Talk:Wp/cop/Ⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲛ̀ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ

ⲛⲓⲥϧⲁⲓ `ⲛⲥⲁϧⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ

Today, I learned that there is actually an old Coptic word which refers to hieroglyphic writing! It shows up in the Nag Hammadi texts, specifically in VI, 61,20; 61,30 and 62, 15 of "The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth" (the text is dated to the 2nd century AD). The phrase shows up as ϩⲉⲛⲥϩⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁϩ ⲡⲣⲁⲛ︦ϣ︦; ϩ︦ⲛ︦ⲥϩⲉⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁϩ ⲡⲣⲁⲉⲓϣ; ϩⲛ̄ⲥϩⲁⲉ︦ⲓ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁϩ ⲡⲣⲁⲉⲓϣ which is ϩⲁⲛⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁϧⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ in Bohairic and literally means 'the signs of the scribe of the House of Life'. (ⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ "house of life" is a scriptorium, temple library). So, I guess we move the article to ⲥϧⲁⲓ `ⲛⲥⲁϧⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ? We can explain that ⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲙ̀ⲙⲉⲑⲛⲟⲩϯ is the pre-Coptic name for Hieroglyphs - I think it is still a good name because that's what hieroglyphs would be called if the Hieroglyphic name would have persisted - and who knows, maybe he has. After all, ϩⲁⲛⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁϧⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ shows up only in one paragraph of a text. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, note the difference between -ⲁⲛϣ and ⲱⲛϧ 'life', just in case you wonder. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's greatǃ "Scribe of the House of Life" actually means "soothsayer" and is attested in Bohairic as ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

OH, and I found the phrase "writing of the scribe of the house of life" in a ptolemaic text too (in Demotic/Hieroglyphic). Seems like they already used it parallel to "divine words" at an earlier period. Which means, there is no need to use ⲥϧⲁⲓ `ⲙⲙⲉⲑⲛⲟⲩϯ. Maybe we can have a discussion here too Talk:Wp/cop/ⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲙ̀ⲙⲉⲧϣⲗⲟⲗ ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if ⲥⲁϧ stands for "writing" and not "scribe" (thus "(writing of the) writing of the house of life"). Judging from the Demotic evidence, this seems more likely. But this doesn't matter for the Coptic outcome. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Similary, from Demotic: ⲥⲁϧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ "Greek writing" ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Could it means "writing of soothsayers"? And shouldn't it be ⲥϦⲁⲓ ⲛ̀ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It depends on your hypotheses about the data: What does the ⲥ in ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ stand for; and whether Sahidic ⲥⲁϩⲡⲣⲁⲛ︦ϣ︦ is cognate to ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ instead of ⲥⲁϧⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ is exactly "scribe of the House of life" (see Cherny) so ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ = ⲥⲁϩⲡⲣⲁⲛ︦ϣ︦. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to change it. Gunn seems to agree with you. But Cerny says (according to Vycichl) that it is derived from "sb3 n pr ʿnḫ" not from "sš n pr ʿnḫ" so I'm not sure. Did Cerny change his opinion? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cerny says it's from "sš n pr ʿnḫ" in his Etymological dictionary and refers to Gunn and Spiegelberg. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I see, you say Vycichl quoted him wrong? Then I change it to ⲥϧⲁⲓ `ⲛⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like he has a separate article on it. But i don't think it changes anything. For Copts it likely was not "writings of the scribe of the house of life" but "writings of soothsayers, magicians" just because they couldn't figure out the etymology and used the suitable terms for unknown letters from the past that looked like something magical. I'm sure we can change it to ⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲛ̀ⲥⲫⲣⲁⲛϣ --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)