Talk:Wp/cop/ⲑⲱϣ `ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ

Add topic
From Wikimedia Incubator
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ

My thoughts on this list

  • Matruh Governorate should be either ⲙⲉⲑⲣⲱϩ (because it's a personal name) or ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲓⲧⲟⲛⲓⲟⲛ/ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲓⲧⲟⲛ (given the Arabic name al-Baretun and the loss of the final -ⲟⲛ/-ⲓⲟⲛ in Greek words, see ⲛⲉⲕⲁⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ/Naqada although it's kinda doubtful (see Peust)).
I would take ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲓⲧⲟⲛⲓⲟⲛ or ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲓⲧⲟⲛⲓ (usually only -on is lost, -i stays), because they are just the older words for Matruh and therefore a good translation. We wouldn't need to take ⲙⲉⲑⲣⲱϩ. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Could you give some examples? I can only think of ἐποίκιον/ⲡⲉⲃⲓϫ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, for example:
  • γραμματειον ⲅⲣⲁⲙⲙⲁⲧⲓ
  • δανειον ⲧⲁⲛⲓ
  • δημοσιον ⲇⲏⲙⲟⲥⲓ, ⲧⲉⲙⲟⲥⲓ, ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲥⲓ, ⲧⲉⲙⲱⲥⲉ, ⲧⲉⲙⲱⲥⲓ
  • δισκαριον ⲇⲉⲥⲭⲁⲣⲓ
  • ενταγιον ⲉⲓⲛⲧⲁⲅⲓ, ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲅⲓ, ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲕⲉ, ⲛⲧⲁⲕⲓ, ⲉⲛⲧⲅⲓ
  • καμισιον ⲕⲁⲙⲓⲥⲓ
  • σιλιγνιον ⲥⲉⲗⲓⲕⲛⲓ ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank youǃ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲓⲧⲟⲛⲓ is good then. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. I like ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲓⲧⲟⲛⲓ, but we don't need to take it in case you dislike it. After all, the Greek ending is commonly preserved. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'd take ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲓⲧⲟⲛⲓ because it looks like -ion was lost in the Arabic form (so i guess in Coptic it was lost as well). --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Beheira governorate is most likely a literal translation of a Greek ⲗⲓⲙⲛⲏ (see Timm) which refers to Mareotis lake. We could take it as it was most likely used by Copts as well or take a historical ⲛⲓⲫⲁⲓⲁⲧ (although i wouldn't suggest that because we'll mix the historical region and the modern governorate)
I thought ⲫⲁⲓⲁⲧ refers to the Mareotis lake anyway, so that means we could take it for Beheira? But I agree with you, I generally prefer to keep historical and modern governorate names separate, just because it creates less confusion when both are references in the same text. According to the "Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in koptischen dokumentarischen Texten" the Greek word is just used in the sense "cistern" in Coptic. But of course, we can't exclude that the word was used in Coptic too for Beheira. So I guess you don't like ϣⲏ? Timm also writes that ϯⲙⲓⲛϩⲱⲣ seems to stand for Beheira. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I just think that it's always better to take a historical name than creating a new one. Coptic Dictionary Online says that ⲗⲓⲙⲛⲏ also means "lake", so i'd favour ⲗⲓⲙⲛⲏ for Beheira. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK I can live with it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Kafr el-Sheikh is certainly not ϯⲙⲓⲛϦⲉⲗⲗⲟ. The equivalent of Arabic Sheikh is usually ⲥⲁϦ and Kafr attested in Coptic as ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ so ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ ⲙ̀ⲡⲥⲁϦ/ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ ⲙ̀ⲯⲁϦ
"certainly not" is wrong. Shaykh is translated with Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ in a 13th century Bohairic manuscript. See "Zaborowski, The Coptic Martyrdom of John of Phanijoit", pages 147, 148. The manuscript was written by a Copt who apparently knew his language perfectly, and this incident certainly is more telling than all the mediaeval word lists compiled by half-literate Arabized Copts KevinMuskelprotz (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
For your information, 13th century is Middle Ages. Scala Magna was written in 13th century. ⲥⲁϦ is equated with شيخ in a lot of manuscripts, text, scalaes and dictionaries (see PROFESSIONS, TRADES, OCCUPATIONS, AND TITLES IN COPTIC by SOHAIR S.AHMED). The late Arabised Martyrdom of John of Phanijoit is inconclusive in this case. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Why do you think the Martyrdom of John is inconclusive? And why do you call it Arabised? In any case more than any other mediaeval scala? And in how far would that question its authority? Clearly, shaykh is translated by a Coptic word, and not retained, so what does it mean here, "Arabised"? The paper you cite doesn't make a strong case for your point of view actually. ⲥⲁϦ is clearly used in the sense of "teacher" or "scribe", even in that paper you cite, and is so rarely used for shaykh that the author even had to reference it especially in a footnote because he felt it is such an odd comparison. Note that he doesn't even give a source where it was used in the sense of "shaykh". You cite dictionaries and scalae. Some of them are good, I agree. But the point is again, and I think somebody else mentioned this already at some other point, that dictionaries, scalae, wordlists are not as valuable as coherent, long, texts which show that the other not only knew Coptic passively, but actually spoke it fluently. MS Copticus 69 was clearly written by a person fluent in Coptic, and this person uses ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ for shaykh. I know that I don't contribute regularly to this wikipedia, but my passive knowledge of Coptic is good enough that I know what is commonly used and what not. And I do know what manuscripts are authoritative and which are not in this or that matter. I have never encountered ⲥⲁϦ for "shaykh". I do believe you that it may sometimes be used for that. But it doesn't seem common. Again, I know my opinion may not be worth a lot as I don't contribute regularly. But if you don't value my opinion, maybe the other active contributors and Coptic speakers here can read the Martyrdom of John and give their opinion on it? It is available online. KevinMuskelprotz (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if you've got wrong – i said it's inconclusive because it's the only source you're citing. I call it Arabised because it's written in Late "Arabised" Bohairic and i've emphasised that because of yours "mediaeval word lists compiled by half-literate Arabized Copts". How a Copt who wrote the manuscript knows his language fluently and the one who wrote scala does not? In the paper i've cited the majority of citations are from Crum. And can't find the footnote you're talking about only the one that says why ⲥⲁϦ is equated with "shaykh" (because the latter often refers to " big teacher" which is btw the case with al-Tilmisani after whom Kafr el-Sheikh is named). Anyway, ⲥⲁϦ as "shaykh" is attested multiple times and Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ as "shaykh" looks like a hapax from the Martyrdom of John Phanijoit. I do value your opinion just as any other person here on Wiki and i'm not against Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ i just want to use the right term so could you provide any other source except the aforementioned manuscript? Thank you. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Generally, compiling a wordlist requires less knowledge of the language than writing long, continuous, grammatically correct text. For the same reason you see many Copts on Facebook sharing wordlists and "words of the day" but few actually compose a text of more then three lines. And I strongly object to the notion that the Martyrdom of John is Arabized - it is neither Arabized in morphology and syntax nor vocabulary as the author has shown. When I said "Arabized", I meant the scalae who were written by native speakers of Arabic who had an interest in writing a word list of Coptic (given the high standard of the Martyrdom of John, the author was at least bilingual in Coptic and Arabic). But they usually (and if so, they only include stereotypical phrases from the Bible or three word sentences) are not able to produce any Coptic texts because they don't know the grammar well enough. Because of that, I think the word choices of a person who produces dozens of pages in conherent text is more authoritative than what a word list compiler says. And what does it mean that ϯⲙⲓⲛϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ has been used here already and users are fine with it? And: You don't seem to like Arabized language, but yet you want to replace ϯⲙⲓ by ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ? And what about you providing actual primary resources, preferably outside of scalae? KevinMuskelprotz (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't know why you're so prejudiced about scalas. They were written by the most educated Copts who knew their language perfectly well. If you'll look at Scala Magna you'll see that it has Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ for "shaykh" as well. The only difference is that in Kircher's edition the Latin translation is "senex" so "elder". There's also equivations like ⲥⲁϩ ⲛⲛⲁⲩⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ = ومعلمهم سيد الربان )أى شيخهم), ⲥⲁϩ ⲛⲛⲉϥ = سيد (شيخ) البحارة أو معلمهم, ⲥⲁϩ ⲛⲧⲓⲙⲉ = شيخ البلد etc. where "shaykh" = "teacher, master" and is equated with ⲥⲁϦ. In our case i think that al-Tilmisani is "teacher" not "elder", that's why i propose to use ⲥⲁϦ. But you're right, Sohair doesn't give a lot of sources except Crum and Abdelnoor so there's no "lots of manuscripts". On ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ – see toponyms ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣⲛⲁⲟⲩⲙ and ⲛⲓⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ. If you want to use a more "egyptianised" version it would be ϫⲉⲫⲣⲟ but not ϯⲙⲓ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I will get the online copy by that author and look into it. I've never read the whole Martyrdom. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
But that even speaks more in favor of ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ when it also shows up in the Scala Magna - it is not a hapax. What else do you expect in Kircher's translation? That he translates the word with its ten meanings? He just used "senex", which is also the closest meaning of the Arabic shaykh. The differentiation you make about "shaykh" seems really tenuous. (Additionally, I doubt modern residents understand sheikh in Kafr el Sheikh as referring to a "teacher", not even considering the fact that the naming after a teacher is just a hypothesis. I don't know which al-Tilmisani you refer to). Why not just use the general word for "shaykh" = ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ? You want to translate "shaykh" in the sense of teacher as ⲥⲁϧ and in the sense of "elder" with ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ? There is no data which would support the claim that such a distinction was ever made. Even in the examples about ⲥⲁϩ you give, ⲥⲁϩ is clearly not a teacher in the last example, but rather a respected person, while in the first examples it refers to a teacher. It shows that one word was used indifferently for all meanings of "shaykh". Furthermore, the examples seem Sahidic, and while it makes sense to borrow words from other dialects, why should it be done here if there is a clear Bohairic translation of shaykh available? And this is ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ. KevinMuskelprotz (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
First of all, please calm down it's only a word there's no need to attack anyone. As i said, i'm ok with Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ. al-Tilmisani is just a guy after whom Kafr el-Sheikh is named for, i guess i've mentioned that. And there's no need to borrow anything, both Sahidic and Bohairic have the word Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ (ϩⲗⲗⲟ) and ⲥⲁϦ (ⲥⲁϩ). I've realised that maybe you thought my "certainly not" relates to Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ while in fact i referred to the whole word and ϯⲙⲓ- part in particular. Kafr is attested in Coptic so Kafr is certainly not ϯⲙⲓ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Then let's take Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ it fits the meaning of شيخ better. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Now I read through my comments again to make sure I wasn't attacking anyone. I doubt I was more aggressive than you. I won't mingle in the discussion about whether you use "kafar" or "timi" or anything else. I just wanted to point out that Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ is commonly used for shaykh. KevinMuskelprotz (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I'm fine with that. But I would not use ⲯ. I have the feeling that psi is avoided between morpheme boundaries? But I could be wrong, I have not systematically looked at it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
ⲯ is used in any ⲡⲥ cluster (and it usually happens in definite article ⲡ+a word starting with ⲥ) – see ⲯⲟⲓ, ⲯⲓⲛⲉⲩⲣⲏⲥ, ⲯⲉⲛⲁⲡⲁⲣⲉⲕ. But sometimes it's not (usually in Sahidic) – ⲡⲥⲓⲛⲉⲙⲟⲩⲛ, ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ, ⲙⲁⲙⲡⲥⲁϩ, ⲡⲥⲟⲃⲉⲧ. so both ⲡⲥ/ⲯ are ok. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Apart from the question of what to use for "shaykh", we could use ⲙⲁⲛ... for Arabic toponyms in "-iyya" and ϯⲙⲓ to translate kafr and ⲃⲁⲕⲓ for مدينة ? ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
ⲙⲁⲛ... for -iyya is generally ok (but you have to look at each case separately). Kafr is attested in Coptic as ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ or ϫⲉⲫⲣⲟ (the first is a late and the second is an early borrowing from Semitic but i'd use the first one as the second is attested in Arabic as Shubra). For "madina" i'd use ⲃⲁⲕⲓ or ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ as well. The right equivation for ϯⲙⲓ is قرية‎ i guess (which can be also translated as ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲟⲛ). --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
No Arabic toponym with Kafr X is attested in Coptic as ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ X or ϫⲉⲫⲣⲟ X. And ϫⲉⲫⲣⲟ has a different meaning from kafr. And كفر has, like ϯⲙⲓ the meaning "town, village". I think that is a good match. There is no need for ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ and ϫⲉⲫⲣⲟ ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is. الكفور= ⲛⲓⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ, كفر ناحوم‎ = ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣⲛⲁⲟⲩⲙ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
كفر ناحوم‎ = ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣⲛⲁⲟⲩⲙ is from the Bible and refers to a village in Palestine, that is not the same as Kafr el Sheikh. ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ is such an unnecessary loanword in Coptic, I don't understand you ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me, what difference does it make if it's in Palestine and is from the Bible? And what is an "unnecessary" loanword? I'm confused :) --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
The difference is that, as it was already used in the Bible, it was taken over as a toponym as a whole. It is just taken from Greek Kαφαρναούμ. If the Greeks would have said ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ, we would use this in the Bible. You cannot compare it easily with later Arab place names in Egypt like Kafr el Shaikh or Kafr el Dawwar and others. An unnecessary loanword is a loanword for which a Coptic word exists: Why would you use ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ if there is ⲃⲁⲕⲓ? And even worse, ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲟⲛ which is used like 5 times in the whole Coptic corpus and no Copt today uses this word. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand your argument. Yes, if Greeks would use ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ it would be ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ in Coptic but they've translated it as ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣⲛⲁⲟⲩⲙ and now we have a word ⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ attested in Coptic. Firstly...why is there "city", "town", "borough" in English? A native speaker doesn't think in the categories of "native-borrowed word". It's not for you to judge if the borrowings were necessary or unnecessary. If Medieval Copts would think that الكفور = ⲛⲓϯⲙⲓ they would translate it like this, but they've used ⲛⲓⲕⲁⲫⲁⲣ. Secondly, what is your statement on ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲟⲛ based on? Thirdly, there's also nazlet, nagaa, izbat and so on, would you use ϯⲙⲓ for all of them? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Port Said – the name Said is usually written as ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲧ
  • Ismailia – ϯⲙⲓⲛ... construction is rather unusual if we're not talking about gods (like in ϯⲙⲓⲛϩⲱⲣ). When it's a personal name Coptic usually uses ⲙⲁⲛ... construction, so i suggest ⲫⲙⲁⲛⲓⲥⲙⲁⲏⲗ
I think there are a few exceptions, but I don't have a strong opinion, I'm fine with both. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Suez is rather tricky and you can find my thought on it here on it's Talk page but now i think that we should just use the Arabic ⲁⲥⲱⲉⲓⲥ/ⲁⲥⲥⲱⲉⲓⲥ.
I'm fine with the Arabic term. Recently I had the pleasure to meet a Coptic enthusiast (from Upper Egypt) and for many toponyms, he just took the Arabic term. Even when the Arabic term would be easy to translate into Coptic, he didn't do it. I'm not saying this is common everywhere, but there is nothing wrong in just taking the Arabic word in some cases. Also, I think you prefer the spelling with one ⲥ, but I would go for the ⲥⲥ. The Coptic orthography doesn't require it, but it is very common. Btw, some Copts don't even write according to the Arabic assimilated consonant pronunciation, but the spelling. The village El-Zeniya (for which we have Wp/cop/ⲥⲟⲗⲥⲉⲗ (ϯⲙⲓ) here - which is also used an recorded by Vycichl when he visited the village) is sometimes written ⲁⲗⲍⲉⲛⲓⲁ which is of course pretty odd. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, i've been reading a modern Coptic text about Flight into Egypt and it used Arabic toponyms everywhere (although they had historical Coptic names). But of course it's different with Suez. Taking an Arabic toponym is usual for Coptic even in Middle Ages and Early Modern Time – see ⲧⲁⲗⲙⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ, ⲉⲍⲍⲉⲓⲑⲟⲩⲛ, ⲧⲣⲁϣⲓⲧ and so on. ⲁⲥⲥⲱⲉⲓⲥ is good i think. I'm not sure if it should be ⲧⲁⲥⲥⲱⲉⲓⲥ or ⲡⲁⲥⲥⲱⲉⲓⲥ though. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Do we need to give it an article? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes I think because all of the Arabic toponyms I've mentioned have an article (the second one is actually ⲡⲓⲉⲍⲍⲉⲓⲑⲟⲩⲛ). --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)--ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
ⲡⲉⲥⲥⲟⲩⲉⲓⲥ may be a better transliteration. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
What changed your mind? From ⲡⲁⲥⲥⲱⲉⲓⲥ to ⲡⲉⲥⲥⲟⲩⲉⲓⲥ? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
In Bohairic texts the initial article is usually ⲉⲗ- not ⲁⲗ-. Also the accent is likely to be on the last syllable but I may be wrong. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I almost forgot this discussion, sometimes I forget where there are open discussions. Yes, it's stressed on the last syllable. As far as the initial article is concerned, I agree with you that ⲉ is closer to the pronunciation. But the writing of Arabic words in Coptic doesn't always seem to reflect the actual pronunciation; instead there is some mixed system. I don't know which Bohairic texts you mean. My two sources are the articles of Richter and what Copts currently write. They often use ⲁ-, and the fact that today (random) Copts also use ⲁ- is surprising to me but I'm not sure if we should follow it or not. But I think you can go ahead with ⲉ-, because in any case both has been used in the history of the language and should be allowed now too. Even more so as there is no precedence for Suez. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Bani Suef - again a tricky one (see a discussion on it's Talk page). ⲡⲙⲁⲛⲡⲥⲱⲟⲩⲁϩ (ⲫⲙⲁⲙⲡⲥⲱⲟⲩⲁϩ in Bohairic) was suggested and it's the only suitable option yet.
Sounds fine to me. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply