Language desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 20[edit]

Shebna inscription[edit]

Can someone transcribe this into Paleo-Hebrew script? Ideally this could be added to the article, especially if it can be sourced (or if it involves minimal OR based on the artifact and the block Hebrew we already list). 70.172.194.25 (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inscription is already in Paleo-Hebrew script and very readable, so it is not quite clear (to me) what "transcribing" it means here. Do you wish to see the characters recast using the specific diagrammatic shapes of File:Paleo-Hebrew abjad.svg? I do not see the point of such an exercise, but if you (or anyone) feels like it, this image gives a neat correspondence between the characters as seen in the inscription and the later Hebrew alphabet. The order in both is the same. --Lambiam 16:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was looking for the text encoded into Unicode's representation of the script. I might attempt to do so myself later. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a practice in patience, mostly. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an online tool that converts regular Hebrew unicode to Paleo-Hebrew: https://alittlehebrew.com/paleo/, just copying the Hebrew from the article in the tool produces this:

𐤆𐤀𐤕 [𐤒𐤁𐤅𐤓𐤕 ...]𐤉𐤄𐤅 𐤀𐤔𐤓 𐤏𐤋 𐤄𐤁𐤉𐤕. 𐤀𐤉[𐤍 𐤐𐤄] 𐤊𐤎𐤐 𐤅[𐤆]𐤄𐤁

𐤀𐤌 [𐤏𐤑𐤌𐤅𐤕𐤉𐤅 𐤅𐤏𐤑𐤌𐤅𐤕] 𐤀𐤌𐤕𐤄 𐤀𐤕𐤄. 𐤀𐤓𐤅𐤓 𐤄𐤀[𐤃𐤌] 𐤀𐤔𐤓

𐤉𐤐[𐤕𐤇] 𐤀𐤕 𐤆𐤀𐤕

which seems to be correct. - Lindert (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Here is an attempt, but I'm not certain of the interpretation of all signs:

𐤆𐤀𐤕 ........ 𐤉𐤄𐤅 𐤀𐤔𐤓 𐤏𐤋𐤄 𐤁𐤉𐤕.𐤀𐤉𐤍 .... 𐤊𐤎𐤐 𐤅𐤆𐤄𐤁

𐤀𐤌 ........... 𐤅𐤏𐤑𐤌𐤕 𐤀𐤌𐤕𐤄 𐤀𐤕𐤄.𐤀𐤓𐤅𐤓 𐤄𐤀 ? 𐤀𐤔𐤓

𐤉𐤐 𐤇 𐤀𐤕 𐤆𐤀𐤕

--Lambiam 20:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I notice that, factoring in the parts in brackets, the two transcriptions are very similar, with one difference in spacing but that's about it. Do you think this could be added to the article? 70.172.194.25 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the transcription is valid, I say 'Go for it!' (If someone would disagree, I guess that could be brought up on the article's Talk page.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First attestations of Æ in Latin[edit]

When does the character Æ first appear in Latin texts? Our article Æ is vague on this point and ascribes the character broadly to "medieval [...] writings". However, both Æ and E caudata imply that the appearance of Æ well precedes that of the E caudata, which according to E caudata is first found in the sixth century. Accordingly, a fortiori the first instances of Æ should be found already in late antiquity (if not earlier), not in the medieval period, and in fact Æ appears to have already been common in the sixth century if not earlier. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This forum thread [1] discusses a similar question. It is pointed out that ancient Latin inscriptions could write AE as Æ, along with many other somewhat arbitrary joins or ligatures. It may be difficult to say exactly when Æ was first used as a distinct character as opposed to just one of many optional ligatures. For E caudata, on the other hand, presumably it wouldn’t appear at all until someone deliberately wanted to write it as a distinct character. —Amble (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a photo of the inscription mentioned in the forum thread: File:Jagsthausen-roemerbad-11.jpg. It's apparently from around 200 CE and it sometimes joins A to various following letters including E, V, L, and B. There's more description in de:Kastell Jagsthausen. --Amble (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amble: Thank you. I wasn't aware of this. (Although I was thinking more of texts written on papyrus or parchment, not stone inscriptions.) This should be explained in the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's ancient, the article's wrong. Is the question when it became a "real" letter? Hard to get factual on that point. It was stylistic and space-saving for the Romans, not a letter. For the first attestation, it will be earlier than late antiquity. You can browse the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Temerarius (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Temerarius (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]