Talk:ꜥnb

Pronunciations, identifications

This noun is known in a Greek transcription I dropped at 𐤉𐤁𐤋 (ybl), so maybe historical pronunciation data can be added, and is discussed here about Papyrus Brooklyn 47.218.02, @Vorziblix, where I also learn that the Ancient Greek ἄγρωστις (ágrōstis) had some other meanings, even though Dioscorides was surely inexact in his synonymy, probably dogtooth grass and in Egyptian Greek ({{lb|grc|Egypt}}) halfa grass, @Samubert96. Fay Freak (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: I guess the transcription is not sufficient to guess, with respect to known derivation types, the pronunciation? It’s not an Ancient Greek descendant however, but a transcription: “the Egyptians call it anufí”. We should avoid having Ancient Greek entries or red links for such stuff as the indication is exactly zero it was Ancient Greek plus it is indicated which language it actually was so nobody can argue like with gangaba that these forms “need a place to stay”.

I correct here the insinuation that the synonyms are from Dioskurides. They have been interpolated in the same or next century, suggested Pamphilos. Fay Freak (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: The transcrption is pretty late, from Late Demotic/early Coptic times. Still, a reconstruction could be made, though I’m generally hesitant to reconstruct from a Greek transcription without comparing any Coptic descendants, as it’s unclear what dialect it’s borrowed from, how faithful of a transcription it is, etc. In this case the fact that the derivation is uncertain means we can’t rely on known patterns in that regard either. I’ve put up a cautious guess.

I’m not sure what to do with the Greek-script form; assuming it comes from the date on the quote, it’s not, strictly speaking, a transcription of Egyptian (as we define it) but of Late Demotic or Old Coptic. The word is, however, otherwise unattested in Demotic or Coptic. For now I’ve relabelled it in the entry as a Coptic descendant without changing the script, but maybe there’s some better way to deal with it (a reconstruction entry?). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: Don’t we already have entries which mention Greek transcriptions in their pronunciation sections? At least my memory says there were entries that expounded in their pronunciation sections. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, there are a lot of cuneiform transcriptions in pronunciation sections: wꜥw, tꜣwj, ḫnsw, pḏt, ḫmnw, ḥr, nfr, mꜣꜥt, dbn, hnw, jwnw, psḏw. Though there be a difference in that this Greek transcription is from Old Coptic or Late Demotic which would be a descendant. If it allows for conjecturing the Egyptian pronunciation too then it can be mentioned there nonetheless of course. Fay Freak (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: We have a handful that discuss Akkadian transcriptions that way, as you’ve seen; it’s possible we have some that mention Greek under pronunciation too, but usually Greek is just listed as a descendant (as at ḫw.f-wj). Akkadian transcriptions are often helpful as direct evidence of vowel changes over the course of Medio-Late and Late Egyptian, but Greek transcriptions are usually much later and don’t directly attest to the pronunciation at any of the time periods the template gives—they’re mostly from Demotic times and can be used for reconstruction, but not direct attestation. Exceptions do exist, like Mycenaean Greek 𐁁𐀓𐀠𐀴𐀍 (ai-ku-pi-ti-jo), but they’re rare. Even so, I do agree that it makes sense to mention the Greek in the pronunciation section given that’s what the reconstructed pronunciation is based on. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)