Abuwtiyuw 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. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 8, 2012. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 13, 2012. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article contains a translation of Abutiu from de.wikipedia. |
What does this sentence mean? "Whether the grave nor the mummy of the dog survived." -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 06:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok another question.. it says "There is a part of a lead visible on the upper-right corner" .. is this a leash? I'll change it because I think leash is more common and clear. Green Cardamom ( talk) 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert in hieroglyphs, but the representation of the name doesn't look right. The characters in the article would be transliterated, I think, ‘bwt3, while the correct transliteration in Reisner, p. 97, is ‘bwtiw. So I think the first three (arm & hand, leg & foot, quail) are correct, the eagle should be a quail, and before the eagle should be one or two other characters (which are not clear in Reisner's image). Thoughts? ADAMGARRIGUS talk 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would strongly suggest to rename the article Abuwtiyuw, as Abutiu is the German transcription. The english literature uses the Transcription Abuwtiyuw provided by Reisner. -- GDK ( talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The Background section is a little weak - the description of the Persians' relationship with dogs is not quite described in Herodotus as the source states - he does mention dogs when discussing the Persians but only mentions that the Magi don't kill them. They were protected, but chapters 13-15 here may be more helpful (chapter 14 is on otters which were considered water dogs, so slightly less is pertinent, but chapter 15 is interesting for the fact it intermingles pronouncements on the treatment of dogs and humans). The description of the Egyptians' treatment of dogs is cited to three sources, the first is reprint of a 1908 encyclopedia (wrongly cited as 2001) which merely reports Herodotus, the second only mentions that the Egyptians had collars for their dogs so isn't relevant to the sentence it is used to support, and the third appears to be a children's encyclopedia which it seems strange to use for evidence of mummification when you have the more robust Salima Ikram source later. Yomangani talk 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted, can you assist with this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Should this be promoted, where should it be listed. Graham Colm ( talk) 23:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I pointed out an issue at the FAC ( here, second bullet point) that wasn't resolved. I realize it was a lengthy and complicated comment and may seem like disproportionate attention to a single sentence in the article. But I think the issue really needs to be addressed, as the sentence in its current state is misleading. If the regular editors here don't have sources to address the issue of afterlife beliefs about animals (I'm fairly sure I don't), then the sentence could simply be removed. The inscription seems to make it fairly clear that this particular dog was going to the afterlife, so this article doesn't need to address the general issue to be comprehensive. A. Parrot ( talk) 23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
How is the sex of the dog known? This is a rather glaring omission or presupposition. μηδείς ( talk) 03:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It might have been described in a primary source, but the article doesn't explain this in any detail. Jarble ( talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I hope the photos and images that i added would be beneficial.-- Ashashyou ( talk) 19:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
On page three of Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, we see a transliteration of the heiroglyphs |bwti|w (Where vertical lines represent glottal stops), giving us a pronunciation guide. I think this should be added to the article. -- Sue Rangell[ citation needed 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
And me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.242.122 ( talk) 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The name sound sort of like the phrase "I bit you". Weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.214.197 ( talk) 06:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If any of the Egyptian experts who wrote this article are reading this, could they possibly give a quick explanation as to why such a weird, virtually unpronounceable romanisation of the hieroglyphs is preferred? The alternative 'Abutiu', which seems to have been deprecated above, is perfectly readable, and I don't understand how inserting ys and ws could aid comprehension. -- 81.132.30.124 ( talk) 08:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I am no expert on Egyptology, but it is a bit of a hobby. If I had to pronounce it, my money would be on Uh-bwit-Ew, with the capital letters pronounced hard, due to the glottal-stops. I think it would be a great addition to the article.-- Sue Rangell[ citation needed 23:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
How did the Germans come up with such a different pronunciation? The IPA seems like WP:OR to me.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The IPA as it stands is a bit off. It's not clear how, in ʔ-bwit-ʔew, one is meant to pronounce the initial glottal stop - it still needs to have a vowel accompanying it to make sense. Working from Reisner's transliteration of ‘bwtἰw, which in MdC would be something like abwtjw, then the conventional IPA should be either a:bwti:w or a:bu:ti:w. I'll change it if there are no objections. Wasechun tashunka HOWL TRACK 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Marking as satisfactory, although the identification as possibly a sighthound is only found in the lead and isn't verified/cited. Hopefully this will be addressed. Hog Farm Talk 06:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Abuwtiyuw 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. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 8, 2012. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 13, 2012. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Abutiu from de.wikipedia. |
What does this sentence mean? "Whether the grave nor the mummy of the dog survived." -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 06:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok another question.. it says "There is a part of a lead visible on the upper-right corner" .. is this a leash? I'll change it because I think leash is more common and clear. Green Cardamom ( talk) 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert in hieroglyphs, but the representation of the name doesn't look right. The characters in the article would be transliterated, I think, ‘bwt3, while the correct transliteration in Reisner, p. 97, is ‘bwtiw. So I think the first three (arm & hand, leg & foot, quail) are correct, the eagle should be a quail, and before the eagle should be one or two other characters (which are not clear in Reisner's image). Thoughts? ADAMGARRIGUS talk 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would strongly suggest to rename the article Abuwtiyuw, as Abutiu is the German transcription. The english literature uses the Transcription Abuwtiyuw provided by Reisner. -- GDK ( talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The Background section is a little weak - the description of the Persians' relationship with dogs is not quite described in Herodotus as the source states - he does mention dogs when discussing the Persians but only mentions that the Magi don't kill them. They were protected, but chapters 13-15 here may be more helpful (chapter 14 is on otters which were considered water dogs, so slightly less is pertinent, but chapter 15 is interesting for the fact it intermingles pronouncements on the treatment of dogs and humans). The description of the Egyptians' treatment of dogs is cited to three sources, the first is reprint of a 1908 encyclopedia (wrongly cited as 2001) which merely reports Herodotus, the second only mentions that the Egyptians had collars for their dogs so isn't relevant to the sentence it is used to support, and the third appears to be a children's encyclopedia which it seems strange to use for evidence of mummification when you have the more robust Salima Ikram source later. Yomangani talk 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted, can you assist with this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Should this be promoted, where should it be listed. Graham Colm ( talk) 23:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I pointed out an issue at the FAC ( here, second bullet point) that wasn't resolved. I realize it was a lengthy and complicated comment and may seem like disproportionate attention to a single sentence in the article. But I think the issue really needs to be addressed, as the sentence in its current state is misleading. If the regular editors here don't have sources to address the issue of afterlife beliefs about animals (I'm fairly sure I don't), then the sentence could simply be removed. The inscription seems to make it fairly clear that this particular dog was going to the afterlife, so this article doesn't need to address the general issue to be comprehensive. A. Parrot ( talk) 23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
How is the sex of the dog known? This is a rather glaring omission or presupposition. μηδείς ( talk) 03:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It might have been described in a primary source, but the article doesn't explain this in any detail. Jarble ( talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I hope the photos and images that i added would be beneficial.-- Ashashyou ( talk) 19:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
On page three of Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, we see a transliteration of the heiroglyphs |bwti|w (Where vertical lines represent glottal stops), giving us a pronunciation guide. I think this should be added to the article. -- Sue Rangell[ citation needed 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
And me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.242.122 ( talk) 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The name sound sort of like the phrase "I bit you". Weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.214.197 ( talk) 06:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If any of the Egyptian experts who wrote this article are reading this, could they possibly give a quick explanation as to why such a weird, virtually unpronounceable romanisation of the hieroglyphs is preferred? The alternative 'Abutiu', which seems to have been deprecated above, is perfectly readable, and I don't understand how inserting ys and ws could aid comprehension. -- 81.132.30.124 ( talk) 08:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I am no expert on Egyptology, but it is a bit of a hobby. If I had to pronounce it, my money would be on Uh-bwit-Ew, with the capital letters pronounced hard, due to the glottal-stops. I think it would be a great addition to the article.-- Sue Rangell[ citation needed 23:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
How did the Germans come up with such a different pronunciation? The IPA seems like WP:OR to me.-- Curtis Clark ( talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The IPA as it stands is a bit off. It's not clear how, in ʔ-bwit-ʔew, one is meant to pronounce the initial glottal stop - it still needs to have a vowel accompanying it to make sense. Working from Reisner's transliteration of ‘bwtἰw, which in MdC would be something like abwtjw, then the conventional IPA should be either a:bwti:w or a:bu:ti:w. I'll change it if there are no objections. Wasechun tashunka HOWL TRACK 18:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Marking as satisfactory, although the identification as possibly a sighthound is only found in the lead and isn't verified/cited. Hopefully this will be addressed. Hog Farm Talk 06:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)