Topic: Tag alias: heiroglyphs -> hieroglyphics

The tag alias #54558 heiroglyphs -> hieroglyphics has been approved.

Reason: To correct spelling error.
hieroglyphs is also already aliased.

EDIT: The tag alias heiroglyphs -> hieroglyphics (forum #317855) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

This is incorrect and should be reversed. hieroglyphs is the grammatically correct version.

callmewritefag said:
This is incorrect and should be reversed. hieroglyphs is the grammatically correct version.

Actually both should be aliased to hieroglyphs - this request is for heiroglyphs, with ei instead of ie.

I have a feeling this is going to be one of those "the American school system taught me it was hieroglyphics so that must be the correct spelling and I will accept nothing else" things though.

It's technically also ambiguous because it seems to solely refer to Egyptian hieroglyphs right now, when it's not the only writing system that used hieroglyphs, but the other things might be obscure enough to not worry?

callmewritefag said:
This is incorrect and should be reversed. hieroglyphs is the grammatically correct version.

Hieroglyphics is correct. Essentially, hieroglyphics is to text as hieroglyph is to letter.

clawstripe said:
Hieroglyphics is correct. Essentially, hieroglyphics is to text as hieroglyph is to letter.

The first thing out of any Egyptologist's mouth is that hieroglyphics is not the correct way to refer to them.

callmewritefag said:
The first thing out of any Egyptologist's mouth is that hieroglyphics is not the correct way to refer to them.

Depends, I suppose. One could just say that if you have hieroglyphics, then you have at least one hieroglyph. Everyone could argue about semantics, or someone could just make the BURs necessary to change things over (unalias everything from hieroglyphics then realias everything to hieroglyph).

The bulk update request #12655 is pending approval.

remove alias heiroglyphs (0) -> hieroglyphics (1085)
remove alias hieroglyph (0) -> hieroglyphics (1085)
remove alias hieroglyphs (0) -> hieroglyphics (1085)

Reason: Well, let's get the ball rolling.

If we're willing to trust Wiktionary, it seems Egyptologists prefer it in the singular. Viz. hieroglyphic :

The use of this word in the plural, as well as its use to mean ‘a hieroglyph’, are commonly proscribed by Egyptologists; for example, James P. Allen writes, ‘Each sign in this system is a hieroglyph, and the system as a whole is called hieroglyphic (not “hieroglyphics”).’ Thus, while the use of ‘hieroglyphics’ is quite common in works written by laymen (and formerly in 19th-century academic works), it is rare in modern academic works written by Egyptologists.

Hieroglyph itself states that a hieroglyph is an element of a hieroglyphic writing system.

In short, it seems that hieroglyphics is indeed wrong, but so is using hieroglyph. E621's tag is referring to the overall writing system, not the individual pictures themselves, much as we use text instead of word or letter.
___________

Proposed followup:

alias heiroglyph -> hieroglyphic_text
alias heiroglyphic -> hieroglyphic_text
alias heiroglyphics -> hieroglyphic_text
alias heiroglyphs -> hieroglyphic_text
alias hieroglyph -> hieroglyphic_text
alias hieroglyphic -> hieroglyphic_text
alias hieroglyphics -> hieroglyphic_text
alias hieroglyphs -> hieroglyphic_text

This both realiases everything over to hieroglyphic [Edit] hieroglyphic_text but also makes sure the misspellings are gotten rid of, too. However, unlike many hieroglyphs, this isn't written in stone.

Here's a compromise for you then. Make the tag hieroglyphic_text, and also make it a meta tag like the other _text tags.

callmewritefag said:
Here's a compromise for you then. Make the tag hieroglyphic_text, and also make it a meta tag like the other _text tags.

That makes good sense. Thanks. :)

Anyone else have an opinion one way or another?

Any movement on this, then?

callmewritefag said:
Any movement on this, then?

Difficult to say. It can take a while for an Admin to get to this, sometimes up to years. It just depends.