Language desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 12[edit]

Ancient Egyptian sound values[edit]

How do we have any idea what ancient Egyptian sounded like? I understand the concept of reconstructing an ancient language from a known modern language (Coptic language), but I suppose that it's a good deal complex than that. Transcriptions I've run across will routinely appear without a *reconstructed-word asterisk (there are lots of transcriptions in Pharaoh#Etymology, but only two asterisks), and if it were as simple as that, maybe scholars could have reconstructed meaning as well as sound and wouldn't have needed the Rosetta Stone. I read through Egyptian language but saw nothing (it notes certain ambiguities, especially vowels, but how do we have any clue at all?), and Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian talks about representing known sound values in Latin script, not about discovering those sound values in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read those articles you probably know this first point, but just to cover all the bases I'll say that most of the signs in a given hieroglyphic text are phonetic (albeit exclusively consonant-based), so a lot can be reconstructed by matching hieroglyphic words to Coptic words and working backwards. Egyptian writing was also highly conservative, and letters continued to be written centuries or millennia after they had dropped out of speech. In large part, hieroglyphs continued to reflect the pronunciations used in the Old Kingdom up until they went extinct. The transliteration of ancient Egyptian reflects hieroglyphic spelling, so it can create a false impression of certainty.

The other crucial point is that the Amarna Letters from the 14th century BC are written in cuneiform. Although written in the Akkadian language, they include Egyptian proper nouns, and the cuneiform spellings, unlike contemporary Egyptian ones, reflect how those words were pronounced at the time. For example, Nefertiti was actually called something like *Naftita. Between Coptic, the largely Old Kingdom-based hieroglyphic spellings, and the Amerna evidence, it's possible to reconstruct some of the sound changes that Egyptian underwent, although of course all reconstructions are conjectural. There are uncertainties about the values of several of the consonants in addition to the ever-troublesome vowels. A. Parrot (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does "in seeking of an argument" mean?[edit]

I'm not a nativ english speaker, so please sorry my errors in this matter. I looking for the meaning of the phrease "in seeking of a argument".--188.100.180.75 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In seeking of an argument" does not sound like good English. I cannot think of what it could mean. Could you write here the larger phrase where you found these words? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show the context in which it is used? I can think of two possibilities: "looking to start a dispute" and "looking for a way to justify something". Jmar67 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps "Trying to start a debate". The older meaning of "argument" was closer to a civil debate. The "shouting insults" meaning is more of a modern usage (and the word "debate" is headed that way, too, thanks to modern politicians). SinisterLefty (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’d have to agree that context is what is called for therefore I ask 188.100.180.75 to please provide a larger quote including the phrase that you are asking about so that it might be possible to decipher the meaning of that phrase. By the way there are no Google hits for either "in seeking of an argument" or "in seeking of a argument" except for this Language desk discussion. Those are the two variations found in the original post. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete the "of" there are several Google results: "In seeking an argument to establish the claim that unobservables exist, Salmon writes...", [1] which agrees with Jmar's second definition above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would concede you and Jmar67 make a valid point, but it would be nice to see a more extensive and more accurate quote, such as a quote cut-and-pasted from its original source, or at least accurately copied. There are two versions between the section heading and post itself. Wild-goose chase comes to mind. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]