Talk:Wp/cop/ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ
ϯⲟⲣⲑⲟⲅⲣⲁⲫⲓⲁ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓⲕⲁϩⲓ[edit source]
Two questions: 1. How do we want to write Pakistan? I guess there are three possibilities: ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ or ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ or ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ. I don't count ⲡⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ or ⲡⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ because that's clearly from Arabic which doesn't have a p sound. ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ would make sense if we treat it as a loanword from Greek, where therefore P and K remain as such. If we just go after how it sounds, ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ and ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ are the better options. PAK should be written ⲫⲁⲭ. Now, to the second question:
2. How do we want to write the ending -(i)stan? The thing is, that combinations like ST sometimes do not really require ⲥⲑ as the specific combination with ⲥ already makes the ⲥⲧ sound "hard". (Same with ⲥⲡ for SP). Remember that the "softer" consonants (get or) remain hard in certain situations. (At the end of words or with certain consonants). ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ would be better according to this. However, as I think about words like Bohairic ⲥⲑⲟⲓ (written in Sahidic ⲥⲧⲟⲓ), I do think ⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ would be more in line with the Bohairic orthography.
So, what about ⲪⲀⲬⲒⲤⲐⲀⲚ? Keep in mind that I still write ⲀϤⲄⲀⲚⲒⲤⲐⲀⲚ because the ⲅ represents a ghayn, not a hard g. --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15 September 2017
`ⲙⲙⲉⲧⲗⲉⲙⲕⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲙϩⲓⲧ ⲡⲗⲉⲛ `ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲕⲉϩⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲪⲀⲬⲒⲤⲐⲀⲚ. ⲟⲩⲁⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲕⲉϭⲓⲛϣⲉϫⲓ ⲡⲥⲙⲁⲧ ⲠⲀⲔⲒⲤⲦⲀⲚ. --ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ
- The "-stan" ending is actually attested in Coptic in Sakastan - ⲥⲁⲕⲥⲑⲁⲛ (Nag Hammadi). I'm still not sure if -ⲥⲧⲁⲛ or -ⲥⲑⲁⲛ is better for Bohairic. If we still use NH -ⲥⲑⲁⲛ I'd change it to ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ as ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ would give weird Phakhisthan. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should either take ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ or ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ, to be consistent. In theory, we could opt for only writing the consonant of the stressed syllable with the aspirated letters, but I'm not sure if that is a good option for foreign words, at least such extremely foreign words like Pakistan. Not to mention that foreign words sometimes allow different stresses, and it would be more difficult to have a catch-all orthography. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- No Copt, if asked, would write "Pakistan" as ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ. Now, I know that some people here don't care what common Copts think, and I could be convinced if we find an orthography which is accepted by the majority and where it says, according to that orthography, ⲫ, ⲭ, ⲑ should be used more often. But I don't see such an orthography, also because nobody here seems to care about that. Until that happens, ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ simply looks less weird. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Any consensus/new ideas regarding the spelling? I kinda agree that "No Copt, if asked, would write "Pakistan" as ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ." But I'm open to anything as long as we can reasonably argue for it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- And ⲥⲑⲁⲛ because it is attested in Nag Hammadi or another reason? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- We should avoid that mixture. If the only reason is we should use it because of the Nag Hammadi writings, we should not use it. Nag Hammadi texts are not in Bohairic - I don't mind taking words from Nag Hammadi Coptic for Bohairic, but we should always take the Bohairic orthography. Only because southern Coptic uses ⲥⲑⲁⲛ, doesn't mean Bohairic would have used it too. How should we justify orthographically that we use we write Pakisthan. It should either be Phakhisthan (which no Copt uses) or Pakistan (everybody would write it like that). Or why not Phakistan? But why Pakisthan? ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- If we use a traditional Bohairic orthography then it's -ⲥⲑⲁⲛ because it's a tonic syllable. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Do we adhere to that in foreign names? Do you wanna do that in every name of a foreign country or politician? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why not? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I already fear the endless discussions here about whether a word is to be stressed on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd syllable. How do we write Yuriko Koike, for instance, the current Governor of Tokyo? If it's stressed on the last syllable (which I guess but don't know), ⲕⲟⲓⲭⲉ? I mean, yeah, if you guys like this system, I will not be adamantly opposed. Just want to make sure we realize the consequences. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- The stress should be the same as in the language the word comes from if it's not attested in Coptic before. I don't see any serious consequences. K'oike 'Yuriko would be ⲭⲟ(ⲱ)ⲓⲕⲉ ⲓⲟⲩⲣⲓⲕⲟ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- And Japanese has initial stress? بطرس مرقس (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Japanese has a pitch accent. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- And Japanese has initial stress? بطرس مرقس (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The stress should be the same as in the language the word comes from if it's not attested in Coptic before. I don't see any serious consequences. K'oike 'Yuriko would be ⲭⲟ(ⲱ)ⲓⲕⲉ ⲓⲟⲩⲣⲓⲕⲟ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I already fear the endless discussions here about whether a word is to be stressed on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd syllable. How do we write Yuriko Koike, for instance, the current Governor of Tokyo? If it's stressed on the last syllable (which I guess but don't know), ⲕⲟⲓⲭⲉ? I mean, yeah, if you guys like this system, I will not be adamantly opposed. Just want to make sure we realize the consequences. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why not? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do we adhere to that in foreign names? Do you wanna do that in every name of a foreign country or politician? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- If we use a traditional Bohairic orthography then it's -ⲥⲑⲁⲛ because it's a tonic syllable. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- We should avoid that mixture. If the only reason is we should use it because of the Nag Hammadi writings, we should not use it. Nag Hammadi texts are not in Bohairic - I don't mind taking words from Nag Hammadi Coptic for Bohairic, but we should always take the Bohairic orthography. Only because southern Coptic uses ⲥⲑⲁⲛ, doesn't mean Bohairic would have used it too. How should we justify orthographically that we use we write Pakisthan. It should either be Phakhisthan (which no Copt uses) or Pakistan (everybody would write it like that). Or why not Phakistan? But why Pakisthan? ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- And ⲥⲑⲁⲛ because it is attested in Nag Hammadi or another reason? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Any consensus/new ideas regarding the spelling? I kinda agree that "No Copt, if asked, would write "Pakistan" as ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ." But I'm open to anything as long as we can reasonably argue for it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- No Copt, if asked, would write "Pakistan" as ⲫⲁⲭⲓⲥⲑⲁⲛ. Now, I know that some people here don't care what common Copts think, and I could be convinced if we find an orthography which is accepted by the majority and where it says, according to that orthography, ⲫ, ⲭ, ⲑ should be used more often. But I don't see such an orthography, also because nobody here seems to care about that. Until that happens, ⲡⲁⲕⲓⲥⲧⲁⲛ simply looks less weird. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Any new thoughts? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)