The name[edit source]
The name attested by Ibn Kabar in Al-Sullam al-Kabir is ⲫ̅ⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ. It looks like a borrowing from Arabic, although it seems fine in terms of accordance with Bohairic dialect and what's most important, it's authentic. Shouldn't we use it?
- ⲫⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ means Phrygia, not Africa. I guess Ibn Kabar didn't know Phrygia and thought it means Africa, is it sounds similar. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so at all. Ibn Kabar should've read Bible at least, where Phrygia is mentioned several times and where it's location near Galatia is clearly described. ⲫⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ, on the other hand looks like adaptation of Arabic Ifriqiya, which is far more likely. --Bloomaround (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- And which word is used in the Bohairic bible for Phrygia? It is ⲫⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ (not ⲫⲣⲩⲅⲓⲁ). ⲫⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ is just the more Coptic version of a Greek ⲫⲣⲩⲅⲓⲁ. If it were from Arabic, we could expect a writing with ϥ, even more so in Bohairic where ⲫ was not used as a form of just p+h, but a different p sound. Also, why should Ibn Kabar be more authentic then Copts of today who know their language? It is clearly evident from his dictionary that he was neither a Coptic native speaker nor did he know much about linguistics and etymology. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not know, which word is used for Phrygia in the bible, as I am a Muslim and I haven't read it (or at least not the part with Phrygia in it). I will look into it. Generally, I would prefer taking older names which are used by medieval authors, except for they are obviously wrong. The problem with Ibn Kabar is, that he really just invents some names with no justifiable argument. I.e. ⲛⲓϩⲉⲛⲧⲟⲩ for India just means "the Hindus", or ⲧⲟⲥⲡⲁⲛⲓⲁ which we had before. But I will check it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Let's be honest – there's no linguistic continuity between medieval and modern Copts. So claiming that suggestions made on medieval and ecclesiastical sources today are more authentic than the ones made by author (even though there's strong opportunity that we wasn't able to speak Coptic by that time) who worked relying on living Coptic speakers who not only knew, but used the language in their everyday life, is just a bit odd. No offence, it's just a weird claim to me. You may have a point though, because i've just checked the source and it says (ϯ)ⲫⲣⲩⲕⲓⲁ, not ⲫⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ. But on the other hand, he also uses ϩⲩⲧⲁⲗⲓⲁ for Italy with this weird out-of-nowhere ⲩ in the beginning. Also, it looks like Ibn Kabar tends to always use ⲫ for Arabic ف. I don't think he intentionally invents names, he just corrupts some names because he could write them down hearing oral speech, that's the only way i see it. As we see, both names mentioned by ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ are not invented ones, they are just corrupted in one way or another. My whole point is that corrected medieval name is always better than the new one, just made up on the basis of language logic. It's also better than a new borrowing from Greek, even though the authentic word may be a borrowing from another language, which i pretty sure ⲫⲣⲩⲕⲓⲁ is, and which in form of ϥⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ may be adopted as an authentic name for Africa. --Bloomaround (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)