Talk:Wp/cop/ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲥⲧⲓϭ ⲛ̀ⲉⲓⲡⲛ ⲑⲱⲗⲱⲛ
Where does ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲥⲧⲓϭ come from? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ultimately from المسجد but the metathesis is interesting. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- But is it attested anywhere? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- You mean in an ancient source? Are any words for "mosque" available? I don't know ... I don't understand why it wouldn't be ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲥϭⲓⲧ ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϭⲓⲧ or similar, if somebody just took it from Arabic. So it looks like a not too recent introduction? Regarding the metathesis, Siwi Berber has something similar: "amezdik", ultimately also from al-masjid. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like it doesn't show up anywhere except this Wikipedia. I don't know whose invention it is but i don't think it's good. I'd rather use ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϫⲓⲧ or ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϫⲓⲇ.--ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think nobody forbids you to use ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϫⲓⲧ. Before we move things back and forth, it would be good if we leave that discussion here and focus on more important things. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should have some kind of consistency after all, it's encyclopaedia, not a blog. If we have some words with unknown etymology and reference, we should rather change it for a more suitable term or trace it's etymology. I don't see how the second scenario is possible in this case. The most important thing rn is translating the interface but i don't see anyone doing that (it's not a reproach at all i'm just saying). --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's also another way – we could use a different word with the meaning of "sanctuary, sacred place". In Greek they use τέμενος for "mosque" and in Coptic we have ⲡⲓⲧⲁⲃⲓⲣ for "sanctuary" which we could theoretically use for "mosque". --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should have some kind of consistency after all, it's encyclopaedia, not a blog. If we have some words with unknown etymology and reference, we should rather change it for a more suitable term or trace it's etymology. I don't see how the second scenario is possible in this case. The most important thing rn is translating the interface but i don't see anyone doing that (it's not a reproach at all i'm just saying). --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think nobody forbids you to use ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϫⲓⲧ. Before we move things back and forth, it would be good if we leave that discussion here and focus on more important things. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like it doesn't show up anywhere except this Wikipedia. I don't know whose invention it is but i don't think it's good. I'd rather use ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϫⲓⲧ or ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϫⲓⲇ.--ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- You mean in an ancient source? Are any words for "mosque" available? I don't know ... I don't understand why it wouldn't be ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲥϭⲓⲧ ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϭⲓⲧ or similar, if somebody just took it from Arabic. So it looks like a not too recent introduction? Regarding the metathesis, Siwi Berber has something similar: "amezdik", ultimately also from al-masjid. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- But is it attested anywhere? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree there should be consistency, but I also think there are cases where we don't need to use the same word, and or even same spelling, throughout the Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't replace ⲁⲗⲙⲉⲥϫⲓⲧ (if you opt to use it) with ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲥⲧⲓϭ, and the same goes with ⲡⲓⲧⲁⲃⲓⲣ which is a good idea of you. If you prefer the latter, I think we can use it for "mosque". Let's see what others think. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)