Talk:Geʽez script: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:57, 30 January 2006

I don't know if there is a standard transliteration. I realize that ሰ is Amharic [s], that's not the point. ሰ is descended from Proto-Semitic ś, and I believe it is transliterated as ś for this reason, but I have to check the literature; the exact pronunciation of 4th century Ge'ez is unknown anyway. If you don't want to transcribe ሠ as s, at least use š to avoid confusion with ś

regarding the listing of Phoenician letters, I would suggest only those theorized to be descended from the same Proto-Sinaitic glyphs. These are only a third or so of the 22 listed. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are rough similarities to most of the Phoenician letters, I think we should list them all, just to not leave any out. Which ones do you feel are specifically descended from which different P-S glyphs? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the ones I had listed; see the variants discussed at Proto-Sinaitic; ideally, we would also present the hieroglyphs. Glyphs that are certainly unrelated include h, ḥ. ḫ, see

-- we should not just list them without comment together with the related ones. I am not sure about alif and mem. ṭ and ṣ are also certainly unrelated. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already seen it, see the related chart I put at the bottom of am:ቅድመ-ሴማዊ ጽሕፈት. --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't; very nice; could you upload your Proto-Sinaitic glyphs (

etc.) to commons? dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got them from commons, so it should appear above now if I just remove the : from before Image, let me try it... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice; however, the title is misleading. There is no such thing as "Proto-Semitic" glyphs. I believe these images are reconscructions of a Proto-Canaanite alphabet (but by whom), and are thus not intended to represent predecessors of the South Arabian script. We should use the images on Proto-Canaanite, and be very clear about the images we use here. 130.60.142.65 11:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:31, 27 January 2006 edit Codex Sinaiticus (talk \| contribs) 17,640 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:57, 30 January 2006 edit undo 130.60.142.65 (talk) No edit summary Next edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:

	::Well, I got them from commons, so it should appear above now if I just remove the : from before Image, let me try it... [[User:Codex Sinaiticus\|ፈቃደ]] ([[User talk:Codex Sinaiticus\|ውይይት]]) 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)		::Well, I got them from commons, so it should appear above now if I just remove the : from before Image, let me try it... [[User:Codex Sinaiticus\|ፈቃደ]] ([[User talk:Codex Sinaiticus\|ውይይት]]) 16:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
			:::Nice; however, the title is misleading. There is no such thing as "Proto-Semitic" glyphs. I believe these images are reconscructions of a [[Proto-Canaanite]] alphabet (but by whom), and are thus not intended to represent predecessors of the South Arabian script. We should use the images on [[Proto-Canaanite]], and be very clear about the images we use here. [[User:130.60.142.65\|130.60.142.65]] 11:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)