The rebus principle where someone might use a depiction of an eye for the sound "I" and so forth is the very basis of the script and was there from the beginning. The complicated part is they'd use words with one to three consonants and strip the vowels. To continue the example, we might use π to represent the consonants "ct" and thus use it to write "cat", "cot", and "cut."
There was an inventory of uniconsonantal or uniliteral signs dating back to the very beginning of the language which the ancient Egyptians could have used as an alphabet (or abjad if we want to be pedantic) if they had wanted to, but they never didβat least to write Egyptian. The basis of our alphabet, Proto-Sinaitic script, seems to have come about when speakers of Caananite languages in the Sinai Peninsula borrowed a small number of Egyptian hieroglyphs, assigned them the phonetic value for the thing depicted in their own Caananite language, and they didn't bother with anything other than uniconsonantal signs.
The "three different alphabets" thing is unrelated to any of this. Hieroglyphs and hieratic appear around the same time. Hieroglyphs were used for monuments and more formal contexts. Hieratic is a cursive form of hieroglyphs that was much faster to write with a brush pen and ink. It tended to be used for literature, correspondence, and record-keeping. From what we know of Egyptian scribal education, they started out with hieratic and then moved on to hieroglyphs, with not everyone progressing to the point where they started learning hieroglyphs. This is quite the reversal from how we approach things today, with virtually every student of ancient Egyptian language learning hieroglyphs (specifically, Middle Egyptian) first and then moving on to learning hieratic. Demotic was a later evolution of hieratic. And eventually, the Egyptians wrote their language using a modified Greek alphabet ultimately derived from their hieroglyphs (Coptic).
The valuable thing about the standard Egyptological pronunciation is that people can sit around a table, read a text, and understand what is being read without having to learn a strange new phonetic inventory. How close it sounds to the real thing is irrelevant for what it's used for. Anyone using phonetics to look at how Egyptian changed over time isn't using standard Egyptological pronunciation to do so. While Stuart Tyson Smith's reconstruction of an Egyptologist-approved dialect of Egyptian for the Stargate movie is pretty fun, it's not like we have any native speakers we can communicate with.
Gardiner's sign list. It's a modern categorization and ordering scheme. "Man and his occupations", "Woman and her occupations", "Anthropomorphic deities", "Parts of the human body", "Mammals", "Parts of Mammals", so on and so forth.
That's something that practically trips up a lot of students. They'll be missing some sign in the text because the "missing" sign is part of the illustration that readers tend to be blind to.
That doesn't explain omitting vowels here. Whatever brevity you gain from omitting vowels is more than made up by the phonetic complements and determinatives you need to make up for their loss. Besides, individual Egyptian hieroglyphs tend to contain a lot of unnecessary detail. Look to hieratic if you want to see what the Egyptians did when writing required some efficiency.
The open button looks like closed doors and the close button looks like open doors. I have to look at the symbols carefully and interpret the arrows every time. Or tell myself that the buttons do the opposite of what they look like at a glance. "open" and "close" would be easier.
The Wayback Machine has ignored robots.txt for a few years at this point. The only way to get them to stop scraping or remove content is by asking them directly.
Mike McQuaid has been doing this a long time and there are more egregious examples in the past. I got off the Homebrew train when Little Snitch caught Homebrew phoning home without my consent and the response from him was, the developers have already decided to implement telemetry in an opt-out fashion and any pushback to that already made decision is "abusive" to the maintainers.
The Homebrew maintainers are not trustworthy. Don't use their software. If a fork was going to be feasible, it already would have happened.
And when a customer fat fingered their email address and that fintech company didn't bother verifying email addresses, policy probably prohibited granting a request from the email address owner to remove their address from the account because they're not the financial account owner. Fortunately for that company, financial institutions seem to avoid Gmail's spam filter no matter how many times I mark those emails as spam.
reply