Jump to content

Talk:Wp/cop/Ⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ

Add topic
From Wikimedia Incubator
(Redirected from Talk:Wp/cop/ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ in topic Content


[edit source]

We need terminology for the different stages of Egyptian:

  • Old Egyptian ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ
  • Middle Egyptian
  • Late Egyptian
  • Demotic Egyptian
  • Coptic Egyptian ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲃⲉⲣⲓ or, maybe better, ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲙⲟⲩⲓ. We could use the word ⲙⲟⲩⲓ, which is traditionally only used in Fayyumic in the sense of "new", as the Coptic word for "modern", what do you think? We could then avoid ⲃⲉⲣⲓ 'new', as Late Egyptian is labelled 'New or Neo-Egyptian' in some languages (and it is the language of the 'New Kingdom').

--User:ⲕⲁⲣⲩⲛⲏ, 18.08.2017

What about the following:
  • Old Egyptian = ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛϯⲙⲉⲧⲟⲩⲣⲟ `ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ
  • Late Egyptian = ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛϯⲙⲉⲧⲟⲩⲣⲟ `ⲛⲃⲉⲣⲓ
  • Demotic Egyptian = ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲡⲓⲥⲏⲟⲩ `ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ
  • Coptic Egyptian = ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲙⲟⲩⲓ. ⲙⲟⲩⲓ to introduce in Bohairic with the meaning "modern" is a good idea.

I think we should then move this page to ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲙⲟⲩⲓ. --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ, 18.08.2017

And we should also look for a term for 'hieroglyphs'. In hieroglyphic egyptian, it is (Sš-nj-)mdw.w-nṯr '(script of the) words of god'. Therefore, we can take this as a basis. The regular outcome would be ⲙⲉⲧⲛⲟⲩϯ - which can also mean 'godhood, divinity'. To clarify, it should be ⲥϧⲁⲓ `ⲛϯⲙⲉⲧⲛⲟⲩϯ. What do you think? --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ, 18.08.2017
ⲧⲉⲉⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲓⲇⲉⲁ `ⲛⲟⲩϥⲓ!! --ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ ϧⲉⲛ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲓⲅ `ⲛⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲉ |ⲁⲯⲗⲅ
ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲥϧⲁⲓ `ⲛⲡⲁⲓϣⲁϫⲓ --بطرس مرقس ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲁⲃⲟⲧ `ⲛⲙⲉⲥⲱⲣⲉ
I kind of think now we should label Coptic Egyptian different than ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲙⲙⲟⲩⲓ. Although I still think we can adopt ⲙⲟⲩⲓ into Bohairic (phonologically, it looks Bohairic anyway), I don't think it is actually very practicable here. Because we need to differentiate Old Coptic and New Coptic, and ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲙⲙⲟⲩⲓ `ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ is a bit cumbersome ("Old New/Modern Egyptian"). So, we could take ⲕⲩⲃϯ or ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ for those cases where we need to specify the stages of Egyptian. Both are sometimes used in Coptic texts instead of ⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ, i.e. ⲡⲓⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ `ⲛⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ instead of ϯⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ. ⲕⲩⲃϯ is derived from قبطي, but of course, both are ultimately from ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ, which is itself from hw.t k3 ptḥ.
I would strongly urge to adopt one of these words, so that we can express "Old Coptic" as [ⲁⲥⲡⲓ (`ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ)] `ⲛⲕⲩⲃϯ/`ⲛⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ `ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ. Given the many discussions we experience here on whether or not we can use Greek-looking words and so on, I want to have a discussion here which one we should use, or if anybody comes up with another possibility, please write it here. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I like ⲕⲩⲃϯ over ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ. And I think we should use it instead of the construction with ⲙⲟⲩⲓ. Lets wait what other people say. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, lets move that page to ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲕⲩⲃϯ. بطرس مرقس (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no such word as ⲕⲩⲃϯ in Coptic. It is an error to adopt a word into Coptic from Arabic where a perfectly good and, most importantly, attested form already exists in Coptic. As someone has already mentioned, the original adjectival form is ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ from the Greek but there are several 'Copticised' variants of this spelling such as ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ, ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲥ and ⲅⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲥ preserved in Sahidic only(?). I suggest ϯⲁⲥⲡⲓ (ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ) ⲛ̀ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ or ϯⲙⲉⲧⲕⲩⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ as the the most acceptable and grammatically sound terms (i.e. ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ-ⲛ is the adjectival form for inanimates as opposed to ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ-ⲥ) specifically for "Coptic language" as a stage of the Egyptian language. -AB

I don't know why you think ⲕⲩⲃϯ doesn't exist in Coptic? What? I am pretty sure it is influenced by Arabic, but it is not an ad hoc loan, as the spelling would be totally different. بطرس مرقس (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
You'll have to show me an attestation of such a word in a Coptic text. I've never come across such a spelling and I have been looking at this topic for quite a while. To me it is clearly an Arabic word, which was obviously borrowed from Coptic/Greek but has been completely Arabised and even contains the Arabic nisbe. Why do you think the spelling would be different? As far as I can see, *ⲕⲩⲃϯ is an Arabic word that has been written in Coptic characters just like if I was to coin the word *ⲁⲗⲙⲁⲛⲓ for German. If you want authentic Coptic terms and expressions you need to consult primary Coptic sources (literary and documentary). -AB
Why should anyone use ⲩ in an Arabic loanword? That is totally odd, for both past and present texts. If it were loaned now, Copts would rather write it ⲕ/ⲭⲓⲡϯ or ⲕ/ⲭⲉⲡϯ. Also, Greek endings have often been omitted with common Greek nouns in Coptic, and the way from ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓ to ⲕⲩⲃϯ is not especially hard, even more so because ⲁⲓ is often monophthongized. بطرس مرقس (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
The letters ⲓ and ⲩ are (generally) pronounced the same in both the so-called "Old Bohairic" pronunciation and the "Graeco-Bohairic" pronunciation so it is neither here nor there whether iota or upsilon is used. Further, both these letters were often confused even in classical Sahidic and Bohairic (just like kappa/gamma were confused particularly in words of Greek origin), e.g. from 8th century Theban Sahidic ⲫⲓⲥⲓⲥ (< φύσις) and ⲉⲡⲩⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓⲁ (< ἐπιθυμία). In any case, unless it can be shown that *ⲕⲩⲃϯ was used in actual Bohairic texts while the language was still alive then the orthography must be assumed to be a modern transcription of the Arabic word. As I said, I've consulted many sources and I've never seen this writing so it is either modern, or possible late medieval, but in either case appears to be heavily/completely Arabised. It makes no sense at all to use an unattested form like *ⲕⲩⲃϯ over the numerous attested forms based on ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ that I mention above (there are others). It is the *attestation* that is vital. I'd be grateful if you could provide a reference in a primary source for the form *ⲕⲩⲃϯ. -AB
Hello, ⲕⲩⲃϯ is mentioned as a Bohairic variant by Werner Vycichl in the Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Copte. Furthermore, it seems that ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲥ is not actually Greek, but - because of the ai - Aramaic (ˀāḡēḇṭāy) and then got a bit Grecized. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Vycichl says "La forme ⲕⲩⲃϯ 'Copte' s'inspire de la forme arabe قبطي qui en dérive" (Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte, p. 5), which is what I wrote above. He does not give any reference, which is disappointing. If he is right that it occurs in a Bohairic(?) text, it is almost certainly rare and far less common than the usual ⲁⲓⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ etc forms I have given above, which are attested in both literary texts (e.g. Panegyric on Macarius of Tkow) and documentary texts (see Hans Förster, Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in den koptischen dokumentarischen Texten). Furthermore, as I have said, such a text must have been very late - at a time when the language was essentially dead and Egyptians were linguistically Arabised. Even the Scala Magna (13th-14th century) gives the form ⲁⲅⲓⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ for قبطي (Athanasius Kircher, Lingua aegyptiaca restituta, p 80).
Whether ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲥ etc are forms via Aramaic or not (source?) is interesting but not relevant to the question since many words entered Coptic from many source languages. The fact that they were used and understood by Egyptians/Copts speaking their language makes those words Coptic.
Whether or not ⲕⲩⲃϯ actually occurs, the evidence is heavily in favour of the actual and regularly attested form used in literary and documentary texts. Despite Vycichl's undoubted calibre as a Coptologist, it would be a mistake to simple used a dictionary form for which he does not give a reference but nevertheless explicitly states its derivation from Arabic. I really don't understand the your commitment to this suspect, late, Arabised form when we have authentic forms, which were used by Copts/Egyptians in their daily speech when the Coptic language was alive? Is it because of some sort of aversion to Greek (forms)? -AB
Are you talking to me? I am fine with almost any of the variants. There are people here who try to avoid Greek forms, but بطرس مرقس is not one of those, as he actually often defends the use of Greek. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad to hear it ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ. I find that an aversion to Greek is common among Copts/Egyptians these days, but this is based on a misunderstanding of what the Coptic language. This notion, still current, seems to have originated among mid/late 18th century Coptic revivalists such as Claudius Labib. This is not to take anything away from the efforts and achievements of CL and others, but it is vital to correct some of the errors of the past for the sake of the (Neo-)Coptic language. It's been interesting discussing this topic with you and I hope you'll take some of my points on board. -AB
Dude, I don't have anything against Greek, but I have a lot against you. Look of how you started to write here, thinking that you have to explain the actual situation to us dumb people. Writing ⲕⲩⲃϯ with an asterisk because you absolutely did not accept its existence.
"You'll have to show me an attestation of such a word in a Coptic text" - nobody has to show you anything. I won't proof the existence of a word that exists anyway.
"If you want authentic Coptic terms and expressions you need to consult primary Coptic sources (literary and documentary)" - I am tired of Europeans/Americans who think they can explain the world to us. Stick to your Sahidic primary sources and leave us alone. You should learn manners, my dear colonialist. بطرس مرقس (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I see that you're upset, Botros. This was not my intention. I like to explain, not to patronise (as you seem to see it), but to show my reasoning where my conclusions differ. Besides, I can hardly be expected to know what people know and what they don't know. For your information, I'm a Copt and every bit as Coptic as anyone - not a "colonialist" as you inexplicably assumed; and Bohairic is my primary dialect, though I have also studied Sahidic. I don't understand what you find so offensive about citing Sahidic sources? I mentioned Sahidic texts because ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ and its variants are, as far as I know, excepting medieval Bohairic scalae, exclusively attested in Sahidic texts and only following the Arab conquest. Ⲙ̀ⲡⲉⲣϫⲱⲛⲧ ⲉ̀ⲣⲟⲓ ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲣϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲣⲏⲟⲩ, ⲡⲁⲙⲉⲛⲣⲓⲧ ⲛ̀ϣⲫⲏⲣ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ. -AB


[edit source]

Should not it be ⲡⲓϫⲓⲛⲥⲁϫⲓ in stead of ϯϫⲓⲛⲥⲁϫⲓ? I remember seeing it as masculine noun in the dictionary, as most nouns that start with ϫⲓⲛ. Please, correct me if I am wrong. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Both is OK. The prefix ϫⲓⲛ- (in other dialects ϭⲓⲛ- and ⲕⲓⲛ-) can be used with both genders. If you're interested in the historical development: It comes from Demotic gy (pronounced *ki) which means 'manner, form, kind'. You have it in forms like gy n wnm ('manner of eating') > Coptic ϭⲓⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ / ϫⲓⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ 'eating; food'.

In Demotic this gy and therefore all words with gy- are masculine. In all non-Bohairic Coptic variants, it is feminine. In Bohairic, both is possible, although the masculine form is more common. So Bohairic is grammar-wise more conservative here; therefore, of course, feel free to use ⲡⲓϫⲓⲛⲥⲁϫⲓ. --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 21 September 2017

اللغة القبطية في القبطية

[edit source]

OK, so as we have a discussion here, I would like you to write down your prefered variant. Please write your name under the variants you accept and feel free to add other variants you like. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛ[?]

[edit source]


[edit source]

In the absence of any strong evidence for an attested from *ⲕⲩⲃϯ/ⲕⲩⲡϯ, I support the use of the "regular" and attested form ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲛ as the (inanimate) adjectival form to refer to the Coptic stage of the language. The other variant spellings of this word are due to the fact that (i) The diphthong was pronounced something like /ε/ by Egyptians hence the variant forms replacing ⲁⲓ with ⲁ/ⲉ or omitting it completely in spelling and; (ii) as is well known, there was frequent interchange between ⲕ/ⲅ. Since the variations in orthography are wide with no evidence of any form that can be considered an "Egyptianised" standard, I think that the "root" form, which is also no less commonly attested than the variant forms, should be adopted. - AB

I'm fine with this. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


[edit source]


[edit source]

I'm fine with this. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also OK and actually attested for Bohairic, so I like it. I would like to have a distinction between "Coptic" and "Egyptian", which is unfortunately necessary. ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲛ just means Egyptian for me, not Coptic. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ, I would like to know the reference for the attestation. Can you give this please? - AB
Isn't the dictionary enough :) Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
For my own interest and deeper understanding, I'd like to know the reference for the attestation. This will help establish (i) what type of document(s) it was attested in (ii) the dialect/variety of that/those document(s) (Vycichl doesn't say) (iii) the date of the document(s) in question and (iv) how widely it was used or if it was a one off writing/aberration. I think all of these factors are relevant. Also, even dictionaries contain errors and so any form given without reference must be treated with caution. Of all the Coptic etymological dictionaries, it is generally held that Vycichl tends to be the most comfortable with giving tenuous/speculative etymologies (Černý being the most conservative and Westendorf lying somewhere between them). If you or anyone else can provide an(y) attestation(s) I would be very grateful. - AB
I am still in favor of ⲕⲩⲃϯ. بطرس مرقس (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
My vote goes to ⲕⲩⲃϯ too. The reason is the distinction between Coptic and Ancient Egyptian did not exist back then. Hence, I've no problem using ⲕⲩⲃϯ even if it's just a new term that we came-up with, as the word Coptic/Copti is used in every other language when referring to the Coptic stage of the Egyptian language. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


[edit source]

I'm fine with this. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

My favorite. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

ⲛⲁⲛⲉⲥ ( يوسف ) الثلاثاء 20 فبراير

If y'all want this, then I shall accept it. So that we can finally move on. بطرس مرقس (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I also don't mind this as one of the attested Sahidic variants of ⲁⲓⲅⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ. - AB
I prefer this one over other variants too as it's actually attested and looks kinda compromise. --ⲡⲁⲣⲇⲁ (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


[edit source]

I'm fine with this. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also OK. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I like ⲕⲩⲡϯ too. بطرس مرقس (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I also have no problem with ⲕⲩⲡϯ as an alternative to ⲕⲩⲃϯ. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


[edit source]

ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ got the most popularity, so can we take it for "Coptic"? Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, as both ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ and ⲕⲩⲃϯ/ⲕⲩⲡϯ seem to be pretty popular, with ⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ a bit more, I will move the Coptic language page. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

¿¿ ⲘⲞⲨⲒ !!

[edit source]

Furthermore, please contribute to the discussion of what should happen with ⲙⲟⲩⲓ, which we used spontaneously for "modern" (as in Modern Egyptian = Coptic). We may not need it to describe Coptic anymore, but it would still be nice to have a word which specifically means "modern", not just "new" in Standard Coptic. Actually, ⲙⲟⲩⲓ / ⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲓ is a Fayyumic word meaning "new". It would be the same in Bohairic and ⲙⲟⲩⲉ ⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲉ in Sahidic, where it is not preserved accept for in the word "island" ⲙⲟⲩⲓ, which is supposed to be a derivation of it in the sense that an island is the "new (land)". As we already have to established Bohairic words which are spellt ⲙⲟⲩⲓ, namely "island" and "lion", it would be nice not to take over this word, if at all, into Bohairic as ⲙⲟⲩⲓ, but rather ⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲓ. In any case, I think we would need a word which means "modern" in Neo-Bohairic, and everybody with an idea is welcome to contribute. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thinks that's a nice word for "modern", and we also could create a whole bunch of other words using it. But i was always wondering and couldn't really find an information on this topic – should we pronounce words like ⲙⲟⲩⲟⲩⲓ with a glottal stop? ⲥⲉⲣⲕⲓ (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


[edit source]

Hello ⲥⲉⲣⲕⲓ. I believe that in most cases, Coptic ⲃⲏⲧⲁ "ⲃ" is pronounced as /w/ 1 (voiced labio-velar approximant) [like English W in Week; and Arabic وَ] before vowels or /b/ otherwise, in the original/authentic/old pronunciation (there's another pronunciation known as the greco-bohairic which is used by the church and pronounce it as /β/ 2, you probably already knew that, because the rest of your table is based on the authentic pronunciation). So, I suggest replacing the /v/ 3 (voiced labiodental fricative) with /w/ and /b/. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also in some cases, Coptic ⲧⲁⲩ "ⲧ" is pronounced as /t/ if it was the last letter in the word. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're absolutely right about "ⲃ", i'll change it. I was also about to write all the thing you've mentioned above below the table (because i couldn't find a way to fit all in one table). Thank you. ⲥⲉⲣⲕⲓ (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
No, thanks to you more ⲥⲉⲣⲕⲓ for your efforts! --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
The pronunciation is a bit tricky, depending on which method you follow. Obviously, I don't think the current pronunciation followed by many church members is correct. But even as far as the traditional pronunciation is concerned, there can be different results for how to pronounce a letter, depending on the time you refer to as "correct Coptic". If we talk about Coptic as it was probably spoken in the early 2nd millennium in Lower Egypt (= Bohairic), it is a different result than traditional Coptic before the Graeco-Bohairic pronunciation reform. ⲃ is pronounced v or b according to the former, and w or b according to the latter. (Because the latter was already influenced by the phonology of Arabic native speakers). There are many other cases too.
As far as ⲫ is concerned, are you sure you want it to stand for /b/ and not for /p/? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I absolutely have no problem with pronouncing the letter 'ⲫ' as /p/ (I would also suggest adding /ph/ (not /ph/) and may be we should also keep the /b/). I believe ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ has a point here (though I partially disagree about the 'v'-voice for 'ⲃ'), even though it doesn't matter both in the late old pronunciation (i.e., Dr Emaile Maher's pronunciation) or by the modern Egyptian tongue (due to Arabic influence or not). My reason is that /b/ should never be pronounced with an 'f'-voice (this is just my non-specialized opinion) (but /ph/ could), while 'ⲫ' is still pronounced with an 'f'-voice in a few Coptic words in the old pronunciation. Another reason is that we are already using 'ⲫ' in many loanwords (e.g., country names) for the 'p' letter and we kinda made it a standard thing here in our Coptic Wiki project. I would also like to suggest adding IPA '/ɣ/' (Voiced velar fricative 1) for 'ⲅ'. Thanks ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ and ⲥⲉⲣⲕⲓ (again) for your great efforts so far! --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Maybe we can have three columns in the table: one which says "Ancient/Original Coptic" pronunciation (with ⲫ for p in Egyptian words (ⲫ in Greek is f)), the "Traditional Coptic" one (late Coptic, where ⲫ tended to be b because the Copts were already influenced by the Arabic phonology) and the Graeco-Bohairic one. We could say that in the Wikipedia, we use the Ancient/Original Coptic one. But maybe we can mention Graeco-Bohairic so that users know what's going on. (Copts who learn Coptic in their churches tend to use Graeco-Bohairic). Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's a good idea. By the way what word should we use for "pronunciation" (ⲙⲉⲧⲥⲁϫⲓ maybe?) and for "Graeco-Bohairic"? Should we call it something like "ⲙⲉⲧⲥⲁϫⲓ `ⲛⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ" or "ⲙⲉⲧⲥⲁϫⲓ `ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ"? ⲥⲉⲣⲕⲓ (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Coptic has ϫⲓⲛⲃⲉⲃⲓ for "pronouncing" (literally pouring out, bringing up), we could use that for pronunciation? What about ϫⲓⲛⲃⲉⲃⲓ `ⲙⲙⲉⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ? I would call it "Greek pronunciation", who knows what the Coptic Church will chose in the next years (there are discussions). Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


[edit source]

I know that ⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ is just the normal word for "Coptic", but it also means "Egyptian", and from a scholarly standpoint, it would be good to differentiate carefully. Which makes me wonder if an article called ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ should rather be about the "Egyptian language" from like 3000 BC onwards. And everything specifically about Coptic should be under Wp/cop/ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲕⲩⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟⲛ, just as we also have a section about Demotic Egyptian (Wp/cop/ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲥⲁϧϣⲏ), and (eventually) also Late Egyptian, Middle Egyptian and Old Egyptian (Wp/cop/ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ). ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why not the other way around? Old Egyptian = ⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ⲁⲡⲁⲥ, Coptic = ⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is not an urgent issue so we can leave it probably as it is. And, I'm not advocating for changing the default word for "Coptic" to anything other than just ⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ. But in the linguistics articles we need to be more precise. Using ⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ for "Coptic" would create problems if we want to express "Old Coptic" (which is its own chronological layer). Does it mean "Old Coptic" then or "Old Egyptian". It also sounds like ⲁⲥⲡⲓ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲥ could refer to everything and anything pre-Coptic; instead, it should just mean "Old Egyptian" (as spoken roughly in the 3rd millennium BC). ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
What about ⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲙ̀ⲃⲉⲣⲓ ⲛ̀ϣⲟⲣⲡⲓ "Early Modern Egyptian" for "Old Coptic"? The other possibility is ⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ϣⲟⲣⲡⲓ for "Ancient Egyptian" and ⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ⲁⲡⲁⲥ for "Old Coptic" in sense of "Old Egyptian". In linguistics "old" is usually a latter stage compared to "ancient". --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Reply
But what is Ancient Egyptian? This is the collective designation of everything from Old Egyptian to Demotic? Or to Late Egyptian? Or is "Ancient Egyptian" just Old Egyptian? We also need to come up with a word for "proto" (which could be ϣⲟⲣⲡⲓ or, given the Arabic use, ⲙⲁⲩ or a derivative of it). I mean these chronological steps (time is debated, but it's a rough guide)
  • Proto-Egyptian ~ 3500 BC
  • (Archaic Egyptian ~ 3000 to 2600)
  • Old Egyptian ~ 2600 to 2000
  • Middle Egyptian ~ 2000 to 1400
  • Late (New) Egyptian ~ 1400 to 700
  • Demotic ~ 700 BC to 200 AD (written until 400)
  • Coptic (including Old Coptic) since 200 (starting with Old Coptic) ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I suggest:
  • Proto-Egyptian ⲡⲣⲟⲧⲟⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ or ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ϩⲟⲩⲓϯ
And what about ϯϣⲉⲣⲡⲁⲥⲡⲓ for protolanguage? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Archaic Egyptian ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ⲁⲣⲭⲏ
  • Ancient Egyptian ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ϣⲟⲣⲡⲓ
  • Old Egyptian ~ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ϣⲟⲣⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲁⲡⲁⲥ
  • Middle Egyptian ~ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ϣⲟⲣⲡⲓ ⲙ̀ⲙⲏϯ
  • Late (New) Egyptian ~ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ϣⲟⲣⲡⲓ ⲙ̀ⲃⲉⲣⲓ
  • Demotic ~ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛ̀ⲥⲁϦϣⲏ
  • Coptic ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good! ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply