so in a very simple way:
He says since that ancient Egyptian word is similar in meaning and constants to a another word in a relative language(s) then vowels must've been similar too.
From there I could prove there are some of Egyptian words had "a" following each constant.
Based on that and since I could provide couple of words then all words must have been the same.
That's how I understood it, maybe you could correct me.
I like the very simple explanation that says vowels were never standard across Egypt and so there is no point trying to guess what the vowels were for a specific word.
That simple theory is backed by Coptic writing - where vowels could finally be written -
Its also backed by the fact that even older Egyptian language had dialects as well
He didn't base his findings on one example, he used Arabic 'bayt' as an example to prove his theory.
His theory makes a lot of sense, except in one major realm;
There are different verb forms, and the two major verb forms in Coptic where I feel show the most irregularities is Qualitative and the adjectives, there is a Coptic 'H' in these forms which disproves his theory that vowels did not change their quality through verb forms. I feel Coptic Qualitative is a catch-for-all for forms that the original studiers of the language could not find their origin. Coptic Qualitative, in some types of verbs, show different forms which may result from an original adjective (Note: there is no true Egyptian adjective, adjectives are verb forms, the only true Egyptian adjective is NIB =every, all other true Coptic adjectives originate from Greek or other languages). Take for example the verb:
Kmom - to be black (Egyptian hieroglyphics: km(m))
If you notice there are different forms using the 'H'
KHME - Egypt
KMHME - darkness
Then you have:
KAME - adj. black
Note: If you gather adjectives and possibly nouns that were originally adjectives and put them together, you'll notice a pattern with 'H', for example:
W,HM / W,HME = small [W, =the 'sh' sound in 'ship']
hHKE / hHKI = poor (h =guttural ' h' sound)
CEB /CHB =knowing, cunning (noun) but originally possibly an adjective.
This pattern follows the Qualitative of 2lit and 2lit gem verbs:
h.HM = hot (h. = guttural 'h' sound)
KHM = black
KHB = cool
BHL = loose
KHT = build
Depending if you believe Coptic 'H' represents an 'ah', 'ay' or 'ee' sound, determines what theories may be correct or not. If you follow the Egyptiologist's theory then the 'H' represents an original 'i' or 'u' vowel; and the verbs then did change their vowels through verb forms. If you follow Patrick C Ryan's theory it would have been an original 'ah' sound, if then it originally represented an 'ah' sound, what need would there have been for two original long 'a' sounds where one changed to Coptic 'W' and the other stayed long 'a' =Coptic 'H'? This would have only existed in the adjective Form and not at all used in the infinitive.
This is of course following the Canaanaite long ' ah' = long 'oh' theory which evolved into Coptic 'W' and 'o'. You'd notice a lot of original 'a' vowels, and lack of 'i' and 'u' in the general Coptic language, especially since 'E' and 'I' are used a lot in unstressed position and there is no short vowel version of 'u'.
The formula for 3lit Coptic verbs in the qualitative shows: CoCC which is the same as the construct and this form probably represents the original Stative in Egyptian. If you notice there's no 'H' in any of this verb classes forms. Why is the spelling not CHCC?
Anyways, this is where I feel Patrick C Ryan has not explained his theory thoroughly. But it could just be me not understanding the origin of the damn Coptic 'H', it drives me nuts.