This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As for dates, there are ~40 inscriptions. To get an accurate date range of usage for each letter, someone would have to collect which letters appear in which inscriptions, and have each inscription dated. I think that is out-of-scope for a synopsis. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Albright (1966) and Colless (2010) are now decoupled from [37]. Wow, that took a lot more time than I thought it would. But hopefully it's for the better. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Which sound is referred to by the s with over-dot (ṡ) in ṡamk at samekh?.
which transliteration system was used there -- dont imply different ones in a single article without purpose/stating of doing so
the only thing with my limited institutional access i could find in the internet, is by Shehadeh (1987) which i cant access as full text, in which ṡ is used for the merger of s1 and s3 of the Leslau-system (i.e. *š "shin" and *s "samekh"). if the author of that table is refering to this notation, then it should be removed as this script obviously does not exhibit this merging.
elsewise: what's the meaning of it?? satiate my curiosity before i perish :D
Don't know. Should be a sharp "s". Debresser (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
it looks like it was the notation used by Albright (1966). In later scholarship by Colless (2010), the over-dot was removed. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The notation likely denoted the /ts/ sound, which is attested in Proto-Semitic and Phoenician. INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
So, may i change it to "s", or shall i leave it as ambiguous as it is (by Shehadehs definition) since linguists are not unanimous to what "Shin" vs "Samekh" sound values were
(i.e. same situation as with PIE or better said its descendants like OHGerman or some Romance Languages as you can observe with certain varieties of Spanish or Portuguese: - original sole sibilant being somewhat retracted, e.g. apico-alveolar [s̺], - while sound shifts introduced a further "normal" i.e. nowadays all around the world common dental [s̪] from certain earlier instanced of /t/ by affrication to /t͡s/ (or even a original phoneme regardless) via later ongoing deaffrication; both sibilants coexisting and contrasting, ... due to push-effects their distinguishability increased by the newly introduced [s̪] pushing the older [s̺]'s already hushing sound quality to something like [ʃ] ... as we can observe in German, preserved before stops, e.g. stone vs stein [ʃtain] , but salt vs salz [salt͡s] -- note here the affrication of the final /t/ too. confer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_fricative#Voiceless_apico-alveolar_sibilant)
In the latter case of reflecting this "uncertain" /s/ phoneme, may i change every such "s" of the reconstructed names into bearing ṡ ?
I don't like all those diacritics, so if it is my blessing you are waiting for, go ahead. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Fish
Semitic languages have three relevant words that mean fish
- Dag (Hebrew, Ugaritic?; possibly from Proto Indo-European)
- Nun (Aramaic, Akkadian; possibly from Sumerian)
- Samaka (Arabic, possibly South Semitic languages)
Which one was used by Proto-Sinaitic? Let's discuss here INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
There are a possible fish or two in these two pics of potters' marks here. Feel free to discuss by editing that page. Temerarius (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I was asking for the world. But since Proto-Sinaitic was used in Sinai and the Nile, it is most likely "dag". INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Waw
Sometimes there are these Proto-Sinaitic things they call waws that look like later qs and I think that's no good. Should be treated as no good unless a scholar explicitly makes an argument that accounts for it. I was gonna put that under "Q" but it's not Q's fault. Temerarius (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The Qs have two lines from the center or otherwise have an 8 shape. However, I don't know about the Ws (could be descended from a mace, been made independently, or just not exist at all). INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
But it claims that Dag is a mistake, and originally the proto-sinaitic fish glyph is supposed to be Samk. The blog mentions that it morphed in usage from fish, to spine/support. It also claims that there's evidence of hieroglyph F37A being used in place of hieroglyph K1, though it doesn't mention where that source came from. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I should move the fish, but I just added an explanatory footnote. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
So it looks like Colless (2010) recognized the hypothesis, but doesn't fully support it: "if
it really does represent a spinal column with ribs, standing for support and
stability, this is a monstrous version of it" (p.80) 72.216.186.113 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Still, one of the Proto-Canaanite glyphs for support has triangular shapes rather than straight ones (center glyph in Colless's) and could represent a fish. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The word "samk" meant fish in South Semitic languages, while Proto-Sinaitic was developed in the Northwest. Hence, the word for fish was most likely "dagg" (and "nun" if ancient Hebrews migrated from Akkad to Egypt), not "samk".
The Old South Arabian glyph for s is likely taken from the "dagg" glyph, while the "dalt" glyph was used for D instead. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Colless 2014: the "Crypt Cracker" attempts to debunk the Goldwasser hypothesis
Following up where I earlier said I'd read this paper.
"nfr hieroglyph (F38) for tet in the protoalphabet, an icon that is rather opaque and not self-explanatory." p 79 nfr and union are sometimes confused i think
kbšn mš "melt furnace" is fun vocabulary
says rebus principle preceded acrophony. These texts can be read either way and sometimes the diff between the two is subtle.
In the syllabary, a picture of a door evoked the word daltu (door) and acrophonically this yielded the syllable DA; in the consonantary (the protoalphabet) it was D."
pg 85 "A female double breast has no Egyptian prototype." Pair of breasts, that is. There are two egy glyphs for a single female breast. This actually emphasizes that the singular šad is silly to use in our context.
pg 87 nfr = tab = good = t requires Egy literacy
pg 88 Mention of "spine" as possible source for samek is worrying for me as a reader of Colless and he doesn't explain anything about it
89 Kapp mentioned as palm of hand, and palm branch
Fish and door "must" be different sounds he says. I have no idea about fish and door.
you can interpret a sign: logographically, rebogrammatically, syllabically, consonantally,
"Strangely, Goldwasser allows" classified for male name but Anat is pictured
pg 88 he doesn't have a single option to offer for "pk 'l" ??
pg 95 Colless feels improperly lording or victorious toward Goldwasser, it sours me on the whole paper. I get the feeling he doesn't like her or has a competitive streak. He's acting like the arguments he's just posed are airtight when they're various and small thinksome things.
Rating: high importance paper, must-read for editors of this subject. Clarifies the meaning of Goldwasser's paper and the arc of scholarship. Quality is unsatisfying but above average for the niche.
Colless thinks like a locksmith. That's good for crossword puzzles but slightly misapplied here? It's a messy topic full of amibguities.
The last two sentences of the paper are good:
"...1000 BCE when there were no picture-signs. But at that time they would be saying, so to speak, “D is for Door (Dalet)”, whereas at the start it was “Door [dalt] is for D”, that is, practising acrophony. Ultimately, this is the great boon that Orly Goldwasser has bestowed on her readers: people have learned that the alphabet was indeed formed by means of the acrophonic principle."
I'm going to look up the izbet sartah and the bet shemesh items mentioned
I noticed in passing that the matching character table in this article and the Phoenician alphabet#Table_of_letters have a number of differences in name etc. Is there a sense which is correct (or am I missing something).Ploversegg (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
It's dubious, but apparently the letter names have changed as per a 1904 theory by Theodor Nöldeke (stated in the Phoenician alphabet page). 184.103.165.11 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't read far enough. Wow, that really IS dubious.Ploversegg (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the Phoenician alphabet article the other day and I thought "Wow! There are a lot of errors here. We'll need to clean those up after we've resolved them at the Proto Sinaitic article..." but the question remains: where is the good scholarship? As I stated above, I think it could be productive to start an early alphabet discussion group and brainstorm some papers. The subject is so empty it'd be easy to contribute some original research. (I'm aware of the implications of "original research".) Temerarius (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
If you look at "uncertain.jpg" here, File:Uncertain.jpg nope that's not it, Uncertain.JPG there we go, some of these creative suppositions from the scholars were based on possible bullshit. I love creative and groundbreaking connections, but not when they're wrong. Temerarius (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The Phoenicians changed many of the names of the letters (Naḥš to Nun, Ṣimaḥ? to Ṣade), and many others merged (e.g., Šamš and Ṯann/Ṯad rebranded to Šin; Ḥaṣr and H̱ayt keeping the former's glyph but the latter's name, Naḥš to Nun, etc.). INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Why are you doing this? Your information is wrong. You're just restating your incorrect inferences about it. Temerarius (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You chose a hieroglyph for growing grapes completely out of your imagination. That's not in the sources you're referencing. And look closer at the glyph, they're growing melons or something on those. They're supports meaning weight-bearing, which you can see in the fruit. I just tried to delete that and screwed up the formatting, can you do it? And your conception of the development, as if the phoenicians were responsible for the conceptual changes you're imagining. Not right. And even if you were right, the papers aren't right, so you still wouldn't be. Can't you see that some of these don't many ANY sense? Temerarius (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You're under no obligation to restate Every claim people make in Every paper. You can use your own good judgment, and refrain from adding the things that plain don't make sense. This is a discretion every editor has all the time. Temerarius (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What do you think each glyph of the Proto-Sinaitic script means? Just tell me. It'd be useful for the article INFIYNJTE (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I did not choose that hieroglyph, someone else two months ago. Don't you dare blame everything on me.
The hieroglyph is described as "vine on trellis" and is also called grape arbor; not my fault
"even if you were right... you still wouldn't be" how is that supposed to make sense; is this a "even if I'm wrong I'm right" situations?
šadai in the proto-semitic language was ṯd', never written with an š; why don't you read up proto-semitic.
What explains Naḥs becoming Nun?
At this point, just reinterpret the article for yourself.
In fact, I didn't even build the table nor attribute the hieroglyphs (except the mammalian tusk glyph last week). All I ever did in this article prior to February was small edits, uploads of possible Proto-Sinaitic glyphs (like the ẓil fiasco), and even rearranged correspondences between Proto-Sinaitic and Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic letters.
All I did back then was build upon what was already there, rather than building it myself, so do not give me credit that does not belong to me. INFIYNJTE (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
oh, sorry. That was me, not INFIYNJTE. The grapes thing came from Colless's table, when I was trying to segregate the references as per another IP user's comment on the "Synopsis". I found that about half of it was attributing Albright, the other half from Colless, and the hieroglyphs from Simons or unsourced. Lundin compares the West and South Alphabets, but that's not even a column in the table. I tried to include everything for who claimed what, even if contradictory, but I guess that was too messy... 72.216.186.113 (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's get this clear. I did not build the table nor attribute the hieroglyphs. That was done by past editors months to years ago, with the present-day major revision led in December by an IP address user that introduced the ziq, ġinab, ṣirar, ṯad', ẓil, etc. interpretations from Colless's source. In fact, I sometimes went the direction opposite to the one you disagree with, like when I removed the ẓil row since it wasn't found in any inscription to my knowledge.
However, I am intrigued by your suggestions and perhaps it is necessary we gather to assess whether the current interpretation of the letter names is viable, like I proposed a week ago.
This is just speculation, but it is a possibility that many scholarly articles are based on attempting to make connections between discovered glyphs and Egyptian ones and throwing in a name that "fits" (like the boxy glyph was connected with M43 and the word ġinab "grape" was chosen for it since it begins with the attributed phonetic sound) INFIYNJTE (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What we need to understand is
Proto-Sinaitic and Phoenician are different scripts and it is possible there isn't a line of direct descent.
It is important to discuss each Proto-Sinaitic symbol instead of taking each scholar at face value.
There could be creative "yellow" scholarship involved in the sources, like with Colless's Ẓil.
I apologize for misattributing. I second the idea to gather and discuss. Anywhere in particular? Temerarius (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think inscription 351 might have a Samk or alternatively an unknown symbol and a T, since those don't look like Ḏ or Ṯ.
The 𓉽 hieroglyph you found in the turnip means "support", which could be a variant of samk also. INFIYNJTE (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Great point they could. It'd be nice for us to get connected with some ancient Egypt specialists. Good to know if those 𓉽 served as buttresses for tents, or what. Temerarius (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
"Yellow scholarship" like clickbaity you mean? Why, did he emphasize the phallic aspect of zil? I only remember "umbrella." Temerarius (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion suggests we should split out the content in this article about the Proto-Canaanite script into a new article. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Do we know enough about the Proto-Canaanite script? INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Concurring with the talk in 2018, the sources supporting P-C weren't reliable enough, the inscriptions were too short, and decipherment confidence was low.
The best we can do is make an article about a hypothetical script used by the Canaanites that is yet to be fully understood, but that's about it. INFIYNJTE (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
We know a fair amount about some of the early Canaanite inscriptions from a physical and archaeological viewpoint, but as I said above, the inscriptions come from various times and places and are rather short, so it's hard to even assemble a coherent overall list of symbols (as is possible for Sinaitic proper), which means that a complete or near-complete alphabet is definitely not known... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
That means we can create a coherent table of possible symbols in the article, including the ś glyph found in the Lachish comb inscription.
Let's start working on it tomorrow or Monday. INFIYNJTE (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
It would help to have an agreed and complete list of:
all the inscriptions from Sinai, and
all the inscriptions from Canaan
The sources say that this totals c.40 inscriptions. We have already know of:
...which totals 30-38. Which others are missing? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Wadi el-Hol is in Middle Egypt, not in the Sinai Peninsula nor in Canaan. The problem with the terminology is that it implies the location is the determining factor, when in fact, it's more of a matter of time, which Simons states clearly: "The principal debate is between an early date, around 1850 BC, and a late date, around 1550 BC. The choice of one or the other date decides whether it is proto-Sinaitic or proto-Canaanite, and by extension locates the invention of the alphabet in Egypt or Canaan respectively." 72.216.186.113 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't find that lachish comb paper very convincing. I think it's creative. If there were a connection to the isolated Ugaritic script, it'd be a blaring klaxon, not this tiny stuff. And that Mario-Bros-turnip glyph, I think it might have a couple of 𓉽 on it? Instead of that padlock shape. https://imgur.com/a/jECK7nK If not that it might be 𓄥 F36 lung and windpipe or 𓄤 F35 heart and windpipe? Variations on those were popular. It's lovely that they gave photos under different lighting of the artifact. Temerarius (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
it does not have any connection to Ugaritic. It is Proto-Canaanite. INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The Ugaritic script seems to descend from Proto-Canaanite, which seems to contain the ś glyph. It is likely Ugaritic phased out the bag glyph reconstructed from the sentence ytš ḥṭ ḏ lqml śʿ[r w]zqt
That being said, if the glyph has 𓉽 shapes, then it could perhaps represent a field with plants, leading to a rediscovery of the śadaw "field" glyph, but that's just a theory that needs much more support for it to be viable. INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
How about the šadai "breasts" glyph? This one takes after 𓐮 Aa32 but I can't think of a word for "bow" that starts with any s. Wiktionary says that shin comes from some other Egyptian bow glyph, which isn't right. Temerarius (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
That would mean going back to square one, since šadai is ṯad "breasts" INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hm. This gives rise to a theory that perhaps one of the ṯ glyphs was used to represent ś (just like śamš "sun" represents š), though this might be reasonably defeated by the difference between the Lachish ś and P-C ṯad/ṯann glyphs. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1. Sms: snake-encircling-sundisk "shamash" glyph here? Is this one the basis of 𓇴 sms sun being on there? If this is the only attestation of it, I think it's weak. Temerarius (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Egyptian has a symbol for breasts. (𓂑 D27, 𓂒 D27A)
The Semitic speakers are copying familiar symbols from a language they have no literacy in, as Goldwasser 2006.
They copy 𓐮 Aa32 "bow" glyph. To them it looks "more like breasts than breasts", so it functions as š šaday.
They become pointy: 𐤔 is the later form
Just like the bow looked more like breasts than a bow, this one looks like sharp teeth more than it does breasts. It becomes shin, teeth. The Semitic semiotic stepladder. Temerarius (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Śamš (Š) is attested by Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, not by Lachish Comb. INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you show me which ones? I posted the only one I could find. Temerarius (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, of course you have the hoax? texts at Timna. "[1]Wimmer, Stefan Jakob. "A proto-sinaitic inscription in Timna/Israel: New Evidence on the Emergence of the Alphabet." Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2.2 (2010): 1-12" and there is a table of characters at the end of "[2]Simons, Frank. "Proto-Sinaitic–progenitor of the alphabet." Rosetta 9 (2011): 16-40". And Parker mentions a couple I am unsure of, a dagger etc "[3]Parker, Hope. "THE PROTO-SINAITIC INSCRIPTIONS AT SERABIT EL-KHADIM IN THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT." Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant 32 (2022): 269-311".Ploversegg (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Having looked into this further, I believe the only known such inscriptions from Sinai are the Serabit el-Khadim proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. All the other inscriptions are from elsewhere, and therefore do not reasonably fit into an article titled "Proto-Sinaitic" script... Onceinawhile (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Although no longer mainly found in Sinai, the script is still described as Proto-Sinaitic by archeologists and hence we should keep it like that. Pretty much a name that has lost its original meaning. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, a bit like Assyriology#Terminology? Can you find a source which states that explicitly, so we can explain it in the article? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm just saying that archaeology refers to the other inscriptions as Proto-Sinaitic. No distinction has been made. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
See LeBlanc, Paul D. (2017). Deciphering the Proto-Sinaitic Script: Making Sense of the Wadi el-Hol and Serabit el-Khadim Early Alphabetic Inscriptions. Subclass Press. p. Preface. ISBN978-0-9952844-0-1. Its importance lies in the fact that proto-Sinaitic represents our alphabet's earliest developmental period. So far, only two major discoveries of these inscriptions have been made. The first batch came to light in 1904-1905, in the Sinai, when Hilda and Flinders Petrie discovered what are now referred to as the Serabit el-Khadim inscriptions. The second group was discovered by John and Deborah Darnell in as recently as the 1990s, in Middle Egypt, and is known as the pair of Wadi el-Hol inscriptions.
This explicitly includes only Serabit and Wadi el-Hol. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Two more:
Woodard, Roger D. (2008). The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia. Cambridge University Press. p. 104-105. ISBN978-1-139-46934-0. The problem of the Proto-Canaanite inscriptions is directly linked with that of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. The latter are a group of inscriptions, numbering about thirty, discovered near Egyptian turquoise mines in the Sinai, dated variously to the eighteenth or fifteenth centuries BC, which have been only partially deciphered but which seem to represent a form of early West Semitic (for a recent overview with bibliography, see Pardee 1997b). Corresponding to these texts are a group of about twenty texts discovered in southern Canaan and spread over about five centuries, from the seventeenth century BC to the twelfth (Sass 1988, 1991). The state of preservation of these latter, Proto-Canaanite, inscriptions is even poorer than is that of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.
Golden, Jonathan M. (2009). Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction. OUP USA. pp. 243–244. ISBN978-0-19-537985-3. By the beginning of the second millennium BCE (the late Middle Bronze Age in Canaan), the scribes of Ugarit began to use a new script based on twenty-seven cuneiform characters. The southern Canaanites also developed new scripts of their own, two variations in fact-Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite-both of which were also based upon the use of acronyms (Albright 1966; Cross 1967; Naveh 1982). Unfortunately, only a few examples of each have been recovered to date, and the ones that do exist are mostly incomplete and therefore difficult to decipher. As a result, some fundamental questions regarding the time of the first Proto-Canaanite scripts and the origins of the alphabet remain unanswered... Proto-Sinaitic... Today archaeologists know of some thirty to forty Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions that have been found on statuettes and stelae and carved into the rock faces around Serabit el-Khadim... Proto-Canaanite... Further north, another version of this new script began to emerge. Current knowledge of this script, Proto-Canaanite, is based on some twenty-five inscriptions, the earliest dating to the late Middle Bronze Age and the latest appearing at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. These inscriptions, most of which were found in a relatively small area in the southern Shephelah, span much of the second millennium BCE, though there is a notorious fourteenth-century-BCE. gap from which no texts have been found... The earliest known example of a Proto-Canaanite inscription is one word incised on a bronze dagger discovered at Lachish of the MB2 (eighteenth to seventeenth century BCE) (Starkey 1934). At first these inscriptions appeared in rather pedestrian contexts-for example, potsherds from Gezer and Nagila-and may have been used to identify the potter. It is possible that this new script was used more informally at first, while Akkadian remained the official language, which is certainly plausible considering that the new script was more accessible and required less rigorous training. In the thirteenth and twelfth (and possibly eleventh) centuries BCE, Proto-Canaanite inscriptions appear more frequently in the archaeological record, and their distribution is more widespread, though still largely in the south. These include examples from Lachish, Beth Shemesh, and 'Izbet Sartah. The inscription from the 'Izbet Sartah ostracon seems to represent the exercise of a scribe-in-training. On one line appear the letters of the alphabet, but there are several omissions and departures from the order typical of the time, and several odd combinations of signs make portions of the inscription unintelligible (Mazar 1990). By this time, Proto-Canaanite was also used for religious purposes, as indicated by an inscribed ewer found in the Fosse Temple at Lachish (c. 1220 .c.E.), which bears a blessing to a goddess...The latest Proto-Canaanite inscriptions date to the eleventh century B.C.E. Examples from this time have been found at Rapa and Gerba'al, and a group of five inscribed arrowheads was found near el-Khadr, south of Bethlehem
I don't disagree with the motion, but exactly what problem is it meant to solve? I'd like to be specific about goals because the current article is in not-great shape, and it's probably not the editors' faults, but because the scholarship on the subject is quite poor. Temerarius (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The best articles across our project have a clearly defined scope. The worst articles have vague scopes. The reason for this is that vague scopes in a free-to-edit encyclopedia mean different editors bring different interpretations, and thus edit over time with conflicting boundaries. Clearly defined scopes result in alignment between the article's editors, and the article iterates over times towards quality and excellence.
In order to achieve that here we have either two choices:
Bring together all relevant proto-Semitic scripts, whether from Sinai/Egypt or Canaan (i.e. the merge option above)
Alright, now we discuss this proposal with those working on the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet article in their article talk to make sure they are on board, preventing disagreements and undone edits. INFIYNJTE (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I think calling it the Canaanite script or alphabet sounds too sure. The main noun in the article title should be something like "development". Temerarius (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
How about an article like "Inscriptions relevant to the development of the early alphabet between years x and y?" Temerarius (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
No, because Proto-Canaanite itself is hypothetical. Best to use what we have (Proto-Canaanite alphabet) and state it is hypothetical and its shortcomings. INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. By the way, Wadi el-Hol inscriptions is surprisingly thin given this discussion. Maybe if it were more robust it would take some pressure off this article? Temerarius (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The name is wordy and we already have articles about the inscriptions. Meanwhile, there's already a "Proto-Canaanite Alphabet" article we could use for this split. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A question of scope, I'm interested in sites like Kuntillet Ajrud, Deir Alla, tel Arad. Those are on one side or the other of 800BCE. What set is this? I'd love a page about the alphabet's development during this period. Temerarius (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Onceinawhile -- The term "Proto-Semitic script" is unfortunately somewhat meaningless. But I support the proposal to make clear that only Serabit el-Khadim, and possibly Wadi el-Hol, are properly "Proto-Sinaitic"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
These terms are used as synonyms in the literature, and both (a) and (b) in Proto-Canaanite alphabet are covered in this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
DO NOT MERGE -- "Proto-Sinaitic" refers to inscriptions largely found in one specific location. "Proto-Canaanite" is a more general term. Pre-1050 B.C. inscriptions found in Canaan proper are quite fragmentary and not well understood. Since they come from different times and places, it's hard to assemble a coherent alphabet. With Proto-Sinaitic, it's possible to at least compile a listing of different symbols, and many scholars accept that at least one word -- LB`LT -- has been deciphered. I don't see what would be gained by dissolving the circumscribed geography and chronology and limited certainties of Proto-Sinatic into the Proto-Canaanite zone of great ignorance... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @AnonMoos: I understand and recognize your point. My proposal is based on the current status of the two articles. This article (Proto-Sinaitic) explicitly includes Proto-Canaanite in its scope throughout, in each of the four paragraphs of the lede, in the Discovery section, in the Name section, and in the Inscriptions in Canaan section. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Rebalancing some of the content into the other article could make sense... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Both terms largely refer to location. Your point still stands though. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they should be merged. At least to me, the proto-Canaanite inscriptions on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon looks distinctively different from the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. The former looking more abstract and closer to the Phoenician script. 2600:8800:80:78:4439:F5B6:845F:E611 (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see reason for merge. Temerarius (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
h
I think descent from hallul or any window to the later ה ח or anything inbetween is not possible. But I think this is one of the easiest ones to crack, because there are abundant comparative examples that could chart the way. Also, h is one of the easiest letters to spot in otherwise washed-out inscriptions. Temerarius (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know where the "window" interpretation came from, though glyphs representing /h/ depict a person with their arms raised, which could either represent haw, hll "jubilation", or something else. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Reinterpretations/inscriptions
T
𓄤 𓊖 nfr "beautiful" ṭab "good" is never taken for tet or taw that I can see. A symbol like the Egy. 𓄤 is taken for a qof-waw ligature by Albright for some reason. But I don't see it in the inscriptions as interpreted by the authors, so I'm gonna remove it. I also don't like the look of that compound bow, and shamash as snake-sun 𓇴 is if only on that Timna weight, creative and likely wrong. Can anybody show me these in the inscriptions or the boxy bow? To me, it looks like that table was made by people who read the references without attaining meaningful familiarity with them. Temerarius (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The sun with Uraeus was chosen due to the lines in the š glyph.
Also, why would booby, out of all glyphs, be the one representing the š sound.
It's many sources against one user. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin, but I just found this while we were talking: https://imgur.com/a/1F9xyHw Doesn't that look like somebody who didn't know about the letter šadi? Once instance on the second one, two on the bottom one. Temerarius (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you tell me what is wrong with š as sun? Also, the image you showed doesn't look like Proto-Sinaitic at all, but rather like some early Phoenician scriptINFIYNJTE (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is I think they're drawing something that isn't there. Remember we're working with a tiny pool of very creative scholarship here. Goldwasser and whoever first pointed out the breasts meaning are the only points of light in a dark area. But if there is such a glyph, fine. I was only worried about it before I saw there was a second person seriously arguing for it. Temerarius (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The striken š glyph isn't there, not even in Colless's source. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Updated the article and removed the false glyph. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm somewhat supportive of the śamš "sun" interpretation and it is likely that š was a less common phoneme, given how much of the words with š in Hebrew resulted from ṯ alveolarizing into s~š in various Semitic languages like Phoenician and Hebrew, which didn't happen fully in Arabic and Aramaic (example: ṯd', Hebrew: שד, Aramaic: תַּדָּא/𐡕𐡃𐡀, Arabic: صدر/ثَدْي) INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
However, the sun glyph likely faded away in favor of the ṯann/ṯd' glyphs as ṯ became alveolarized, with them becoming pointier and getting reinterpreted as šinn "tooth" by the time of the Phoenicians. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
𓈌 is the thing on Petrie's reference he turned upside down, and that tail on it isn't on my scan. Temerarius (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I think most scholarship calls that a lampwick, and it's the second time it's on the chart, then the non-grape-vine thing, what does that have to do with grapes or ע? Where's the source say that? Temerarius (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The ġinab hieroglyph is "vine on trellis", possibly denoting a grapevine, which conveniently fits with ġanbab/ġinab "grape", as per Colless and unicode. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
They didn't grow grapes like that. It's convenient but it's not in the source and it's not correct. Possible, sure, we can talk about it but not in the article. Temerarius (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, I found a source that says grapes were grown on trellis.
It also has to do a lot with ġinab since the Hebrew word is עַנָב beginning with ע, the letter which merged with ġinab.
The problem is where the so-called ġinab symbol is depicted.
As part of the suggested rewrite, we need to discuss the inscriptions containing the Proto-Sinaitic script (or the similar) script to reinterpret the symbols and their meaning. INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
From Wadi El-Hol, I can see the following symbols (left-to-right)
Meanwhile, inscription 360 seems to show an early version of ṯann "composite bow" as well as ṯad "breasts", and maybe Coless's śamš (which is shaped similarly to ṯad) [the stricken variant of śamš is nowhere to be found]
Update: the first unknown symbol in the II inscription might be ġanbab. INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Ganbab as in what? Ayin? Right near an eye-shaped ayin? Temerarius (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
ġanbab = ġinab INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The symbol in the third and penultimate positions of the second wadi inscription reminds me of this 𓀫 and this https://i.imgur.com/uyGwcfR.png a bit ... Temerarius (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the imgur symbol in Egyptian hieroglyphs. INFIYNJTE (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I think your lameds in the first might be ns Temerarius (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
most likely; I was conflicted between lamed and naḥaš but since there are round glyphs, it is likely the latter. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
You mean fig 360 for the one with the first and last legible being 𓐮? Same glyph, their arm's at a different angle at top and bottom writing it, or fatigued variation from ideal. Temerarius (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
wait, why are we reinterpreting the symbols?
In the "Wadi el-Hol inscriptions" section, it's already stated that Colless translated:
> [Vertical] mšt r h ʿnt ygš ʾl
> [Horizontal] rb wn mn h ngṯ h ʾ p mẖ r 184.103.165.11 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I read some of the Serabit el-Khadim inscriptions and found
as well as two symbols similar to the bag turnip (349, 367), a razored head, scratch marks?, a circle, a square, a mace?, half a kapp, more scratch marks, and a literal P. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Found Śamš in 356 INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Nvm, it's an aleph. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
could be a śamš or aleph INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Where? Show me. I'm looking at it right now, I don't see it. Temerarius (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, spoke without refreshing. Temerarius (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
top-right symbol INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There was also two clear instance of Śamš in the Timna inscription, though the more simple form of the glyphs alongside its location might point to Proto-Canaanite instead of Proto-Sinaitic INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
That "corner" interpretation always looked suspect to me. Looks like the Cypriot𐠠 𒾩 12FA9 Temerarius (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
What would cypriot have anything to do with serabit inscriptions.
At this point, knowing you were responsible for the šaddai edit for ś, I'm starting to think you don't know what you are talking about. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying you doubt the breasts interpretation? Temerarius (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It's in the source that you're using to argue right now Temerarius (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. It was later found that breasts meant ṯad (ṯ?), not š.
I was a bit impatient when I made the above comment. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
"Bet Resh" INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I think a reasonable point of view is that anything other than bet resh would require accounting for, yes. Temerarius (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, let's continue another day since I'm really exhausted (have been on this all day) and will probably go crazy if I continue. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
INFIYNJTE -- If we were to personally reinterpret inscriptions, that would be the dreaded "original research" ... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
We were looking at the inscriptions to see which ones shown in the papers are present and which ones aren't.
Since you are here, can you show me inscriptions that have the symbols for ẓ and š? INFIYNJTE (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Your reference on šin is kinda hard to read, don't you consider this fringe? Temerarius (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Š is in inscription 357 according to Albright, which could be interpreted as a molar Šinn INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
But it is most likely two snakes surrounding the sun, like described by Coless. INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Since the reinterpretation (in accordance with the sources), the meanings and symbols have largely remained the same. In fact, we concluded with less symbols than some of the sources (we must always watch out for creative scholarship). INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Q
I think the common wisdom about qoph, that it's a needle and thread, is well supported. The proto sinaitic q that is claimed to be a monkey, sometimes it looks less like a monkey and more like one of these. https://imgur.com/a/AjoMyNz from https://archive.org/details/ERA42/page/n149/mode/2up?view=theater I know of one inscription where it does look like a monkey, but I'm not sure that's so widespread. If it were inkwell, that'd be like a pared down version of hiero number Y3 𓏞 scribe's gear. However, the fact that these examples of ink trays are symmetrical and the qophs aren't may speak against this idea. Temerarius (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The one used by the Phoenicians was definitely Colless's "Qaw", not Qup.
The Phoenician alphabet seemingly inherited the name Qup as Qop but used the shape of "Qaw", which seems to depict a needle.
However, I haven't found any Semitic word for needle that starts with Q.
Edit: Nvm, the Hebrew word for line is קו, meaning the Proto-Sinaitic script most likely interpreted the needle eye as "line". INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Qaw, a measuring line? What was Colless's reference for that one again? I didn't immediately find it in "Comparative semitic lexicon phoenician and punic". That'd be a different instrument from needle and thread. I think lopsided and loopy ones like in Carchemish.png File:Carchemish.png could reflect a needle-threading action. The measuring line as a symbol of power, as in Descent of Inanna and IIRC goddess imagery in Petrie's Researches in Sinai, https://archive.org/details/researchesinsina00petruoft/ is a curious one with staying power. What was the Egyptian conception of it? Was it a hieroglyph? Is the letter A-looking thing in Shabti's grasps in Shabty of Amunemhat, ca. 1400-1336 B.C.E.,50.128.jpg a measuring line of... some kind? Sorry if silly question. Anyway it's A-shaped whatever it is. When I see a q-shaped measuring line, I'll be interested in seeing if the thread is visible in its eye. Temerarius (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Personally, what do you think of Albright, Colless, Simons, and Cross INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Did they all collaborate on a paper? Albright's widely seen as full of shit. I like Colless because his paper has the šadi reference that I was seeking for some time. But I thought he was a little credulous with others' work that wasn't demonstrated. But you can't blame. I'll have to look again to remember Simons and Cross's papers specifically. Temerarius (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
That reminds me, do you think it'd be advisable to keep this discussion here for openness, or elsewhere for the sake of complying with -- WP:OR and getting in trouble for calling people full of shit. I'm open to moving some discussion that isn't meant to be here to a user page (like my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Temerarius/Early_Alphabetic) or an appropriate Discord server I know. Wide open for discussion. Temerarius (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Wait, Albright is wrong? I thought he was the most reliable one, although I can tell since he clearly interpreted the inscriptions rather strangely (and he also associated a certain glyph with ḡ)
I guess we have a lot of re-interpreting to do INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Albright's idea was descent from the hieratic or another non-hieroglyphic Egyptian way of writing. Reasonable assumption, but Goldwasser turned it all back round to the original hypotheses. Because it doesn't make sense. It's wrong. The alphabetic theory and acophonic or apophonic principle, whatever, wouldn't be able to function if the descent were like that. Hence, everything's highly conceptually bound at the early points. That's the thing you gotta understand to see the same things I'm seeing in these. Temerarius (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you tell me more about the original theory and names? INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The original theory was the proto sinaitic hypothesis, so to speak. Descent from hieroglyphs to P-Sinai, where the Albright "school" (I guess he had a school) made a different calculation here and inserted an intermediary. Goldwasser said "Hold on everybody, they had it right a century ago," which happens sometimes in these fields, and that's why she's got a hundred citations on that short, simple paper. She's the reason this technical term is enough note to even be an article, probably. This is best from my memory. Temerarius (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
But back then, they had a DIFFERENT hangup, where they wanted to make the grand unified theory that'd connect every unknown thing, like Minoan and Cypriot scripts even, to Egyptian. These interpretations that don't make sense were supposed to be ideas halfway between those imaginary evolutions, their missing links among phoenician, the rest of the scripts. That's why I mentioned uncertain.JPG above when I came across it. This is reflective of a confusion of Babel story way of seeing the topic. Temerarius (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You should have asked me about this before when I said it didn't look like you read the papers. Wouldn've been a great opportunity. I'd love to put together some teaching materials for you. Have you found anybody else might wanna discuss this? I invited User :פעמי-עלי Temerarius (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
So, Goldwasser seems to coincide with my personal interpretation: Proto-Sinaitic were simplified and repurposed forms of Egyptian hieroglyphs. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Apparently, Colless debunked? Goldwasser's hypothesis due to the STELA 92 INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Debunked which part lol Temerarius (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I haven't read it all. Only small parts
but one part in the text under the STELA 92 section says "A new “link” is thus made; the “house” built by Orly Goldwasser collapses; her hypothesis is refuted." INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
that sounds so thirsty lol i can't wait to read it Temerarius (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The "Goldwasser hypothesis" taken here is that the P-Sinai scriptors were all illiterate in Egyptian? Then yes, I also hesistate. We certainly don't have enough of these inscriptions, or enough insight about them, to decide that's history. Not all Semitic people are in the "marginal" illiterate subset. Among other arguments. I don't even need to read all these 22 arguments, at least not tonight. Great tip, though. Temerarius (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I think "Goldwasser's Moral", so to speak, is not to take facile interpretations of hieroglyphs due to correspondences that require literacy. Temerarius (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I still don't get why you call it "šad(a)i", even though the Proto-Semitic word was ṯd'. Sure, ṯ eventually evolved into š, but quite after the time of Proto-Sinaitic. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay but do you know how they infer the supposition you're repeating? It's kinda arbitrary; proto- means it's reconstructed. I think they chose the obscure word to write down there instead of the familiar one to tread round sensitive sensibilities. Temerarius (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
In Proto-Semitic or Proto-Sinaitic? INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
in P-Semitic. Proto Semitic is a reconstructed language and proto Sinaitic petroglyphs. Is that what you mean? Temerarius (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Neither Egyptian nor Semitic was done moving their esses around by these times, or--they weren't borrowing shins and sameks between them with consistency until later. So much is in the air. This includes of course some ts and zs, however you want to write them. Temerarius (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
New scholarship has suggested that Ṡamekh, Šin, Ṣad, and Zayin originally had the sounds /ts/, /s/~/s̱/~/š/, /ts'/, and /dz/.
This is the interpretation I've gone by personally. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
does semitic ts correspond to egyptian dj? Temerarius (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
"In the new kingdom, egy ḏ was used to transcribe ṣ" Steiner 2001 "Another aramaic text in demotic script" Temerarius (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Whose scholarship? Temerarius (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hacket and Krahmalkov INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Page 267 of the scorpion spell from wadi hammamat: another Aramaic text RC Steiner is relevant to the phonemic development here. Temerarius (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I will read. Temerarius (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
^Çambel, Halet (1999). Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Inscriptions of the Iron Age (3 pt.). Berlin New York: W. de Gruyter. ISBN3-11-014870-6.
Djed - samek
"In the new kingdom, egyptian ḏ was used to transcribe canaanite ṣ" Steiner 2001 "Another aramaic text in demotic script"
Temerarius (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
In other words, an emphatic s (as opposed to a voiceless s) was represented by Egyptian ḏ INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I have more on s correspondences if you need. Temerarius (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
We must remember that between the invention of the Canaanite alphabet and the flourishing of the Aramaic in Demotic script past hindreds of year, in which we know for sure that the pronounciation of letters like ṣ had changed. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Sinai rock drawings
Looking for a goad or a shepherd's crook? Try petroglyphs. They could confirm a letter.
With stuff like this, you can see how somebody actually drew a shepherd's staff, goad, flail. Temerarius (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Timna is a magnificent site! But I'm not sure what does it have to do with ancient writing. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)