
Traces of Old Egyptian in Eurasian languages? - singularity2001
https://pannous.github.io/hieros/
======
jdmichal
Some of this is mistaking just how much we know of Egyptian phonology, which
is actually very little. For some proper names, we have more context into how
they may have actually sounded based on transscriptions into Greek and Latin.
But for every other word, we flat out have _no_ idea on vowel sounds, because
they were not written. Because of this, a couple sounds known as semivowels
are sometimes transcribed as if they were vowels. For instance, in _mother_ ,
the second glyph of a chick (𓅱) is marked as a _U_ , but would be more
appropriately be _W_. Same with the reeds (𓇋), which are sometimes marked as
_I_ but are rather _Y_. (And, in this article, apparently also _FE_...)

I think it's also interesting that they are using _mother_ and _father_ ,
considering that those words have commonalities in sound across large swathes
of human language. Unless the author is also ready to argue Egyptian influence
on Chinese, evidence should extend to other words.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa)

EDIT:

Every dictionary I can find lists father as _it_ , which alone would need
explanation for how the article arrives at _feathav_ using the same signs.
I'll just link the most comprehensive one:

[https://www.scribd.com/doc/10929802/Dictionary-of-Middle-
Egy...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/10929802/Dictionary-of-Middle-Egyptian)

When you search, the relevant entry is the "plants 12" result.

~~~
posterboy
I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the phonetics would be one
if not the most important feature. The article points out: "Here we
investigate how deeply the roots go and how the system, its cosmology and
language are intertwined with our own:".

The symbolism is important and the table presented in TFA is amazing at that.

> I think it's also interesting that they are using mother and father,
> considering that those words have commonalities in sound across large
> swathes of human language.

The t/d in * m?t- is more significant than that, whereas the p in pt is less
significant across world wide languages.

I'm just missing a node to Proto-Afro-Asiatic.

> Unless the author is also ready to argue Egyptian influence on Chinese,
> evidence should extend to other words.

Please compare Punic [zayin] (Phoenician letter 工 = S - weapon) and Chinese
[工] ("gon" etc., whence mandarin 工具 - tool). Obviously both are related to
metal tools, perhaps a spade stuck in the ground symbolizing mining for ore,
craft, and metal tools all in one sign, and in a different interpretation the
outflow of molten metal from a primitive furnace. Once you have horses, trade
is a matter of weeks or months. Metal working spread slowly, and with it the
words. I don't know if asia discovered smelting independently, though, I'm
just hypothesizing.

The difference is that "mother" is a _much older_ idea and the m- in principle
a reference to the sound of suckling.

[zayin]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet)

[工]:
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B7%A5](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B7%A5).

PS:

> EDIT: Every dictionary I can find lists father as _it_ , which alone would
> need explanation

Well, it is rather close to pt (stone), which in turn is close to Pth as in
the name of the god. So there is an element of veneration (stone old anyone?)
that isn't present in good ol' papa (just as some languages use different
personal pronouns in different registers of speech). This link is strong as
pater is still used in a religious sense. or comparing as/at: turkic "ata"
(father) and "at" (horse, perhaps also venerated), which is the metaphorical
head (cf. capital, cattle, aleph as god and head of the alphabet, A being a
top-side-down bull head symbol). I Norse as "As" is a god again (whence
"asgard"). As is also a singular unit in Latin for either a single dot on a
dice (whence poker ace; we also still speak of faces of a die), or prominently
as the nomination of roman pennies, which incidentally have the head of a god
on its observe side which is hence colloquially called heads. Oh and isn't
head somewhat rhyming with _" it"_? Egyptian [hr] seems to exhibits the same
dualism, even if the different etymologies aren't clear ( _xal is mentioned,
but not_ ħər - _chief, free, noble_ [2]). The language as a whole over time is
highly self modifying, and the result is like gene code really really tightly
compressed from a really small seed expanding with exponential growth. There's
certainly more to this, computational methods are gaining ground with time but
archeology is a game against the time. There's a baseline to human language in
most of it's dimensions. So while I don't know if the concept of parenthood
was fundamental to evolution (I mean I guess so, but in what time frame), but
one thing is clear if modern apes reveal any clue, the first phoneme was a
skreek: "Ah Ah Ahh" (or "it it it" or something) -- cf.
<[https://esolangs.org/wiki/Ook](https://esolangs.org/wiki/Ook)!

[hr]:
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%B8%A5r#Egyptian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%B8%A5r#Egyptian)
[2]: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Afro-
Asi...](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Afro-
Asiatic/%C4%A7%C9%99r)

PPS: At that I find funny how Morse-code, as in mono-phonetic strictly rhythm
based speech, is comparable to language, and how by extension of the concept,
many concepts rely on ordering and a representation in numbers. So I'm curious
how important maths skills were to the development of language. Basically,
human speech uses a highly variable non linear numeral system to code
messages. The idea of an assembly language as intermediate to spoken language
reminds me of Chomsky's universal grammar. The foundations of logic must be
"univalent" simply because the brain structure has to adhere to it,
geometrically, combinatorially, categorically, etc. p. p. Basically
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_tenth_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_tenth_rule)

~~~
raoulduke
There's an enormous difference between aesthetic features of writing and
actual language relation. The original hypothesis that this inadvertently
plagiarizes from is a 1912 William Flinders Petrie monogram. Wow... when I
first started looking into this stuff 8 or 9 years ago, archive didn't have
this/exist in this form:

[https://archive.org/details/formationofalpha00petr](https://archive.org/details/formationofalpha00petr)

Petrie's tables are better... but they're still at best interesting and
inconclusive.

(Also, although people cited /it/ above, Thesuarus Linguae Aegyptiae
transliterates it /jtj/ (yty - long vowels rather than glottals); and claiming
that's similar to pit is pretty ridiculous... If there's a genetic intra-
Afroasiatic relation with that root (which I'm not sure there is...) it'd make
a lot more sense to connect it with Ugaritic 'ad... Which I don't think it
makes sense to do... And in support of that... not even the out-there Starling
database makes that connection ([http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen...](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fafaset&text_number=++22&root=config)
// [http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen...](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fafaset&text_number=1916&root=config)
)).

~~~
posterboy
I'm sorry, you keep throwing the word ridiculous around as if it was a jocular
matter and I'm completely fine with that, but I don't welcome being mocked
without a proper argument. Yes, jt>pit is a loose thread made without much
information. But not because I am too lazy to meticulously collect evidence,
but because it is downright impossible for me to study this at a day job
level. Rather, I assumed this would be an obvious connection to already have
been investigated and would hope for corrections or confirmation. And baring
any evidence in my comment I would have thought it was obvious to be taken
with a heap of salt for what it's worth.

So it was a bit dry, and you were amused anyway. That leaves me confused.

~~~
raoulduke
I can't think of any other concordances between Egyptian /j/ and /p/ in other
languages. To be honest I've never seen the word jtj before today. There's a
longstanding and known relation broadly with /p/ or /b/ and father and /m/ and
mother. And as far as I'm aware there's no consensus on the meaning of that
relation. But jtj isn't the root related to those; and Egyptian doesn't seem
to have a strong example of /b/ ([http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/response.cgi?single=1&basen...](http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-
bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2fsemham%2fegyet&text_number=+++1&root=config)
).

~~~
posterboy
I was suggesting that _pit_ was an extension of _it_.

I think the j in jt is a remnant of jw (true), jw-?t, (biological father), but
only because jw is the only egyptian j- lexeme I know so far, because I like
to connect it to IO and Jo- and the jedi knights. For p- I'm not so sure, but
something like grand-father or god-father would fit the theme, or less
familiar for us distant from the Neolithicum, the stone-father (grey/old,
hard/strong, inanimate/false vs true, crafty/fundamental).

------
raoulduke
I don't understand what this article is. There appears to be no cogent
hypothesis or evidence. In the end it seems to be suggesting not (any)
linguistic influence on Eurasian languages but rather aesthetic influence of
hieroglyphs. That's well established given that the alphabet evolved from a
single source and that it's well-established that that source was at least
partly* influenced by hieroglyphs; and the earliest evidence for it is at
Serabit el-Khadem in Sinai interspersed with hieroglyphic inscriptions
(including a bilingual inscription on a sphinx [Sinai 345]).

As I look back I do see a like half-paragraph ridiculous suggestion of
apparently genetic connection between Egyptian and European. Before it was
commonly known that Egyptian is an Afroasiatic language, there were attempts
(usually with racial undertones) attempting to link the glorious and regal
Egyptian with Eurasian languages. It's a worthless hypothesis.

It also looks like people may have been looking for and having trouble finding
solid Egyptian lexicons: aaew.bbaw.de/tla/

(The one that really bothered me was the (obviously incoherent) "Hathor =
hut+hor Hüter of Herds"... Hathor means "House/Estate/Temple of Horus"). The
whole thing is just ridiculous.)

*There's at least secondary cuneiform influence by Wadi el-Hol (which I think was more likely 15th or 14th century).

~~~
posterboy
> rather aesthetic influence of hieroglyphs

rather, the hieroglyphic influence on the aesthetics of the (written)
language.

~~~
raoulduke
I don't understand (?).

~~~
posterboy
There is no difference, really. I just tried to point out that aesthetics can
have a influence on language, because you were basically saying the writing
system wasn't linguistic, which is really painful to read.

~~~
raoulduke
It's also painfully correct. The Egyptian hieroglyph pr, also monosyllabic
/h/, was adapted for /b/ in the Semitic creation of the alphabet. The scribe
took the common Semitic word for house be(y)t and used it to supplant the
original linguistic meaning attached to the grapheme. Thus the linguistic
content was destroyed while the aesthetic content was essentially unchanged
(and remains so today, most notably in Cyrillic, I think).

~~~
posterboy
So you have pt (sky), pr (house) and bt (house), and you are suggesting that
there can be no obvious link? pt~bt perhaps? I don't know what's up with the
/h/. It doesn't really matter because drawn glyphs pass the test of time
better than phonemes by virtue of being homoiconic. Certainly, written
language is a linguistic matter, not just merely aesthetic.

If you look at the pt hieroglyph, the lower form might be a roof I think. Of
course, my confusion of pt and pr in the previous post shows an aptitude to
jump to conclusions. But when Peter<Petrus<??? has no certain etymology, leaps
of faith are inevitable. And while I understand that research is always
careful to be skeptical, so am I when you say the hypothesis couldn't be. I'm
not necessarily defending the theory from the featured article, because a
common ancestor can come through a variety of origins. Anyway, the Egyptians
are famous anyway, so they are the first go to for a theory.

Also, your claim is evidently wrong. The Bet glyph looks very different to the
pr glyph.

I was initially trying to formulate a thought about writing, because it can
show patterns of language on a deeper level or at least from a different
perspective. After all, verbal communication involves more than phonetics.
There are definitely words that have been read incorrectly and proliferated --
e.g. reading gamma for ypsilon, omega for digamma; although I have no evidence
at hand this shouldn't be hard to believe.

This was constructive for me, as I hadn't made the connection from pr to beta,
before. Thank you.

~~~
raoulduke
Correct. There can be no obvious link. Particularly in that Old Kingdom /r/
would reflect a Semitic /'/, if memory serves. So /pr/ would be the equivalent
of /p'/ which would mean "mouth."

I likely compounded your confusion by referring to the grapheme as pr; whereas
it is in fact Gardiner's O4, the monosyllabic /h/
([http://msheflin.blogspot.com/search/label/Early%20Alphabet](http://msheflin.blogspot.com/search/label/Early%20Alphabet)
\- take the chart beyond /b/ with a grain of salt; I haven't updated it in
years). This isn't my theory... this is basically the only consensus view on
Proto-Sinaitic. Please stop wading into a crazy complex and insular, highly
esoteric academic subject and then getting mad at me when you misunderstand my
comments and attempt to construct a new orthodoxy around them...

The only connection between pr and b(y)t is semantic. Once you move from pure
ideograms to logograms or abjads that wholly breaks down.

~~~
posterboy
I don't want to start a circular argument talking past each other. Wiktionary
has for pr: " _(Old Egyptian) IPA /paːruw/[1]_". That's just one
reconstruction but Its source is 20 years old so it could be outdated for all
I know. Given your comments, I just see the glottal stop as another datapoint.
Whether that also means "mouth" or not doesn't lead to confusion.

[1]: Hoch, James (1997) Middle Egyptian Grammar, Mississauga: Benben
Publications, ISBN 0920168124, page 15

------
temp
This is so bad that I don't even know where to begin. It's incoherent,
completely ignores any accepted method of linguistic analysis, makes
absolutely no explanation as to how conclusions are being made and it doesn't
even attempt to support them in an way.

It's literally just gibberish.

------
softwaredoug
Most languages have common utterances for mother/father and other family
members. This is because these are easy, early sounds a baby can make. Some
variation of da, ma, pa, na occurs fairly universally.

There’s a pretty good episode of Lexicon Valley on this topic (see cavebabies
say ‘mama’)

[http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley.html)

~~~
posterboy
> This is because these are easy, early sounds a baby can make

Indeed, but while plosives are impossible in the uterus, humming is possible
("hummmmmmmm...") though it's likely not audible, it might resonate at deeper
frequencies. After all they cry right when they come out and must have trained
well for such vigorous performance.

Otherwise, hums are surely linked to pleasant and primitive, familiar
emotions. A simple ADSR envelope around a hum gives quite a lot of
expressiveness, too ("ha?" "aha!" "haha" "ahhh" "a ha ha" only with m, i.e.
"hm?").

Also the ma syllable is linked to the sound of suckling (hence breasts is mama
in Latin). Also, we say mother-tongue probably for a reason: Mothers are much
more involved in early child rising and hence in teaching language. I guess
that is evident in bilingual families if not taken special care of?

------
freshyill
This started off interesting and very smoothly transitioned to being fully
incoherent to me.

Do the random italics and French-style quotes mean something that I just don’t
understand, or was the whole thing actually just kind of insane.

------
titanix2
I agree with every comments posted so far (not convincing examples, incoherent
writing, lack indications about the languages used, lack of formal method) but
the worst offender is probably the lack of references. Even if the post is bad
in itself it could leads to interesting papers and authors but it didn’t. Only
one authors is referenced in the text. This is not enough.

------
yorwba
The etymology for most of those "cognates" seems quite strained when you
consider that even reconstructions of Proto-Germanic roots can be
controversial. Especially when you only have a single sound to match, it is
very easy to come up with bullshit "correspondences" that are mere
coincidence.

------
Koshkin
See also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16129463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16129463)

------
gumby
The information density of that map is pretty amazing

------
posterboy
I can't see most of the glyphs neither on debian nor on android 6.

------
peter303
Columbia pop-linguist McWhorter suggests strong verbs in Germanic languages
may have been a Semitic influence.

~~~
jdmichal
That seems quite a stretch, when proto-Indo-European ablaut explains the exact
same phenomenon. Also, Germanic strong verbs tend to be relatively primitive
vocabulary -- go, sleep, drink, sing... So it's also explainable that these
forms could develop prior to more standardized forms.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Origin_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_strong_verb#Origin_and_development)

