Disputatio:Tabula Rosettana

Tabula Rosettana fuit pagina mensis Augusti 2010.

Pontifex

I see you have rendered ἱερεύς as pontifex. The precedent of Ameilhon's translation notwithstanding, isn't this a somewhat odd word to use? I was under the impression that the Romans called nearly all foreign priests sacerdotes and reserved flamen and pontifex for their own. On the other hand, the L&S lists some examples of it being used for Jews in the Vulgate. --Iustinus 06:51, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've been consistent. Please introduce the preferable term throughout. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Αρχιερευς is rendered "princeps sacerdotum" in Vulgate Matthew; as "summus sacerdos" in Vulgate Mark; and as "pontifex" in Vulgate John (all kept from the Vetus Latina).--Chris1981 04:29, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. So clearly the rule is not inviolable. Do you know of any examples outside of the Bible? --Iustinus 04:56, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

According to Georges sacerdos is a more general term, while flamen refers to a priest of a specific deity.--Chris1981 20:23, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely true, but not only that, flamen refers to a very specific class of Roman priest, of which there was a specific, set number of them. I would be surprised to find a locus classicus using flamen for a foreign priest. But I am less certain about pontifex. Again, I know that sacerdos is the preferred word for foreign priest, but clearly pontifex is used for "high priest" in some biblical texts, and ends up being an epithet of the pope. --Iustinus 20:39, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Demotica

Descriptions of the Rosetta Stone frequently speak of Demotic and Hieroglyphic as two writing systems encoding the same language. While this is literally true, it is a bit misleading, as Demotic represents a later form of the Egyptian language than Hieroglyphic does. So the wording of the Hieroglyphic and Demotic inscriptions is in fact quite different. Consequently Egyptologists use "Demotic" both as the name of a writing system, and as the name of a language—or rather a stage in the evolution of the Egyptian language. This is worth keeping in mind as we write this article. For instance, if we are going to refer to Demotic under the lemma of Scriptura Demotica, we are also going to need an article for Lingua Aegyptia Demotica, which will also need to be linked to the page. --Iustinus 07:58, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know the language and I don't. What mattered to the writers of the decree was that it should be in three scripts; and the fact that two of the scripts could be seen as recording the same language mattered to the early decipherers as well. So these points mustn't be lost sight of. That having been said, please rewrite as you think best, and I think it is very important to make clear the differences between the two texts (and the differences in the third text as well). I can't easily do this from sources to hand: I very much hope you can. And of course, yes, there needs to be an article about that stage of Egyptian. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Is it considered that, to the makers of the decree, the first text sounded different from the second one? Different phonetics, different affixes/infixes, different spoken vocabulary, all of the above? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:43, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Well, the evidence is that the Egyptians themselves pronounced Hieroglyphic and Demotic Egyptian the same way, much as Catholics pronounce Latin like Italian (and non-Orthodox Jews now almost universally pronounce Hebrew like Israelis do). But yes, the grammar and vocabulary are different. The extent to which they are different can vary, because the language of Hieroglyphs can be used to imitate the Egyptian of more than one period (and of course not al Egyptians had the knowledge or will to reproduce it 100% accurately). As I recall the language of the Hieroglyphic Rosettana inscription is fairly late, but still significantly different from the Demotic inscription..

In any case, I will absolutely be writing about the differences between the three inscriptions—that is, after all, the subject most interesting to me personally. I'll need to do some more research (where did I put Moyens d'éxpression?), and figure out just how to integrate it, but this is definitely on the agenda. --Iustinus 14:12, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

I see that en: lumps both the writing system and the language under the lemma en:Demotic (Egyptian). I tend to think this is the right way to go. But the real question is what the Latin lemma should be to cover both. --Iustinus 22:34, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Similar inscriptions

You already mention the other texts of the Memphis Decree, as well as the Canopus decree (though as I said above, we should probably avoid phrasing like "Quae leges, semper bilingues et in tribus scripturis expressae"—again, this is technically true, but a bit misleading) but we should also find a place to mention the Raphia Stele and the trilingual inscription of C. Cornelius Gallus. I don't know where yet though. --Iustinus 08:14, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen mentions of the Gallus inscription but I know no more as yet. I hadn't even heard of the Raphia stele! I agree of course that these should be mentioned and linked in. And if we think there is more to say about this Memphis decree than can conveniently be said in the Rosetta Stone article, we can of course start a separate article about it, replacing the present redirect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

The Raphia stele is very interesting. I looked into it briefly when I was writing my paper on interpreters in late Egypt. Polybius specifically mentions interpreters at the battle, so it was suggested I should check if the stele does too—it is an account of the same battle. It doesn't, and in fact it barely even mentions the armies!

I am OK with the redirect for now. We can certainly consider this article to be about both topics until we have the time and energy to write about the Memphis Decree as a separate subject (be that tomorrow or years down the line). But I still feel the introductory sentence should define the Rosetta Stone as a stone that contains a decree, rather than a decree that is on a stone. --Iustinus 14:18, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Differences between the three versions

Andrew has asked me to write about the differences between the three translations of the inscription. I'm very keen to work on this, but as things stand presently I can only offer some random factoids. So until I find the time to work this all into a coherent section for the article, I think I'll just post bits of information here until I can come up with something more thoughtful. --Iustinus 22:07, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

• As already noted in the article, the word for "Greek" in the Demotic section is Wynn (which is derived from "Ionian"), whereas in the Hieroglyphic section it is Ḥɜw-Nbw, which might mean "Inhabitants of the Isles"—a very ancient term for certain peoples situated to the North of Egypt. The point, of course, is that the Hieroglyphic version is kept "pure" of neologisms, and recent concepts like "Greek." Here are the actual texts:

R. 14: [ḫt=tw] sḫɜ pn ḥr ʿḥʿy nty ʿɜ.t rwḏ(.t) m sš-mdw.w-nṯr, sš-šʿy(.t), sḫɜy n Ḥɜw-Nbw "[Incidatur] scriptum hoc super stelen quae magna (est et) fortis in scriptura verborum dei, scriptura epistulae, scriptura τῶν Ḥɜw-Nbw"

32: mtw=w sẖ pɜ wt n wjṱ (n) ỉny ḏry n sẖ-md-nṯr, sẖ-šʿ.t, sẖ-Wynn "et scribant decretum in stela lapidis fortis in scriptura verbi dei, scriptura epistulae, scriptura Graecorum"

[τὸ δε ψήφισμα τοῦτο ἀναγράψαι εἰς στήλην σ]τερεοῦ λίθου τοῖς τε ἱεροῖς καὶ ἐγχωρίοις καὶ Ἑλληνικοῖς γράμμασιν "[hoc autem decretum rescribat(?) in stelen s]olidae lapidis et sacris et enchoricis et Graecis litteris"

The Germans, as usual, already have an article: de:Hau-nebut -Iustinus 03:20, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

• In Hieroglyphic line 6, Demotic line 23, a statue is described in which the god Amun presents Ptolemy with a symbolic khopesh (a common, traditional theme of Egyptian iconography).[1][2][3] In both Hieroglyphic and Demotic the weapon is called something like ḫpš n qn (Dem. qny) "Khopesh of Power." What is the Greek word for khopesh? Apparently there isn't one: the Greek text says simply Ὅπλον Νικητικόν "Armamentum Victoriale".

It is often claimed that the word copis derives from ḫpš, but that seems to me somewhat implausible, or at least difficult to explain. However, nevertheless, when we get to writing about khopeshes, copis Aegyptia seems like the logical appellation (clearly we can't put it under telum!) As a locus classicus for the association of Egyptians with copides, see Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7.3.9. --Iustinus 22:40, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

• Whereas Egypt is pretty much always called Αἴγυπτος in Greek, and Kmy in Demotic, the Hieroglyphic version has several different names for the country: (Note: "N" indicates a citation in the Nubayra Stele. Obviously I'll want to find examples that are actually to be found in the R text.)

Km.t (e.g. N11, c.f. Plutarch, I&O " ἔτι τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα μελάγγειον οὖσαν, ὥσπερ τὸ μέλαν τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ, Χημίαν καλοῦσι καὶ καρδίᾳ παρεικάζουσι")

Tɜ.wy ("The Two Lands", e.g. N2)

Tɜ-Mrỉ (e.g. N11 cf. Stephanus Byzantius Ethica p. 224, quoting Ephorus, "κατ’ Αἰγυπτίους καλουμένη Πτίμυρις")

Bɜq.t (e.g. R11 et seq.—This name shows up at least once in the Demotic version, line 21, as Bqy, but the context implies the appellation was a bit recherché)

King Tut

Totally useless for this article, but fun to point out: in the Nubayra copy of the Memphis Decree the royal epithet "Living Image of Amun"—Twt-ʿnḫ-Ỉmn, conventionally read "Tutankhamun," happens to turn up:

Hieroglyphic: Twt-ʿnḫ-Ỉmn

Demotic: pɜ twtw ʿnḫ n Ỉmn (pɜ = "the", n = "of")

Greek: εἰκόνος ζώσης τοῦ Διός

I find this really cool. Of course the fact that the phrase is translated in the Greek, and the grammar is updated in the Demotic, shows that it was being thought of as an epithet and not a name. --Iustinus 03:27, 23 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

The same translation shows up in the Raphia Stele. --Iustinus 02:36, 24 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that is cool.--Ioscius ^∞ 21:36, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Proprius

De: "L&S shows . . . proprius w dat." Yet most of the examples in Cassell's are with genitive (or "often" with possessive pronoun), as Neander had it (huius gladii propria). IacobusAmor 23:43, 4 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually I think it depends more on if you analyze it as [[nomen [huius gladii]] proprium] or [nomen [[huic gladio] proprium]. But the point is moot, as examples occur with both genitive and dative, with subtle, if any, difference in meaning. So why not just leave it the way I wrote it, unless you want to make a more specific argument for wrongness. --Iustinus 04:17, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Opera iam danda

OK, what now that this page is coming up for pagina mensis, what can be done to improve it? I need to write a little more about the linguistics (starting with Egyptian terms for Greek priests and Greek terms for Egyptian priests), and I think the page could do with some more quotations from Latin sources (I am positive we can find some). What else? --Iustinus 18:49, 7 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled over this: de:Kategorie:Priestertitel (Altes Ägypten). By the way, the de:Portal:Ägyptologie seems to be maintained pretty well.--Chris1981 06:25, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

I found that several minor (-ish) people of this period turned out to have articles only on de:wiki, not on en:wiki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:58, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Minora

Canopus currently links to Canopus... but should that be the first thing it links to, given its use in Homer, and as the name of α Carinae? Also, we say Expeditio Francica, but by the usual rule (Gallicus = Gaulish, Francicus = Frankish, Francogallicus = French, at least for Wiki purposes), shouldn't this be Francogallica? Or has the consensus changed on this? --Iustinus 20:32, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

On the second question, we currently distinguish the name of political France Francia from the name of the French language Lingua Francogallica. I think such distinctions are Really Handy! This was an expedition from political France, not of the linguistic French. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:56, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am partially responsible for this, because I always argued that while we had to distinguish Gallicus, Francicus, and Francogallicus, I also insisted that Francogallia is a silly and unnecessary noun (as I recall this somewhat bothered Iacobus' sense of logic). But to my mind the distinction does not fall where it apparently does for you. --Iustinus 21:18, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Being an antinationalist, I think that the fewer language names identical with national names, the better. Hence, to me, the distinction between Germania and lingua Theodisca is also handy. So, anyway, even if your reasons in this case were different, I am full of praise for the result you produced! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 9 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Yet most peoples of the world are named by their languages: the Asaro people speak Asaro, the Huli people speak Huli, the Téenek people speak Téenek, and so on. Presumably the aptest Latin word for each of these peoples is natio (or perhaps gens). IacobusAmor 11:52, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Natio and gens are closely related ideas: natio (nation) is based on birth, gens (clan) on having a common name and history. A nation can be divided into into many gentes that all share in the same culture and language; and presumably also vice versa, a gens may be divided into many nationes; each having its own language and culture but but thinking themselves as one and sharing a common name. Neither distinction is 100%: today we think ourselves as belonging to a nation, because membership (nationality) is decided primarily by where you are born and people are taught to take pride in their country, and feel patriotic towards it. Because of the history of how rome began, the ancient romans viewed belonging to a nation as vulgar; they consided themselves as united by laws and traditions, not common birth.--173.70.154.122 13:32, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about this, it actually makes more sense that I was thinking: Francicus = of Francia, a political entity, whereas Francogallicus should refer to, yes, the French language, but actually I'm also thinking the French people (inasmuch as such a thing exists, which I suspect you would wish to challenge). But the expedition is français not because of language or blood, but because of politics. Such a mess I have gotten us into! --Iustinus 19:53, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

On the first question: Canopus is currently a red link. Do you mean that Canopus should properly be a disambiguation page (cp. en:Canopus (disambiguation)) and the city be referred to as Canopus (Aegyptus) or Canopus (urbs)? --Fabullus 15:11, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. I'm thinking that Canopus needs to be either a disambig, or default to something more logical. --Iustinus 19:53, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

format: upright2

Hey just a quick formatting question here. I've never used this "upright2" command in a picture before. It seems to make the pictures very large and seems to mangle the order of the recensere tags within the text (for instance, as I see in the section copia verborum, there are three links recensere in the middle of an explanation of Ḥm=f, e.g R7 (haec locutio similis Europaeis sicuti "maiestas sua". Is this upright2 function necessary, or can I play around with the format a bit so it's a little tidier?

Think I figured it out...--Ioscius ^∞ 22:07, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

I have also done the notes in 2 columns, as I think is much more attractive to the eye.

--Ioscius ^∞ 21:19, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

UV long ago recommended to me "upright=1.5" etc. (a multiple of the default size) instead of 225px etc (a fixed size) for reasons, if I remember rightly, of reader-friendliness and accessibility. Anyway they seemed good reasons ...

To my browser, all right-side images upset the "recensere" links, not just these. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:56, 9 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Are they still messed up for you Andrew? I did a bit of work reformatting. --Ioscius ^∞ 05:21, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply. They are perfect for me now. What did you do? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

You can look at my mucking around in the history of the harenarium. A bit of better spacing/placement, a healthy mix of left/right, and a use of clearall. Glad to have helped your effort in some small way ;] --Ioscius ^∞ 23:36, 12 Iulii 2010 (UTC)