Talk:Egyptian language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Egyptian language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Ancient Egypt High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Sudan Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sudan (assessed as Mid-importance).

Hieroglyphs in lead[edit]

The first sentence of the lead currently includes the following string of hieroglyphs: 𓂋𓏺𓈖 𓆎𓅓𓏏𓊖 all in a line, one after another. This is not correct. They should display like this:

(as appears in the infobox at right).

Precisely because of this issue with display, we usually avoid giving hieroglyphs in running text (and make use of wikihiero and Template:Hiero) I see no advantage to displaying incorrect hieroglyphs when we have correctly displaying ones right next to them, but, when I removed the incorrect ones, User:Florian Blaschke reverted the change claiming that the display issue was "Probably a problem on your end". Furius (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is excessive perfectionism, IMO. The vertical placement of some hieroglyph combinations is a predictable, non-distinctive and superficial feature; a string of hieroglyphs still gives you all the information about the spelling that you need to reconstruct the authentic appearance as long as you know a couple of rules, whereas a romanisation does not, and while it may not look exactly the way it would in an authentic inscription, it's still far more similar to it than a romanisation. The wikihiero things are effectively displayed as images, as they are impossible to search for, copy and type unless you enter the source code. This seems to me a much greater drawback than some cosmetic feature of arrangement.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is Facebook is open 2023+20.30 1.[edit]

from 123 241 135 139 to 7 139.135.241.183 (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to April 2036 139.135.241.123 (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian as a Branch[edit]

Made some edits to the intro of the article. With how it was written one could get the impression that Ancient Egyptian was a single monolithic language. I added clarifying information that Egyptian is a full fledged branch of Afro-Asiatic with sub-languages and dialects NisutBity (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contrast between two stop series[edit]

As early as Late Egyptian, we're told, 'the phonemes d ḏ g gradually merge with their counterparts t ṯ k.' This sentence creates the impression that the contrast between the two stop series is eventually lost. Yet nevertheless in Demotic, according to the article, it is still the case that 'stops may be either aspirated or tenuis (unaspirated), although there is evidence that aspirates merged with their tenuis counterparts in certain environments.' And finally, in Coptic, it turns out that 'earlier *d ḏ g q are preserved as ejective t' c' k' k' before vowels', so the contrast is preserved even there. If there was no merger of the phonemes in all positions but just changes of d ḏ g into t ṯ k in some positions, then it would be appropriate to at least say that the ejectives in Coptic originate from those tenues that hadn't merged with the aspirates in Demotic and Late Egyptian. And also the initial wording about Late Egyptian shouldn't create the impression of an eventual merger.

A further interesting question is how we know that the Coptic reflexes of Early Egyptian d ḏ g q are ejectives, when the only thing Bohairic spelling shows is that they are unaspirated. Loans into neighbouring languages with ejectives, perhaps? I'd expect Akkadian transcriptions from Early and Late Egyptian to show that, too. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]