![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know if there is a standard transliteration. I realize that ሰ is Amharic [s], that's not the point. ሰ is descended from Proto-Semitic ś, and I believe it is transliterated as ś for this reason, but I have to check the literature; the exact pronunciation of 4th century Ge'ez is unknown anyway. If you don't want to transcribe ሠ as s, at least use š to avoid confusion with ś
regarding the listing of Phoenician letters, I would suggest only those theorized to be descended from the same Proto-Sinaitic glyphs. These are only a third or so of the 22 listed. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
the ones I had listed; see the variants discussed at Proto-Sinaitic; ideally, we would also present the hieroglyphs. Glyphs that are certainly unrelated include h, ḥ. ḫ, see
|
-- we should not just list them without comment together with the related ones. I am not sure about alif and mem. ṭ and ṣ are also certainly unrelated. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/atobrukh/archaeology/matara/archevid1.html#archevid1pic4
See this page and click on Hawulti inscription (date fromm 5-6th century BC and is definitely Ge'ez). I don't have time to give more links right now, but I'll add some more later.
Yom 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Chapter 51 of Daniels & Bright, which gives a date of early first millennium CE for the Geez abjad, is eight pages long. There are also mentions of Geez scattered throughout the book.
Though they don't go into detail, they seem to be basing the Sabean/Geez distinction on the presence of specifically Geez letters: /p, p', kw, gw, kw', xw/. (They suggest /p/ may come from Greek.)
As for vocalization, "the appearance of vowel signs in the epigraphic record coincides with the advent of Christianity in Ethiopia, about 350 C.E." — kwami 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a contradiction, or at least that's not how I read it. I interpret D&B as follows:
That is, the Geez script is defined as SA customized to the Geez language, whether or not it's vocalized, but not just as an Ethiopian graphic variant of SA. The question then would be whether MeTera had /p, p'/. If it did not, then perhaps D&B knew of it, but considered it a local variant of SA that was the ancestor of Geez. However, if it did have /p, p'/, then we do have a contradiction. kwami 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, you said D&B was "obviously a contradiction", when there is no obvious contradiction.
Also, the difference between Latin & Greek is not just one of letter shape, but of use. Latin dropped some Greek letters, and added others. D&B's point is that Geez similarly added letters to SA, and that's what made it distinct, not differences in the details of the shapes. Approaching it from the opposite direction, look at all the variants of the Latin alphabet. Many local forms, such as Irish, have almost no letters that are identical in shape to Roman, yet they're considered graphic variants of the same alphabet. I think D&B might be making the same point with SA and Geez: whether or not letters have shorter tails or bigger loops isn't the deciding factor, but whether the script has been fundamentally altered to fit a new language. Not saying this is the right way to look at it, only trying to present the argument fairly. kwami 08:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yom 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain of the relationships of ቐ, ኸ, ዸ, and ጘ with ቀ, ከ, ደ, and ገ, but maybe I can help a little? ኸ is indeed a variant of ከ, occuring sometimes in Tigrinya when the root has ከ, but the specific form changes it to a ኸ. It also appears sometimes when you would expect ከ, like the ending -kum becomes -xum (semitic direct object for you pl.), spelled with ኸ. It is pronounced x, like H in Hannukah (also transliterated as Ch, or Kh for mainly arabic words). The same is the case with ቐ and ቀ. ቐ sounds very weird indeed, sort of like a mix of "ayin" and a ሐ (ħ - see Heth (letter)). I couldn't tell you whether or not these are "uvular approximants," though. ዸ and ጘ are a mystery to me, though. I've never seen them in my life, but they do seem to be variants of ደ and ገ.
Yom 19:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid a lot of the information in this article is rather opaque for those of us who are not already experts. (I've just created a history section from most of the info in the introduction - on previous attempts I hadn't even read past the first dense paragraph.) I'd be glad if someone could help with any of the following:
Thanks! Gailtb 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I re-wrote the signs section from my understanding of an abugida, but without knowledge of Ge'ez, so please correct any mistakes, eg are there consonant clusters which require the no-vowel variant as well as syllable-final consonants? Gailtb 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a standard order for d and g? They are different in the table of basic signs from the one of the full alphabet. Gailtb 07:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's try a different way. If there is a word "let" for example, then (if I have understood correctly), it would be written as ሌት, ie "le" + "t". Is that right? In this case the t is at the end of a syllable. If there are words which have more than one consonant together, eg "lets" has 2 consonants at the end, and "step" has 2 at the beginning, then I think each word would have 2 consonants of the sixth order (t and s for lets, s and p for step). Firstly, have I understood correctly? And secondly, do such words actually occur in the languages which use Ge'ez script? If they do, then my explanation in the article is not fully comprehensive. Gailtb 21:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
don't be a pest about the comparative table, CS, or we will have to drop all comparison with Canaanite glyphs. You do not seem to object to the glyphs I marked as cognate, but you seem to think that others are cognate as well. It is then your responsibility to provide sources. Do either that, or remove the whole Canaanite comparison, including the obvious cases. Just listing cognate and undelated glyphs lumped together will not do. Sources concerning the comparison of SA and Canaanite alphabets are over at Middle Bronze Age alphabets, but I haven't looked at them in depth yet. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to drop any of the comparisons. It's an open question as to which ones are related. Obviously we disagree about which ones are. But it's not our job to do research here and determine for ourselves which are related. I think listing all of them is fair. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
We do not disagree, I have no opinion. We disagree in our approach here. When I started work on this article, it was a naked unicode table. I would prefer constructive collaboration over mindless revert warring. Sometimes you have to work with assuming good faith to bridge gaps in citations, which will work out to a coherent whole in the end. If you want to butcher the article to a mere skeleton of attributed factlets, that's sad, but I won'd object. There is no point in listing Phoenician glyphs unless we claim they are related. We could as well list runes or Hangul glyphs otherwise. My approach would have been to begin with listing obvious cognates, and then hunt for professional opinions concerning the dubious ones. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are all the letters you removed:
These are probably "cognates" because they both are thought to be descended from the same hieroglyph,
|
It may not be as obvious, but both are thought to descend from the same hieroglyph,
|
Again, not as obvious, until you see that both are traced to the ancestor
|
- (the comparable Sabaean glyph looks like a primitive Pi, not like an M except in a very rare variant...)
Both forms clearly come from
|
Both are though to have the same ancestor,
|
Certainly cognates, both having a common ancestor,
and
|
Not apparent, until you see the common ancestor,
(I would also venture to say this is from the hieroglyph
|
but I'll admit I don't have an actual source for that one...)
I admit this one is a little iffy source-wise, because the corresponding glyph isn't attested in Proto-Sinaitic and may not have been used at that stage, but I would submit that they could easily be related through the hieroglyph
|
At least one of these is thought to come from
|
, and could well be that both do.
Both are thought to have the same hieroglyph ancestor,
|
.
Additionally, the names for many of the actual letters themselves are clearly cognate in both North and SOuth Semitic.
ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
we should discuss all this on the South Arabian alphabet article. And who's doing the OR now? :) Peace, though, as I said, I am open to including more cognates, but there should be some qualification as to which identifications are certain, and which less so. dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The article on Ge'ez language has other symbols as well as the ones given here as "basic", notably the labialized ones. From this article I had assumed that the basic symbols listed were the ones used in Ge'ez, and that the labialized ones were innovations for Amharic and Tigrinya. Could anyone explain why they don't come in the basic list? Gailtb 00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I got a bit confused when trying to write about Amharic and Tigrinya. Please could you check what I've done. In some cases I don't know what the transliteration symbol should be. Gailtb 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that the list order reads across the rows of the syllable chart: hä, hu, hi ... lä, lu ... rather than down: hä, lä ... pä, hu, lu ... Is that correct? And please could someone write a section on punctuation? Gailtb 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I tried droping in some numbers like ፭፻ and it looks like squares. It works here but not in the main system, but when you select the objects you see the numbers, is this a flaw with Wikipedia? I found the solution if you put a western charecter inbetween the numbers and the ge'ez.(፭፻-ዓመታት በጓላ) like that. -- Halaqah 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does this article push off Ge'ez as being descended from Arabian script, yet the Kingdom of Axum article pushes it off as being indigenous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.215.101 ( talk • contribs) 02:37, May 9, 2007 (UTC)
I will probably irritate those who like to keep things pure and local, but Daniels has made a very strong case for influence on the script from India. The consonants have come from Arabia, but the idea of making a syllabary, an abugida, did not come from Arabia but from India. It is not coincidence that the change from using the consonantal script to adding vowel marks began about the time that Frumentius arrived, with his knowledge of things Indian. Also, ALL other abugida scripts are directly traceable to India. This in no way makes the script less authentically Ethiopia, so I ask that those who object to this examine the evidence and not merely delete my insertion. Pete unseth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If you increase the size of the font in Firefox browser and then view this page, the x1, x10... figures are shown outside the grid.
I'm seeing about 100 links to this empty Korean article on the left, in the "In other languages" box. How do we fix that? Josephgrossberg 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I find the total number of symbols in this syllabary? That's a normal bit of information that should be contained in this article. Badagnani 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Can this please be addressed? Badagnani ( talk) 01:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
IMHO is ዠ a palatalized variant, and not an affricated variant, of ዘ. -- 88.77.242.123 ( talk) 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this sentence needs re-work... But maybe it's just me
The film 500 Years Later (፭፻-ዓመታት በኋላ) was the first mainstream Western documentary to use Ge'ez characters for the film title 500 Years Later.
192.114.175.2 05:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? This has now entered English. Where should the stress be? kwami ( talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is in a total mess. Ge'ez is an abugida but the article mentions that it's a syllabary and even the title of the article mentions that it's an alphabet. Now I'm confused. kotak kasut 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Amharic uses all the basic consonants..." Is that really true? The Ge'ez table shows 8th and 9th forms of some consonants, which IMHO aren't present in Amharic. Can anyone confirm this?
--
Volker Alexander (
talk)
19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"The Ge'ez script is used by Ethiopians who have emigrated to other countries around the world" Of course it is, it's their alphabet. This is no more noteworthy than saying that British people living in Africa use English.
"Also, Ge'ez is a sacred script in the Rastafarian religion" This may be notable.
"Roots reggae musicians have used it in album art." What does this add to the reader's understanding of Ge'ez script?
"The films 500 Years Later (፭፻-ዓመታት በኋላ) and Motherland (እናት ሀገር) are two mainstream Western documentaries to use Ge'ez characters in the titles. The script also appears in the trailer and promotional material of the films." Some people chose to use Ge'ez characters in the titles of their documentaries about Africa. Again, what does this add to the reader's understanding of Ge'ez? This section is nothing but a collection of arbitrary data points that someone added simply because they could.
-- RevivesDarks ( talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
My question is in the title: haven’t ቝ and ቚ been interchanged in this article?
Tohuvabohuo ( talk) 05:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I have updated this article to use the ‘correct’ character for representing the glottal stop, ie the ʻOkina, within the body of the text. I confirmed this is the correct character by consulting Bright’s ‘The World’s Writing Systems’ (p. 98). However, it occurs to me that ideally this should be also reflected in the title of the article as well (as with the ʻOkina example). Of course this is a typographic quibble, but IMO it is an important one. pablohoney ( talk) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
These are terrible sources. Ifrah has the tendency of claiming certainty too quickly. When there's still doubt about something, or when things are clouded in the mists of time, he tends to pick something he likes and proclaim that as fact.
Teresi is even worse. When he writes he always has a heavy agenda, and he frequently puts words in people's mouths, leaves out things that might contradict his preferred narrative, cherry-picks, presents unreliable sources as more reliable than they are, and so on. He always picks a narrative first, and then rakes material together, instead of first doing research and then deciding on a narrative.
For these reasons, these two writers aren't reliable sources. You simply cannot trust whether anything they've written is actually so. For that reason, I've removed material sourced from these two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 ( talk) 16:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The same set of symbols is used by a number of languages, but not always for the same sounds. Maybe we should decide if the IPA transcription given for each symbol are estimates as to the reconstructed sounds heard specifically in Ge'ez, a language that is no longer natively spoken. Some of the same characters will be pronounced quite differently in Amharic, Tigrinya, and Silt'e. Pete unseth ( talk) 23:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Geez is alternatively called Etiopic and it is fully developed in Ethiopia. This piece has lots of errors 1) the mention of Eritrea. The Eritrean region has nothing to do with the development of the script. The script was fully developed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Eritreans use it because they were part of Ethiopia. 2) the Arabian connection: Geez might have evolved from an ancient Sabean script. However it is totally different now. It has added vowels and some other characters. There is no other country that uses Ge'ez other than Ethiopia and the Ethiopians living in their new country Eritrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttimes93 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Does the Ge'ez script have its own quotation marks or do they use those used in various languages that use the Latin alphabet when required? --
sion8
talk page
06:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Would anyone be able to add Chaha to the great table on the "Letters_used_in_modern_alphabets" section? I know they made further adaptations to the Ge'ez script for its special sounds, but not sure which. Thanks! Illang ( talk) 03:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I put in a general wiki link to vocalization, but of the various definitions of the term, I’m only almost sure L-vocalization is meant in the context of the usage here. It likely would be better if the author had put in a brief explanation, a sentence, as to what he means by the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
In this section, it would appear colon and semicolon are the wrong way round. Compare to the unicode table. 92.19.135.146 ( talk) 23:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
ፍቅር 197.156.95.233 ( talk) 18:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The IPA transcription in the first sentence of the article, [ˈɡɨʕɨz], does not match the sound clip, which is more like [ˈɡɨːz], similar to [gɪːz]. They should match. If someone wants to add the reconstructed ancient pronunciation [ɡɨʕɨz] they may, but it shouldn't be alongside the sound clip and it should be explained. Linguistatlunch ( talk) 18:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the evidence that they borrowed the numerals from Greek? 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:553:C7E9:15D6:F4EE ( talk) 10:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If the vocalisation occurred because of Indic scripts what was actually Ethiopian is seems like a deliberate attempt to suppress any type of autonomy 31.94.60.249 ( talk) 18:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Scripts, or some of their features, are borrowed frequently. The traditional Mongol script has some remnants from Aramaic script. This Roman script is borrowed and adapted from the Middle East. This example of script borrowing is hardly Eurocentric! The Nüshu script in China borrowed from standard Chinese characters. The earlier Ancient South Arabian script used in Ethiopia did not mark vowels. After passengers with Indian connections were shipwrecked on the Eritrean coast, a system of vowels was adopted for Ge'ez script. An important similar feature for Indic scripts and the Ge'ez script is that the unmarked form of the first symbol in each row carries a basic vowel. Unrelated syllabaries use an overt indication of a vowel for each symbol. All of this has nothing to do with the 21st century concept of "autonomy". Pete unseth ( talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The section on the number doesn’t mention anything on what type of numerals system it is or on how larger numbers are written. Legendarycool ( talk) 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know if there is a standard transliteration. I realize that ሰ is Amharic [s], that's not the point. ሰ is descended from Proto-Semitic ś, and I believe it is transliterated as ś for this reason, but I have to check the literature; the exact pronunciation of 4th century Ge'ez is unknown anyway. If you don't want to transcribe ሠ as s, at least use š to avoid confusion with ś
regarding the listing of Phoenician letters, I would suggest only those theorized to be descended from the same Proto-Sinaitic glyphs. These are only a third or so of the 22 listed. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
the ones I had listed; see the variants discussed at Proto-Sinaitic; ideally, we would also present the hieroglyphs. Glyphs that are certainly unrelated include h, ḥ. ḫ, see
|
-- we should not just list them without comment together with the related ones. I am not sure about alif and mem. ṭ and ṣ are also certainly unrelated. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/atobrukh/archaeology/matara/archevid1.html#archevid1pic4
See this page and click on Hawulti inscription (date fromm 5-6th century BC and is definitely Ge'ez). I don't have time to give more links right now, but I'll add some more later.
Yom 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Chapter 51 of Daniels & Bright, which gives a date of early first millennium CE for the Geez abjad, is eight pages long. There are also mentions of Geez scattered throughout the book.
Though they don't go into detail, they seem to be basing the Sabean/Geez distinction on the presence of specifically Geez letters: /p, p', kw, gw, kw', xw/. (They suggest /p/ may come from Greek.)
As for vocalization, "the appearance of vowel signs in the epigraphic record coincides with the advent of Christianity in Ethiopia, about 350 C.E." — kwami 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a contradiction, or at least that's not how I read it. I interpret D&B as follows:
That is, the Geez script is defined as SA customized to the Geez language, whether or not it's vocalized, but not just as an Ethiopian graphic variant of SA. The question then would be whether MeTera had /p, p'/. If it did not, then perhaps D&B knew of it, but considered it a local variant of SA that was the ancestor of Geez. However, if it did have /p, p'/, then we do have a contradiction. kwami 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, you said D&B was "obviously a contradiction", when there is no obvious contradiction.
Also, the difference between Latin & Greek is not just one of letter shape, but of use. Latin dropped some Greek letters, and added others. D&B's point is that Geez similarly added letters to SA, and that's what made it distinct, not differences in the details of the shapes. Approaching it from the opposite direction, look at all the variants of the Latin alphabet. Many local forms, such as Irish, have almost no letters that are identical in shape to Roman, yet they're considered graphic variants of the same alphabet. I think D&B might be making the same point with SA and Geez: whether or not letters have shorter tails or bigger loops isn't the deciding factor, but whether the script has been fundamentally altered to fit a new language. Not saying this is the right way to look at it, only trying to present the argument fairly. kwami 08:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yom 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not certain of the relationships of ቐ, ኸ, ዸ, and ጘ with ቀ, ከ, ደ, and ገ, but maybe I can help a little? ኸ is indeed a variant of ከ, occuring sometimes in Tigrinya when the root has ከ, but the specific form changes it to a ኸ. It also appears sometimes when you would expect ከ, like the ending -kum becomes -xum (semitic direct object for you pl.), spelled with ኸ. It is pronounced x, like H in Hannukah (also transliterated as Ch, or Kh for mainly arabic words). The same is the case with ቐ and ቀ. ቐ sounds very weird indeed, sort of like a mix of "ayin" and a ሐ (ħ - see Heth (letter)). I couldn't tell you whether or not these are "uvular approximants," though. ዸ and ጘ are a mystery to me, though. I've never seen them in my life, but they do seem to be variants of ደ and ገ.
Yom 19:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid a lot of the information in this article is rather opaque for those of us who are not already experts. (I've just created a history section from most of the info in the introduction - on previous attempts I hadn't even read past the first dense paragraph.) I'd be glad if someone could help with any of the following:
Thanks! Gailtb 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I re-wrote the signs section from my understanding of an abugida, but without knowledge of Ge'ez, so please correct any mistakes, eg are there consonant clusters which require the no-vowel variant as well as syllable-final consonants? Gailtb 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a standard order for d and g? They are different in the table of basic signs from the one of the full alphabet. Gailtb 07:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's try a different way. If there is a word "let" for example, then (if I have understood correctly), it would be written as ሌት, ie "le" + "t". Is that right? In this case the t is at the end of a syllable. If there are words which have more than one consonant together, eg "lets" has 2 consonants at the end, and "step" has 2 at the beginning, then I think each word would have 2 consonants of the sixth order (t and s for lets, s and p for step). Firstly, have I understood correctly? And secondly, do such words actually occur in the languages which use Ge'ez script? If they do, then my explanation in the article is not fully comprehensive. Gailtb 21:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
don't be a pest about the comparative table, CS, or we will have to drop all comparison with Canaanite glyphs. You do not seem to object to the glyphs I marked as cognate, but you seem to think that others are cognate as well. It is then your responsibility to provide sources. Do either that, or remove the whole Canaanite comparison, including the obvious cases. Just listing cognate and undelated glyphs lumped together will not do. Sources concerning the comparison of SA and Canaanite alphabets are over at Middle Bronze Age alphabets, but I haven't looked at them in depth yet. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to drop any of the comparisons. It's an open question as to which ones are related. Obviously we disagree about which ones are. But it's not our job to do research here and determine for ourselves which are related. I think listing all of them is fair. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
We do not disagree, I have no opinion. We disagree in our approach here. When I started work on this article, it was a naked unicode table. I would prefer constructive collaboration over mindless revert warring. Sometimes you have to work with assuming good faith to bridge gaps in citations, which will work out to a coherent whole in the end. If you want to butcher the article to a mere skeleton of attributed factlets, that's sad, but I won'd object. There is no point in listing Phoenician glyphs unless we claim they are related. We could as well list runes or Hangul glyphs otherwise. My approach would have been to begin with listing obvious cognates, and then hunt for professional opinions concerning the dubious ones. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are all the letters you removed:
These are probably "cognates" because they both are thought to be descended from the same hieroglyph,
|
It may not be as obvious, but both are thought to descend from the same hieroglyph,
|
Again, not as obvious, until you see that both are traced to the ancestor
|
- (the comparable Sabaean glyph looks like a primitive Pi, not like an M except in a very rare variant...)
Both forms clearly come from
|
Both are though to have the same ancestor,
|
Certainly cognates, both having a common ancestor,
and
|
Not apparent, until you see the common ancestor,
(I would also venture to say this is from the hieroglyph
|
but I'll admit I don't have an actual source for that one...)
I admit this one is a little iffy source-wise, because the corresponding glyph isn't attested in Proto-Sinaitic and may not have been used at that stage, but I would submit that they could easily be related through the hieroglyph
|
At least one of these is thought to come from
|
, and could well be that both do.
Both are thought to have the same hieroglyph ancestor,
|
.
Additionally, the names for many of the actual letters themselves are clearly cognate in both North and SOuth Semitic.
ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
we should discuss all this on the South Arabian alphabet article. And who's doing the OR now? :) Peace, though, as I said, I am open to including more cognates, but there should be some qualification as to which identifications are certain, and which less so. dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The article on Ge'ez language has other symbols as well as the ones given here as "basic", notably the labialized ones. From this article I had assumed that the basic symbols listed were the ones used in Ge'ez, and that the labialized ones were innovations for Amharic and Tigrinya. Could anyone explain why they don't come in the basic list? Gailtb 00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I got a bit confused when trying to write about Amharic and Tigrinya. Please could you check what I've done. In some cases I don't know what the transliteration symbol should be. Gailtb 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that the list order reads across the rows of the syllable chart: hä, hu, hi ... lä, lu ... rather than down: hä, lä ... pä, hu, lu ... Is that correct? And please could someone write a section on punctuation? Gailtb 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I tried droping in some numbers like ፭፻ and it looks like squares. It works here but not in the main system, but when you select the objects you see the numbers, is this a flaw with Wikipedia? I found the solution if you put a western charecter inbetween the numbers and the ge'ez.(፭፻-ዓመታት በጓላ) like that. -- Halaqah 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does this article push off Ge'ez as being descended from Arabian script, yet the Kingdom of Axum article pushes it off as being indigenous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.215.101 ( talk • contribs) 02:37, May 9, 2007 (UTC)
I will probably irritate those who like to keep things pure and local, but Daniels has made a very strong case for influence on the script from India. The consonants have come from Arabia, but the idea of making a syllabary, an abugida, did not come from Arabia but from India. It is not coincidence that the change from using the consonantal script to adding vowel marks began about the time that Frumentius arrived, with his knowledge of things Indian. Also, ALL other abugida scripts are directly traceable to India. This in no way makes the script less authentically Ethiopia, so I ask that those who object to this examine the evidence and not merely delete my insertion. Pete unseth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If you increase the size of the font in Firefox browser and then view this page, the x1, x10... figures are shown outside the grid.
I'm seeing about 100 links to this empty Korean article on the left, in the "In other languages" box. How do we fix that? Josephgrossberg 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I find the total number of symbols in this syllabary? That's a normal bit of information that should be contained in this article. Badagnani 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Can this please be addressed? Badagnani ( talk) 01:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
IMHO is ዠ a palatalized variant, and not an affricated variant, of ዘ. -- 88.77.242.123 ( talk) 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this sentence needs re-work... But maybe it's just me
The film 500 Years Later (፭፻-ዓመታት በኋላ) was the first mainstream Western documentary to use Ge'ez characters for the film title 500 Years Later.
192.114.175.2 05:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? This has now entered English. Where should the stress be? kwami ( talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is in a total mess. Ge'ez is an abugida but the article mentions that it's a syllabary and even the title of the article mentions that it's an alphabet. Now I'm confused. kotak kasut 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Amharic uses all the basic consonants..." Is that really true? The Ge'ez table shows 8th and 9th forms of some consonants, which IMHO aren't present in Amharic. Can anyone confirm this?
--
Volker Alexander (
talk)
19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"The Ge'ez script is used by Ethiopians who have emigrated to other countries around the world" Of course it is, it's their alphabet. This is no more noteworthy than saying that British people living in Africa use English.
"Also, Ge'ez is a sacred script in the Rastafarian religion" This may be notable.
"Roots reggae musicians have used it in album art." What does this add to the reader's understanding of Ge'ez script?
"The films 500 Years Later (፭፻-ዓመታት በኋላ) and Motherland (እናት ሀገር) are two mainstream Western documentaries to use Ge'ez characters in the titles. The script also appears in the trailer and promotional material of the films." Some people chose to use Ge'ez characters in the titles of their documentaries about Africa. Again, what does this add to the reader's understanding of Ge'ez? This section is nothing but a collection of arbitrary data points that someone added simply because they could.
-- RevivesDarks ( talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
My question is in the title: haven’t ቝ and ቚ been interchanged in this article?
Tohuvabohuo ( talk) 05:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I have updated this article to use the ‘correct’ character for representing the glottal stop, ie the ʻOkina, within the body of the text. I confirmed this is the correct character by consulting Bright’s ‘The World’s Writing Systems’ (p. 98). However, it occurs to me that ideally this should be also reflected in the title of the article as well (as with the ʻOkina example). Of course this is a typographic quibble, but IMO it is an important one. pablohoney ( talk) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
These are terrible sources. Ifrah has the tendency of claiming certainty too quickly. When there's still doubt about something, or when things are clouded in the mists of time, he tends to pick something he likes and proclaim that as fact.
Teresi is even worse. When he writes he always has a heavy agenda, and he frequently puts words in people's mouths, leaves out things that might contradict his preferred narrative, cherry-picks, presents unreliable sources as more reliable than they are, and so on. He always picks a narrative first, and then rakes material together, instead of first doing research and then deciding on a narrative.
For these reasons, these two writers aren't reliable sources. You simply cannot trust whether anything they've written is actually so. For that reason, I've removed material sourced from these two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 ( talk) 16:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The same set of symbols is used by a number of languages, but not always for the same sounds. Maybe we should decide if the IPA transcription given for each symbol are estimates as to the reconstructed sounds heard specifically in Ge'ez, a language that is no longer natively spoken. Some of the same characters will be pronounced quite differently in Amharic, Tigrinya, and Silt'e. Pete unseth ( talk) 23:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Geez is alternatively called Etiopic and it is fully developed in Ethiopia. This piece has lots of errors 1) the mention of Eritrea. The Eritrean region has nothing to do with the development of the script. The script was fully developed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Eritreans use it because they were part of Ethiopia. 2) the Arabian connection: Geez might have evolved from an ancient Sabean script. However it is totally different now. It has added vowels and some other characters. There is no other country that uses Ge'ez other than Ethiopia and the Ethiopians living in their new country Eritrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttimes93 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Does the Ge'ez script have its own quotation marks or do they use those used in various languages that use the Latin alphabet when required? --
sion8
talk page
06:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Would anyone be able to add Chaha to the great table on the "Letters_used_in_modern_alphabets" section? I know they made further adaptations to the Ge'ez script for its special sounds, but not sure which. Thanks! Illang ( talk) 03:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I put in a general wiki link to vocalization, but of the various definitions of the term, I’m only almost sure L-vocalization is meant in the context of the usage here. It likely would be better if the author had put in a brief explanation, a sentence, as to what he means by the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
In this section, it would appear colon and semicolon are the wrong way round. Compare to the unicode table. 92.19.135.146 ( talk) 23:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
ፍቅር 197.156.95.233 ( talk) 18:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The IPA transcription in the first sentence of the article, [ˈɡɨʕɨz], does not match the sound clip, which is more like [ˈɡɨːz], similar to [gɪːz]. They should match. If someone wants to add the reconstructed ancient pronunciation [ɡɨʕɨz] they may, but it shouldn't be alongside the sound clip and it should be explained. Linguistatlunch ( talk) 18:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the evidence that they borrowed the numerals from Greek? 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:553:C7E9:15D6:F4EE ( talk) 10:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If the vocalisation occurred because of Indic scripts what was actually Ethiopian is seems like a deliberate attempt to suppress any type of autonomy 31.94.60.249 ( talk) 18:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Scripts, or some of their features, are borrowed frequently. The traditional Mongol script has some remnants from Aramaic script. This Roman script is borrowed and adapted from the Middle East. This example of script borrowing is hardly Eurocentric! The Nüshu script in China borrowed from standard Chinese characters. The earlier Ancient South Arabian script used in Ethiopia did not mark vowels. After passengers with Indian connections were shipwrecked on the Eritrean coast, a system of vowels was adopted for Ge'ez script. An important similar feature for Indic scripts and the Ge'ez script is that the unmarked form of the first symbol in each row carries a basic vowel. Unrelated syllabaries use an overt indication of a vowel for each symbol. All of this has nothing to do with the 21st century concept of "autonomy". Pete unseth ( talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The section on the number doesn’t mention anything on what type of numerals system it is or on how larger numbers are written. Legendarycool ( talk) 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)