Talk:Km and Km.t (Kemet) (hieroglyphs)

Untitled
so there is a wild edit-war going on and nobody bothers to use the talkpage? I don't see what this is even about. We don't need articles about every Gardiner listed glyph. The best approach will be to merge this into list of hieroglyphs/I. --dab (𒁳) 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC) - I agree that not every hiero needs a page for discussion: I didn't set this one up, but was attempting to clear it up for purposes of accuracy. What appears to be the issue is the interpretation of /km/ in relation to the word /km.t/, which is the ancient Egyptian word for "Egypt." There is also a severe mistranslation on the present page of glyph X5 as a collateral term for /km/, which in fact it is phonetically /sn/ and has nothing to do with /km/ or /km.t/. This is not a matter of interpretation, but a misunderstanding of the glyph.

Finally, there is a mistranslation of the alternative term for Egypt in the Rosetta Stone. The present page as /baq-t/, but the actual translation for the soil of Egypt is /iAt/, N30: X1*Z2, which is the Greek form of "Egypt", signifying it as "the (divine) place of the mound (of creation)" and the fertile black soil of the land after the Inundation. So, in this case, the glyph shown is also wrong, as it does not translate as either /baq-t/ or as /iAt/ - in fact it doesn't translate as anything, as best as I can see from my various Egyptological dictionaries.

I had corrected this translation in the page I edited, and gave the citation for this as Ptolemaic Lexicon (Wilson 1997: 36, indicating is as a euphemism for the land after the indundation subsided) and the Wörterbuch (Erman and Grapow 1926, I: 26, 13, indicating it as a collateral term for exposed fertile black land of Egypt).

In short, I am attempting to update the information as to scholarly accuracy and with appropriate references to same. I had assumed the issue was where outdated Budge information was still in use, which is why I deleted all references to Budge, as his interpretation is no longer in use, and hasn't been since at least the 1950's, if not earlier. Budge is no longer in use in most areas of Egyptological interpretation of glyphs, as noted in this explanation of why Budge's works are considered outdated:

''Budge had a transcription and a hieroglyph rendering method that was unique to his books, such that translating his work can often be very difficult. Budge persisted in using the Theinhard glyph system (which was based upon Ptolemaic glyph signs, not the style used in Middle Egyptian, which is why Gardiner had his own fonts made), which was outdated even at publication. He also had a somewhat unique style of transcription which was not used by most Egyptologists, and did not acknowledge nor use the grammatical discoveries of the Berlin School in ancient Egyptian, which has guided the translation of ancient Egyptian since the 1920's. Budge's works as to translation were considered out of date and unreliable by most Egyptologists in his lifetime, and haven't proved any more reliable since his demise.

''As Dennis Forbes noted his article about Budge and his books, Budge is to

"...be most faulted for his extraordinarily prolific output of 140 separate books and editions (some of the latter running into several volumes), a great many, if not most, of which failed to achieve the highest critical standards of scholarship, as a result of too speedy publication and Budge's habit of disregarding the work and publications of his Egyptological contemporaries, many of whom were advancing understanding of the written language and cultural nuances of ancient Egypt somewhat beyond Budge's own."

Source: Forbes, D. 1997. Giants of Egyptology: E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1943). KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 8/2 (Summer 1997): 78-80.

''When a modern scholar today refers to Budge's work, it is for his rendering of hieroglyphic texts in a printed format, in my experience (not his transcription NOR his translation). However, even these texts must be occasionally corrected against the actual texts in Egypt (where they still exist) and more updated information on Egyptian language.''

Now, the present page says that "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can." Does this mean the article is now open to be reworked? I don't wish to do this again simply to have it reverted because of personalities.(Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Black land-earth, (Egypt), Importance: Mid
I'm changing the importance level to mid, (not high) because the name is one of Egypt's name, as can be seen by the Demotic (Egyptian) in the Rosetta Stone. .....and in all the other sources....(from the HotSonoranDesert...ArizonaUSA..)Mmcannis (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Budge's 1920 Dictionary
I just went through the 2 Listings in the Part A/B, 2 inches of the 1314 page dictionary. The beginning is a Roman Numeral listing of other hundreds of pages.

The two listings of the works referenced in the dictionary goes like this: Papyri, Stelae, Works, etc. The first listing is from page 77-89 (lxxvii to lxxxix). About 200 listed Works. The 2nd Listing is from page 90-96-(xc to xcvi), and covers about 120 or so authors/publications.

The fun part of the dictionary is trying to look up a WORD! (Not for the feint of Heart)....And I recently did the two Utcheb hieroglyphs (after looking up 'utcheb') (It has the Festival Parade Routes, as used on the Rosetta Stone.) Utcheb 1, and Utcheb 2. It is very sad that nobody else wants to actually add to the great list of hieroglyphs. I may have made from 20 to 26, but there are only about 600 more to go, and nobody has dared make any. (It is a failure. The OLDEST language (besides in the Mesopotamian areas) on the planet, and with COPTIC, and religion, is still going on, Yet everybody is afraid of it. I did find the two examples of the Meteor hieroglyphs. Some others need to get on with the program. ......! ......!).. (The first person (woman or man) that adds a hieroglyph page, I hope I can tip my HAT to!)....And, speaking of that, ''how come the Egyptologists-(professional or others) are staying away from making an hieroglyph article? Is a Meteor hieroglyph really that scary'', or will it sychn up with the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the word "kisru"-kizru-, "zikru", and really scare people?.) (from the HotSonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA--)..(I hope my next hieroglyph article is one that can help shake up the "kosmos" a little!)Mmcannis (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Mmcannis (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Use Better Resources than Budge!
Mmcannis wrote:

''The fun part of the dictionary is trying to look up a WORD! (Not for the feint of Heart)....And I recently did the two Utcheb hieroglyphs (after looking up 'utcheb') (It has the Festival Parade Routes, as used on the Rosetta Stone.) Utcheb 1, and Utcheb 2 .''

Unfortunately, Budge has it completely wrong concerning "Utcheb 1" - it doesn't mean 'dike' at all. In Gardiner (2005 91957: 466), it is defined as a 'length of intestine' (F48), and has the basic meaning of 'turn, go around,' belying its imagery of convoluted turns of flesh.

Neither does "Utcheb 2", the 'tongue of land' glyph, /idb/ (Gardiner N21) have the sense of being a 'dike', but only that of the banks of a river. As such, the dual term /idbwy/ "the Two Banks" is a euphemism for "Egypt", but not as a name of the country (Gardiner 2005 (1957): 488).

Again, I urge you to stop using Budge's dictionary as a basis for Wikipedia articles on hieroglyphs. No one has used this dictionary with any success for over 80+ years, and with the publication of other hieroglyph dictionaries (listed below), we now know far more about ancient Egyptian language than Budge ever did.

The master compendium of hieroglyphs in dictionary for, reflecting hieroglyph use throughout Egyptology is

Erman, A. and H. Grapow 1926. Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache. (7 Vols.) Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich. (3204 pages total)

Other dictionaries include:

Faulkner, R. O. 1991 (1962). A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute. (328 pages) Hannig, R. 1995. Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800 - 950 v. Chr.). Kulturegeschichte der Antiken Welt 64. Mainz: von Zabern. (1412 pages)

Hannig, R. 2000. Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Ägyptisch (2800 - 950 v. Chr.) Kulturegeschichte der Antiken Welt 86. Mainz: von Zabern. (1753 pages)

For a far better resource on the decription of glyphs and their use in Egyptian language, see

Gardiner, A. H. 2005 (1957). Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

Any one of these works is far superior to the Budge dictionary in terms of accuracy and verifiable scholarship behind it. I have pointed out several errors in the /km/ article alone which shows that reliance upon Budge is more confusing than helpful, and destroys the purpose of Wikipedia by using poor resources.

I have no problem doing a hieroglyph article, as a professional Egyptologist: I have tried to correct the /km/ 'black hieroglyph' article, but had my work undone by another editor. All I am saying is that if any editor wishes to write a hieroglyph article, please use proper resources and ditch the use of Budge completely, or you will never have a properly cited/verifiable article. (Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Removal of Section: Alternative glyph, X5 equivalent, items burning black to an ending
This section should be removed for the following reasons:

a) Claim (image of glyph X5): "burning flames, on charcoal" in hieroglyphs

Neither Collier and Manley nor Rossini/Schulmann-Antelmes claim that the X5 glyph has anything to do with /km/. Their comments have to do with I6. X5 signifies phonetically the sound of /sn/ and represents a 'roll of bread'. X5 is the semi-hieratic version of X4, a 'roll of bread'. (Gardiner 2005 (1957): 532). As Gardiner notes:

''(X5), semi-hieratic form of X4. Determinative, bread, food (in hieratic only). Exx X1:X3-X5:Z2 /t/ 'bread/; G35-Z7-X5:Z2 /akw/ 'provisions'. From Dyn. XII usually takes the place of (X4) as phonetic termination /sn/ in hieroglyphic O34:N35;X5:D54 /sni/ 'surpass', G17-O34:N35:X1-X5-Y1-D21 /m snt-r/ 'in the likeness of' (§ 180).''

At no time does X5 equate to /km/ - full stop. For this reason, the X5 glyph image should be removed and the comments attached to X5 deleted.

b) Statement: As stated above, Schumann-Antelme and Rossini explain the crocodile skin, but with claws.[9]

This statement should be removed as redundant; alternatively, the citation should be removed as redundant, as the same citation is listed twice.

c) Statement: In the 'new age' system of hieroglyph books by late 20th century, early 21st century authors, the text by Collier-Manley describes the same "crocodile skin", Gardiner I6, as burning charcoal with flames.

This statement should be revised without its "new age" connotations. Rather, the statment should read:

Some hierglyph books by late 20th century and early 21st century authors, such as the publication by Collier-Manley describes the same "crocodile skin", Gardiner I6, as burning charcoal with flames.

I say this as Collier-Manley is not a "New Age" publication, and should not be so classified. Rossini and the Schumann-Antelmes are considered alternative voices in Egyptology, but not necessarily "New Age." Further, classifiying such positions as "New Age" is usually a perjorative statement to many studying ancient Egyptian language, and so deteriorates the alternative information as possibly valid.

Finally,

d) This citation:

Collier, Mark, and Manley, Bill, How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs, c 1998, University of California Press, 179 pp, (with a word Glossary, p 151-61: Title Egyptian-English vocabulary; also an "Answer Key", 'Key to the exercies', p 162-73) {hardcover, ISBN 0-520-21597-4}

This citation should be standarized with the other citations to read as follows:

Collier, M. and B. Manley. 1998. How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. (with a word Glossary, Title Egyptian-English vocabulary; also an "Answer Key", 'Key to the exercies') {hardcover, ISBN 0-520-21597-4}.

Normally, ISBN information is never included in a bibliography, but if this author so insists, I see no reason not to include it in his citations.

(Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Coptic language "black"
I think an appropriate section on Coptic language "KAME" might shed some light on this km, black topic. (also, "KMOM", "KMEM")...(from the HotSonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA...)Mmcannis (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition
Not really: the references Budge gives, with any specificity, do not bear out what he says when you check them, which is another reason why using Budge is considered a very poor reference work and is not used any longer as a reference within Egyptology. As noted in the Who Was Who in Egyptology (1995:72):

Budge was too prolific for careful work, and many of them (his publications) are inaccurate by modern standards; he persisted in the use of an old system of transcription, and did not utilize many of the grammatical discoveries of the Berlin School*...


 * The Berlin School is the group of scholars which created the Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache in 1926, and which is continually being updated, even today.

Budge's references on Coptic do not add any additional information beyond what is already stated more clearly in the Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache (one should not translate a book title, BTW). These mean only the same - 'black' and 'complete/to make complete'. In short, it's redundant to include this section, as it is something one would expect Coptic terms to mean, considering that Coptic is a later derivation of ancient Egypt. However, Coptic did not give meaning to /km/, but only supports its translation. (Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Budge 1920 Dictionary
The 1920 "Budge dictionary" is a compilation of about 200 works: steles, papyri, writings, etc, and about 120 authors. One of the 27 words listed under KAM, or the variant words under KAM is referenced from the Tale of the shipwrecked sailor. It is part of the first 5 words-(entry 2 of 27): kam-t, and is quoted as: "the end, end of a period, completion, a finish"-(two other references under this entry).... I've just returned all the references including the Collier/Manley ref using the croc skin glyph as: "burning charcoal with flame"-(obviously one of the ways the hieroglyph is used)-(i.e. was used in Ancient Egypt)-(it does not take a genius to guess why they-(collier-manley) chose to use that definition)...(from the SonoranDesert ArizonaUSA)


 * what, if anything, are you trying to say? --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A wiki page should be made about KMT (kemet)
This page about KM doesn't make since nobody is interested in just one word in hieroglyph. Kemet (or KM.T) is the interesting page since it's the name ancient Egyptians gave for themselves. I propose to change this page to Kemet or create a new page about Kemet (as a word designating Kemet people). Etymology of Kemet as Km could be discussed in that page.174.89.246.139 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Covered at Egypt (name). Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A reference should be made about the chet/mem etymology to KM
I think its more sensitive and therefore more accurate because the ancient Hebrew ח chet-mem מ supports pronunciation (Cham) of the KM hieroglyphic, the name validates the founder of Egypt as expressed in the Ancient Hebrew sources. Also,[… Ham the son of Noah, is the name of wickedness in a state of inactivity, but his grandson, Canaan, is the name of wickedness in a state of motion: For Ham being interpreted, means "warm," but Canaan means "commotion."]- Philo, On Sobriety, 10.44–48, translated by Yonge. http://joelnothman.com/downloads/interpretation-gn9-25.pdf Copytopic1 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What does Philo have to do with this hieroglyph? He doesn't even mention it. Sources for this article need to be experts on Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

KMT in Coptic (community or mountainous country)
"ⲅⲉⲛⲱⲧⲏⲥ - genotes - community (of a village or farmstead), (craft) guild

ⲕⲏⲛⲱⲧⲏⲥ - kenotes - community (of a village or farmstead), (craft) guild

ϩⲁⲛⲧⲟⲟⲩ - Hantoou - mountainous country" -- Walter Crum Coptic Dictionary

Note: he also has ⲕⲟⲙⲏⲧⲁⲧⲟⲛ, komet-aton - Emperor's Palace; it doesn't look right, but it also is a place, and not black. 2601:58B:E7F:8410:A156:547D:3CF8:B5E3 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)