The heading for search results for Egyptian coins from 1834-1816 describes the currency as “1 Pound = 100 Piastres = 4000 Paras”. Searching in the Face value field for Qirsh* gives 66 results, searching for Piastre* gives two results.
This is incorrect based on the currency description. Searching for Piastre* should give 68 and Qirsh none.
For Pound ( 1916 to date) the currency description is “1 Pound = 100 Piastres = 1000 Milliemes”. Searching the Face value field for Qirsh* gives five results while Piastre* gives 144.
Only five are “incorrect” given the currency description, but almost all of the coin titles use Qirsh. (I found one using Piastres and a few that say “50 Qirsh / Piastres”.
What is the appropriate approach (for the currencies, the titles, and the face value fields) to have the face value fields match the currency descriptions and the titles be understandable?
This post was triggered by a question from karriot who was justifiably confused by the current situation.
I believe Qirsh is the arabic name, written on the coins, and Piastre is the colonial English name. I believe some catalogues uses Piastres/Qirsh in the title. I don't think any catalogue uses Qirush.
Since this coin only has the denominaion given in Arabic, a title of "1 Qirsh" is completely appropriate. This coin, on the other hand, has both English and Arabic, so the title "10 Qirsh / Piastres" is correct. The problem is the currency description, which completely ignores the local, Arabic names. This should be changed to
with the Arabic names put first as they are far more commonly used. Then everything will be clear. If we can use appropriate plural forms (e.g., qirush), even better.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The problem with that is that Arabic isn't a single language but dozens of local dialects resulting in many different transliterations that they don't really use vowels doesn't help either. قرش transliterated would be qrsh and Egyptian Arabic would pronounce it [ʾerš] singular or [ʾorūš] plural
So you will never be right one way or another ... ultimately you could call them groats because the word came from the German word Groschen.
Cita: "ceh2019"Since this coin only has the denominaion given in Arabic, a title of "1 Qirsh" is completely appropriate. This coin, on the other hand, has both English and Arabic, so the title "10 Qirsh / Piastres" is correct. The problem is the currency description, which completely ignores the local, Arabic names. This should be changed to
1 Junyah (Pound) = 100 Qirsh (Piastres) = 1000 Milim (Milliemes)
with the Arabic names put first as they are far more commonly used. Then everything will be clear. If we can use appropriate plural forms (e.g., qirush), even better.
That coin shows that Egypt believes that Piastre is the English form of the denomination.
CitaThe currency should be specified in English. Note that even if the currency unit is in a foreign language in the title and on the coin, the face value field should always use the English name:
Based on that the currency definition of "1 Pound = 100 Piastres = 1000 Milliemes" is correct and the Face value field should always use Piastres, not Qirsh.
Milimat is one of the plural forms but for 100 the correct form is the same as the singular, milim, as seen on this Libyan coin.
It's clear that the guidelines are in need of a complet rewrite. To claim that a 1 qirsh coin is actually a "1 piastre" coin and that the Egyptians don't know what their own money is called is absurd. By all means include the English names if they've also appeared on the money but primacy has to be given to the local name, especially on pieces where the English name doesn't appear, such the vast majority of Egyptian coins.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
CitaThe currency should be specified in English. Note that even if the currency unit is in a foreign language in the title and on the coin, the face value field should always use the English name:
Based on that the currency definition of "1 Pound = 100 Piastres = 1000 Milliemes" is correct and the Face value field should always use Piastres, not Qirsh.
Don't badger me like this. I don't owe you an explanation for having an opinion.
But, it might help you to go to the English section of the Egyptian Central Bank Web site (at https://www.cbe.org.eg/) and see what terms they use when communicating about their currency in English. You will find that Pounds and Piastres are the order of the day.
It is, after all, absurd to tell Egyptians that they don't know what their own money is called!
All coins should have the same title, otherwise people might think thank piastres and qirsh are different currencies. If I may, I would propose to have them as 1 Qirsh/Piastre. It makes absolutely no sense to have a few 10 Qirsh and a few 10 Piastres, since they are one and the same subunit.
Don't badger me like this. I don't owe you an explanation for having an opinion.
But, it might help you to go to the English section of the Egyptian Central Bank Web site (at https://www.cbe.org.eg/) and see what terms they use when communicating about their currency in English. You will find that Pounds and Piastres are the order of the day.
It is, after all, absurd to tell Egyptians that they don't know what their own money is called!
If you want your contribution to have weight in a discussion, giving an explanation is only to be expected. Now we know where you're coming from and we can proceed with the discussion. What you haven't taken into account is that there is no Arabic version of this website, meaning that we are not only communicating with people who speak English. To therefore prioritize a single language is simply wrong, as well as leading to the inaccuracies mentioned earlier.
Regarding ngdawa's point, none of the coins would be lacking milim or qirsh since they appear on all the pieces.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Don't badger me like this. I don't owe you an explanation for having an opinion.
But, it might help you to go to the English section of the Egyptian Central Bank Web site (at https://www.cbe.org.eg/) and see what terms they use when communicating about their currency in English. You will find that Pounds and Piastres are the order of the day.
It is, after all, absurd to tell Egyptians that they don't know what their own money is called!
If you want your contribution to have weight in a discussion, giving an explanation is only to be expected. Now we know where you're coming from and we can proceed with the discussion. What you haven't taken into account is that there is no Arabic version of this website, meaning that we are not only communicating with people who speak English. To therefore prioritize a single language is simply wrong, as well as leading to the inaccuracies mentioned earlier.
Regarding ngdawa's point, none of the coins would be lacking milim or qirsh since they appear on all the pieces.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but you are coming across as very aggressive and pompous.
I also don't think you are paying attention to other people's arguments. I'm going to summarise the two main counterpoints to your points here for convenience.
1. Pound/Piastre/Millieme is in line with long-established Numista policies for the English-language site.
2. Pound/Piastre/Millieme is how the Egyptian Central Bank themselves refers to their currency in English.
I also want to point out, in response to your point that there is no Arabic version of Numista, that the very strength of having an English site is that English is a shared second language to a great many people all over the world. By keeping the English site English, we actually make it more accessible to people who don't count English as a first language. Besides, were is the line? Do you want us to display the Egyptian pages in Arabic script in the Arabic language because that's how things are written on the coins? No you don't, so why do you want to enforce local non-English terminology when the correct English language terms are universally agreed upon?
Speaking you, Ceh, it feels like you have decided by yourself that things must be done differently and you are not paying any attention to the points of view of other people. You can't just say things like, "primacy has to be given to the local name," and "To therefore prioritize a single language is simply wrong." Why? Who says so? On what do you base these statements? They probably feel true to you, but they really aren't.
And I don't think its right to just pounce on someone who expresses support of one of the opinions in an argument and try to force them to debate you although, it would appear, you have actually succeeded in doing that with your repeated jabs.
Come on, man. You can do a better job than this of being part of a community.
Although the points are really interesting, I don't think this is a hill on which I'd like to make a stand. I will therefore be making no more responses in this thread.
Thank you for your response. We can't expect to get anywhere if we don't put across our arguments clearly. I'm glad to see that you were prepared to do so.
The first and overriding principle of a catalogue must be accuracy. Anything which undermines that cannot be accepted. Sadly, the idea of using "English" names for currencies creates the inaccuracies described above, which is one reason why it must be abandoned. The fact that the English section in the website of the Egyptian Central Bank uses the English names (all be it using "piaster" rather than "piastre" as it appears on the coins and notes) is no surprise given that these names appear on some coins and banknotes. This does not mean that we have a licence to ignore the Arabic names which appear on all the coins and banknotes. Accessibility is important but it must not be prioritized over accuracy. We use English in the descriptions of the coins and notes and, as you say, this is because it's a common second language. I see no reason to change that.
You bring up the matter of scripts. At present (as far as I am aware), it would not be possible to include a right-to-left script in the title, so we are left with the only option of providing a transliteration. Hopefully at some point it will become possible to include any script in the title, at which point we would have "qirsh" in both Arabic and Latin script together with piastre where it appears.
Why must primacy be given to the local name? Because to describe something by a name different to the one that appears on the piece is inaccurate and misleading.
Why is it wrong to prioritize a single language? Because it creates these kind of inaccuracies.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Stato cambiato a Respinta(Compendium, 11 Gen 2023, 18:54)
