From: "Peter Wakefield Sault" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:25:40 -0000 Your point about phonetic switches is a good one, Robert. However, not only are there phonetic switches such as the example you give (L/R) but placenames sometimes differ by more than phonetic switches from one language to another (e.g. Paris, London, Greece, Switzerland etc.) How do we deal with the discrepancy between the phonetic version of the inscription that you give and the one given on Wikipedia? You = jj-z-r-jj-A-r Wikipedia = ysrir And, of course, neither of these corresponds to the letters which prompted Petrie's leap-of-faith conclusion:- I.si.ri.ar The only correct conclusion is that we do not know to whom or to where the name really belonged. Wishful thinking and 2,500 years of religious propaganda must be set aside. And even if, in the final analysis, ysrir is 'Israel', that does not mean that the name was adopted by those who lay claim to it now before the fact of the stele, nor that those who presently lay claim to it bear any relation to those to whom it originally belonged, as with the name 'Britain'. Deliberate fabrication of false histories is not a new propaganda technique and many, perhaps the majority, of your "real professionals" subscribe to such histories, sometimes for no better reason than 'political correctness'. Mere opinion is worthless, no matter from whom it comes, without a demonstrable basis in fact and without correctly reasoned arguments based upon those facts. P. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Myers" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:24 PM Subject: Re: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' > > Hi; > > It shouldn't take an expert (lucky for me) to notice that when a proper > (especially) noun is transliterated from one speech/orthography into > another, aberrations occur that respect the peculiarities of the the > language newly rendering the word rather than the one originating it. So > often, one language contains phonemes not found in another, and > approximations are substituted. So, when we hear "Koka Kora" in Japan, we > have to have some context to reconstruct the English original. > The inscription reads jj-z-r-jj-A-r. Now, depending on the phonetic > tendencies and peculiarities of the languages involved, the possibilities > would have to be elucidated by a specialist who does not have a penchant > for becoming temperamental, and who has a real grasp of the languages of > Palestine at the time of mr-n-ptH. > If Egyptian words "never" begin with jj or y, I think it might be safe to > assume that the author of this inscription had a reason for spelling it > the way he did. So, I would pay more attention to the opinions of > scholars whose objective seemed the most determined to discover what they > were, rather than folk who simply look for neophytes to be ridiculed. > But, I have noticed that if I, as an amateur, wish to access the opinions > of real professionals without a fee, I have to adopt a humble position and > maintain it. Seems fair, eh? > Bob > > > > ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:47:35 -0600 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' Peter Wakefield Sault wrote: > > Your point about phonetic switches is a good one, Robert. However, not > only are there phonetic switches such as the example you give (L/R) > but placenames sometimes differ by more than phonetic switches from > one language to another (e.g. Paris, London, Greece, Switzerland etc.) Ah, like Germany instead of Deutschland. > > How do we deal with the discrepancy between the phonetic version of > the inscription that you give and the one given on Wikipedia? > You = jj-z-r-jj-A-r > Wikipedia = ysrir Oh, goodness. I am now horrified to see that my version mistakenly does not match the stela, which would be more like: jj-z-jj-r-i-A-r, and possibly a plural at the end. Sorry. For me, it raises the different issue of simple, honest mistakes. > > And, of course, neither of these corresponds to the letters which > prompted Petrie's leap-of-faith conclusion:- > I.si.ri.ar And, looking at this, any number of bloggers might jump to : "The Osirians". > > The only correct conclusion is that we do not know to whom or to where > the name really belonged. Wishful thinking and 2,500 years of > religious propaganda must be set aside. Right, so, we can toss on hypotheses of greater or little support, but with some things, being assertive is spinning up today what one will have to make excuses for, tomorrow. > > And even if, in the final analysis, ysrir is 'Israel', that does not > mean that the name was adopted by those who lay claim to it now before > the fact of the stele, nor that those who presently lay claim to it > bear any relation to those to whom it originally belonged, as with the > name 'Britain'. Yeah, most of the genetically remaining Britons are now crowded into the area known as Wales. I hope that statement sounded droll enough to excuse some of its imprecision. > > Deliberate fabrication of false histories is not a new propaganda > technique and many, perhaps the majority, of your "real professionals" > subscribe to such histories, sometimes for no better reason than > 'political correctness'. Mere opinion is worthless, no matter from > whom it comes, without a demonstrable basis in fact and without > correctly reasoned arguments based upon those facts. > > P. Of the people posting to the thread in question, my favorite is Dr. Daniels. He may be a bit terse, but his bearing seems to be mainly to get others to more carefully scrutinize their mistakes and to correct them if possible, rather than getting inflated on excuses. When I was looking for information about Egyptian ink technique, I saw a thread at the Chicago board from ten years ago where he had to point out that a paleographer has to look at a papyrus and not just a textbook quote from an expert. Thanks, much, Bob ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:42:21 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' Peter Wakefield Sault a écrit : > ... > How do we deal with the discrepancy between the phonetic version of > the inscription that you give and the one given on Wikipedia? > You = jj-z-r-jj-A-r > Wikipedia = ysrir > > And, of course, neither of these corresponds to the letters which > prompted Petrie's leap-of-faith conclusion:- > I.si.ri.ar A few points: In hieroglyph, the word is written as i-i-z:2:r-i-A-r:Z1*T14-A1*B1:Z2 , in the system called "group-writing", which was used in Ramesside times to render foreign names/words (and a number of egyptian words too, in fact). A sign-for-sign translitteration of the word would be ysyriAr, but, in group writing (and in Ramesside orthography in general, there are many extraneous vowels (for group writing, you can have a look at my page on the subject on http://webperso.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/Qenherkhepeshef/intro2.html ). Following the actual uses of Late Egyptian specialists, the most neutral translitteration would be ysrr. The differences between wikipedia, Robert's, and Petrie's interpretations are mostly "cosmetic" (they simply use different translitteration *conventions*, and are really not "phonetic", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Ancient_Egyptian#cite_note-2). The final group (i-A-r) is known from other (and better documented) names, in particular personnal names, as a rendering of semitic "El", and, in the whole, the reading "Israel" is a rather good match. Now, in absence of any other evidence (as you might remember, the "Israel stela" is about a victory over the Lybians, with a short note about the eastern neighbourgs of Egypt being pacified too), it is at best a tantalizing mention of the name, and, as you said (and, if I remember well, as remarked also by D. Redford in "Egypt, Canaan and Israel"), even if it is the name "Israel", it says very little about what was Israel back then (the usual argument, based on the determinative, that it is a nomadic people, does not stand. The use of determinatives in Ramesside texts was much too variable to draw any conclusion from one single occurrence.) Best regards, S. Rosmorduc ============================================================================== From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "AEL" Subject: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:22:14 +0100 Hi Doug, Steve's invoking of Gardiner or what the Egyptians would do in their language is not so relevant. What is relevant is their syllabic orthography, a seperate system to write foreign names/words. So while in ordinary glyphs the word seems written as ysriAr (or jjzrjAr, merely depending on prefered usage - there is no discrepancy), that's not how it should be read in syllabic orthography. Contra Steve's idea, the study of the rendering of foreign loanwords and toponyms shows without a doubt that the initial double reed means in that system y(V)-. The single(!) reed in the second part is not y; in said system (again: based on many examples of foreign words) it renders, in combination with another sign (here the vulture), the Semitic 'aleph. The writing "iAr" thus really reads 'Vr or 'Vl and is also otherwise attested for rendering the god's name 'El. So in sum, the name would read y-s-r-'l. No leaps of faith or wishfull thinking needed (also seing the context) to see Israel here. An no, not by ány argument could one get an _anachronistic_ "Syria" (Surič) out of it... Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:26:07 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Ogden Goelet Subject: Re: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' Dear All, I would like to note thast J.E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton 1994), lists no less than sixteen words of probable foreign origin beginning with /y/. (##58-64, pp. 50-58). The fact that /y/ is rare as an initial (semi-)consonant in Egyptian misses the point. The word in the Merneptah stela is a rendering of a foreign word into its approximate equivalent in Egyptian 'group writing.' Ogden Goelet ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:39:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Oscar H. Blayton, Atty. At Law, Inc." To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' Hello Aayko, Interesting point; but could you point me in the direction of where I can f= ind it attested as you have stated: "The single(!) reed in the second part is not y; in said system (again: based on many examples of foreign words) it renders, in combination with another sign (here the vulture), the Semitic 'aleph. The writing "iAr" thus really reads 'Vr or 'Vl and is also otherwise attested for rendering the god's name 'El." Best regards, Oscar H. Blayton ============================================================================== From: "Peter Wakefield Sault" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:42:07 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "AEL" Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 7:22 PM Subject: AEL Claim that the Merneptah Stele mentions 'Syria' and not 'Israel' > Hi Doug, > > Steve's invoking of Gardiner or what the Egyptians would do in > their language is not so relevant. What is relevant is their syllabic > orthography, a seperate system to write foreign names/words. > So while in ordinary glyphs the word seems written as > ysriAr (or jjzrjAr, merely depending on prefered usage - there > is no discrepancy), that's not how it should be read in syllabic > orthography. > Contra Steve's idea, the study of the rendering of foreign loanwords > and toponyms shows without a doubt that the initial double reed > means in that system y(V)-. > The single(!) reed in the second part is not y; in said system (again: > based on many examples of foreign words) it renders, in combination > with another sign (here the vulture), the Semitic 'aleph. The writing > "iAr" thus really reads 'Vr or 'Vl and is also otherwise attested for > rendering the god's name 'El. > So in sum, the name would read y-s-r-'l. No leaps of faith or > wishfull thinking needed (also seing the context) to see Israel here. Even if you are right about the syllable, Petrie did not know this hence his was indeed a leap of faith. > An no, not by ány argument could one get an _anachronistic_ > "Syria" (Surič) out of it... > > Aayko Eyma > > > > ==============================================================================