ts(4) *nga?(5) *C-rjuk(6) *tshjit(7) *pret(8) *kwju?(9) *gjip(10)

And Yangzhou Chinese:
ie?(1) â(2) se~(3) si(4) u(5) lo(6) chie(7) pa(8) ciôi(9) se(10)

And Suzhou Chinese:
je(1) ñi(2) (3) si(4) ng(5) ly(6) tshi(7) py(8) tsiöy(9) ze(10)

Anyway, you probably get my point I think.  There is something going on here.  All the "components" for these numerals are present in Indo-Iranian forms, and Indo-European in general, except for the Ni outlier, which is present in Sino-Tibetan languages, which are geographically in the same region as many of the Indo-Iranian languages.  If there was nothing to this, these patterns would not have manifest themselves with a geographical region to match them. This is where the evidence leads.  We have identified an area of perhaps Tibet or the Himalayas where two language systems cross over that are evident in the Egyptian counting vocalizations of the KEP.  What the true reason is for this is only something that can be guessed.  But at the very least, this shows there is some sort of very early connection between the Himalayas and Egypt.

Since I wrote this article, more evidence has presented itself and I presented it in another post:

This shows that the MOST ANCIENT Egyptian language spoken by the original inhabitants of Egypt would have been Indo-European in origin, before the seed of Noah got to Egypt, perhaps even from the area in question of the Himalayas.

The "Egyptian" Counting Vocalizations in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Part Two: The Sino-Tibetan Ni form for Two

Again, here are the vocalizations/pronunciations for the numerals in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers or Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (EAG):

1 = Eh
2 = Ni
3 = Ze
4 = Teh
5 = Veh
6 = Psi
7 = Psa
8 = A
9 = Na
10 = Ta

We will start out looking at some specifics to find certain patterns.  In the previous post, we had identified Japanese as a language that had the vocalization of Ni as being EXACTLY as in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.  This may seem strange at first.  But now we will do a broad search for instances of the number two as Ni.  A good place to start is the language families related to Japanese.  I am a martial artist, and though I do not speak Japanese, I have a lot to do with Japanese.  I have known how to count in Japanese for a very long time.

A great tool that I have found is the following website:
This site has the basic numerals, 1 to 10 in over 5000 languages in tables by family.  There are actually four versions of Japanese numerals.  The first one is the native Japanese.  The second is the Ainu (i.e. the earliest inhabitants of Japan that seem to have some genetic relations to Native Americans).  The third is the Okinawan Hogan numerals.  And the fourth is the Chinese-influenced numerals in the Japanese language.  It is specifically this Chinese-influenced set of numerals that the numeral Ni comes from.  This is from the Sino-Tibetan family of numerals.  Now we will document how many languages in this language family that the form Ni appears in.  And then we will move on to a different part of our study in a different post.  But the point is, this demonstrates a widespread existence of an ancient form of the number two as a Ni form, throughout significant portions of Asia.  This will relate specifically to the counting vocalizations in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, as you will see, in the next post in this series.  However, at this point, this is part of our broad-based study of pronunciations for cognates.  In the next post, the geographic area that these cognates are found in will take on more significance.

This will become more significant as we go on because of the family that we will identify that the numerals in the EAG belongs to in the next post.

Now for the Ni forms of the number two in the Sino-Tibetan language family.

** Sino-Tibetan Languages (
I -- Sinitic (Chinese)

(A) proto-Chinese -- *'nejs.?
(B) Old chinese -- *njis
(C) Middle Chinese+ -- nyì
(D) (Karlgren) -- ñzhi6
(E) Suzhou -- ñi
(F) Wenzhou -- ng
(G) Toishan -- ngei
(H) N. MinJianou -- ni

II -- Tibeto- Burman

(A) Proto-TB+ (Benedict) -- *g-nis
(B) Proto-TB+ (Dempsey) -- k.nis
(C) Sulung -- nyi
(D) Sherdukpen -- nyik
(E) Pho -- ni 11
(G) Taungthu (Pa-o)-- ni

III -- Newari-Pahri

(A) Newari -- ni-gu
(B) Pahri -- nisi

IV --Dhimal-Toto

(A) Dhimal -- ngai
(B) Toto -- ne:

V --Adi-Nishi

(A) Lepcha -- 'ñi?
(B) Nishi -- enyi
(C) Dafla (Tagen) -- a:-ñi
(D) Apatani -- ni~
(E) Yano -- anyi
(F) Lho-pa (Bokar Adi) -- ani~

VI -- Bodic

(A) Monpa N -- naj
(B) S -- naj
(C) Takpa -- nai
(D) Kaike -- nghyi
(E) Ghale -- ni
(F) Murmi (Tamang) -- ngi:
(G) Gurung -- hni:
(H) Thakali -- ngih
(I) Classical Tibetan+ -- gñis
(J) Tibetan (Bhotia) -- nyee
(K) Ladakhi -- ñis
(L) Dzongkha (Bhutanese) -- ni
(M) Sherpa -- ngyi
(N) Stod Bothi -- ñi
(O) Zhang-zhung+ -- ni
(P) West Tibetan (Balti) -- ñi:s

VII --Central Himalayan

(A) Magari -- nis
(B) Raji -- nhi

VIII-- West Himalayan

(A) Bunan (Gahri) -- nis
(B) Thebor -- nis'-i
(C) Kanashi -- ñish
(D) Chitkuli -- nisi
(E) Kanauri -- nish
(F) Rangloi (Tinani) -- ngizi
(G) Rangkas -- nisi:
(H) Darmiya -- nishu
(I) Chaudangsi -- nisi
(J) Byangsi -- nishi
(K) Thami -- nis
(L) Bhramu -- ni

IX-- East Himalayan

(A) Thulung -- ne
(B) Tangut+ (Sihia) -- niN
(C) N Qiang Taoping -- nyi
(D) Mawo -- ghne
(E) Dzorgai -- nié
(F) Kortse -- niu
(G) Ergong -- wne
(H) Queyu -- ñí
(I) Zhaba-- né
(J) S Qiang -- ñí
(K) Ersu -- né
(L) Lyusu -- né
(M) Guiqiong -- ñî
(N) Muya -- ní
(O) Pumi -- ni
(P) Shixing -- ñe:
(Q) Namuyi -- ñi
(R) Tripuri (Kok Borok) -- nij
(S) Chutiya (Deori) -- hni
(T) Bodo -- nè
(U) Dimasa -- g-ni
(V) Chang -- ñi?
(W) Wancho -- ani
(X) Phom -- nyi

X -- Burmic

(A) Meithei -- oni:
(B) Mikir -- ni:
(C) Thado -- ní
(D) Kamhau -- nih
(E) Paite (Vuite) -- nih
(F) Siyin -- ni:
(G) Zo (Zome) -- ni
(H) Tarao -- ni
(I) Sho -- ni
(J) Thayetmo -- hni
(K) Chinbok (Mün) -- hni
(L) Yawdin -- hni
(M) Rawang -- n'i
(N) Metu -- ni
(O) Tamalu -- n'i
(P) Tukiumu -- n'i
(Q) W Nakhi (Moso) -- ñì
(R) E Nakhi -- ñi
(S) Ulu -- n'i
(T) Yi (Lolo) -- nyì
(U) Ahi -- nio
(V) Lolopho -- nio
(W) Mpi -- ñi2
(X) Hwethom -- ni1
(Y) Akha -- nyî
(Z) Lahu -- nî
(AA) Lahu Xi -- ñì
(BB) Menia -- nyi

*** Japanese

(A) Sino-Japanese -- ni

The "Egyptian" Counting Vocalizations in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Part One: A Broad-based Cognate Comparison

In a previous post, I had originally posted this information along with the glyphs for the Egyptian Counting Section of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers or "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" (EAG).  However, I have split it off, because more information has surfaced since.  We will now discuss the names/vocalizations of the numerals in the EAG.  The first thing to note is that these numerals are simply not Egyptian at all, at least from the perspective of reconstructed/mechanical Egyptian or Coptic.  This has never been an impediment for us before, but is actually a help.  Because we know that conventional wisdom has never been sufficient when it comes to the things that Joseph Smith has been brought to light.  We should expect this to be the case, because the EAG and the Book of Abraham has thrown quite a number of curve-balls to the world since the beginning of the time that people have been aware of it.  It's not that these things are not Egyptian in the end.  We will eventually know HOW these things are Egyptian, and why Joseph Smith used the word Egyptian to describe them.

But for now, the first thing we need to do is to focus on the fact that we need to separate these things from the word Egyptian.  Doing this is not a statement that they are not Egyptian.  It is a statement that the word Egyptian can be an impediment to proper identification in modern technical terms.  We need to identify the language family these things belong to.  The language family that they belong to is just NOT Afro-Asiatic at all, which is the language family of both Semitic and Hamitic languages like Hebrew and Egyptian.  An explanation for how this is so is not necessary yet, because that is the whole point of research, but it is clear that a denial that this is ALSO some kind of Egyptian somehow is NOT productive.  I say it is a spirit of fear, not faith.  The spirit of Denialism is what has led everyone to doubt Joseph Smith.  Rather, we should take Joseph Smith at his word.

Now, here are the vocalizations/pronunciations for the numerals in the EAG:

1 = Eh
2 = Ni
3 = Ze
4 = Teh
5 = Veh
6 = Psi
7 = Psa
8 = A
9 = Na
10 = Ta

There will be multiple phases in our research on these numerals 

Now, keep in mind a few factors in this analysis of the vocalizations/phonetics for these numerals.   The Mechanical Egyptian language (Ancient Egyptian) was reconstructed Egyptolotically from Coptic and Hieroglyphic phonetics, that was initiated from study on the Rosetta stone.  These vocalizations do not match that language.  That much is obvious.  Rather than being able to nail down some specific ancient Egyptian language where these phonetics/vocalizations are attested, which is unrelated to the one reconstructed from the Rosetta Stone and Coptic and so forth, we have to cast a broader net than that.  There is no indication that the readings from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar are related to the Mechanical Egyptian Language.  Therefore, without being able to nail it down to whether these numeral phonetics originate from Hamitic, Semitic, Indo-European, Sumerian, Hittite, or whatever, we will cast a broad net using broad sets of cognates, to demonstrate that there is indeed underlying patterns here, and Joseph Smith didn't just make these readings up.  We will follow this up in other posts, focusing in on a particular and specific language family and then focusing in on even more specific.

Number one as eh is interesting.  In Hebrew, echad (i.e. the cardinal number) is one.  Note that the name for the Japanese numeral one is very similar here.  It is ichi.  And in Sanskrit (Ancient Hindu) it is eka.  In Greek it is ena.  These are obviously all versions of the same prehistoric name for the numeral, spread across the world.  This sound in the EAG is obviously a shortened version of this shared name for the number one.  

The fact that other things are broken up in the EAG into abbreviation forms shows that this is something the Ancient System of Interpretation in Joseph Smith's Egyptian was full of.  Throughout Joseph Smith's Egyptian, we keep coming back to various types of abbreviation, from the packing in of characters/strokes into composites/monograms, to initialisms like this with the names of numbers.  Initialisms, being another type of abbreviation, in English occur in such things as "St." for Street and "Ct." for Court, in our naming systems for streets and roads and so forth.  Or "Mr." for Mister, "Sr." for Senior, and so forth.  However, there is also something else that may factor in.  It is possible that the names may have something to do with some kind of association with something like how Ugaritic character names were associated with Akkadian syllabograms, where they were intentionally lined up with the syllabograms that read as the first syllable of the Semitic names for the characters.  Something like this may have factored in to names for the numerals here:

Several of the Ugaritic documents in the cuneiform alphabet are school exercises, and one of them contains a peculiar abecedary (KTU 5.14): in this sequence of cuneiform alphabet letters, about two thirds of which have survived, the writer has added next to each cuneiform letter a cuneiform sign from the usual cuneiform syllabary. Thus, next to the letter for /b/ the syllabogram <be> is found, next to the letter for /g/ the syllabogram <ga> etc. It has been argued by Frank Cross and Thomas Lambdin that these correspondences are not haphazard. The two authors suggest that the vowels expressed in the syllabograms are the same vowels that occurred in the (first syllable of the) Semitic letter names: hence, <be> for /b/ because the letter name was bet, <ga> for /g/ because the letter name was gaml, and so on.  Overall, these vowel correspondences are indeed systematic enough to make coincidence unlikely, even if not every detail fits in exactly . . .  (

Next, the name for the number two, which is ni, is very interesting.  In Hebrew, it is shnayim or sheni.  Note the particle ni in the Hebrew words.  In Japanese, it is ni, which is identical to the EAG.  In Sanscrit it is dvi.  In Greek it is dio.  In German it is zwei.  In Ancient Egyptian (Egyptologically reconstructed), it is sin.way (sn.wy), where sin is the first particle, and way is the last particle that indicates masculinity.  As you can see, this is almost identical to Hebrew, and has the N just like the Hebrew.  The Coptic is snau, which again is practically identical to both the Ancient Egyptian and the Hebrew.

Next, we have the number three, which is ze in the EAG.  In Chinese, it is san or saam.  In Japanese, it is san.  In Hebrew it is shlosha or shalosh.  This would seem to be a shortening of these s-forms of words for three.  While the Ancient Egyptian (reconstructed) is khamtaw (khmt.w, masc. form), where the first particle without the masculine ending is khamt, the Coptic retained the S form, as somnt.

Next, for the number four in the EAG, we have teh.  It is interesting that in Greek, the word for four is tessera.  This is where we get the word tesseract, the name of a hypercube.  In Sanskrit, it is cater.  In Latin, it is quattuor.  In Spanish, it is cuatro.  The point is, some of these forms start with te and end in r, or have a tr in the middle of the word.  This word in the EAG is a shortening of these cognate forms that have a T in them.  The Ancient Egyptian (reconstructed) is ifd.w (yafdaw) where the W at the end once again is the masculine particle, while the ifd/yafd particle at the beginning is the actual numerical particle.  The Coptic is ftooe, retaining a T form.  Again, we see the D/T in the forms of the word.

Next, for the number five, we have veh.  In German, five is funf.  In Greek, five is pente.   In Sanskrit, it is panca.  In Chinese, it is wu.  In Japanese, it is go.  In Latin, it is quinque.  In Spanish it is cinco.  Now, in English, the word for war  is guerra.  The word for the name William is Guillermo, and so forth.  Some of these forms of words have an interchangeability between the sounds of p and f and w and g for the consonant.  F and P are very close to the sound of V.  In Hebrew, W is interchangeable with V.  In English, W is a “double U.”  The letter U is a form of the letter V.  The point is, veh is a one-syllable shortening of these f, p, or v or w forms of the words for five in these various cognates.  In other words, veh fits snugly within the family of cognates.

Next, for the number six, we have psi.  In Hebrew, it is shisha or shesh.  In Greek it is eksi.  In Sanskrit, it is sas.  In Latin, it is sex.  In Spanish it is seis.  So this is a contraction of these si or se cognate forms into one syllable.  In some of the cognates below, we will see that sometimes, various consonants are interchangeable, such as in the cases of K, G or P.  In the Greek, we have a K, and in the EAG, we have a P.  Clearly, these are interchanged in this case.  Another example of this in the EAG is the word Zeptah, which is the name in the “Chaldee” for Egyptus.  Aegyptus is the Greek form of the word.  The Ancient Egyptian form of this word is is Ha-ka-ptah (House, or spirit of the god Ptah.) This is related to the root KPT in Semitic, meaning hidden, or forbidden, as the Book of Abraham says, for the meaning of the name Egyptus.  Again, my point is here, Z is interchanged for K, and so forth.  In the case of this numeral, K is interchanged for P in some cognates.  And in Latin, the K/X sound is transposed with the S.  Once again, it fits within the family of cognates well.

Next, for seven, we have psa.  In Sanskrit it is sapta.  In Latin it is septem.  In Spanish it is siete.  In Hebrew it is sheva or shiva.  In Japanese, it is shichi.  In Greek, it is efta.  As you can see with these cognates, there is a P, which in some versions is interchangeable with a F or V.  Most of them start with an S or SH sound.  Some have a T sound after the F or V or P sound.  In the EAG, the P and the S is transposed.  But still, it is once again consistent in reducing the essentials of these cognates down to one syllable.  It is consistent with the number six in the EAG, in that it starts with a PS where there is an S sound.

Next, in the EAG, for the number eight, we have the a.  In German it is acht.  In Sanskrit it is asta.  For Greek it is okto.  In Latin it is okto.  In Spanish it is ocho.  In Japanese, it is hachi.  In Mandarin Chinese, it is ba.  In Cantonese (a Chinese dialect), it is baat.  You get the point.  Again, the CH/K sound is transformed in some cognates to b, and there is a T that follows.  In many cognates, it starts out with an ah or o sound.  And in this case, it once again reduces all this to the a sound in one syllable.

Next, in the EAG, for the number nine, we have na.  In Sanskrit, this is nava.  In Greek, it is enia.  In German, it is neun.  For Latin, it is novum.  In Hindi, it is nau.  Once again, it fits within the family of cognates well as the first syllable.

Next, for the number ten in the EAG, we have ta.  In Greek, it is deka.  In Spanish, it is diez.  In Sanskrit, it is dasa.  In Hebrew it is assarah or eser.  In Arabic, it is ashra.  In Latin it is decem.  In German, it is zehn.  As you can see, some of these cognates start out with a D/T sound and have an S/K/CH sound in the middle.  Some have an R or an M/N at the end.  The point is, this once again reduces these forms down into one syllable, formed by the T/Da sound at the first of the word.

All of these numbers are very consistent in reducing these cross-familial types and forms down to one syllable, and they are all very consistent with these cognate forms in having some precedent for their sounds in those single syllables across the family of cognates.  Joseph Smith simply did not make this up, as is clear from the cross-cognate study, that all the names of numerals fit well within a broad set of cognates.  But to narrow it down further, we have to know more about the specific system, and why they are how they are.  A broad cross-cognate study is only the first piece of our study.  In the next post we will narrow things down even further.

Friday, April 4, 2014

Joseph Smith's Lack of Egyptological Understanding Predisposed Him to be Able to Translate

Suppose for a moment that Joseph Smith had NOT been in the environment of Pre-Champollion-Rosetta-Stone-ized America.  And suppose for a moment that instead, Joseph Smith had grown up in 21st Century America where many people are able to read Egyptological, Mechanical Egyptian.  Suppose for a moment that an individual like Professor Seixas, the Jewish Professor that taught him Hebrew, had been around, but had also taught Joseph Smith Egyptological Egyptian.  Joseph Smith would have been biased ahead of time against seeing in the Sensen Papyrus and in the Book of the Dead Papyrus the things that he saw.  Because of his LACK of understanding about Egyptological, Mechanical Egyptian, he was able to see what he saw.  That kind of an understanding that we have in our day about Egyptological Egyptian would have been an IMPEDIMENT to the Book of Abraham being translated correctly.  It is precisely BECAUSE he had no such understanding that he was able to open his mind to get the revelation on the System of Interpretation that he was able to get.  Therefore, Joseph Smith's lack of understanding on such matters was actually a BLESSING to us.  And the Lord's timing for when precise Egyptological knowledge came to America is perfect.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Statement by Lucy Mack Smith that Further Proves the Sensen Papyrus to be the Original of the Book of Abraham

An important quote from Lucy Mack Smith appears on the Joseph Smith Papers site:

After we had obtained all the information we could at the Temple, we visited the Mother of the Prophet, (a respectable looking old lady) who has four Mummies for exhibition, who (she says) were a King and Queen, and their Son and Daughter, and gives the names of each. She produced a black looking roll (which she told us was papyrus) found upon the breast of the King, part of which the Prophet had unrolled and read; and she had pasted the deciphered sheets on the leaves of a book which she showed us. The roll was as dark as the bones of the Mummies, and bore very much the same appearance; but the opened sheets were exceedingly like thin parchment, and of quite a light color. There were birds, fishes, and fantastic looking people, interspersed amidst hieroglyphics; but the old lady explained the meaning of them all, as Joseph had interpreted them to her.  The stories appeared to be more particular accounts than our Bible gives us, of Noah, the Ark and the flood—of Abraham and Melchizedec—of Joseph and Pharaoh—and of various other distinguished characters. She said, that when Joseph was reading the papyrus, he closed his eyes, and held a hat over his face, and that the revelation came to him; and that where the papyrus was torn, he could read the parts that were destroyed equally as well as those that were there; and that scribes sat by him writing, as he expounded. She showed us a large book where these things were printed, which of course sealed their truth to Mormon eyes and minds; but we had not time to read them. (Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer, 3 October 1846, 211) (See; "Lucy Mack Smith on Mummies and Papyri," Compiled by H. Michael Marquardt,

This shows that Joseph Smith did indeed restore or supply the information about the parts that were missing in the lacunae not only of the text, but probably also for the reconstructions of the drawings in the facsimiles.  This is important, because it shows that Joseph Smith got revelation on these things from the Holy Ghost that were missing, and that the original papyrus of the Book of Abraham was torn and sections were destroyed, contrary to the claims of Apologists who use other quotations where they try to make it seem that the papyrus was in pristine condition, perfectly preserved to the point where there was no tears in it, etc.  This is a clear description of the state that we find the Sensen Papyrus in today, with large lacunae in it.  And again, to repeat something from a previous post, this was not necessarily to restore the Sensen Papyrus, but to restore things to a condition that was serviceable to a derived composition that was reconstituted, that contained the text of the Book of Abraham.  This also has the detail that the opened sheets were light in color, and that the DECIPHERED sheets were the ones on the leaves of a book.  The ones that are in possession of the Church are pasted on paper.