Ancient Egyptian anyone?
They may tackle Ancient Greek, Latin or Sanskrit but few dare to touch hieroglyphs, even if they have an affinity for character-based languages such as Chinese or Japanese.I think the big problem is that in a lot of ways, Ancient Egyptian is closer to Indo-European, or at least proto-Latin, than Latin in terms of a) the quality of study materials and b) the amount of concrete knowledge we have to go on. While too many texts for Latin, Sanskrit, etc, aren't very good and are directed to specialists or, at least, the overly educated, language-wise, there are some good texts for ordinary people out there. Other than the Dover texts of Wallis Budge stuff, there isn't a lot of popularizing stuff out there for Egyptian. And Budge isn't exactly the best language teacher that history has brought us.
I have said before that these languages ought be taught as living languages. In a case like Indo-European or Ancient Egyptian, it would be nice to find a few scholars confident enough to spend less time on asterisks and footnotes and more time laying out how they think of the language in their own mind, so that we could learn, say, the Collier or Kamrin dialect, as a starting point for thinking in the language. In recent years, we have seen Aramaic and Latin in the Passion of the Christ. And Ancient Egyptian has appeared in Stargate and the Mummy. Notes Penelope Wilson, in Hieroglyphics: a very short introduction:
[Stargate and the Mummy] are genuine attempts to create something in a dead tongue for modern ears, and Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs may turn out not to record such a dead language after all. Perhaps, then, we really will be able to think in Ancient Egyptian and begin to create a clear image of the past. But will it be in our image or in theirs.Wilson's quote is interesting because it gives hope to us language enthusiasts that another object of study may appear that we can truly enjoy. But it probably terrifies at least some of the scholars, whose aim is to preserve Ancient Egyptian well enough to do their best at getting the Ancient Egyptian understanding, and who would view our hobby as a bit trifling compared to the decoding of an ancient civilization.
In Collier, if I recall correctly, the idea of speaking the words in some way, any way, that helps is encouraged. In Janice Kamrin's Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs, it's emphasized before one even meets the alphabet that you won't be learning to speak Ancient Egyptian. Which brings the question: When Kamrin reads a hieroglyphic text, does she read by English understanding, by a conceiving of roots or by mumbling her version of what Egyptian sounded like? I suspect it's the last of these, and I wish she'd share so that at the conclusion of her book her readers would know there's at least one person they could chat with.
Labels: ancient languages
