inkwell_01 wrote:
> Sorta. The -t addon was also used to make sure the "t" was
> pronounced in the name. Otherwise it sounded like "Bas" with
> no "t" sound at the end; BUT, Ancient Egyptians didn't spell
> their vowels out, so no one really knows how it should be
> spoken. We can blame the ancient scribes for this. Ancient
> Egyptians were great at stone work; lousy at recording
> how to pronounce words. Ah well. I don't know where the 1800
> date comes from though. The scribes were doing this around the
> end of the New Kingdom. (Side note: Modern Arabic doesn't spell
> vowels either, I believe.)
>
> I'm like Jim. I like Bast too. What a cute kitty. He needs to
> draw more of her, or her likeness.
>
Hebrew doesn't specify vowels either. At any rate, this isn't really a
pronunciation issue... the vowels aren't the problem.
On research, you're right, some scribes did write the -et to emphasize
pronunciation, but it wasn't literally intended to say "Bast + et", but
rather "Bast, and by the way there IS a T on the end there." I guess it
would be lingually similar to the Japanese "small tsu", which indicates
the following consonant should be extended. You usually see that
represented by doubling the letter, as in "rekka"--which should be said
"rek-ka".
The Wiki page about Bast has the heiroglyphs for "Bast" and "Bastet" for
comparison.
--
-----------------------------------------
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day,
but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest
of his life."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)
-----------------------------------------
Received on Fri Feb 16 2007 - 18:12:10 CST