Content deleted Content added
→De Sacy, Åkerblad and Young: Consistent with the Champollion caption |
More consistent captions |
||
Line 68:
In the same year de Sacy gave a copy of the stone's inscriptions to a former student of his, [[Johan David Åkerblad]], a Swedish diplomat and amateur linguist. Åkerblad had greater success, analysing the same sign-groups as de Sacy but identifying more signs correctly.{{sfn|Solé|Valbelle|2002|pp=47–51}} In his letters to de Sacy Åkerblad proposed an alphabet of 29 demotic signs, half of which were later proven correct, and based on his knowledge of Coptic identified several demotic words within the text.{{sfn|Thompson|2015a|p=110}} De Sacy was sceptical of his results, and Åkerblad too gave up.{{sfn|Solé|Valbelle|2002|pp=47–51}} Despite attempts by other scholars, little further progress was made until more than a decade later, when [[Thomas Young (scientist)|Thomas Young]] entered the field.{{sfn|Thompson|2015a|p=111}}
[[File:Thomas Young by Briggs.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Refer to caption|Portrait of [[Thomas Young (scientist)|Thomas Young]] in 1822,
Young was a British [[polymath]] whose fields of expertise included physics, medicine and linguistics. By the time he turned his attention to Egypt he was regarded as one of the foremost intellectuals of the day.{{sfn|Thompson|2015a|p=111}} In 1814 he began corresponding with de Sacy about the Rosetta Stone, and after some months he produced what he called translations of the hieroglyphic and demotic texts of the stone. They were in fact attempts to break the texts down into groups of signs to find areas where the Egyptian text was most likely to closely match the Greek. This approach was of limited use because the three texts were not exact translations of each other.{{sfn|Adkins|Adkins|2000|pp=121–122}}{{sfn|Pope|1999|p=67}} Young spent months copying other Egyptian texts, which enabled him to see patterns in them that others missed.{{sfn|Robinson|2006|pp=155–156}} Like Zoëga, he recognised that there were too few hieroglyphs for each to represent one word, and he suggested that words were composed of two or three hieroglyphs each.{{sfn|Pope|1999|p=67}}
Line 184:
===Mid-nineteenth century===
[[File:Grammaire Egyptienne by Jean Francois Champollion, 1836 - National Cryptologic Museum - DSC07733.JPG|thumb|right|alt=An open book|Champollion's ''[[Grammaire égyptienne]]'']]
[[File:Denkstroeme-heft16 beitraege richter 2.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Refer to caption|Portrait of [[Karl Richard Lepsius]] around 1850, by Alexander Alboth]]
Champollion-Figeac published his brother's [[Grammaire égyptienne|grammar of Egyptian]] and an accompanying dictionary in instalments from 1836 to 1843. Both were incomplete, especially the dictionary, which was confusingly organised and contained many conjectural translations.{{sfn|Robinson|2012|pp=239–242}} These works' deficiencies reflected the incomplete state of understanding of Egyptian upon Champollion's death.{{sfn|Thompson|2015a|p=175}} Champollion often went astray by overestimating the similarity between classical Egyptian and Coptic. As Griffith put it in 1922, "In reality Coptic is a remote derivative from ancient Egyptian, like French from Latin; in some cases, therefore, Champollion's provisional transcripts produced good Coptic words, while mostly they were more or less meaningless or impossible, and in transcribing phrases either Coptic syntax was hopelessly violated or the order of hieroglyphic words had to be inverted. This was all very baffling and misleading."{{sfn|Griffith|1951|p=45}} Champollion was also unaware that signs could spell two or three consonants as well as one. Instead he thought every phonetic sign represented one sound and each sound had a great many homophones. Thus the middle sign in the cartouches of Ramesses and Thutmose was biliteral, representing the consonant sequence ''ms'', but Champollion read it as ''m''. Neither had he struck upon the concept now known as a "phonetic complement": a uniliteral sign that was added at the end of a word, re-spelling a sound that had already been written out in a different way.{{sfn|Robinson|2012|p=243}}
| |||