141 points by diodorus 4 days ago | 46 comments
legerdemain 4 hours ago
godelski 3 hours ago
- Teacher
- Advisor
- Faculty
I've seen professors be great faculty members where everyone likes them but they are an abusive advisor and terrible teacher. I've seen professors be amazing advisors, terrible teachers, and most faculty members hate them (often happens when lots of department politics and this person is usually highly research focused). I've also seen people be good at all 3 and terrible at all 3. The current chair of my department is the latter and was unanimously voted against for chair, but no one else ran so he won by default lol.ahazred8ta 4 days ago
casenmgreen 18 hours ago
One that presumably did not succeed, and was superseded by proto-Sinaitic?
Or perhaps influenced / led to proto-Sinaitic?
adrian_b 18 hours ago
Usually it is assumed that a script is alphabetic instead of being syllabic when the total number of distinct symbols is small, but this is not foolproof, because there are languages with a relatively small number of distinct syllables, like Japanese, so there is an overlap in the number of distinct symbols between alphabetic scripts for languages with a great number of phonemes and syllabic scripts for languages with a small number of syllables.
However, in this case it appears that the total amount of recovered text is quite small, so it would contain a small number of distinct symbols even if the original writing system had a greater number of distinct symbols, which did not happen to be recorded here.
Because the small total number of distinct symbols may be an accident in this case, it would not be enough to prove that this is an alphabetic script.
One should not forget that already since its origin, millennia before this, the Egyptian writing system had contained as a subset a set of symbols equivalent with the later Semitic alphabets, i.e. where each symbol was used for a single consonant.
However the Egyptian writing system has never used its alphabetic subset alone (except sometimes for transcribing foreign names), but together with many other symbols used for writing multiple consonants.
The invention of the Semitic alphabets did not add anything new, but it greatly simplified the Egyptian writing system by deleting all symbols used for multiple consonants and using exclusively the small number of symbols denoting a single consonant.
Because the alphabetic script has been invented by trying to apply the principles of the Egyptian writing to a non-Egyptian language, it could have been inspired by an already existing practice of using the alphabetic subset of the Egyptian writing for the transcription of foreign words.
All the many writing systems that have been invented independently of the Egyptian writing have used symbols denoting either syllables or words. Only the Egyptian writing had the peculiar characteristic of denoting only the consonants of the speech, independently of the vowels, which is what has enabled the development of alphabetic writing systems from it.
airstrike 9 hours ago
I'm honestly amazed at how you know so much about everything
fuzzfactor 4 hours ago
Astute observation.
That's some worthwhile reading.
I would say that some people can make use of natural intelligence better than others can do with the artificial stuff.
kagevf 5 hours ago
Japanese has around 50 syllabic symbols, depending on how you count - include both sets of kana? include more archaic kana? etc
What would be a more typical number of syllabic symbols? I tried googling it to get an idea, but couldn't find much useful information. I guess Arabic has 28?
airstrike 4 hours ago
kagevf 3 hours ago
So, in terms of "possible sound combinations" I think Japanese would likely be on the lower side given that the number of sounds are also pretty low. Alright, thank you for that reply; the point in the original post I replied to makes more sense to me now.
thaumasiotes 6 hours ago
Hangul was developed independently of Egyptian script and is purely alphabetic.
bunupepeurjfh 16 hours ago
donbox 11 hours ago
koshergweilo 6 hours ago
sandworm101 11 hours ago
The answer is to stop digging. It is understood that imaging techniques will eventually be good enough that artifacts may soon be studdied without disturbing the surrounding soil, without destroying all that evidence that future generations might be able to use. Of course that means disrupting the dig-to-museum/auction/television pipeline that funds the field.
mmooss 7 hours ago
Who understands that? It's very interesting. Is there somewhere in archaeology where it's discussed? Is there a paper or article? It might be interesting for HN's front page.
detourdog 5 hours ago
sandworm101 4 hours ago
mmooss 2 hours ago
sandworm101 7 minutes ago
rastignack 10 hours ago
detourdog 4 hours ago