Group writing

May combine two claims.

Words and names spelled in Group Writing are common in New Kingdom and later texts of any kind written in Late Egyptian, while they are remarkably rare in New Kingdom and later literary and funerary texts written in Middle Egyptian/égyptien de tradition.

“Additionally, words and names spelled in Group Writing are common in New Kingdom and later texts of any kind written in Late Egyptian (administrative documents, letters, didactic compositions, literary compositions, etc.), while they are remarkably rare in those New Kingdom and later literary and funerary texts written in Middle Egyptian/égyptien de tradition.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Zeidler did not publish his whole corpus-he merely presented a short selection of words containing a few specific groups.

“Unfortunately, Zeidler did not publish his whole corpus-he merely presented a short selection of words containing a few specific groups.”

• cites Zeidler (1993)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Zeidler's study did not solve the main ambiguities of previous works, for even with his approach several groups seem to correspond to multiple vowels.

“His study did not solve the main ambiguities of previous works, for even with his approach several groups seem to correspond to multiple vowels.”

• cites Zeidler (1993)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Words are usually written fully in Group Writing, but there are cases of hybrid spellings combining Group Writing with purely consonantal traditional orthography.

“Words are usually written fully in Group Writing.However, there are cases of hybrid spellings combining Group Writing with the purely consonantal traditional orthography.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Words and names spelled in Group Writing are more common in some contexts than in others.

“We can observe that words and names spelled in Group Writing are more common in some contexts than in others.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The technical dimension of Group Writing has been variously discussed over the years, while the sociohistorical dimension has received far less attention.

“The first G dimension has been variously discussed over the years, while the latter has received far less attention.”

May combine two claims.

Many terms spelled in Group Writing had foreign origins, but purely Egyptian words could also be written in Group Writing.

“Many of such terms had foreign origins, but this is not an absolute rule: purely Egyptian words could also be written in Group Writing.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Some groups derive from loanwords and occasionally even from words that are not independently attested in the surviving texts.

“Some groups derive from loanwords (e.g., = q/k-p =”

• cites Hoch 1994: 318, no.457 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Groups are not typologically uniform and present clear structural differences.

“Groups are not typologically uniform and present some clear structural differences; the following distinct categories can be recognized”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Groups including the sign correspond to the vowels *a and *i, but never to the vowel *u.

“By contrast, groups including the sign seem to correspond to the vowels *a and *i, but never to the vowel *u.”

• cites Zeidler (1993)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The consonant x of the group corresponds mostly to Sahidic Coptic ϩ and only occasionally to Sahidic ϣ, while [sign] and its Demotic equivalent corresponds systematically to Sahidic ϣ.

“For instance, the consonant x of the group corresponds mostly to Sahidic Coptic ϩ and only occasionally to Sahidic ϣ, while and its Demotic equivalent corresponds systematically to Sahidic ϣ.”

• cites Kilani 2019b: 2Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Table 1 shows that, while in several cases the various models agree on the reading of specific spellings (nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, 19, 21, 23), in other cases the models lead to readings that are completely divergent (nos.4, 11, 12, 13, 20), or agree on some attestations but not others (nos.9, 16), or dismiss or ignore divergent spellings (nos.2, 5, 18, 22, 24), or result in vocalizations that can

“Table 1 also shows that, while in several cases the various models agree on the reading of specific spellings (nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, 19, 21, 23), in other cases the models lead to readings that are completely divergent (nos.4, 11, 12, 13, 20), or agree on some attestations but not others (nos.9, 16), or dismiss or ignore divergent spellings (nos.2, 5, 18, 22, 24), or result in vocalizations”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The marker w = U is always written at the end of a group.

“It is also suggested that the marker w = U is always written at the end of a group, but:”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The resulting readings seem to agree with the reconstructed vocalization throughout the New Kingdom and with the contemporary Canaanite vocalization for those words having a Levantine origin.

“Moreover, the resulting readings seem to agree with the reconstructed vocalization throughout the New Kingdom and with the contemporary Canaanite vocalization for those words having a Levantine origin.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Group Writing emerged during the New Kingdom.

“Group Writing emerged during the New Kingdom”

May combine two claims.

Neither the assumption that Group Writing should render the 3 vowels a-i-u nor the assumption that [sign] is a vowel marker has been truly demonstrated on the basis of the evidence.

“Additionally, both the assumption that Group Writing should render the 3 vowels a-i-u (as assumed by Zeidler and most scholars preceding him) and that is a vowel marker are called into question, as neither has been truly demonstrated on the basis of the evidence.”

May combine two claims.

Schenkel's model provided an elaborate yet arbitrary framework through which matches can be emphasized and mismatches ignored, as there is no way to predict which principle will apply to which group in which word.

“Schenkel's model did not solve the issue of discordant vowels but provided an elaborate yet arbitrary framework through which matches can be emphasized and mismatches ignored, as there is no way to predict which principle will apply to which group in which word.”

• cites Schenkel (1972)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Group Writing was a spelling subsystem that complemented the standard orthography and was employed to spell certain words and names within texts written in standard orthography.

“Rather, it was a spelling subsystem that complemented the standard orthography and was employed to spell certain words and names within texts written in standard orthography.”

May combine two claims.

While some Middle Kingdom vowels seem to remain unchanged until at least the first millennium, others might have appeared in their Coptic forms already during the New Kingdom.

“In fact, while some of the Middle Kingdom vowels seem to remain unchanged until at least the first millennium, others might have appeared in their Coptic forms already during the New Kingdom.”

May combine two claims.

Middle Kingdom Group Writing works almost as a Semitic abjad, characterized by a restricted set of purely phonetic signs used to transcribe consonants, a few monosyllabic words used to spell out specific syllables, and a couple of matres lectionis that could be employed but not systematically to mark relevant vowels where they were pronounced.

“Essentially, Middle Kingdom Group Writing works almost as a Semitic abjad (a consonantbased”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The Back-Vowel Class, transcribed as U, was directly or indirectly marked by the presence of the semiconsonant w (spelled either as [sign], or as the second consonant of biliteral signs, such as the w in = rw), while all other cases correspond to a Non-Back-Vowel, transcribed as A.

“The Back-Vowel Class, transcribed as U, was directly or indirectly marked by the presence of the semiconsonant w (spelled either as , or as the second consonant of biliteral signs, such as the w in = rw), while all other cases correspond to a Non-Back-Vowel, transcribed as A.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

In contrast to traditional hieroglyphic orthography, which transcribed only consonants, Group Writing may have directly or indirectly also noted some vowels.

“In contrast to the traditional hieroglyphic orthography, which transcribed only consonants, Group Writing may have directly or indirectly also noted some vowels.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A vowel a/ā next to k may have been perceived as a Back Vowel already in Period 1 (18th Dynasty through the reign of Ramesses II).

“It is also suggested that a vowel a/ā next to k may have been perceived as a Back Vowel already in Period 1 (i.e., 18 th Dynasty through the reign of Ramesses II: see Table 1).”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The use of Group Writing cannot be linked to any single factor, but varies depending on the types of terms being spelled and correlates with at least three distinct features of the texts: their language, their genre, and their dating.

“From these few observations it is clear that the use of Group Writing cannot be linked to any single factor, but rather it varies depending on the types of terms being spelled (names v. regular words) and correlates with at least three distinct features of the texts: their language, their genre, and their dating.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The classification of texts by language, genre, and dating is valid for correlating with the presence or absence of Group Writing spellings.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Group Writing is not a full writing system and was never used to write entire Egyptian texts, except for a few rare cases of texts in foreign languages fully written in it.

“Group Writing is not a full writing system (like hieroglyphics or Demotic) and it was never used to write entire Egyptian texts (although there are a few rare cases of texts in foreign languages fully written in it).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The use of Group Writing was primarily dictated by features related to the foreign origin of the utterances being transcribed, rather than by their magical versus non-magical nature.

“This might suggest that the use of Group Writing was primarily dictated by some features related to the foreign origin of the utterances being transcribed, rather than by their magical v. non-magical nature.”

May combine two claims.

The corpus in Kilani (2019b) is limited to nouns, as the vocalization of verbs is more complex and less well understood, and could thus be misleading.

“However, the corpus is limited to nouns, as the vocalization of verbs is more complex and less well understood, and could thus be misleading.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The approach presented in Kilani (2019b) is primarily descriptive.

“At the same time, it must be stressed that the approach presented in Kilani (2019b) is primarily descriptive.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In contrast to previous scholars, according to the model in Kilani (2019b), =r and = -n groups should be understood as being connected and thus forming a cluster with following consonants, rather than as a coda of the previous syllable.

“However, in contrast to previous scholars, according to the model presented in Kilani (2019b) these groups should be understood as being connected and thus forming a cluster with following consonants, rather than as a coda of the previous syllable.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The approach in Kilani (2019b) assumes that =r and = -n correspond to r and n that were not followed by a vowel—i.e., r and n either directly followed by a consonant or located at the end of a word.

May combine two claims.

In the case of two-consonant groups, the corresponding back vowel has to be read between the two consonants; e.g., = kp + w must be read as kUp, while = sb + w should be understood as sUb.

“In the case of two-consonant groups, the corresponding back vowel has to be read between the two consonants; i.e. = kp + w must be read as kUp (for example, in = Gubla, the Lebanese city known in Greek as Byblos; see Kilani 2022: 191), while = sb + w should be understood as sUb.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The -w in w-extended orthography may have worked in a similar way and may have been somehow related; there as well the = w is written at the end of the word, but may represent a back vowel anywhere within the word.

“Finally, the -w in w-extended orthography may have worked in a similar way and may have been somehow related (Kilani 2019b: 16-17; see also 2017,2021): there as well the = w is written at the end of the word, but may represent a back vowel anywhere within the word.”

• cites Kilani 2019b: 16-17Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Kilani 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Kilani 2021Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Due to the fragmentary nature of the sources, especially in the earlier phases, some of the questions mentioned here may never be conclusively answered.

“It is clear that due to the fragmentary nature of the sources, especially in the earlier phases, some of the questions mentioned here may never be conclusively answered.”

May combine two claims.

The example of Coptic ⲃⲣϭⲟⲟⲩⲧ = 'chariot' < *mVrkˈobtV, corresponding to West Semitic *markˈabt(V), can be reconciled with Coptic and Levantine evidence only by assuming that the group = b + w had to be read as Ub, pointing to a Back Vowel before the b rather than after it.

“This spelling can be reconciled with the Coptic and Levantine evidence only by assuming that the group = b + w had to be read as Ub, thus pointing to the presence of a Back Vowel before the b, rather than after it.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Group Writing is a complex sociohistorical phenomenon that in many respects is still understudied, especially in its sociocultural dimension.

“Far from being just an orthographic subsystem, Group Writing is a complex sociohistorical phenomenon that in many respects is still understudied, especially in its sociocultural dimension.”

May combine two claims.

The fact that various authors have not discussed several of the words listed demonstrates how different their published corpora are, and how difficult comparing their results can be.

“First, the fact that various authors have not discussed several of the words listed demonstrates how different their published corpora are, and how difficult comparing their results can be.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The model coherently reconciles the spellings of the corpus with the expected contemporary vocalizations, but it is not meant to explain why Group Writing would work this way, nor does it claim to reflect how the Egyptians truly perceived New Kingdom Group Writing.

“The model coherently reconciles the spellings of the corpus with the expected contemporary vocalizations, but it is not meant to explain why Group Writing would work this way, nor does it claim to reflect how the Egyptians truly perceived New Kingdom Group Writing.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The model in Kilani (2019b) has the advantages of assigning one vocalic value (Back-Vowel v. Non-Back-Vowel) to each group and of allowing the reconciliation of divergent spellings.

“The model presented in Kilani (2019b) has the advantages of assigning one vocalic value (Back-Vowel v. Non-Back-Vowel) to each group and of allowing the reconciliation of divergent spellings.”

• cites Kilani (2019b)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.