Talk:šꜣq

What evidence there is that this was the etymon of Ancient Greek, as opposed to some Semitic language which is usually listed in the literature (Beekes, OED etc.) - Common Semitic *undefined: > Akkadian 𒆭𒊓:, Hebrew שק:, Syriac ܣܩܐ: etc. Have the Ancient Egyptians invented sackcloth? ^_^ Perhaps we're dealing with a Kulturwort that was freely borrowed across the Mediterranean.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * , could you address whether the big descendants list really belongs here? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this one is particularly confusing to trace. The descendant list definitely does not belong here, but it could (very debatably) belong at.
 * McGready 1968, “Egyptian words in the Greek vocabulary”, lists as a possible Egyptian borrowing, citing Forbes 1955 in favor but noting that others (such as the LSJ) instead claim a Phoenician origin.
 * Looking into Forbes 1955, Studies in Ancient Technology, vol. IV, p. 66, he derives the Greek word not from Egyptian, but from , whence Coptic and.
 * Černý 1976, p. 149, reconstructs a meaning of “sack” for in addition to the “gather” sense, citing the Coptic descendant, the determinative sometimes written as a sack, and an instance of  meaning “sack”, presumably having lost the weak consonant . He claims that the Hebrew word is borrowed from Egyptian, and that Greek  either came directly from Egyptian or was borrowed by way of a Semitic intermediary.
 * Vycichl 1983, p. 186, rejects Černý’s claim, noting that Egyptian is generally borrowed as Hebrew  and not as . He calls the Egyptian word, as well as the Greek word, a borrowing from Semitic.
 * Hoch 1994, p. 269, agrees with Vycichl, noting that Černý’s idea is rejected ‘with good reason’. He derives Coptic not from Egyptian, but from , which is more clearly a Semitic borrowing but has apparently been overlooked in past discussions.
 * Returning to, it’s unclear whether this means “sack” at all; Erman and Grapow define it simply as “lederner Gegenstand”, but in their notes they write “Beutel ??”
 * The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, vol. 1, p. 641, agrees with Ivan above that we are dealing with a Kulturwort.
 * In sum, is almost certainly not a descendant of, which might not necessarily mean “sack” at all. It could be, but probably isn’t, a descendant of  via Semitic. Most likely both Greek  and Coptic  come from Semitic, the latter probably via Egyptian  rather than  or . I’ll remove the list of descendants from this entry in any case. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Some condensed version of your findings should also be worked into the etymology sections at 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure! I’ll write something up and add it, creating the other relevant Egyptian entries on the way. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)