https://web.archive.org/web/20250912055105/https://www.egypt...
(The site may be hugged to death)
Then in the next table:
> 𓄿 is pronounced “ah” as in “yacht”
> 𓇋 is pronounced “ee” as in “feet”
> 𓅱 𓏲 is pronounced “oo” as in “blue”
Are those vowel-sounding hieroglyphs only used in special occasions?
Also, does anyone know what the reason for omitting vowels altogether may have been?
There are a few purely abjadic languages, one that comes to mind I believe is Phonician.
Unsere Umschreibung dieser Zeichen darf nur als 14 eine ungefähre Wiedergabe der betreffenden Laute gelten; sicher steht aber durch das Koptische (vgl. K§ 15) und durch die Art, wie semitische Worte im Ägyptischen, ägyptische im Semitischen wiedergegeben werden, daß sämtliche Zeichen Konsonanten darstellen. Die Vokale bleiben ebenso wie in den semitischen Schriften unbezeichnet. — Uber den ausnahmsweisen Gebrauch einiger Konsonanten zur Andeutung bestimmter vokalischer Endungen vgl. §§15— 16; 18; über das \\ i vgl. § 27.
Erman already hints at the extended usage of hieroglyphs that does include vowels, famously used for the names of Ptolemy and Cleopatra (not that Cleopatra, they all had the same name) on the Rosetta Stone, and also for the name Alexander. However, that usage is not as simple as "𓄿 = a, 𓇋 = i, 𓅱 and 𓏲 = u". That's also known as the "alphabet for tourists", and while not entirely wrong, it is more of a caricature than anything.
As for the reasons vowels are omitted I can only offer speculations. I'd like to offer the observation that all writing is difficult and rare in the history of mankind; we've only had writing for the past 5,000 years or so whereas how to make fire has been known for at least 50,000, maybe up to 500,000 years (according to latest findings in Great Britain, that we know of, legal restrictions apply, etc).
Second, all writing is defective as compared to speech. It may also add things that are not in speech (something that Japanese orthography is famous for), but there are always important aspects of speech that are lost in the written. The way writing works is not like, say, a phonograph that reproduces sound waves, it works more like a punched tape that reproduces patterns of symbols. From those patterns, the reader must reconstruct the spoken word, re-enact it in a way that only works by filling out the gaps—many gaps in all kinds of writing. Now, when we look at what aspects of speech get omitted in writing, it's the weakest parts: frequent victims are phrasal prosodies, for which we have a bare minimum of '?', ',', '.', '!' in Latin, all of which are post-classical era developments. We also have spaces between words, only used sparingly in antiquity, and regularly from the Middle Ages (10th c or so). All of these used to not be written and were left for the reader to reconstruct. Similarly in Literary Chinese. Speaking of Chinese, if there's any aspect that can most easily be left out, it's the tones in alphabetic writing, and in fact that's what Vietnamese speakers often do when in a pinch. BTW Vietnamese uses an alphabetic orthography but although there were trends to use hyphens to connect syllables, post-1975 orthography is written only with spaces between syllables, with no way to tell where words start and end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_punctuation#Modern_...), which is likewise left as an exercise to the reader.
So back to the question—why didn't the Ancient Egyptians write vowels? Well, they sometimes did, especially when writing loan words or foreign place names from some point onward (I guess late Middle, early New Kingdom, but not sure), but otherwise, they left out vowels as the 'weakest' part of spoken language, coming right after word separators, sentence markers, prosody—all of the aspects of spoken language that are underrepresented in all orthographies. This consonants-only or consonants-mainly approach is, of course, inherited by Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Indian writing systems, all of which have consonants as their pivotal elements, with vowels taking a second, sometimes optional place.
There were also cursive forms. Ancient Egyptian had three main writing systems used in different contexts: hieroglyphic (formal), hieratic (a handwritten cursive), and later demotic (even more simplified, for everyday administration and legal texts).
It also seems possible that they were sometimes used to stand for vowels even in real Egyptian phonology, in the same way that certain consonant signs are used in Hebrew and Arabic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis
The letters said to be pronounced "ee" and "oo" above, are not the vowels I and U, but the consonants I and U, which in English are written Y and W, like in "yet" and "wet" (i.e. they correspond to Semitic yodh and waw).
So in Egyptian they were normally followed by a vowel, which is not written, so usually unknown. Thus the conventional pronunciation described in the article recommends that instead of replacing the unknown vowel with E, like for the other consonants, one should pronounce Y and W as vowels, i.e. as long I and U, which in English are typically written as EE and OO.
The sign recommended to be pronounced "ah" was some guttural consonant, perhaps like Semitic aleph or ayin. It was also followed by an unknown vowel, so pronouncing it as a vowel is just a convention.
The indications about how to pronounce the vowels of other languages in English always appear comic for the speakers of other languages written with the Latin alphabet, due to the great discrepancy between how vowels are written in English and in the other languages, where it is seldom necessary to give word examples in order to describe precisely which vowels are meant.
While the reason why Egyptian did not write the vowels is uncertain, this fact had a huge importance in the history of the world.
The Semitic alphabet has inherited this feature, together with its later variants, e.g. the Phoenician, Aramaic and Hebrew alphabets. Other writing systems derived from Semitic alphabets, i.e. the European and Indian writing systems, have introduced means for also writing the vowels, but on the base provided by the separate writing of consonants.
All the other writing systems that have been developed completely independent from the Egyptian writing system have been based on signs for syllables or for words, which has resulted in much more complex writing systems than those that have started from the small set of signs needed to write only the consonants.
Even such rather exotic glyphs, like the biliteral 𓏞, which is U+133DE [1]. But I assume that the coverage by webfonts is somewhat bad.
P.S.: Sorry for such intended misuse of the principles of hieroglyphic writing.
(I learned some hieroglyphs at school so this link takes me back! The school's textbook was Barbara Watterson - Introducing Egyptian Hieroglyphs.)
Learn How to Read Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs with Ilona Regulski: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwZB0MsXCjQ
Its cool to read about though. And of course, there will always be a need for experts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_(Unicode_...
To quote the great egyptologist Frank Kammerzell:
“Da die Vokalisation ägyptischen Sprachmaterials aus vorkoptischer Zeit nicht annähernd vollständig zu rekonstruieren ist, hat es sich eingebürgert, eine künstlich konstruierte Hilfsaussprache zu benutzen, die keinerlei sprachhistorischen Eigenwert besitzt.
Selbst die in den allermeisten Fällen jegliche Authentizität entbehrende Aussprache einiger Zeichen als Vokale reichte nicht aus, zu bewirken, daß sich etwa in der Umschrift nur solche Lautfolgen ergäben, die von Gelehrten romanischer, slavischer, semitischer oder germanischer Zunge zwanglos hätten benutzt werden können.”
Since the vocalization of Egyptian linguistic material from pre-Coptic times is not nearly completely reconstructable, it has become common practice to create an artificial constructed auxiliary pronunciation that has no linguistic historically intrinsic value.
Even the pronunciation of some characters as vowels, which in the vast majority of cases lacks authenticity, was not sufficient to ensure that, for example, only those phonetic sequences would occur in the transcription that could have been used effortlessly by scholars of Romanesque, Slavic, Semitic or Germanic tongues.
Of course they could pronounce the words in any modern Chinese language, but why not pick the largest and most standardized one?
Even if not, it serves a nice aide-memoire. A bit like how the "r" here is a mouth, and "r" in Cyrillic is Р which looks like an emoticon mouth. "s" looks like a folded cloth, ф (f) looks kinda like a snake, and Ы arguably looks like double reeds. I may be overthinking this, though ;-)
twelvechess•8h ago
phatskat•8h ago
This is a really neat page and, while I doubt I’ll ever get far into learning any of it, it’s really cool! For some reason I never stopped to wonder just how much we knew about hieroglyphs and assumed it wasn’t much, and I’m happily surprised!
closetkantian•7h ago
umanwizard•36m ago