This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles
We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.
Cleanup.
To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?
Standardize the Chronology.
A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)
Stub sorting
Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .
Data sorting.
This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
𓄤 𓊖 nfr "beautiful" ṭab "good" is never taken for tet or taw that I can see. A symbol like the Egy. 𓄤 is taken for a qof-waw ligature by Albright for some reason. But I don't see it in the inscriptions as interpreted by the authors, so I'm gonna remove it. I also don't like the look of that compound bow, and shamash as snake-sun 𓇴 is if only on that Timna weight, creative and likely wrong. Can anybody show me these in the inscriptions or the boxy bow? To me, it looks like that table was made by people who read the references without attaining meaningful familiarity with them. Temerarius (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sun with Uraeus was chosen due to the lines in the š glyph.
Also, why would booby, out of all glyphs, be the one representing the š sound.
It's many sources against one user. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to begin, but I just found this while we were talking: https://imgur.com/a/1F9xyHw Doesn't that look like somebody who didn't know about the letter šadi? Once instance on the second one, two on the bottom one. Temerarius (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what is wrong with š as sun? Also, the image you showed doesn't look like Proto-Sinaitic at all, but rather like some early Phoenician scriptINFIYNJTE (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it is I think they're drawing something that isn't there. Remember we're working with a tiny pool of very creative scholarship here. Goldwasser and whoever first pointed out the breasts meaning are the only points of light in a dark area. But if there is such a glyph, fine. I was only worried about it before I saw there was a second person seriously arguing for it. Temerarius (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The striken š glyph isn't there, not even in Colless's source. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the article and removed the false glyph. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat supportive of the śamš "sun" interpretation and it is likely that š was a less common phoneme, given how much of the words with š in Hebrew resulted from ṯ alveolarizing into s~š in various Semitic languages like Phoenician and Hebrew, which didn't happen fully in Arabic and Aramaic (example: ṯd', Hebrew: שד, Aramaic: תַּדָּא/𐡕𐡃𐡀, Arabic: صدر/ثَدْي) INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the sun glyph likely faded away in favor of the ṯann/ṯd' glyphs as ṯ became alveolarized, with them becoming pointier and getting reinterpreted as šinn "tooth" by the time of the Phoenicians. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
𓈌 is the thing on Petrie's reference he turned upside down, and that tail on it isn't on my scan. Temerarius (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most scholarship calls that a lampwick, and it's the second time it's on the chart, then the non-grape-vine thing, what does that have to do with grapes or ע? Where's the source say that? Temerarius (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ġinab hieroglyph is "vine on trellis", possibly denoting a grapevine, which conveniently fits with ġanbab/ġinab "grape", as per Colless and unicode. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't grow grapes like that. It's convenient but it's not in the source and it's not correct. Possible, sure, we can talk about it but not in the article. Temerarius (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I found a source that says grapes were grown on trellis.
It also has to do a lot with ġinab since the Hebrew word is עַנָב beginning with ע, the letter which merged with ġinab.
The problem is where the so-called ġinab symbol is depicted.
As part of the suggested rewrite, we need to discuss the inscriptions containing the Proto-Sinaitic script (or the similar) script to reinterpret the symbols and their meaning. INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Wadi El-Hol, I can see the following symbols (left-to-right)
Meanwhile, inscription 360 seems to show an early version of ṯann "composite bow" as well as ṯad "breasts", and maybe Coless's śamš (which is shaped similarly to ṯad) [the stricken variant of śamš is nowhere to be found]
The symbol in the third and penultimate positions of the second wadi inscription reminds me of this 𓀫 and this https://i.imgur.com/uyGwcfR.png a bit ... Temerarius (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find the imgur symbol in Egyptian hieroglyphs. INFIYNJTE (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your lameds in the first might be ns Temerarius (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
most likely; I was conflicted between lamed and naḥaš but since there are round glyphs, it is likely the latter. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean fig 360 for the one with the first and last legible being 𓐮? Same glyph, their arm's at a different angle at top and bottom writing it, or fatigued variation from ideal. Temerarius (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wait, why are we reinterpreting the symbols?
In the "Wadi el-Hol inscriptions" section, it's already stated that Colless translated:
> [Vertical] mšt r h ʿnt ygš ʾl
> [Horizontal] rb wn mn h ngṯ h ʾ p mẖ r 184.103.165.11 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of the Serabit el-Khadim inscriptions and found
as well as two symbols similar to the bag turnip (349, 367), a razored head, scratch marks?, a circle, a square, a mace?, half a kapp, more scratch marks, and a literal P. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was also two clear instance of Śamš in the Timna inscription, though the more simple form of the glyphs alongside its location might point to Proto-Canaanite instead of Proto-Sinaitic INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That "corner" interpretation always looked suspect to me. Looks like the Cypriot𐠠 𒾩 12FA9 Temerarius (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would cypriot have anything to do with serabit inscriptions.
At this point, knowing you were responsible for the šaddai edit for ś, I'm starting to think you don't know what you are talking about. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you doubt the breasts interpretation? Temerarius (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the source that you're using to argue right now Temerarius (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying. It was later found that breasts meant ṯad (ṯ?), not š.
I was a bit impatient when I made the above comment. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reasonable point of view is that anything other than bet resh would require accounting for, yes. Temerarius (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, let's continue another day since I'm really exhausted (have been on this all day) and will probably go crazy if I continue. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
INFIYNJTE -- If we were to personally reinterpret inscriptions, that would be the dreaded "original research" ... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We were looking at the inscriptions to see which ones shown in the papers are present and which ones aren't.
Since you are here, can you show me inscriptions that have the symbols for ẓ and š? INFIYNJTE (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference on šin is kinda hard to read, don't you consider this fringe? Temerarius (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Š is in inscription 357 according to Albright, which could be interpreted as a molar Šinn INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is most likely two snakes surrounding the sun, like described by Coless. INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the reinterpretation (in accordance with the sources), the meanings and symbols have largely remained the same. In fact, we concluded with less symbols than some of the sources (we must always watch out for creative scholarship). INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A rewrite for this article has been suggested. How should we go about it? INFIYNJTE (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's impossible with the state of available material. What we should do is put together an alphabet discussion group, do some original research, and write our own papers. That way these articles about proto Sinaitic and Canaanite have something to refer to. Temerarius (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile already mentioned it, the problem with the article is the undefined scope. Right now, there's too much and too unfocused information. Personally, I think the page should just summarize what it is and the difference between it and Proto-Canaanite, summarize the discoveries, and summarize the popular hypotheses on the development. I think the "Inscriptions" section should be removed and just be links to their respective wiki pages under the "See also" section. The individual wikis should be like the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon page where it has the different translations from different researchers highlighted. Controversially, I think the "Synopsis" section should also be removed. With everything clumped together and no formal consensus between all the letters it gets really confusing and becomes somewhat difficult to manage. I feel like it's better for each inscriptions page to have tables for the letters found on them. If needed, we can link to the table on the History of the alphabet page instead of having to maintain it in two places. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's harder to manage getting all inscriptions pages up to a certain level, with detailed alphabet charts. Seems ambitious. We'd need a wikiproject inscriptions. Temerarius (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are wikiproject incriptions? Explain. INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was saying it would be a big undertaking to bring each inscription page up to a certain standard. I'm a repeat editor of Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions and despite knowing the topic back and forth I don't have an alphabet up yet. Most individual inscriptions don't have editors willing to do hundreds of edits and so on. So to get this page, and all the others, up to reference-worthy would require a little planning. Hence a hypothetical Wiki-Project to organize it. Reifying alphabets is fun but it's carriage before horse. The inscriptions themselves need study, they're not well understood. Trying to pin down coherent ideas of what proto Sinaitic and proto Whateverelse is -- it's fine, it's not inappropriate, but it's trying to make too much out of too little. Too few papers. Too little knowledge. I'll state again I'm open to collaborating with a volunteer offsite on original research to serve the same goals. Does anybody want to volunteer to start Bet Shemesh ostracon or Izbet Sartah ostracon? From a quick look the latter seems genuine, quite important, almost not referred to. If there are more than one or two papers about these I'm looking in the wrong place. Temerarius (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, you're right. I'm being too ambitious. I think Onceinawhile just wants Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite to be more clearly defined. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To fix the issue once and in for all, I decided to replace the current table with a table of selected symbols from the three sets of Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, Serabit El-Khadim, Wadi El-Hol, and Timna, and its correspondences to a reconstructed name, phonetic sounds (preserved), and the Phoenician abjad.
Feel free to revert to the old table if you feel this is too radical, although much of the old table's content was redundant and has already been transferred to "History of the Alphabet" (link to the article been embedded as a main article) since an alphabetic evolution is not wholly relevant to an article covering inscriptions. INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there too much information? INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, both "Serabit inscriptions" and "Wadi el-Hol inscriptions" sections have more information here than their respective main article pages. More than half the letters in the Synopsis need to have explainatory footnotes on them to make sense of why the letters are put where they are. The Reference section also has 52 items under it (ternary sources?), which is considerably a lot more than the primary and secondary sources listed in the Bibliography section. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the common wisdom about qoph, that it's a needle and thread, is well supported. The proto sinaitic q that is claimed to be a monkey, sometimes it looks less like a monkey and more like one of these. https://imgur.com/a/AjoMyNz from https://archive.org/details/ERA42/page/n149/mode/2up?view=theater I know of one inscription where it does look like a monkey, but I'm not sure that's so widespread. If it were inkwell, that'd be like a pared down version of hiero number Y3 𓏞 scribe's gear. However, the fact that these examples of ink trays are symmetrical and the qophs aren't may speak against this idea. Temerarius (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one used by the Phoenicians was definitely Colless's "Qaw", not Qup.
The Phoenician alphabet seemingly inherited the name Qup as Qop but used the shape of "Qaw", which seems to depict a needle.
However, I haven't found any Semitic word for needle that starts with Q.
Edit: Nvm, the Hebrew word for line is קו, meaning the Proto-Sinaitic script most likely interpreted the needle eye as "line". INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qaw, a measuring line? What was Colless's reference for that one again? I didn't immediately find it in "Comparative semitic lexicon phoenician and punic". That'd be a different instrument from needle and thread. I think lopsided and loopy ones like in Carchemish.png File:Carchemish.png could reflect a needle-threading action. The measuring line as a symbol of power, as in Descent of Inanna and IIRC goddess imagery in Petrie's Researches in Sinai, https://archive.org/details/researchesinsina00petruoft/ is a curious one with staying power. What was the Egyptian conception of it? Was it a hieroglyph? Is the letter A-looking thing in Shabti's grasps in Shabty of Amunemhat, ca. 1400-1336 B.C.E.,50.128.jpg a measuring line of... some kind? Sorry if silly question. Anyway it's A-shaped whatever it is. When I see a q-shaped measuring line, I'll be interested in seeing if the thread is visible in its eye. Temerarius (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, what do you think of Albright, Colless, Simons, and Cross INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did they all collaborate on a paper? Albright's widely seen as full of shit. I like Colless because his paper has the šadi reference that I was seeking for some time. But I thought he was a little credulous with others' work that wasn't demonstrated. But you can't blame. I'll have to look again to remember Simons and Cross's papers specifically. Temerarius (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me, do you think it'd be advisable to keep this discussion here for openness, or elsewhere for the sake of complying with -- WP:OR and getting in trouble for calling people full of shit. I'm open to moving some discussion that isn't meant to be here to a user page (like my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Temerarius/Early_Alphabetic) or an appropriate Discord server I know. Wide open for discussion. Temerarius (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Albright is wrong? I thought he was the most reliable one, although I can tell since he clearly interpreted the inscriptions rather strangely (and he also associated a certain glyph with ḡ)
I guess we have a lot of re-interpreting to do INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Albright's idea was descent from the hieratic or another non-hieroglyphic Egyptian way of writing. Reasonable assumption, but Goldwasser turned it all back round to the original hypotheses. Because it doesn't make sense. It's wrong. The alphabetic theory and acophonic or apophonic principle, whatever, wouldn't be able to function if the descent were like that. Hence, everything's highly conceptually bound at the early points. That's the thing you gotta understand to see the same things I'm seeing in these. Temerarius (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me more about the original theory and names? INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original theory was the proto sinaitic hypothesis, so to speak. Descent from hieroglyphs to P-Sinai, where the Albright "school" (I guess he had a school) made a different calculation here and inserted an intermediary. Goldwasser said "Hold on everybody, they had it right a century ago," which happens sometimes in these fields, and that's why she's got a hundred citations on that short, simple paper. She's the reason this technical term is enough note to even be an article, probably. This is best from my memory. Temerarius (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But back then, they had a DIFFERENT hangup, where they wanted to make the grand unified theory that'd connect every unknown thing, like Minoan and Cypriot scripts even, to Egyptian. These interpretations that don't make sense were supposed to be ideas halfway between those imaginary evolutions, their missing links among phoenician, the rest of the scripts. That's why I mentioned uncertain.JPG above when I came across it. This is reflective of a confusion of Babel story way of seeing the topic. Temerarius (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have asked me about this before when I said it didn't look like you read the papers. Wouldn've been a great opportunity. I'd love to put together some teaching materials for you. Have you found anybody else might wanna discuss this? I invited User :פעמי-עלי Temerarius (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Goldwasser seems to coincide with my personal interpretation: Proto-Sinaitic were simplified and repurposed forms of Egyptian hieroglyphs. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Colless debunked? Goldwasser's hypothesis due to the STELA 92 INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Debunked which part lol Temerarius (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read it all. Only small parts
but one part in the text under the STELA 92 section says "A new “link” is thus made; the “house” built by Orly Goldwasser collapses; her hypothesis is refuted." INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that sounds so thirsty lol i can't wait to read it Temerarius (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Goldwasser hypothesis" taken here is that the P-Sinai scriptors were all illiterate in Egyptian? Then yes, I also hesistate. We certainly don't have enough of these inscriptions, or enough insight about them, to decide that's history. Not all Semitic people are in the "marginal" illiterate subset. Among other arguments. I don't even need to read all these 22 arguments, at least not tonight. Great tip, though. Temerarius (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Goldwasser's Moral", so to speak, is not to take facile interpretations of hieroglyphs due to correspondences that require literacy. Temerarius (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get why you call it "šad(a)i", even though the Proto-Semitic word was ṯd'. Sure, ṯ eventually evolved into š, but quite after the time of Proto-Sinaitic. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but do you know how they infer the supposition you're repeating? It's kinda arbitrary; proto- means it's reconstructed. I think they chose the obscure word to write down there instead of the familiar one to tread round sensitive sensibilities. Temerarius (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Proto-Semitic or Proto-Sinaitic? INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in P-Semitic. Proto Semitic is a reconstructed language and proto Sinaitic petroglyphs. Is that what you mean? Temerarius (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Egyptian nor Semitic was done moving their esses around by these times, or--they weren't borrowing shins and sameks between them with consistency until later. So much is in the air. This includes of course some ts and zs, however you want to write them. Temerarius (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New scholarship has suggested that Ṡamekh, Šin, Ṣad, and Zayin originally had the sounds /ts/, /s/~/s̱/~/š/, /ts'/, and /dz/.
This is the interpretation I've gone by personally. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
does semitic ts correspond to egyptian dj? Temerarius (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the new kingdom, egy ḏ was used to transcribe ṣ" Steiner 2001 "Another aramaic text in demotic script" Temerarius (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hacket and Krahmalkov INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 267 of the scorpion spell from wadi hammamat: another Aramaic text RC Steiner is relevant to the phonemic development here. Temerarius (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will read. Temerarius (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think descent from hallul or any window to the later ה ח or anything inbetween is not possible. But I think this is one of the easiest ones to crack, because there are abundant comparative examples that could chart the way. Also, h is one of the easiest letters to spot in otherwise washed-out inscriptions. Temerarius (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the "window" interpretation came from, though glyphs representing /h/ depict a person with their arms raised, which could either represent haw, hll "jubilation", or something else. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the key phrase was "beloved l-b'lt," not mt l b'lt. Where did this come from? It's in the infobox. I saw it on another page too. Temerarius (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ba`alat.jpg does appear to say mtlb'lt in the photo. It's not certain. 𐤁𐤏𐤕 is what I see on the upper right, with a partial house. Bat (goddess) maybe. If the eye isn't an eye, that mark there isn't makeup -- maybe a goose, and if the mark above it is a disk, then that could be son of Ra. Temerarius (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under "discovery" it says beloved is spelled m ayin h. Hard to see in this one. Temerarius (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better pictures see https://www.jstor.org/stable/26732467. If you want to understand what is written in (modern) Hebrew, try to use Image Translation in Google Translate (or any other app because Google are evil...), and if you still don't understand you can ask me! פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably meant Beloved of Ba'laat INFIYNJTE (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the new kingdom, egyptian ḏ was used to transcribe canaanite ṣ" Steiner 2001 "Another aramaic text in demotic script"
Temerarius (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, an emphatic s (as opposed to a voiceless s) was represented by Egyptian ḏ INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have more on s correspondences if you need. Temerarius (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We must remember that between the invention of the Canaanite alphabet and the flourishing of the Aramaic in Demotic script past hindreds of year, in which we know for sure that the pronounciation of letters like ṣ had changed. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Çambel, Halet (1999). Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Inscriptions of the Iron Age (3 pt.). Berlin New York: W. de Gruyter. ISBN3-11-014870-6.
Looking for a goad or a shepherd's crook? Try petroglyphs. They could confirm a letter.
With stuff like this, you can see how somebody actually drew a shepherd's staff, goad, flail. Temerarius (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timna is a magnificent site! But I'm not sure what does it have to do with ancient writing. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how the Proto-Semitic word for sun is śamš [1] and not šamš, it is possible by acrophony that the sun glyph represents an ś sound instead of š.
However, the problems with this theory include:
- The reconstruction Śamš is likely based on Arabic šams (where ś > s and š are flipped), and it might not be known if other semitic languages followed the same pattern. However, Arabic is described as a very phonologically conservative Semitic language and hence, śamš could very well be the Proto-Semitic word.
- Akkadian, which is older than the Proto-Sinaitic script, renders sun as šamaš. However, it is possible this is a modification since Akkadian shifted various sounds including ṯ, so it is possible ś got somehow shifted to š.
- It is not known how Proto-Northwest Semitic would have rendered sun, though Ugaritic rendered it as šamšu. However, Ugaritic also lost the ś phoneme and is described as replacing ś with š, whereas Proto-Northwest Semitic still had it.
- The Proto-Canaanite lachish comb glyph for ś looked vastly different, having two dots and an open shape rather than anything resembling a sun.
Thus there is some possibility that śamš stood for ś instead of š, though this needs to be approached carefully. INFIYNJTE (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I attempted to analyze Serabit 357 by transcribing it to Hebrew and altering between shin and sin; the best result I got is "נשמע" (to be heard), whereas sin never gave an actual result in any combination of letters.
Hence, my theory is incorrect and śamš (or even šamš) most likely represents š as initially believed. I also consider the possibility that the languages using Proto-Sinaitic lacked an ś sound, but I digress. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints have been raised about the table of symbols, including too many explanatory footnotes and the confusing nature of it.
Hence I propose recreating the table with rows and columns based on the symbols found in each inscription as opposed to the Phoenician order, and using discretion to determine which sources are more accurate. INFIYNJTE (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I'll just go through with it since the article went inactive.
If you find the change too radical, feel free to revert. INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work! I think it looks a lot better now. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
𐩸 is in which Serabit el-Khadim inscription?[edit]
What are your thoughts on the interpretations given here: https://ivrianochi.home.blog/posts/? I'm not sure of this person's credentials, and much of what he says seems to be quite inaccurate, but he seems to be the only one who noticed a possible connection between the letter name ḥet and the Egyptian ḥwt. This seems to make more sense than Hamilton's or Colless's attempts to explain the name. I'm also tempted to accept his etymology for qup, since the letter never seems to have resembled a monkey! Squee3 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
_01.svg){kind=small}
.JPG)
