 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / October 2003Learning Hieroglyphs
I have just received a copy of Collier & Manley's "How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs" and am looking forward to studying it. I have noticed that most books on hieroglyphs are from the Middle Kingdom onward. How different is this from the Old Kingdom? And are there any texts teaching Old Kingdom hieroglyphs? Darlene Darlene, Here are the books I happen to own that will help you out with old Kingdom hieroglyphics Fascinating Hieroglyphics Discovering Decoding and Understanding the Ancient Art by Chirstian Jacq Egyptian Grammar by Gardner its the Third Edition from Griffith Institute ( I had to special order this book from Boarders Book Store) But this book goes from beginners to Advanced Hieroglyphics. Hope this helps you out. Kara if you want to learn anymore you can email me at GoddessISIS71@hotmail.com I can teach anyone how to read any Hieroglyphic style, Old, Middle and New Kingdom and Hiertic also. > Darlene, > Here are the books I happen to own that will help you out with old Kingdom [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > can teach anyone how to read any Hieroglyphic style, Old, Middle and New > Kingdom and Hiertic also. Thank you. I will look into these. Darlene > Darlene, > Here are the books I happen to own that will help you out with old Kingdom [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > can teach anyone how to read any Hieroglyphic style, Old, Middle and New > Kingdom and Hiertic also. I just checked into both of these books at Amazon and, again, they appear to be Middle Egyptian. I am looking for Old Egyptian. Does anyone have other suggestions, please? Darlene On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:48:30 -0400, "D. Scott" <the_scott@no-spamcharter.net> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following: >I just checked into both of these books at Amazon and, again, >they appear to be Middle Egyptian. I am looking for Old [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Darlene I suggest looking at <www.atleest.com>, which had the following titles: Kahl, J. Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie. Gebunden. _____. Frühägyptisches Wörterbuch: Erste Lieferung 3-f. Paperback. Miosi, R. A Reading Book of Second Intermediate Period Texts. (likely more ME, but some OE would be included) Morenz, S. Beiträge zur Schriftlichkeitskultur im Mittleren Reich und in der 2. Zwischenzeit. (likely more ME, but some OE would be included) Schenkel, W. Aus der Arbeit an einer Konkordanz zu den Altägyptischen Sargtexten. _________. Einführung in die altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft. As you can see, most language works are in German: I didn't include one appears to be a very good Dutch text as well. HTH. Regards -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com Old Egyptian was the language of Dynasties 1-8. So one would not find any "Old Egyptian" texts from the Second Intermediate Period, as one poster here has erroneously suggested. Regardless, Old Egyptian passed into Middle Egyptian "with but little modification" (Sir Alan Gardiner). Since there are many books ( and in English, not German) that concentrate on teaching Middle Egyptian, there is really not much point in a beginner attempting to learn Old Egyptian from German books they probably can't read in the first place. Collier and Manley is a good book for beginners--the best way to start out learning Egyptian that I know of. Anyone who learns Middle Egyptian can read Old Egyptian, too. However, some of the titles of Old Kingdom individuals present some complexities. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html >Old Egyptian was the language of Dynasties 1-8. So one would not find any "Old >Egyptian" texts from the Second Intermediate Period, as one poster here has >erroneously suggested. Actually, Old Egyptian lasts until at least the 11th Dynasty, and Old Egyptian does not transfer directly into Middle Egyptian, although some is incorporated into as a language after 2100 BCE (Allen 2000: 1, 404). Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the Second Intermediate Period, when it is fully supplanted by Middle Egyptian, which in turn gave way to a later form, Late Egyptian, about 1600 BCE (when the first traces are seen), - 1300 BCE (when it becomes a full-blown language) (Allen 2000: 1 and Loprieno 1995: 21-22). As Loprieno noted, Old Egyptian is notable due to its sign complexity, its highly structured system, and its additional phonetic complementation (dropped in Middle Egyptian style) (Loprieno 1995: 20-21) >Regardless, Old Egyptian passed into Middle Egyptian >"with but little modification" (Sir Alan Gardiner). Much has been learned about Old Egyptian since Gardiner wrote his work, as Allen points out (Allen 2000: 404 and Loprieno 1995: 38-39), and it has been only in the latter part of the 20th century the distinctions of Old Egyptian from Middle Egyptian have been explored (Allen 2000: 404). Thus the works I cited earlier, which encompass some of this study. >Since there are many books >( and in English, not German) that concentrate on teaching Middle Egyptian, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Egyptian, too. However, some of the titles of Old Kingdom individuals present >some complexities. It is possible to work with Old Egyptian knowing Middle Egyptian, but other instruction works which explain the system and structure are needed (and thus the works I cited). I believe the original inquirer was aware of that, which was why she was asking _only_ about Old Egyptian and asked to by-pass Middle Egyptian works. I hope this information helps the original inquirer. References: Allen, J. P. 2000. _Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loprieno, A. 1995. _Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.com [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Actually, Old Egyptian lasts until at least the 11th Dynasty, and Old >Egyptian does not transfer directly into Middle Egyptian, Really? Then what was the "intermediate" stage called? Better read a text like the "Autobiography of Weni" and you'll see that what I said is absolutely true. > although some >is incorporated into as a language after >2100 BCE (Allen 2000: 1, 404). Some???? I can't believe Allen said that. I am going to ask him if he did. >Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until >the Second Intermediate Period, >when it is fully supplanted by Middle >Egyptian, What in hell do you mean by "remnants of Old Egyptian"? And name me one text from the SIP that is written in "Old Egyptian". > which in turn gave way >to a later form, Late Egyptian, about 1600 BCE (when the first traces >are seen), - 1300 BCE (when it becomes a full-blown language) (Allen >2000: 1 and Loprieno 1995: 21-22). What do you mean "full-blown" language?? Are those the actual words of Allen and Loprieno??? In 1300 BCE the introduction of definite articles are first *written*--but that doesn't mean they hadn't been spoken for a long time. You seem to think that "new" languages were suddenly "invented", one having nothing to do with the other. Actually, some people believe that Middle Egyptian was never even a spoken language, just an artificial construct used for writing purposes because of the corruption of spoken Egyptian that had previously occurred. >As Loprieno noted, Old Egyptian is notable due to its sign complexity, >its highly structured system, and its additional phonetic >complementation (dropped in Middle Egyptian style) (Loprieno 1995: >20-21) So? That is what differentiates Old from Middle, but that doesn't make it a whole new language by any means. The dropping of phonetic complements isn't that significant. (And Middle Egyptian doesn't always drop them at all.) It just made Middle Egyptian easier and faster to write or incise. And Old Egyptian doesn't use phonetic complements always, either, by any means--which you would know if you read Loprieno more carefully. He says "Frequent use is made of phonetic complementation". Again, see the "Autobiography of Weni". >>Regardless, Old Egyptian passed into Middle Egyptian >>"with but little modification" (Sir Alan Gardiner). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >has been only in the latter part of the 20th century the distinctions of >Old Egyptian from Middle Egyptian have been explored (Allen 2000: How could Allen possibly say that that distinctions "were not explored"until recently? That isn't so. And not that much has been learned about constructions of Egyptian since Gardiner's day--which wasn't so terribly long ago. And people even before him knew how to read Old Egyptian. I suspect that what Allen *might* have meant is that certain difficult titles of nobles have been more thoroughly explored. Otherwise, Old Egyptian doesn't present any problems that required any major breakthroughs. I don't have his book, but I have Loprieno's. Looking on pages 38-39, I see all he wrote regarding "new" is "The phonology of later Egyptian is known to us more precisely than the hypothetical reconstruction of earlier Egyptian thanks primarily to the cuneiform transcription of Egyptian Egyptian words and phrases." However, I have to take issue with that, too, in a sense. Just because, in later Egyptian, clues are given as to vocalization by foreign contemporaries, doesn't mean the same vocalization wasn't employed centuries previously. There just aren't any "clues" from previously. However, THAT is what we know more about now--phonology--and there are some new interpretations of certain words. There should always be some progress in every science, Egyptian philology included. And, BTW, neither Allen nor Loprieno are greater authorities than Sir Alan Gardiner was. His Egyptian grammar is used even now. But he wrote it in a style that is considered more "difficult" to comprehend than, say, Allen or Hoch's grammars. I don't find it difficult. >Thus the works I cited earlier, which >encompass some of this study. Some??? LOL! They all learned Egyptian using Gardiner's grammar in the first place! These guys didn't invent a whole new approach to ancient Egyptian--except that Loprieno has done very good work on Egyptian phonology. You are really something. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html > >Old Egyptian was the language of Dynasties 1-8. So one would not find any "Old > >Egyptian" texts from the Second Intermediate Period, as one poster here has [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > http://www.griffis-consulting.com I wish to thank both Katherine and Marianne for your suggestions. Yes, I am quite aware that OE is a distinctive language and that is why I inquired about instructional material. Unfortunately I can't read a lick of German, so I will probably have to look for Miosi's book (which looks like it might be in English [?]). I am now curious about what Katherine has termed Late Egyptian. Is this a completely separate language and is there any study material (preferably in English)? For what it's worth, I am currently doing research for a historical fiction book I am writing. I am hoping to cover all 33 Dynasties, so I may be calling on this group for help from time to time, as there appears to be a dearth of material on various periods, especially Dynasties 7, 8, 13,14, 16, 27 and 31. Does anyone know where I can find a thoroughly inclusive list of ALL the pharaohs, including the Hyksos, Kushite and Persian rulers? I am presently reading Margaret Bunson's "The Encyclopedia Ancient Egypt", but I obviously need more thorough, and preferably, print material. Thank you for all your help, Darlene On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:05:28 -0400, "D. Scott" <the_scott@no-spamcharter.net> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following: >I wish to thank both Katherine and Marianne for your suggestions. >Yes, I am quite aware that OE is a distinctive language and that >is why I inquired about instructional material. Unfortunately I >can't read a lick of German, so I will probably have to look for >Miosi's book (which looks like it might be in English [?]). True: it is in English, but has limited OE examples, but they are there. >I am now curious about what Katherine has termed Late Egyptian. >Is this a completely separate language and is there any study >material (preferably in English)? While not a "completely separate" language, Late Egyptian differs substantially from Old and Middle Egyptian, particularly in grammar (Allen 2000: 1), and in vocalic shifts (Loprieno 1995: 38-40). Once again, I refer you to the Atleest website, but Cerny's work is well-known in Late Egyptian study and is in English, as are the works of Frederich Junge. Jansen-Winklen also has works in the language (but in German). Again, see <www.atleest.com>, and look under "Ancient Egypt: Language." >For what it's worth, I am currently doing research for a >historical fiction book I am writing. I am hoping to cover all >33 Dynasties, so I may be calling on this group for help from >time to time, as there appears to be a dearth of material on >various periods, especially Dynasties 7, 8, 13,14, 16, 27 and 31. I would suggest you may also want to look into assistance from the Egyptologists Electronic Forum for good scholarly information. See: http://showcase.netins.net/web/ankh/eefmain.html and see if this source may be helpful to you. >Does anyone know where I can find a thoroughly inclusive list of >ALL the pharaohs, including the Hyksos, Kushite and Persian >rulers? I am presently reading Margaret Bunson's "The >Encyclopedia Ancient Egypt", but I obviously need more thorough, >and preferably, print material. You may want to look at Clayton, P. 1994. _Chronicle of the Pharaohs: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt_. London: Thames and Hudson. There are other more in-depth works along the topic, but again, many of these are in German. HTH. Regards -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:05:28 -0400, "D. Scott" > <the_scott@no-spamcharter.net> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > http://www.griffis-consulting.com You have been of tremendous help. I will definitely following up on your suggestions. Thank you, Darlene >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: "D. Scott" the_scott@no-spamcharter.net [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >although some >> is incorporated into as a language after 2100 BCE (Allen 2000: Since this is no direct quote from Allen, I am just going to disregard it. I have Hoch's grammar right here, dated to 1996. Hoch is a great authority in Egyptian philology, too, just like Allen and Loprieno. His "Semitic Words In Egyptian Texts" is one of the best contributions to the field ever. On page 4 of his grammar, he states "The Egyptian language has an extremely long history--spanning some 4,500 years--and can be divided into five main phases, although with some overlaps.: I Old Egyptian ca. 3000-2135 BCE, Dynasties 1-8" Just as I said. If Griffis wants to prove that Old Egyptian was still used in the SIP, which begins ca 1663, she is welcome to do so. Of course, she will be contra Hoch, who states that the classic Middle Egyptian phase began ca. 2135 BCE. >1, 404). >> Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the Second Intermediate >Period, Well let's see what Griffis interprets as "remnants". That should be interesting. (snip) >> It is possible to work with Old Egyptian knowing Middle >Egyptian, but >> other instruction works which explain the system and structure >are >> needed By a beginner? LOL! Collier and Manley will do perfectly well for that purpose. >I wish to thank both Katherine and Marianne for your suggestions. >Yes, I am quite aware that OE is a distinctive language and that >is why I inquired about instructional material. No. OE is not a "distinct language". It is just a phase of the same language--the Egyptian one. It is not that different from Middle Egyptian at all. Collier and Manley will show you what facets of it make it different. It is a nice, inexpensive little paperback. Right now, you don't need one other book. When you have got through it, you can decide where to go from there. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html > >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs > >From: "D. Scott" the_scott@no-spamcharter.net > >Date: 10/25/2003 11:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time > >Message-id: <vplen8jp8bu0a4@corp.supernews.com> Collier and Manley > will show you what facets of it make it different. It is a nice, inexpensive > little paperback. Right now, you don't need one other book. When you have got [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! > http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html I was hoping to follow Collier and Manley's book with one by James Allen: " Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs". I'm not sure if this would be a good follower, or not. Any suggestions? Darlene >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: "D. Scott" the_scott@no-spamcharter.net [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >and Culture of Hieroglyphs". I'm not sure if this would be a >good follower, or not. Any suggestions? Sure, it would be good. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html >>Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >>From: "D. Scott" the_scott@no-spamcharter.net [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Since this is no direct quote from Allen, I am just going to disregard it. Disregard at your own peril, especially since you don't have Allen's book, by your own admission: "Around 2040 BC, a king of Dynasty 11, Known as Mentuhotep II, managed to gain control of the entire country: this event marks the beginning of the Middle Kingdom (Dynasties 11-12, ca 2040-1780 BC). Dynasty 12, ruling from Lisht (about 30 miles south of Modern Cairo), inaugurated the second flowering of Egyptian culture. During its rule the first great works of Egyptian literature were written, in the phase of the language known as Middle Egyptian. After Dynasty 12 central authority over the entire country weakened once again, and Egypt entered its Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties 13-17, 1780 - 1550 BC). " (Allen 2000: 10) As Allen noted, and I mentioned earlier "1. Old Egyptian is the name given to the oldest phase of the language. Althought Egyptian writing is attested before 3000 BC, these early inscriptions consist only of names and lables. Old Egyptian proper is dated from 2600 BC, when the first connected texts appear, until about 2100 BC. 2. Middle Egyptian, sometimes called Classical Egyptian, is closely related to Old Egyptian.* It first appears in writing around 2100 BC, and _survived as a spoken language for some 500 years_**, but it remained the standard hieroglyphic language for the rest of ancient Egyptian history. Middle Egyptian is the phase of the language discussed in this book. 3. Late Egyptian began to replace Middle Egyptian as the spoken language after 1600 BC, and it remains in use until about 600 BC, though related from Old and Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian differed substantially from the earlier phase, particularly in grammar. Traces of Late Egyptian can be found in texts earlier than 1600 BC, but it did not appear as a full written language until after 1300 BC." (Allen 2000: 1) * Allen points out in this same work, in discussing the Gardiner theory of language: "Middle Egyptian is the second-oldest phase of these stages [of Egyptian language], and as you have seen, _it retains much of its Old Egyptian ancestor_. In fact, it was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the distinction between Old and Middle Egyptian was fully described." (Allen 2000: 404) ** That is, until about 1600 BCE. >I have Hoch's grammar right here, dated to 1996. Hoch is a great authority in >Egyptian philology, too, just like Allen and Loprieno. His "Semitic Words In [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >contra Hoch, who states that the classic Middle Egyptian phase began ca. 2135 >BCE. And Loprieno, whom you also tend to respect, gives the Old Egyptian period "from 3000 - 2000 BCE" and Middle Egyptian from "2000 - 1300 BCE." (Loprieno 1995: 5-6) So, there's a 3rd set of dating which encompasses the periods in question, but the point remains the same - Old Egyptian survives as a distinctive phase of the language for longer than Dynasty 8. The dating is more precise, IMO, with Allen, but the point is that Middle Egyptian arises during the MK, and lasts as a _written language_ throughout most of Egyptian history, but lasts only about 500 years as a spoken one. Parts of Old Egyptian (which some might call "remnants") is retained within Middle Egyptian throughout, as Allen pointed out. By the Ramesside period, Late Egyptian, for example, is in place. >>1, 404). >>> Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the Second Intermediate >>Period, >> >Well let's see what Griffis interprets as "remnants". That should be >interesting. Done. Now, Ms. Scott has made it clear she would like to see some texts with Old Egyptian, and there are some examples out there. Some can be found in Miosi's work (limited), and more in the other texts, mostly German. Allen, IMO, would be her best English work to see how the phases of Old Egyptian pass into Middle Egyptian, and I suggest that over Gardiner (until she is fairly adept). Gardiner's _Egyptian Grammar_ is still used, Ms. Scott, although some people have found it daunting, and in some cases, out of date. Allen describes some of the Gardiner theory shortcomings (particularly in light of the /sDm.f/ types, of which Gardiner saw only 2 (but realised only in his last edition that there were likely more (Allen 2000: 404)), but there are, in fact, 6 types (Allen 2000: 295-297) So, in addition to the previously cited works, I would suggest: Allen, J. P. 2000. _Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardiner, A. H. 1982 <1969>. _Egyptian Grammar_. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Whatever work in Egyptian you decide to use, Ms. Scott, I wish you continued success, and I hope I have been helpful to you. Regards -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com > So, in addition to the previously cited works, I would suggest: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.griffis-consulting.com Again, you have been more than helpful. At least now I have an idea in what order I should pursue my studies. Thank you very much. Darlene >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.com [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Disregard at your own peril, especially since you don't have Allen's >book, by your own admission: Well, where are the quotation marks for the above? You may not feel it significant to separate the writings of someone else from your own interspersed commentary but I happen to attach a LOT of significance to it. Allen is an expert in ancient Egyptian philology. You are most definitely not. >"Around 2040 BC, a king of Dynasty 11, Known as Mentuhotep II, managed >to gain control of the entire country: this event marks the beginning of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >great works of Egyptian literature were written, in the phase of the >language known as Middle Egyptian. So what? What has it got to do with Old Egyptian and its duration--which has been the subject of your disagreement with me? >After Dynasty 12 central authority over the entire country weakened once >again, and Egypt entered its Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >dated from 2600 BC, when the first connected texts appear, until about >2100 BC. >2. Middle Egyptian, sometimes called Classical Egyptian, is closely >related to Old Egyptian.* It first appears in writing around 2100 BC, >and _survived as a spoken language for some 500 years_**, but it >remained the standard hieroglyphic language for the rest of ancient >Egyptian history. Middle Egyptian is the phase of the language >discussed in this book. Well, Hoch says the 8th Dynasty ended in 2135 BCE--so there's only a difference of 35 years. Hardly enough time for the 11th Dynasty to appear, IMO. >3. Late Egyptian began to replace Middle Egyptian as the spoken language >after 1600 BC, and it remains in use until about 600 BC, though related >from Old and Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian differed substantially from >the earlier phase, particularly in grammar. I'll say Late Egyptian differed! But it didn't start anywhere near 1600 BCE. *After* is right--way after! You had written--without quotation marks: >Actually, Old Egyptian lasts until at least the >11th Dynasty, I want to know exactly who wrote this--because I have never seen this asserted before. > and Old Egyptian does not transfer directly >into Middle Egyptian, although some >is incorporated into as a language after 2100 >BCE (Allen 2000: 1, 404). Are these Allen's exact words--or are they your *interpretation*? I suspect the latter because it doesn't make any sense to me. Hoch writes on page 4 of his "Middle Egyptian Grammar": "Old and Middle Egyptian are generally quite similar, apart from a few changes in the verbal system and the use of differing particles." I can scarcely believe that Allen, himself, wrote that "some is incorporated into as a language after 2100 BCE" or that "Old Egyptian doesn't transfer directly into Middle Egyptian"! However, you are welcome to quote him directly and prove me wrong. >Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the >Second Intermediate Period, >when it is fully supplanted by Middle Egyptian, Again, no quotation marks. Well, this is how it is: Classical Middle Egyptian took over from Old Egyptian ca 2000 BCE--Dynasties 9-12. After that, the SIP starts. If there are "remnants" of Old Egyptian in classical Middle Egyptian--why would that be suprising --since there were NO GREAT CHANGES AT ALL. See Hoch above. Got it now? Then comes the post-classical era of Middle Egyptian, lasting from Dynasties 13 -18 (start of the New Kingdom). Where is Old Egyptian in this picture? You explain, please. > which in turn gave way >to a later form, Late Egyptian, about 1600 >BCE (when the first traces >are seen), - 1300 BCE (when it becomes a >full-blown language) (Allen >2000: 1 and Loprieno 1995: 21-22). However, neither Allen nor Loprieno wrote the above. You did. > Traces of Late Egyptian can >be found in texts earlier than 1600 BC, but it >did not appear as a full >written language until after 1300 BC." > >(Allen 2000: 1) Allen wrote this??? LOL! How can there be traces of Late Egyptian "earlier than 1600 BCE, when Late Egyptian doesn't enter the picture until the 18th Dynasty, which begins no earlier than 1550 BCE? Do you actually know what "Late Egyptian" really is? >* Allen points out in this same work, in discussing the Gardiner theory >of language: > >"Middle Egyptian is the second-oldest phase of these stages [of Egyptian >language], and as you have seen, _it retains much of its Old Egyptian >ancestor_. AHA! Darned tootin' it does! > In fact, it was not until the middle of the >twentieth >century that the distinction >between Old and Middle Egyptian was fully >described." (Allen 2000: 404) But previous you wrote: >and it has been only in the latter part of the >20th century the distinctions of >Old Egyptian from Middle Egyptian have been >explored (Allen 2000: 404). So you weren't actually quoting Allen then, were you? There is a significant difference between "have been explored" and "fully explored". >** That is, until about 1600 BCE. What? 1600 BCE is part of the Twentieth Century?? >>I have Hoch's grammar right here, dated to 1996. Hoch is a great authority >in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >period "from 3000 - 2000 BCE" and Middle Egyptian from "2000 - 1300 >BCE." (Loprieno 1995: 5-6) So, there's a 3rd >set of dating If there is a difference of 135 years, then it would be best, instead of just quoting dates, to give the reason for the difference. Maybe it's some disagreement about the length of the First Intermediate Period. I suspect so. And with every good reason. Loprieno only says Old Egyptian was in use until the Middle Kingdom, which begans with Dynasty 11, but the 8th Dynasty only lasted 20 years, the 9th perhaps 30 years and the 10th and start of the 11th were concurrent. So probably not much textual evidence in the intervening 30 years. There is really no good reason for a dispute over when the use of Old Egyptian have way to Middle--8th or 11th. > which >encompasses the periods in question, but the point remains the same - >Old Egyptian survives as a distinctive phase of the language for longer >than Dynasty 8. See above. >The dating is more precise, IMO, with Allen, but the point is that >Middle Egyptian arises during the MK, and lasts as a _written language_ >throughout most of Egyptian history, but lasts only about 500 years as a >spoken one. Parts of Old Egyptian (which some might call "remnants") is >retained within Middle Egyptian throughout, as Allen pointed out. Uh huh. See above. > By >the Ramesside period, Late Egyptian, for example, is in place. Gee, what a revelation! >>>1, 404). >>>> Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the Second Intermediate >>>Period, See my comments above. >>Well let's see what Griffis interprets as "remnants". That should be >>interesting. > >Done. But certainly far from well! I would say to you --continue this discussion at your own peril. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html <After I provided the quotations asked for by Ms. Luban from both Allen and Loprieno, and then said: >>Done. > >But certainly far from well! I would say to you --continue this discussion at >your own peril. Marianne: please find a better song to sing on this one, for I have proved my point whether you like it or not. You have the quotations from Allen and Loprieno. I will not discuss this further with you, and your inability to see simple quotations for the sake of sheer argument is wearing thin and defeats the point of any further scholarly discussion. Discussion ended. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.com [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Discussion ended. But not for me. I have shown that you didn't quote anybody at all until a following message--after I indicated disbelief that what you had first written was actually attributed to Allen, for one. Then I pointed out the differences when you actually *did* quote him. When I checked in Loprieno, he also did not say exactly what you interpreted him as having said--easy for me to do because you actually supplied the relevant page numbers. You started completely in error by stating: "Actually, Old Egyptian lasts until at least the 11th Dynasty, and Old Egyptian does not transfer directly into Middle Egyptian, although some is incorporated into as a language after 2100 BCE (Allen 2000: 1, 404). Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the Second Intermediate Period, when it is fully supplanted by Middle Egyptian, which in turn gave way to a later form, Late Egyptian, about 1600 BCE (when the first traces are seen), - 1300 BCE (when it becomes a full-blown language) (Allen 2000: 1 and Loprieno 1995: 21-22)" And you actually had the nerve to attribute this garbage to Allen and Loprieno! As if either one of these men would ever say "some Old Egyptian was transferred" into Middle Egyptian" after 2100 BCE!!! These two forms of the language were so similar that a lot more than "some" would have been part of classical Middle Egyptian. As if either of these men would say only "remnants" of what was largely the same language would remain by the time of the SIP! And worst of all, as though these guys would assert that Late Egyptian was first seen about 1600 BCE when it doesn't show up until some 300 years later! Where does the definite article show up in the texts of the Hyksos--or their Theban contemporaries? I don't have Allen's grammar, but I have Loprieno right here, where on page 7 he definitely dates Late Egyptian from 1300-700 BCE! And he says nothing about Late Egyptian first being seen ca 1600 BCE on pages 21-22. The only point you have made, as far as I am concerned, is that, now you have begun studying at Oxford, you had better study hard. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html > I don't have Allen's grammar, but I have Loprieno right >here, where on page 7 he definitely dates Late Egyptian from 1300-700 BCE! And >he says nothing about Late Egyptian first being seen ca 1600 BCE on pages >21-22. Possibly because the 1600 BC date comes from Allen (as a direct quote)? Goodness me, I should think you could read a direct quote. Again, from Allen directly: ========== "...3. Late Egyptian began to replace Middle Egyptian as the spoken language after 1600 BC, and it remains in use until about 600 BC, though related from Old and Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian differed substantially from the earlier phase, particularly in grammar. Traces of Late Egyptian can be found in texts earlier than 1600 BC, but it did not appear as a full written language until after 1300 BC." (Allen 2000: 1) =============== <snip of other areas of my comments misquoted and/or misattributed > >The only point you have made, as far as I am concerned, is that, now you have >begun studying at Oxford, you had better study hard. Why, thank you: I shall. I know my professors there have thus far been quite happy with my progress in language, so I suppose it all depends upon which one of us has read Allen (or even possesses it) and other language works, doesn't it? For all of the hue and cry over this and that you made above this statement was to be found there in Allen as I have shown. Loprieno on 21-22, for example, talks about how Old Egyptian was _incorporated_ into Middle Egyptian, but not in full - thus remnants of Old Egyptian remain in Middle Egyptian, but not completely. It's there to read, but you seem to not want to see it: (Loprieno 1995: 21): "...A newly developed school system for the education of the bureaucratic elite fixes Egyptian orthography by reducing the number of graphic renditions conventionally allowed for any given word: while in the Old Kingdom the spectrum of scribal possibilities was relatively broad, only one or two of the potential options are now selected as the received written form(s) of the word...<snip examples given>...When compared with the Old Kingdom system, logograms have become less common and slightly varying hieroglyphic shapes have been reduced to one basic form, for a total of 750 signs*. The classical principles [of Middle Egyptian] remain in use for monumental hieroglyphs as well as for manual Hieratic until the end of Dyn. XVIII (ca. 1300 BCE)." * Down from 1000 signs, and as Loprieno notes on p. 20 in discussing Old Egyptian: "From this period we have a wealth of texts exhibiting a full-fledged system based on a systematic, rather than random application of the principles described in section 2.2 The inventory of signs is slightly over one thousand and the possibility of substitute writings for the same word is reduced in the case of logograms, but maintained for the phonetic signs. <...snip examples again...> Frequent use is made of phonetic complementation both preceding and following the main sign." None of this disagrees with Allen's statements, or mine. No more discussion: I think you have proven quite well that either you cannot read coherently, or refuse to read sources cited for the sheer sake of argument for no good reason. I really don't care which it is anymore. You are not arguing on topic, but just for annoyance. Done and no further replies will be answered. Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon) Member, International Association of Egyptologists American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA Oriental Institute Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology] Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom http://www.griffis-consulting.com >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.com [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >=============== ><snip of other areas of my comments misquoted and/or misattributed > That is just more of your usual bullshit. I never misquoted or misattributed anything. My newsreader knows how to quote the material that is already there when I use the "reply" option. All I did was comment on what was there. And yes, I can recognize a direct quote when I see one. And I can certainly also recognize when something can't have been written by an expert in Egyptian language, but just by you. Here again, is what *you* and nobody else wrote: "Actually, Old Egyptian lasts until at least the 11th Dynasty, and Old Egyptian does not transfer directly into Middle Egyptian, although some is incorporated into as a language after 2100 BCE (Allen 2000: 1, 404). Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the Second Intermediate Period, when it is fully supplanted by Middle Egyptian, which in turn gave way to a later form, Late Egyptian, about 1600 BCE (when the first traces are seen), - 1300 BCE (when it becomes a full-blown language) (Allen 2000: 1 and Loprieno 1995: 21-22)" How different from the above quote from Allen that is! You made it seem as though Late Egyptian began to be the language of the texts starting in 1600 BCE, fully supplanting Middle Egyptian at that time. "Traces" of Late Egyptian may be seen in earlier texts, but this discussion was not about spoken Egyptian but texts in the language, which is not quite the same thing. Nobody can pinpoint with any accuracy at all when any phase of Egyptian began to be spoken, but only when different phases of the language began to appear in texts. There is the indication that the written language always lagged behind the spoken and that Middle Egyptian, may never have been a spoken language at all. >>The only point you have made, as far as I am concerned, is that, now you >have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >upon which one of us has read Allen (or even possesses it) and other >language works, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. And never has. You've been touting yourself as an Egyptologist for years, in and out of court, but so far you only have one year of formal education in Egyptology. That is how you got your MA--in one year in the UK. Thus, you have just begun the new term at Oxford this fall. You can study until you are blue in the face, but you are far from having caught up to me in knowledge of all phases of the Egyptian language by all indications. >For all of the hue and cry over this and that you made above this >statement was to be found there in Allen as I have shown. Loprieno on >21-22, for example, talks about how Old Egyptian was _incorporated_ into >Middle Egyptian, but not in full - thus remnants of Old Egyptian remain >in Middle Egyptian, but not completely. No, he doesn't say anything like this at all. It's there to read, but you >seem to not want to see it: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Egyptian] remain in use for monumental hieroglyphs as well as for manual >Hieratic until the end of Dyn. XVIII (ca. 1300 BCE)." But that is not saying what you have characterized it as saying by any means. Reduction of logograms doesn't mean that Old and Middle Egyptian weren't essentially the same language and that only "remnants" of the old were incorporated into the newer-it just means in Middle Egyptian fewer signs were used to write the exact same words. >* Down from 1000 signs, and as Loprieno notes on p. 20 in discussing Old >Egyptian: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >phonetic signs. <...snip examples again...> Frequent use is made of >phonetic complementation both preceding and following the main sign." Right. >None of this disagrees with Allen's statements, or mine. Yours? What a laugh that is. >No more discussion: I think you have proven quite well that either you >cannot read coherently, or refuse to read sources cited for the sheer >sake of argument for no good reason. I really don't care which it is >anymore. You are not arguing on topic, but just for annoyance. No, that is what * you* do and have always done. If your characterization of the writings of authorities are incoherent when it comes to the Egyptian language--that is not their fault--nor mine. Better stick to quoting them directly, as I have suggested you do. Then there would be no problem, confusion, or lack of comprehension on my part whatsoever. >Done and no further replies will be answered. Good. You've muddied the waters sufficiently, in my opinion. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html >>> Since this is no direct quote from Allen, I am just going to disregard >>> it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > an > expert in ancient Egyptian philology. You are most definitely not. Quotation marks were not appropriate for the initial statement as it was not a quote but a paraphrase of a cited work. When a quote was later presented it was surrounded by quotation marks. >> "Around 2040 BC, a king of Dynasty 11, Known as Mentuhotep II, managed >> to gain control of the entire country: this event marks the beginning of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So what? What has it got to do with Old Egyptian and its > duration--which has been the subject of your disagreement with me? Well, it establishes Middle Egyptian as being in use by 1780BC at the latest and it _implies_ that Old was in use in 2040. >> After Dynasty 12 central authority over the entire country weakened once >> again, and Egypt entered its Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > difference > of 35 years. Hardly enough time for the 11th Dynasty to appear, IMO. When dealing with the origins of language 35 years is a rouding error. >> 3. Late Egyptian began to replace Middle Egyptian as the spoken language >> after 1600 BC, and it remains in use until about 600 BC, though related [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1600 BCE. > *After* is right--way after! You had written--without quotation marks: Define "way" and in "way after", please. >> Actually, Old Egyptian lasts until at least the >11th Dynasty, > > I want to know exactly who wrote this--because I have never seen this > asserted before. It follows from the notion that Middle Egyptian _appears_ in 2100BC and that the 11th Dynasty starts in 2040BC. 60 years is far too fast for a total replacement of one language for another, even closely related ones. You need to be more specific; are you saying that you don't believe that any form of Old Egyptian survives those 60 years or just written or just tomb inscriptions or just official documents or what exactly? Or are you simply rejecting 2100BC as the start date of the 11th Dynasty? >> and Old Egyptian does not transfer directly into Middle Egyptian, >> although some is incorporated into as a language after 2100 >> BCE (Allen 2000: 1, 404). > > Are these Allen's exact words--or are they your *interpretation*? I > suspect the latter because it doesn't make any sense to me. Why? Apart from the use of the word "some" there's nothing particularly dubious about this statement; what part does not make sense? > Hoch writes on page 4 of > his "Middle Egyptian Grammar": "Old and Middle Egyptian are generally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that "Old Egyptian doesn't transfer directly into Middle Egyptian"! > However, you are welcome to quote him directly and prove me wrong. If there was a direct transfer from Old to Middle then the implication is that there is a smooth spectrum from one to the other and the division was choosen arbitarily. Yet there are two differences mentioned which certainly seem less than arbitary so why do you still feel that this _was_ a direct transfer? >> Remnants of Old Egyptian do last until the >Second Intermediate Period, >> when it is fully supplanted by Middle Egyptian, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > classical Middle Egyptian--why would that be suprising --since there > were NO GREAT CHANGES AT ALL. Again, too vauge. What do you mean by "took over"? How quickly and from what source or authority was the change instigated? > See Hoch above. Got it now? Then comes the > post-classical era of Middle Egyptian, lasting from Dynasties 13 -18 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > However, neither Allen nor Loprieno wrote the above. You did. But the _quoted_ section of Allen specifically states that traces of Late Egyptian actually has been seen in texts BEFORE 1600BC and is followed by a transition period before being established around 1300. In other words: Middle gave way to Late over the period between c. 1600 and c. 1300. Which appears to be exactly what was claimed above. Are you disputing that Allen said this or simply saying he was wrong? >> Traces of Late Egyptian can >> be found in texts earlier than 1600 BC, but it >did not appear as a full [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 18th Dynasty, which begins no earlier than 1550 BCE? Do you actually > know what "Late Egyptian" really is? I'm begining to wonder if you know what language is. You seem to think that a language is something that is constructed and then released, fully formed, to the world by dictat. In this quote you are actually arguing about a period of ~50 years. If a language is in use in the form of writing in 1550BC then it's a safe bet that its roots were established prior to 1600BC. >> * Allen points out in this same work, in discussing the Gardiner theory >> of language: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What? 1600 BCE is part of the Twentieth Century?? This was a footnote to the previous text, it is pointing out that 2100BC plus 500 years gives 1600BC. >>> I have Hoch's grammar right here, dated to 1996. Hoch is a great >>> authority in Egyptian philology, too, just like Allen and Loprieno. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > for a dispute over when the use of Old Egyptian gave way to Middle--8th > or 11th. You seem to have accidently pasted some notes to yourself into this discussion; did you ever come to any conclusion on these topics? For instance: what did you decide were the correct dates? On the one hand you state that claiming Old Egyptian usage post Dynasty 8 is "contra Hoch" (sounds like a new drink), and on the other that Loprieno says that Old was in use at least at the start of the 11th. Which do you accept and what dates are you pinning on these dynasties? Which do you think overlapped and by how much? >> which >> encompasses the periods in question, but the point remains the same - [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > discussion at > your own peril. You have made no attempt at a reasoned argument; it would indeed be perilous to continue when it is clear that you have no specific years in mind nor are you willing to put forward your own interpretation of the data, resorting only to quoting authorities. This quickly degenerates (further) into a "my authority is bigger than you authority" pissing match. History is about interpretation and in this case it is clear why: there are multiple choices for the start and duration of the dynasties and the SIP and they can not all be correct, and none of them is of itself a firm date for the formation, transformation, or extinction of any language. Instead of criticising someone for doing what historians are supposed to do, why not put forward you own argument? TW >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: Thomas Worthington guess@who.org [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >not a quote but a paraphrase of a cited work. When a quote was later >presented it was surrounded by quotation marks. Well, it was the "paraphrasing" which caused all the confusion. If you had read my other posts in the thread, you would know why. There was a difference between what the authorities had actually said (in quotation marks) and the characterization of what they had written. And I knew right away that they couldn't have stated it as "parahrased". >>> "Around 2040 BC, a king of Dynasty 11, Known as Mentuhotep II, managed >>> to gain control of the entire country: this event marks the beginning of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Well, it establishes Middle Egyptian as being in use by 1780BC at the >latest and it _implies_ that Old was in use in 2040. No, it just says that great works written in Middle Egyptian are first seen ca. 2040 BCE. >>> After Dynasty 12 central authority over the entire country weakened once >>> again, and Egypt entered its Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >When dealing with the origins of language 35 years is a rouding error. That is why I said it is hardly worth arguing over whether Old Egyptian was widely usedin writing until the 8th Dynasty or intil the 11th. The interval was not that great and nobody knows even exactly how long it was. With concurrencies of reigns and quick succession of rulers--there are chronological problems involved--and barely any surviving texts, anyhow. >>> 3. Late Egyptian began to replace Middle Egyptian as the spoken language >>> after 1600 BC, and it remains in use until about 600 BC, though related [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Define "way" and in "way after", please. What for? When first paraphrasing the above quote from Allen, Griffis had omitted mention of the term "spoken". That makes all the difference in the world. Nobody has ever asserted that Late Egyptian was *written* before ca 1300. So that is "way after" by 300 years. >>> Actually, Old Egyptian lasts until at least the >11th Dynasty, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >tomb inscriptions or just official documents or what exactly? Or are you >simply rejecting 2100BC as the start date of the 11th Dynasty? No. Chronologies of ancient Egypt vary anyway. I just wanted to know who said it because my lexicons say otherwise--and one of them is quite new (1996). That there were "overlaps" was stated by me in a previous post. >>> and Old Egyptian does not transfer directly into Middle Egyptian, >>> although some is incorporated into as a language after 2100 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Why? Apart from the use of the word "some" there's nothing particularly >dubious about this statement; what part does not make sense? If you can't see why the word "some" is ridiculous in the context, then you don't know anything about this and are just here as an apologist for Griffis. >> Hoch writes on page 4 of >> his "Middle Egyptian Grammar": "Old and Middle Egyptian are generally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >certainly seem less than arbitary so why do you still feel that this _was_ >a direct transfer? Um--because it was still basically the same language? I am going to stop right here. You are not here to "discuss" but to vindicate Griffis. You are pretty suspicious, IMO, with your munged screenname. Tata! "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html Katherine, Forget all this. It will only get in your way. You've got a shot at the real thing. Follow your dream. Work hard and try to live your life without anger or bitterness. And I will try to do the same. Marianne "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html An excellent position to take and I sincerely hope both of you concur. I have enjoyed reading posts from each of you for some time. TS > Katherine, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! > http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html >>>> "Around 2040 BC, a king of Dynasty 11, Known as Mentuhotep II, managed >>>> to gain control of the entire country: this event marks the beginning [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > seen ca. > 2040 BCE. Well, one man's clear implication is another (wo)mans wild conjecture I guess. >>>> After Dynasty 12 central authority over the entire country weakened >>>> once [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > What for? Because I wanted to know if your disagreement was in centuries or decades. > When first paraphrasing the above quote from Allen, Griffis had omitted > mention of the term "spoken". That makes all the difference in the > world. Perhaps this is the problem point right here. When I see or hear statements about "language use" I assume that, unless the person states otherwise, that the discussion is in broad terms, ie that the spoken language is being dealt with. Is the problem simply that Griffis assumes this too while you assume that the written language is meant unless otherwise stated? It's a simple enough point but I cn see where a lot of confusion could occur. > Nobody has ever asserted that Late Egyptian was *written* before ca > 1300. So that is "way after" by 300 years. Well, at least you answered the question. >>>> and Old Egyptian does not transfer directly into Middle Egyptian, >>>> although some is incorporated into as a language after 2100 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Um--because it was still basically the same language? "Basically" is at least as vague as "some"; Modern English is "basically" the same as Chaucer's English but it is hard for modern readers. From what has been said above it seems that there was a greater distnce between Old and Middle Egyptian. Perhaps not. I don't suppose there's much chance of any rational dicussion of the question, though. > I am going to stop right here. You are not here to "discuss" but to > vindicate Griffis. Why would I do that? I don't know the woman, although I've seen her, and your, posts here for some years now. > You are pretty suspicious, IMO, with your munged screenname. It is clear that any mention of, or posting by, Griffis sends you into a rage of some sort. In what way is "Thomas Worthington" munged? The fact that I have enough spam every day as it is is why I no longer post with my email address but a search of this newsgroup's archive on Google quickly shows that my email used to be posted as "tww@theBitBeforeTheAtSignAgain.cx" which is as close to posting my clear text email address as I'm going to get. If you really wanted my email address I would have let you have it, the same goes for anyone, but there's no sense in asking for spam. > Tata! Bye. > It is clear that any mention of, or posting by, Griffis sends you into a > rage of some sort. I've dug a bit deeper into the archives; I don't think I want to get involved in this argument! Probably best to just ignore each other, I'd say. TWW >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: Thomas Worthington guess@who.org [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> It is clear that any mention of, or posting by, Griffis sends you into a >> rage of some sort. No. But you coming along, without any apparent knowledge of the subject, and pasting together bits from the posts of two other parties willy nilly just to have a go at me does. >I've dug a bit deeper into the archives; I don't think I want to get >involved in this argument! Probably best to just ignore each other, I'd >say. With the present attitude, yes. But this can change. Griffis is a colleague of mine. She and I both work in Egyptology in our own way and try to contribute. We are both knowledgeable persons in the field. She knows more about some aspects than I do and vice versa. That has to be accepted. I can accept it. The rest is up to her. She is the one that evidently wants an academic career and is taking steps to further her own goals. I am content to work on the sidelines with my book and articles. She, IMO, has more to lose in reputation by this continued animosity than I do. But I think it is just poison for us both. Enough is enough. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html >> Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >> From: Thomas Worthington guess@who.org [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > just to > have a go at me does. I wasn't trying to have a go at you personally and I am not toally devoid of knowledge on this topic, having done a bit of translation in the past as a hobby as well as a certain amount of research on the topic of language generally as part of my work, but I felt that your attack on Griffis' post was lacking a clear counter-proposal or any explanation of why you objected _so_ strongly to what was a fairly innoculous, generalised, post to a newbie. TWW >Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs >From: Thomas Worthington guess@who.org [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >why you objected _so_ strongly to what was a fairly innoculous, >generalised, post to a newbie. Well, that may be *your* take on it--but certainly not born out by the evidence. See this? >Miosi, R. A Reading Book of Second >Intermediate Period Texts. (likely >more ME, but some OE would be included) My first post was: Subject: Re: Learning Hieroglyphs From: marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban) Date: 10/25/2003 12:17 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <20031025041723.22647.00000198@mb-m18.aol.com> Old Egyptian was the language of Dynasties 1-8. So one would not find any "Old Egyptian" texts from the Second Intermediate Period, as one poster here has erroneously suggested. Regardless, Old Egyptian passed into Middle Egyptian "with but little modification" (Sir Alan Gardiner). Since there are many books ( and in English, not German) that concentrate on teaching Middle Egyptian, there is really not much point in a beginner attempting to learn Old Egyptian from German books they probably can't read in the first place. Collier and Manley is a good book for beginners--the best way to start out learning Egyptian that I know of. Anyone who learns Middle Egyptian can read Old Egyptian, too. However, some of the titles of Old Kingdom individuals present some complexities. (end of post) I don't see any "attack" there or any "strong objections". In fact, I named no names. The original poster even indicated she was thinking of buying the book. She wants, I think, Old Egyptian texts. She will not get them from that book. I was perfectly correct in what I wrote above. It was not my intention to start up anything. If Griffis meant something different by what *she* wrote above, I am not a mind reader and cannot have known. I just read what I saw. I have nothing more to say about any of this. Lay off. "THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again! http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.