Talk:Phoenician alphabet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just noticed Page has been vandalised on OCT 23/06.. Not a wiki geek so someone needs to revert it.
This chart is missing teth, samekh, and tsadi. Are they not attested in that version of the Phoenician alphabet? -phma
No, they are not present in my source. If I find a more complete version I shall update the chart. -- user:Heron
Still not right. You now have gimel twice (C and G), waw twice (F and W), samekh and zayin in the wrong place (they should be after nun and waw respectively), and no teth or tsadi. BTW, the Phoenicians sometimes used the order MNXPOQ instead of MNXOPQ. -phma
I found this link that might be of interest [1].
/ Mats 16:13, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
oy, the common descriptor of GIMEL as meaning "camel" is a later change. originally it meant "rabbitstick" (literally, "crooked"), which later was applied to the camel. but camels weren't common until the second millenium BCE, but rabbitsticks were standard hunting equipment and also used as weaponry from the earliest times. em zilch 06:44, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- Seconded. All the resources i've been able to find that give the topic more than a cursory examination seem to point to "camel" as a later interpretation. The precise term varies, but it's usually some kind of bent stick (cane, hunting-stick, and so on). Lucky number 49 17:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The current text sais Fenician alphabet can be dated to 3500 BCE, which all my other sources confirem is an ERROR, as it can be dated to 1200 BCE (and the earliest (Semitic) alphabet itself can be dated to around 2000 BC). I am going to correct his error and add an external link to an onlince source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] The name
Phoencians/Canaanite are Semitic they are Hamitic. We don't know who created this alphabet it was used by many people. It be called the Meso-levent-ian or the Mesoleventian Alpabet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Proto-Mesoleventian is a new more recent term encompassing that region not a people. The ancestor of the script story is like the Chicken and egg, was it Proto-Sinaitic or Proto-Mesoleventian that came first were the Semitic alphabet were ancestors, there no proof, only old bias beliefs, no harecore are ever facts presented, Phoencians people are doubtfully the ancestors of this alphabet. Phoencians are the proable ancestors of the Greek alphabet. But there no real conclusive proof Phoencians are ones that invented this system. It could have been used by ancient Semites long before them.--72.38.211.144 (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Preparing alphabet table
Phoenician is under ballot for Unicode, but I'm adding the Unicode values to this table. After the ballots close, and Phoenician is formally encoded, I'll replace the table in the article with this one. Evertype 17:40, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
[edit] Cyrillic
I've added a Cyrillic column to the table. Please review and correct. I've tried to add variations of letters that have roots in the old Cyrillic alphabet (Ukrainian Є and І), but not newer derived forms (Ґ, Ў). I haven't addressed some of the obsolete Cyrillic forms, which I think were essentially Greek letters. Don't know if the Yers and Yuses belong here. —Michael Z. 2005-08-11 18:09 Z
[edit] Arabic
imho, it is irrelevant to list the dotted variants of Arabic letters. The point of the table is to compare letter shapes. dab (ᛏ) 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IPA
Please add IPA transcriptions to the chart. Alpha Omicron 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I have made the following changes
- "qof" can mean either "a monkey" or "an eye of a needle". I think the latter is more probable here, judging from the shape of the ancient letter. Qof is believe to the sun on the horizon
in most ancient script.
- "kaf" can mean only "palm of hand" and not "palm" as a plant. drork 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Teth
Would thorn (Þ) be eligible as the Latin alphabet equivalent of teth? Lemmy Kilmister 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- No. Phonetically Teth was probably pronounced as a velarized [t]. Think of the difference between the [l] sound in "link", and the [l] sound in "love", the former is a plain [l], while the latter is a velarized [l] ("dark l"). The sound of Teth is basically /t/ with an extra quality of velarization. There are other theories about the way Teth was pronounced, but none of them suggests that it was pronounced like thorn. Graphically speaking, thorn is derived from a Runic symbol, and has no connection to any Phoenician letter. drork 17:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
The image in the upper right Infobox named "Phoenician alphabet", in the field "sample=Phoenicianstone.jpg" is actually that of a forgery known as Jehoash Inscription. While alphabetically and stylistically almost flawless, do we really want a fake inscription image to appear here? Guybas 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting that, I hadn't noticed the image had been added. I've replaced it with a computer rendering of script: not as pretty, but at least it's not pretending to be anything more than it is. I've actually adde the image to the Jehoash Inscription article, as it's more appropriate there. — Gareth Hughes 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- question* is there any way to use/download the phoenician alphabet as it is?
[edit] Hieroglyphs to letters?
I don't get it. How did the Phonecian script evolve from Egyptian hieroglyphs? They seem like two totally separate entities. - Christopher 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BC or BCE?
Am I the only one who finds the terms "CE" and "BCE" to be stilted and arrogant? I think the only reason one would use these abbreviations is to pose as being morally superior to those who would rather use the traditional terms. Many people who encounter CE and BCE think that those terms mean "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era" so the meaning of these new terms is lost on most people. I believe that people who use them are trying, in their own impotent little way, to be confrontational. Unfortunately, it comes across as being comically pretentious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodak1 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 21 July 2007.
- Please read the Manual of Style guidelines on this. In some articles, one format is to be preferred. Eras should only be changed after discussion. Otherwise, the original system should be kept. It is inadvisable to change eras. — Gareth Hughes 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the dates should be consistent with other scientific sources. As this is a scientific article about progression of the aphabet, BCE should be preferred, and used in the same manner as other scientific articles, as well as the other connected articles about alphabet systems.
- As for "Eras should only be changed after discussion" argument, that may be a personal view, but is not the view of scientists. We are not currently in the "christian era". (We currently exist in a time with a multitude of religions, christianity being but one, and a multitude of calendar systems, the latin calendar being but one. We don't need to wait until every last christian is history before we consider the christian era to be history. The time of Christ, his disciples and their teachings is long past.) But setting philisophical or religious arguments aside, this is an article about the study of alphabet systems, and not a religious article. The alphabet systems discussed did, in fact, precede christianty, and so, the christian era -- Hence, BCE. 75.72.34.245 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Sound" column in the table
What system is used in this column? What does a symbol like ḥ mean? Wouldn't it be more useful to use a widely understood system like IPA? Grover cleveland (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] General improvement of the article=
TiME PERIOD: "... and gradually died out..." - This is valid for the Levant, not for Africa. Punic script, the script of Carthage and its colonies, continued to be used till ca. 200 A.D. Punic shewed all long vowels, using `alp, hê, ´ain, yad and waw for â, ê, ê, î, û.
... "(with the addition of matres lectionis). - Quite a late invention.
The box '"Parent systems" is still hypothetical, not proven - this ought to be mentioned.
The small table exhibits strange transliterations. Why not scientific h., t., s., and t ?
"The Phoen. alphabet SEAMLESSLY continues..." - "differed only in letterform and time..." - That is not correct! The Phoen. LANGUAGE underwent severe changes - it lost 5 phonemes, that merged with other phonemes, and thus thanged from 27 to 22 consonantal sounds. To wit: dh --> z
th --> sh gh --> ´ain h_ --> h. z., i.e. interdental emphatic fricative --> s. lateral fricative l- (written s^) --> sh.
"The Phoen. adaptation of the alphabet was extremely successful..." is not the full truth. In fact, it was the ONLY AVAILABLE script that had survived the Sea Peoples' devastations. The oldest Aramaic ´still had MORE than 22 phonemes, Olkd Hebrew still had ghain and s´în apart in speech - but they lacked an extra letter to express them.
"Old Italic" should be specified - I think it was only Messapic; anycase the Etruscan alphabet came from the Greek city Cumae. The Chapter Letter names bases on pure speculation. And NOELDEKE's approach is noe 108 years old ...!
"One of these local Greek..." - why not NAME it? It was the variant from Miletus, adopted in 403 BCE to Athens; the other was the alphabet of Khalkis in Euboea which wandered from the Greek city of Cumae to the Etruscans.
The CHART needs revision as well. `alpu is different from ´ainu. - Furthermore, signs added to the end should come by the end: Y, X, Latin Z.
The Chapter Derived alphabets is funnily imprecise and incomplete.
Palaeo-Hebrew was used from 900 [Gezer calendar, Lakhish stairs] till 135 CE - it ceased to be used after the Bar-Kokhba revolt.
Samaritan "is purported by some" ? It IS its continuation and successor. Arabic is used from the Atlantic ocean (Mauritania) through Kashmir and Pâkistân.
To sum up: The article might be enlarged, purged of speculative assertions and then re-edited. García Ángel García (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hebrew from Phoenician or Phoenician from Hebrew?
General question:
Since we can trace the development of the alphabet clearly from:
Egypt -> Sinai -> Canaan -> Phoenicia Approx 1200BC
If there is any historical value whatsoever to the book of Exodus, which scholars believe occured between 1500BC - 1200BC which traces the migration of the Hebrews out of Egypt to Sinai to Canaan, why is there no recognition of this with regard to the development of the alphabet?
It would seem to make imminent sense for the people enslaved to carve them would have an intimate knowledge of the Egyptian hieroglyphs and how to use them.
What's the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywatcher5 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Because there no agreement. Mesopotamian> Levent? the is date unknown. Phoenicans/Canannites are not Semites they Hamites as Egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unicode characters.
I am fine with language articles containing unicode renderings in general, but when that rendering is so obscure that the user is not likely to have a font that even includes it, what is the point? Are there about six people who have ever seen this page where the characters render as they are intended to? Less than six? --76.202.226.195 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)