From: "Ronald Galloway" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: Re: AEL Dictionaries of Middle Egyptian Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 12:07:39 +0000 >From: Jim Nicholson >amazon.fr does not have the Bernadette Menu book and >does not even list the Meeks book. > >Therefore, I am still in the same situations, >although, thank you for the ISBN on the Menu book. The 3 volumes of Meeks can be ordered directly from the publisher at http://www.librairie-cybele.com/gb/index.html Année lexicographique. Tome 1 (1977); 42 euros 2-9512092-1-5 Tome 2 (1978); 42 euros 2-9512092-2-3 Tome 3 (1979); 38 euros 2-9512092-3-1 Volumes 2 and 3 are available at the same price from Amazon.fr (search for "Meeks Dimitri") They are not dictionaries, and only rarely include hieroglyphs. They are citations to words published in the Egyptological literature during the years indicated. He does give the meaning of the words, but basically you have to look up the citations he gives for any discussion. They are quite useful but are not really intended to be a replacement for a true dictionary. Ronald ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Weben Banu Subject: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems To: Ancient Egyptian Language List <> I'm posting this mainly because your post reminded me of this common source of confusion, and gave me a couple of good examples to use. The differences in the s/z sound occur because the phonemes represented by these transliteration symbols were distinct sounds in the Old Kingdom, which became the same sound in Middle Egyptian. Since Middle Egyptian usually maintains the separate spellings, Allen chose to transliterate them differently so that we could distinguish between what are different hieroglyphs, and- I suspect- just in case it actually turns out to be important to know the difference between them, later on when new discoveries turn up. Hoch chose to transliterate the two symbols in the same way, because current studies show that they should be pronounced the same way. The differences in the i/j sound occur because partially because this sign has the ability to make one of two different sounds when found at the beginning of a word- either something like a glottal stop, or a /y/ sound. I suspect that "i" was chosen because it almost sounds like a cross between those two phonemes. I also suspect that Allen chose to represent the sound with a "j" because the transliteration symbols were becoming confused with the sounds for which they stood. The transliteration symbol *is not* meant to be pronounced the same way it is pronounced in the reader's home language- Allen prefaced his discussion of the transliterated phonemes by reminding us of this fact. Transliteration symbols are just that- symbols. They are only pronunciation guides in the sense that we should understand that they stand for certain sounds, not that they actually are the sounds they are used to express in our own language (for those of us whose languages use Roman letters^_~). The inventors of this system chose letters which corresponded to the intended sounds as closely as possible because it is easier for us to remember them that way, but it's important not to get them confused. Allen's "j," Hoch's "i," and Budge's "a" with the little dot over it are all pronounced exactly the same, because they are the same phoneme.^_^ So basically- with respect to Allen and Hoch, at least- these differences simply boil down to Allen being a bit more particular about these things than Hoch, and Hoch being a bit more laid back in this one regard. While I think the j does make some of the words look funny, I also appreciate the attention given to detail with Allen's system. K. Michael webenbanu@yahoo.com ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 06:11:31 -0300 (ART) From: Carlos Moreira Subject: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems To: Ancient Egyptian Language List K Michael, as far as I know I think you are missing one aspect here. Allen is using the "j", not only because of his own phonetic considerations like you explain correctly below, but also because it seems to me he decided to conform somehow to the "old" germanic Berlin rules. Remember the "i" sound is German is written with "j", so basically he is somehow conforming to previous German literature in the field, although obviously many of us English-speakers (even I, being Portuguese) would prefer to see "i" written instead. The latin letter "i" has a very similar phonetic value in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and many other western languages, at least when is used isolated. Now for the latin letter "j", of the western languages mentioned above, none gives it the same phonetic value, excluding German. Also, as far as I know "j" isn't used in the Italian script either. Perhaps one of our gurus (Serge?) could correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I am in some points.... eheheh m Htp Carlos Moreira Porto, Portugal ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 16:44:19 +0200 From: ROSMORDUC Serge To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems Carlos Moreira a écrit : >Now for the latin letter "j", of the western languages mentioned above, >none gives it the same phonetic value, excluding German. Also, as far >as I know "j" isn't used in the Italian script either. >m Htp > >Carlos Moreira >Porto, Portugal > > > Carlos is right : whereas s and z distinction is relevant, i/j is only graphical. In fact, both writings for the "yod" comes from Adolf Erman. The "i" has what looks like a small accent on it : in fact, it's the usual sign for aleph Gardiner, GEG, § 20 : "i is translitterated i because it seems ... to have possessed two sound-values ... 1. y like yod in Hebrew ... 2. aleph ex. ink" The "gardiner" system of translitteration with "i" was created by Erman in 1894. It was also Erman who proposed the "j". For more information see the introductions of Budge's dictionary and Hannig dictionary. Regards, S. Rosmorduc ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 15:17:13 +0100 Subject: AEL Announcing a Grammar Reference Database for pWestcar and the Shipwrecked Sailor Hi everyone, I want to let you know about a new resource that is available on the AEL web site. Simply put, it is an index to textual references appearing in popular grammars. This will be of particular interest to anyone working on the Westcar papyrus or the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor. The index follows the sequence of the text, giving references to where the line or phrase is discussed in 4 major grammars. This is the result of much hard work by Ken Saunders (kbsaunders@btinternet.com), who has kindly donated this material to the AEL site. If there is sufficient interest in this kind of database, Ken hopes to produce databases for the Eloquent Peasant and the Story of Sinuhe. For more information, take a look at: http://www.rostau.org.uk/AEgyptian-L/reference/GrammarRefDb/Introduction.html Mark Wilson ============================================================================== Subject: RE: AEL Announcing a Grammar Reference Database for pWestcar and the Shipwrecked Sailor Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:19:39 -0500 From: "Littlecreek, Russell" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" This was great! I hope Ken does produce databases for the Eloquent Peasant and the Story of Sinuhe. Russ Littlecreek: Tier Two Support Address 3180 Rider Trail South Bridgeton, MO 63045 Phone: (314) 595-6213 ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:08:07 +0200 Subject: Re: AEL Announcing a Grammar Reference Database for pWestcar and the Shipwrecked Sailor From: Mart=?ISO-8859-1?B?7SA=?=Blesa To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List " Great job, I was trying to do something similar myself but never ended it completely! I cannot wait to see the next databases Mart=ED ============================================================================== From: "kmotc" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL Glyph Study Group--Make Sure Your Name is on the List ( : Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:17:37 -0500 Ok, Glyph Students, Here is the list for our new Middle Egyptian Glyph Study Group. Please make sure your name is on this list if you plan on participating. (This does not preclude folks jumping in later; it's just nice to know who is starting out with us now). If your name is not on the list and you want to join, or you sent in your name and somehow did not get on the list---just let me know off-list, at kmotc@swbell.net and I will add you to the group. If there is an asterix associated with your name it means you need to send me an email address or tell me which one you prefer. Also, since the list is alphabetized, make sure to check under your first name if you don't show up under your last-more than a few folks only gave first names, and these are also indicated with an asterix. More very soon, I am glad we have all embarked on this study venture together. Best All, Karen Carlos Annechino cemo001@uol.com.br George Averill kerry52@comcast.net Autumn Baccellia EgyptGdes@aol.com Janice Bailey ljbailey@emirates.net.ae Pierre Baldensperger baldensperger@gmail.com Sandro Banducci support@atlantisnetworks.com Kyle Barger kyle@barks.org Professor Muhammad Barker barke002@tc.umn.edu *John Biskupski STILL NEED AN EMAIL Sarah Blais sarah@fortres.com Oscar Blayton blayton_law@sprynet.com Marti Blessa marti@grn.es Chris Bloom grandpa@wmni.net Herbert J. Burgauer hburgauer@neo.rr.com Marie Carter diggings@ozemail.com.au *Chris envirorider@yahoo.com Archie Chubb archie_chubb@hotmail.com Wayne Collins wcol0952@magma.ca Ruth Collinson ruthcollinson@yahoo.co.uk Geoff Conwillgconwill@yahoo.com Karen Croft croftk@eagle.ca Ole Crohn olecrohn@nyka.dk Michelle (Shell) Demaria outtaphocis@lycos.com Paul Dickson pd@twonotes.com Diane Donaldson andie@guisarme.net Pevcheva Elena h-singer@mail.ru Allise Garrison alliseg@everestkc.net Jason Ginsberg Jsnppr@aol.com Jack Glasner Bavno@aol.com Tania Godwin-Evans AnuttyQuilter@aol.com Julio Gralhajgralha@attglobal.net Steve Graman SGraman@aol.com Rosa Graugrau@rlanau.es Martin Guinnutt martin1310@hotmail.com Karen Harmon Karen Harmon Karen Hauck EmbrdrKBH@aol Elaine Hinman-Sweeny corvaire@myway.com Robert Hoey rob@hoeyr.fslife.co.uk John Michael Hyaduck. John.Hyaduck@compuware.com Constance Johnson drj@wwcol.com David Kenaz dkenaz@bezeqint.net Jill Kolsrud Jill@frontstretch.com Barb Krause Xupswoman@cs.com Jim Kuikman ptah@planet.nl Sam Lan Scalpill2@aol.com Dennis Lesard dlpbl@sympatico.ca Shane Lieffers tuthmosisiii@gmail.com Option 1 Javier Marcelo javimarcelo@telefonica.net Mario egipto@mariomarcia.com Mac Marland macsundew@yahoo.com Dean Martin dhm323@comcast.net Bob Mason rjm@essex.ac.uk Karen McCollam kmotc@swbell.net George McDowell g.mcd4oz@gmail.com *Merce merce@bsab.com* Katherine Michael webenbanu@yahoo.com Nicholas Montessuit nicolasmontessuit@wanadoo.fr Carlos Moreira crolidge@yahoo.com Msesheta msesheta@cogeco.ca David (Dave) Muller djmuller@starpower.net Heather O'Malley homalley@umich.edu Patti reddraco@sympatico.ca *Paul pd@twonotes.com Jason Perryperry@pirl.lpl.Arizona.EDU Ramses van Pinxteren ramsesvp@quicknet.nl Eric Quah bargest@streamyx.com *Richard pax_vobiscum1@yahoo.com *Roy lrowlrow@yahoo.co.uk Keath Rycroft retreat@prcn.org Pat Sahinkay PSahinkaya@aol.com *Sandy sandy.cove@ntlworld.com Coenraad van Schoor coenraadvanschoor@hotmail.com Michael G. Smith Michael@seeliecourt.net Jon Smyth jon442@sympatico.ca Dot Stebbenscecil@webspan.net Judith Taylor judith@frognet.net Christopher Thomas khepera@surfbest.net Denise (Vireo) Thomas vireo@inkemetic.org Helen Turnbull helen@no11hilltop.fsnet.co.uk *Dave Valentine Polaris@northerndragons.ca dval@mts.net WHICH EMAIL? Jorge Vargas akadphild@racsa.co.cr Lucas Venter lven@mweb.co.za Sasha Verma sashaverma@optusnet.com.au Rich Weaver Raweaver02@aol.com James Winstonpiper965@aol.com Erick Wright erickwright@msn.com Keith Wong keithkhw@gmail.com Greg Zuck gzuck@sckans.edu ============================================================================== From: "Marianne Luban" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: AEL SERGE--Can You Help? (Elephantine Stela of Setnakht) Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:55:55 -0700 Dear Serge, I am going over the "Elephantine Stela of Setnakht" again--which I obtained from your website in the first place? Here are some questions about things that perplex me and I hope you can be of assistance: The text is not very difficult until one reaches the point that says "iw waH=sn HD nwb imiw tAmry r an=sn nn n sttA r sXA xnw nxtw Hryw tp tAmry" I have seen more than one translation of this line now--but it's still not clear. Are some people "leaving" silver and gold or is someone "offering" it? And are the people leaving the treasure "on account" of going back to the foreign land or is treasure being given so they "would" go away? What does "nn" refer to--the people or the goods? After that, it looks to me like someone is supposed to remember the might of the officers of Egypt. What is your own take on this passage? After that, it looks like someone's wisdom failed, beginning from something and ending with something. What is that all about? What follows is clear enough until I get to "ib=k nDm nb n tA pn nAsr [?] nTr xprw" It seems the heart of the king is glad because the prophecy of the god happened--but what is this "nAsr"? Is it some unknown way of writing "prophecy"? I can't find it in the dictionaries. This text is in ME, but can it be it should be "nA srw"--LE having slipped in by mistake? Also, is "ti Hr Snb=f" meaning some sign on the leather corselet of the pharaoh? ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:35:42 -0500 From: "Nicole B. Hansen" Subject: Re: AEL Announcing a Grammar Reference Database for pWestcar and the Shipwrecked Sailor To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Thanks for that link. This seems like a useful resource. However, Ken seems to have made more work for himself than necessary in finding the pertinent examples in Allen. He says "Allen doesn't reference his examples." This is not true-Allen may not reference his examples in the margins like Gardiner, but he does indeed reference them, in the back of his book. Nicole B. Hansen Ph.D. candidate, Egyptology, University of Chicago Database Consultant, Giza Plateau Mapping Project Chicago, USA Visit http://www.glyphdoctors.com ============================================================================== From: "Alan Woodcock" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:25:07 +0200 Malaise & Winand manage to confuse things even more in their "Grammaire raisonnée...". They transliterate the yod by an i with a thingummy on it, just like Gardiner, but translate the double yod by "j" where Gardiner and others have "y". Loprieno uses "j" for yod and "y" *or* "jj" for double yod. Grandet & Mathieu use "j" and "y". Seems when you write a new Grammar, you have to make a new choice. It would be anodyne, but makes consultation of the Beinlich Wordlist hazardous since there, no standard has been imposed and anything goes. Another non-standard letter is the k-with-a-dot, which some transliterate as "q". To confuse things, if I want to type "q" with the Transliteration Font on my PC I have to type "o". Who invented that ? Tiens, tiens, I just looked into Malaise & Winand (p. 32) and they say the "contemporary German school prefers" c, t-with-a-dot and c-with-a-dot-and-an-upsidedown-circumflex for (MdC) T, d, D. I hope it doesn't catch on. Best regards Alan Woodcock ============================================================================== From: LawyerMan1234@aol.com Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:29:26 EDT Subject: AEL question re taking digital photos of glyphs To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk [Moderator's note: Please send replies to this post OFF LIST. Thank you.] Hi everyone: Can anyone tell me what kind of digital camera I should buy in order to take the best quality photos of hieroglyphs in museums? I tried a Sony camera with 7.2 megapixels and got good results. But then I set the camera to 3.0 megapixels and seemed to get the same results. I have not yet blown up the photos, but on my computer all the photos look the same. Am I better off purchasing an inexpensive 3.0 megapixel camera, or is there some benefit to buying something more high end? If someone can point me in the right direction, I will be glad to post the photos I take, if anyone is interested. Thanks very much. John Corridan ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 08:17:38 -0300 (ART) From: Carlos Moreira Subject: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Alan, rest of list, regarding the confusion of transliterating to "q" or "k with a dot", I read in one of my University of Exter course units, that some modern scholars seem to prefer using "q" because it establishes a closer parallel with modern Arabic, since it resembles better the sound value. That unit was written by Dr Robert Morkot. regards Carlos Moreira Portugal ============================================================================== From: "Ann & Jon Smyth" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL Use of determinatives.. Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:01 -0400 Dear members. Before this Study group kick's off I would like to ask a question on the use of determinatives. As we are all aware many Egyptian words are written & pronounced similar, if not actually the same. If it was not for a determinative the reader would not be able to understand the intent of a specific word. To explain my thoughts I need to offer an example out of Faulkner's M.E. We find the word "nhp" on page 135, and in this case, which may be an extreme example, there are 5 uses of this word, each with 5 different determinatives. The 5 different meanings are, 'pulsate', 'copulate', 'rise early in the morning', 'mourn', & 'care'. Now I can see a potentially similar meaning between the first two examples, but the third, fourth & fifth are surely completely unrelated, (on the assumption that #3 means to physically get up out of bed). To me this is a good example of a word which needs determinatives, but there are other examples of words which have no alternate meaning, "nh" might be one of those with a singlular meaning (also on p.135). If this is the case then why should it have a determinative at all because the determinative of a 'bird' can hardly help explain that the meaning is "escape", as in 'to escape death'. The above example then begs the question, "why would a word require a determinative if it has only one meaning AND that determinative has no relation to the actual meaning?" If the ''ur' bird is not used as a determinative in this example then could someone kindly explain why it is there? - should it not be a determinative in this case then possibly I selected a wrong example, should that be true then can I ask a general question, "why would any word which has only one meaning require a determinative"? That then brings me to the next thought, - a determinative only has value in written texts, if the above word "nhp" is spoken in a sentence then how is an Egyptian to understand the meaning without knowing the determinative? The answer to that question surely must be 'by context' - at least that is what I have always assumed. An English example might be, "I read the first line but did not read the rest of the sentence". Compare this with, "I was tired and needed to rest". We can understand the different meanings of 'rest' by simply understanding the context. There are though alternate examples in English of phrases where you cannot grasp the context. "I spilled salt all over the place", does it mean salt was spilt everywhere, or that it was spilt on fish"? (fish = trout, place, salmon, etc) Now, to the catch-22 question - if context is all that is required in the verbal use of Egyptian then why is it not possible to determine 'context' in the written texts? - that conflict has me puzzled. So then, considering the above thoughts, when I read that 'determinatives were used to differentiate meanings', I think that explanation is not enough. Thoughts anyone? Regards, Jon Smyth ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 07:55:03 +1000 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Geoffrey Watson Subject: Re: AEL Use of determinatives.. Just a couple of comments. If you read Gardiner he points out that in the development of the writing system it was the other way around. Words were first written as ideograms (=determinatives) and the sounds were added later to explain the "determinatives". Secondly the comparison of the ease of understanding a spoken passage with the same as a text written in hieroglyphs is largely invalidated by the fact that vowels are not represented in writing. I also think that to some extent you are asking the wrong sort of question, or at least looking for the wrong sort of answer. Writing systems are cultural artefacts developed over centuries. While stating that determinatives help to disambiguate words otherwise spelt the same may be an accurate if partial *description* of their function in Middle Egyptian, an *explanation* of determinatives requires a historical study, not a rationalisation of their function in logically consistent terms. Cheers Geoffrey Watson Brisbane, Australis At 02:02 20/05/05, you wrote: >From: "Ann & Jon Smyth" > >Dear members. >Before this Study group kick's off I would like to ask a question on the >use of determinatives. > > As we are all aware many Egyptian words are written & pronounced > similar, if not actually the same. If it was not for a determinative the > reader would not be able to understand the intent of a specific word. > >... ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:42:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Weben Banu Subject: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Thank you everyone for all the insightful commentary! It's always helpful to know why we do the things we do- sometimes it helps to memorize how we do them. It's very interesting to hear about the correspondences between q and the Arabic language- I'd thought the only transliteration style to use the q was MdC, and that this was only used because there is no "k with a dot" option on your average keyboard. So for schools of transliteration, we now have: Budge's system "Traditional" system (i with the curved top for j, s for z, s with an accent for s) Gardiner's system Allen's system Manual de Codage Malaise & Winand's system Loprieno's system Grandet & Mathieu's system The "contemporary German school" system A virtual Ennead of alternate transliteration methods.^_^' But at least they mostly use the same transliteration symbols- just in different combinations. K. Michael ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 17:39:26 -0700 (PDT) From: John Biskupski Subject: Re: AEL Use of determinatives.. To: Ancient Egyptian Language List >>"why would a word require a determinative if it has only one meaning AND that determinative has no relation to the actual meaning?" << Firstly, "nh", for example, is not a "word". It, with its determinitive, is the method used to graphically represent a certain word. Secondly, how are we to know that, again, "nh" has only one meaning? I do not believe that anyone would claim that any dictionnary in existance, or all dictionaries in their totallity, contain anything approaching the complete vocabulary of the Egyptian language. >>if the above word "nhp" is spoken in a sentence then how is an Egyptian to understand the meaning without knowing the determinative?<< Referring to "nhp" as a word is analogous to referring to "dn" as a modern English word. Hieroglyphic did not represent the vowels. If a similiar system were used in English, "dn" might represent: Dan, den, din, Don, dun, Dane, Dene, dine, done, dune, dyne, Eden etc. Thus, there would no problem in comprehension of the spoken language, but a need for determinitives in the written. John ============================================================================== From: "Brian Yare" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Use of determinatives.. Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 18:49:44 +0100 << The above example then begs the question, "why would a word require a determinative if it has only one meaning AND that determinative has no relation to the actual meaning?" If the ''ur' bird is not used as a determinative in this example then could someone kindly explain why it is there? - should it not be a determinative in this case then possibly I selected a wrong example, should that be true then can I ask a general question, "why would any word which has only one meaning require a determinative"? >> One answer might be "so that the reader knows where the word ends". Brian Yare ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 19:57:40 +0200 From: ROSMORDUC Serge To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Use of determinatives.. Ann & Jon Smyth a écrit : >If the ''ur' bird is not used as a determinative in this example then could >someone kindly explain why it is there? - should it not be a determinative in >this case then possibly I selected a wrong example, should that be true then >can I ask a general question, "why would any word which has only one meaning >require a determinative"? Important notice to beginners : there are two "small birds" signs, which are different, and that the egyptian did not use in the same words. One is the swallow (G36), the "wr" sign, which is essentially a phonetic sign. G37, the sparrow, is the determinative of small and evil things, hence its use after "nhw" and "nhy". You can differenciate the signs by looking at the bird's tail : in "wr", it's forked, in G37, it's round. The verb "nh" is in fact the verb "to lack", which explain the sign. Note that in the Coffin Texts quoted by Faulkner, 4 out of 5 versions write the word n:h without determinative. Now, for the various questions you asked, there are a number of elements : * A number of words which had the same consonnant had different vowels or accentuation, and in this case, the determinative was definitly an help. * The determinative are also a clue to word separations, and believe me, when you compare the hieroglyphs to other systems which don't have word separation nor spaces between words, you feel grateful to the scribe who invented determinatives. Now, a more fundamental question "what is the use of determinatives" ? I would say that they hold a place in the system and participate in its general (and graphical) spirit. But to ask "why a determinative" in word X and Y, is probably not the right question. In fact, the question would be more "why not a determinative in word X", because the egyptian choosed to use determinatives quite systematically (although the disposition of the signs you are used to was systematised in the middle kingdom. Even if the general rules were the same, OK egyptian used more unilitary signs, and determinative use was not as systematic). Another point to consider about Egyptian orthography is that the usual script was hieratic, which had however strong relationships with hieroglyphs (hieratic signs came from hieroglyphs, but signs and practices from hieratic influenced the hieroglyphs a lot). The redundancy of the Egyptian writing system becomes even more useful in hieratic, where a number of signs, normally different in hieroglyphs looked almost the same. In this case, phonetic complements and determinatives helped probably a lot. D. Meeks has also pointed out that the Egyptians could use the determinatives, in hieroglyphic texts, to convey information that did not appear in the words used. For instance, the choice of determinative after the word "to dance" could hint to the dance actually being performed, without the need to express its name. In the same vein, remember that hieroglyphs were magical stuff, with a performative value. The iconic quality of the signs had certainly an impact, in their composer's mind, on their efficiency. For instance, writing the word "enemy" with a determinative of a wounded ennemy was certainly less dangerous for the writer and more efficient against this ennemy than using only the phonetic signs. In contrast to Greek thought, which was adverse to pictures and considered them as lies, the ancient Egyptians considered pictures as facets of reality, and thought their helped shape it out. A final point : a writing system is not modern algebra. It's redundant, has an history, things left over from previous states (just consider English or French orthography in this regard), evolutionary tendencies in conflict with those... It's more a temporary balance than a completely coherent system. Things like phonetics, visual memory, confusions, practical tendencies... enter in line. Regards, S. Rosmorduc ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:32:51 -0500 From: "Nicole B. Hansen" Subject: Re: AEL Use of determinatives.. To: Ancient Egyptian Language List See my answers below ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:02:01 -0400 >From: "Ann & Jon Smyth" >Subject: AEL Use of determinatives.. >To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" >The above example then begs the question, "why would a word require a determinative if it has only one meaning AND that determinative has no relation to the actual meaning?" >If the ''ur' bird is not used as a determinative in this example then could someone kindly explain why it is there? It's not the ur bird, it's the "bad" bird. Since this word meant to escape death, they may have associated it with this negative concept in this way. And determinatives serve a double purpose, marking the end of a word. >That then brings me to the next thought, - a determinative only has value in written texts, if the above word "nhp" is spoken in a sentence then how is an Egyptian to understand the meaning without knowing the determinative? Because they were actually different words, each pronounced differently. You have to remember that all we have written are the consonants, whereas the vowels would have been different in each case. Nicole B. Hansen Ph.D. candidate, Egyptology, University of Chicago Database Consultant, Giza Plateau Mapping Project Chicago, USA Visit http://www.glyphdoctors.com ============================================================================== From: sashaverma@optusnet.com.au To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:56:48 +1000 Subject: Re: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems To all concerned please note that it is now generally accepted by philogists that the system used by Antonio Loprieno in transliteration is the one to be followed. Sasjha Verma ============================================================================== From: "Greg Zuck" To: "'Ancient Egyptian Language List'" Subject: RE: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:39:27 -0500 One and All, Not to add more confusion, but I think that I started this comment/discussion about different interpretations/transliterations/pronunciations for the same hieroglyph. Since I am a true novice I was simply noting the variations by Hume which I was studying at the time (rather unsuccessfully I might add) and Allen and that I am eager to learn as much as possible with the least amount of confusion, still realizing differing opinions among scholars. Janice Kamrin, Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs; a practical guide, 2004 (0-8109-4961-X) states on her jacket cover that she currently works with Dr. Zahi Hawass (like Wow!). As per usual the first chapter introduces the alphabet. For Kamrin, the hieroglyph of the hobble, transliterated as a "t" with a bar or line under the letter, is the practical equivalent for "tj" "Egyptologist use "tj" when turning into English...you will see "th" in some books; "tj" is the more current version" (page 23). For Allen the same hieroglyph is "t" followed by "y" as in the British pronunciation of "tune". I don't know the British pronunciation for certain, unfortunately. Many other English speakers, this sound is the ch in chew. (page 17), Allen adds. Hoch states that the "t" is a rope for tethering (which is not the same as hobbling an animal) and has the value of tsh (page 7). I am ready to follow Allen and promise to refrain from bringing up these differences as we progress. Greg ============================================================================== From: "Alan Woodcock" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:58:34 +0200 I can't resist telling you that the Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1969 edition, article "Hieroglyphs" written by Carleton Taylor Hodge, Professor of Linguistics at Indiana University, uses c-circumflex c for MdC "T", g-circumflex g for MdC "D", and a raised question-mark for MdC "A". (circumflexes are of course upside down, as on "S" s). He also uses "q" for MdC "q". As for Arabic transliteration, TE Lawrence wrote in his preface to "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" : "... general practice... in recent years has been to adopt one of the various sets of conventional signs... ... There are some 'scientific systems' of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a wash-out for the world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are." Alan ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 07:10:04 -0300 (ART) From: Carlos Moreira Subject: Re: AEL RE: Confusion about differences in transliteration systems To: Ancient Egyptian Language List K, An interesting point. It seems like the folks at the CCER in Holland while devising the MdC and their transliteration font, hit by chance a close match "q / k with a dot" !!! Probably they were not aware of that phonetic correspondence in the transliteration of Arabic. I haven't read Loprieno so far but look forward to it. Maybe he sheds some light on this small detail. Carlos Porto, Portugal > It's very interesting to hear about the > correspondences between q and the Arabic language- I'd > thought the only transliteration style to use the q > was MdC, and that this was only used because there is > no "k with a dot" option on your average keyboard. > > K. Michael > > ============================================================================== From: "Alan Woodcock" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Use of determinatives.. Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:31:29 +0200 Jon Smyth wrote: " An English example might be, "I read the first line but did not read the rest of the sentence". Compare this with, "I was tired and needed to rest". We can understand the different meanings of 'rest' by simply understanding the context. " This example is very subtle. In "I read the first line but did not read the rest of the sentence", you must pronounce the two "read"s differently, to distinguish the two distinct verbal forms hidden behind the same spelling. (Remind you of anything?) And you think vowels help? The egyptians were better off without them! Alan Wasn't there some doggerel by Shakespeare: "Write", you know is written right When you see it written "write" But if you see it written "rite" Why then 'tis not written right or words to that effect. ============================================================================== From: "Ann & Jon Smyth" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Use of determinatives.. Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:38:16 -0400 > > One answer might be "so that the reader knows where the word ends". > > Brian Yare Thankyou Brian, and list members. Yes, the fact that a determinative helps to identify word endings had occured to me, except that this might suggest every word requires a determinative to indicate the 'end' - being consistant and all that. But equally it did not escape me that a simple "dot" or "vertical line" would be more expedient and consistant as a generic word separator. I guess too many years in Engineering have conditioned my thoughts to look for design & logic in something that is perhaps more the result of art & emotion. Many thanks to all who offered advice. Regards, Jon Smyth. (My copy of 'Allen' arrived last week, that looks daunting enough but 'Gardiner' just arrived yesterday, my goodness it's huge!! - 650 pages of blood, sweat and tears) ============================================================================== To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Muhammad Barker Subject: AEL Determinatives Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 11:16:03 -0500 Dear All, The discussion about the use of "determinatives" has been interesting, and several good points have been put forward. Questions like "why determinatives?" or "why does this word have this particular determinative?" are probably unanswerable, rather like the enigmatic conundrum "Why is a duck?" :-) We cannot go back in time and read the minds of the ancient Egyptians, nor can "logic" answer linguistic questions (as was thought in prior centuries). There is no real "logic" inherent in language. Why does Chinese have word-tones, while English does not? Why do certain German prepositions take the "dative" case," while others demand the "accusative?" Examples can be adduced ad infinitum. The task of the linguist, as i see it, is to discover what phenomena can be deduced from the data, devise systems and "rules" for as much of the corpus as we can, and find methods of presenting these things in terms readers can understand. There are additional considerations, of course, but these are surely basic. We may thus wish to focus clearly upon the corpus of Middle-Kingdom Egyptian and how we can best describe it, learn it, and use our knowledge to read and interpret texts. Apropos to teaching methodology, I think we must arbitrarily decide on the transliteration system we will use. Professor Loprieno's system has been put forward as optimal. Fine. Someone might thus type a copy of his list and put it here on this list, so that those who lack his book may not be penalised. If Professor Loprieno chooses "y" or "i" or "i with a thingummy on it," then I urge that we ask the students of this group to employ these conventions. We may then wish to discuss the advantages of other schemes in the discussion section. By the bye, I also hope that our teaching aids can be made better, more exhaustive, and more consistent. There are many lacunae in our teaching materials. As an example, I recently had need of the Hieroglyphic spelling for the name of the Goddess Sekhmet. I looked her up in Allen and found her name on p. 467, right-hand column, third line up from the bottom. The second optional spelling there has a lion-headed seated lady as its determinatrive. This determinative does not occur in Allen's determinative lists, nor is it in Collier and Manley. It is also not in the Jsesh hieroglyphic list. (but may well be in the extended glyph list that Macscribe offers --???) If a student were to see Sekhmet spelled with this determinative, he she could probably figure it out from context, but -- in my view -- it is not very commendable to include anything that is not thoroughly and exhaustively presented elsewhere! Older teaching materials seem to have many omissions of this kind (examples can be quoted from other languages) and this goes against modern pedagogical language teaching practice. With best wishes, M. Barker ============================================================================== From: "Brian Yare" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Determinatives Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 00:13:33 +0100 << If Professor Loprieno chooses "y" or "i" or "i with a thingummy on it," then I urge that we ask the students of this group to employ these conventions. We may then wish to discuss the advantages of other schemes in the discussion section. >> A lot of time is being wasted here. If we are using James Allen's book then the only sensible thing to do is also to use the transliteration scheme from that book. Brian Yare ============================================================================== From: "kmotc" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL Glyph Study Group Transliteration Scheme Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 02:07:46 -0500 Em htp All, With all due respect to those who have suggested other transliteration schemes, In order to keep things from becoming needlessly complicated we should all adopt Allen's transliteration scheme. To do otherwise would only entail confusion, as he uses it not only in the answer key, but in the examples he transliterates in the text. At this point it really isn't important to us which scheme has the best credentials in linguistic circles---we just need to have consistency with our text and each other, and since we are using Allen's text, it just makes sense for us to use what he uses. It will also make it so much easier for those who are really just beginning. ( : best all, more announcements Monday when everyone is back at work and checking email *wink* Karen ============================================================================== From: "Ann & Jon Smyth" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Determinatives Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 12:25:11 -0400 Agreed, I'm all for parallel learning but there's a correct time for such considerations. We have to understand the fundamental's before entertaining alternatives, and, giving priority to 'Allen' is not sanctioning his way as 'thee correct way' - its just one step on a long road. regards, Jon Smyth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Yare" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 7:13 PM Subject: Re: AEL Determinatives > A lot of time is being wasted here. If we are using James Allen's book > then the only sensible thing to do is also to use the transliteration > scheme from that book. ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 07:23:37 -0400 From: pd To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Determinatives On Sat, 21 May 2005 00:13:33 +0100, Brian Yare wrote: > A lot of time is being wasted here. If we are using James Allen's book > then the only sensible thing to do is also to use the transliteration > scheme from that book. Except that we are doing this over a computer network in ASCII. I suggest that MdC is a more practical notation. -Paul Dickson ============================================================================== From: Muhammad Barker Subject: Re: AEL Glyph Study Group Transliteration Scheme Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 07:13:13 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Dear All, I concur with our esteemed administrator. I had thought the suggestion to use Lorprieno came from you, Karen, but in checking my old email, I see i was mistaken. Yes, let us use Allen! The post about problems with ASCII worries me a tad, but then I am not a computer expert and can only ask you who are computerisers (:-)) to work it out and inform the rest of us, please! M. A. R. Barker ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 10:52:32 -0300 (ART) From: Carlos Moreira Subject: Re: AEL Determinatives To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Hi Muhammad that Sekhmet sign is part of the CCER Extended glyph library. It's sign C164B. Go to 'www.ccer.nl' and check under 'Resources', you will find it. Allen probably didn't worry about presenting an exhaustive determinatives list. He should have thought that by the time people had reached the end of his grammar, they would comprehend the meaning of new signs not should on previous pages. Carlos Porto, Portugal ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 17:46:30 +0100 Subject: Re: AEL Glyph Study Group Transliteration Scheme Hi all, There is a handy transliteration chart on the AEL site, which I notice is consistant with the transliteration used in Allen. I hope list members will find this chart useful. The direct URL for the page is: http://www.rostau.org.uk/AEgyptian-L/learning/hierointro.html Kind Regards, Mark. ============================================================================== From: Muhammad Barker Subject: Re: AEL Glyph Study Group Transliteration Scheme Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 12:01:20 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Dear Mr. Wilson, Excellent! I see no reason why we cannot use the typewriter symbols from this chart. It obviates the need to worry abut ASCII and the special symbols of the MdC. ============================================================================== From: Muhammad Barker Subject: Re: AEL Determinatives Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:57:11 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Hi, Carlos, I get a little testy (I am 75 years old!) when authors do not put all of the materials needed into their books. This should be especially true for teaching texts. No real harm done, of course; you have given me the place to find it. Unfortunately jsesh doesn't yet have the capability of showing items from the extended glyph library. Mr. Rosmorduc says this will come in time, but not now. Thanks for helping! Muhammad On May 22, 2005, at 8:52 AM, Carlos Moreira wrote: > Hi Muhammad > > that Sekhmet sign is part of the CCER Extended glyph library. It's sign > C164B. Go to 'www.ccer.nl' and check under 'Resources', you will find > it. > Allen probably didn't worry about presenting an exhaustive > determinatives list. He should have thought that by the time people had > reached the end of his grammar, they would comprehend the meaning of > new signs not should on previous pages. > > > Carlos > Porto, Portugal ==============================================================================