Jump to content

Talk:Wp/cop/ⲙⲉⲧⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲛ̀ⲛⲓϣⲉⲛ̀ⲥⲁⲩⲟⲩⲧ

Add topic
From Wikimedia Incubator
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ in topic Why ⲛ̀"ⲁⲥⲁⲱⲇ" ?


[edit source]

هاكر (هاجر!) قبيلة عربية ويعني ارابيا الوطني العربي يعني نكتب ارابيا

  • ⲁⲣⲁⲃⲓⲁ = Arabia
  • ϩⲁⲕⲁⲣ = Hagrite
  • ⲧⲉ[ⲛ]ϩⲁⲕⲁⲣ = land of Hagrites


  • ⲁⲣⲁⲃⲓⲁ `ⲛⲥⲁⲟⲩⲧ = Saudi Arabia

Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Native name vs. borrowed one

[edit source]

Why Lybia is ⲧⲉⲙⲫⲁⲓⲁⲧ, not ⲗⲩⲃⲓⲁ then? Hgr is the name of Arabia found in Demotic sources (Stadler 2004, 131-134; Winnicki 2009, 310). We have pharaoh called Hakoris and Coptic name ϩⲁⲕⲁⲣ both meaning "the one of Arabia, bedouin" after all. The name surely may be related to Hagrites and Hagar (although i'm not sure if the word itself is Egyptian or Hebrew) but anyway, it's the native Egyptian name for the territory currently occupied by Saudi Arabia. It's a pretty common thing when country's name is derived from the major tribe's name (see French "Allemagne" for Germany or Irish "Sasana" for England). "ⲁⲣⲁⲃⲓⲁ" is surely borrowed from Greek. Why would we use borrowed and not native name then? --Bloomaround (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Because ⲫⲁⲓⲁⲧ (and its predecessor Demotic pyt) always refered to Libya and Libyans, and never to a tribe of it. But that's not the main argument. hgr/hkr, which is of course not a native Egyptian word but Semitic, could refer to Hagrites or Arabians. You may know that hgr even refers to Syria or at least Northern Arabia, so not at all "the territory currently occupied by Saudia Arabia". It seems like p3-t3-3lbj is used for Arabia. The likewise used 3rby, however, always refers to Arabia. Also, I doubt that ϩⲁⲕⲁⲣ is the Bohairic spelling of the word, given the fact we have a "Hakoris" and various Greek spellings with -o- (> Bohairic ϩⲁⲭⲟⲣ or better ⲁⲭⲟⲣ?) and a Coptic ϩⲁϭⲟⲣ (> Bohairic ϩⲁϫⲟⲣ, ϩⲁϭⲟⲣ or better ⲁϫⲟⲣ, ⲁϭⲟⲣ), which would mean that ϩⲁⲕⲁⲣ is rather from a dialect like Akhmimic. Unless we know the correct Bohairic spelling, we should not use it. Also, in this very case, Egyptians would have made use of ⲛ (t3 n hg/kr).
Furthermore, Saud is spelled ⲥⲁⲟⲩⲧ. ⲇ is only used in Greek loanwords and for Arabic ذ.
So, until we know the correct spelling in Bohairic, the title should be ⲁⲣⲁⲃⲓⲁ `ⲛⲥⲁⲟⲩⲧ, and I will therefore move it. Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ϯⲙⲟⲕⲙⲉⲕ ϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲣⲁⲛ ⲁⲣⲁⲃⲓⲁ `ⲛⲥⲁⲟⲩⲧ ⲛⲟϥⲉⲣ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ϯⲕⲓⲙ `ⲛϯⲥⲉⲗⲓⲥ. بطرس مرقس (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
There's also Demotic name for Arabia/Arabian – 3rby/3rbyn which Charpentier renders as ⲉⲣⲃⲓⲛ for "papyrus". So we could do the same thing as we did with Libya/Syria – ⲉⲣⲃⲓⲛ for "Arabian" and ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲣⲃⲓⲛ for "Arabia". What do you think? ⲥⲉⲣⲕⲓ (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is not entirely clear whether they are connected or not but if we take 3rby(n) I may prefer to keep it apart from ⲉⲣⲃⲓⲛ 'papyrus' by writing ⲁⲣⲃⲓⲛ. ⲁ and ⲉ could well be interchangeable here if theyre unstressed and it would help us to distinguish the two meanings. Also ⲁⲣⲃⲓⲛ would be justified by its etymology anyway. But I'm fine with using the etymology as such. Let's see what others say. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why ⲛ̀"ⲁⲥⲁⲱⲇ" ?

[edit source]

Why not ⲥⲁⲱⲧ? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

آل سعود = ⲁⲥ(ⲥ)ⲁⲱⲇ ⲓⲉ ⲁⲥ(ⲥ)ⲟⲟⲩⲇ (as(s)oud). ⲥⲁⲱⲧ is rather saōt. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hmm I see. We could reflect the article, yes. ( آل here is not the article, but the Arabic word for 'family') . But if so, an Arabic word "al-s...." is usually written ⲁⲥⲥ..., so I think double C would be better here.
Do you want to write Arabic d (and d from English, and so on) with Coptic ⲇ? I think it is a bit more often written in Coptic with ⲧ. But it would be great if we could have general guidelines about how to transcribe b/d/g and p/t/k into Coptic. I'm generally reluctant to use ⲃ/ⲇ/ⲅ for b/d/g (unless they are more like a Classical Arabic dal, ghayn, and so on), but the question would still be if and how we want to use ⲡ ⲧ ⲕ / ⲫ ⲑ ⲭ. What guidelines do you follow? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Me personally, i think we should use Classical Coptic pronounciaton as it is consisted and has some rules that correspond well to the etymology. I know that this Wikipedia mostly uses the Old "Arabised" Bohairic revived by Emile Maher Ishak (and i don't think it's right at the moment). If we use Classical pre-conquest Coptic pronunciation p/t/k would be pretty simple - ⲡ/ⲧ/ⲕ. "d" and "g" are obvious as well - ⲅ and ⲇ. The tricky part is "b". I see a few options here:
  • substitute "b" with "p" "ⲡ"
  • use Greek ⲙⲡ for "b" but i guess it's not good in case of Coptic as this cluster is very frequent in Bohairic
  • use "ⲃ" as it's the only letter used for "b" (at the end of the word) and it's pronunciation should be established for each case (like ⲃⲟⲗⲓⲃⲓⲁ is [boˈli.βja] not [βoˈli.βja]). --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, I think we could use ⲡ/ⲧ/ⲕ for p/t/k and don't take ⲫ ⲑ ⲭ. (I would use ⲡ for b too, although I know that word-final ⲃ is often used for b or even p in genuine words.)
I think the Old Bohairic pronunciation would make insofar sense at it represents the latest stage of an organically developed Coptic (albeit Arabised), but most importantly: It seems the only alternative to the unfortunately very common Graeco-Bohairic pronunciation (which we should not use). Whenever I ask Copts who want to study (or know) Coptic seriously, they would for the most part go with Graeco-Bohairic, and if they don't like it, they would know the work of Emile Maher Ishak and go with that. But the huge disadvantage of this Old Bohairic pronunciation is that we would use a lot of ⲫ and ⲑ which is especially bad if read by people with Graeco-Bohairic pronunciation: They would just read /f/ and /th/, and not our assumed /p/ and /t/.
The advantage of Old Bohairic would be that we would have ⲇ and ⲅ reserved for dh and gh, respectively, which would also reduce the amount of ⲇ and ⲅ in the language - the two letters are very un-Coptic after all, already in Classical times. And it doesn't seem that Copts have clearly differentiated (?) between d/t and g/k, so we could use ⲡ ⲧ ⲕ for both b/p, d/t, g/k.
I can very well live with the Classical Coptic pronunciation, and honestly, my main concern is just that we don't pronounce ⲑ like in English /th/, ⲫ like f (in any case not in genuine Egyptian words!) and the like.
What is your guideline for ⲏ? It seems to have had the value both /ii/ and /aa/, although the latter is not productive (?). ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply