Transcription and transliteration of the language of ancient Egypt
One common misconception about ancient Egypt is the improper handling of foreign names, either through incorrect translation or misrepresentation in another language.
Transliteration should be clearly defined first: it is the method of converting the symbols of one writing system into another, enabling readers to reconstruct the original spelling of a word, even if they are unfamiliar with the original language. Conversely, transcription is an attempt to approximate the original sounds in the adapted word, but not necessarily its spelling. Transcription doesn't need to replicate the original word's spelling accurately.
For clarity, let's consider some examples. Romaji, which employs the Latin alphabet to represent Japanese, is a form of transliteration. In our case, hieroglyph transliteration allows for the conversion of texts using familiar letters without losing their inherent meaning.
However, our focus will be on transcription, where most significant errors occur. Transliteration remains a tool primarily for archaeologists and scholars with minimal impact on popular culture.
The primary challenge in transcribing ancient Egyptian language is its status as a long-extinct language. There are no living speakers who can convey or clarify the pronunciation or unique characteristics of the language. This issue is compounded by Kemet's language belonging to the Semitic language family, which traditionally omits vowels in writing. This absence makes deciphering pronunciation particularly challenging due to inherently incomplete words.
To mitigate these circumstances, a variety of strategies have been employed. Firstly, the most recent form of the known language, in this instance Coptic, serves as the foundational base. Secondly, comparisons are made with other contemporary languages of ancient Egyptian into which texts have been translated, such as Greek.
Based on this foundation, we can deduce that accurately knowing the pronunciation of the Kemet language is unfeasible. At best, we can only approximate its phonetic sounds.
Subsequently, we will explore the specific methodologies that have been adopted, and are widely accepted, to approximate the phonetics of the Egyptian language.
Numerous transliteration methods have been developed, ranging from those initially used by Wallis Budge in the late 19th century to those employed today. However, the system that has garnered the most consensus and is prevalently used in modern Egyptology was developed by Sir Alan Gardiner.
Nevertheless, this diversity of systems has led to inconsistencies; not all Egyptologists or countries utilize identical methods for transcription. Additionally, each language's unique characteristics must be considered when transcribing.
Typically, there are two predominant systems known as the traditional or British system and the European or German system.
Furthermore, with the advent of computing in Egyptology came the challenge of transcribing Egyptian characters on modern devices. This issue was addressed through the creation of various fonts and systems that enable these special characters to be depicted on any computer.
With all this information at hand, it becomes a subject of curiosity as to how we ought to document and vocalize certain Egyptian denominations, be it of deities, monarchs, or places. The initial deduction we've arrived at is the absence of certainty regarding their original pronunciation, prompting us to approximate as closely as possible. Additionally, we encounter the challenge that the Egyptian vernacular was dynamic and evolutionary. We are delving into a civilization that flourished across nearly three millennia; hence, it is implausible to presume that the language remained stagnant without any linguistic developments, such as idiomatic phrases, colloquial speech, and regional dialects varying by era and location. It holds true that the appellations of deities, sovereigns, or metropolises ought to be invariant since they are not mere lexicon entries; albeit they possess etymological roots and significance as standalone terms, these names are unique lexical units devoid of any inherent meaning.
In case all this seems a bit complicated, we must consider a new challenge when discussing the names of gods, kings, and places. This challenge is the linguistic influence that other languages have had on the original names.
Today, many people are familiar with Horus, Ra, Isis, or Anubis, but few realize that these names are not only inauthentic but also often bear little resemblance to the original pronunciations. There are several reasons for this discrepancy. Firstly, due to foreign influences in Kemet (Ancient Egypt). After nearly three thousand years of continuous culture, marked by occasional irregularities, foreigners arrived in the country: Asians, Greeks, Romans among others, who adapted and modified the names to fit their own languages. The Greeks were the most influential, completely altering the names of gods and cities to match the spellings and pronunciations of their language.
For instance, 'Anubis' is the transcription made by the Greeks of the original name 'Inpu'. Additionally, when archaeology began, there was a need for a method to pronounce and adapt Kemet's spellings to modern languages. Since the first and most renowned archaeologists were English or French, they endeavored to adapt the language to their own. However, other countries, including Spain, did not make such adaptations to their unique sounds and articulations. Instead, they adopted the English or French transcriptions and pronounced them in their own way.
Thus, we encounter terms like the ankh transcription, which in Spanish can easily be mispronounced as "ank" rather than "anj," the latter being the correct Spanish pronunciation for the ankh transcription. This issue arises with numerous words that are not only altered by Greek influence in terms of their original names and pronunciations but also by the challenges certain languages face in adapting their sounds. Ankh is an apt transcription for English and French speakers, as they would pronounce it as "anj," given that the 'kh' sound is aspirated in these languages. However, in Spanish, where 'h' is silent and 'k' is pronounced, this leads to the inaccurate and jarring pronunciation of "ank" instead of "anj," which would have been a more appropriate transcription initially. An expert will read ankh and pronounce it as "anj," but for novices and the curious, maintaining the original written form only complicates its pronunciation.
Is using the name Horus incorrect? No, it is the name widely accepted today in both archaeology and Egyptology. Nonetheless, it is not the deity's original name and does not reflect its pronunciation in Kemet; instead, it directs us to a Greek term. The same issue occurs today when adapting proper names across languages. For instance, the Italian city of Torino should retain its name regardless of language, yet it is called Turin in Spanish or a country like Deutschland is known as Alemania in Spanish or Germany in English—names that diverge from the original but are internationally recognized. This phenomenon also applies to Egyptian names.
Bibliography:
Faulkner, Raimond O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford : Griffith Institute, 1991.
Sanchez Rodriguez, Ángel. Diccionario de jeroglíficos egipcios. Editorial Aldebaran. 2013.
Allen, James P. Egyptian Grammar. An introduction to the language and culture of the hieroglyphs. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Gardiner, Sir A. Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Oxford : Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1999.
Comments
Post a Comment