Talk:šꜣq

What evidence there is that this was the etymon of Ancient Greek σάκκος (sákkos), as opposed to some Semitic language which is usually listed in the literature (Beekes, OED etc.) - Common Semitic *(deprecated template usage) śaqq- > Akkadian (deprecated template usage) saqqu, Hebrew (deprecated template usage) shaq, Syriac (deprecated template usage) saqqā etc. Have the Ancient Egyptians invented sackcloth? ^_^ Perhaps we're dealing with a Kulturwort that was freely borrowed across the Mediterranean.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Vorziblix, could you address whether the big descendants list really belongs here? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Hmm, this one is particularly confusing to trace. The descendant list definitely does not belong here, but it could (very debatably) belong at sꜣq.

• McGready 1968, “Egyptian words in the Greek vocabulary”, lists σάκκος (sákkos) as a possible Egyptian borrowing, citing Forbes 1955 in favor but noting that others (such as the LSJ) instead claim a Phoenician origin.
• Looking into Forbes 1955, Studies in Ancient Technology, vol. IV, p. 66, he derives the Greek word not from Egyptian šꜣq, but from sꜣq (“to gather or put together”), whence Coptic ⲥⲟⲕ (sok, “sackcloth”) and ⲥⲱⲕ (sōk, “flow, gather”).
• Černý 1976, p. 149, reconstructs a meaning of “sack” for sꜣq in addition to the “gather” sense, citing the Coptic descendant, the determinative sometimes written as a sack, and an instance of sq meaning “sack”, presumably having lost the weak consonant ꜣ. He claims that the Hebrew word is borrowed from Egyptian, and that Greek σάκκος (sákkos) either came directly from Egyptian or was borrowed by way of a Semitic intermediary.
• Vycichl 1983, p. 186, rejects Černý’s claim, noting that Egyptian s is generally borrowed as Hebrew ס and not as שׂ. He calls the Egyptian word, as well as the Greek word, a borrowing from Semitic.
• Hoch 1994, p. 269, agrees with Vycichl, noting that Černý’s idea is rejected ‘with good reason’. He derives Coptic ⲥⲟⲕ (sok, “sackcloth”) not from Egyptian sꜣq, but from sꜣgꜣ (“an inferior type of cloth”), which is more clearly a Semitic borrowing but has apparently been overlooked in past discussions.
• Returning to šꜣq, it’s unclear whether this means “sack” at all; Erman and Grapow define it simply as “lederner Gegenstand”, but in their notes they write “Beutel ??”
• The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, vol. 1, p. 641, agrees with Ivan above that we are dealing with a Kulturwort.

In sum, σάκκος (sákkos) is almost certainly not a descendant of šꜣq, which might not necessarily mean “sack” at all. It could be, but probably isn’t, a descendant of sꜣq (“to gather or put together”) via Semitic. Most likely both Greek σάκκος (sákkos) and Coptic ⲥⲟⲕ (sok) come from Semitic, the latter probably via Egyptian sꜣgꜣ rather than sꜣq or šꜣq. I’ll remove the list of descendants from this entry in any case. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Some condensed version of your findings should also be worked into the etymology sections at Ancient Greek σάκκος (sákkos) and English sack. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure! I’ll write something up and add it, creating the other relevant Egyptian entries on the way. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)