Talk:Egyptian hieroglyphs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ancient Egypt (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Automatic peerreview[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yogh (ȝ)[edit]

Obviously this is not the correct character to use for Egyptological alef. That character will be in Unicode 5.1. Should we keep yogh without comment until later? Evertype 07:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Use

G1

Rktect 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Stele[edit]

the word is spelt stele not stela

From dictionary.com ... "ste·la (stl)pl. steles, also ste·lae (-l) An upright stone or slab with an inscribed or sculptured surface, used as a monument or as a commemorative tablet in the face of a building."

Notes[edit]

Those three notes to a Tour Guide ... with all that had been written on hieroglyphs, to give references to that? — Just an opinion.--Barbatus 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did 'o' originate?[edit]

Just a question... I've heard reconstructed Egyptian on a number of occasions and there always seems to be an 'o' pronounced here and there. Since there is no 'o' in Ancient Egyptian, how do we know when to pronounce it? Such as names like Sobek or Poker (and later, Osiris), when was it decided to pronounce them this way and what was the explanation?84.250.246.42 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In the New Kingdom many new glyphs were developed. It was one of the clues Champoleon used in deciphering Ptolomy and Cleopatra.Rktect 22:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There must have been the 'o' sound in Ancient Egyptian they just did not write down vowels because they do not add much to the meaning of a word as you will see. Unfrtntly bth Ptlmy nd Clptr r Grk wrds so not very good examples and Osiris was written Wsir in Egyptian. I think much of the pronouciation comes from studying the Coptic language and ancient foreign languages which mention Egyptian names. Keith Hazell 22:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
In Egyptian there is a
G43
"U" which comes into use as
Z7
in the Ninth dynasty of Egypt and becomes common in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt under Akhenaten.
see also the
G44
"W" sound, but the "O" sound is Greek. See Gardiner, "Egyptian Grammar", p 27 Rktect 12:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As a related question there is Egyptian
N35
refered to on page 27 as equivalent to Greek lambda, but in the Sign list as nt. I'm not sure if the leo in Cleopatra comes forth from some variant of
E23
as in /rw/ > rule > cruel > el Rktect 12:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Format Error[edit]

Please see the following section: Writing System→Phonetic compliments. After a number of hieroglyphs (and their explanation), the paragraph says

Finally, it sometimes happens that the pronunciation of words might be changed because of their connection to ...

Then, there is a major grammar/structure error in the beginning of the next paragraph. It starts as follows:

nouns; they are always accompanied by a mute vertical stroke indicating ...

I am unsure as to how to rectify the error. My first impression is to take nouns and make it a level 4 heading, then continue as it is.—Red Baron 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - it was ancient vandalism, I have replaced the missing sections and it looks a little better now. Cheers Markh 08:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

determinative=ideograph?[edit]

Is it a convention to call a determinative "ideograph" in the field of Egyptology? pls revert my edits if it is so. But I feel that the very appearance of the word "ideograph" in the article could lead the readers astray. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

a must read[edit]

http://www.magtudin.org/Origin%20I.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.25.155 (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Which bird is that?[edit]

Greetings,

Do you happen to know which bird is that?

G31

Could it be a Shoebill? According to Encyclopedia Aarabiah the image of this bird was engraved on the walls of ancient Egyptian temples. Could you elaborate on this matter? Lior 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This glyph corresponds to the mythological bennu. It is believed to be based on a type of heron. — Zerida 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
its listed as G31 Gardiner p 470 Heron, det in bnu (bynw) Phoenix, a very similar bird is det in snty Heron.Rktect 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

hieroglyphics = evil?[edit]

i heard that hieroglyphics were seen as evil fighting evil - that only the gods or those entrusted with them could use them.... & somehow that it protected evil by supporting it... someone verify/edit/ ?

Hieroglyphic (and its cursive versions, hieratic and demotic) was simply the standard writing system of the Egyptian language, and it was used for any kind of religious or civil use. The extant hieroglyphic texts include such "unmagical" things as trial records, geometry excercise books, private letters, commercial invoices... Legends about hieroglyphs being a mysterious magic writing arose in the hellenistic age, when the Egyptian language had switched to the Greek alphabet and no one in Egypt could understand hieroglyphs anymore. 194.176.201.29 08:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hieroglyphs are not a simple standard writing system, Hieroglyph is not a written translation of any spoken Egyptian Language. It was not, nor has it ever been used for any of the examples you have stated, with the only possible exception being their role in Egyptian Theology. It is for more accurate to explain that Hieroglyph -- as a word -- is the etymological equivalent, to flip book animation as still photographic images are to reels of film that become motion picture. What Arrogant Anthropological Linguists have done, is the exact same scenario as some Linguist, in two thousand years finds a set of drawings by William Hanna, Joseph Barbera, or Chuck Jones, then decides to assign ~said~ frames of the animated cartoon to be letters or words in our Ancient American English alphabet and or vocabulary. I don't mean to use an offensive tone, however there are a lot of Linguists today, that wouldn't be able to put two and two together even if they found the single, animation frames in correct sequential order. -Dirtclustit (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Phonetic complements[edit]

I would be bold and change this, but I'm an amateur.

A question regarding the following passage:

sw t
Z1
swt, "reed" - the t is the phonetic complement.


How is the t a phonetic complement?

sw

reads sw, not swt in the first place. The t is an additional sound; it does not clarify the reading of sw. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 15:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this is not an example of a phonetic complement. I would just eliminate it. There are several other examples in the section that actually discusses phonetic complements. — Zerida 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Gardiner p 588 swt (M23), Ideo., a plant perhaps sedge or scirpus reed, p73 n 10; swt old indp. pron/, 3rd singular, sw pron. compound, he, it § 124.
See also:

Cleanup clarity[edit]

26-Aug-2007: I have been analyzing the text, in an effort to improve the clarity of concepts presented. I have changed some linked phrases and added phrases to improve clarity. However, I think IMO, that more simple, generalized, overview statements should be added, because too many detailed examples are presented very abruptly, with little introduction for clarity of concepts. I realize it can be difficult to write smooth and clear intro sections about complex issues, so that writing could take a while to complete. -Wikid77 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Typesetting hieroglyphs[edit]

26-Aug-2007: Some writers had intended the hieroglyphic symbols to appear embedded within paragraphs; however, those symbols split to separate lines on some browsers. I specifically re-typeset the hieroglyphic symbols using various techniques:

  • put text in HTML-divisions: <div> my text </div>
  • indented by colon (":"), each paragraph containing hieroglyphs;
  • indented by asterisk ("*") a bullet with hieroglyphs;
  • indented by colon-asterisk (":*") for hieroglyph sub-examples.

Some hieroglyphic symbols are short, fitting within the interline spacing; however, some symbols are quite tall, causing an interline gap for fitting those tall symbols. I tried to shrink tall symbols by using small-font tags ("<small> tiny text </small>"), but the symbols would not shrink with font-size. Smaller symbols would be good to have. -Wikid77 08:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeating redundancy[edit]

26-Aug-2007: Ironically, I have had to re-introduce redundant wording into this article explaining redundant hieroglyphic spellings, despite the issue (above) to "avoid redundancies" for concise writing. On the contrary, during the explanations of complex Egyptian symbols, it is NOT the time to be close-mouthed and discreet. Although brevity can display an aura of sophistication in writing, clear descriptions of Egyptian writing do not require proof of author sophistication. Please repeat concepts (in other words, restate key ideas) in a variety of styles at each point, in an effort to clarify concepts to a range of readers, before adding more concepts in follow-on sections. I strongly recommend: "tell 'em what you plan to say, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told them." Many people will find the information fascinating, but very confusing, so by all means, explain concepts 3 times, but with the final recap shorter. Bored readers will skip the recap sections, but others will gain insights there. Do I hear, "I copy that"? -Wikid77 08:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign signsets used[edit]

This article needs a warning that it uses foreign letters, signs or other annotations that do not appear in the Latin or otherwise modern languages.

How are the hyroglyphics written into the text? Rhinocerous Ranger (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Boustrophedon?[edit]

Was the language written boustrophedon style? Chris (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Direction depended on the layout of the writing surface - walls on opposite sides of a doorway might have writing in opposite directions. kwami (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hieroglyphics - other meanings?[edit]

In Slavic and some other East European languages (perhaps influenced by Russian) the word Hieroglyph (Russian: иероглиф) is used to describe Chinese characters (in Chinese or Japanese). In fact, it's the only way to say a Chinese character in Russian. Is there this meaning in English or some other European languages? I know some people frowned when somebody referred to Hanzi/Kanji as Hieroglyphs. In my opinion, the word Hieroglyph should not be used in relation to old Egyptian language alone but in reference to any Logographic system. --Atitarev (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen 'hieroglyphs' used to describe other similar systems, although the Egyptian sense is the most common. Actually, the Wikipedia Hieroglyph page describes other uses. YngNghymru (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Flamingo?[edit]

Hi there, i'm totally new to this and so may just be getting mixed up with how i'm interpreting things. However, in the 'Logograms' section, where there's a representation of the glyph meaning 'flamingo' it says "the corresponding phonogram means "red"", but i can't actually see a corresponding phonogram-just the bird glyph and the determinative telling me it's a logogram. is the "red" phonogram missing? or am i just misinterpreting what's being said? Can anybody help me on this? Thanks Greebo cat (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Can these external links be placed on the Egyptian Hieroglyph page please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw81245 (talkcontribs) 13:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they are spam. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Ward3001 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

link to polish Wikipedia[edit]

please add the link to pl.Wiki - [[pl:Hieroglify]] Derski (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to finnish Wikipedia[edit]

It would be very nice if someone could add a link to finnish Wikipedia - [[fi:Hieroglyfit]] DiamondClaw 19.07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to spanish Wikipedia[edit]

Also, there is no link to spanish Wikipedia - [[es:Jeroglífico]] Fedeluis (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, done, and done. That should've been handled by a bot. And we were missing French, which was FA. Don't know what happened. kwami (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cartouche artifacts[edit]

In the "Cartouche" section, I'm seeing rectangular lines around the curves at the left and right ends of the cartouches. -- Beland (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Skara Brae[edit]

I recently came across the image of an inscription found in the Orcadian Neolithic village of Skara Brae which you can see here. The explanation provided there for its existence is speculative at best. Nonetheless the resemblance to say

n
V4
D12
q

is interesting. I have not been able to find an academically credible discussion of the subject and wondered if anyone could either point me to one, or perhaps other examples of extra-Egyptian primitive hieroglyphs? Ben MacDui 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone[edit]

I was rather surprised to find this text:

The real breakthrough in decipherment began in the early 1800s by scholars as Silvestre de Sacy, Akerblad and Thomas Young. Finally, Jean-François Champollion made the complete decipherment. The discovery in 1799 of the Rosetta Stone by Napoleon's troops (during Napoleon's Egyptian invasion) provided the motivation to study the script, but the text on the stone was of almost no use in decipherment.

I think it's interesting to note that the articles on these scholars who provided the breakthrough mentioned here all state that their work all revolved around the text of the Rosetta stone! To suggest that the text was unimportant is patent nonsense and I've removed it, along with revising the wording a bit to make it flow. Any discussion? EthanL (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert, but I agree with your assessment. Ben MacDui 12:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Determinatives[edit]

The determinatives used seem to me to have pretty much exactly the same purpose as Chinese radicals, such as disambiguating homophones and reinforcing the idea of the word. The description of the "papyrus" determiner put me very much in mind of the 言 radical. Could someone elaborate? 137.205.74.230 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They're both determinatives. kwami (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Photoshop or Rare/Deformed Glyph?[edit]

Take a look at the image with the black hieroglyphics. 2nd Column from the left, 5 down. Is that a real animal or a photo-shopped monster? Its very un-Egyptian looking! I suspect foul play but I leave this to you experts. Let me know please as I'm very curious.

-Knowl <(Go to my user page to play WIKI RP! Its FUN and educational!) (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure doesn't look Egyptian to me. I don't have Gardiner with me, but I doubt I'd find it there. kwami (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked around Google images for a while last night and it looks like this is part of one of the sarcophagi in the British Museum. However, the entire thing is covered in writing so unless someone had a very detailed collection of photographs from every angle it is hard to verify if this is real or not. The user who uploaded it is an anonymous IP from the Ford Motor Company. It might not be malicious; maybe just a FARK leftover that someone mistook for the real thing. Its a shame really because aside from the one suspicious glyph its a very good photo compared to the one that was previously in its place. -Knowl <(Go to my user page to play WIKI RP! Its FUN and educational!) (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done for looking. Ankhnesneferibre was an obvious search argument and I think it was that one which enabled me to find firm evidence. I have preserved the amusing image in this blog posting. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Nice! Now the only mystery left is what this thing is. Alien VS predator reference? Godzilla? The ghost of LBJ? Someone posted on my talk page claiming it was their doing, but never said what it was. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What posting on your talk page? You are not by any chance referring to this edit are you? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Small change[edit]

Unless im mistaken the translation of the Jackel actually means 'Anubis' which is the Jackel headed god so i made a slight ajustment there

there was something else i wanted to do too but i forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boves (talkcontribs) 10:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange wording[edit]

I'm not an expert, but I have noticed some passages that seem inconsistent, but I'm not sure how to remedy some of these instances of bad wording or internal logic.

Under "History and evolution", it is claimed that "simplified glyph forms developed, resulting in the hieratic (priestly) and demotic (popular) scripts". The article Hieratic, though, emphasises (citing a scholarly source) that this script is not derived from hieroglyphs, instead being a parallel development.

Under "Decipherment of hieroglyphic writing", the article says "[...] an attempt by an Egyptian intellectual to rescue an unrecoverable past". In the face of the results of modern Egyptology, it is not very fortunate to call the Egyptian past "unrecoverable", as it has obviously been recovered to a considerable extent.

It also says that the hieroglyphs were the inspiration for the Semitic alphabets; however, according to article pointed to, strictly speaking, it was rather the hieratic, not the hieroglyphic script that provided the immediate inspiration. This imprecise statement needs fixing and the article on hieratic should mention that hieratic was the model for the alphabet.

Under "Spelling", the article says "Furthermore, the Egyptians were perfectly content to include older orthography ("historical spelling") alongside newer practices, as if it were acceptable in English to use the spelling of a given word from 1600 in a text written today." The comparison with English is the worst you could come up with, since English is famous for its historical spelling - basically, what is described there is indeed current practice in English!

I have also deleted some paragraphs from "Etymology" that, besides sounding as if they rather belonged to the Simple English Wikipedia, or had been copied from somewhere else, did not belong to the subject of the section. Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiHiero syntax[edit]

I have recently noticed that the glyphs on the Rossetta stone face the right, that means that the Rossetta stone glyphs would be read from right to left, not left to right, so is there a way to "flip" the gliphs when using the WikiHiero syntax? Oh, and is it possible to manually make the gliphs smaller like pictures and thumbnails? Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a convention that the hieroglyphs are written left to right. Wikihiero doesn't allow right-to-left righting, as far as I know Markh (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

using WikiHiero[edit]

how do you use WikiHiero, like on your use page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperfect.dark (talkcontribs) 08:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking for some help[edit]

I'm hoping someone here might be able to point me in the right direction.

For the article Lod, a city in Israel, I'm trying to find the first recorded use of a name for the city. The first person to write about it was apparently the pharaoh Thutmose III, who, in 1465 BCE, drew up a list of towns in Caanan. I have found this page that mentions Lydda in this context (if you search for Lydda, you'll see the entry).

Does anyone know what this means? Is it saying that this was the name Thutmose III used for the town, and if so, exactly which symbols made up the name, and do we have any idea how it would have been pronounced? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian hieroglyphs[edit]

How egyptian hieroglyphs were finally decoded? Two explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.182.138 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Attempts at translations in medieval Egypt[edit]

Removed the references to a (partial) decipherment 800 years before Champollion. While apparently widely reported in the media, a casual inspection of at least the translated work of Ibn Wahshiyya at google books (see reference in article) suggests that most of the 'translations' were of a similarly fantastic nature as Kirchner's later suggestions. Claims of 'cracking the code' do thus seem at least problematic and too questionable to be reported here without qualifiers. As qualifiers in the absence of a critical source constitute original research, removal seemed the only option. --Hakseng (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

unicode 5.2[edit]

I upgraded my gucharmap and happened to notice the hieroglyphic range, so I made a grid template for it. See talk page for instructions.

Egyptian Hieroglyphs[1][2]
Official Unicode Consortium code chart (PDF)
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F
U+1300x 𓀀 𓀁 𓀂 𓀃 𓀄 𓀅 𓀆 𓀇 𓀈 𓀉 𓀊 𓀋 𓀌 𓀍 𓀎 𓀏
U+1301x 𓀐 𓀑 𓀒 𓀓 𓀔 𓀕 𓀖 𓀗 𓀘 𓀙 𓀚 𓀛 𓀜 𓀝 𓀞 𓀟
U+1302x 𓀠 𓀡 𓀢 𓀣 𓀤 𓀥 𓀦 𓀧 𓀨 𓀩 𓀪 𓀫 𓀬 𓀭 𓀮 𓀯
U+1303x 𓀰 𓀱 𓀲 𓀳 𓀴 𓀵 𓀶 𓀷 𓀸 𓀹 𓀺 𓀻 𓀼 𓀽 𓀾 𓀿
U+1304x 𓁀 𓁁 𓁂 𓁃 𓁄 𓁅 𓁆 𓁇 𓁈 𓁉 𓁊 𓁋 𓁌 𓁍 𓁎 𓁏
U+1305x 𓁐 𓁑 𓁒 𓁓 𓁔 𓁕 𓁖 𓁗 𓁘 𓁙 𓁚 𓁛 𓁜 𓁝 𓁞 𓁟
U+1306x 𓁠 𓁡 𓁢 𓁣 𓁤 𓁥 𓁦 𓁧 𓁨 𓁩 𓁪 𓁫 𓁬 𓁭 𓁮 𓁯
U+1307x 𓁰 𓁱 𓁲 𓁳 𓁴 𓁵 𓁶 𓁷 𓁸 𓁹 𓁺 𓁻 𓁼 𓁽 𓁾 𓁿
U+1308x 𓂀 𓂁 𓂂 𓂃 𓂄 𓂅 𓂆 𓂇 𓂈 𓂉 𓂊 𓂋 𓂌 𓂍 𓂎 𓂏
U+1309x 𓂐 𓂑 𓂒 𓂓 𓂔 𓂕 𓂖 𓂗 𓂘 𓂙 𓂚 𓂛 𓂜 𓂝 𓂞 𓂟
U+130Ax 𓂠 𓂡 𓂢 𓂣 𓂤 𓂥 𓂦 𓂧 𓂨 𓂩 𓂪 𓂫 𓂬 𓂭 𓂮 𓂯
U+130Bx 𓂰 𓂱 𓂲 𓂳 𓂴 𓂵 𓂶 𓂷 𓂸 𓂹 𓂺 𓂻 𓂼 𓂽 𓂾 𓂿
U+130Cx 𓃀 𓃁 𓃂 𓃃 𓃄 𓃅 𓃆 𓃇 𓃈 𓃉 𓃊 𓃋 𓃌 𓃍 𓃎 𓃏
U+130Dx 𓃐 𓃑 𓃒 𓃓 𓃔 𓃕 𓃖 𓃗 𓃘 𓃙 𓃚 𓃛 𓃜 𓃝 𓃞 𓃟
U+130Ex 𓃠 𓃡 𓃢 𓃣 𓃤 𓃥 𓃦 𓃧 𓃨 𓃩 𓃪 𓃫 𓃬 𓃭 𓃮 𓃯
U+130Fx 𓃰 𓃱 𓃲 𓃳 𓃴 𓃵 𓃶 𓃷 𓃸 𓃹 𓃺 𓃻 𓃼 𓃽 𓃾 𓃿
U+1310x 𓄀 𓄁 𓄂 𓄃 𓄄 𓄅 𓄆 𓄇 𓄈 𓄉 𓄊 𓄋 𓄌 𓄍 𓄎 𓄏
U+1311x 𓄐 𓄑 𓄒 𓄓 𓄔 𓄕 𓄖 𓄗 𓄘 𓄙 𓄚 𓄛 𓄜 𓄝 𓄞 𓄟
U+1312x 𓄠 𓄡 𓄢 𓄣 𓄤 𓄥 𓄦 𓄧 𓄨 𓄩 𓄪 𓄫 𓄬 𓄭 𓄮 𓄯
U+1313x 𓄰 𓄱 𓄲 𓄳 𓄴 𓄵 𓄶 𓄷 𓄸 𓄹 𓄺 𓄻 𓄼 𓄽 𓄾 𓄿
U+1314x 𓅀 𓅁 𓅂 𓅃 𓅄 𓅅 𓅆 𓅇 𓅈 𓅉 𓅊 𓅋 𓅌 𓅍 𓅎 𓅏
U+1315x 𓅐 𓅑 𓅒 𓅓 𓅔 𓅕 𓅖 𓅗 𓅘 𓅙 𓅚 𓅛 𓅜 𓅝 𓅞 𓅟
U+1316x 𓅠 𓅡 𓅢 𓅣 𓅤 𓅥 𓅦 𓅧 𓅨 𓅩 𓅪 𓅫 𓅬 𓅭 𓅮 𓅯
U+1317x 𓅰 𓅱 𓅲 𓅳 𓅴 𓅵 𓅶 𓅷 𓅸 𓅹 𓅺 𓅻 𓅼 𓅽 𓅾 𓅿
U+1318x 𓆀 𓆁 𓆂 𓆃 𓆄 𓆅 𓆆 𓆇 𓆈 𓆉 𓆊 𓆋 𓆌 𓆍 𓆎 𓆏
U+1319x 𓆐 𓆑 𓆒 𓆓 𓆔 𓆕 𓆖 𓆗 𓆘 𓆙 𓆚 𓆛 𓆜 𓆝 𓆞 𓆟
U+131Ax 𓆠 𓆡 𓆢 𓆣 𓆤 𓆥 𓆦 𓆧 𓆨 𓆩 𓆪 𓆫 𓆬 𓆭 𓆮 𓆯
U+131Bx 𓆰 𓆱 𓆲 𓆳 𓆴 𓆵 𓆶 𓆷 𓆸 𓆹 𓆺 𓆻 𓆼 𓆽 𓆾 𓆿
U+131Cx 𓇀 𓇁 𓇂 𓇃 𓇄 𓇅 𓇆 𓇇 𓇈 𓇉 𓇊 𓇋 𓇌 𓇍 𓇎 𓇏
U+131Dx 𓇐 𓇑 𓇒 𓇓 𓇔 𓇕 𓇖 𓇗 𓇘 𓇙 𓇚 𓇛 𓇜 𓇝 𓇞 𓇟
U+131Ex 𓇠 𓇡 𓇢 𓇣 𓇤 𓇥 𓇦 𓇧 𓇨 𓇩 𓇪 𓇫 𓇬 𓇭 𓇮 𓇯
U+131Fx 𓇰 𓇱 𓇲 𓇳 𓇴 𓇵 𓇶 𓇷 𓇸 𓇹 𓇺 𓇻 𓇼 𓇽 𓇾 𓇿
U+1320x 𓈀 𓈁 𓈂 𓈃 𓈄 𓈅 𓈆 𓈇 𓈈 𓈉 𓈊 𓈋 𓈌 𓈍 𓈎 𓈏
U+1321x 𓈐 𓈑 𓈒 𓈓 𓈔 𓈕 𓈖 𓈗 𓈘 𓈙 𓈚 𓈛 𓈜 𓈝 𓈞 𓈟
U+1322x 𓈠 𓈡 𓈢 𓈣 𓈤 𓈥 𓈦 𓈧 𓈨 𓈩 𓈪 𓈫 𓈬 𓈭 𓈮 𓈯
U+1323x 𓈰 𓈱 𓈲 𓈳 𓈴 𓈵 𓈶 𓈷 𓈸 𓈹 𓈺 𓈻 𓈼 𓈽 𓈾 𓈿
U+1324x 𓉀 𓉁 𓉂 𓉃 𓉄 𓉅 𓉆 𓉇 𓉈 𓉉 𓉊 𓉋 𓉌 𓉍 𓉎 𓉏
U+1325x 𓉐 𓉑 𓉒 𓉓 𓉔 𓉕 𓉖 𓉗 𓉘 𓉙 𓉚 𓉛 𓉜 𓉝 𓉞 𓉟
U+1326x 𓉠 𓉡 𓉢 𓉣 𓉤 𓉥 𓉦 𓉧 𓉨 𓉩 𓉪 𓉫 𓉬 𓉭 𓉮 𓉯
U+1327x 𓉰 𓉱 𓉲 𓉳 𓉴 𓉵 𓉶 𓉷 𓉸 𓉹 𓉺 𓉻 𓉼 𓉽 𓉾 𓉿
U+1328x 𓊀 𓊁 𓊂 𓊃 𓊄 𓊅 𓊆 𓊇 𓊈 𓊉 𓊊 𓊋 𓊌 𓊍 𓊎 𓊏
U+1329x 𓊐 𓊑 𓊒 𓊓 𓊔 𓊕 𓊖 𓊗 𓊘 𓊙 𓊚 𓊛 𓊜 𓊝 𓊞 𓊟
U+132Ax 𓊠 𓊡 𓊢 𓊣 𓊤 𓊥 𓊦 𓊧 𓊨 𓊩 𓊪 𓊫 𓊬 𓊭 𓊮 𓊯
U+132Bx 𓊰 𓊱 𓊲 𓊳 𓊴 𓊵 𓊶 𓊷 𓊸 𓊹 𓊺 𓊻 𓊼 𓊽 𓊾 𓊿
U+132Cx 𓋀 𓋁 𓋂 𓋃 𓋄 𓋅 𓋆 𓋇 𓋈 𓋉 𓋊 𓋋 𓋌 𓋍 𓋎 𓋏
U+132Dx 𓋐 𓋑 𓋒 𓋓 𓋔 𓋕 𓋖 𓋗 𓋘 𓋙 𓋚 𓋛 𓋜 𓋝 𓋞 𓋟
U+132Ex 𓋠 𓋡 𓋢 𓋣 𓋤 𓋥 𓋦 𓋧 𓋨 𓋩 𓋪 𓋫 𓋬 𓋭 𓋮 𓋯
U+132Fx 𓋰 𓋱 𓋲 𓋳 𓋴 𓋵 𓋶 𓋷 𓋸 𓋹 𓋺 𓋻 𓋼 𓋽 𓋾 𓋿
U+1330x 𓌀 𓌁 𓌂 𓌃 𓌄 𓌅 𓌆 𓌇 𓌈 𓌉 𓌊 𓌋 𓌌 𓌍 𓌎 𓌏
U+1331x 𓌐 𓌑 𓌒 𓌓 𓌔 𓌕 𓌖 𓌗 𓌘 𓌙 𓌚 𓌛 𓌜 𓌝 𓌞 𓌟
U+1332x 𓌠 𓌡 𓌢 𓌣 𓌤 𓌥 𓌦 𓌧 𓌨 𓌩 𓌪 𓌫 𓌬 𓌭 𓌮 𓌯
U+1333x 𓌰 𓌱 𓌲 𓌳 𓌴 𓌵 𓌶 𓌷 𓌸 𓌹 𓌺 𓌻 𓌼 𓌽 𓌾 𓌿
U+1334x 𓍀 𓍁 𓍂 𓍃 𓍄 𓍅 𓍆 𓍇 𓍈 𓍉 𓍊 𓍋 𓍌 𓍍 𓍎 𓍏
U+1335x 𓍐 𓍑 𓍒 𓍓 𓍔 𓍕 𓍖 𓍗 𓍘 𓍙 𓍚 𓍛 𓍜 𓍝 𓍞 𓍟
U+1336x 𓍠 𓍡 𓍢 𓍣 𓍤 𓍥 𓍦 𓍧 𓍨 𓍩 𓍪 𓍫 𓍬 𓍭 𓍮 𓍯
U+1337x 𓍰 𓍱 𓍲 𓍳 𓍴 𓍵 𓍶 𓍷 𓍸 𓍹 𓍺 𓍻 𓍼 𓍽 𓍾 𓍿
U+1338x 𓎀 𓎁 𓎂 𓎃 𓎄 𓎅 𓎆 𓎇 𓎈 𓎉 𓎊 𓎋 𓎌 𓎍 𓎎 𓎏
U+1339x 𓎐 𓎑 𓎒 𓎓 𓎔 𓎕 𓎖 𓎗 𓎘 𓎙 𓎚 𓎛 𓎜 𓎝 𓎞 𓎟
U+133Ax 𓎠 𓎡 𓎢 𓎣 𓎤 𓎥 𓎦 𓎧 𓎨 𓎩 𓎪 𓎫 𓎬 𓎭 𓎮 𓎯
U+133Bx 𓎰 𓎱 𓎲 𓎳 𓎴 𓎵 𓎶 𓎷 𓎸 𓎹 𓎺 𓎻 𓎼 𓎽 𓎾 𓎿
U+133Cx 𓏀 𓏁 𓏂 𓏃 𓏄 𓏅 𓏆 𓏇 𓏈 𓏉 𓏊 𓏋 𓏌 𓏍 𓏎 𓏏
U+133Dx 𓏐 𓏑 𓏒 𓏓 𓏔 𓏕 𓏖 𓏗 𓏘 𓏙 𓏚 𓏛 𓏜 𓏝 𓏞 𓏟
U+133Ex 𓏠 𓏡 𓏢 𓏣 𓏤 𓏥 𓏦 𓏧 𓏨 𓏩 𓏪 𓏫 𓏬 𓏭 𓏮 𓏯
U+133Fx 𓏰 𓏱 𓏲 𓏳 𓏴 𓏵 𓏶 𓏷 𓏸 𓏹 𓏺 𓏻 𓏼 𓏽 𓏾 𓏿
U+1340x 𓐀 𓐁 𓐂 𓐃 𓐄 𓐅 𓐆 𓐇 𓐈 𓐉 𓐊 𓐋 𓐌 𓐍 𓐎 𓐏
U+1341x 𓐐 𓐑 𓐒 𓐓 𓐔 𓐕 𓐖 𓐗 𓐘 𓐙 𓐚 𓐛 𓐜 𓐝 𓐞 𓐟
U+1342x 𓐠 𓐡 𓐢 𓐣 𓐤 𓐥 𓐦 𓐧 𓐨 𓐩 𓐪 𓐫 𓐬 𓐭 𓐮
Notes
1.^ As of Unicode version 7.0
2.^ Grey areas indicate non-assigned code points

AoV² 14:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to CSS[edit]

I modified the CSS so that the Aegyptus font is default across the whole table and the sans-serif font only appears in the cells it has to. Before that, only Mozilla Firefox was displaying the full array of hieroglyphs, but Google Chrome and IE were not. As of this moment, IE 9.0.7930.16406 (Beta release), Mozilla Firefox 3.6.10 and Google Chrome 6.0.472.62 display the table as intended by AoV².

--Rodrigo Lima Jaroszewski (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bravo and thanks. nice work to both. -- Scriber (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Aegyptus font[edit]

I think Wikipedia should embed the Aegyptus font in order to display the characters... Simoncpu (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says that the Unicode range for Egyptian hieroglyphs is U+13000 - U+1342F, but when I look inside the Aegyptus font (via my font editor "FontCreator"), it shows the hieroglyphs as having the ranges U+F3xxx and U+F4xxx. What gives? Furthermore, when one uses Microsoft Word and opens up the Insert Symbol menu and sets the font to Aegyptus, only the first range of 8-bit values (first 256 characters) is available. The hieroglyphs are not available for insertion. This seems to be quite a problem. Any suggestions? Jakob37 (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you write in cartouches? I tried, but what the 𓁿, it didn't worked! 81.195.13.166 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to build hieroglyphs like this:
A1
A2
with CSS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.47.237 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

merger proposal[edit]

I propose that the article Decipherment of hieroglyphic writing be merged into this one and replaced with a redirect. There are several reasons for such a move - the 'decipherment' article is thin on content and sourcing, its content is largely overlapping information already in this article, as it deals only with Egyptian hieroglyphs, and there is already a decipherment section here. The title is somewhat confusing since the article text deals exclusively with Egyptian hieroglyphs, but other historical hieroglyph systems exist and were deciphered at different times by different individuals, and finally, the 'decipherment' article seems to place undue weight on the importance of incomplete Islamic attempts at decipherment. Dialectric (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The title could be made more precise. That's hardly reason for a merger. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
the main reason is that the content there is duplicated almost in its entirety here, rendering a second article unnecessary. Dialectric (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Usual writing direction???[edit]

is the usual writing direction for the egyptian script left to right or right to left. I have heared many times that 90 percent of writings are written right to left. I have made the change in the article but it has been reversed??? I donot understand why?? --216.249.11.195 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Factual error, shady source, contradicts other wikipedia articles in "History and Evolution" section[edit]

1. From the History and Evolution section, I quote, "For example, symbols on Gerzean pottery from circa 4000 BCE resemble hieroglyphic writing." This contradicts the dating of the Gerzean/Naqada II period to (3500-3200 BCE) in the article Gerzean, which states, that the Gerzean culture "begins circa 3500 BC lasting through circa 3200 BC or the end of the Naqada II period."

2. Furthermore, the appearance of the first hieroglyphs as assigned to the Naqada III period (3200-3000) in the article Predynastic_Egypt#Protodynastic_Period_.28Naqada_III.29, stating, "the Naqada III period, from about 3200 to 3000 BC,... is notable for being the first era with hieroglyphs (though this is disputed by some), the first regular use of serekhs ..." . This is again concurred upon in the article Naqada_III.

3. The sources in the foregoing articles is a scholarly work, eg, Shaw, Ian, ed (2000). The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. p. 479. ISBN 0-19-815034-2. whereas one of the two sources for the statement that I complain about in this article, is the Discovery channel!! cf. : "^ The origins of writing, Discovery Channel (1998-12-15)". and the other source is a journal i never heard of with a weird name.

For the foregoing 3 reasons, I recommend removal of sentence in question. But before doing so myself, i'm giving the chance for a RFC and to the editor to update or correct his editing, or contest the objections and criticism I expressed here. Cheers. -Scriber (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And how is that any different from the "facts" written of in the History and Evolution section? Yes, this article is a complete a total shot in the dark, and one that does not even come close to hitting any factual target other than phantasy fiction during the time it was written. Exactly like the History and Evolution section, only what was written there was for some reason given more credit as accurate. Very little of what is written here or anywhere is factually or actually accurate except for first hand accounts of any event, and even then, only if the author is practiced at honesty AND journaling. - Dirtclustit (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

great article[edit]

This is a wonderful article -- someone has put in a huge amount of work here!--75.83.69.196 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the cartouche for the name "Lioka"[edit]

I noticed that the cartouche for "Lioka" seems to render improperly in the article. Specifically, the sign numbers J10 and S60 do not correspond to any signs in Gardiner, and "o" is not recognized by the sign list as corresponding to any Egyptian sound. The edits were made about a year or two ago by an anonymous user, and the name "Lioka" does not seem to show up in any literature on Egypt. Is it thus safe to delete the cartouche? Mathmagic (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2013[edit]

There is a new book that is relevant to this page that I think would be helpful in the "Further Reading" section. The book information is as follows:

Selden, Daniel L. (2013) Hieroglyphic Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Literature of the Middle Kingdom University of California Press. ISBN: 9780520275461 Emcanespie (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL[edit]

Parent: Cuniform Direction: Left to Right LOOOOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.175.55 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs and Hieroglyphics[edit]

Under etymology, the article states that it is erroneous to use the word hieroglyphics as a noun. However this contradicts the wikipedia article on Hieroglyphs as well as every dictionary source I've checked online. Dictionary.com, merriam-webster, and oxforddictionaries.com all list hieroglyphics as a noun and an adjective. It may be preferred to call them hieroglyphs within certain professions, but it certainly isn't wrong to call them hieroglyphics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swansond (talkcontribs) 14:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sumerian stimulus diffusion[edit]

I've deleted some of the badly ref'd claims that the Sumerian idea has been refuted. It's not just a matter of dating, since the dates are uncertain, but the fact that the precursors of writing have been found in Sumeria but not in Egypt. Has that changed? And do we have better refs than crap like the Discovery Channel? — kwami (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

mdw ntr Should be in the lead[edit]

We are using the Greek name Hieroglyphs, yet there is no mention in the lead of mdw ntr. --Inayity (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unicode section[edit]

Please add the {{Contains Egyptian Hieroglyphic text}} box to the top of that section:

{{Contains Egyptian Hieroglyphic text|section}}

This will indicate to people why they see funny squares or question marks in that section.

-- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I hope I understood your request correctly?
Given the number of edits you are making, it would make sense for you to open an account and then (after the 10 edits and 4 days criteria have been met) you can make these edits yourself. Arjayay (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was the edit I was talking about. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Redoing Fonts Section[edit]

The Aegyptus link is broken, Noto is still not offered, NewGardiner.ttf does not cover entire range, JSeshFont needs a review. Of course best so far is the one embedded in U13000.pdf (official). Cheers.--Connection (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "Noto is still not offered"? You can download it from https://code.google.com/p/noto/source/browse/fonts/individual/unhinted/NotoSansEgyptianHieroglyphs-Regular.ttf Thaths (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Henry George Liddell[edit]

Please link. 99.238.74.216 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)