Disputatio:Lingua Aegyptia Demotica

message: I stumbled unexpectedly on the ostracon depicted on this page (:Fasciculus:Demotic_Ostrakon.jpg) while at the Brooklyn Museum today. Funny coincidence! --Iustinus 05:50, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the similar h-chart I made on Word looks so much less confusing than the one I made here! --Iustinus 23:41, 16 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

message: Per the discussion at Disputatio:Lingua Neograeca#Lingua Graeca Demotica and Disputatio:Tabula Rosettana#Demotica, we are treating the Demotic writing system and language separately. But it is sometimes a headache to decide how exactly the information should be divided between those two pages (particularly because, as I say in the introduction, Egyptologists agree that these are two separate meanings of the term, but don't necessarily strictly distinguish between the two.) Obviously it would be nice to write about the usage of Demotic, in particular in documents and literature. But it seems like that should be covered under Scriptura Aegyptia Demotica rather than here. But then again, for most idioms, literature is covered under the language not the writing system, no? Anyone want to help me work out how to decide this, and in general what information goes where? --Iustinus 22:47, 21 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We have scarcely any general articles about literatures-by-language as yet. My initial suggestion is that we need three articles, therefore: "script", "language" and "literature". That's surely what we would do for most other languages.

text: That said, I suspect that the most obvious distinction between Hieroglyphic and Demotic literature is the script that is used, not the linguistic variation between the two. So I would include in the "script" article some information about the types of documents and literature for which Demotic script is used. Don't know if that helps. A better answer might become clearer to you as you write -- it sometimes does ...! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:57, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : A good idea, but it does raise some further questions.

text: : First of all, I would say there are definite differences of language and style. But you could argue this is a question of period rather than language, I suppose. Would you say "documents" go under scriptura rather than literature?

text: : And then there's the perennial issue of how to say "literature" as opposed to "writing system." I suppose we've settled on scriptura vs. litterae now? I'm still a bit uneasy about that. FWIW, I did write Terentius Tunberg about this question, when I was writing the paper on Egyptian literature which I presented at the 2009 Conventiculum, and he had this to say:
replies: text: :: 1.' Litterae humanae' possunt hisce locutionibus indicari:

text: :: monumenta, monumenta litterarum, monumenta scripta, opera scripta, bonae litterae (locutio praesertim ab humanistis frequentata), humanitas

text: :: 2. 'scribendi systema' nonnullis modis dicitur:

text: :: scriptura, ars scribendi, elementa litterarum, formae litterarum, modus/ratio litteras formandi, notae litterarum (Cic. Tusc. disp. I, 62), chirographum, litteratura, ae (non tam saepe, et apud posteriores)

text: : In any case, I am about to take an unexpected trip out of the country, so I suspect I won't get much more work done here for a while. --Iustinus 22:03, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nothing's perfect, but if "scriptura" is the first word for "writing system" that Tunberg thought of, we're already getting somewhere. As to "litterae", its possibility is implied in two of the terms he suggests (monumenta litterarum, bonae litterae). If we want something briefer, less POV and less focused on a classical canon than those two phrases appear to be, we could surely do worse than simply "litterae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, sure, but what bugs me about it is that the first thing I think when hearing "litterae Aegyptiae" is "Egyptian writing system." It is true my aforementioned acroasis for the Conventiculum used this as its title, but the very first line was "'Litteras Ægyptias,' sodales, si quis dicat, quid cogitatis? Hieroglyphica, procul dubio, quae animum Graecorum et Romanorum captabant et usque ad hunc diem magnam famam habent philosophiae et magices." I grant that I'm really not sure what else to use: Terentius' suggestions worked well for my talk, but are not as apt for page titles. I may just have to use litterae with a disambig tag. --Iustinus 17:46, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

text: :::Unless of course someone comes up with something better! --Iustinus 17:50, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usus 

message: We happen to have some ostraca on which Egyptian students wrote out verb conjugation tables in Demotic. I would really love to get an illustration of one of those for this article. Unfortunately the only suitable image I can find is a hand-copy published in 1924. Just slightly too late to get in on a PD-old claim. --Iustinus 18:02, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Dr. Nathaniel Reich, who wrote that, died in 1943. I may have to wait another 31 years to use that image! --Iustinus (disputatio) 03:09, 13 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Or, actually, according to :en:Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country#cite ref-EU 12-24, maybe I just have to wait one year?? And if that's accurate, can I really just blithely upload the hand copy on January 1st, or is it more complicated than that? In case it isn't painfully obvious, I'd *really* like to use that pic: it's just about the only thing I can think of that would make sense as an illustration of the Demotic *language*, as opposed to script. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:05, 13 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Man is copyright law complicated. See :en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/August#.22A Grammatical Exercise of an Egyptian Schoolboy.22 for more info on this particular question. --Iustinus (disputatio) 15:42, 24 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The time draws near! --Iustinus (disputatio) 08:34, 26 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Get ready to do it, then! I've uploaded lots of stuff within that kind of time frame. Seems acceptable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:20, 26 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::There it is! --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:51, 2 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the text is:
quod dixi         	
quod dixisti (vir)	quod dictum est mihi
quod dixit is     	quod dictum est tibi (viro)
quod dixit ea     	quod dictum est ei (viro)
quod dixerunt     	quod dictum est ei (feminae)
quod diximus      	quod dictum est eis
quod dixerunt     	quod dictum est nobis
                  	quod dictum est vobis
--Iustinus (disputatio) 07:03, 2 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, I added this to the caption for the image, but the jury's still out on whether or not that looks OK. Could I get some opinions? And if you don't like it, please let me know how you think I should handle it: it seems like a shame not to mention the content of the ostracon at all. After all, I added it specifically because it's a verb conjugation exercise, and therefore illustrates the Demotic language rather than just the writing system. In fact, I feel kind of guilty for only including the translation, without the transcription (but obviously adding in the Demotic too would be crazy). --Iustinus (disputatio) 15:38, 3 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

text: UV changed the table to wiki format (odd because the reason I used html was that the wiki code didn't seem to work there), and changed it to a wikitable class. Again, I'd like to get some opinions on this: it probably looks better as a wikitable, but that also firmly divides it into visible cells, and I'm not sure I like that. Still, as I keep saying, some outside opinions would really help here. --Iustinus (disputatio) 23:06, 5 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations