From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:57:12 +0200 Marianne Luban wrote: >The term which we transliterate as "mAA" even from its very spelling > [see Hannig, p. 314, col. 2] probably was vocalized something like >"mar" or even "mir" **Peust does not mention mAA, and I believe we do not have any clues from Coptic. Of course, for generic reason we would not expect an r sound to be there in the NK and LP, although you are right that in some rare cases, it could be that the OK/MK A /r/or /l/ did not get weakened but remained in later stages (Peust gives some possible examples on p. 132-133). However, mAA cannot have been among those exceptions, IMO, for it is noteworthy that the word for lion (mAi) is at times written with that D4 (hence called a phono-det. in Hannig), plus as you may know, Manetho made a wordplay between "lion" (mAi) and "to see" (mAA), so there would not have been an r in mAA, it must have sounded like lion (= *má3iy). (mAw-Hr did indeed not survive in Coptic, it has another word for mirror.) Chris Weimer wrote: >We should create a website which lists these false cognates and explain in >detail why they are not valid. **I do that on my page, and some could be added -- I'll add the 'nature' example as it indeed pops up often. I do address the Miriam / Mrytimn one (some AE names (NK) are attested in Cuneiform, namely Maiamana = Mry-imn and Maiati = Mryt-itn, so you see a mar- > ma3- here, which should be the case in Mrytimn as well (NK)). Bob Meyers wrote: >One word that leaps out at me is _bAk_, which has an equivalent in >Sanskrit. In PtahHotep, it occurs in an instance where it seems to me >that it can only mean to issue rather than receive orders (i.e., >"govern" your son, later on in the text), leading me to believe that the >meaning of the word is at least occasionally more causal and implicative >of real ability than it is generally given when translated "serve", or >I wonder if there is an expert who could look at bAk n.k idbwy to see if >it might rather mean "as you govern the two shores"? **I do not know, but I would guess bAk would here be "enslave", "set to work for", "make servile to", and that seems to also be the undertone in Hannig's hypothetical entry that bAk could mean "train" or "chastice" when dealing with of horses and sons.. Aayko ============================================================================== From: Carl Edlund Anderson Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:42:24 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List On 12 Apr 2009, at 17:21, mluban@netzero.net wrote: > Because Spanish "mirador" probably is actually derived from Latin > "miratorium" [which is very likely a place in a building], whereas > French "miradoir" is not and is connected to that particular Latin > term by false etymology. I think it would be a bit hasty to say that French "miradoir" is connected to a Latin proto-form (of some kind) by a "false etymology". The basics of the relationship are really not terribly complicated, with nothing very surprising -- at least if one has a some kind of background in Romance linguistics. For one thing, Old French miradoir (an attested form) need not be a "direct" descendent of a Latin noun, but might as easily be an Old French construction from the well-attested verb "mirer" with the suffix -(a)doir -- this latter being transparently from Latin agentive suffix -(a)tor, but also used as an independent agentive suffix of its own right in Old French. Moreover, in all likelihood, a "miradoir" is a "thing that looks (back at you)" rather than a "thing that one looks at". Indeed, for such reasons, I would suggest that a reconstructed Vulgar Latin proto-form *miratorium is completely unnecessary: we already have the attested Classical Latin word "mirator", generally used with the sense "admirer". This is far closer to the sense of either an agentive OF "miradoir" or Sp "mirador" (a Spanish or Catalan "mirador" is really a "place from which one looks", a sense likely developed from the more basic sense of a "thing that looks"; and a VL *miratorium would be more likely to end up **miratorio in Spanish anyway). But, in any case, the point is that we do not actually need a Latin proto-form to explain the forms in any of the daughter languages (even though we have one!); the elements are all derived from Latin, and indeed existed together in Latin, but could have as easily been (re)assembled anew in "post- Latin" times. The further transition of OF "miradoir" to "mireor", "mirour", etc. (whence Modern English "mirror") is likewise straightforward and unproblematic (the /d/ does not become an /r/, but is rather lost inter-vocalically in this case). Anyway, I think if we take the question to proper Romance linguists, they would confirm that the usual Latinate etymologies for "mirror" are generally uncomplicated and uncontroversial (even if they might differ over specific details). In contrast, an Egyptian etymology for the word would seem quite far-fetched and not a little difficult to explain, both phonologically and otherwise. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ ============================================================================== From: "mluban@netzero.net" Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:50:50 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "A.K. Eyma" Marianne Luban wrote: >>The term which we transliterate as "mAA" even from its very spelling >> [see Hannig, p. 314, col. 2] probably was vocalized something like >>"mar" or even "mir" >**Peust does not mention mAA, and I believe we do not have any >clues from Coptic. Of course, for generic reason we would not expect >an r sound to be there in the NK and LP, although you are right that >in some rare cases, it could be that the OK/MK A /r/or /l/ did not >get weakened but remained in later stages (Peust gives some possible >examples on p. 132-133). However, mAA cannot have been among >those exceptions, IMO, for it is noteworthy that the word for lion >(mAi) is at times written with that D4 (hence called a phono-det. in >Hannig), But if you check D4 in Gardiner, you will see that it is also used in the same way to write "irtt" [milk] and that certainly contains an /r/ from its other spellings. >plus as you may know, Manetho made a wordplay between "lion" (mAi) >and "to see" (mAA), so there would not have been an r in mAA, it must >have sounded like lion (= *m=E13iy). If MAA and MAi sounded exactly alike,[how can one be sure?] what about what seems to me to be another wordplay found on page 315, column 1 of Hannig. It has to do with "MAA" and Hannig has the example "Marw Htp aA n mAA, "grosser Korb des Maru" [wahrshcheinlich identisch mit mArw Maru] What do you say to that? :-) Marianne Luban Author of "The Exodus Chronicles: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt", Second Edition, New and Revised (2008) ============================================================================== From: "mluban@netzero.net" Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:16:07 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Carl Edlund Anderson On 12 Apr 2009, at 17:21, mluban@netzero.net wrote: >> Because Spanish "mirador" probably is actually derived from Latin >>"miratorium" [which is very likely a place in a building], >>whereas French "miradoir" is not and is connected to that >>particular Latin term by false etymology. >I think it would be a bit hasty to say that French "miradoir" is >connected to a Latin proto-form (of some kind) by a "false >etymology". Well, that is not exactly what I said. I was referring to "miratorium" alone because another poster, I believe, said Spanish "mirador" was some thing attached to a building, in one sense. In fact, it looks like "miratorium" is not even in most Latin dictionaries--probably being attested quite late. It took me a while, but I finally found this: mirator.ium N 3 1 GEN P M mirator, miratoris N (3rd) M [XXXDX] lesser admirer; As you can see, the noun "miratorium" is not translated. >The basics of the relationship are really not terribly >complicated, with nothing very surprising -- at least if one has a >some kind of background in Romance linguistics. I can't agree that the relationship of all this to French "miradoir" is not "terribly complicated". Since one does not even know exactly what a "miratorium" was--and yet many etymologies do connect it to "mirror", etc. --on account of "miradoir". The complication arises in that "miratorium" seems to be an "area" [like an auditorium ?] and, going by what the other poster said, that seems to be reflected in Spanish. So the connection to "miradoir" cannot be all that straightforward. >For one thing, Old French miradoir (an attested form) need not be a >"direct" descendent of a Latin noun, but might as easily be an Old >French construction from the well-attested verb "mirer" with the >suffix -(a)doir -- this latter being transparently from Latin >agentive suffix -(a)tor, but also used as an independent agentive >suffix of its own right in Old French. Moreover, in all likelihood, >a "miradoir" is a "thing that looks (back at you)" rather than a >"thing that one looks at". Indeed, for such reasons, I would >suggest that a reconstructed Vulgar Latin proto-form *miratorium is >completely unnecessary: I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with "(a)doir" but your last statement agrees with what I said and I believe I used the term "unnecessary" when it comes to "miratorium" in the etymology. > we already have the attested Classical Latin >word "mirator", generally used with the sense "admirer". This is >far closer to the sense of either an agentive OF "miradoir" or Sp >"mirador" (a Spanish or Catalan "mirador" is really a "place from >which one looks", a sense likely developed from the more basic >sense of a "thing that looks"; and a VL *miratorium would be more >likely to end up **miratorio in Spanish anyway). I hope you realize how complex this all seems even in your own explanation! Another poster referred to "parsimony" and, in this case, my explanation of "r" and "d" [because of a "tapped" r] does appear to serve parsimony when it comes to a Latin etymology. This same phenomenon occurs [if not very often] in the group-writing when it comes to Semitic vis a vis Egyptian! If you like, I can look up the examples in Hoch. >But, in any case, the point is that we do not actually need a Latin >proto-form to explain the forms in any of the daughter languages >(even though we have one!); the elements are all derived from Latin, >and indeed existed together in Latin, but could have as easily been >(re)assembled anew in "post-Latin" times. You mean as in French "moire"? :-) But, remember, Latin is not involved there. Arabic supposedly is. [snip] >Anyway, I think if we take the question to proper Romance >linguists, they would confirm that the usual Latinate etymologies >for "mirror" are generally uncomplicated and uncontroversial (even >if they might differ over specific details). In contrast, an >Egyptian etymology for the word would seem quite far-fetched and >not a little difficult to explain, both phonologically and otherwise. Well, yes, but so is "miradoir", IMO, regardless of what "proper Romance linguists" might believe, and the same holds with "watered silk" deriving from "mohair". What does one really have to do with the other? If only there were a Latin explanation, but, alas, that time one could not even be guessed at so another had to be proposed! Previously, I mentioned "adobe" and its indirect diffusion, in this case via Semitic--Arabic. And yet Egyptian is the oldest source of the word. That one is rather uncomplicated, I think--but not those French terms. But let us leave an Egyptian connection there alone [as it is only an unprovable hunch on my part due to Latin "speculum" and its loaning into all other Romance languages save French] and go back to Egyptian phonology. Aayko [and he is far from alone in this] argues there cannot have been an "r" sound in the "mAA" element in "mAA Hr". I am not so sure. Where then, does the "Maru Aten"[Viewing Place of the Aten] come from? Semitic? And why would the grapheme /A/ ever be doubled if it had the same value side by side? Obviously, the Hebrew word for "mirror" [marah] had something to do with "viewing" and, I would guess, so does the Arabic "mirror"-- "Al-Mariyat". As for "Hr" with the meaning of "face", I noted one Coptic version of "ho" and another "hra". Marianne Luban Author of "The Exodus Chronicles: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt", Second Edition, New and Revised (2008) ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:36:08 +0200 From: Vincent Euverte To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL an ethimological question - "miradoir" Dear AEL Members, I am a bit astonished by this debate, and particularly about the French ethymology about the word "miradoir". Please notice that this word was used (attested in 11th century) only during the Middle Age. This word is no more in use in French, and as far as I know, is not recognized by the French Academy. It was clearly identified as deriving from the latin verb "mirare". It then evovled to "miroir" (mirror in English) ; a "reflecting glass". A confusion may come from the French word "mirador", which is a kind of tower to survey the horizon (most often for military purpose). The ethymology of this word seems still to be the latin root "mirare". I hope this clarification will help. With my best regards, /*Vincent Euverte*/* web = http://vincent.euverte.free.fr Projet Rosette : http://projetrosette.info * ============================================================================== From: Carl Edlund Anderson Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:45:15 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List On 14 Apr 2009, at 18:16, mluban@netzero.net wrote: > Well, that is not exactly what I said. I was referring to > "miratorium" alone because another poster, I believe, said Spanish > "mirador" was something attached to a building, in one sense. Although a native English-speaker, I'm a university professor in a languages department in Colombia, a Spanish-speaking country. And, yes, "mirador" does generally have the sense you refer to in Spanish -- as it does in Catalan and, in fact, Occitan (in contrast with northern French). Most generally it means something like "vantage point", and can be a whole building (which we would probably translate "watch-tower") or a special part of a building that provides a good view (perhaps a little tower or balcony way up top, or perhaps just a "room with a view"). However, as noted, I actually doubt the origin of Spanish mirador in *miratorium. Instead, Spanish mirador almost certainly evolved from Latin mirator with a shift in semantics (see below). > In fact, it looks like "miratorium" is not even in most Latin > dictionaries--probably being attested quite late. Although I am not a specialist in Romance, I am not 100% that "miratorium" is attested _at_all_ except in very late, effectively "modern" Latin (18th century scientific texts, etc.). I usually see it in dictionaries marked with an asterisk -- *miratorium -- to denote a hypothetical, reconstructed term from Vulgar Latin. > I can't agree that the relationship of all this to French > "miradoir" is not "terribly complicated". Since one does not even > know exactly what a "miratorium" was--and yet many etymologies do > connect it to "mirror", etc.--on account of "miradoir". The > complication arises in that "miratorium" seems to be an > "area" [like an auditorium ?] and, going by what the other poster > said, that seems to be reflected in Spanish. So the connection to > "miradoir" cannot be all that straightforward. As I said, I don't think there is necessarily any connection between OF "miradoir" and a (very possibly hypothetical) Late Latin *miratorium -- not least because I'm am not convinced that the phonology works. As noted, OF "miradoir" could either be a direct descendant of attested Latin "mirator", with a change in semantics (and not that great a change, as these things go), or a newly coined word in French from the verb "mirer" plus the agentive suffix -(a) doir. Both are possible, neither are complicated at all -- let alone terribly complicated! ;) >> For one thing, Old French miradoir (an attested form) need not be a >> "direct" descendent of a Latin noun, but might as easily be an Old >> French construction from the well-attested verb "mirer" with the >> suffix -(a)doir -- this latter being transparently from Latin >> agentive suffix -(a)tor, but also used as an independent agentive >> suffix of its own right in Old French. Moreover, in all likelihood, >> a "miradoir" is a "thing that looks (back at you)" rather than a >> "thing that one looks at". Indeed, for such reasons, I would >> >suggest that a reconstructed Vulgar Latin proto-form *miratorium is >> completely unnecessary: > > I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with "(a)doir" but your > last statement agrees with what I said and I believe I used the > term "unnecessary" when it comes to "miratorium" in the etymology. The OF agentive suffix -(a)doir is a descendant of the Latin agentive suffix -(a)tor, as (by the way) is the Spanish agentive suffix -(a) dor. Latin "mirator" is formed from the stem of the verb "mirari" plus the agentive suffix -(a)-tor. As noted, French mirador could be either a direct descendant from this Latin word, or it could be a new formation from OF verb "mirer" (< *mirare < mirari) plus the OF agentive suffix -(a)doir (< -(a)tor). But, indeed, in neither case is *miratorium necessary. I would absolutely agree on that. I'm not really certain that the word existed any way. However, we are still equipped with a very simple Romance etymology for "mirror", as has been emphasized. >> we already have the attested Classical Latin >> word "mirator", generally used with the sense "admirer". This is >> >far closer to the sense of either an agentive OF "miradoir" or Sp >> "mirador" (a Spanish or Catalan "mirador" is really a "place from >> which one looks", a sense likely developed from the more basic >> >sense of a "thing that looks"; and a VL *miratorium would be >> more >likely to end up **miradorio in Spanish anyway). > > I hope you realize how complex this all seems even in your own > explanation! :) It's not really _that_ complex. We know that Latin mirator has the sense "admirer"; it's a compound noun made up of a verbal root with the sense "admire, look at" and and agentive suffix. Thus, in a sense, a mirator is a "thing that looks or admires". Makes sense, pretty much! Then, the hypothetical (I believe) *mirtatorium would be a derivation of mirator, formed as a derived neuter o-stem abstract noun in the typical Indo-European manner (+ *-yom) to create a (hypothetical) new word with the sense "thing pertaining to a mirator" or "thing pertaining to a thing that looks". This would also make pretty plain sense. However, I am mystified by assertions that a word like Spanish mirador is derived from *miratorium, since Spanish words derived from Latin words in -ium regularly end in -io (e.g. Latin dictionarium, Spanish diccionario; Latin auditorium, Spanish auditorio, as you suggested earlier). Thus, we should expect Spanish **miradorio (which doesn't exist) to be the result of the evolution of Latin *miratorium. In contast, Spanish mirador would be exactly the predicted outcome of evolution from Latin mirator. Likewise, OF miradoir (and thus English mirror) would be exactly the predicted outcome of evolution from Latin mirator. The conclusion we can draw from this is clear enough! So, I think it is likely that the semantics of original Latin "mirator" shifted in southern Gallo-Romance and in Ibero-Romance, from "thing that looks" to "thing or place from which one looks". Not much of a shift, really. Meanwhile, the "thing that looks" in French came to designate not a person but an object: a mirror, after all, is no more than a "thing that looks" back at you. Because, clearly, the original Classical Latin word for "admirer", mirator, was now being used to identify something completely different in both Gallo-Romance and Ibero-Romance, both Gallo-Romance and Ibero-Romance invented a new word for "admirer" by tacking the preposition "ad" onto the front of "mirator": F admirateur, Sp admirador. Really, I think that there can be little doubt that English "mirror" has a Latinate etymology either in direct descent from Latin mirator, or through the combination of verbal root mir- + agentive suffix - adoir in Old French. Either possibility is quite simple and possible, as we can see. The former, perhaps, actually makes slightly better sense in light of the new coining of *admirator. > Another poster referred to "parsimony" and, in this case, my > explanation of "r" and "d" [because of a "tapped" r] does appear to > serve parsimony when it comes to a Latin etymology. This same > phenomenon occurs [if not very often] in the group-writing when it > comes to Semitic vis a vis Egyptian! If you like, I can look up > the examples in Hoch. I'm not quite sure to what you are referring, here. Modern English "parsimony" is surely no more than a direct adaptation of Latin "parsimonia", a noun derived from the past participle of the verb "parcere"? >> But, in any case, the point is that we do not actually need a >> Latin >proto-form to explain the forms in any of the daughter >> languages>(even though we have one!); the elements are all >> derived from Latin, >and indeed existed together in Latin, but >> could have as easily been >(re)assembled anew in "post-Latin" times. > > You mean as in French "moire"? :-) But, remember, Latin is not > involved there. Arabic supposedly is. No, I do not mean as in French "moire" at all -- I mean as in OF "miradoir", which could either be an evolved descendant of Latin mirator, or could have been assembled from the separate elements, each of which was derived from Latin: mir- (< VL* mirare < L mirari) + -(a)doir (< L -ator). I'm not sure what "moire" has to do with this? >> Anyway, I think if we take the question to proper Romance >> >linguists, they would confirm that the usual Latinate >> etymologies >for "mirror" are generally uncomplicated and >> uncontroversial (even >if they might differ over specific >> details). In contrast, an >Egyptian etymology for the word would >> seem quite far-fetched and >not a little difficult to explain, >> both phonologically and otherwise. > > Well, yes, but so is "miradoir", IMO, regardless of what "proper > Romance linguists" might believe No, this is a mistaken. OF miradoir (> English mirror) is quite easily explained, as I have done (several time now, in this and my previous post). I am not sure where the idea came from that there is anything complicated about the Latin etymology of the word, but it is an erroneous idea. There is nothing complicated about it at all. > , and the same holds with "watered silk" deriving from "mohair". > What does one really have to do with the other? If only there were > a Latin explanation, but, alas, that time one could not even be > guessed at so another had to be proposed! Surely the semantic shift from "fabric made from fine hair of the Angora goat" to "watered silk" is not that surprising at all! We're merely talking about a name shifting from one kind of exotic textile to another. Far stranger things happen, and ones as simple as this happen all the time. (And, in this case, the shift was aided by the word mouaire, later moire, borrowed from mohair being used as a verb, rather than a noun, with the sense "to make a watered textile", a sense inspired by the appearance of Angora wool.) Indeed, watered silk is typically described as having a "moir=E9 effect". Really, I would think this all was quite straightforward! One may be imagining it is more complex that it really is ..... And, in any case, I have never heard of anyone seriously trying to advance a Latinate etymology for "mohair". But though the history of English mohair, French moir=E9 (reshaped from mouaire by socio- linguistic processes in the wake of the French Revolution), MF mocayart, It mocaiarro, Arabic mukhayyar, etc. is interesting, I am not sure what it all has to do with either Latin or Egyptian. > Previously, I mentioned "adobe" and its indirect diffusion, in this > case via Semitic--Arabic. And yet Egyptian is the oldest source > of the word. That one is rather uncomplicated, I think--but not > those French terms. But let us leave an Egyptian connection there > alone [as it is only an unprovable hunch on my part due to Latin > "speculum" and its loaning into all other Romance languages save > French] and go back to Egyptian phonology. An Indo-European etymology for "speculum", as with "mirror", seems uncomplicatedly and unshakably certain. No linguist doubts this, as far as I am aware. And it may be that people who have spent their lives studying such issues are not _complete_ idiots. :) > Aayko [and he is far from alone in this] argues there cannot have > been an "r" sound in the "mAA" element in "mAA Hr". I am not so > sure. Where then, does the "Maru Aten"[Viewing Place of the Aten] > come from? Semitic? And why would the grapheme /A/ ever be > doubled if it had the same value side by side? Obviously, the > Hebrew word for "mirror" [marah] had something to do with "viewing" > and, I would guess, so does the Arabic "mirror"-- "Al-Mariyat". As > for "Hr" with the meaning of "face", I noted one Coptic version of > "ho" and another "hra". That is all as it may be -- but we do not need to "guess" much about the Latinate etymology of mirror, as there is ample evidence spread across the various Romance languages to give us a fairly comfortable view on it. The Semitic examples with vaguely similar phonology to the eye of the Modern English speaker look like coincidental accidents to me. Such things happen, and not as infrequently as one might think. It is a simple fact that the Latinate etymology for mirror from mirator is wholly unproblematic, particularly in terms of phonology -- as well stemming from an unbroken tradition of "spoken Latin" in Gaul/France over the past 2000 years. No one who has studied the issue seriously doubts it -- indeed, I don't see how they could! In contrast, in search of an Egyptian etymology, we have no indication of why Latin speakers would replace a perfectly good and normal Latin word with an Egyptian or Semitic one of unknown origin, nor any phonological explanation or model of how such an Egyptian or Semitic word, presumably borrowed into spoken Latin at some particular point in history in some particular form, would have then evolved into "mirror". So, although one can perhaps understand why well-meaning Egyptological enthusiasts might wish to promote an Egyptian etymology for "mirror", that hope seems utterly doomed from a technical standpoint by the vast weight of quite well-understood evidence against it. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:07:00 -0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question From: msore@albawaba.com To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" What useful principles can be gleaned from this detailed (and fascinating) interchange concerning the study of what words are or are not related? What general principles can guide egyptologists and/or linguists to the most defendable opinions about whether putative cognates are genetically related or borrowed? Are there suggestions for standards, tests, patterns? Do suggestions arise about which kinds of arguments are productive, and which are not? thanks matthew ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:38:27 -0500 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question Hi; I think that professionals will continue to be cautious and amateurs should continue to be ingenuous. This is how we discover new things, instead of having them decided for us. That is the beauty of an internet list. Best, Bob ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:09:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Grant Hicks To: Ancient Egyptian Language List , Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question As the "other poster" in question, let me explain that there was no discussion of the etymology of "parsimony" but rather an appeal to the principle of parsimony. The reference is to a statement of mine in defense of a purely Romance etymology for "mirror", beginning with the words "Surely it's most parsimonious . . .". - Grant -----Original Message----- >From: Carl Edlund Anderson >Sent: Apr 14, 2009 5:45 PM >To: Ancient Egyptian Language List >Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question > >[snip] > >> Another poster referred to "parsimony" and, in this case, my >> explanation of "r" and "d" [because of a "tapped" r] does appear to >> serve parsimony when it comes to a Latin etymology. This same >> phenomenon occurs [if not very often] in the group-writing when it >> comes to Semitic vis a vis Egyptian! If you like, I can look up >> the examples in Hoch. > > >I'm not quite sure to what you are referring, here. Modern English >"parsimony" is surely no more than a direct adaptation of Latin >"parsimonia", a noun derived from the past participle of the verb >"parcere"? > > > ============================================================================== From: Carl Edlund Anderson Subject: Re: AEL an ethimological question Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:31:32 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List On 16 Apr 2009, at 10:07, msore@albawaba.com wrote: > What useful principles can be gleaned from this detailed (and > fascinating) > interchange concerning the study of what words are or are not related? > What general principles can guide egyptologists and/or linguists to > the > most defendable opinions about whether putative cognates are > genetically > related or borrowed? Are there suggestions for standards, tests, > patterns? > Do suggestions arise about which kinds of arguments are productive, > and > which are not? In general, historical linguists try to compare related languages (whether they are "siblings", like, say, English and German, or French and Spanish, or whether one is the antecedent of the other, like, say Old English and Modern English, or Latin and Spanish, or Ancient Egyptian and Coptic) and try to work out the patterns of sound change (how the pronunciation of a language evolved and fragmented over time, such that, for example, spoken Latin gradually mutated into several different languages like French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, etc.). This means looking at lots of historical examples from different periods. But, this done, one can usually establish at least a relative chronology of the changes, meaning one can then understand the general process of evolution within a language. These patterns of change are usually called "rules" or "laws" of sound change, but of course they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. (Once such simple example would be that Latin /t/ generally becomes Spanish /d/ whenever it is between two vowels in a word; thus it would not be surprising if Spanish mirador reflects Latin mirator.) But, to cut a long story short, once we understand the general "rules" that appear have governed a language's evolution, we can often look at a modern word and predict what its earlier form would have been, or we can look at an ancient word and predict what it's later form would be. So, for example, when we look at Modern English "mirror" and Latin "mirator", we know a very great deal about the evolution of Latin into French (thanks to lots of historical records from different periods) and we also know a very great deal about the evolution of French words borrowed into English at different times. That makes it pretty easy to see that both "mirror" and "mirator" are pieces that fit into their expected places in the overall puzzle. Linguists working on Egyptian use the same sorts of processes to compare Ancient Egyptian and Coptic (the latter being an evolved descendant of the former), or to compare similar words we see attested in different Afro-Asiatic languages. Of course, working with these languages is more difficult than with, say, the Romance languages, however, simply because the examples tend to be much older and sparser. Although one should always keep at least a grain (if not much more) salt on hand when using Wikipedia, I think its pages on the comparative method (in linguistics) is not too bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method It's at least more comprehensive and well-thought out than my hasty observations above! :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ ============================================================================== Subject: RE: AEL an ethimological question Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:24:31 +1000 From: "Bill Glidden" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" I have to agree with you, Bob. Although patience sometimes wears thin when certain posters can't or won't share their "credible" sources so we can all become edified. You are all too polite or perhaps trying to ignore, hoping it will go away eventually. Bill (not a professional but an amateur interested in robust, yet thoughtful debate) ============================================================================== From: "mluban@netzero.net" Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:21:10 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: AEL Coffin Text of Merenptah Hello all, I was just checking through some of the old files in the file manager of my website and came across one that might interest some of you. It is a very good facsimile of the lengthy text on the underside of the lid of the sarcophagus of King Merneptah, with all the glyphs clearly visible. You can view it at http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/sarc.html I don't know why the glyphs run from left to right in this instance. Some here might find it edifying to translate as an exercise. It is not especially difficult and quite beautiful, a nice piece of writing from this era. Marianne Luban Author of "The Exodus Chronicles: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt", Second Edition, New and Revised (2008) ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:36:49 -0400 Subject: Re: AEL an etymological question From: Aurelio LaRotta To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Hi Matthew, That's an excellent question! I think proving the etymology of a loanword is significantly harder than demonstrating the relationship between two languages because the number of data points is so much smaller - correspondingly, the testing has to be even more rigorous. In comparing languages you have hundreds or thousands of word pairs with regular sound correspondences and on top of that parallel grammatical formations (what are the chances of the personal suffixes in Egyptian and Hebrew being an accidental similarity). But a loanword typically comes by itself - and with only so few phonemes in any language and in any word, there are bound to be similar sounding words between almost any two languages - and out of these, a few may have similar meanings. So, how to tell accidental correspondences from real borrowings? If the loanword kept the original spelling (e.g. 'Walkman' in German) or traces of the original grammar (e.g. 'nucleus'/'nuclei'), proof of direct borrowing is easy. But in all other cases I'd propose that the etymology has to meet four criteria: (a) there must be a plausible mechanism of migration from source language to target language (b) all sound correspondences and regular phonetic developments within all languages in the migration have to be met (c) the proposed etymology is the most simple solution and (d) there is a plausible motive why the word was borrowed. I can think of two proven mechanisms for getting a word from Egyptian into English: (1) Egyptian -> Greek -> Latin -> English and (2) Coptic -> Arabic -> Spanish -> English. I say proven because a word like 'adobe' is attested in all intermediate steps and in the right chronological sequence: e.g. it appears first in Spanish (1100s) then in English (1700s). This word is also a good example for the sound correspondence test: Arabic loanwords in Spanish typically carry the definite article like algodon ('cotton' from al-qutun) or alguacil (vizier) and many others. So, you would expect the same for toba (at-toba -> *atoba). 't' typically becomes 'd' in non-initial position (cf. al-qutun -> algodon) => *adoba and so forth. Similar correspondences have to be established for the other transitions. Note: m33-hr for 'mirror' fails this test because the final 'r' had certainly gotten lost by the New Kingdom (as can been seen from NK spellings like xpr with a phonetic complement 'pw'). The next test concerns simplicity (or parsimony, as an earlier poster put it): One post linked Egyptian m33 and Hebrew mar'a ('mirror'). But why go that far when there is a perfectly natural derivation of mar'a from ra'a ('to see'): derivations with m- are part of the normal verbal paradigm in Hebrew and extremely common. Finally, there's the issue of plausibility or 'motive', if you will. Languages that are not in constant contact (unlike in bilingual societies) typically borrow only if the borrowed word describes a novel concept or if there is an increase in prestige associated with using the borrowed word (think 'hors d'oeuvre' instead of 'starters'). An earlier post linked English 'seat' with Egyptian 's.t'. Even if we did not have all the IndoEuorpean etymological connections ('seat' with 'sit' and hence with Latin 'sedere' and 'sedes', Russian 'siditj' etc.) one must ask oneself: How plausible is it that the Anglosaxons borrowed such a basic concept from across the ocean? In conclusion, I think many etymologies can be proven decisively (and many rejected) using this framework - but it takes a lot of work :-) Cheers, Leo ==============================================================================