Talk:Old Nubian

message: Note: while I do agree that IPA transcriptions would be helpful, I want to stress that we shouldn't do away with the the coptic transcription, as that is the transcription which has been used in most recent scholarly works (most notably the work of Browne). — mark ✎ 09:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this doesn't really make sense, since no-one has heard this language being spoken. The Latin transcription in which some examples are currently given is probably the closest to the original pronunciation we could possible get. Full conversion to IPA won't be possible anyway since ON most probably was a tonal language (just like its descendant Nobiin); unfortunately, tone wasn't marked in the Old Nubian orthography. I have removed the  notice. Mark Dingemanse 09:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there may be a confusion here between a transliteration and a phonetic transcription. The textual example is obviously a transliteration, and is perfectly valid as such - in other words it's attempting to reproduce the orginal wrtten text using the Roman alphabet with defined conventions. But this doesn't as such tell us how it would have been pronounced. The introductory bit of the article, which mentions "three Coptic letters — ϣ "sh", ϩ "h", and ϭ "j" — and three unique to Nubian, apparently derived from Meroitic: ng, ny, and w" would be much more useful if there were IPA explanations for  "sh", "ng" etc, and ideally (certainly if there's an intent to raise the article to featured article status) for the remainder of the encodings used in the transliteration. The transliteration may give "the closest to the original pronunciation we could possibly get", but only to people who know the conventions adopted - for instance does "j" mean IPA  or , or what? - does "ng" mean ,  or ? I suspect I know the answers, but it should be made explicit. The use of /i/ and /u/ later in the article would appear to be using IPA, so there is a precedent for it. As for no-one having heard the language being spoken, the same goes for instance for Ancient Greek (also a tonal language) - see Greek alphabet. --rossb 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. With this caveats, I agree and I have put back convertIPA. — mark ✎ 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: I am helping with the translation of this article to the Turkish Wikipedia and I need a clarification.  In "...a double slash // sometimes used to separate verses" does "verse" refer to a subdivision of the Bible or to a line of poetry? It makes a difference in the translation.  Thanks. --InfoCan 14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly the first (but it could well be both). I believe Browne (see article for refs), in discussing the double slash, does not make a distinction between a Bible verse or a line of poetry. However, since a lot of the Old Nubian manuscripts are parts of the Bible, one could assume that he is referring mainly to Bible verses here. — mark ✎ 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It must mean Bible - I am not aware of any Old/Mediaeval Nubian poetry being published. Sorry about the late entry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.49.191 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: verse?

message: This article could be improved by the use of unicode coptic. I would change it myself, but I'm a little worried that few readers will have the fonts to support it. But for those who do, compare:
#κτ̄κα γελγελο̄ςουανον  ῑη̄ςουςι να⋊αν τρικα• δολλε πολγαρα πεςςνα• παπο ς̄κοελμ̄με εκ̄κα
#ⲕⲧ̅ⲕⲁ ⲅⲉⲗⲅⲟ̅ⲥⲟⲩⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲓ̈ⲏ̅ⲥⲟⲩⲥⲓ ⲛⲁ⋊αν τρικα• ⲇⲟⲗⲗⲉ ⲡⲟⲗⲅⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲉⲥⲥⲛⲁ• ⲡⲁⲡⲟ ⲥ̅ⲕⲟⲉⲗⲙ̅ⲙⲉ ⲉⲕ̅ⲕⲁ
Isn't that nicer?
At any rate, if we're going to stick with using unicode Greek, then we should at least replace those final sigmas (ς) with lunate ones (ϲ) --Iustinus (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is much nicer and more accurate. We should change it, as what work there is being done in Old Nubian (almost?) entirely uses modified Coptic script, not modified Greek. It's been that way since at least the British in the 19th century, and from the inscriptions here and at Google Books, it's closer to what the Nubians actually wrote. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode 

message: Not going to touch this myself, but it appears to me that under Example text the transcription of ναϫαν, as manyan, may be in error. The essentially Greek letter ν is Nu, that is, an n, which in fact it is at the end of the very same word; however, at the beginning it is rendered m. I'm doubting this is some kind of wacky phonological rule or orthographic affectation. →Mistake, ¿no? --IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: it is availiable online and the only source of knowledge about ON for me. But can it still be trusted today or not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.247.212 (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Griffith's book reliable by modern standards? 

message: What is the origin of the sample text here? I presume that P.QI means “Papyrus Qasr Ibrim”. A) what is the reference for the transcription of that source? and B) Who is responsible for the modern-style morphological glosses? babbage (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for sample text? 

message: Could it be possible for someone to make to make an alphabet chart for Old Nubian, similar to this? Not everyone has the script (Unicode Coptic, right?) installed and I personally don't know how complicated it would be to install on PC.--179.6.199.229 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart