KaJohn-DDGLC
commented
2 months ago Thank you for finding and pointing out this interesting case.
Besides the entries https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C164 and https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8342 there is a third entry involved https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8044. C8342 and C8044 are both from the DDGLC part and are/were grouped in our database under Greek Lemma ἀββᾶς (DDGLC lemma ID 4748).
C8342 was not collected systematically and had for quite some time an internal comment considering/suggesting its deletion. On that ground, yes, there won’t be a full entry for ⲁⲡⲁ (C8342) from the DDGLC side. (What our material will still contain is what we currently call a pseudo entry for commenting on the relations between ⲁⲡⲁ and ⲁⲃⲃⲁ.)
Which at this point would solve about half the problem. Looking up a spelling/form ⲁⲃⲃⲁ still provides two possible entries because C164 also contains a form ⲁⲃⲃⲁ. Looking up C164 in CD (13ab) shows that only the entry spelling (in Sah., Boh. And Fay.) represents the form section followed by pos, … a.s.o. What follows is a long comment in which ⲁⲃⲃⲁ appears as one of several connections/references made, declaring a possible entry ⲁⲃⲃⲁ as a related entry (same as for ⲁⲙⲁ C81).
On that ground, it would be the best solution to remove the form ⲁⲃⲃⲁ from C164 and add a reference to ⲁⲃⲃⲁ C8044. A search for ⲁⲡⲁ then would lead to the entry C164. A search for ⲁⲃⲃⲁ then would lead to the entry C8044. Related entries for ⲁⲡⲁ C164 would be ⲁⲙⲁ C81 and ⲁⲃⲃⲁ C8044. Related entry for ⲁⲃⲃⲁ C8044 would be ⲁⲡⲁ C164.
How does that sound?
Frederic, Sebastian, Katrin
amir-zeldes
Looks like there is both a DDGLC based entry C8342 and a Coptic lemma list one in C164 - both give ⲁⲡⲁ as Greek via ἀββᾶς, but regardless of whether we view it as Semitic by way of Greek or just "Greek", there should probably only be one entry, right?