Talk:Egyptian hieroglyphs

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Egyptian hieroglyphs article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Egyptian hieroglyphs received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Writing systems High‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Egypt Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

edit
history
watch
purge

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Egypt High‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vertical Stroke meaning disputed[edit]

"they are always accompanied by a mute vertical stroke indicating their status as a logogram" -- I agree this is the consensus interpretation of the Z1 vertical stroke(coptic - roht).

Nearly example I've ever seen follows a glyph with an "r". I consider this glyph to be an "r" determinative(still silent), but signifying that there is an "r" present. Whether this is after "per" or "re". It is also possible that a glyph has 2 different readings(ie 2 words for goose), where one of the words has an "r", and this signifies which word for the glyph to use. So I believe this logogram theory/interpretation is incorrect; both interpretations make the z1 heiroglyph silent, so it is mostly theoretical as to the why. 2601:58B:E7F:8410:30E3:3636:9B1C:7EB0 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOR.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure word example[edit]

O34-G38-G1-A47-D54 - keep, watch
This particular word does not exist in Faulkner, Vygus, Dickson, or AED(German) dictionaries, with a g38, but does exist with a g39 (wrong goose is shown). And the translation is wrong according to 3 dictionaries, and is based solely on the A47 glyph (guard determinitive).

There is no coptic equivalent of keep or watch starting with an s, or an s-s; the translation is suspect. The word has multiple determinatives(ignored glyphs), and is a bad teaching example.
O34-s [in ptolemys]
G39-Coptic smoune - goose, large duck (not gb/geb as in g38)
G1-Coptic Ahom - eagle, vulture
A47-Coptic eloiH? - shepherd (determinative?)(or guard determinitive?)
D54 - walk/move determinative or suffix?

"linger, await, creep" -- AED/Dickson/Vygus

'Ancestral to the alphabet'[edit]

'The later hieratic and demotic Egyptian scripts were derived from hieroglyphic writing, as was the Proto-Sinaitic script that later evolved into the Phoenician alphabet.'

This may or may not be technically true, but the phrasing is misleading, as it mixes apples and oranges. Hieratic and demotic are true continuations of the hieroglyphic logographic-consonantal system with the principles and structure virtually unchanged. The West Semitic abjad is fundamentally different in its principles and its (postulated) relation to the hieroglyphic script is highly indirect.

'Through the Phoenician alphabet's major child systems (the Greek and Aramaic scripts), the Egyptian hieroglyphic script is ancestral to the majority of scripts in modern use...'

Even the oft-repeated claim that the hieroglyphic script is 'ancestral' to the majority of modern scripts or, as the cited (non-linguistic) source says, that the Semites 'adopted about 30 hieroglyphs', has always been imprecise. A sign consists of the signifier and the signified - 'borrowing' the signifier without its signified (either in terms of sound or in terms of meaning) is not what you would normally mean by 'adopting' it. (This reminds me of the Cherokee 'adoption' of the Latin script.) The Semites neither borrowed the Egyptian phonetic values (saying, having the ox picture represent the sound sequence kʾ based on the Egyptian word for 'ox') nor used the 30 signs logographically as in Egyptian (say, having the ox picture denote the word *ʔalp- that has the meaning ox) - which are the the two ways Sumerian cuneiform signs and Chinese characters truly have been adopted by surrounding peoples. The only allegation is that they borrowed the specific shape of their signs, i.e. the specific way in which the pictograms depicted the concepts they relied on, and the general idea of exploiting the names of the concepts depicted for their sound values (and even then they did it very differently, using only the first consonant of the word that stood for the depicted concept, unlike the Egyptians, who generally let the sound value be determined by all the consonants that truly occurred in the word). The shapes were arguably the least important aspect of their innovation - they could have easily used other shapes. They are supposed to have basically reverse-engineered some of the basic principles of the origins of the Egyptian system (by then extremely far removed in time) and to have applied them to their own language in a drastically reduced and altered form - an extremely convoluted process which can hardly be called 'derivation', 'adoption' or, arguably, even a case of 'ancestry'; more like 'inspiration'. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]