Disputatio:Hieroglyphica Aegyptia

Is it OK to use a Greek adjective as a noun? Did I use significare correctly? - Golradir 23:25, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some what I hope are improvements/clarifications. Please correct if necessary.--Rafaelgarcia 04:44, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might prefer "Litterae hieroglyphicae Aegyptiae", in line with Macrobius's term; or we might prefer to adopt hieroglyphicus as a noun in the neuter plural, "Hieroglyphica Aegyptia". Maybe there are later sources that will help. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are more like characteres (Sinenses).Hieroglyphica (pl,n) sounds like the better option.I don't think we can rightly call the non phonetic ones letterae.--Rafaelgarcia 12:39, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macrobius's & Ammianus's attestations would seem to support hieroglyphicae [scil. litterae vel notae], but not hieroglyphica. IacobusAmor 13:29, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I missed that!--Rafaelgarcia 13:46, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Those sources use plural nouns, which happen to be feminine, and therefore attach the adjective "hieroglyphicus" to them in the feminine plural. They don't support using hieroglyphicae as a feminine plural noun, which is what our current title is doing.

I agree that "Litterae" and "Notae" are not ideal terms, since we now know (as Macrobius and Ammianus didn't) how this system works. So the obvious thing is, yes, to adopt "hieroglyphic(s)" as a noun, just as English and other languages do. If one adopts an adjective as a noun (which is OK in Latin grammar) it is normal to adopt it in the neuter. I have now found attestations in more recent Latin for "Hieroglyphica Aegyptia" (neuter plural) -- the authors must, I guess, have followed the same train of logic, or relied on the fact that ἱερογλυφικὰ was sometimes used as a neuter plural noun in Greek -- so I will move to that unless anyone objects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 31 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Est sš-nj-mdw.w-nṯr rectus?[fontem recensere]

Excusate latinam malam meam.

Ego non sum aegyptologistus, sed cogito quod melior quod phrasis "sš-nj-mdw.w-nṯr" mutet ad "zẖꜣ-nj-mdw-nṯr". (Verbum "sš" obsoletus, cogito. Nunc enim Victionarium (anglicae) redirigit ab "sš" ad "zẖꜣ". Atque Victionarum dicit quod pluralus de mdw non mdw.w sed simpliciter mdw est. Sicut expressio mdw nṯr.) 76.111.168.184 16:23, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roga utentem Iustinum, qui hieroglyphia certe scit! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:18, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recte monet usuarius ignotus scriptionem zẖɜ nunc praeferendam haberi (licet etiam sẖɜ scribere, saltem in textibus recentioribus.) Video me scripsisse potius sḫɜ' in pagina de Tabula Rosettana at non memini quare! --Iustinus (disputatio) 00:59, 27 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]