User talk:Vorziblix/2019–2022

Thanks for help with ꙁадьницѧ‎!

I appreciate it. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ

Hi. Is the etymology of Coptic ⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ (aloli, “grape”) known? Does it occur in Egyptian? --Vahag (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Hello! The etymology is indeed known; the Coptic forms (Bohairic ⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ (aloli), Sahidic ⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ (eloole), Fayyumic ⲁⲗⲁⲁⲗⲓ (alaali), etc.) come from a Demotic ꜣlly (“grape, vine”), itself from Egyptian jꜣrrt (“grape, vine”).

This looks like a native Egyptian word in every respect: it’s not written using group-writing, as loanwords usually are; it obeys the compatibility constraints for consonants in Egyptian roots; it has an Egyptian feminine suffix -t, which regularly erodes away to a bare vowel by the time of Late Egyptian; and it’s attested continuously since the Old Kingdom. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is very useful. Can you add the etymology to ⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ (aloli)? --Vahag (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, done! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

How come you learned Egyptian? It must have been a fascinating story.

--I learned some phrases (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@I learned some phrases: Haha, it’s not all that fascinating, really. As a child I was fascinated by mythology (among many other things), first Greek and later Egyptian. I devoured books on Egypt, but as far as the language goes, I didn’t learn much beyond the uniliteral and biliteral hieroglyphs and a few words.

Then I set aside Egypt for a good while and turned to other interests, mathematics, physics, linguistics, and whatnot, and didn’t pick it up again until midway through university. In exploring linguistics I felt limited by the fact that most of my experience was confined to Standard Average European languages, and I wanted to have a better understanding of other areas of the space of all possible languages, so to speak. Where better to turn than my old friend Egyptian? So I made an attempt to learn it properly, with a serious modern grammar, but failed due to lack of time, being buried under my math degree. (For similar reasons, I also made an abortive attempt to learn Mandarin Chinese around then.) I finally made another concerted effort after graduating and was much more successful the second time around. Beyond the linguistic aspects, the cultures of the Bronze Age Mediterranean (and Egypt especially) still fascinate me — although my interest these days is maybe more anthropological than mythological.

So there you go! Like I said, not all that fascinating, but there it is. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(Hiding it absolutely wouldn't just make people want to read it more...) PseudoSkull (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Bleh. Well, too late now :P — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was a fascinating story! I had a very similar background, except for the weirder part, and more importantly, except for seriously returning to Egyptian. I've leafed through my copy of Allen's Middle Egyptian enough to know how it works, but not to really learn it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Chinese - Egyptian question

Hello- I saw the 'foreign word of the day' on the homepage (ꜣḫw) and I wanted to thank you for your work on Egyptian. I would also like to ask you a question- does Egyptian have phonosemantic hieroglyphs, that is to say, hieroglyphs that contain a component that refers to a pronunciation clue and a component that refers to a semantic clue? I see you have a basic understanding of Chinese. We hear a lot of superficial comparisons between Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese characters in Chinese class- what's your perspective on the similarities and differences between ancient Egyptian vs. Chinese? Sorry to bother- thanks for your time.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The Egyptian writing system works similarly to Chinese in some ways — but the analogy is closer if you compare individual hieroglyphs with character components, and entire Egyptian words with characters (which after all generally corresponded to entire words in Old Chinese — less so in modern Mandarin). That is, individual hieroglyphs usually don’t have multiple components, but written words are commonly formed by putting together hieroglyphs with a phonetic value and hieroglyphs with a semantic value (“determinatives”). Thus in ꜣḫw you could see as the phonetic component and as the semantic component. The difference with Chinese is that in Egyptian they aren’t forced to fit in a single square block. So, to summarize, (1) individual hieroglyphs aren’t generally phonosemantic compounds, but (2) on the level of entire words, Egyptian and Old Chinese writing worked quite similarly. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a truly incredible knowledge you have! But I would like to say that based on looking at the article as it stands, I would not by any means have been able to determine that this hieroglyphic word is divided into two parts in the manner that you described! I really want that knowledge because I am tired of people making fun of me when I tell them Chinese characters have a phonetic component. In severe cases, they will resort to open-ended what-abouting concerning the "semi-" (semi-magical) Egyptian hieroglyphs of which they know not a thing!

I would like to run a suggestion by you concerning the Etymology section of that word- (keep in mind I know NOTHING of Egyptian hieroglyphs): tell the readers about the semantic and phonetic components of the word. Wiktionary could do it perhaps in the manner of my suggestion below or in some similar manner (again, I know NOTHING of Egyptian hieroglyphs and am merely making wild guesses as appropriate wording):

Etymology

An abstract noun derived from ꜣḫ (“to be effective”) (phonetic) and w (semantic).

I put forward this suggestion because the vast majority of humanity does not by any means understand that the components of Chinese characters and the parts of Egyptian hieroglyphic words have a phonosemantic function in the way you and I are understanding it (if I am understanding it correctly!). In fact, there is a section of unscrupulous people who exploit the belief that Chinese characters are mystical/semi-divine pictographs to sell ideologies and books of drivel, all of which hinder the spread of the academic viewpoint on phono-semantic compounding in these languages.

The knowledge you have is something Wiktionary should tell readers about because a large part of the population is of the mistaken impression that these systems of writing are whimsical pictures imbued with some kind of semi-magic properties that the Latin alphabet lacks. You might have heard of the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy-- in the book, John DeFrancis discusses the so-called 'The Ideographic Myth', the belief that the components of Chinese characters only convey meaning and don't have any relation to pronunciation. I believe that that myth is has a significant role in the inefficiency in Chinese language instruction.

In the Chinese section of this website, we have something called a 'Glyph origin' section- you can see an example of a phonosemantic compound character's glyph origin here: 擂 (léi). The 'Lei tai' page on Wikipedia current misinforms readers about the origin of this character by not telling them that the right-hand side of the character (the 雷 (léi) part) is connected to the pronunciation of the overall character.

It's just a suggestion- if you're not interested, forget it. Thanks for reading my screed! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I may have totally misunderstood what you meant. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: No, I think you understood it pretty well! As for telling readers about the components of the written word (the functions of its constituent hieroglyphs, whether as phonograms, determinatives, etc.), this is something I’ve been thinking of for a long time, too. (You can see some previous discussion of the idea at Template talk:egy-hierotab.) However, there are a lot of complications that make it tricky to implement. A more complete breakdown of ꜣḫw would be as follows:

• — phonogram for ꜣḫ
• — phonogram for ḫ
• — phonogram for w
• — determinative for abstract notions
• — determinative for plural, uncountable, or collective nouns and pronouns

and probably the best way to display this information would be in a table somewhere, ideally unobtrusive. I’m not sure about putting it in the etymology section, since strictly speaking it’s not about the origin of the word but just the way it’s written; however, this may still be the best available option. There are several issues that would need to be resolved first, though, in any case:

• Most Egyptian words can be written in a number of different ways, cf. the ‘Alternative forms’ section in ꜣḫw and many other entries. Would we display a glyph-by-glyph breakdown for every possible writing? Or, if not, how would we justify explaining one writing and ignoring the others?
• The boundaries between phonetic and semantic functions are not always entirely clear. Thus, for example, the hieroglyph originally served as a semantic marker of plurality without any phonetic value. Later, because the Egyptian plural ending is -w, the glyph came to also be used as a phonogram for w in certain contexts. So in a word like ꜣḫw, it could theoretically be interpreted as either a semantic marker (of uncountability, in this case) or a phonetic marker (representing the w at the end). It’s not always clear which interpretation should be given preference, if any.
• Ideally we would want each hieroglyph in the table to automatically link to the entry for that glyph, such that, for example, would link to 𓆎. This is doable, but annoying to implement from a technical perspective.

So there’s a few questions to be ironed out, and some coding to be undertaken, but I do agree in principle that this information would be good to display when we’ve worked out exactly how it should be done. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Not sure if you're on Discord, so I thought I'd leave you a message instead. In case you haven't seen: Special:Contributions/TheLateDentarthurdent. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Ah, hey, thanks! I have indeed seen those edits, and still need to go through some of them (along with the work of another editor who’s added copious amounts of reconstructed Egyptian pronunciations lately), but for the most part they’re broadly in line with academic consensus and only differ from our practices in some details of convention, chronology, and so forth. Checking reconstructed pronunciations is unfortunately extremely tedious (digging up Coptic dialectal descendants, checking for Greek and Akkadian, etc., and coping with often questionable sound change laws), so I’ve been putting off working through the backlog, but bit by bit I’ll get there (I hope)! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment about Egyptian sorting in Community Wishlist Survey 2020

I remember we discussed Egyptian category sorting. Recently, on "Multiple collations per site" proposal, I mentioned that Egyptian would benefit if the proposal were implemented and extended with a mechanism for adding custom collations, so that Egyptian transcriptions in Category:Egyptian lemmas and other Egyptian categories will sort correctly. So in case you have anything to add to that discussion, I thought I'd let you know. — Eru·tuon 19:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the absurdly late response! I did read this earlier and vote for the proposal, but I didn’t have much to add otherwise (and forgot to leave a reply here). Thanks for letting me know (and for contributing to the proposal in the first place)! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of nk

Hi. I have created the Egyptian entry nk. I am also interested in the Arabic language. Recently I have noticed the Arabic verb ناك (nāka), which has the same stem and meaning. Both verbs are also transitive. And due to the Coptic descendant and my low experiences with reconstrucion of the ancient Egyptian, it could have the second vowel long (which the Arabic verb has too). Because I haven't been sure how to mention is in the etymology, I ask here if it is possible to mention it there and if you could help me. Or perhaps if it has been mentioned in any book yet. Zhnka (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zhnka: Hello! Sorry to reply a bit late; this has been a busy time in real life for me. The Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, volume 2, page 345, also mentions the comparison you’ve found. Under the entry for nk it says ‘vgl. arab. ناك, نكح’ (‘compare Arabic ناك, نكح’). It’s a good idea to mention it, maybe with similar wording (‘compare …’) since the exact etymological connection is unclear. The Coptic word ⲛⲟⲉⲓⲕ (noeik) isn’t directly descended from nk but from the derived term nkw (“fornicator”), with agentive suffix -w, so it’s not really useful for reconstructing the vowels. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 06:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Meroitic entries

Thank you for fixing up those entries! I got frustrated with Meroitic because of people pushing various interpretations about how to classify it, but I'm glad someone is finally giving it some attention. I think we should keep Latin-script entries as soft redirects, like we do for many other ancient languages with obscure or unique scripts. A Meroitic version of {{got-romanization of}} is probably the way to go; what do you think? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Yeah, I’m steering clear of the giant classification fracas as best I can; however many pages Rilly devotes to arguing for ‘Northern East Sudanic’ and how ‘the affiliation of Meroitic is settled’, it doesn’t look like it’s (yet) reached wider academic acceptance. For the most part I’m sticking to lexemes that multiple sources have identified as secure so as to hold words whose identification is motivated more by pet classification theories than clear evidence at arm’s length. Hopefully we can steer through this minefield intact. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, turns out we can use the general template; see ant for how to format that. I haven't done the other ones, because you'll have to create improved entries for those romanisations. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Working on them. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Images at ⲛⲟⲩϯ & ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲧⲉ

Are any of these deities attested in Coptic as deities (or demons)? I know Horus and Bes are attested, I guess Isis might be attested as well? I think it would be strange to have crufty images that aren't related to Coptic culture as opposed to earlier Egyptian culture. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: They’re attested in Old Coptic (which isn’t really a coherent dia-/chronolect so much as a catch-all term for pre-Christian texts, mostly magical payri). So, for example, in the Schmidt Papyrus we get Osiris, Isis, Ophois, Hathor, and Anubis. The Leiden Papyrus has Coptic ⲁⲙⲟⲩⲛ (amoun) as a gloss of Demotic jmn. Ra is attested in plenty of Coptic texts, and also as a demon in the Refutation of All Heresies (in Greek transcription from Bohairic Coptic). That said, I agree these images really aren’t representative of most of the timespan of Coptic culture and could probably stand to be replaced. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Late, late, late, I know, but I've been mulling this for a while and think that some images are justified since quite a few more are attested than I initially thought. But if Roman or Hellenistic alternatives are available, it would in my opinion be a good idea to use these ones instead. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Vorziblix/2019–2022,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

OCS declension

Hi. I am reading some OSC grammar book and try to implement declension templates properly. Probably there will be some errors, but I am doing it in a good faith :) --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mladifilozof: Hi! No worries, and thanks for the work so far. It’s great to see someone else interested in working on OCS. You’re on the right track, and we’ll get the errors fixed anyway, so don’t feel discouraged from implementing things here as you keep learning.

One small thing to keep in mind: masculine hard o-stem nouns and adjectives ending in к, г, and х need two extra parameters, the first one ending in ц, ѕ, or с, and the second one ending in ч, ж, or ш, respectively — otherwise it generates the wrong forms before -ѣ and -и. So, for example, at оукроухъ (ukruxŭ) you need {{cu-decl-noun-o-m|оукроух|оукроус|оукроуш}} instead of {{cu-decl-noun-o-m|оукроух}}, and for длъгъ (dlŭgŭ) you need {{cu-decl-adj-hard|длъг|длъѕ|длъж}} instead of {{cu-decl-adj-hard|длъг}}. Thanks again! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Тханкс. I managed to add one extra parameter to кротъкъ and глоухъ. I don't know what the 3rd should be. I tried to add глоух|глоус|глоуш but it seems that the 3rd one has no effect. --Mladifilozof (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mladifilozof: The third one only changes the masculine vocative singular. You don’t need it for neuter o-stems but you do for the masculines (and adjectives!). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I need a small help with the templates. I guess we should use cu-decl-noun-a for землꙗ and змиꙗ, but I don't know how to handle the last diagraph ꙗ? Thanks. --Mladifilozof (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mladifilozof: Hi! They’re soft stems, so you can use {{cu-decl-noun-ja|земл|s}} and {{cu-decl-noun-ja|зми|v}}. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Хвала! --Mladifilozof (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Scribal abbreviations for Coptic nomina sacra

Hey Vorziblix. I'm curious how to type, and where to place, entries like ⲓ︦ⲥ̄ for ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ (yes, I know that attempt at the overbar doesn't quite look right). I think it makes sense to lemmatise at the full spelling, despite its comparative rarity in MSS, but we should still have alt form entries for the abbreviations — I'm just not sure how. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Hello! I agree that they should be lemmatized at the full spelling wherever possible. For the abbreviated forms (in alt-form entries etc.) I’d suggest they should be formed with U+0305 ‘combining overline’ over each letter rather than macrons. Then we’d reserve macrons for the ordinary superlinear stroke marking syllabic consonants. This looks to be what Unicode itself recommends; page 309 here gives the details. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 10:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so we want an entry located at ⲓ̅ⲥ̅ (i̅s̅) rather than at ⲓⲥ (is)? A bit tricky for me to type, but following the Unicode standard seems like the best idea. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Hmm... between those two, I find myself not entirely sure. To me, at least, it feels like the abbreviation overbars are more integral to their words than the often-omitted (syllabic) superlinear strokes that we only give in the headword line, but I don’t have a strong argument in either direction. How do we do it for Greek? (I don’t think we have nomina sacra entries for Old Church Slavonic yet, otherwise I’d look into those too... What other languages could we compare? Gothic? Old Armenian? In any case, it might make the most sense to make it consistent with Greek.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. Who would have an opinion? @Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added the nomina sacra in Gothic without the line (see alt forms at 𐌹𐌴𐍃𐌿𐍃 (iēsus)), but have to admit I have no strong opinion on the matter. I tend to avoid scribal diacritics, nobody knows how to type them anyway, so I don't bother. If you are in doubt as to what the entry page should be, you could consider using the form without overline in the page name, but add the overline in an alternative head= parameter in the headword template. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of which, how do I add them? The online tool I used yielded 𐌻̅𐌿̅𐌺̅ (l̅u̅k̅) (for the Luke abbreviation), which clearly isn't right. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: You did it right! 𐌻̅𐌿̅𐌺̅ (l̅u̅k̅) has the Unicode-standard U+0305 over each letter. In my broswer it looks about as you’d expect (a continuous overline). If it looks strange on your end, it might be a font support issue(?). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it must be a font issue then. On my browser it is not continuous, and in the transliteration the parts are not even of the same height. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're only going to create one entry, I'd create it at the entry without overbars/superlinear strokes just for searchability, but also add the diacritics via the head parameter. If you're going to create two entries anyways and turn one of them into a redirect, I don't have any opinion either way. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo: That sounds fine to me, and I suppose it matches all the nomina sacra entries we currently have (I also checked Old Armenian and the links there are the same way). Do we want to settle on entry names without, and head parameters with, overbars, then? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Upper and lower case in Coptic

I have just noticed that some links to Coptic, such as in translation tables, use upper-case letters. I believe the corresponding lemmas mostly use lower-case (I never used upper-case when creating entries because the writings I knew were basically all in majuscules anyway). The discrepancy between links and entries is far from ideal and I would like to know what you think the approach should be to upper and lower case. Do you think it should be a BP matter? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: I’ve always just used lowercase too, and would generally prefer keeping it all lowercase. Having text be single-cased is common practice in the field at any rate. The one complication is modern Coptic; I think modern Copts usually write Bohairic with both cases, if I’m not mistaken, so it might potentially make sense to have Bohairic entries with capitalization… if if weren’t for the fact that that would introduce a lot of pointless duplication of entries that exist in both Bohairic and other dialects. Maybe the most sensible thing would be to have all lemmas in lowercase, with Bohairic alt-form entries at uppercase forms where necessary. In any case I’d support changing all the links to lowercase; they should definitely match whatever lemma forms we choose. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw, the situation with Gothic, which is similarly an all-majuscule script based off Greek uncials, is that only lowercase is used for the transliterations as these case distinctions do not exist in the script and representing them in transliteration gives a misleading impression of the nature of the original script. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

hbj

If we do not use other transliteration systems, then hby may be deleted (hbj is a transliteration). J3133 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@J3133: I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand maintaining entries in so many transliteration systems as Egyptian has is not really feasible, and I’d be inclined to say that only entries in either our transliteration system or the Manuel de Codage system should be kept, and the rest should be deleted. On the other hand the entries that are already there (which are mostly old leftovers from when we didn’t have any consistent transliteration system yet) might be helpful to people looking for the entry, and their deletion is hardly worth the bother (it’s very far down my priority list, and other editors might not even agree on their deletion; I know some people supported keeping all the variant transliterations in the past). In any case they don’t belong under an “Alternative forms” header; we don’t list aiþs as an alt-form of 𐌰𐌹𐌸𐍃 (aiþs), or absida as an alt-form of абсида (absida), or whatever. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

In the case of your examples, the entries are in their language’s script and the transliteration is already mentioned (in the head template), meanwhile Egyptian entries are located at one of its transliteration systems. J3133 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@J3133: Sure, but the same principle applies. The numerous possible transliterations that we don’t give in our head templates aren’t listed as alt-forms either, because they’re not alternative forms of the word as actually used in the language (whether written or spoken) but alternative representations of the same written/spoken forms that we as non-speakers invent for our convenience. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

My point is for those entries the transliteration are not as important (and could, therefore, be missing), as the entry is located at how one would usually find it written, whereas for the Egyptian one must use the transliteration Wiktionary favors in order to find the entries, also taking into consideration that the various transliteration systems are not universal. J3133 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@J3133: I can see how that could argue in favor of having soft-redirect entries in the various different transliteration systems, but I don’t see why it would support listing them as alternative forms in the entries themselves. That just seems like clutter without benefit to readers, and moreover very misleading in certain cases; putting hby as an alt-form of hbj would imply two different hieroglyphic spellings under our transliteration system (say, vs. ), whereas they’re really intended as two representations of the same thing. If we really want to include things like hby under alt-forms they should at the very least be clearly marked as alternative transliterations, labelled with the source of that transliteration system, and separated out from the rest of the alt-forms. In that case some sort of template should probably be made to hold all the many possible variants in a collapsible table or some such. But again, I really don’t see any benefit. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A brief note of thanks

Hello Vorziblix! I write just to say that I am impressed by the size and quality of the work you've done here on Wiktionary, most of all in my case for Middle Egyptian - it is an inspiration to us all. My aim is to do the same for the languages in which I am interested, and your contributions provide constant cues on how I can improve my own. I must also thank for the patience in editing mine every time I fail to follow some practice which is obviously cemented and justified - trust me that I do them in goodwill, trying to get them right. Mere Seconds over Tokyo (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

wꜣyšꜣtjsꜣpy

I saw that my edit on the wꜣyšꜣtjsꜣpy page was reverted. My change was based on the form recorded on Tavernier, Jan (2007) Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550–330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts, Peeters Publishers, →ISBN, page 65, which records the form wꜣ-y-šꜣ-ti-šꜣ-p-y with no i or j after ti, although his transliteration of Egyptian appears somewhat inconsistent. 102.116.48.200 22:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You can’t just reverse-transliterate to get Egyptian hieroglyphic text; you will almost never get the right result. In Egyptian hieroglyphic writing there are many ways of spelling the same sequence of phonemes. Putting another after does not add another j to the preceding tj; both and are transliterated exactly the same way, as tj (or ti in Tavernier’s transliteration scheme), because the is a phonetic complement and not an independent phonogram. Hieroglyphic text should never be based on transliterations because there is no one-to-one mapping. Always go to the source text. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for explaining. I guess that Tavernier's inconsistency in how he wrote the Egyptian forms (i.e. at one point he records a form wꜣ-šꜣ-ti-i-šꜣ-p but later writes [wꜣ-y]-šꜣ-ti-šꜣ-p-y for BdE's , and alternatively uses jj and y for confused me for a while. I understand my mistake now and I'll avoid repeating them in the future. 102.115.138.195 19:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I went back and re-checked all the hieroglyphic additions I made. Some were accurate, and some were erroneous and I've corrected them based on the source text. All the ones which can be found in Bibliothèque d'études de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire and Annales du service des antiquités de l'Égypte are now accurate, but I don't have access to the one or two other texts cited by Tavernier, so someone who has access to them might need to re-check and correct them if I messed up on those. 102.115.140.149 05:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

tꜣ-ḥnt

Could you please confirm to me if the third hieroglyph on the third "ḥent" entry on the page 32 is or isn't the hieroglyph D48A? And if yes, how can I render it through <hiero>...<hiero>, since I can't seem to be able to render it? Antiquistik (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: Hi! You are correct, the glyph is indeed D48A. Unfortunately <hiero> can only render glyphs that are part of the list seen here, which doesn't include D48A. In such cases we use the template {{egy-glyph}} as a workaround. So, for example, to get you can type <hiero>W10:t</hiero>{{egy-glyph|D48A|h=16}}. (The h= parameter in the template just determines the height of the glyph displayed in pixels, if it's smaller than full height.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Antiquistik (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Egyptian FWOTDs

If you happen to know any appropriate Egyptian, Demotic or Coptic FWOTDs, you are more than welcome to nominate them. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Expanding hieroglyphics' rendering

Hi. Would it be possible to potentially expand the <hiero> template to render all signs on the Wikipedia List of Egyptian Hieroglyphs rather than simply the ones on the Gardiner's Sign List? The template not rendering all the hieroglyphs makes it very difficult to add information to many articles on both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Antiquistik (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, is the hieroglyph I posted below on the Gardiner Sign List or the Egyptian Hieroglyphs Unicode block? I've searched multiple times but couldn't find it. Antiquistik (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antiquistik Hi. Unicode (and the Wikipedia article you link) is horribly incomplete and contains hardly any more glyphs than WikiHiero (the software that provides our <hiero> tags). The glyph you gave me is F105, , which is not included in either one. You can see a full list of more obscure glyphs by going through the subcategories of this page: Commons:Category:Gardiner's_list.

Expanding WikiHiero would be possible, but you’d have to go through Phabricator rather than doing it on-wiki, which is a huge pain. Also, to be frank, the WikiHiero software is vastly outdated and should be thrown out and replaced entirely — it feels like a bit of a waste to be working on expanding it under those circumstances. However, if you need to enter a glyph that is not included in WikiHiero’s repertoire, there is a workaround: you can use the template {{egy-glyph}}. I provided some details on how to use it in my response to you a couple posts higher up on this page. If you have other questions on how to use it, or if I could be of help in any other way, feel free to ask. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there any intention to replace WikiHiero in the short term? Because if yes, I'd rather wait until it's implemented to do some of the edits I've been stalling. And if no, then I'll do the edits. I also see that {{egy-glyph}} works only on Wiktionary but not on Wikipedia. Is there any other template I can use there? Antiquistik (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antiquistik On replacing WikiHiero: no, not to my knowledge. A few years back there was an attempt called Hierator, but for various technical reasons it ended up not being adopted. Since then no one’s yet tried again. I’d say feel free to do the edits you’re planning.

I created {{egy-glyph}} and most of our Egyptian infrastructure on Wiktionary, but I haven’t done much work on Wikipedia (and don’t have admin rights there), so unfortunately a lot of useful templates are still missing there. I don’t think any equivalent template for displaying hieroglyphs exists. It would probably be possible to copy over the code from Template:egy-glyph to Wikipedia, and I think the same template would work there if you did, as long as you also copied over the related template Template:egy-glyph-img. I can do it for you if you want; let me know. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, please do copy it. Thanks in advance! Antiquistik (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antiquistik Ok, done. You should be able to use {{egy-glyph}} on Wikipedia now. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has their CSS set so that anything in <hiero> tags gets put on a new line, so if you want to use {{egy-glyph}} inline with other hieroglyphs, you might need to use a table. (I and other editors fixed that here on Wiktionary, but only an admin can fix it there. In fact, it used to work properly on Wikipedia before they broke it a couple years back...) At any rate, it should, at least, be usable! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! What kind of table do I need to use {{temp|egy-glyph}} inline with other hieroglyphs? Antiquistik (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antiquistik Something like <table><td><hiero>put glyph codes here</hiero></td><td>{{egy-glyph|put glyph code here}}</td><td><hiero>put glyph codes here</hiero></td></table> should do the trick. Basically, enclose each block of <hiero></hiero> tags and each separate instance of {{egy-glyph}} in a separate <td></td>, and then put the whole thing inside <table></table>. If you want a working example, I just edited the glyphs under w:Apep#Development to work that way. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Antiquistik (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you yet again, but how do I stack hieroglyphs when using {{temp|egy-glyph}} with the tables? Antiquistik (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antiquistik It's pretty much the same principle, only using the more complicated syntax shown in the template documentation with quad=. You'd just need to enclose each block of <hiero></hiero> tags and each invocation of {{egy-glyph-img}} in <td></td> and the whole thing inside <table></table> within each row of the stack. So if you wanted to get for whatever reason you'd type <td><hiero>O29:p*p</hiero></td><td>{{egy-glyph|quad=<hiero>z</hiero><table><td><hiero>t</hiero></td><td> {{egy-glyph-img|O24A|h=20}}}}</td></table></td></table>. Unfortunately it's pretty hideously complicated to look at, but if you break it down it's not too hard to make sense of. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Antiquistik (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Coptic Pronunciation Labels

Hi @Vorziblix. I was in the process of removing these labels because of their use of unclear, non-scholarly, and often contradictory terminology. Pronunciations with the label “Late Bohairic” mostly reflect to Emil Maher Ishak’s reconstruction of the liturgical pronunciation of Bohairic before the reforms instituted by Pope Cyril in 1858. Confusingly, other entries feature the same pronunciation under the label “Old Bohairic.” Ishak’s pronunciation is indeed popularly referred to as “Old Bohairic” by members of the Coptic church who promote its use in the liturgy. These supporters disparage the modern church pronunciation by calling it names like “the artificial pronunciation” or “Greco-Bohairic.” Supporters of the modern church pronunciation in turn call Ishak’s formulation “Arabo-Bohairic” and the like. Such terms are highly politicized and are not used in scholarly literature on the subject. Other entries use the label “Old Bohairic” for what Coptologists would simply call “Bohairic,” ie. the pronunciation of Bohairic Coptic as a living language as known from the academic study of Coptic phonology. The label “reconstructed classical Coptic” is also used on Wiktionary entries in this same sense. Now, Ishak himself is very clear that his reconstruction was not meant to represent Bohairic as it would have been pronounced by native speakers—he aimed strictly to recover the pre-1858 church standard. The popularization of the term “Old Bohairic” has unfortunately caused this point to be lost on many people. Some of the transcriptions I removed may have been accurate representations of the liturgical pronunciations, but they were presented in ways which at best caused confusion and at worse misrepresented their content. It seems to me absolutely imperative that we first agree on neutral and unambiguous labels for the pronunciation standards of the Coptic church, for instance perhaps Liturgical Bohairic (pre-1858) and Liturgical Bohairic (post-1858). When liturgical pronunciations are not concerned on the other hand, there’s no need to use any labels other than “Bohairic,” “Sahidic,” “Akhmimic,” etc. This way Wiktionary can avoid giving the appearance of having taken a side on an intra-church, extra-linguistic debate. Rhemmiel (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rhemmiel: Hi! I agree that our labels were less than ideal and, especially where the term “Old Bohairic” was concerned, hopelessly confused; I also agree that we should decide on clear conventions as to what labels we want to use and switch over to an unambiguous standard. I don’t think outright deleting the liturgical pronunciations is the right way to go about fixing the current mess, though. Transcriptions should be fixed and properly labelled where present, but (IMO) we shouldn’t get rid of information on the main pronunciations actually in use among modern Coptic communities.

As to what labels we should use: Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like there’s a settled academic name for each of these pronunciations. I wouldn’t object to a solution like ‘Liturgical Bohairic’, though since the label will be parenthesized, having the dates in front (‘pre-1858 liturgical’, etc.) might be a better idea than putting them in another nested set of parentheses. I will note that terms like ‘Greco-Bohairic’ have indeed been used in scholarly literature, for instance in this paper. I can’t judge for myself whether such a use is seen as polemical or not among modern Copts. In the end I’m open to any reasonable solution, so long as we’re consistent.

For the pre-liturgical reconstructed pronunciation, I worry that leaving it unlabelled will confuse modern Coptic users. My inclination is to err on the side of explicitness, but I could probably be convinced otherwise. It might be worth bringing up the matter in the Beer Parlour and pinging other Coptic editors to see what they think about all of this. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: Yeah you’re right, I should’ve started a discussion first. I’ll get around to it when I find the time. If you're interested here’s a blogpost on the issue written from the perspective of a Copt. Kinda changed the way I thought about it. Rhemmiel (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of *vьračь coming from "Dialectal Proto-South-Slavic" and *vьrati meaning "to utter a spell / to speak out"?

Hello Vorziblix!

Hope you're doing well. I got 2 questions for you about the Wiktionary entry for the word «врач»:

1) The Wiktionary page states that the word *vьračь comes to us from dialectal South Slavic Proto-Slavic. I've sadly haven't been able to find any evidence of that. Could you please tell me where you found that?

2) Furthermore, it also states that the word *vьrati meant "to utter a spell / to speak out", of which I can't find any evidence either. I tried checking the references but the former only lists the word вьрѣти and the latter solely provides textual evidence of the OCS word врачь. Could you please let me know where you found evidence of this verb meaning those 2 things?

Hope to hear from you, best wishes Міи (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Міи: Hi! I’m trying to dig up what sources I used for this right now. If I remember correctly, I don’t think my sources were explicit about *vьračь being South Slavic Proto-Slavic per se, but all the known descendants of Proto-Slavic *vьračь are South Slavic, with the exception of Russian врач (vrač) (which is a borrowing from Old Church Slavonic). That suggests the Proto-Slavic word can only be securely reconstructed for the South Slavic branch. Max Vasmer’s Этимологический словарь русского языка lists the known cognates of врач (vrač) / descendants of *vьračь, and they’re all South Slavic: Old Church Slavonic врачь (vračĭ), Bulgarian врач (vrač), Serbo-Croatian вра̑ч, Slovene vráč. Bagrinovsky’s Краткий этимологический словарь mentions that the Russian form is borrowed from Old Church Slavonic (and therefore also South Slavic in origin), although I think I was looking at some other source for that information last time around.

For your second question, I’ll need some more time to search up my sources again. As you say, all this information isn’t in the listed references at the OCS entry; as far as I remember, I was planning on making proper Proto-Slavic entries for the words in question where the etymological references would be provided, but for some reason or other I was interrupted by real-life business and never got around to it. That’s my fault, unfortunately. Hopefully I can recover where I got those meanings from. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 21:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Міи: Found my source! In A. E. Anikin’s Русский этимологический словарь, volume 9, under the entry for врач (vrač), *vьrati is defined as заговаривать (zagovarivatʹ, “to begin to talk, to cast a spell”). Hope that helps! Edit: Plus it does, in fact, explicitly mention that Proto-Slavic *vьračь was “dialectal South Slavic”. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vorziblix Amazing! Thank you very much! Best wishes Міи (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

ангелъ

Sorry about that, for some reason I thought alternative forms always had to be at the top! Prahlad balaji (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: Yeah, no worries! WT:ELE allows both orders, but once upon a time (several years ago) they used to have to be at the top, so in many languages that’s still more common—but in a case like this, where they badly clutter up the entry before the definition, I think the other order works best. Thanks for adding the descendants! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Introduction for MdC Template

Hi. Because you have thanked me on my MdC abbreviation page, I post this to you. I also want to thank you for your work in making MdC redirects. MdC is useful transliteration way on PC, because it is really hard to type Egyptological special characters like "ꜣ".

I think this edit is a little bit annoying so I made the simple Template "Template:MdC" You can use this template in this form:{{subst:MdC|wꜣḏ}} thank you.--Sethemhat (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sethemhat: Thanks! That makes things easier. I’m not too active at the present moment, but it is a long-term goal of mine to eventually have MdC soft-redirects for all Egyptian entries that need them, especially since this is the way Egyptian terms are looked up in other online resources like the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae. Keep up the good work! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sethemhat (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor problem with Template:R:egy:Wb

Your edits to the template and the parameters at sr don't seem to be getting along well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Whoops, sorry about that. I think the errors should be fixed now. Let me know if you run into any other oddness. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Linking at 𓂝

Hi Vorziblix! Thank you for catching my mistake and for your thorough edit summary over at 𓂝.

Would it be appropriate to link to the translingual entry for ꜥ in sense 1 instead? Winthrop23 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Winthrop23: Hmm. I’m of two minds about doing that. On the one hand, it does have logic to it. On the other hand, Egyptian has many different phonograms, some of which represent sequences of multiple sounds and wouldn’t make much sense to link that way, and linking this entry but not those would make them inconsistent with each other. I wouldn’t do it myself, but I’d probably not revert someone else if they wanted to. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 08:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Buzzard hieroglyph

I was trying to find an image of the G4 buzzard to illustrate the difference from the G1 vulture, and noticed that not only did the Commons category not contain glyphs I could easily identify as the buzzard, its description was conflating the buzzard with the Guinea fowl (G21). So I wanted to ask if you had time to look over the six images in commons:Category:Buzzard (hieroglyph) and see if they in fact contain the buzzard, and/or if you know of images of inscriptions that do use the buzzard. In particular, since 𓄿 says "in some inscriptions the two could also be distinguished by their colors", do you know how the buzzard was colored? - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@-sche: As far as I can tell, all the photographs in commons:Category:Buzzard (hieroglyph) should instead be in commons:Category:Vulture (a hieroglyph). In File:Luxor Tempel 16.jpg and File:Luxor Temple 9545.JPG, they’re part of foreign place names transcribed using the so-called ‘group-writing’ system, which uses G1 but not typically G4; in File:Abydos Tempelrelief Ramses II. 26.JPG the glyph serves as a phonetic complement to wꜣ, and so represents G1 with phonetic value ꜣ; in File:Medinet Habu Ramses III 11d.jpg and File:Medinet Habu Ramses III. Tempelrelief 11.JPG the glyph forms part of the Late Egyptian possessive nꜣy.k (“your”), and is also G1.

Unfortunately this means we have no actual images of the buzzard identified as such on Commons, and I’d need to go hunt them out. I do know of some images of inscriptions where the buzzard glyph can be found, but unfortunately they’re either (1) not on Commons and don’t have a compatible license, or (2) of bad quality and not very useful for illustrating the difference from the vulture. (For example, File:Louvre hymne Imenmes.JPG contains the buzzard a number of times towards the left side of line 6, but it’s not very good as an illustration).

The comment about color comes from here, which makes no concrete mention of what color exactly the buzzard used but cites two sources: Elisabeth Staehelin’s “Zu den Farben der Hieroglyphen” in Zwei Ramessidische Königsgräber: Ramses IV. und Ramses VII, page 113, and Nina Davies’s Picture Writing in Ancient Egypt, page 27, neither one of which I currently have access to. It’s possible that there are more details on coloration available in either one of these two books, if you could dig them up somewhere. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 08:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I see; thank you. I appreciate this and have recategorized the images. I'll see what I find. I spotted images of facsimiles of Menkheperraseneb's tomb which seem to have the buzzard in kftyw (edit: on closer inspection they may be the quail chick, the images are not in a great state of preservation and resolution), but Commons only has the other half of the scene, and while their position is that faithful reproductions of old hieroglyphs are public domain, I'll have to ask whether that covers those facsimiles. (This different image elsewhere of that placename is using the quail chick, right? Should we have an {{altform}} section at kftjw pointing to kftyw?) Amazon's preview feature shows me this in Davies' book, with the yellow-headed, green/blue-winged vulture and a yellow-with-red bird that looks like the buzzard, and Google Books provides the snippet to confirm my hunch: "Pl. IV, 1. Egyptian Vulture. Phonetic ꜣ 'vulture' (G1). From the tomb of Rekhmire (no. 100). White ground. Although the bird in outline differs little from the long-legged buzzard (G4, our Pl. IV, 3) with which the Egyptians sometimes confused it, there is no resemblance in the painted examples and these do not vary." Perhaps this explains why someone painted the bird in File:Abydos Tempelrelief Ramses II. 26.JPG yellow and someone else then categorized it as the buzzard? - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

In poking around I also found this, with images, which broadly agrees that the vulture has a yellow or red head, black beak(-tip) and eye black, blue wings, white breast/tail with a red outline, red feet )although "variants show many diffferent colours, from virtually all white, through all yellow to all blue", perhaps explaining Ramses II's relief, if the colours on it are rue to what would've been there in-period), whereas the buzzard is yellow, with red accents. - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@-sche: Yep, that image has the quail chick. kftyw should be lemmatized at kftjw in our transliteration system; I’ll move that one and msḫtyw to their proper titles. Thanks for the sources on color, and for recategorizing the images! I believe you’re right, too, about the comment on your final link being applicable to the coloration seen on Ramesses’s relief. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Padisematawy's hieroglyphic name

Could you please help me identify the hieroglyphs used to write Padisematawy's name in this article? I have identified , , , and , but I am having trouble identifying the others. Antiquistik (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: is the complete name, so you were very close to getting the whole thing. (The next two glyphs aren’t part of the name but spell mꜣꜥ-ḫrw, which the article’s author didn’t bother translating.) The combination is a logogram for tꜣwj (“the Two Lands”), with one plant representing Upper Egypt and the other representing Lower Egypt; in this case the scribe put in the middle of them to represent their unification (cf. zmꜣ). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! It's much appreciated! Antiquistik (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Cuneiform template

Would it be possible for you and/or for @Profes.I. to create a template similar to the one used for hieroglyphic rendering, but for rendering Neo-Assyrian period cuneiform?

I have tried adding Neo-Assyrian period cuneiform text to Wikipedia pages, but it seems that they do not display properly for readers who do not have the appropriate fonts installed on their devices, so a template that would render the phonetic values or names of the signs as the images used to display the signs in {{cuns}} would be pretty useful as a replacement. Antiquistik (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: Possibly! We would need to have images of all the signs uploaded somewhere on Commons first, though; I don’t know if we currently have any images to draw from. If we had images of each sign, with consistent filenames so that whatever code we typed in could automatically be referenced to the appropriate one, it would probably be fairly easy. (Easier than hieroglyphs, I think; cuneiform doesn’t need all the table infrastructure that our hieroglyph templates use, since AFAIK cuneiform signs don’t get stacked on top of each other but are just ordered linearly.) Maybe something like {{Template:t2i}} would be sufficient? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vorziblix Sorry for not replying earlier, I forgot about this. Are all the cuneiform signs required for setting up such a template already on Commons? Antiquistik (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Antiquistik: Hi, sorry I was away for a few months myself. Unfortunately I really don’t know enough about cuneiform to judge this accurately. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not an issue. I have decided that using the Unicode-encoded cuneiform signs is better. Antiquistik (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

OCS Discord Server

Hello! In our quaint OCS discord server we've been using the transcriptions you've put up on your website(they're absolutely brilliant btw!) quite a bit but just now I noticed you're also active on wiktionary. Would you like to join us there? — Огн҄еметъка (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)