Is text good or bad? Perhaps I would favor the answer that neither are because text is not ethical, it is simply a mode of expression. What is written might be good or bad as it reflects the morality of the one expressing thought, but the words themselves are just words. However, in the early colonial period in Egypt, text wasn’t necessarily considered bad but the printing press was by some Arab leaders. Why? Because the local Arabic way of disseminating information from text was not the way we approach text in the West today. This study formed the basis for an interesting discussion on assumptions and presuppositions regarding ancient Egyptian text.
In 19th century Arabic culture in Egypt (I want to be specific for I am not sure how much it has changed), printed words were readily accepted. However, the quick and voluminous powers of the press were rejected. The reason was that words can be interpreted in many ways. It was the custom that the one who wrote the words would then explain what he meant to a student. Through dialogue the correct meaning could be conveyed. That student was then qualified to read the text to others as long as he provided the interpretation as well, again through dialogue. A printing press would not allow this interpretation to follow the words and thus misunderstandings were possible.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that misunderstandings can take place need look no further than the Christian religion with its plentitude of denominations all based off the same text but holding (sometimes vastly) different understandings of this text. Dialogue along with textual study (what is called “Bible Study”) usually clears these differing understandings up and brings them into somewhat more agreement. But what do you do with ancient texts? No one is around to explain them.
Now to take this in another direction…
Certain assumptions are made when someone sees Egyptian hieroglyphs. Among these assumptions are perhaps its uniqueness, its mystery, its rigidness, and its complexity. The same is true for alphabet users today when they look at non-alphabetic scripts, such as those in Asia. The assumption is made that the alphabet allows for greater freedom in a similar way that Greek art is assumed to have greater freedom because we can see the possibilities and the flow of the creases in the garments. Yet, anyone who uses a non-alphabetic script (or studies an ancient script such as Egyptian hieroglyphs) realizes that freedom is actually higher in non-alphabetic scripts; and this freedom might make it easier to read and understand.
The Egyptian hieroglyphic script has its alphabetic symbols, but it is not limited to alphabetic symbols. The alphabetic symbols are split into three categories instead of English’s one. There are symbols that have just one sound each (“uniliteral” like English). But there are also symbols that may have two sounds each (biliteral) or three sounds each (triliteral). Think of the famous ankh symbol (a cross shaped symbol with a loop on top instead of the upper vertical line of the cross) it has three sounds “ah”-“en”-“kh” and yet all three could be expressed with three uniliteral signs as well, or one uniliteral and one biliteral. Thus, this one word can be written at least four different ways (basically). This provided more freedom. Spelling (the use of one symbol/letter per sound) was not as important to the ancient Egyptian scribes as filling the space provided for the writing.
But this freedom (from spelling) could cause some problems with homophones (words that sound alike but mean different things). The hieroglyphic script of ancient Egypt used determinatives at the end of words to solve this problem. In English we use precise spelling that helps us solve most homophone problems. “See”, “sea”, and “C” all sound alike but are distinguished by the use different letters to help us understand the meaning. However, what if you only could hear the sound and not see the letters? Or what if you could only hear the sound and any combination of letters could be used? How would you know which was meant? The Egyptians would put something after the letters to make this clear (determinatives). So in our English example, an eye might follow the letters for “see” to indicate that sight was meant. Likewise, water might follow “sea” to indicate that a large body of water was meant. And, another symbol, such as a rolled up scroll might be used after “C” to indicate that the letter was simply meant.
However, this complexity (and this is just the beginning, the script is much more complex) causes many to assume that only a few people could read it. The problem with this assumption (beyond the fact that it is not backed up by any evidence) is that we forget that the Egyptian hieroglyphic script was based on the Egyptian language, a language that any Egyptian could speak. Hieroglyphs were common symbols of things in everyday life. If we could use another English example, the word “belief” in English might (if written with symbols instead of letters) simply use the two symbols of a bee and a leaf. Anyone who knew what a bee looked like and what a leaf looked like could easily sound out the word. But we, in the West separated by vast space and millennia from the “dead” language of the ancient Egyptians have to learn the Egyptian language as well as the script at the same time. This compounds our problem and gives the false sense that the language is difficult. The ancient Egyptians would not have found it so.
Countries (particularly those in Asia) today with non-alphabetic scripts have a higher literacy rate per capita than their counterparts in the West (using alphabetic scripts). Why is that? Could it be that although they seem very complex and difficult for us who are used to alphabetic scripts, they are actually easier to use by those who already speak the language?
When approaching a text (whether of ancient Egypt or of modern origin) it is necessary to understand that the language that is being represented by the markings on the document, wall, etc made sense to someone. Our understanding of these texts must leave room for alternate interpretations (unless we have the one who wrote it with us). We also must realize that the script we are used to may not (and most probably isn’t) the best and most logical way to convey a meaning without misunderstandings.
No comments:
Post a Comment