Talk:Wp/cop/ϫⲁϫⲃⲁⲕⲓ

From Wikimedia Incubator

ϯⲉⲧⲩⲙⲟⲗⲟⲅⲓⲁ[edit source]

Dear friends, in Hieroglyphic Egyptian there exists ḥnwt nt dmj nb ('mistress/ruler of all cities), which would be theoretically ϩⲛⲟⲩⲓ `ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲙⲓ ⲛⲓⲃ in Bohairic Coptic, and contrasted something like ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛϯⲙⲓⲛⲓⲃ. ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉⲧⲙⲉ seems to be a southern (Sahidic?) variant of ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛϯⲙⲓ.
ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲉⲧⲙⲉ does not show up in any Classical Bohairic text. What do you think? I think we should change that into a Bohairic form. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, I already thought about it too. We should change that to a Bohairic form. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk)
Are you all OK with the form ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛϯⲙⲓⲛⲓⲃ ? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could also abbreviate it as ϯϩⲛⲟⲩⲛϯⲙⲓ, because ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛϯⲙⲓⲛⲓⲃ sounds a bit long. Do you think the hieroglyphic ḥnwt nt dmj nb would have not been abbreviated over the millennia? بطرس مرقس (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, shorter is probably better and more realistic. We could use the plural form of ϯⲙⲓ, which is in Bohairic *ⲧⲙⲏ (reconstructed hieroglyphic pronunciation *tmú). That would give us ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲧⲙⲏ, and fits semantically well, 'ruler of cities'. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's take it. بطرس مرقس (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody said anything against it, I will start to change it now. بطرس مرقس (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand why you would need to create a speculative derivation such as this, vastly dislocated in time, language stage and cultural-religious sphere. Coptic is eminently capable of expressing simple concepts such as 'capital/chief city' in genuine Coptic. Just look at Acts 16:12 where ϯϩⲟⲩⲓϯ is used for "chief (city)" (Sahidic: ⲧϣⲟⲣⲡ︦). A review of Coptic literature would very likely yield other expressions for the same concept. If not content with ϯϩⲟⲩⲓϯ (ⲙ̀ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ) then other possibilities in genuine Coptic are ϯⲁⲫⲉ ⲙ̀ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ, ⲡⲓϫⲱϫ ⲙ̀ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ (ⲡⲓϫⲁϫⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ) or even ϯⲙⲏⲧⲣⲟⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ. I think it's very important to ask the question: 'Would a Copto-phone Egyptian living at a time when Coptic was the vernacular be able to understand (or easily work out) the meaning of a proposed expression?' If the answer is no, as I suspect is the case with this proposal, which belonging to a different time, then it should be rejected as something that can't reasonably be called Coptic. - AB
I don't agree with you. If Coptic should be a language of the 21st century, we need to create new words. And if we use the strategy to only use existent words and give them a second and a third meaning, it won't serve the language, as it won't be precise enough. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say we shouldn't innovate at all but I don't think we should stretch the language to its breaking point. Anything that might be called Neo-Bohairic needs to have a strong base in classical Bohairic, which is a language we know well and in which we have much written, otherwise we risk creating something entirely divorced from Bohairic. I certainly don't think there is any need to go back to 21st century BC Egyptian to make Coptic fit for the 21st century. Any words that are derived from pre-Coptic Egyptian are highly speculative and in any case belong to an entirely different time and long became extinct. Coptic, as it is recorded, preserves a great wealth of vocabulary that can be employed to express (old) ideas that, by chance, might not have survived in recorded Coptic and other newly invented things/ideas. In Acts 16:12, we have a Coptic translation for a Greek original text deemed intelligible and appropriate by a Copto-phone Egyptian. I think this makes it a genuine Coptic term despite ϩⲟⲩⲓϯ being a polysemous word. Of course, languages use the same words for different things all the time without compromising precision - context usually adequately differentiates between meanings. If this was a genuine concern in living languages, then new concepts/inventions would never be expressed by existing words; e.g. 'wireless' (internet/communication) in addition to older 'wireless' (meaning radio). The expressions I suggested above, other than ϯϩⲟⲩⲓϯ (ⲙ̀ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ), may not be attested with the meaning 'capital/chief city' (a review of the literature would be needed to establish this) but at least they use genuine words in Coptic, according to its grammar and the basic meanings of the words - this is key. I'll reiterate what I said before: it is imperative that anything that might justifiably be called Neo-Bohairic be intelligible (with a bit of lateral thinking) to a Copto-phone Egyptian from the time when the language was living. I don't think any Coptic-speaking Copt would have understood what ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲧⲙⲏ means, just as no (regular) modern English speaker would understand a since extinct word from 11th century Beowulf (even with adjustments for sound changes). - AB
Ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲕⲉⲭⲱⲟⲩⲛⲓ, ⲟⲩⲟⲛⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲗⲓ ⲙ̀ⲙⲉⲩⲓ̀ ⲙ̀ⲃⲉⲣⲓ? - AB
Why do we always have to quarrel about that? Also, I guess nobody is answering because nobody thinks this word is a problem here. And so are many of the others you criticize. I don't see a problem in taking Hieroglyphic Egyptian to create Coptic neologisms. Also, there are obviously people here who know a lot about Egyptian historical phonology and sound laws, so I trust them in this respect. Also, there have been people here who wanted to rely more on Greek, then others criticized it and said we should use Arabic, and after a consensus, a third party wants to renegotiate everything. I am not sure if this is very funny for the people who are in charge here (or put way more time in it then I do). Ψενανουβισ (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ψενανουβισ, I don't think any reasonable person would say that I'm quarreling. I think I'm giving my opinion on something that is important to me and about which I've read a lot and about which I've built up a not insignificant level of knowledge over the years. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. If you're not convinced by my arguments then fine, though I'd appreciate some counterarguments. However, I'm not prepared to accept what I see as errors or less felicitous form/methods without discussion which is what you're asking me to do. Further, I don't think the fact that something has previously been decided on here by consensus (of how many?) means that it can't be criticised. You're also implying that my contributions are somehow less valuable or secondary - I resent that and question why you think anyone else has more of a right than me to express an opinion on my own language? There are indeed people here with knowledge of Egyptian historical phonology (I know a bit myself), but no one can know with certainty what ḥnwt nt dmj nb would become if it has survived. Crucially, it is not attested in Bohairic (or any dialect) and moreover we actually have an attested expression meaning capital/chief city. Why not simply use the term actually used by Coptophone Egyptians? Bohairic is not the same language as Middle/Late Egyptian and Coptic Egypt did not have the same socioreligious culture as Middle/New Kingdom Egypt. - AB
Are you kidding me? Don't play the victim here. You should look on how you started discussions here. Remember the ⲕⲩⲃϯ discussion? Also, I think nobody denies you to lay down your arguments. But don't be pissed if nobody responds to your hundredth comment on how false everything here is. I think most of the participants in the Coptic Wikipedia here respond to every new discussion. But nobody can expect further attention on a topic when all the people who have already exchanged arguments don't think it there is further things to discuss. Also, there is almost all the time a discussion when we create new words. Even if we agreed on something, you can challenge them. But don't be bitchy if your arguments are not convincing enough to change the direction of the debate. Again, your arrogant tone ("I'd appreciate some counterarguments") is again just derogatory to the arguments already made by some here: That we should rely on Hieroglyphic Egyptian. Or that we should rely on Greek. Or that we should borrow from Arabic. And the argument that a Copt from the 10th century would not have understand ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲧⲙⲏ just doesn't go anywhere. A Copt who doesn't know his language would also not have known what ⲣⲁⲛ means.
Ψενανουβισ, I see you're only interested in ad hominem attacks so I'll leave your last comment to speak for itself. I'm always happy to engage with people in discussions about Coptic, but no one is forcing you to reply or debate with me if you don't want to. - AB

My prefered way to create new words is to form construct state compounds. I try not to build forms like ⲓⲁⲣⲓⲱⲥⲏⲫ instead of ⲓⲟⲣ `ⲛⲓⲱⲥⲏⲫ, because we can then semantically distinguish between a set proper noun or phrase (Bahr Yusuf in this case) and the general meaning (a canal/channel of Yusuf). This is also the reason why I like ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲧⲙⲏ. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like ϫⲁϫⲃⲁⲕⲓ, it is clear and understandable. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender[edit source]

What gender do you use with ϫⲁϫⲃⲁⲕⲓ? I noticed a couple ϯϫⲁϫⲃⲁⲕⲓ, but shouldn't it be ⲡⲓϫⲁϫⲃⲁⲕⲓ? ϫⲁϫ comes from ϫⲱϫ and ϫⲱϫ is masculine. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yeah I never thought about it, but you may be right. Now I'm confused. As it literally "head of the city/s", the gender would be determined by "head" ϫⲱϫ? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I changed all the incidents. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]