Talk:Rosetta Stone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Rosetta Stone is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 14, 2010.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 19, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
August 18, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 26, 2006.
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ancient Egypt (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
British Museum project (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by SMasters, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on July 25, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
WikiProject London (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Suggestion : Add Links to other Major Ancient Polyglot Inscriptions[edit]

Someone should make a page, "Major Ancient Polyglot Inscriptions", and link to this article and have this article link to it, including : the Rosetta Stone (very famous now), the Behistun Inscription, other great Persian Empire inscriptions in general, the Myazedi inscription (Old Burmese and others), the Cloud Platform at Juyong Pass (Classical Chinese, Phags-Pa Classical Mongolian, Tangut and others), and I can't really think of any others that cross language family and writing system family so well, or that are so important for history or decipherment. Other ancient polylingual texts seem on multiple small objects or are small.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Trilingual?[edit]

The languages on the stone are Greek and Egyptian. A second Egyptian script does not make it trilingual, any more than my handwriting a document in cursive and block lettering makes it bilingual. The link correctly points to the entry for "bilingual inscriptions," but the term is still misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.200.73 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The text was adjusted recently -- I see why it was done, but "trilingual" is not really true. I've tried another adjustment. No one is ever satisfied with this sentence :) Andrew Dalby 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Although Demotic and Hieroglyphic are often described as though they were analogous to cursive and block lettering, this is not quite true. It's a little more like, say, Latin in block letters, and Italian in cursive--see my comments at la:Disputatio:Tabula Rosettana#Demotica. Furthermore, Egyptologists themselves regularly refer to the Hieroglyphic-Demotic-Greek Synodic Inscriptions as "trilingual" (for a start, see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=trilingual+decree ). Yes, you can argue that they are the same language, and that "trilingual" is a misnomer, but why be more exacting about this than the professionals? --Iustinus (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably also worth linking la:Disputatio:Tabula Rosettana#Differences between the three versions. --Iustinus (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think everyone knows that on the Rosetta Stone we have two languages and three scripts, and everyone is right. It's perfectly true that this is an oversimplification, and that there are linguistic differences between the hieroglyphic and demotic versions, and that to specialists these differences are really important, but in the great scheme of things -- and therefore in the first paragraph of a wikipedia page for non-specialist readers -- the fact that they are the same language outweighs the differences. Remember that the fact of their being the same language helped Young with the first steps of the decipherment: that fact has to be allowed for in this introduction, not negated. There's plenty of room for the details lower down, I think. Lower down, where footnotes are appropriate, those Egyptologists who call the Stone "trilingual" can be footnoted and their view can be justified. Andrew Dalby 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't read the other comments. Classical Middle Egyptian and Demotic New Egyptian are distinct languages. Take my word for it, look it up in a book, or learn the languages yourselves and see the results of hundreds of years' worth of phonological changes. So it's 3 scripts and 3 languages. It's like if there was a polyglot inscription in Pictish in Ogham Script, Old English in English Runes, and Middle English in Roman Script : 3 languages, 3 scripts (though Pictish is Celtic, so maybe something like Old Finnish in Old Hungarian Runes would be a less plausible though more apt match).

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this before. I don't know who "yourselves" are: it doesn't apply to Iustinus, who knows these languages pretty well, but I'm sure it does apply to me :) Well, you're right, Dwarfkingdom, but you're looking language as if it were static. You say that Middle English and Old English are different languages. Yes, but they are also two stages of the same language. There was a development from one to the other, and knowing this helps the modern student to understand both stages. Same with Middle and New Egyptian, with the added feature that the script used for New developed directly out of the script used for older stages. The fact that they are two stages of the same language (the point of view that you are not taking) helped the decipherment.
If you didn't read all the discussion, you may not realise that what we're talking about is a single phrase in the introduction. The body of the article does, certainly, have to make all this clear. Andrew Dalby 11:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of The_Graffito_of_Esmet-Akhom[edit]

This article (Rosetta Stone) gives the date of the latest known hieroglyphics as 396 AD; the linked article to that latest instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graffito_of_Esmet-Akhom, gives the date as 394 AD. The history for _that_ article shows it was once changed from 394 to 396, and subsequently reverted to 394 by the same editor. I would change it here to 394 AD for, at least, consistency, but the article is not enabled for (anonymous) editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.200.253 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rosetta Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)