Aziz S.

Atiya
EDITOR IN CHIEF

Volume 8

Macmillan Publishing Company

NEW 'lOR/(

Collier Macmillan Canada

TORONTO

.Maxwell Macmillan International

NEW 'IORK· OXFORD· SINGAPORE· SYDNEY
Copyright e 199\ by Macmillan Publishing Company
A Division of Macmillan, Inc.

All rights reservL>d. No part of this book may be reproduced or

transmillcd in any Conn or by any means. electronic or mcchanical.
including photocopying. recording. or by any infonnation storage
and retrieval system. without pennission in writing From the
Publisher.

Macmillan Publishing Company

866 Third Avenue. New York. NY 10022

Collier Macmillan Canada. Inc.

1200 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 200, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 3NI

Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 90-23448

Printed in the United States of America

plinting number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Library of Congress Cataluging·in-Publication Data

The Coptic encyclopedia / Aziz S. Atiya, edilOr·in-chicf.
p. Cill.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-02-89702S·X (set)
J. Coptic Church-Dicti(IOarics. 2. COpls-Dictionaries.
I. Miya, Aziz S., 1898-
BX130.s.C66 1991 90-23448
281'.7'03-dc20 CIP

The preparation of this volume was made possible in part by a

grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, an
independent federal agency.

Photographs on.pages 567. 736. 754, 755. 790. 791. 876-878. 1284. 1311. and
2168 arc reproduced courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of AI'" Photography
by the Egyptian Expedition,
Appendix: Linguistics

•
 List of Articles in the Appendix

Akhmimil: Dialecls. Morphology of Capeie Phonology of the Gn:ck of Egypt,

Aleph Dictionaries Influence of Coptic on lhe
Alphabet in Coptic. Greek Ojinkim Pre-Coptic
Alphabets. Coptic Egyptian Ambic Vocabulary, Pre-Old Coptic
Alphabets, Old Coptic Coplic Influence on Protodialcct
'Ayin Etymology Sahidic
13asbmuric F:lyyumic ShCnulean Idiom
Bodmer Papyri Gemination Sullam
Bohail'ic Geography, Dialectal Syllabicalion
Bohairic. Pronunciation of Laic Greek Tr.mscriptions Vocabulal)', African Cont3ct.\ with
Cryplogrnphy Idiolect Autochthonous Coptic
CryplOI)honeme Language(s), Coptic Vocabulary, Copto-Al'abic
Dialect, Immigr.mt lyco-Diospolitan Vocabulary, Copto-Gred:
Dialcct, Sporadic Lycopolitan (or Lyco-Diospolilan Vocabulary, Cuneiform
Dialect G (or Hashmurk or or Subakhmimic) Transcriptions of PrQtQl)'pC5 of
Mansune) Mcnlphilic Autochthonous Coptic
Dialect II (or Hennopolitan Of Mesodialcct Vocabulary of Egyptian Origin,
Ashmuninic) Mcsokemic Autochthonous Coptic
Dialect i (or Proto-Lycopo!itan) Metadialect Vocabulary of Semitic Origin,
Dialect P (or Prolo-Sahidic) Muqaddimah Autochthonous Coptic
Dialects Old. Coptic
Dialects, Grouping and. Major ~leography
Groups of Phonology

15
 Foreword
TIle greatest, but a.l~ the most frotgile and delicate
Ireal;Ure of any highly developed cjViH7.3lion ill its
thought.
This is also true of the Egyptian pharaonic civili7..3·
lion, the most ancient among all exceptionally cui·
lured civiliwlions.
The majority uf loday's lQUr'iSIS admire the Egyp-
tian monUlllents covered with figures artistically
drawn, calved, or p;lintel!, without rcally under-
standing them. Yel it is through these figures thaI
the eternal Mlul of the Egyptians is expressed. '111ese
figures an; a writing, or [he essential i1Ju.~lralions to
ICllIS-tell.IS wliuen in the genuine Egyptian lan-
guage. which hands down to us through the ages the
mysll'l')' and profound essence of Egyptian thinking
-through whk:h humanity in its evolution complel'
ed a decisive stage in ilS history.
In the same way we can speak of the Egyptian
Coplic civilization, direct descendant of the F...gyptian
pharaonic civiliwtioll. lIS thinking, especially reli-
gious and Chri~lian, hut also Gno:lilic, Uennetic, and
Manichaean, has cume down to LIS through a rich
literature. ThaI literature is exprei'iScd in thc different
variation.~ of the Coptic language, a language that i~
also a direct descendanl of the Egyptian pharaonic
language even if it is wrinen in an alphabeticlll fOl'lll
(a writing for the most part renovoted and simpli-
fied).
That is why the presentation of the Coptic Ian·
17
•
guagc-with all ilS regional variations, orthographi-
cal, phonological, morphulogical, syntaclic-is C5-
!\Cnlial in an encyclopedia enlirely devoted to all
aspeCIS of the splendid Coplic civili7.3tion, a living
civilization that still remains flourishing today in
Egypl.
Naturally in prcscntintl the C()ptic language-in
its multiplicity-one connot avoid some technical
terminology without which it would have been diffi·
cult to treat correctly lhe subject in question. It is
hop,ed that Ihose readers whu need such linguistic
knowledge will make Ihe effort necessary to under-
Siund this terminoloGY. Other TC3ders will cunsider
the linguistics a... useful lools ready 10 be used, per·
haps rnrcIy, hut to hand whenever necessary.
Mon..'Over, ht::lw COl.lld the Coptic language be omit-
ted from Ihe first Coptic encyclopedia when this Ian·
gu:lge-morc than 1500 years old, musically among
the most beautiful. and rich in arll37jng subtleties
(like those of the Egyptian Pharaonic langunge)-
still resounds in Ihe Coptic churches or today each
time the holy liturgy is sung or rccilecl there? This
lunglmgc goes on living through the adoration that
hun1an beings address 10 their elernal God, unique
and pcnnuncnt in its many form~ and uncleI' its
many names, multiple and various a.~ it was revealed
10 humanity.
Ronou'up. KA.·;SER
AKHl\tIMIC. The Akhmirnic dial~t (siglum A).
along with the Sahidic (5) and lhe various vemacu-
lal"$ of the Lycopolitan dialect group (L). is one of
the Upper Egyptian UlAI.ECTS of Coptic. lis range of
distribution extend,; from Aswan to Akhmtm (Coptic.
CQI1I/'l or XMltl: Arabic, 'AI!mfm; Greek, Panos or Pano·
polls). Thebes is considered the poinl of origin as
weU as the center of the AkhrnimiC'speaking region
(Kahle, 1954, pp. 197-203: Vergote, 1973. Vol. la, p.
4). How<:v<:r. according to the fonner view of Kasser
(1982a). lhc proto-Sahidic dialecl (a reconslrucled
entity. symbol ·p5. very like DIAllCT p) also began to
develop in Tht:bes after having infiltrated from the
nonh llS early as the second half of the third century
A.D. As a result. in lhe founh cemury A and S were
in concurrent usc in the Upper Thebaid. While
Akhmimie had nOI been unifonnly standardi1.ed, it
became a medium of writing as early as the fourth
century and re<lcheu its 7.enith in the fOUl1h and fifth
centurics. Beginning in the fifth cenlUl)', it W3.'i grad-
ually displaced by the Upper Egyptian koine (5),
although for its pan A (besides L') bolh influenced
S-as seen in the Nag Hammadi texIS and Shenute
-in Ihe fourth and fifth centuries and left traces in
nonliterary texts from Thebes dating from the sev-
enlh and eighth centuries. These observations imply
Ihat even after being displaced by S, A was Slill in
use llS a slX'ken language.
1. General characterIstics
The dialectical fealures typical of A may be sum·
marized in contradistinction to S (if neccssary also
to P; cr. Kasscr, 1960) and to the group of dialects
included under L (i.e., LA - Manichaean texts; L5 -
London Gospel of John, ed. Thompson, 1924. as well
as the Dublin fragment of the Gospel of John and
the Geneva fTagmenl of the Acla. Pauli, the latter two
being unpublished; U - Nag Hammadi texis of co-
dices I. X. and XI, as well as the Heidelberg ACla
Paull, ed. Carl Schmidl, 1904 and (909).
The lextual citations b~low refer to editions and
studies of lhe documenls noted in the bibliugraphy
as follows: ApocSoph. - Steindorff. 1899; I Clem. -
19
Schmidt. 1908: 1 Clem.(R) - R05ch, 1910 (pp. 1-
87); Elias - Steindorff, 1899: EpAp. - Schmidt.
1919; Ex. - Lacau, 1911 (pp. 45-64); Henn...
Lefon, 1952 (pp. 1-18): In. - ROsch, 1910 (pp. 119-
60): MinProph. (Minor Prophets) .. Till. 1927b (for
Obadiah 1-13: Amos 1:1-2:11: 6:3-10; 7:10-16: Ha-
bakkuk 1:7-2:2,2:11-3:19: Haggai; Hosea: Jocll:l-
14, 2: 19-3:21: Jonah 4:2- I I; Malachi I: 1-7: 2:9-
3:24: Micah 2: 11-5:8; 6: 1-7:20; Nahum 1:1 -3:8, 3: 14-
19; Zt:phaniah: Zechariah 1:6-4:5, 7:14-14:21):
MinProph. (Minor prophets) - Malinine, 1950 (for
Obadiah 13-21; Amos 8:11-9:15; Habakkuk 1:1-7.
2:2-17 (sic): Joel 1;14-2:19: Jonah 1:1-42: Micah
1:1-2:11,5:8-6:1; Nahum 3:8-14; lA:chariah 1:1-6,
4:6-7:14); Luke - Lefon, 1953; OSlo - Till, 1931
(lext A); Prv. - 8Ohlig. 1958: Sir. - lamu, 1911 (pp.
64-67); P (Papyrus Bodmer VI) - Kasser, 1960.
1.1 Grapheme (nvenl0l')'. Beyond Sand L, A
ndds the alphabetic symbol t, the postpa1atal spira1l1
Ixl (or !!' [Xl] rrom the Egyptian 11 or !!.>: in P, the
symbol for this is f:).
1.2 Poonetlc Charaeterlttles.
1.2.1. A, L la/. 5 101 in a closed stressed syllable
berore a nonlaryngcal sound, e.g.. A.. L OM, S COH,
brother.
1.2.2. A. L lei. Sial in a closed stressed syllable.
e.g.. A. L f(I"'; S r.a..... name.
1.2.3. A li:/: 5 ItI before a lal)'ngeal in the medial
and final position, e.g., A M16101f1, 111lJ1(l, S M111ICQ6, l.
MH(Jj(J, crowd; A OYI6rMl, 5, L OytUlll, priest; A rl, S, L
rll. sun: A OYtl, S, L Oya,lll, night.
1.2.4. A, (LS) lu:/, 5. L 10:1 in a long finullX'sition
or before a laryngeal. e.g.• A, (LSI Kay. S, U, (L51
K_. 1..0 kM, 10 place « Egyptian 'P'); A. (L5) GOY. 5.
LA (LS) ~, to remain « demotic 1:3. g' < gr): A
rq>Oy, S, LA, LS 1Jr(D, winter; A, (1.5), l..6 .xoy: S. lA,
U .xu. to say.
1.2.5. '/ewl in stressed final syllables: A 10/. L
le~/. S la~/. e.g.• A. fA (ManiH-Manidl,'lean Homi·
lies) NO. I. Ney. S N.a.y, to Sl:e; A, fA (ManiH) (l7RHO,
L 6'TffH6y. S OTR"H.a.y, thaI (Ii/crally, which is Iherc).
1.2.6.1. Typical of CC11ain A lexts (bill not 011ho·
graphically slandardizcd throughout in A), insertion
20 AKHMIMIC
uf a nasal before It I fulluwing lu:1 in open stressed
syllables: A in 1 Clem., Hcr'nJ., Provo (minority), In.
(minOlity) HOyt/T6, S, I., etc., and elsewhere in A
MOynl, tu call; A in I Clem., Herm., ProVo (majority)
rwyrlTO, 5, 1.., ctc., and elsewhcre in A NOyrO, God.
f.2.6.2. In contrast, the inserted nasal (sonant) is
missing in A, 1..4, LS (1..6 oscillllting) in the posHunic
syllable: Imtl, A t>.MT, 1.4, IS Q,lJ.HT, 1..6 Q,lJ.HNT, 5
Q,lOHlfT, three; A, L4, L5 ;HT, L6 2),HlfT, S 2OHNT,
copper; A, lA, 11> C.II.HT', S cOHNT', to be strctchcd.
1.2.7. An3ptyctic vuwel [:l] as well as lei is written
as 6 nt the cnd of a word l"ollowing a closed syllable
of the pattern lvoicclcs.\ COil-mnalll + voiced
consonanl or svn(ur)mrlf, by which A and L4 form a
group distinct from LS, L6, e.g., A, IA CWTH6, $, (IA),
L5. L6 cwTR", tu hCllr; A, L4 T),2HQ', 5 TJ.~H'. to be
invited (versus S, A, L TJ.2H6, to invite you [r.]), A
llnpTpe, f. Q,lT),yrT, S (Ifl"O£'11'", to be amazed. Natu-
rally, the consonant ean also be 1'1, e.g., A OyJ.J.B6',
L4 OyJ.l\fl', S, LS, 1.6 Oyll..B t , to be holy « lI"b).
Note that while the representation in spelling of the
anaptYClic vowel 0 in the configuratiOn 1~'o"l;u1rmll
+ so,,(or)all//-not Ilaryllgeal + .~OII(or)aml-is not
standar'dized in L4, the spelling with 0 predomin<ltes
hy fur. Consistent spelling occurs only in CJ.yNO, to
know (<llso P COOYNG). The anaptyctic vowel noted
here by l:ll is phonemically r'Clevant according to
Hint~e (1980).
1.3 Morphological Features.
1.3.1. Second present tense in A, 8(1) J.'l-, 5, /.., (l'l.
(in (.fIinn'ltive sentences, it is homophonic with the
circumstarllial verbal prefix).
1.3.2. Impcnect: A, B(I} NJ.'I- (lie), S, 1. Nfl'l- (n6).
1.3.3. Second perfect: A NJ.'l·, S, L lfTJ.'l·.
f.3.4. In the "6TJ.~ group" (sec 3.2.1.1), the rela·
live morpheme of the penect remains invariably
6TJ.~· if the subject of the 1'Clative clause is identical
to che llnteeedent in the main clause.
/.3.5. Homophony exisls between the subject pro-
noun of lhe conjunctive ten.,e and that or Ihe fir'St
present, cxeept the form of the first-person singular:
firsl present S, A, /.., +-; conjunctive AT),', S, L
(lr}n-.
1.3.6. Causativc prefrx A T(l·, S, L5, UJ 1l'0, (in L4
the prefix is not standardized, Te- occurring along-
side TrV-).
f.3.7. The qualitative forlll OfT- causative verbs in
A almost entirely ends in ·J.orr.
1.3.8. The neg'ltion of the nominal sentence and
the bil>ar1ite conjugation paller'n in A is reali~ed
without N, i.e.• only with 6N (5 N ... )'N): A (L)
6'lCaJ11'1G ON, .s GN....CwTR" )'N, while he docs not hear;
A lJTCaJTH6 6N, S 6T6 N'ICaJl'R A.N, who does nOt
hear.
/.3.9. Definite articles in A, including those pre-
ceding double eunson3nts and expressions of time,
are /I., T·, and N· (wilhout 0).
1.3.10. The second-person feminine singular pos·
sessive a'1icles in A, Bare IIG-, TV-, 'W-, S tloy-, TOY',
NOy·.
f.3.lf. The third'penun plural posse.'I.~ivc a11:icles
in A, Bare noy·, TOy', troy', S rlOy', TlJy-, NGY-.
1.4 Lexical Features (Akhmlmlc 11IOglollAu).
/.4./. Significant function worJs:
1.4.1.1. A ),oy, S, L ),yuJ, and.
1.4.1.2. Directional preposition to ur toward «
Egyptian r) A, L ),', 5 e-, including the adverbs con·
taining thc formative ),/6, A, /.., J.u,)" P A.BO)" S 6BO)"
OUt of; A .ll.eUyN, L >$>YN, P J.!lOYt/, S G20yN, B
6~yN, into.
1.4.1.3. Negative impemtive A HN·, S (L) FfnT·.
1.4.1.4. Lexical and functional distim;tion betwecn
eunditional panicles formed from -n6 and ·XG: A
(.lleno, enG, if (in the sense "supposing it is true that")
is to be differentiated from flleXfl, iX6, if (in the
sense "as if it wcre"), the equivalent of eQ,lxe in S.
This distinction is found only in L6 of those tcxts
belunging to the L group: 6llJ,l116 a~ opposed 10 tllQ,lXfl
(Funk, 1985).
1.4.2. A numher of nominal and verbal lcxemcs
specific for A (d. Tm, 1928, pp. 276-78; Ka.~ser,
1979a). While the vocabulat)' of AkJllnimic h<ls been
tretlteU throughout in Crum (1939), Ka~er (19M),
and Westendorf (1977), a fully documented lexicon
of Akhmimic has not yet been compiled.
I.S Syntactic Features.
1.5./. Connecting objects.
1.5.1.1. Nonreduetion of the stressed vowel of the
infinitive occurs also when the object is tillaehed
dircctly to it. In such ca~e.~, the infinitive retains the
form of the I;/alus absolrl/Ils. In thc bipartitc conjuga-
tion pattern this constr"ction is possible only with
objects not modified by a determinative (Shisha·
Halevy, 1976).
1.5.1.2. There is a lendency loward placing (. pro·
nominal indirect object (dtltive) before the direct
object {accusative} without an accuSlltive particle, in
thc C;lSC of t, to give; KTO, to bling back; and XIlO,
to bring for1h, which then tllke the respectivc forms
TO NO &> accusative, "1'6 Nil // accusative, and xno
Nil &> accusative.
1.5.2. A..~ in L, the affirlllative linal clause following
XG is (II most l:llwa)'li lhe second future (5 third fu-
ture, or (wlImlll cllcrgiclim).

As is npparent in scctions 1-5 above, not all of the
described fe;l\ures:He exclusivcly charm:tcristic of A.
Funhcr, it is the totality of all features (or, if not all
features appear in a given text, the combinalion of
sufficienl individual features within a text) that as·
sigll'i a document 10 the Akhmimic dialecL
TIll:: rollowing sections will include a di5cussion of
the phonemic inventory (2) and Ihe conj\lgatioo S)'!l'
tern (3) of A, out of which the criler'la for group
classification (4) of Akhmimic tcxlS will be derived.
At the end (5), problems associated with a number
or texts lraditionally assigned to A will be treated.
2. The Phonemic Invenlory of Akhmlmlc
As is tmditional. consomlOlS and vowels will be
treated separalely in Ihis lnvcntol)'.
2.1 Consonants.
1.J.I. Consonantal phOllemes and graphemes OIre
as shown in Table I. The eighteen consonamal pho-
l'IeffieS of A l:orrespond 10 scvenl«n graphemes. The
laryngeal Slop rl does not have its own sign but is
expressed, or may be rceogni7.ed, by Ihe following:
graphic vowel douhling (01' "breaking" of vowels)
(e.g., K.U.//'I, to plnee him)
syllnbic struclure Ivoic.e1ess COtlsonanl + voiad
COtlSOllQlI1 + :V (e£. 1.2.7: oy,uMl', oy.a.Mi'. i.e.,
lwab(:,)/)
vowel narrowing I~I > 1i:1 (fit, rt; d. 1.2.3). 101 >
lu:1 (KCD, KOY: cr. 1.2.4)
lhe poslconsonanlal first'person singular suffix
pronoun (K,u4'T. to place me. Le.. /ka't/)
The phonetic articulation of fbi 5 is disputed;
Vcrgote aSi~igns itlo the bilabial category, but see his
CromlPluire cople (1973, Vol. la, sec. 28).
r lind A appear only in Greek loanwords. The
replacement of K by r in the unstressed syllable Iil'"
(e.g., S HOYM"R:, HOym·-, 10 fann) is foreign 10 A.
fJlecpt in Greek loonwords. ~ is 1101 rcpre!lCnted in
A. since ltotl7.III1G (01' vaJiously ltotlCIIIIO). sl.:hool. is not
attested in Akhmimic.
TABLE I. COllso.latlts of Akhmimic
BrUBlAl. LABIO-
DENTAl.
Voiceless SlOps Ipln
Voiceless spiranlS (rf 'I
Voiced spirant!> 1101'1 (o)y Ibl B Ijl
Nasals Im/H
lateral5/vibrn~lts
&sm 0/'(: Vergocc, 1973. vol. la, pp. lJ. 15.
AKHMIMIC 21
<Jr. 9. lind lll·e. a~ in ::; and L. illonogmphic
'l(
charlleter.; of Ihe I'honelllc combimltlollS II' + hi, It
+ hi, and Ik + h/. Only in Ilolmilic do aspir:lOlS
corresponding 10 11'/, III, Ikl occur. 'I11e symbols t
and, represent the phonemic combinations Ip + 51
and fk + sl, e.g., ttc, nine, and Tell(; (5 Tlt.GCCI,
niu::(1), footprint. The graphemes (o)y and (tI)1 also
sel'Ye to indic31e those vowels, [u:] and Ii:], which
are homorganic wilh the voiced spinmts.
Note that in causative verbs sueh as XIllO, to cause
to be ashamed « dj·tpj), x may be inici-preled in A
ali biphonemic II + if; coml'are 5. L xno, A TtlJO, P
"r.In(). 10 bring forth « dj./yJr).
2.J.Z. Phonetic alterations of conson;UlIS.
2.1.2.1. Assimilation: " before p > mp is not stand·
ardi~d, e.g.. n'p appear.; side by sidc with lIJ·p (2l1"
111101 as well as ~I'f 1l1l6t [not in EpAp.]. ott llll side by
side with OM 110 [nll"C, I Clem.]); 'I bcfon~ m > mm
(mre), n:r~, 3-nd we fill (Prov. 13: I): s bcfon~ j >
n, ClfCI appears side by side with 1fC9CI. it is filling.
2.1.2.2. Dissimilation: mm > rim, R'Hlt." (Slallls
protlQmilialis of 'IT.) A (standard) versus lfHlt.#
(EpAp.); mp > lip: 'lTno· (negative fir.;t perfecl) A
(standard) versus Rnll' (EpAp.).
2.1.2.3. Ptll'tial depulalal17.ntion: k' lei befol'c s >
ks, S, L tIOyGC, II liOyttC. 10 be wroth; ::; 'KlGl:", II
'UJl,I::", leap: S T06I::". A TltoK'C". seal.
2.1.2.4. Melathesis: TllOZ'C" side by side with r.DC:,
to bite; ~'C" side by side wilh ~. 10 reap.
2.Z VowelL
2.2.1 nil: voclllic phonemc iUVllllIQry. A new lind
comprehensive system of Coptic vowel phonemes.
especially modified for Ihe Septlr.lle dialects, hIlS
been proposed by Vcrgote (1973, Vol. 1a. lM..'C. 60-65,
A lM..'C. 62). According 10 the phonemic S)'!ltCIll
developed by Satzinger (1979), vocalic phonemes ap-
pear alwa)'!l as eanier.; of the stressed syllable. "All
vocalic: articulalion outside of the Sl~ 5Yllable
may be cltplained as consonantal phonemes 01' as
anaplyetic vowels which emerge aceOlxling to specif-
ic rules" (ibid. p. 344). While Satzingel~1l system ha.\
DENTAl. PIIF/ POST- l..AJl.VN(;FAL
PAJ.ATAL PAJ.ATAl..
l'iT Ic/./c/X, 6 fkI' 1'1 e.g.. ,u
/sic lsi fJ1 /ltf. /hi,
(0)1
Inl n
fll1>../r/r
22 AKHMIMIC
th.., advantage of greater clarity, it ignores mOll'hn.
phonologir.:alr.:onneclions. The result is that altmor·
phemes that in the CO·text do not function as the
main stressed syllnbles remain unconsidered. The
following summary relies on Vergote's analysis but
does nOI treat all possible phonetic articulations. [al
as an anaptyctic vowel in closed syllables. with or
wilhout a sonomnt, is not considered a phoneme
(otherwise Hintze, 1980; ef. 1.2.7).
2.2.1.1. Sh0l1 vowels:
la( A: BATCI, abomination; CAN, brothel·. Al1iculated
hefore lalyngea1s and in stl'essed final position as (0)
(0), as in to, thou~llld; T6KO, to destroy; eOOt1 t , to
be; oo~, moon; bUI OYAAf;O', to be holy.
(e( e: 116016, half; r6N, name. AI1iculated as [;'I)
befor-e a sonornn! concluding a syllable or before
continuants, as in Il:l:'xo, shard, pOllery; CTBC, 10
circumcise; ~TO, to bling back.
/;'1/ 0: in unstressed initial, medial, and final
sounds, but nol as an anaptyctic vowcl: oS-y, glory;
GOCH6, hunler; rcilN6, man, as opposed to elUTMI
/xot9(0J)/, to kill; Tl.2M6 /tahm'J/, to call you (fern.
sing.), as opr>Used to n,2MG t /tahrp(a)/ to be invited.
2.2.1.2. Lung vowels:
Ii/ I, 61: 61N6, to bling; MIC(I, to bear; ,Xt, 10 receive.
/e( u: KIlIffi, Egypt; MlK', going; NUTN6, to you (pl.);
upll, wine. Al,iculated before l:uyngeals and at the
ends of words as [i:]: MIO, 1Iuth; oytt, night; (Mp(
21111', to be hidden, as opposed to /ke'( K(lI', to be
laid.
Note that according to Vergote, II [c:] is an llllo·
phone of [i:) before and after sonOl'ants (GerIlG,
HUTtle).
/6( (D: KWT, l() build; tllDT, to lun; f'WK,~, to burn;
thereto the allophone [u:] (oy) llfjcr /m( and (nl
before laryngcals and when final, as in HOy(tl}TO, to
call; NOy(N)TO, God; Koy, Lo pillec; lIfOY, winter; but
RMWTtl6.
(iJ( oy: ~oytl, intelior; COYf'lI, Lhorn;
TOyNOy610T<- (.Ul.~), to reveal (Lhis last is different
in Vcrgote, 1973, Vol. la, sec. 56).
2.2.1.3. Contraction vowel:
(cw/ 0, (II only in final sounds afler /m( and (n(:
MO, NIU mother; NO, to see; HMO, there. The wrillen
TAUU! 2. SummaI)' of Vocalic Opposilion
LONG StlORT
ClOSEO/OARK OI'EN/CU'.AR
/6(W • /ilel,
/a/l. /e/6
/u/oy
valiations HO, NIU do not indicate the neulrulization
uf a supposed opposition ·0 versus I), since in the A
vocalic system [0] does not appcar as a phoneme,
but exisl~ only as an allophone of (a/.
Note that (II for' 0 occurs occasionally as the final
sound /-a'( of the causative verb Tl.G,l(U, to increase (I
Clem. 59;3, p. 77 .9; EIi'is 33:9).
2.2.2. Vocalic OPPOSilioll depelldell/ upon syllahic
slruclure (Iollg.shorl ol!Posilioll).
10(, la(: /k6tl K,(IIT, to build, /katf( Kl.T"'I", 10 build
it (ma.~c.). (porx( n(Dp'i, to spn'ad OUI, (pard(lIl.rae-l,
to spread it (maSe.) oul. /mOnk( NoYN"K, to form,
/mankf/ Ml.NK6'!, to form it (mase.). (mor/ HOYf', to
bind, /marfl Ml.p"l'", to bind it (mase.). Before laryn-
ceals: (xOp;'l1 t(DllO, to become, (xo'p/ eoon', to be.
Note that in the status nomi,wlis, /a( before a
sonomnt is reduced to [;]: tfr, to bind someone(
something; nTt·, to spr-ead out someone/something.
(iJ/, /a(: (nhiJt-/ lT~ "', to trust, /nhat(lT~l.T'.
trusting (there arc no further examples).
/e(, Ie/: /nft~(;)/ HIITtltl, to you (pl.), Inek/ N6K,
to you (sing. mase.). Icarec(GOrIIG, hunter, (C;}ree;)/
GOp06C1, hunters.
/ii, (e(: /marit( MertT, beloved (one), Imarela(
MOraTl>, beloved (olles). /1II1S;'l/ Mica, to benr', /mestfl
MOC-rq'", to bear him. Before a sonorant, (i( disap-
pears and Ihe sonomnt becomes sonant and syllabir.::
(cIn;'!/ GIIlCi, to find, (cnt;'lf(
o
(llfT(I'I, to find him.
Vocalic opposition is summali~.ed in Table 2.
3. The Conjugation System
The summary of Ihe system is based on Polotsky
(1960) and Funk (1981). Except in special instances
(e.g., conjunctive), the fonn cited here is only lhc
Ihird·pcrson masculine singular and lhe eon·cspond·
ing prenominal form (nom. IIC hefore nominal sub·
ject). The entire par.ldigm is not :IHested in all con-
jugations.
Unles.~ specifically mentioned, the form is allinml·
live (neg. = negalive). Every basic tense (abbreviated
hereafter to "basic") is followed (if attested) by its
salelliles, afler "And": cire. - circumstantial. reI. =
I'elative, pret. - pr-etelite, II - second tense. Forms
Lo'G
OPEN/CLEAR
1
le(H

between brolckcts ( ... ] are reconslituted from VCI)'
similar forms (7£fO - no verbal prefix, no panicle,
ctc.).
3.1 Bipartite Pallern.
3.1.1. Preselll (basic) 'I', nom. 1.Cro. And tirc. (1"1',
nom. o· or Gf(l· (d. Polotsky, 1960, sec. 55); reI. UT-
or tiT't- rc:sp.• nom. 6T6' or eT61'6-; pret. ru,"I- ... (Uti;
also H6"', Ex. 1:5, by influcnce o( s n. nom. 10.- (In.
12,2; /00- sec also SCi:ond perfect) or tu.fEI••.. (n6);
II ),"1' (with Xtl. x'\Y'*IY, I Clem. 48:2), nom. ),- or
),1'" 01' ),ffl· (d. I'olotsky. 1960, sec. 55).
3.1.2. FI/lure (basic) "IN)". nom. 1.ero ... Ii)". And
eire. CNIU.•• nom. 6- . . . ru.-; rei. 6TfO,,· or 6T<tI4),••
nom. I1TO- •.. H..\-; prel. H..\'lH.\- ••. n8 (in lhe apodo-
sis of the hypothetical form - Irrelllis); II )'''IIU,-.
nom. ,.\.... N)'- or "\fG· ... N,.\- (second feminine sin·
gular "\p"\-, I Clem. 20:7. d. PolOlsky, 1960, sec. 59;
5CCOnd nUl."euline singular also ~"\'. !?pAp. 23.4;
witb X6, JO.crru.-. !irst plural .x.utt4),-. 1 Clem. 58: I;
second masculine singul;u- also JUlKH..\-. Pry. 5:2;
nom. JO.•... H..\., PrY. 3:22, but .xe ,.\- ... H..\-. Prv.
3:10; nom. ,.\(1'6)- ... 1'1,.\-; cf. Polotsky, 1960, sec. .5.5).
3.2 Trlpnrtllc Pattern.
3.2.1 Tellses wil}, special "ega/iolls (if IIolll}. Inde·
pendent (sentence) conjugations.
3.2.1.1. Perfeci (basic) ),cr· (second feminine singu-
WI' ),r-), nOlll. ,.\-; neg. Rn...•• nom. R"1l6' (in EpAp. a
dis~imitalive Rlf"'-, nom. l'flMl-). And eire. {I"\cr·, nom.
no; neg. IlHIl"-; ret (IT,.\'1- or lIT),:-, nom. fiT),· (to
the I1T~P belong !?pAp.; Elias; Ex. 2:14, 4:11; 1
Clem.; In.; and Osl.; nevenbcless, lhe innt:cled form
GT.\. also appears in these texts under identical
synlOCtic condilions; 1l(;1tT.\..•• Prv. 18:22, and 1fT.\...,
ElllIS 22: II, are to be considered a.~ influenced by S);
II tt.\'!-, nOIll. 1'1"\' (Polotsky [1937 und 19441 Is to he
credited with the discovery of the Akhmimic second
perfect; it is found with a deriwth'e of the second
degree only in the prota.~is of the hypothetical fonn
- IrrclJli.t, 61U.ym.~, if they had gone, Prv. 2:20).
also Il.\'l- (I Clem. 31:3). [61'A'!'] (I Clem. 32:3. 1I1I! G6
"lroY GT.\yXI G.\y "\Dy .l.YXtcc .\tlU ttTOO1'Dy 61'1 II
ztTlf HOy:&HO)'(l 1f~1 6nyclycl ..\.U.\ : " "
1l6«l'(W1a(l, "Now all of these an: glorified and elevat·
ed. Mt through themselves nor Ihrough their works
of righteousness which they did. but Ihrough his
will"; cr. second po::nect of 8).
3.2.1.2. Complelive (basiC) (it is unknown whether
the expected affirnlative substitute o.\'fOyOy 6't. is
simply not attested or actually docs not: exist in .4:
the passage cited in Crum. 1937. 373b. Hos. 13:2, Is
nOl peninenl: .\y(oy)oy, they perished, is a finite
verb fonn in the fir~t perfect; nn the completive as a
AKI-IMlMIC 23
fonnal CutegOI)'. affirmallve substitute S .\'IOylD 6'4-,
has already ... , neg. ffiuT'r-, has nut yel ...• see
Funk. 1981. pp. 191-94); neg. R"tu.T'lr. (in EpAp. a
dissimilative (lfluTIr·], thin! plural IDl),TOy-). nom.
R"ll),T(I' (EpAp.(Rn.\TG·] not allested). And eire. neg.
lIHll.\TIr·. nom. 6Hll.\TlI·.
3.2.1.3. Aorist (ba.sic) e,l,fiN- (second pIUl'llI)
e.lf6T61'lf-. I-Ig. 2:16). nom. t.\ICl.; neg. tu.,,-. nom.
fU<I'E- or HJ.. (d. Polotsky. 1960. SCi:. 55). And eire.
61"\1'6"'. nom. (I~'; neg. (IHJ."I-; rei. (ITaJt.I'6'1'. nom.
1l1'1.\ftl·; neg. IlT{lH.\"I- (Prv. 14:23); pre!. lNtlQlof6"1']
third plul'lll N6tlofO)'-; II ,.\aJt.r6'1- (EHa.s 38:13), nom.
"'Uf(!- (Prv. 11:10. 19:14. also 61.\1'6-, Prv. 19:15 by
influence of S?).
3.2.1.4. Flllllnm, cnergicutll (or third future) (ba.~ic)
.\'1.\-. nom. .\.; neg. 116..• (also 1I116..•• Sir. 22,19), nom.
116-; with xc, X),,!.\-, norn. ;0,-; neg. (xnIJG'!-] (e.g.,
third feminine singular' XRNGC·. Lie. 18:5), nom.
X.RN6- (Elia..., I Clem.).
3.2.1.5. Imperative. e.g., 6HO, see! (Ex. 4:13; (or
imperative with prdonnativcs, see Till. 1928, sec.
147d): or infinitive; or H.\ + T-causativc (no all(.'Sta·
lion among 1'-cnu~ative verbs of Iln impcmlivc con-
structed simply from an infinitive); neg. HR· + infini-
tive; also R"IlIPr '\'. Apcx:Soph. 10,6. (this form is also
common in LA and L6 (Nag Hammadi); m.r ::un_.
do nul sleep (pl.). A Osl. A 10. is highly questionable.
probably an erron(.'Ous writing or R"llCDf' "\').
3.2.1.6. COIISillive imperutive H.\pO'I-, nom. Hlor(l·.
absolute Hlof.\N (Mi. 4:2); neg. Hlf'rlr-, nom. HlfTO-.
3.2.2 Tell~ ""ith nq:.1'R(R}-. Subordinate (daaac)
conjugations.
3.2.2.1. COlljmlclive (singular first, second masc.f
rem., third ma.\C./rcm., pluml fil'St, second, Ihird)
n-, K-, Te·, 'I' (also lfTlr-, EpAp. 2,14). C', Tn·,
TeTR-. C(I- (or COV-. EpAp. 6.7). nom. TO,.
3.2.2.2. Fuwre conjmlClive T.l.f6't- (second plural
T.\fGT6TR-). nom. T.\f'6-.
3.2.2.3. Temporal: Group I lfT.\I'£'I-. nom. lfT.\ro-
(In.; Helm.; Prv.; ApocSoph. 11,2; Elias; EpAp. 3,14.
11j,1O); Group II np6cr·, nom. T),f(l· (I Clem., Ex .•
EpAp.. MinProph.).
3.2.2.4. Un,ilalive ("until ...") ".\TIr· (!irst singu·
lar • .\f-l. nom. IIl.TO- (also 1I.\HT6·, Apoc$oph.
18.5).
3.2.2.5. First conditionul .\....... {(llso 6"1~"\', 1 Clem.;
second plural ),'1),T6TR·. also 1 Clem., but onee
6t,!.\TI1TJJ-, 1 Clem. 63:2). 110m. ),,,,.\- (also <;qJ..... 1
Clem.).
3.2.2.6. Second conditirmaf [......J (only second plur-
al ,.\T6T'R·. lee. 6:15. The conjugation here refel'TCd
to as second conditional is that termed "simple"
 24 AKHMIMIC

conditional by Funk [1981. p, 197]. in COrltrast to his
"expanded" conditional con~uuctcd with 11,I)" (8
0I),,1'l). That the "protatic" e<!cwTtl belongs 10 tile
tripal1ite conjugation was discovered by Shisha-
Halevy. 1974. Aflinnative fonn~ arc notoriou~[y rare
in Iitemry texts. The protatic ),,'1CWTM6 docs not oc-
cur in clauses beginning with tlI~ntl and is only 10 be
distinguished from thc ~eeond present when it may
be defined by ils syntactic behavior as a (tripanile)
subOI-dinate conjugation. Neg. linn singular 1.rrA"-,
Mi. 3:8; SCl:ond masculinc singular )JI,TtlN-, EpAp.
40,12,14; third plural ),,)"TR-, Ex. 4:8).
3.2.2.7. Ca.usative infinitive -vr-, nom. -nl- (second
plural -TGTGTlf-, Mal. 1,7, or -TOTlf·, Mal. 2:17;
),flT6Tlf·, Prv. 24:23; also -Tf6T61'lf-; conceming the
second pluml, sec Polotsky, 1960, sec. 56; unique in
A third masculine singular 1.Tr6['1-], Lk. 12:49, inllu·
enced by L).
4. Categorization Within Standard
Akhmlmlc
The Akhmimie litemry texts exhibit a high degree of
standardi7.ation. Disregarding sporadic deviations
which may occur within the same texts, four criteria
may be laken [or an attempt at classification:
l. dissimilation mlm and mlp _ /lIm and nip: (1.1.1)
RMO, there ---+ HMO, EpAp. 12:13, 28:14, 29:7;
(1.1.2) RM),,4 -+ lfM1.4, EpAp_ 1:5, 13; 19:1, 12;
17:7; 29:12; (1.2.1) FrnG-, neg. perf. -+ l'ft16-, EpAp.
(R"tIOy-, 25:3); (1.2_2) Frn1.1'6-, neg. completive _
+ml)"Te-, EpAp. (lflI1.TOy-, 36:4)
2. Ihe uninflected relative form of the perfecl (;1'1.2-
(as opposcd to CT1. 4)
3. the temporal conjugalion T)"J'E- (as opposed to
Nnrc ·)
4. thc variant Icxical appeamncc of the conditional
pal1icle "i[ (it happens that ...)" e1l6, 6len(;
The criterion noted first pertains only to EpAp. This
phonetic feature i.~ supplemented by the fact Ihat the
assimilation 7l1p-mlp very mrc1y occun; at mor-
pheme junctures in this text, the standard for a mOl'·
pheme junclure in EpAp. being the una«imilated
form (IN nllOl, elc.).
The distribUlion of the remaining distinctive forms
may be represented in Table 3. Where 6T1.~- and
(;1'... 4, T"'rC- and lfT1.p6-, occur simultaneously, the
second fonn is to be considered as unmarked.
A special group is constiluted by I C!cm., Ex.,
EpAp., and Elias, which possess three comlllon fea-
tures. EpAp., moreover, is distinguished by dissimila-
tion in its labial features. In [ Clem., a distinction is
still to be made between the conditional particle in
Old Testament quotations and its [onn outside of
such quotations (see footnote to Table 3). At the
opposite end of the spectrum is Proverbs, which is
the one Akhmimic lext characterized only by the
conditional particle en6 while lacking 61'),,2-, 1')"r6-,
and EI~"E. John and tile Minor Prophets assume a
middle position: ClenG occurs in both, but John also

TABLE 3.
eT),,!- T)"re- Glenn ,""

I Clem.(R) +
I Clem. + + +'. +'"
Ex. + + +
EpAp, + + +
Elias + + +
Jo. + +
P~. +
MinProph. + +
Os!. + Temporal nol +
attested
"The allestations of f)t~1l6 and tnf) arc disuibuted in the 8er/i'l€r Hlwd.ehrift for I CI~tIl. as follows:
melle: p. 36, 18 (I Clem. 27:7); p. 69, B(I Clem. 54:2).
ellll: p. t l, IS (I CI~rn. S:4 _ Is. l:lS); 13, 29 (I Clem. 10:5 _ Gn. 13: 16); p. 14,5 (I Clem. 10:6 - Gn. 15:5);
p. 23, 12 (I Clem. 16:16· Ps. 21:9 LXX); p. 23. 14 (I Clem. J6:17).
The form Ino is used in four out of live pa~sages thm cite the Old Testamem, where"" lJIlIlC oceurs only
outside of'!luch quotations. The remaining fOI1Tl till) on p. B.14 may have been attracted to the
idemical fOI1Tl on p. 23,12. In 1Clem., therefore, two levels of I"nguage can be recognized in the case
of the conditional p"rtic!".

•
 AKHMIMIC 25

A ISI.... danlj

....- ....- "''''-

,.. Minl' mph. I'rY. (+ .,18)
I Clem. (+.nOlln citatl "na) I Clcm.(R)
EpAp. (.;. db•.l",ila tion)
Eli..

5.1.2 [,.etters. Listed by SinlOn, 1940, p. 201, with

employs OTl..l· and N'TJt.f6-, whil e lhe text of the Mi-
foot note s 30-3 1.
nor Prop hets uses (IT.. .. and n,"6 ·. The position of as abov e, with fooll1ote
5.13 Mag kal falS . Sam e
0sI., which emp loys 6T~ and 6laIMl, rem ains unc er·
32; Erni ledt , 1959, no. 70.
lain beca use of the lack of a form of the temp oral .
5.2. The liter ary tcxts Ascls., Berl in Gen esis, and
The most stron gly neut raliz ed docu men t is I Clem .
the Hym n were prcv ious ly desc ribe d by Kah le (1954,
(R) in which no disli nctiv e fonn (6n.~. n,p( l', or
pp. 203- 205) as "Ak hmi mic with Sub akhm imic {that
1116) appean.
is, L] innu encc ," wilh Ascls. and Gen esis form ing a
A summary by mOJl)hologica1 char acte risti cs ap-
grou p of thei r own . The laue r texts were show n by
pears in Figu res 1 and 2. Both type s of mor phol ogi-
Kass el' 10 be earl y form s of the dial ect L. (sec espe .
cal classification lead 10 the sam e "ext rem e" groups:
ciall y Kassel', 1979b and 1982b, in whic h Ascls. and
J Clem., EpAp., Ex., and Elias, on the one hand , and
Gen esis arc refe rred to as ; and ;7, l'espcctively; see
I Clem.(R) and Prv., on the othe r. In. and MinProph.
also Fun k, 1987). Ascls. and the Berl in Gen esis have
have no disti ngui shin g feat ures in com mon with thc
defi nitel y to be elim inat ed from the body of
other main grou ps, but fonn a class of thei r own.
Akh mim ic texts, al'i does the Hym n of ~Iierakas,
whic h corr espo nds mor e dose ly to ;7 (and L) than
5. Akhmlmold Tex ts to A (lr > /5/ ~6 : h > jxj "ff-, with out an Ilnaptye·
5.1. A num ber of liten uy and nonl itera ry texiS tic vowel in Ihe sylla ble JeRI [- voiceless consoll/lIIl
(e.g.• [ette n, mag ical texts) have trad ition ally been
+ l'Oiced consonanl or SOft(or)ant), 5C'Cond perf ect
designated Akh mim ic: Hl.y-: voca lizat ion of the stres sed sylla ble as in L.) or
to Gala tians (see Kassel' and Satz inge r, 1982).
5.1.1 Literary le.:cts. The Asce nsio n of Isaia h (Asels.)
-laC D.U, 1946. The Berl in Gen esis [rag men
t, P. 8773 5.3, Akhmirnlc Psal m 46, whic h is chllr'll.cteri~cd
by irreg ular orth ogra phy. is to be cons ider ed an ear-
(Gn. 1:18 -2:5 , frag men lary ) - Leip oldl , 1904. Gal.
5:11-6:1 .. Brow ne, 1979 (pp. 19-2 1). The Hym n [of ly form of L rath er than A, sine e non e of the diale cti-
HierakasJ • Lefort, 1939. !'s. 46:3 -10 LXX, a pu- cal featu res of Akh mim ic an: disli nedy mar ked: e.g.,
),)'e , lind not M)y (see 1.4.1.1); u.l.r .'. to be holy
pil's exer cise on a wood table t • Cru m, 1934.

~-
I Clem. ti _ in c~~ion.)
~ ..
MinP roph.
~ ..
I'nt. (+ ....,
I CI<m.(R)
".
I!pAp. (+ dluimi!;>lion)
Eli..

FIGURE 2. Tl.p e, lfTl. p6.

26 AKHMlM1C
(fo... 'oy.ua') and not u;ue l (see 1.2.7): oyoT6 (fu...
'~o) and not OYb)~TG. (he iii) fearful. In this
connection. it is noteworthy that instead of the
Akhmimic :tfGl(e)t6. fl.'3 .... the S (I.) lexeme ~e
(:J>T6) is employed.
5.4. The nonlilerary lexts were delineated C3rtie...
by Simon (1940) as Akhmhnic with Sahidic influ·
ence. 0'" As (fo... the leltel'S) and "As vl/!gai...e." 0 ...
~'Ulga ... Akhmimic with Sahidie influence (fo... Ihe
magical lex IS). While delaik-d evidence cannot be
offered here. it should be l)Dinted OUt Ih:lI the Mcle·
tian leue... I'ap. 1921 (betwl."Cn 330 and 340 ..... D.; cd.
Crum. in Bell, 1924) clearly belongs 10 L. as dues
Ihe lette... from the John Rylancls Uhl'ary. no. 396,
which w:t.~ claimcd by Cnull (1909, p. viii) liS an
cxample uf "tl pmetically pure Akhmimic" lexl.
5.5. II Illay be coneluded Ihat the more 01' less
Akhmimoid teltlS should no longer be counted with
the corpus of lexts written in the Akhmimic dialect,
nOl even with Ihe mitigating addition of a small s,
which is to indicatc $ahidic influence. This mean!>,
furthermore. thm the A diaft.'Ct is only represented
by literary texL~ (i.e., blblica.!, apocryphal. and palm·
tie) and lhat. finally. "Akhmimic" i~ identical to
"litandard Akhmimic:' The Akhmimic tCJ[!S are ex-
elusively documents translated from Greek or
Sahidic. Just for lhe most comprehensh-e te:cu.
(MinProph.• Prv.) it has been shown tMt they rcpn"
sent interlinea... verstons of Sahidic (Till, 1927b,
p. :u:c: BOhlig, 1936, p. 35).
818L1OCRAPIIY
Bell, H. I. Jews and ChriS/ialls in Egrpl. London.
1924.
DOhlig, A. Umcrsl/cJllltlgctl iiber die koplisc1Iell
Prol'crbicll/cxte. SlUlIgal1, 1936.
---::-. /)cr flchmimis(;1Ie ProllubicmexI >loch Ms.
Herol. orierll. OCI. 987. Munich, 1958.
Browne, G. M. Micltigtm Coplic TexIS. Barcelona,
1979.
(rum, W. E. CUlt~!ogue of Ihe Coplic Malluscripls ill
Ihe Colleclimr of Ihe Jalrll Rylawls Library, Mw,,'1Ies·
ler. Manchester. 1909.
"Un Psaume en dialecte d'Akhmtm."
Memoires de /'hrstilltt fram,;ais d'urcheologie orieu-
tale 67 (1934):73-86.
::--,--_ A Coplic Vict«mary. o:cfo...d, 1939.
EmStool. P. V. Koplskie leuly Gos;. EnnitaiP. Moscow
and Leningrnd. 1959.
Funk. W. P. "Beitr!ige des mittelagyptischcn Dialekts
zum koptischen Konjuplionssystem." In S/lldi~
Prese,rud to /tans Jakob PolO/sky, cd. D. W. Young.
pp. 177-210. Beacon Hill, M~, 1981.
_::-_. "Koplische lsoglo~n im obeliigyplischen
Raum I. lllVUl 'wenn', elc." lei/schnf, {iir
iJgyptisc1le Sprache u"J Allerwmskunde 112
(1985):19-24.
....,::-~ "Die Zcugen des koptischen UteralUrdialeklS
i7." Zeiuchrifl fiJr iJgyptisclle Sprac1le t(ltd Aller·
1...'lsleunde 114 (1987):117-33.
IlinI7.e, F. "Zour kOplischcn Phonologic." Ellchoria 10
(1980);23-91.
Kahle. P. E. Ba/a'itIlh: Coplic TUIS from Deir cJ·
Bala';wh in Upper Egypl. Oxford and London,
1954.
Knsscr, R. Popynls Bodmer VI: Livre des Prol'e,m.s.
CSCO 194-195. Louvain. 1960.
_=~. Comp!rimtmts art diCliormaire cople de Crwll.
Bibliothcquc d'etude~ coptes 7. C.'liro, 1964.
_--,~. "Un Le:ceme cople oublie, 1'KllN akhmimiquc
(Nahum 3,19)." Bullelhl de la Societe d'Jgyplologie.
CellCl'c 1 (1979a):23-25.
_....,_. "Relations de genealogle dialectale dan!> Ie
domaine Iycopolltain." BIllie/in tie la Societe
tNgyplolvgie, Ge'leve 2 (1979b):31-36.
"te Dialectc protosa"ldique de Thebes."
Archiv /iir Papyrusforschung 28 (1982a):67-81-
_,--_ "Un Nouveau l>OCumeut protolycopolitain."
Orielllalia 5 I (1982b):30-38.
___ "Le Grand-Groupc dialcclal eopte de Haute-
Egypte." BlIlletill de la Soclbe d'egyplologit,
Ge,livc 7 (1982c):47-72.
Kasse..., R., and H. satzinger. "L'ldiome du P. Mich.
5421 (tfOUve a Karnnis, IlOrd'i$! du Fayoum)."
Wieller ltIitsehrift fUr die KWlde drs Morgen/andes
74 (1982):15-32.
Lacau, P. "Textes CoptC5 en dialCCles akhmtmique Cl
sahidique:' B..lIrlill de I'fllstilllt /r(lllt;ais d'arche·
ologie orie"l(lfe 8 (1911):43-81.
....,::-~ "Fragment!> de j'Ascension d'isaie en cople."
MUsCon 59 (1946):453-57.
Lefort. L T. "Fragments d'apocryphes en copte·
akhmlmique." MrtStOIi 52 (1939): 1-10.
_::-:_ us Peres aposlaliqu/!.J ell copte. CSCO 135-
136. Louvain, 1952.
_--,_. "Fragments bibliques en di:llecle akhrnl·
mique." Museo>l 66 (1953):1-30.
lLeipoldl, J.]. Aegyplisclrc UrklllltlC'1 allS dell koeuig.
liclrcll MltSe,m VI Berlin, Irermlsgegebe'l VOII tier
Gellcralverwaltl/Ilg, koptisc1ll! wltl I/rl/bise/re Urklm·
dCII. Berlin, 1904.
Malinine, M. "Frngnlents d'une version achmimique
des Petits ProphCtcs:' DI/Ile/ill of Ihe 8)7ftlltille Ill·
slitllle 2 (1950):365-415.
PoloL~ky, H. J. "Deux amdliain'S mt.'ConnUli cn
cOple." Comp/l~S relldl/s dll Groupe liJlglfUJiqlle
==
=
d'cllldcs c1lamito-simitiqlltS 3 (1937):1-3.
Etl/des de S)'>ltcue cople. Cairo. 1944.
'The Coptic Conjugation Systcm:' Orlell/uliG
29 (1960):392-422.

h" R&ch, F. 8mchslilcke des ernell CJelll/!l1shrie/c.f ll(Jch
I/lr de", achmimischCIl PtJpyrus der Strassburger Un;-
112 vtwtiil$. umdesbibliOlllek, mil bib/ischen
ulld
Tuttll der~/MJl lIalll/sellri/l. Stra.<.bourg, 1910.
,'"
Iltr.
Saltingcr, H. "Phonologie des koplischcn Verbs
(sa'id~hcr Dialckl):' Fe$lschrifl Elmo, &lei. ed. A.
Wuckelt and K.-J. Seyfried. pp. 343-68. o..nlbcrg.
, 10 1979.
Schmidt, C. Ac/a Pal/Ii aIlS der Heidelberger koplj.
. e/. schen Pupymslumdscllri/l Nr. f. Leipzig. 1904.
la,. _ _ Dt!r erste Cfemenshriel it! /llIIwpliscl,cr Vber-
$C1vmg. Textc und Untersuchungen 32. Lcip:r.ig.
1908.
-;:-. "Ein ncues Fragment del" Heidelberger Acta
WI!. Pauli." In Sill.Jm~sberid,'e der /Ju/i,/Cr Aklldemie
der W/ssellsdw/len, PhiluwplJisc!l·f1iSlorisdw
,que Kla,"lc, pp. 216-220. Berlin, 1909.
lill /!. _ . Gesprilche fe.m mil .lduclI fiillgcm Huch der
Auferslelilmg. Tcxte llnd Untersuchungen 43. Leip·
s le zig, 1919.
:/I!IC Shisha.Halcvy, A. "Protalic C1'tco>TR. u Hilhel10 Un-
noticed Coptic Trip'lI1lte Conjugation·Fonn and
es." Its Diachronic Connections." Orlen/alia 43 (1974):
369-81.
jn," "Akhmimoid Fcalurc~ in Shenoule's Idio-
lKL" Mlu~otl 89 (1976):157-80.
SinlOn. J. "Note sur Ie dos.~ier des textcs ill·
mlmiqucs." Ci"qlluute"uirfl de J'&oIe bib/ique el
lIfChiologiqlle de Jin15afem. MemQrial (Marie f~
stph) lAgrange, pp. 197-201. Paris. 1940.
,.) " Steindorff. G. Die ApokalypK des Elias, eine llllbe-
,du kamr/e Apolwlypst lwd 8l'l1chstllc« der Sophorlia.~
ApoblJpst. Tcxle und Untersuchungen 17. leip-
,e et zig. 1899.
chi· Thompson. H. 11rc Gospel of St. 101m According 10 the
Earliest Cop/ie Marti/script. London, 1924.
lI.e." Till, W. C. "Die SteHung des Achmlmischen." Aegyp-
tlU 8 (l927a):249-57.
_ . Die acJtmimische Vcrsioll der ~wiJlf Heinen
ProphCtCH (Codex RaineriamlS, WiclI). Coptica 4.
35- Copenhagen, 1927b.
_ _. Adll11imisdl-kop/ische Grmmllfl/ik. Leipzig,
1m!- 1928.
Os/erbrief ,/lid PredlCr 11/1 uchmimisclwll
,,,
~"ig· DIlIlek/. Leipzig, 1931.
_ . "Coptic mblit::ll Tcxts Published Mler
.:1111- Va\Chalde's List." Blllle/itr of the folm Ryllllrds Li·
brary 42 (1959-1960):220-40.
Vaschalc1e, A. A. "Ce qui a ete public des versions
coptes de la Bible, quahieme groupe, lexles
akhmimiqucs.'· Museo" 46 (1933):306-313.
VcrgOlc, J. Grammaire cop/c. Vol. la, /lIIrodl/c/iQIl.
'"
lillie phOlli:tique ct pho/lofogie. morplrologie syti/helllu·
tiqlle (stl'llcturc dcs si",allt~lPlcs}. JH2rtie synehro-
nique. Louvain, 1973. Vol. lb./mrodllclioJl, phone.
/iquf! d plronologie. "'QrpllOIogie s)'tltll~lIIaliqlle
(struc/lire df!5 simall/~lIIes). partie diuehro.tiqlte.
ALEPH 27
Louvain. 1'173. Vol. 2a, Morphologic S)'II/oglllotiquc,
syllloxe, partie S)'nchro"iqlle. Louvain. 1983. Vo\.
2b, Morphologic s)'lIfagmoliqllt', partie diachro"ique.
I...oll\'nin. 1983.
WClI;lcndorf. W. Kop/ischts lIulld...fjrttrouch.lX:llrbf!itet
auf Gnmd des Koprischell Halld...(jrterollchs VOII
Wi/)rdm Spiegelberg. Heidelberg, 1977.
Won-ell, W. H. Coptic SOImds. Ann Arbor, Mich.•
1934.
PIlTER NAGEl..
ALEPH. NOI onl)' in Coptic but in olher languages
also. aleph (- rJ) is a consonant or a \'el)' sJX.'(:ia[
kind: it is cCl1ainly a laryngt:al occlusive, bUl is il
ret,ll)' unvoiced? For some, it clearly Is (e.g.,
Vergote, 1973, Vol. la, pp. 12-13), whik others hesi·
late to plnt:c il eilht:r tlmong the unvoiced 01' among
the voiced sounds, 01' resign themselves to pUlling il
S()lllewhen~ betwecn the two (e.g., Dicth, 1950, I'. 98;
Dubois et al.. 1973. p. 25; Kassel'. 1981a). It is besl
thought of as a stop followed by an abrupt cmission
or sound, ~'SJX.'(:ially a stop sept'lraling two adjacent
\'Owcls, for instance al the beginning of a sylltlble
afler a hiatus (e.g.• in "rccnlcr" or in French "13
maine" [la ·cn]). or as a "glollal stop" replacing a
consonant hurried over in pronunciation (e.g.,
" ....on·cr" ror "water"; d. thc Arabic hanlZS).
In Coptic. so rar as it is really preserved, it is in
every case a CRYI"TOPIIOSEME (that is, a phonemc not
rendered by any writtcn 1t.-lIer of its own). and it is
no doubt for this reason that its eXislcnce in Ihis
language has long becn ignored or disputed; even
today it is not universally accepted. For this reason.
it occupies a very special place in the Coptic phono-
logical inventory.
II is true thal pharaonic Egyptian, down to ils last
full manifestation prior 10 Coptic (i.e. demotic). p0s-
sessed both thc phoneme aleph - J and the CUlTe·
sranding gmphcmc (lhe "Egypti:lIl vullure" of Gar'-
dineI', 1957, p. 27, tl hieroglyph Ilmt, among other
lhing.~, hecurnc :L.> in demotic; cf. du Buurguct,
1976, pp. 3,75). Now this J was, on the onc hand,
almost evcl'ywhen: muled and disappeared (d.
Vergole, 1945, pp. 80-98, and 1973, Vol. lb. Ilfl.
28-33; and 'AY1N); but, on the other hand. the aleph
docs indeed st:em 10 have reappean:d in Coptic as a
phoneme rl and as a prodUCI or the transfOlmalion
of various other cotlSOnants. 11 is appropriatc in this
connection 10 examine above all what can be ob·
served in P. Bodmcr VI. the sole witness to DtAUlCT P
(which In ilS orthography and phonology orten looks
like what can be known about a primith'e proto-
 ,
28 ALEPH
Suhidic. ·ppS. that became a more evolved pr'Oto-
Sahidic. 'pS, a reconstructed pToto·Sahidic, howev-
er, nol situated in its regiun of origin but probably
immigmlll into Ihe Thehan region. whet't' it was suo
pClimposed on II and probably also on some variety
of L; d. Vcrgotc, 1973b, and Kassel', 1982). One can
lher'e see the scribe rendering what seems indeed to
he 1'1 by a quite particular grapheme J., but only
sponulically, for in lhe same or similar cases he also,
through confusion, uses - (normally equivalent to
I?(); or again, as in S properly so called, he practic-
es graphic vocalic gemination; or finally he omics
any graphic proceeding thaI might rcmlcr /'1 amI
presentS an orthogronphy without vocalic gemination,
in the manner of M, for example (where it is admil-
ted that the phonological system has lost its primi-
tive /'1>. Here al"e these unique vestiges of .L
(Kassel", 19R1c, p. 35): ::&.Jo..L.;, (to put) one case, hut
~Jo.';' one case; <9Jo..L"'I" (deficient) one case, but
lijJo.Jo.T' two cases, lijJo.T ' one ca~e; ~.LIl' (being) two
ca"l:S, hut ~"t one case; .xO.L';' (to say) three cases,
but .xoo" one case, .xu" one case; also ::&.lJlJ.Lc
(.~ic) (bone) one case, but ::&.66C four cases. However,
apart from these rcla1ively weak and evanescent reo
mains of an ancient usage (and those still more rare,
vaguely similar. but, despite that, very uncertain,
which one may eventually think to discover in ml"e
Old Coptic texts; Kasser, 1980, pp. 258-59), one no
longer find~ lIny specific grapheme for /'1 in the
other Coptic OIAL.ECf"S and 1'Il.OTOlltAI.I'.crs fit present
known.
One noticcs, however, in some of them-espcl:ial-
ly in A, pI.. (= i), lA, LS, 1-6. V5, F5, S, but not in M,
W, V4, F4, n, B and its subdialcets, G-a graphic
vocalic gcminlltion (succession of two identical vow-
el graphemes: cr. GEMINATION. VOCAUC), of which the
first clement is, in phonology, an authentic tonic
vowel, but Ihe second seems manifestly to render a
consonantal phoneme, to define, and itself replace, a
vanished eonson:lIlt such as i, " r, 01" I.
ntis substitute phoneme is consonantal for two
rea~ons difficult to contest. Firsl, in A, every final
sonant pluced lIfter a consonant becomes a r'ising
voiced consonantal phoneme: thus S oyJo.Jo.s' (holy)
= A oyJo.Jo.Sfl', just as S C11lTfl" (to hear) - A C11lTHfl,
which pl'Oves that in oyJo..u' or OYJo.Jo.~fl! the second
vowel grapheme Jo. phonologically renders a conso-
nant, not a vowel. On the other hand, it is known
that if the pronominal suffix of the first-person singu-
lar is :Ilways .;, I after:1 single vowel. it is always'" T
alier a consonallt and, likewise, after a succession of
two identical vowel graphelllcs, of which the first
and tonic element is, in phonology, manifestly a
•
vowel, but the second clement, although a vowel
grapheme, is nevertheless phonologically clearly a
cunsonant; thus, for example, S KJo.lt.';' T, to leave me,
like (ijOlI" T, to receive me, and not like T~';' I, to
reach me. It is true that one linds likewise "T and
not .;" in similar cases in {he dialects that do not
have graphic vocalic gemination and for that reason
arc considered :IS Iraving lost even this substitute /'I
(e.g.. B Xlt.';' T, to leave me, I Tm. 1:12; M KG "'T, ML
27:46); but this shows only that these dialects also
possessed this substitute consonant in an earlier
stage of the language and th'llthey subsequently lost
it, this phenomenon hnving come about hefore the
time at which their orthographic system was fixed.
In a general way, it is admitted (Vergote, 1945,
p. 71, etc.) that this subslitute phoneme is 1'/ e1early
and in all cases, and not now 1'1, now 1'/, as Till
(1955, p. 4b) expre....~es it, not without l"t.'Servations
and ambiguity: "'Aleph and 'Ayin arc still present in
Coptic, although no separate letters exisl for them.
Both may have been pronounced alike (probably').
even though' in sUllie drcumstances exercises a
different effect on the neighbouring vowel than 3."
Cet1ainly, /'I is a voiced frietltive, liS are the glides
Iii and Iwl, and like them, in Till's hypothesis, this
fricative, although a consonant in phonology, would
have been rendered by tl vowel gr,lpheme, while /'I,
on the contrary, is an occlusive considered al' un-
voiced (according to Vergole, 1973, Vul. la, pp. 12-
13) and even as belonging to the c~ltegory of the
most unvoiced phonemes; fTOm thi.~ point of view 1'1
rather than 1'1 would appear to be the more capable
of playing the r'ole of substilute consonant. (Stem
also may have thought this; sec Stem, 1880, pp.
29-30, 54-55.)
In spile of that, it is for various rea~ons proper 10
sct a.~ide this solution. First, 'ayin seems to have
dis'Ippearcd from Uite Egyptian before the forma·
tion of literalY Coptic and even PRE-COPTIC (Vergote,
1945, pp. 122-23, and 1973, Vol. lb, pp. 31-32: after
the sixth century A.D.). Second, as a consonant re·
placing i, " r, or I (or even i or 11'; see below), it is
manifestly 1'/ rather than 1'/ tb:1\ is the betlel" suited
to assume this manifold , function: for example, bin
becomes in Coptic fha'nl SWQlfl, bad; '!r becomes
(with mcttlthcsis) jkO'f;Jj KQ)Q)'l(j (01" KaxtlS6), to con·
.~train; dr.i./. becomes Ito'ifl TOOT"'~, his hand ref.
ibid., p. 35; "TIIC lendency which contributed, in
numerous words, to change proto-Semitic r and I
into Egyptian 3 ... continued to exercise 11 certain
innuence during the historical period"); Imllral be-
comes mll'ra, then Ime'wl HGflrfl, midday; sU, to
soil, qualitative sayfu becollles sa'fll and then Iso'fl
 ALEPH 29

}wel <:00'1', soiled; and w4giwlI/ hecomes wliK"'at, then (by analogy with other Coptic finals of identical
Wdwgll, then wlI'ga, and finally IwO'ca/~, jaw, spelling, and whatever lhe conditions linked with
'" mo. chcck (Vergote, 1973, Vol. lb, pp. 36-37). In Dielh etymolol!Y), would they not make the hiatus equally
I, to (1950, pp. 99-100) some similar modem examples unlikely in A and L. even if the Iinal there is leI 0 ...
,"d "'ill be found in .....hich ['] replaces even ocdusives lal lind not ffl The solution of this delicate prob-
other than /II. The linal and probably decisive argu- lem will wilhout doubt still n'quire some supplemen-
~"
"'" ment is that the grapheme .1. in P, which seems to tary invcstig:llions (cf. in particular Kasse.... 1981h.
e/'l render fl, resemblt'5 lhe demotic 1..> = 3 in a ruther p, 37).
, Mt, striking manner (with eventual innuence from J. '" (See also.: Syllabication.]
"w ij, much more in any case tholn it doc'S the ~ (or,,"),

·,...
.rIic... ), :L, "", -,) - demQtic "
The graphic vocalic geminalion allcsting f I in
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dieth, E. Vademeklfm der PJH:me/ik. Bern, 1950,

·""
~ed,

94' .
Coplic occu~ only within a word-lhal is, eithe...
within a final syllable where this fI is fol1o~d by
another (:onsonant (d. &aMlH above) Of' at the end of
:arty a penultimatc syllable where this f! is followed hy
Till another cOl\SOnant beginning the final syllable (ef.
:ioll$ II:--e above). It is true thai some ancient S manu-
~t in scripts present spellings such as to..'. Inn'/ (and nOl
~m. ro./narll, pity) 0 ... H6f1 Im!'1 (and nOl H6 Imerl/,
Iy '), truth) and so on (d. Polotsky, 1957a, p. 231, and
~,
1957b. pp. 348-49); bot this is always before the
I J." copula 116 (masc.), T<ll (fern.), or It6 (pl.) in such a
Jides way that one may suppose thai the (atonic) copula
this was feh as fonning pan of the "word" that it imme-
~ld diately follows and lhat bealli the tonic accent on
, rl. the \"Owcl of its last syllable. a vowel lhal is nonnally
· un- and gr.lphically the last letter of the "word"; it is
12- thus entirely legitimate to put, for example. oyHG6
:- the Til lume'la/, that is tl'\.lC, in parallel wilh O.....,.,T6
wI'! IwO't;)/, to sep:U'llle. Vergote (l973. Vol. la. p, 12)
>able further eonsidc~ that A and L "present an I at the r
item cnd of CCl1ain monosyllabic word.~, whcre it is
· ",. mal'ked by the hiatus II-e: &l.lJ palm.tree; Nl.6 to
have pity; A 1),0 to appear (of St'II~), In Brandl F it
cr to is Irnnsfomled into /j/: B I\Jo.t, lUI, 1I1l.1 01" F roe!, ~61,
have QlGt" (ef. ibid. Vol. lb. p. 31), Howevc.... even if it
~,.
may lind support in etymolugy, this phonological
,gote, interpretation of the final ICller of the A and L
after lcxemes mentioned Ilbove seems likely to mise nu-
It l'e- merous questions; or1hogl'llphy, it must be I'emem·
it is bered, expresses above all not the pl'Ofound 01' semi-
uited profound phonological structure of the word, but its
" birr most superficial stl'\.1cture (cr, Hint7.e, 1980, p. 49).
ornes Thus, one might ask how there can be hi.llus if tht'Sc
con· lexernes are monosyllabic. Would they be monosyl-
f {d. labic in Pre-Coptic and polysyllabic, through their
d, in hiatus, in Coptic? Another question is, why must one
md I in this case envisage lhe presence of a hiatus if the
~rtain final lJ - fI and nOl leI or I.J{? Arc there reasons
It be· based on elymology, and nlUst these reasons be con-
if, to s~ compelling? Finally, with regard to the B
Ir):,'fl and F parallel fomlS, apparently also monosyllabic
Dubois. J.; M. Giacomo; L Guespin; C. Marcellcsi;
J.-8. Marccllcsi; and J.-P, M~vel. DictiOtrrlai...~ d~
/irrguistiqlle, Paris, 1973,
Bourguet. P, duo Grammaire forrc/ion/rdle I!t progres-
siv~ d~ regyp/ien dbrroliqll~. Louvain. 1976,
Edgcrton, W. Revit'W of W. C. Till, Koptische Grllm-
mariA: (saldixh~r D/alekt'. ' .. Journal of NUlr East-
em Studi~$ 16 (1957):136-37.
Gardiner, A. EgyptiDn Grammar, Beillg atl lmrodllc-
tum to the Study of Hi~rQJ:fypJu. 3d ed. Oxford,
1957.
Hinl7.e. F. "Zur kopti!IChcn Phonologic." Enclwria 10
(1980):23-91.
Kasse.... R. "Prolcgomenes a un essai de c1assifica-
lion systematique des diak'Clcs et subdialectes
coptes scion les critercs de la phonctique. 11, AI·
pllabels Cl systemes phonetiquC5." MllseOIl 93
(1980);237-97.
___ "Usages de la surligne dans Ie P. Bodmer VI,
notes additionnelles." BlIlIetill d~ /0 Societe
d'egyp/ologie, Gerleve 5 (198Ia):23-32,
___. "Voyclh:lI cn fonction consonanlique. con-
sonnes cn fonclion vocalique, et classes de
phonemes e'n coptc," Bulle/in de fa Socibe
d'egyp/ologie, Geueve 5 (198Ib):33-50.
_-,-_. "Syllabation l'apide ou lcnte en copte, 11,
Alcph et 'voyelle d'aleph,''' EnchfJna 11 (198Ic):
39-58.
___. "Le Dialeete protosa"idique de TIlebes."
Ar(;hiv !Ur Pllpyms/orsc!llmg 28 (1982):67-81.
Nagel, P. "Ocr frUhkoptische DiDlekt von Theben."
in KOfllOlogische S/lidiell br dcr DVR, PI', 30-49.
WissenschDftliehe Zehschrift der Martin·Lulher·
Unlvcrsitlil Halle·Wlttenberg. Sondel'hcft. Hallc-
Wittenberg, 1965,
Polot.~ky, H. J, Review of W. C. Till, KfJplische Gram-
ma/ik (sai'discher Dilllekf), ' . , OrienWfisti${;he
Li/era/urtJ:i/utlg 52 (1957:1):219-34.
___ . "Zu den koptischen literurischen Textcn aus
Balaizah," Orietlwlia 26 (1957b):347-49.
Slem, L Koptische Grammll/ik. Leipzig, 1880.
Till, W. C. "Alles 'Aleph und 'Ajin illl Koptischen."
Wi~IIer lei/Khn!/ filr die Klmde des Morglmlulldes
36 (1929):186-96,
 30 ALPHABET IN COPTIC, GREEK
_ _ , Kop/ischl! Gramllw/ik (Sai'dischcr IJiulck/), mil
Bibliugruphie, Lesesliickell wrd Wiirlerverzeidmin-en,
Lcip1.ig, 1955,
_ _ . KaJllisehe Dial<!klgwmmalik, mil l_ese.~liickell
und Wiir/erlmch. 2d cd. MUilich, 1961.
Vtrtlott, J. Phr.melique Iris/uriq/Je de l'egyplien, les
CUllsomw~', Louvain, 1945.
_ _ . Gramlllairt' caple, Vol. I a, III/mdlic/ion, plIO'
m!liqlll! eI phOflOfogie, morphologie syllihemalique
(s/rue/ure des semmrlemes), pur/Ie synchrolliqlle,
and Vol. Ib, Inlrudlle/io,r, pho'Jetique el pllOllologie,
/Ilorplro";;gie sy,r/hemaliqlle (siruclure des
sCl/lamimll.'s), parlie diaclrrolliqllC. Louvain, 1973a,
_ _ , "Le Dialecte copte P (P. Bodmel' VI; Pro·
ver'bes), essai d'idelltificalion," ReVljl! d'cgyp/ologie
25 (\973b):50-57,
ROOO1.l'llE KASSER
ALPHABET IN COl-TIC, CREEK. The Greek
alphabet is much in evidem:c in Coptic; in fact,
among the various Coptic alphabets (cr. AU'IIABETS,
<':OI'1"t<':), all have a considerahle majority of Greek
grllphernes, ol'leticrs (d, AU'liAIJIlTS, COI'I'I(;, especial-
ly the synoptic table; K.assel·, 1980b, pI. II, pp. 280-
81). This U1:tjority varies from onc di:deettll alphabet
to anoTher. III the following calculalion of lhe per·
eentages, lI,I and lil, and 2 and a, have heen consid-
ered, respectively, :IS one ;lfld the stUlle gr..lphell1e,
whether or not provided with a diacritical sign: G
and F9, 100 percent; J, 92 percent; F7, FR, and 1'1, R3
percenl; S etc. (Le., S, K, K7, F4, F5, V4, V5, W, M,
£4, L5, and L6, together with their subdialects if
there are any), with il7, A, i (= pL), and i7 ('" p'L),
80 percent; 8 etc. (Le., 84 and /15), 77 pel'cent; P,
71 percent
To this sTrong presence of the Greek alphabet, one
may add that Coplic gmphemes of demotic origin
arc :tssimilaled to thosc of Greek origin, such as (1,1
formed like w with a tail, .. like p reversed and opell
at the IUp, and x like A wilh two horns or 'X resting
on a long horizontnl har' underncath. This assimila-
tion and this predominance tire indeed such that a
superficial ohscrver might ver)' well take an ancient
Coptic manuscript for a conteOlpomry Grcek one,
espcl:ially if it W;lS " cupy without any superlinear
strokes (which rnay occur even in thc dialects in
which tbc usc of such strokes is habitual).
E',vcn if onc recalls thnt Coptic is the fin:11 stage uf
the Egyptian language, which docs not helong to the
same family as Greek, this indispUI(lble supremacy of
the Greek alphabet in Ihe Coptic ought nOI to Occa·
sion any undue sU'l'risc. When the first vmieties of
the Coptic alphabel were created in Ihe course of
•
the third (?) century A.D., Egypt had been wholly
within Ihe Hellenic sphere of intluence for more
thtln half tI millennium, since the conquest of the
eounllY by Alexander the Greal in 332 U,c (Milller,
1969). This ract explains not only the presence of so
many Greek graphemes (most frequently the entire
Greek alphabet) in the Coplic alphabets bUI also the
abundance of various Greek lexemes (words) used in
Cuptic. Sume 1cxemes were used ellceptionally ur
rarely in the texts lhat have survived. because they
eonstituled a vD<.:abultuy uf specialists and were
scarcely cmployed outsidc Iheir specially; othcrs
were used more or less currently (even very CU1Tent·
ly) almost everywhere in Coptic litemlun::, because
Ihcy constituted a vocabulary so completely assimi-
lated (mentally) by the mtlss of the autochthonous
Copls Ihat Ihey considered il wholly Coptic as well
(IS wholly Greek (cr. VOCMIUt.ARV, COI'l'O·(;IIEEK).
Moreover, tl.~ can be seen from the texts, the
Gr'Cek glttphemes of Ihc Coptic alphabet wtrt in
principle sufliciellt for transclioing into Coptic those
lellemes which callle from tht Hellenic world. Il is
only rarely that one sometimes tinds in addition, at
the bq~innintl of (I word or rtplacing onc of Ihe two
clements of a double p, n 2 of demotic origin which
seems 10 render normally the Greek rough breath·
ing; il is also found oecasion(llly in place of tht
smooth breathing of stnndard Greek orthoglllphy,
which has been variuusly interpreted as a neUlmliz-
inti of Ihe contrast in pronunciaiion bel ween Ihc
rough and smooth breathings in the Greek of con'
temporary Egypl (Bohlig, 1958, p. 111), a "hyper·
ur'banism" (VCl'gote, 1973, p. 15), and a "secondary"
or "vulgar" aspiration (Weiss, 1966, p. 204). More·
over. in the L6 documents (and a group of S docu·
ment., probably deriving from a region of Upper
Egypt where Vi wa.~ the autochthonous dinlect; cr.
K.'"iS5er, 1980a) there is Ill, also of demotic origin,
where one would expect to find un initial 2, in
Coptu-Greek words c01Tcsponding to Greek words
beginning with 1 or fl. It is not without inlerest to
note fUl1her that several Greek gmphel11ts of tht
Coptic alphabets tIre used esclusively, or nearly so,
for the tHlilscription of Copto-Greek wor'ds (e,g" r,
A., z; cf. Vergote, 1973, p. 10), All these factor'S
combintd produce the result that in an average Cop'
lic page aboul nine gmphemes 001 or len arc of
Gl'cek origin (against une from demotic)-hence the
"Greek" appearance, br'Oadly speaking, of thtst Cop·
tic copies,
The creators of these varieties uf Coptic alphabets
were by no means suictly "phonologists" in thc
modern sense of tht term, of course, like their mod·

,, CI11 coumerpal1s, they seem to ha..e striven [0 apply
as .\Iriclly as possible the fundamemal and gencrnl
, law according to which c\'cl)' phoneme should be
•
rendered exclusin."ly by a single grapheme. and this,
,• just as exclusively, should render Ihis one phoneme
, and no ocher. But, on the other h...nd, the means
, they employed and the criteria lhey applied evident·
, ly n:mailloo emphical. Above all, they wen: nol al·
, ways in a position to decide wilh l:olllplclC r,'eedom
whether this wuml or thaI deserved to be treated
&rophically as a distinct phoneme. in precise con·
, [ra~1 to sollie Olher (~I(lb1ished phoneme: Ihey could
. not in faci rail to take account of the work or their
predccc:o;soni. No Coptic.: alphnbcl emerged com-
. pletely new :lnd original from an earlie]' vacuum.
,'
The vcry faci thaI the grcllll,:]' p1ll1 ur lhe COptiC
,I Il,lUphemes arc Greek gmpllcmcs shows very well
where lay lhe principal model lhat had 10 be taken
, inlO llccount, whence sprang the flt'St SQun;e whose
influence WQuld m;lke itsclf felt, mOl'e or les.~ strong·
, ly, in the work of the inventors of Coptic alphabets
,
, -all the more boxllusc they, though coming from a
, native Egyplian milieu and carrying on thl'ir activity
there, were always close to lhe nellcnic milieu of
h Eg)-pt and found themselves foreed, in noading or in
writing. 10 pr.acticc frequently Ihe Greek gmphico·
, phonemic system. It is WOr1hy of note thm the PRE-OU)
come alphabet is the Greek alphabel, no more and
,.'. no less, whk:h was ,"ready uSI,:d according to cer1ain
, closely related rules for the transcription imo Greek
of lhe: proper nallles of autochthonous Egyptians (d.
GltEF.K TRANSCRlP110NS).
••
The OlD u>p"nc alphabets, though still based on
. the Greek alphabel for the most par1, admit a strong
minority of graphemt:s of demotic ol'igin, The Coplic
,
\
alphabets eliminate scveral of Ihese, above "II for
f. motiVe!; of simplilil'ation, and by that vel)' fuct the
'. Greek alphubetic majority in them is reinforced.
lienee, one may sec that if lhe Coplic lliphabets
," were created according to lhe principle of the fun·
o dlUllcntal Inw stated nbove, lhe strict application of
, this principle was limited in v;lriOUS ways, lirst by
'. the empiricism or the melhods employed by the ere·
at01'S, and later and above all by the Hellenic phono-
, logical heritage for which these alphabets were the
> vehicle and which they trnn5miUI'<l from one 10 the
,f other.
•> In lhis process there inlen-em..'<1 also a law of
"economy," of which it will be necess.u)' 10 speak
again later. in a general Vooay, one may say mal the
el'OlUlion and succession ~r Ihese alpl1<lbcl1l consli-
lUte a proccs.s of simplifK:ation: Ihe number of Ihe
graphemes (and of the phonemes) diminishes rather
ALPHABET IN COPTIC, GREEK 31
than incl"t."'olSCS. It is lroe that thL~ a'lSC11ion appears
at lirst 10 be in f1al contradiclion with the: facI lhat
the mosl ancicnt of these alph...bels, the Prc-Old
CoptiC, is moll.' simple than ils immediate succes-
sors, the Old Coptic and Coptic alphabets. BUI the
PIt:.Qld Coptic alphabet is only very imperl"ectly
adapted to the transcription of Egyptinn; eenainly it
could 1>atisfy the I-Iellenic milieus of Egypt. not only
in the Ptolemaic era but e\'en down to the l3yt... nline
epoch, because throughout lhis period it was an al·
phabet of this nature that sufficed for the tl.mserip-
tion, in Greek d<X:uments, of "utochthonous proper
naml'S. Going <x:casionally beyond it~ oligimll fr..lllle,
tllis type or alphabetic usage could evell be applied
(hefore the prescnt cnol to lire U"t\llSl.:ri]1tion of ~ome
isoln1Cd Egyptinn words (cf. Bilahel, 1(38), and at·
tempts wcre made (also before lhe preS<:llt <:ra), with
~omc diflicuhy. lu usc il for a VCI)' brief and rudi-
m<:ntfu)' lext (d. Lacau, 1934). It l'ml'rged ancw in
the By/.antine epoch in the nonlit<:mry texts (ahove
:111 pr'ivlIte lellel'S), which constitute lhe dossier ror
l>lAI.F.CT G; bUI that alph.loct, too cxclusively lIellen·
ie, lilways remairll:..'tI rnal'ginal so fur a~ Coptic and its
autOChlhonous antecedcnts are conee!1l(,.'(\.
To the mind of non-Greek EgyptiallS and pos.~ibly
of SQITlC Greeks in Egypt who were "cros.s-bn.-d" and
Slrongly assimilated, a merely Gn:ck alpll;lbct would
nO( suffice for the transcription of lhe language or
lhe counll)', with its fundamenlal phonemic original·
ities; one could not make clttensh'e and !>)'Stematic
usc of it. first of all in Old Coptic texts (almost all of
thclII mugical lexlS, in which the correci prommda·
tion or Ihe formulas playt..'<1 an essential I'ole) and
later in Coptic tcxls (when! a va.'" and valied literary
1)l'oouClion makes its appcar.tnce). Whcn they
sought to clreet a real tloansition to Ihe Iitel'at)' stage
rol' their language, the aUI<x:hthono\ls mell or !eller'S
engllged in this t;\sk or necessily had recourse to an
llUlocluhonous rorm of wl"iting, Ihat of demotic, and
the Old Coptic alphl\bcts lhat they crt:alcd oughl
properly be eonsith::rcd not as successors to Ihe Pre·
old Coptic alphabet (i.e., Greek) hut lIS the results of
a radical reform of the demulic "alphabet," with a
massive infusioll or Greek grapheme!> (Pre.Qld Cop-
tic). l-esults that were eminently "cconomicul," since
demotic had many more gmphemes than Old Cop-
tic. It is thllS, to say Ihe least, a ease of a "compro-
mL~e" bclw<:en the Greek system in EIDT't and Ihe
autochthonous SY51em. bUI one Ihat, being "lone lit·
ted like the laller for rendering the idiom of the
country, did so at much less COSl (in lerms of graph·
emes and 500n of phonemes). Thc t..'Conomizing
proccs.~ was continued in the pl"Olo-Coptic (cf.
32 ALPHABETS, COPTIC
I'ROffiDli\LECT) and then in the Coptic alphabets, in
which (s:.wc fur the exceplion in DIAl.ECT II; cr. \)e·
low) the total of graphemes of Greek origin re·
mained stable, but the number of graphemes uf au-
tuchthonous origin was gradually reduced: S, the
most neutral Coptic idiom, ha.~ only six (qt, 'I, 2, oX, G,
t), and H, the mOSI eeollomieal MEl"ADIALE.'.CT of all
(pro\)a\)ly twenty.three graphemes altogether; cf, S,
with thirty, and P, with as many .IS thirty·five), has
no more than four signs derived from demotic, 11,1, a,
:x:, and G, di.~pensing with the two autochthonous
gmphemes 'I (> ,) and t ( > TI), as it also does in
principle whh no fewer lhan three Greek graph.
emes, r· ( > 11.), ~ ( > Ke), and t (> lie), not 10 speak
of two Olhcrs whose usc is considerably r'estricted, 0
( > III) and y ( > II), both excluded except in the
combination (o)y fOI· luI antI /w/.
IIIBLlOGRAl'nY
Barns, J. W. B. "Egyptians and Greeks," Papyro/ugica
Bruxellensia 14 (1978):1-23,
Bataille, A. Les Memllmriu: Recherches de papyrolo{!,ie
el d'epi{!,raphie greeques sur lu necropofe cle fa
Thi!bes d'!1f;Yp/e aux i!poques hellcnis/iques e/
WI/wines, C:.iro, 1':152.
Bell, H. 1. Jew.. and Ch,·i../irms in Egypl. London,
1924.
BiI:tbcl, F. "Neue liter'adsche Funde in der Heidel·
berger Papyrussammlung." In ACles du V' Cmlgres
inlemalimlGl de papyr%gie, pp. 72-84. Brussels,
1':138.
BiJhlig, A. Die grieehisehe/l Lelmwor/cr im sahidisclJe/l
und bolmirisc/len Neuen Tes/amenl. Munich, 1958.
Brunsch, W. "Untersuchungen zu den gl'iechischen
Wiedergaben figyptischcr Pcrsonennamen." Enchu-
ria 8 (1978):1-142.
Chaine, M. Elemenls de gralll/llaire dia/eclale eople.
Paris, 1':133.
Fra.o,cr, P. M, Plolemuie: Alcxcwdrill. Oxford, 1972.
Gignac, F. T. A Grammur of Ihe Creek Pclpyri of the
Romml o"d RYt0ntine Pcriod.~, Vol. I, Phorl%gy.
Milan, 1976.
Kasser, R "L'idiomc de llachmour. ,. Bljllelin de
I'blSlitlll frall(;ais d'urcheulugie urieu/ule 75
(1975):401-427.
_---:. "fupression de I'aspiration ou de la non·
aspimtiun i\ I'initialc des rnots Copto·grecs corTes·
pondant it des mots grccs COlllmeno;nnt par {E)t-."
BI.lle/in de la Societe d'egyp/ologie, Ceneve 3
(1980a):15-21.
___ . "Prolegornenes a, un essai de cla.~sification
systcm31ique des dialectcs Cl subdialectes coptes
selon les critc"res de la phonctique, J. Principes et
tenninologie." MUSCOll 93 (1980b):53-512. " ... ,
II, Alphabets et .~ystemes phonctiques." Museon 93
(1980b):237 -97.
___ . "Orthogmphe (sub)dialectale du vocabulaire
copto·grec 3vant Ie VIII' sieclc de notre ere." M,,·
sewn Helveliel/Ill 40 {I983):207-215.
Lacau, P. "Un Graffito cgyptien d'Ahydos ct'rit en
ICllrcs grccques." Dudes d,~ popyro/ngic 2
( 1934):229-46.
Mallon, A. Grammaire CUple, bibliographie, dm:~'/o·
ma/hie el voeabNfaire, 4th cd., rev. M, M31inine.
Bcimt, 1956.
Montevecchi, Orsolina. La papirofogiu. Turin, 1973.
Muller, C. D. G. Gnmdziige des chrisllich·is/amise:hen
Agyptcn vml der Ptolemaenei/ bis WI" Gegenwarl.
Dllrlllstndt, 1969.
Percmans. W. "O\)er die Zweisprachigkeil im
ptolemfiischen Agyplcn." In S/udiell zur PaT'Yro·
logie Imd aU/ike" Wir/sclraf/sgeschidlle, Frier/ridl
Oerlel tum aehlvgs/cn Gehurlstag gewir/mel, pp. 49
-60. Bonn, 1964.
Plumley, J, M. All hl/rodl/clory Coplie Grammar
(SahMic Dia/cel). London, 1948.
Prenux, C. I.e Monde hclJ.!nisliquc, /a Grece el {'Orient
(323-146 avo l.·C.). Pads, 1978.
Ouaegebeur, J. "The Sludy of Egyptian Proper
Names in Greek Tmnscription, I'roblems and Per·
spectives." Olloma 18 (1974):403-420.
Rcmondon, R. "Problcmes du bilinguisllle dans
l'Egypte [agide." ChroniqllC d'Egypte 39 (1964): 126-
46.
SteindodT, G. Lchr/mch der koptischcl1 Grammatik.
Chicago, 195 I.
Stern, l. Kop/isd1<: Grammalik. Leiplig, 1880.
Till, W. C. KopJische Grammalik (saiaisdl/:r Diolekl),
mil Bibliographie, Le.lcslileke,r lmd Wiir/e",erzeich·
lIiss/m. Leipzig, 1955.
--C' Koplische Diu/eklgr"mmalik, mit f.c.5cslikkell
und Wiirlerblleh. 2J cd. Munich, 1961.
Vergote, J. Gramrnaire COpIC, Vol. hi, bl/roclu"lion,
pho/l(:/iqlle eI phonologic, morpholugic syl1lhenlll.
/iqljc (stn/Clure dcs sbnamemes), partie synchru-
Iliql.e. Louvain, 1973.
Weiss, H.·F. "Zum Problem der griechischen Fremd·
und Lehnwtirter in den Spmchen des christlichen
Orients." l/eliko/1 6 (1966):183-209.
ROlJQu'JlE! KASSE!R
ALPHABETS, COPTIC. Attentive study of the
alphabet used in each of the various Coplic UJAU!CTS
and subdialects obliges one to recogni1.e that there
was not a single Coptic alphabet, :u; is uften be·
Iieved, but several CoptiC alphabets (01', to pili it in a
slightly dilferent way, several vatieties of the Coptic
alphabet). Certainly, if one eKamincs the Coptic lexts
lhemselves in their manifold vatiety, one find~ that
one of these alphabets, that of S etc., is employed
almost everywherc (it is that of almost 92 percent of

the local); il Is therdore comprehensible enough that
the alph;abct of S .should practic>\lIy a.lways be called
"the Coptic alphabet," without further explanation,
while the alphabetic variety of B eiC. (alm(X'i! 7 per-
cent) is only vcry seldom menlioncd, the existence
of the twelve Olher varieties (about I percent only)
being entirely ncglct:tcd. However, all these fourteen
alphabets. major and minor, will be accorded the
place to which they have 11 right herein.
II will he convenient to recall in the first place
thaI each type of Coptic diak>t:[-whcther a dialect
in the nanTIW sense of the term Qr a PROTQI>IAI£CT. a
Ml'.'iODlAUCT. a MlITAOIAuer. or even a solxlialect-is
delined lirst and foremost as a phonological system,
\l'hill" morpho(phono)logy and rnorphosynlax inter-
\'enc only secondarily in its definition (for want of
evidence sufficiently fn-quenlly 8ltesled).
Coptic has lK:en a dead language for liCveral cen·
turics, and its demi5C preceded the beginnings of
Coptology as a modem discipline. Hence. Coptic
PHONOlOCY can only be known today through the
orthography of the Coptic tellts that have survived. a
I'ery small number' in comparison with the immense
quantity of lhose that perished in the lempestuous
and painful course of Coptic history: lhruugh lheir
regular and syslemalic orthogmphy only (that which
w<: find in the tell1$ of "good" quality), and not
through the irrcgullir and disordered gmphical man·
ifestations lhat may be observed in all sorts of care'
less and orthographically undisciplined copies..
Prudence certainly obliges one to ~mcmber that
the analysis of a Coptic orthographic system is not
automatically the analysis of a Coptic phonological
.system. One must always reckon with the possibility.
lKlwever weak it may be, that the difference bet~n
the various Coptic alphabeu may be not only a dif·
ferenee of quantity (phonemes and graphemes in
more or les,'i large numbers) but also. on some J)<1.r·
tkular poinl. II dUrerence of quality (3 given graph.
erne nmdeling a given phoneme ill one idiom. and
the same grapheme rendering another phoneme ill
another idiom; or a given phoncme being n~ndered
by a given gl-apheme in one idiom and by anOlher
grapheme in another idiom). Howevcr that may be,
if one lIlay sometimes doubt that such an original
a1phabetK: system really allesu a particular Coptic
dialcct. it nonetheless remains that each particular
CoptK: alphabetic system is a piece of evidence; and
this reality, although superficial in rdalion to ph0-
nology. deserves to be recognrlCd as such on i1$ own
(me alphabetic) level; thi, recognilion. in f3C1, is noc
hound to the phonological intcrpretation, sometimes
uncertain, of the graphemt.'S that COlllJ)(lSe the alpha·
beiS.
•
ALPHABETS, COPTIC 33
The uncel1ainly of this intcrpretation at any given
poim often derives from a qu~ion of principle and
from a mClhodological alternative of which one
muS! be very consciOIlS. Tn fact. the investigator who
strives to rediscover and analyze the phonological
systems of the Coptic dialects and subdialects
through their ol1hogmphical systems is soon con·
strained to choose belwecn two preliminary working
hypotheses: each of these presents substantitlllldvan·
luges. but even in the bellcr hypothesis. lhey I'emain
limited and weakened by important disadvantllgt.'S.
TIle firsl hypothesis consists in postulating a priori
a phonological unity of the COplic language, a unity
practically absolule. In pushing this hypothesis 10 i1$
elllreme cOIlSl.."quences, one would have to admit
that despite the ort!lographical appcanmces, litis lan-
guage is by no means divick..d into II plurality of
dialects. The diffc~nces thaI orthography ~ms to
manifC51 would be only 5UperfiCial, or to put it sim·
ply, the various sc:hooh. of scribes would make LL~.
In certain cases. of different gmphemes 10 cllprcss
the same phonemes. One should Ihen obsclve ill
Coptic not various di..lccts but various "orthograph.
ic codes" applying to a language th..l is "one" and
nOI divided on the phonological level.
This hypolhesis is very seductive because. over
against the various eadier StagCli of the Egyptian
Innguuge (apparently homogeneous because dialec-
tal multiplicity does not appeal' in it. or practically
nOl), it sets nOt a group of Coptic phonological sys-
lelllS but a single Coptic phonological syslem (0.... at
thc vcry most. a group of systems wt difTer among
themselves only very rarely and on details thai are
truly exceptional). It seems 10 be confinnl-d by the
fact thut, if one compares wilh one another lhe dif·
ferent ol1hographical fonns of the same autochtho-
nOl.ls Coptic words, II appears evidcnt that the II. of
the majority of dialects and tlte 1. of P rende... Ik/:
lhe 11/ of the majority llnd the a of G ...ender lsI: lhe
'I of the majolity and the l' of G likewise render If/:
lhe; of P and B. the e of A and i, and finally even
thc X of B7 and G (see below) render 1'1./: the 6 of
the majorily and the II, of P render 11,'/: llnd SO on.
However. the limils of the efficacy of this explana'
lion are reached when one is faced with problems
such as Ihese: when A in F eorresponds to r in S. the
phoncme cannot be either 11/ or II'I uniformly for A
and r at the same lime; and likewise, when , in A
corresponds to ... in S ctc., the phoneme cannot be
either 1'1.1 or Ii! uniformly for , and ... at the same
time. By themselves alone. these exceptions prove
that there is in Coptic a dialectal plurality.
The second hypothl'Sis consists in postulating thaI
in COJltic, according to lhe unanimous intention of
34 ALPHABETS, COPTIC
the crc;tlors of ilS ldph:\bel, there is for eaeh pho-
neme (or each combination of phonemes, should
uccasiun arise; d, Ithl clc. below) a singlC' corre-
sponding gr<lphe!lle tlHll can never sen'e 10 express
another phoneme. This "law of exclusiveness" lhus
does nut alluw uf :my plurulity uf Coptic alphabets
based on a difference of phonological "qualily"; this
plurality can only exist a" a consequence of rhl!
"quanlity" of the indissoluble phuneme-grapheme
unities: cenain Coptic idioms would make use of the
Coplic series lu the full (or nearly so), while other
idioms would content Themselves with a very dimin·
ished series (luss uf Ixl or even lsi, Ihl, or lei, for
example).
Huwever. if this hypothesis give... vel)' satisfoctOl)'
results in regard to F '" versus S clc. r or A ~ versus
S etc. lij, for example, it seems 10 fail in other eases
already mentioned ahove: in comparing The different
Olthogmphical forms of lhe S<lrne Cuplie won.!, it is
difficult to seC' what phoneme P ;" could render if
not Ikl <llli seems ellduded for solid reasons; d.
Ka."ser, 1980b, pp. 244-48): in lhe S<lmc way, it
seems unlikely that, corrcsponding rC'gularly to lij I~I
in B etc., the combinalion of gr<lphcmes C:l! in G
shuuld render IS1.1 rather than lsi; and when lhe q.
of G corresponds 10 'I IfI in B ctc., would it be
equivalent to Iphlrather than to IfI? Tire rigid appli-
cation uf the 1:lw uf ellelusiveness would entail other
phonological solutions thaI would be bizarre and
difru.:ull to accept. One must then r-esign oneself to
!lOme compromise between these two cxtreme hy-
potheses, a compromise to be negOliated and dcter-
mined f,'om case to l.:a.~e.
One panicularly troublesome alphabetic fact
(above all, in cunsequence of the second hypothesis
and iL~ law of "exclusiveness") is lhe USl.: of (appar-
ently) tbe same grapheme to ellpress lWO differenl
phonemes. When this phenomenon coincides with
the opposition nf two Coptic idioms, as wilh S 6 Il.:l
versus n 6 leh/, one may allempt to explain it by
l"efening to Ihe divergenl principles applied by two
schools of scrihes belonging 10 two difrerent cultural
ambiences. BUI wh:1l is one to say of this ambiguity
when it appears within one and lhe samc Coptic
or1hogmphieal systcm (and probably idiom)?
Thus, in P (compar-ed to S etc. in the onhography
of their l.:ommon vocabulal)') K is assuredly Ikl in
the CoplO-Greek words, but il is lei in the autoch-
lhunuus Coptic words. (It is diflicult to imagine th:1\
P, by some palalalization, or "d:tmping," applied to
the Greek word!;, should have syslematically 1'1."
placed by lei all lhe Ikl in its CoplO-Greek vocabu-
lary,) One sees the same ambiguity in G, where one
find:> <I> buth in the Copto-Greek words (for Iphl)
:md in the autochthnnous COptic words (for' Ifl,
which cuuld. huwever. at least ]m:ally, have become
the al1iculation of of even in Coplo-Gr-eek). Tire same
confusion is manifest in the Dublin /.5 (d. below), J
(sporadically). and F9. where x appeal1i both in the
Copto-Greek words (for Ikh/) and in lhe nutochlho·
nous Coplic vOl.:ubul:try (for lei); there is fW1her-
morc lhe pr'Oblern of lhe usc uf x evcn fur 1111 or
that of the invC'l.,;e use of x for x Ikhl in some
Copto-Greek words in LS. (The rd:uion of x lei :tnd
x Ikbl or 1111 is probably of another order, or at leasl
tuo subtle and eumplcll to bc summarily expounded
here.) Finally, a similar- ambiguily nppcar'S in fI7 and
in some L(, tellts (d. Ka"xer, 1984-1985), where the
grapheme .,. is both the "normal" Coptic t Ipsl and
the "normal" Coptic .~ Iti/. These are tellts n\lested
by tnanuseripts nearly all par1icularly ancient: F7 is
The langullge of lhe bilingual I'llpyms No. I of 1·lam-
burg (Cuptic and Greck, end of third eentlll)'). /0'9 is
the Innguage of Coptic glosses in :I manUSl.:ripl in the
Chester Beatty collection (third century; d. Kassel'.
1981a, pp, 101-102). J is the language of a Coptic
schnolbny's tablet (end [?] of thirxl cenIUI)'; d. ibid_,
pp. 113-15). An unpublished papyrus in Dublin (ef.
Knsser, 1984, p. 274) secms lu be eonlemporm)' with
the preceding two or scarcely Illuch later'; it contains
John 10:18-11:43 and 12:14-39 in a variety of LS
with very panil'ulnr orlhogr-aphicophonulogieal
characteristics (Ka~ser 198fb, pp. 27-29).
The following hypothetical explannlion could,
howcvcr, 10 SOIllC l.:1I1l.:nt resulve these tliverse enig-
mas, except for' lhe ambiguity of q. in G. One shoultl
h:we in each instance, for two phonemes undoubted-
ly different, not a single gmphemc considercd (ex-
Cl.:pt for t) lIS of GreC'k oligin but two graphemes 10
be distinguishetl from one anuther, the one uf Greek
Oligin, the other of demotic-two gl'llphernes dis-
tinct in thcir origin but in which the autochlhonous
Egyptinn sign h(15 gnldllally been su strongly intlu-
l.:nced in its fOIll] by the Greek graphemc that it has
bceume pml.:lil.:ally identical to the latter (wbence
the confusions that ensue). In what fullows, ellcept
for special mention, references are made to du
Bourguet (1976, p. 75), where lhe dcmotic signs arc
presented in lheir "usual" forlll orl lhc left ILlld lhen
in cer1nin of their "variants" on the light.
In P, the autochthonous K Icl could be der'ivcd
f!"Om a sign fOl' 1;, lhe firsl uf the vari(lOts, resembling
u very "nallcned" K; this ambiguous usage, alongside
l<./kl in lhe Copto-Grcl.:k words, will have led 10 the
usage in S of K (no longer';") for Ik/throughout, (lnd
6 (no longer K) for Ie/.
In the Dublin LS. with J and F9, the autochtho-
nous x lei could be descended frOIll a sign fur ~! the

fi~ of the .......rillnts (il has the look of a slightly
upturned x. of whkh Ihe first stroke. whkh in Greek
goes from top left 10 bottom righl. Is ncar the verti·
cal and the Sl,.'Cond stroke is con.o;cqucntly ncar the
horizonlal); confusions betwLocn the x Ildll "nd thi!'i
x Ie! will havc IL-tl 10 lhe gl'aphemc x being soon
pn:fcITcd 10 it; lhis is alw descended fn.ull a sign for
~. eilhel' the fmll usual sign (vaguely resembling an
(\' the loop of which has been complclcly nllllencd)
or lhe last of lhe vtllianls (resembling II bulging a
with the rounded Plu1 "I the OollOin and Ihe two
horns al the top).
In f7 and wille L6 texts, lhe ." Ipsl L~ exactly
identical wilh this grapheme as one sees it in lhe
contemjlOl'ary Greek manuscripts, which "Iso makes
it unfortunately almost idenlical with the autochtho-
nous t Iti!, llo""lbitually considered as derived from a
demotic sign (cf.. e.g.. Stcindorlf. 1951, p. 12; but
su also KaMer. 1984-1985); this ambiguity will
have inciled the Coptic scril,,:s 10 modify inlO t the
grapheme for Ipsl borrowed from lhe G~k alpha·
"',.
With regard 10 lhe two 6 (the ~ Olle fo,' Icl and
the B etc. one for !eh/), one remains within lhe
autochthonous Egyptian zone, withoUi i'lletference
from the Greek alphllbcl. II is admined tlmt lhe 6!el
derives from II demotic sign for k, the fin;t usual onc
(which has lhe appcamnce of a., the circle of which
is \"el)' small, the stroke that escapes from it leaving
al the sulllmit and Slrelching horizontally at length
10 the right), The 6 !eh! could be descended from
the demotic sign for !!,. the last of lhe V'... riants (the
one lhat resembles a bulging a of which lhe round·
ed pan would be at the bonum and the two homs al
the top; d. abolle with regard to x and x for!c!; Ihe
suppression of the lert horn could well yield a kind
of 6).
As cnn he seen, this compl'omise obliSes one 10
renouncc the thesis of lhe "ahsolute phonological
unily" of lhe Coplic language; lhel'c nl"c then scveml
Coplic dialects. a fact lhal is inCOnleStahlc. BUI this
compromise pl'Obllbly also ohliSes one 10 consenl 10
some delmctlons from the hlw of cxclusivenes.~,
\\.'hich Oows from lhe seCQnd hypothesis; if (admit-
ling the duality of K. x. t, and 6. above) one is to see
each grapheme alway.;; rendering the same ph0-
neme, it may come about Ihat a phoneme is ren-
dered, according to the idiom. by tWO or even three
different graphemes, as with :&. and It r for /k!; -
and H for In{;
, .. and" for Ifl; x and x I- for !e!; It
I· and 6 I" for leI:' and -it for 1f</;!l. t. "nd x 2" for
Ixj. In Ihis last case, one mighl think of the inOu-
cnce of a local Greek anicul"tion x Ix! rather than
x {khl and extending to the pl"Onunci"lion of the
AU'HABETS, COPTIC 35
Corto-Greck words in 87 "nd F9 (cf. also Ihe e\'enlll-
ality of .. Ifl in C alx)\"e). There are Ihen in COplic
nOl only sen:ral Coptic di"lo..,;;:ts but also sc\'t'1"31 Cop-
tic alph"bets employed to render th(.'SC I13rious diu-
lo..,;;:ts. lhe limits of the fidd of applic"tion of Ihese
alphabets not alwaY" coinciding wilh thc phonologi.
c,,1 inlel'dialeel:ll limits,
From Ihis pc11lpcelive, a search through tlte most
diverse Coptic lex IS finnlly ends in tlte idenlifiealion
of at leMl fOU11een different COplic alph"bels. As
wa.~ undedineJ at the beginning of this :lI1ide, lhey
val)' considerably in their relative im]X>11ance if one
takes aCCllUnl of the number and the extent of the
tCXl!! that employ each of them. One of lhese alpha-
bets is supported by S. Ihe \'ehicular language of the
whole of thl." I13lley of the Egyp!ian Nile (the Delta
exceplcd); il was also utilized by a large number of
diak.,;;:ts and subdialecl!! in the I13lley and even in the
FayyUlll. AnOlher alphabet is supported by 8. the
vehicular language of the Egyplian Delta, 111CSC an:.
one mighl say. the "classic alphabets" of thc Coptic
I"nguagc, The olhcr alphabetri arc supported (mly by
a small number (on occasion evcn by a lritllng num·
her) of texIS slighl in extent and variely or ellen by (l
single small texl, the sole representative of an idiom
whose otigin,,1 ehumcter. on Ihe level of the dialeet
and nOI simply on Ihat of lhe IDIOl.Cer. t'enlaitls open
10 discussion: hence. one may call them, respective·
Iy. '-marginal" and "vel)' marginal" alph:lbets.
An alphabet could be marginal fOl' vtllious rea-
sons. It could be situ.'\t(.-d in lhe "preliminary histori·
I."al margin" of Coptic lilcrary lifc: this would be one
of the I13rious alphabets crealed by way of t:55ay5 011
Ihe time when the pionccrs of lilerary Coplie were
attcmpting. as individuals or in s"11I11 isolaled
groups. 10 forge Ihe instruments indispensable for
the rcali7.ation of their enterprise; some of these al·
plmbCls would not h"ve obtained lhe r:tdhesion of a
SOl;:ial or cultural group, SO that they would vcr)'
quickly have becn abandoned, even by thcir few
p1lrtis.""IIiS. Or "gain. :m alphnbet could bc nml'ginal
because il was desccnded from thc invenllve spirit
of an individu"l or a small group living somewhat
on the margin of the society that was eontclI1po......1)'
with them. and this al leas( on tm: cultural or even-
tually the religious level; this alphabet would ha\"C
kno...,," only an extremely rcst:rictL-d diffusion tInd an
ex.iSlence probably all too short. Bul whethl."r "das-
sic" or more 01' less "marginal:' all lhe Coptic aI-
ph.'\bets thus attested by the texts of this language
will be of inlerest for the researcher.
A synoplic view of lhe fourteen Coptic alphabets
menlioned above will be found in Table I. Each of
lhe alphabets is indicated eilhel' by 1111: unique dia-
36 ALPHABETS, COPTIC
Icct or subdialect that attests iI or by the principal
idiom (language or diakct) that attests it. These arc
:is follows:
(I) P ("" a PROTQOtAU1T remarkably similar to ·pS,
the latter being the tentatively rcconstnlctcd protO'-
Sahidic idiom; d. OlAl...ECT p), 0.1 percent of the
whole Coptic textual surface.
(II) j (- pL, proIO'-Lycopolitan dialect; d. PRoro.
OtAL£C1" and OIAlECT I), 0.01 percent.
(lin A clc. (- II, Akhmimic dialect. with i7 - p'~
all evolved protO'-Lycopolitan dialect; d. AKHMIMIC
and PROTODIAlECT with OIo\lJ'..CT i), 0.6 percenl.
(IV) 8 ell:. ("'" 85, the "cla.~liic" and relatively late
BOHAIRIC language, commonly designated by B, with
B4, the Bohairic dialect of "ancient" alles1a1ion, d.
KasseL 1981&, pp. 92-93; 84 lexts puhlished in
Husselman, 1947; Quecke, 1974; K<!sscr, 1958, only
p. 53 of Papyros Bodmer Ill), in all, mOt'e lhan 6.5
pereenl (cf. I,ANGUAGIi.tS), COPTIC).
(V) S etc. (- S properly SO called, the SAllllJlC
language, with [a] thl.: variety of the Fayyumic dia·
lect showing lambdacism most recently allcsted. F5
[cf. fAYYUMIC]; [b) V5, the lea.~t widely nllesled of the
two mesodialeclal varieties of the Fayyumic dialect
without lambdacism (d. FAYVUMtC); and [c) the three
subdialcctal varielics [or even dialects entirely apart,
according to Funk, 1985) of I... the LYCOPOUTAN or
Lyco.OIOSl"OUTAH dialect), :is a whole nearly 92 per-
cent.
(VI) M eiC. (- M properly so called, the MESOKEMIC
diak-ct. with [a) the cryptO'-Mcsokemic mesodialCCI
called dialect W (published in Hus.sclman, 1962]; [b)
V4, the most widely attested of the two mesodialec·
lal varieties of the Fayyumic dialect without lambda·
cilim; [c) F4, one of lhe two varieties of the
Fayyumic dialect with lambdacl~m and of ancient
atteslation (F4 and f7]; and [d] the 1\VQ very small
mcsodialects K and K7(J) [d. Ka.~~er and Satzinger,
1982]), in all 0.7 percent.
(VII) 87 (d. Ka.'lSer, 1981a, p. 93; subdiak'Ct), a
little less lhan 0.001 perccnt.
(VIII) L5 (Dub.) (- the particular subdialect of the
Johanninc &-agment LS in Dublin), 0.015 percenl (cf.
I.YCOPOUT"N or lYCQ·llIQSI'OL!TAN).
(IX) f7(the PAYYUM1C subdialect n, of ancient at-
testation; cf. Kassc:.r, 1981a, pp. 91-100), 0.05 per·
cenL
(X) F8 (a very small subdiale<:t; cf. Kassel', 19813,
p. 101), a lillie less lhan 0.001 percent.
(XI) } (very small subdialect; d. Kassel', 1981a, pp.
113-15),0.001 percCPlt.
(Xli) G (- D1Al£CT (; or mcsodialeet [?); cf. Crum,
1939; Kassel', 1975, and 1981a, pp. 102-103),0.005
percent.
(XIII) F9 (yery small sobdialec:t; d. Kassel', 1981a,
pp. 101-102), a little more than 0.0005 percent.
(XIV) H (- OIAlE.CT II or mctadialect; cf. Kassel',
1966; 1975-1976; and 1981a. pp. 104-112), 0.03 per·
cent.
In the synoptic table (Table I), everything has
been grouped around S etc., thc allestation of
which, in relation to the olher Coptic idioms, is "'cry
amply preponderant (92 percent). This is why (al.
ways with the cXccplion of P ~ /kl and - I~r; SI..'C
below) Ihe order of the phonemes (or I.:ombinations
of phonemes, should occasion nrise), along with the
alphabetic order corresponding to them, i~ first of
a1l1he one habitually found in lhe Coplic t;;t"lllllllHU-S
and lexicons (or dictionary clement...) Iimiled to
Sahidic, s: (I) Fin;t comc lel1eI'S of Greek origin. (2)
Nexl come lel1ers of detllotil: ul'igin (10 lhe eXlenl
lhat they are in u...e in $; with regard 10 the debnted
origin or 'r, sec below; ror details on the origin or
lhese non·Creek grnphemes, see AtPII"'ltrrS, OU> COP·
TIC). A~ regards the alphabetical order of the Coptic
lelleTS of demotic origin, it should be mentioned
here that in some ancienl doc:umenl~ showing that
part of the Coptil: alphabet, 6 is placl.:d beforc .x
(e.g., tlall, 1905, pp. 35-36; Krall, 1888, pp. 129-30;
question raised in di Bitonto Kassel', 1988). (3) Last
come various "supplementary" phonemes (or com-
bination... of phonemes), almost all descended from
demotic (on their pn.-cise origins, sec ALPHABI:"1S. OlD
come): deriving from pre-<:Optic Egyptian, ALEPH -
fl is a CRYFTOPHONEME in S, :is elsewhere in Coptic
(exct.'Pt in P), and is therefore not rendcn.'tI by any
grapheme exclusiyely its own; also of autochlhonous
OIigin and pre-Coptic, 1t>I, lxi, and eventually also
Ic~1 were abandoned in S CIC.. but have been pre·
served in other dialecl~ or protodialec:ts; Ichl i.'l spe·
cific to the Bohairic domain (8 etc. and probably
also 87); Ivl is the charactetiSllc or a lendency that
results in various manifestalions or Coptic
rIIcl<\Jinlecls. In regard to the particulm'ly vllried
graphemes thai conespond 10 1hese supplementary
phoneme..., several will be noted in P that can be
Jescribed as Old Coptic (so .L 1'1, !I 1..1, in aJdition
to the 6 /kl and - In/, , already mentioned above,
which rt.'Spt.'Ctivdy in P alone replace the K and N of
Greek origin); olhers (~ and 6, or • and I with their
diacritical :r;igns, which, respectively, mark them off
from, and oppose them to, .. alld ~, which them-
selves belong in group 2) are simply of demotic
origin; others fmally (I and x) arc, or Kem to be,
Greek graphemes, but here play an unaccUSlomed
role.
As regards the correspondence between thc pho-
nemCli and the gr.tphemes of the \'arious Coptic al·

phabcts. it will be nOled thai in this are.. the situa·
tion in Coptic i'l very similar 10 that in Greek. Thll.'l.
brOlldly spc;.lking. for each Coptic alphabel Ihere is a
corresponding phonemic series madc up of either
(most frequently) isoltlled phonemes (e.g.. la/. l'rJ/.
Ig!. etc.• the alfricRlc 1t.1 - [IS] also being consid-
ered lIS a "single" phoneme) or of combinations of
phonemes (jdl/, Ib/. Iph/. Ik1l/. Irs/. lli/)·
Taking inlo account the total phooemic series re-
sulting from the addition of all Ihe particular phone.
mic ~riC5. each of which con-espond'l to one of the
fourteen individual Coplic alphabets. one may estab-
lish. from case to case. lhe existence of one or an·
other of the five following possibilitif,.'5:
(I) In a given Coptic 3lphabel. a given phoneme
(or combination of phonemes) is rendered by a
gmpheme Ihal. according to a syslem of correspon·
dence usual to this lllphubet as well 3$ to (almost)
the whole of the Coptic dialects and subdiale<:IS. is
peculiar 10 it and liCrvf,.'5 for ilS exclusive use: thus,
fur example, in 5 ele..... for Ia!. III for fbI elc.• 9 for
Ithl elC.• K for fkl etc. (It will be nOled in this
regard that. according to rules which cannot be set
out here lcf. Kasser. 1981). /if may be rendered
eilher by the grnpheme , or by the combination 61.
although the same I or (II may equally render Ij/;
and if luI is almost always rendered by lhe combina·
lionor. nevertheless Iw/. normally rendered by the
Mme combination. often sees iL'l initi;tl 0 diS<lppcar
in ol1hography after .... e. or H. which conveys the
illusion of a correspondence y - Iw/). This type of
peculiar and exclusive phonemc-grapheme relation-
ship is in the Coptic alph;:.bcts the mOS! normal and
widely favored possibility; e\'ery graphcmc that at·
taches to it-and likewise the eventual combina·
tions (e)t or (o)y-is tben nOled. jll.~1 as it is in the
synoptic table herein.
(2) In a given COplil,; alphAbet. a given phoneme is
rendered by a given grapheme that. according 10 a
system of con-e~pondence usual to this alphabet. al-
though not to the uthel' Coptic dialeCl~ and subdia·
lccts. is peculiar 10 it And serves for its exclusive use:
thus. for ex.ample. K for II,;I in P, Although eve,y·
whell' else K - /k/; 6 for It.hl in S, although every-
where else 6 = Icl (bUI see earlier discussion of law
of exclusiveness). This possibility is not the most
normal. but it remains very widely favored; this
grapheme is then also noted. just as it is In thc
synoptic table.
(l) In a givell alphabel. a given combination of
phonemes, instead of bciTIg rendered by the gr.lph·
erne usually peculiar to it. is rendered by each of the
graphemes thai habitually render each of the com·
ponents of this combination: thus n. and not t, for
ALPHABETS. COPTIC 37
Ilil (one could likewise imaginc T~, and nol 9. for
Ilh/. etc.). This possibility. scarcely less widely fa·
vored than the preceding onell, il' markf,.-d by Ihe
symbol a in Ihe synoptic table. the complemcntary
e~planalions being fuund in the commentary fulluw-
ing the table.
(4) In a given alphabet. a fnll1kly more problemat-
ic ca'lC. the proper and exclusive grapheme for a
gi\'Cn phoneme is missing: the phoneme. however. is
repuled to be prescnt despile this and is dlen .$iIid 10
be a CRYnlWIIONf.ME. This is. by definition. rendered
by a grapheme or combination of graphemes each of
which is nomlally approprialed to the proper and
cxclusive use of ::another phoneme: for example. in 5
o - 101 in normal usage. and yet one may nOle the
second clemcnt of 00 (nol O.L) - lu'l in gmphic
vucalic gemination (cf. ALEPH): or 'lgain in G. G - lsI
and :t - 17.f in normal usagt. and yet c:t (not lI,l) -
Is/. This possibility is indicated by the symbol -l-
in the cOrTeSponding box in lhe synoptic tablc. the
complementary explanations being found ill the
commentary following the table.
(5) Finally. in a given alphabet the absence of lhe
usual grapheme (cl. point I) signifies the absence of
Ihe phoneme concerned; this pm.'libility. the only
one that is really and fully negalive. is marked by an
empty shaded cell in the synoptic lable.
In this table. ;lIly grnpheme betwcen parcntheses
is of considerably reduced ustlge (because it eOITC'
spunds to a phonemc thtlt is itself also of greatly
reduced usage) in all of the dialeci. subdialcct, or
group of idioms concerncd (lhus. e.g., the S()llanll'
IV. Il"fI/. II'fI. Irl in B etc.). This obviously dlX-'5 not
apply 10 (e) in (0)1 or to (0) in (o)y, which signify.
respectively. the simultanCOl.J$ existence of spellings
in 61 and in I, in oy and in y. A.ny grapheme be·
tween square brackell' has had 10 be reslored. taking
account of the prob3bililies (the lextual base being
too narrow. lher-e has been no occasion fol' this
gnlpherne 10 appear). In line ll, "gem." ~ignifics
graphic vocalic gClllination (see CliMINATION. VOCAL-
IC). a way of rendering r I in writing a,<; a
cryplophoneme and nOl a phoneme in the ordinary
sense.
For convenience,S has been assigned the function
of a norm or standard; in relation to it thc following
phonemic and alphabetic differences will be noIed
(uansfomlalions and simplifications):
uncs 2a and 32: J. G. F9, H r. fbI > Ivl (cf. I. 26):
D7 also has .. Iv/. but could well have preserved II
fbI simultaneously.
Line l: H r 181 > K Ik/.
Line 4: 11 A Idl > T It/.
Line 5a: He leI> II I!/.
38 ALPHABETS, COPTIC

Line 6: /-1 z I'll> cis/. Line 32: See line 2a.

Line 10: P )../kl > S etc. «(111([ ,ill the Olher Coplic
dialcels CIC.) II. Ikl (d. I. 29).
Line 15: H 0/01 > lD lu/.
Line 20tl: H Y Iyl > II Ie/.
Line 21: See line 26.
Line 22: Sec lines 28 and 35,
Line 25: F9 (ij /AI > cis/.
Line 26: J, F9, H 'I IfI > t Ivl (ef. l. 2;1); G l'
probably IfI rather than Irhl (ef. l. 21).
Line 28: With regard to x (1-5 Dub. ;md J. F9) for
oX, sec discussion above.
Line 29: P II. lei > S CIC. (and all Ihe other dia·
lects. Cle., which have this phoneme) G lei (cf. L 10);
note, however, Ihat in J lllld F9 6 lei> II. Ik/; F7 G
lei> x Ie/.
Line 34: P 9/...1 and alsu i ~ 1...1 > S dt:, (nnd L
and all lhe olher Coptic dialects, etc.) (I,l I~/.
Line 35: P (d. B) fJ Ixl and [llso i (d. A) with J 8
Ixl > S eiC. (and L and all Ihe olher Coptic dialeels,
etc., except A eiC. and 8 eiC. with 87 and G) ~ Ilt/:
note 87, G x probably Ixl mlher than Ikh/.
II is difficult 10 know wilh any precision lite
names of the letters of lhe valious Coptic alphabets,
Thuse proposed by modem ur semimodcm gr.tm-
mal'ians all rest lll)()n relalively late tmdilions and
represent nut lhe primitive furms but furms alrendy
somcwhllt modified (Stem, 1880, p. 7; Mallon, 1907,
p. 7; Steindorff, 1930, pp. 6-7, nnd 1951, p. II;
Plumley, 1948, p. I; Won'Cll, 1942, pp. 314-27, lak·
en up in Till, 1955, p. 40). To provide n useful,

TAUtE I SYlloplic Table of Coptic Alphabels•• wilh Commell/ary

P I A D 87 L5 G P9
ele. ele.
S
Cleo
M
eiC. (Dub.)
F7
" J
"
1 M , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, ,
,• • • • ,• ,• ,•
2, /b ?

,.• ,.•
2b !'II UJ (II
3 IgJ ,. ,. e e le] e e e e e (e]
4 Idl A A A A A A A (A] A
5, lei , , , , , ,
(AI
l'j , A
, ,
(AI
, , (AI
,
5b /01 , , , , , , , , , 1'1 , , ((l)
6 14 , , , , , , (,] , ," [z] [7.] , [7. J
7 le/
8 /thl "
0 0" 0" 0" "0 "0 "0 "0 "
0 "0 "0 "
0 "
[01 "0
9, Ii! (6)1 (6)1 (6)1 , {6)1 (6)1 , (ti)1 , , (6)1 , , {ell
9b Ijl (U)I m (1))1 , (e)/ (6)1 , (6)1 , , (tj )1 , {6)1
10 1\1 ~
'"
I Ia 111 ,
K
,
K
,
K
, ,
K K
, ,
K K
,
K
,
K
,
K
,
K
,
K
,
K
,
lib !!! , , , 1'1 , , [(>.)] , ? ? ? ,
12, Iml H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
I2b Iml H H H (HI H H (H) H (HI ? ? ? [M~]

13'
•
Inl , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
13b I~I
, , , ("I , , I")
, 1"1
, , ? ttl?)
13, Inl B, , , , , ("I , ? ? ? [tl?]
14
•
Iksl , , ("I
, , , (,] , ("I
(,j ('I (,] I'] (,] ('I
15 foI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 1,1
17, M
"r "r "r "r "r "r "r "r "r "r "r "r "r "r
17b M r r (fl r r
18 lsi ,r •
, , , , , (fl
c
r
, ,? ?
, ?
, ?
, [p?)
, ,
19 1'1 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
200l? 1,1 y y y y y y (y] y y (y] y y (y]
20b lui oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy oy
 ALPHABETS, COI'l'IC 39

• ••Ie op(A/labelS , mmellIary (co" I

r,\,8lF., 1, SyllOpIIC T.bl
p I A
p' •
·'"
IC ','Co
8 S M 87
111111

1.5
cd)
F7 F8 J G FY H
etc. eiC. ele. elC. (l>Ub.)
.
'00
11
Iwl (olY (olY (olY (olY (o)y
Iphl .; .; .; .; .;
(o)y
.;
I(o)y]
.;
(olY
.;
(o)y
.;
(olY
.;
(o)y
(';1 ,,
", (olY
[';J
(olY
.;
11 /khl x x x x x x (x?1 x? x x x, x? x
13 1..1 t 't) t t tit t 'tl t tit 'tl t [tl t It'
14 1'1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1S
26 '"III/hI •• •• •., •., •
•,
•, • •., •• ••• l~?] -I-
ltl
•
2? , , , , , ", , , , ,
26 1'1 x x
, x
, x x
,
x
, x 0, x x
, 0 -1- 0 x
,
29
30
1'1
Iti!
[;;]
"
t t -t- -t- t -t- .,. ., - ["'71 - • •
31 /'1 QJ gem. gem. gl·m. gcm. gem. gcm,
, , , , •
31
33
34
M
Iccl
Ie)
51 (-J
I2l Iiil
• - - {'"?] - "

35
36 '"
Ichl "
[!J [!J
"•
x
['I
[!J x
,
Total 35 J2 31 31 30 3. 3. 2. 2. 2. 26 24 24 25
•
Lines 2lI-2b. In phonoiOllY. fbi has lhe: \-al..., of a eonsonalll (~"Oleed). and !ttl of a \"Ow<:l (!!Onanl) (cf. Kass."r.
, • In 8 elc. (and
1981 c).
also in ,..S. ,..... he:re inclu<lcd In S eLe. ,,00 M etc.• rt'Spe'Clively) ~I > I~I (l'S. F.. also /ybl in spo-eific cast'$); in f7 If!I > IJb/.
Iib/./ool ur Irb/. each in ~iI;e c a s t S . ' ,
liM'S Sa-Sb: lei lOOie. lal ;!Olook:.
Lines 9a-9b: In phoooIocy. /if has tnc \"ll!..., of a \~I and fJ/ ul" cumon.:ull (glide). With regan/to lhe: nil"" ul di:aI.,.,ta1 or
itlbdW«laI orthov:tphy lhal (litiS<: Ihe wrilinl ul a ()f" I for iii or fJ!, d. ICas6cr (198]) and. more detailed "nd I~ ~e"",llc.
Qued:e (1984).
or
UnC:ll II a- lib: In phonology. III has lhe value a consonant (voiced). III of a """"" (sonanl). (d. Ko!s5er. 1981 c). If 11/ > 1t.1/.
AI"",",I al",...". in 8etc. (amI "Iso e~erywhere in FS and f·4. ncre Included in Setc. and M eIC .• r6pecli....ly)./11 > I;AI. In 1'7/11 >
/:tl/or Iil/. each in specific cases (Ihen: Is no poMibilily of Iol/); bUl in F9/l/ln CTATOA' (- [~TfJA""'''''J). lroubled. •
.
Unts 1201-120: III phonology,/ml hM Ihe vatu<: of" enmonanl (\'t>lccd). and Im'l uf a ~owcl (soI"l.1nl) (d. Kll$6Cr. 19IIle). II Iml
Itm/. In 8 elC. (and also Fj and F4. here indu<lcd In S etc. lind M etc......' Spcelivcly)./ml mosl oflen > l:>nl/: in n Im/nlOSl
, >
frequently> lan'l. fin.I, "r/oon/. each in specific cases. ' •
Unes ll;a-Ilc: In phonology./nl has lhe ~alue of a eonsonanl (voiced). and Inl and Inl "f a vowel (sonant. II'!" being "I Ihe
bellinning of a syllable and FOl"mln& a syllable with 11K: eon50mml lhul full""", il; cr.Kwr. 1981<:). It In/ > Itni. In IJ CIC. (and
In 1'5 and N. hcre included in S ele. and II-! ele .• respccllvely). 1111 most uften > I..m/; in n /nl m061 f..cquenlly > lanl or lin/.
each in specific CMCS (nOl lonl appllrcntly: cf. I. J 1 ) . · ,
Line 14: H very of'e" , Iks/ > IlC Iks/.
Lines 1711-17b: In phunulngy./r/Illt. lite "lIlue of a consonanl (voiced), lind /rl , "ra ""wei (st",am). JJ II'I , > I~r/. tn n ele, (and In
f5andF4. he,.., Inclu<k...J ill S dc.and M ele .. rcsI>celivcly)./rl , 111%1 orten> lar/: in F7 Ir/, "''''I fn:quenlly > /arl or /Ir/. each in
~I"'clfic ca<t'1l (Ihere Is no posslbllily of fori). Would fV have had, /r/lhe,.., lClll has ... II/?
Unes 2Ob-20e: In phonoloilY. lui has lh" vaIn" oh vowel, and Iwl "r'a consonunl (Illidc)~ l¥Y or y for Iw/.
Une 22 (d. I. 28): Lj (Johannlne f....Il"'enls in Dublin). J, amJ F9 'cguludy n.'Plaee oX by a,.; that is vel)' probably c'Iu;~alenl ltl {?:I
and nO! /kh/; however. Ihere is in ,...ri<:Jus COlllo·Gred words a,.; that Is prob.1bly cqul~..lcnl 10 Ikh/. 1"hcse lwu lyJ>C'l of,.; may
lUll be in ongin Ihe same gr-.. ph...l1e (demolie ,.; "" Greek x).
U..., 2]; Fl (nol 874) and al:so some LIJ leJlS (under S Cle.) wnte t ror 'Yo 11 \"Cry often i'/psl > IIC IpIl/.
Litle 25: C cz ve,y probably CQul\":Ilent 10 If.!.
Line 23: C T:t \"C1)' prob3bly equlvalenl 10 Itl.
Une 30: FlI, [RJ, G, 1-"9, II n 111/; t ill gClIcroilly considered a grapheme of demotic ongill (d.• e-3-. Mallon. 1907; Stei"durlI. p. 12):
bul other illierpretations ~maill possiblc (d. Kasser. 1984-1985).
liM' ]1: Gcm.signlfio lhat fils rendered not bya gr;l.phemcofilSown but by Ihcsexond detnenl.,( alll3pliic I'OCalic Il'minalion
(we AI.Utl); in bet. in Papyrus Bodmc:r VI, the sole wilness of 1'• .L fI aleph tends 10 be replaced by Il''''. (ahhouVt a,lnc ~mc
lime -/ry' lel\ds to be n:pIaced by .LIJ.
Une ]]: The compendium" If, le~1 (1 Coptic autoc:hlOOnow wonIs PII, _ S 60. then; P fN • S 'lfGl. Ihe prolcplic panicle) also
appc:al'$ in somc Coplo-(;...,.,k wonk. in which il'" alnlOSl always l.'<Iulvalent 1010.' as in Inc G...,.,k ma.nuscripu (thus P.v<.oc
aiKD-,ju:;t. 85 percenl nllnc ea.<cs;~,6u<D«><rir"'l.juSl:icc. 86 pen::enl of Ihe~; R'\.l1Cf
life... ,,<pU>.. barKJai,..,. one casc!).
.D'np. althuugh. tine e3St';
 40 ALPHABETS, COPTIC
rather standardi7.ed example. even if hs value may
be open to deb'lte. here <Ire pre5ented liTht the
nllUles of the Coptic lellers as in Plumley (1948).
with some adaptation: while Plumley writes the
names in Coptic lcucrs. they llt·C hcre tmnslitcr;lted,
generally in accordance with I'lumley's system of
phonetic equivalents (e = short c: e .. long e: 0 '"
short 0; 0 '" long 0; eh .. guttural eh ns in Genlltln
Wc/lnllac/ll. army; g' = hnrd g): ), .. alpha, 1\ .. b~ta,
r' ... gamma, A. ... dnlda. 6 '" ey (or ei), Z zeta, H ,.,
hllta, 0 .. thllta. 1 ,., yOta. K ,., kappn Inudl' (or
lawda), M '" me, N '" nco ~ '" hi. 0 '" ow. n '" pi, P =
l"l'l. c .. semma. T '" tau (or' taw). y .. he. t .. phi. x
.. khi, l' '" psi, (J) . . o. (1,1 .. shai. " .. fai, !.l .. chai. ~
'" hori. X = j.mjia (or j.mjya), G = g(y)ima, t '" ti.
Coming closer to the testimony of the texts in
their (quite confusing) manifold witness. sec also,
fwm v"rious perio<.]J; and in Coptic. the names of
graphemes noted by Crum (1939). a list completed
here by that of the nllmes of autochthonous Coptic
leiters thai appears at the end of Ihe (unpublished)
Bodmer papyrus of the Acta Pauli (fourth-fifth cen·
turies. L5. siglulll hercarter Bod.): ), .. ),....t),. II ,.,
IItlT), (or 1I1}t..),). I' = r),HM),. A. = A.),i\A), (or A.X"}t..),).
e .. (Jl (or (;Ie). )! = )!IIT), (or )!tT)" Z),1'),), H .. (2)H1')'
(or lilT),. 2),TfI), 0 .. OIlT), (or 1)11')" 001'0). I ,., IWT),
(or 101'),. l),yA.),). I(. ,., 1(.),11I,), (or 1(.),1I),1. .... '" >,),yA.),
(probably for .... ),l'.A)" or ),y>.)" >.0....0). M = Mil (or
M6. MI). /'/ ... /'/6 (or NI). ~ 'll. 0 '" oy (or 0). 11 '" Ill.
r .. rw (or ~ro). C ,., CtlHM), (or CyMM),. elM),. CRM),),
T ... ny, y = ~O (or yo, y),), t '" tl, x = Xl. l' = 1'1.
W = (J) (or loy, way); then (1,1 .. lI,I),1 (or (1,161; Bod.
(I,Illll[I]); " ,., '1),1 (or '101; Bod. <11101); !J ,., !J.\I (or !.lei);
~ .. 20pl (Bod. 2Olpm); x ,., XJ.tu:'), (or XO/,/X(l; Bod.
prob"bly x)''''~. but x.\/'/X!~ not excluded); G ,.,
GlM), (Bod. 6f.!!':If.! very uncerlain); '1' ... Bod. +m.
(I) So far as the Coptic grapheme.~ of Greek migin
are concerned. one will probably be closer lu their
primitive names if one names them in the Greek
fllshion: ), ,., ulpha, Po .. bela. r .. g:lmma. A. ,., delta.
tl .. epsilon, Z = zeta, .. = elo, e = theta. 1 '" iota. "
= kappa, .l. = lambda. M co mu, /'/ .. nu. ~ .. xi, 0 ..
omicron. n .. pi, P ,., rho, C .. sigm:l, T ,., tau. y =
up.~ilon. l' '" phi. x .. chi, l' .. psi. (J) ... omega.
(2) fur the Coptic graphemes of demotic odg!n in
S. the prefer'Cnce her'C is for tire following fonns (in
the S vocalism): (1,1 = sh<li, 'I .. fai, ~ .. hOli, x ..
jonja. G = gima (easier 10 pronounce Ih"n the more
exact k(y)ima), t '" ti.
(3) for the supplcment"ry graphemes, lipan from
!J. their names areJ,Jnknown. so that il was necessary
10 ere'lte them (if possible in relation with their
wrilLen fOlm, which is certain because it elln be
observed. rather than with their phonological value.
which is sometimes less cenain): L !k! .. -.:eloid
kappa; - !nl' ,., hyphen·shaped nu; x !l:.! (for x) '"
•
chioid janja; ..I. /'! = reverscd.tau·shapcd aleph; '" =
kai compendium; 9 = 9·spiraled grapheme; OJ -
crossed shai: !:J '" khai or ~ai; a .. balTed hod; G !l:.h!
in B etc. = aspiraled jllnja.
RIUUOGRAI'HY
Bilonlo Kassel', A. dL "Ostrac"" scolastici copti a DeiI'
cI Gitlil.... Aegyptus 68 {I988):167-75.
Bourguet. P. du. Grammaire fonctionnelle I:t progreso
sive de Ngypt!e'/ demOlique. Louvain. 1976.
Cr'lm. W. E. A Coptic Viclionory. Oxford, 1939.
Funk. W.·I'. "How Closely Relaled Arc Ihe SubakJ,·
mimic Dialects," Zei/sclrrif/ fiir iigyp/isehe Spraclre
Wid Aitertumskllllde 112 (1985):124-39.
Hall, H. R. Coptic and Greek Tex/s of Ihe Chris/larr
Period from OSlrokll. SIe!ae ele. in the Brilish Ml,se·
/lin. London. 1905.
Husselman, E. M. "A Bohairic School Text on Papy·
rus." loumal of Near EasU'm Sllldie$ 6 (1947):129-
51.
_ _ . The Gospel of 101m ill f'ayumie Cop/ie (p.
Mich. II/V. J52f). Ann Arbor. Midi .. 1962.
Kassel'. R. Papyrus Bodmer 111. cl'ongile de lean et
Genese I-IV,2 en bQhai"rique. cseo 177 -178.
Louvnin. 1958.
_,--_. "Dialectcs, sous·dia1ccles ct 'dialccticules'
dans l'Egypte copte." Zei/schrift fiir iigyp/ische
S"rache WId AllerWlIIshmde 92 (1966): 106-15.
--C" "L'Idiome de 13achmoul'." Bulle/ill de {'filS/i·
IU/ fralH,ais d'arche.ologie orienlale 75 (1975):401-
27.
_-" "A propos de quelques caractclistiques
olthographique.~ du vocabulaire grec utilise dans
les dinlecles H et N." Orien/illia wvrmiensiu
Periodicil (Miscellanea in honorem Josephi Vcr·
gote) 6-7 {I975-1976):285-94.
_ _ . "Prolcgomcnes a un essai de clao;sification
systematique des dialectes et suhdialectes copte.~
selon les crilcl'es de la phonelique, I. Principes et
lermiMlogic." Mrmiorr 93 (1980.1):53-112." ... ,
11. Alphabets ct systCl11CS phonetiques." Muston 93
(198%):237-97. " .... 111. Systemes orthographi·
ques cl categories dialecl,,1cs," Museun 94 (198Ia):
91-152.
_ _ . "Usages de la surligne dans Ie P. Bodmer VI,
notes additionne1Je.~." Bllllelill de Iii Sociert
,/'e.gyptologie, GelltiVe 5 (198Ib):23-32.
_ _ . "Voydles en fonelion consommtiquc. con·
sonncs cn fonction vocaliquc. ct classes de
phonemes en copte." Bulleti" de 10 Societe
d'egyp/ologie, Geneve 5 (1981 c):33-50.
___. "EI ou I pour !i! ou !j! dans les dialectes
coptcs." Bulletin of Ihe Ameri"mr Sociely of Papy'
rologis/s 20 (1983):123-26.
_ _ . "Orthographe et phonologic de la variete

subdialeelale IYl,;opolitainc des tClItcs gnostiqllCs
copt~ dc Nag Hammadi:' Musiull 97 {I984):261-
312.
___ "I'si en ti et ti pointe dans Ie P. Biling. I de
HambOllrg," Billie/iII tie lu Societe d'egyplolo/:ie,
Gtll~ve 9-10 (1984-1985):135-40.
Kasser, R., and H. Sat;dnger. "L'ldiome du P. Mich.
5421 (Irouve a Karanis, nOI"d·eo;t du Fayoum)."
Witntr Ztilschrill liir die Kmrde ties MQ~tmfufldes
74 (1982):15-32.
Krall, J, "Reste koplischer SchulbueherliterJ.tur."
Mil/hei/IIllgt" Q'/$ der Sammltmg dcr PapynlS En·
htr<.og Raintr 4 (1888):126-3S.
Mallon. A, Grammaire cople, uvec bibliograplrie,
chreMomarhie et vocabulairt. 2nd cd. Heinl!, 1907.
Plumley, J. M. All httrodllctnry Capric Grrmmrar
(Sohidic Diu/ectJ, London, 1948.
Ouccke, H, "Ein altes bohairi:>cho FrJ.gment des
Jakobusbriefes (P. Heid. Kopt. 452)." Orielllalia 43
(1974):382-93,
--::-: "ZUr Schreibung \/On i/j in der koptischen
Buchschrift." 1.0 S/Ildicn lJl Sproche Wid Rtligioll
ACfPlelU, Vol. I, Sprllcht, lJI Ehrell VOII WoIfhllr1
Wtslt'ldorf jjberrticlll \1011 stifle" Frelllldell .lIId
Schil/em, pp. 289-326. COllingen, 1984.
Stcindorff, G. KopliS€he GrllJllJIIlllik, mil Chresto-
IIIlllhit, W;men'trteicJ",is lIm/ LileruflIr. Berlin,
1930.
...,"'.. Lel,rlmch der koptischell GrOJl/J11lllik. Chicago,
1951.
Stem. L Koplisdre GrommlJ/ik. Leipzig, 1880.
Till, W. C. Koplische Graltlltlalik (saidisclter Dillfekl),
mil Bibliographie, f.ese.ttilckclI wrd Woncrvcncicll·
"isseI!. Lciptig, 1955,
Worrell, W. H, Coptit' TexIs i'l lire U'liversily 01 Michi·
g~rl eollcc/iotl. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1942.
RODOlJ>HE KAssER
ALPHABETS, OLD COPTIC. The group of
tcxts dcsigmdcd ow corne does not represent a
linguistic unity, but on the contmry a motley collec·
tion of essays spaced out between the fit"lit 'IIU.!
fourth centuries A.ll. Chronologically thcy most frc·
quently pr'l;ldatc littm1)' Coptic, but wmetimL'S,
though rarely, are l,;ontcmpomry with its beginnings.
Howcver tlnlt may be, through their char.lcter as
isolated essays tentatively made, not very systematic
or even pmetically unsystemlltic, and through their
language, in which one observes a significant pro·
portion of prl.'-Coptie features, they all logically rep'
resent a slage prior to th:;at of litemry Coplic. includ·
ing prolo-Coptic. The laller is already syslemalic and
makes its appearance in the form of PROTODtAu:crs,
many of which have disappeared without leaving any
ALPHABETS, OLD COPTIC 41
traces, but two of whleh are nevenheless attested hy
Coptic documents lh.'lt have sunrived the vicil;situdes
of the tormented history of the Copts: I)[AI.ECT I
(pml:QoLyeopo1itan) and OlAUCT P (an alphabetically
and phonologically an:haic idiom that often looks
like what can be known about a proto-Sahidic, tenta·
tively reconstructed and considered immigrant into
lhe TI1cb.'ln region).
In the$C cin:umstanecs. it is scarcely surprising
that each of the Old Coptic leXL~ :utesL~ a panicular
Coptic alphabet (or if onj,' prefers, a panicular varie·
ty of Coptic alphabet). It is reasonablj,' to suppose
that all these alphabets included all the Coptic let·
ters of Greek origin-a supposition and not a cer-
tainty, bt:cause these very ancient texts are gj,'nerally
too shon for each to attl'St all these Greek graph·
emes. But thcre is no reason to suspect that one or
more of these Greek letters was s)'!'tem:lIically elimi-
nated in one or anothcr of thl'SC alphabets, as is the
case in the Coptic alphabet of a late text likc that
which atlests D1AI.F.cT H (cf. AIJ'I{ABEn). COPTIC, synop-
lic table), which lacks the r, A, and ~ of Greek
origin. All these Old Coptic alphabets induck-d Iet-
tcrs of demotic origin, generally in largcr numbers
than the Coptic alphabet properly so called, especial-
ly since the varielies of Old Coptic h:wc at the same
lime a number o( phoncmes more significant than
that of the Coptic idioms (the evolution proceeding
logically toward phonological and gr-J.phical simplifi.
cation and hencc toward a reduction in the number
of phonemes and graphcmes), The synoptic table of
Old COI)tic alphabeL~ (Table I), which includes all
Ihe Old Coptic texis lhat arc available and makes use
of letlet"li of demotic origin, will make this evident.
The sigla for the texts used in this ta\)le are a~
follows: &:h1ll. - the Schmidt Papyrus (first-sl.'t:ond
century): Hal', - thc London Horoscope Papyrus
(firM-second century): Mich. • the Michigan Horo-
scope P\lpynlS (second centuly): Mun, - the Munich
l'apyms ([schoolbook?J second century): Oll. - the
Egyptian Oxyrltynchus Papyrus (second century):
Mum, - the two mummy labels in Berlin (second
century): Mim, - thc Mimllut PlIpynls (third centu·
ry); DMP _ the Demotic Mllglcal Papyrus of London
and Leirlel1 (third-fourth century): Par, I - first
non·Greek section of the Paris Magical Papyrus
(founh century); Par. 2 - second non·Greck section
(bllt not the third and lasl) of lhe Ptuis Magical
Papyrus (fourth century),
To the alphabets of these ten lexts properly desig·
nated Old Coptic are added here, by way of compari·
son, those of the only two protodialel,;u sunriving in
Coptic, P and i. because both have preserved eenain
phonemes of Old Coptic that later disappe:lred in
TAB1..£. I. S)'1lop/ie Table of Old Coptic Alp},abels, \\,;/h CommellIury
Schm. Hor, Mich. Mun. 0,. Mum. Mim. OMP. »:lr.! 1'(Ir.2 P I
, , , , , , , , ,
,i Ikl
/oJ • "• ?
, •
?
• • • •
• " "
3
4
5
N
IfI
M
,
.,
,
3
,
,
•,
,
,
?

?
•,
,
3

,,
?
•,
3
3
.,
,
.'
,
3
•,
,
•, •0'
, ,
,. •,
6
7
1'1
M
•
& ,
?

,
?
•
•• ? ,
" ,• ", ,? x
,
x
•t
8 Ilil • • • ? • • • • 'r
9 f/ (.L )? ,, , ? ? , gem.
,
.L gem.
0
iO 101 • (I)?
• , •, • •
II

12
M
It-hI
? :> :> ? :> "
~~/'X
(.)
'x) :> •
13 Ihl 3 , ? 'V?
"
Totnl 31 ? 35 31 32? m ? 281 34? 3D? 271 35 3Z
(In the following. "A.C.lablc" ..crers luthe ~ynoptic table in "I.PUAliEB. eo,,"ne.)
UII< I (A.C. tabk.l. 10); UO<". gcncr-IIly hal;), /k/and II./e/. but lhis tellt ICnds toconfust! ~ two pOOncme5. sincconc also fin<k
Sf!ve...1K fOt" fkI and (more ......,Iy»), for leI. Mich. is so rmtnlt'nu>ry that one eannol b..- su..., hcre ofiL' wilne1S. Did Mim. abo
uSi', alungsidc K. a kind of), fo.. /1:1 (cr. Ka,.'1(:... 1980. p. 265)1 DMf' gcnernlly has), /1:/ ami K /e/. but unc ;11$0 find~ ""me", /k/
(confU$i<>n of lhe twu phOflCllld).
Line 2 (A.C. luhle.lI. 13b-13c); Hor. has _ rOt, /n/. while I' Itu.~ it mtherrur In/.
Une J (A.C. table. I. 25); In Sellin. the choice <;>f I (or lsi i~ stmnge (in lkmolie I 'renders /r/ and :llso IfI; uu Bourguet. 1976, p. 82).
One uf the telllS of Mum. is wrillen from right [0 lei", whh all but three of ilJileucrs l'qU3l1y lurned from righttu l.,rl, bUl 3
remains withoul il1\"'~n: thc """ond lexl is wrincn from left to ri&ht, wilh i\$ 3 just a6 it is. In Mim., in (InC case, tbe cdiloro(
the TC11 imlicaTCIi thel're:'JC1>ce 0( an' (as in P) in plac:e or". but it is prefer;llble to [;Ike noaccuunl of this reading (at thifi point
lhe tCl{t is alm""t entirely el1l5Cd, and the photo sh"W$ no t.."",e to allow us to C(lnfiml this assumption, however weakly), 1"..1'. I.
a single example, hru; poerhaps the clumsy dmft of" III (mlher th"n n 3, 01' .IHI less a ", Ka.'\Ser, 1980, p. 2b7),
Line 4 (A.C. table, I. 2b): NOlhing.
Une 5 (A.C. table. I. 27); In Seh",. generally, the anelent" is rendel'L..J by a I (o( Uvery particular rorm; Ka.o;scr, 1980. p. 257), ami
the andcnt IT by 3. In Oll., the uncicnT II is g"nc:r;Illly I, and the and"nt II is I 01' r. In !)MP. for _m 0( c.-rtain ~iilpIL'" deriving
from an • ...;1<:111 h. it ;,. difficult la ~y whew.. [here I"" ancient II ~ It haw re<;onc:iled wi.- opposltion to rotlw'"G" in a
unifOnn /hI, rendcred now byl, 1I0w byy, 0<" whether eventually only the anc:\em II i!' rendered hylor y, th" ancient h having
WIl'pletcly l1isappcared; thillstrangc y or OMP is "nly then~ at The bcginninll of a ;vord (but SOlllC other beginnings of worns,
m",.., mre. al!iO have I) and for prcJer"m:e before" vowcl (supplcmenlal)' l1ela1l5 in Ku...." '.., 1... ~0. p. 2(8). In Par. 2, L is phJCeu
only t-..rcly "bcfor'e" the vowel that phonologically roll"w~ il; "'U._t orten it l_ placed above It (I ike lhe Creck epigruphic rough
breaLhi"ll, which it much resembk" Dnd of which it mighl evenTuully he a v:>riaul); it also happef15 thallhe ""ribc rClllac"" This t.
aha"e the line by a simple "acute Keent" or again that he r"'lIet! it alt"lle:ther.
Line 6 (A.C. table, I, 28): In Sehm... has the form of a large Creek D. In Mim. tbe rt'gUlaI' form isdeddcdly .. (1M t...... x rratI by the
editor of the texl.rc eXlJemdy doubtful). In ~r. I, 1t.1 is no.mally rendered by; (tWO CItl5CS), but at..... (through phonological
confusion of If-I and I<;/) by" (two cases) or evcrt by X (one eus<:. Ihrough the influence of the eomenlpor.:u), Coptic alphabet).
Line 7 (A.C. lable, J. 29): Mich. very unee.,a;n.
!.inc 8 (fl,C. lllble.1. 3D): NOlhing.
line 9 (A.C. tablc, J. 31): In HOI". lhrcc case~ only, all ruther dottblful (pilOnellle 11>:>1 could be fl. gr.. pheme mOl'e ur less
........,mbling a ~ 0 .. a ;. ("-'<C", 1980, p. 264); in Oll. the pus.'libility of a ~ rcn1.1ins tOO hazardous (ibid•• p. 264).
UlIC 10 (A.C. whit::. I. J4): n"r. presents three casa "'·he..... .,') is wrillen in place of" and pert.aps a furttx,.. casewhe,..,,, Is wriu<,n In
pI;lCe of 1:1 (confusion bet"'...... n the poonemQ /XI and I.;/). TIle only I of Mich. is in a COnlCllt olremely (perhapll "ll~iV('ly)
obscun.·. It Is not very likdy thaI "orOll, eve.. renders Illl (Kassel', 1980, p. 267). In I)MP there is evcntually (?) a case whcre/f<.1
is rendered by I.
Lit'e 11 (fl.C, lable.l. 35); In OMI' Ihere i~ an uneCl'lain!> (two eu."I:$). It ecrt"in" (one case), Imd a probable 11: (otte case). In Par. 2,
if L regtrlarly renders /hI. il also ren<1cl"l' Ill/two "UI of llll'l~" times, x renlkring il (mu con"CClly) one out ulthree times
(ten<1cney toward the ncutrolimtion of th" opposition ulthe phonemC$ /hI llnU Illl, in fu of the suiI' sun-ivai of a unifonn
jhf1).
Line 12 (A-c. Table. l. 36): Mim. probably does nOi h;...e this Ithl (d. Ka....."C1'". 1980. p. 269). With regard tu the problem ulthe
eYenlUal e"''''''enee 0( the phonem" It-hI r;Illher th;ln ItI in Par. I, er. Ka,.-.;cr (1980. p. 269).
Line 1.\ (no eum~sP'Onding lin., In flC t"ble); Wilh regard 10 DMP, sec above, IInc 5.

42

Coptic; P even h:lS in its a1phabel such a large num·
bel' of lelten typical of Old Coptic that it reaches a
tOlal alphabet of at ICOlSt thirty-five grolpherncs. This
is thus an alphabet as rich as the richest of Ihe Old
Coptic alphabets (excluding exceptional gmphemlOS;
see below), that of Hor., with it~ thil1y.five lellers;
one might even s;,IY thai P has thh1y-slx gmphemes if
onc admits Ilml the II. Ikl of its Copto·Greek vocabu·
Illry is to be distinb'llishcd from the K leI of its
autochthonous voeabuku)'. the first developing from
the Greek K, and the second from tl llemolic graph·
erne (sec du Bourgoet, 1976, p. 75, sign for g, firsl
variant).
To facilitate comparison, the ordel' of the pho-
ncmes is that of the final sections in the synoptic
table of Coptic alphabets (only nos. 25-36 are con-
cerned), except for I'l.l and Inl,, placed right at the
beginnin&. and 11.'/, placed at the vel')' end. In the
table hereafter. the sign ~ indicates th.1t instead of
rendering Itil by a sillgle grapheme, t, the text in
question rellders it by two leiters, TI; "gem." signi·
fies that /'I is rendered not by a gl'al)heme of iL~ own
(like .l in HoI'. L? J and P) but hy the second clement
of a g1'llphic voealie geminulJon (see AI.EPH).
In lhis pt\:scn1:ltion of the graphemes typical of
Old Coptic, each Is given in a standuroized f01'1II and
no account is takcn of ils numerous particular
grnphic valiants (sometimes very perceptibly remote
from one another); 50 fur as <t is conce.mcd, it has
been fixed in the form that it habittmlly h:lS in C0p-
tic. although in Old Coptic this form is gcnerally
much closer to that (the most usual) of the demolic
grnphcmc for trI (du Bourguel, 1976, p. 3), esJx:dal.
Iy with ilS Mem Mrongly inclined toward the right.
Furthennore, thc signs arc limited to those that ap'
pear regularly in these lexts (or ncarly so); it has not
been judged indispensable 10 include al50 ceruin
rare fonn5 of Old Coptic gropheOiCS whose use is
occasional (01' even, in most cm;e~, ll11ceptional) llnd
docs not seem to Illlve any pfit1ieulal' phonological
significance (Ihese unusual forms appear above all
in Schm., HOI'., Oll., DMP, and Par. 1; fW1hcr details
will be found in K4lSSCr, 1980, pp. 256-57).
Right at the end, in the count of lhc total number
of the grapheml'S of each Old Coplic alphabel (and
of the two prolo-Coplic alphabelS " and i). accounl
is calcen only of the graphcmes of demolic origin
chat appt.'llT fairly regularly in these lellts (ali just
eltplalned), and it L~ assumed with regard to each
texl Ihat !he alphabel it uses had the full comple.
ment of the. twenly·four Jellers of Greek origin, ac-
cording to the assumption made ahovc.
ALPHABETS, OLD COPTIC 43
The majority of the graphemes of Old Coptic al-
phabets presented here are considered, :is has been
said. as being certainly of demOlic origin: for othen
(especially K lei. Y ItJ/, x Ixl and, above nil, some.·
timl.'S cvcn leI in Coptic, if not in olll Coptic), even
if their appearance i§ wholly lhat of grolphcII1CS of
Greek origin, one may strongly SUSf)\.'Ct that it is a
casc of signs of de.motlc o,igin having been cntirely
ussimiluted graphically to Greek leller~ thai resem·
hIe them and h.lVc influcnced their graphic form.
This series of leliefS will now be reviewcd in the
following ordel~ first the g"'dphemc:s of Greek ap-
pearance; then the. lellers of demotic origin utilizl.-d
in COplic; and, linally, the grnphcOlcs uf demotic
origin (whedu'r ecnain 01' possible), utiJi7.ed only in
Old Coptic, nOl in Coptic (Ihe Coptic protodiak-ct P,
1H)"'ever, here rejoining the Old Coptic group).
In the enumeration of each of these signs below,
the.re is first indicated, so far :IS possihle, lhe pn.-cisc
demotic sign from which it derives or may be pre-
5Untt.-d to have derived; for these referencl.'S to the
dcmotic grophemcs, the work cited will in ench case
he implicitly du BUUl'Kuet (1976, p. 75), where the
"usual" gmphic fonns arc presented on the left :llld
their "variants" on lhe !'ight. Thercartel', Ihe name of
lhe (Old) Coptic gmphemc will be given: the name
lraditionally known in lhe case of the lellers 01, <t, tJ,
t, X. 6, .,. used in Coptic and a name unknown and
to be created in thc ease of the other lellers. The
lattcr has becn done, where possiblc. in relation 10
the g...<\phic fonn (....-hich is ccnain because it can be
ob,o;en;ed) rather than to the phonological value
(somelimes very uncertain and ahove all very varia·
ble from one Old Coptic text to another).
I. K Icl could strictly speaking be Ihe same gmph.
eme as K Ikl (of Gn.:c:k origin}, Ikl and leI being
phonologically close to one another and hcnce Iia·
ble to be confused; but if that was not the case, the
demotic original of II. leI (not IkfJ could be the fjn;t
variant of lhe sign fol' g. Name assigncll: kuppaoid
gimll (easlet' to pronounec than the 11101'C exact
"kllppaoid k(y)ima").
2. y 1tJ,1 (ot' Ihf!), always at the beginning of a
won!, is nOI very likely to be the saine grapheme as
Y Iyl (of Grcc:k origin). and this even if one must
recom that (with vel)' rare exceptions in F and M) in
Coplie y alone (hcnce not preceded by l., 6, or II
and not in any case oy) can only be found in a
Copco-Greek word and that at the beginning of a
word lhc Greek 11 always has the rough breathing,
equivalent (the most normal spelling in Sahidie.
etc.) to 'lY" in Coptic. This y could thus be II distor·
44 ALPHABETS. OLD COPTIC
lion of the Gn:ck epigraphic roo&h bn:athing ~.
placed above the y and finally confused with it; but
this y It).l could better still have a demotic origin:
see lhe third of the variant~ of the sign for ~. Name
a.~signed: Y-slwped grapheme.
3. x Ixl could strictly be tile !lamc gmphcme as x
Ikil/. cor'l'csponding to some local Greek pronuncia·
tion; if nol. lhere is some chance that il issued frotn
the fourth 'l3riant of the demotic sign for h. Name
assigned: chiQid ~Qi or chioid kluli.
4. x ItI is phonologically 50 remote from x Ikhl
(of Greek origin) that their confusion appears very
unlikely (e\'rn if one ven!lln,:s to ~uppose a local
Greek pronunci:J1ion in which [k] > [11 and [h) >
(~], hence (khl > [t~l > It]); it is more reasonable to
make this x I~I derive from the (!cmolic .~ign fnr ~,
fit'j;l variant (slightly inclined to the len). Namc liS'
signed: chioid ja"ja.
5. l,. Ihl will t:videndy be inter'Preh:d first of all a.~
a variant (in trulh not ran:) of the Greek epigraphic
rough breathing (the more 50 sincc in Old Copt.ic
one finds l,. not only as a leiter placed between the
other graphcometi of its line but also as an "accent"
placed above graphemes in its line, as the rough
breathing would be placed). One cannot, however.
exclude a demotic origin for this sign also: see the
grapheme for h, firth or seventh variant (with the
final "hook" cut 011). Name assigned: '.·shl/pe,1
#fIlpheme.
6. CO IV der'ives from the demotic sign fur s, third
usual form (see also the fifth and eighth vadants).
Traditional name: shui.
7. C, 1<;1 evklendy derives from the same sign as It.
but completed by a diacritical clement. Name as·
signed: CTO~d PlIli.
8. .. (Coptic graphic fOml) IfI deri\"C!i from the
demotic sign for (, first 'l3riaOl (which is however
clearly inclined toward the right, as is 'I in it<; graph·
Ie form in Old Coptic; see above). Traditional nllme:
fai; in Old Coptic it could also, if prefen-ed, be coiled
inclined flli.
9. ~ Ixl derivcs from the demotic sign for II, lil'Sl
usual form. Traditional name: ~IQi 01· kJl(~i.
10. ~ 1111 derives bum the demotic sign for h,
usual fonn (but not without some graphic cvolu·
tion). Traditional name: hon.
11 .• /xl clearly derivcs from the same sign as ~
but is completcd by a diacritical clement. Name:
assigned: btlrTt!d hori.
12. .x leI deriVCll from the demotic !;ign for !f., the
lil'!lt of the usual fo.nns or the lasl of the vari::lnts
(but in both with .<;ome graphic evolution). Tl'I\dition·
al name: ;anil/.
13. 6 (Coptic graphic foml) leI derives from the
demotic sign for k. the lil'St of the usual fomlS
(which has, however, a very !;mall loop lind stretehcs
its upper antenna at lenglh to the right, as is the
case also with 6 in Old Coptic; see lIbovc). It is
prohahle lhat lhis forrH of the Old Coptic 6 should
not lead one to confuse II with the graphically VCI)'
,;imilar one thllt Par. I eventually uscs for lehl rath·
er than for Icl (see no. 30). Traditional nnme: gima:
in Old Coptic ooe may also call it, if pn:ferred,
$lrO!,,:h~d gimQ.
14. 6 /thl (only in 8, etc.) cOtJld be deri\'ed IlOI
from the demotic sign for k (see above with refer-
ence to 6 Ie/), but from the demotic sign for d, the:
last of the ","unts, which n:sembl(:s a bulging a
with the rounded pat' beluw and the twO "horns"
above (suppression of the Icft horn would ill fact
pt'Oduce.- kind of 6). Namc assigned: IIsp/raled j6lJja.
15. t llil is gener-illy considered as derived from
the delllOtic sign for I, the sewnd or eighth of the
variants (with cunsidcr.lblc graphic cvolution). It
will. how..-ver, be n:rnarlu..-d that Ihis Coptic lettcr
has uaclly the fonn of the 'r in latin epigraphy. a
compendium for Ilil, more ran:ly for lill (cf. Kassel'.
1984-1985); a strong gr.lphic innuenee from the ut-
in compendium on the demotic sign, str"olngcly abo
scnt from Old Coptic but adopted in Coptic, seems
to be lhe least one can admit. Tmditional name: Ii.
16. t Ipsl is lhe customal)' forl11 of the gmphcme
psi in the Greek manuscripts cuntemporal), with the
oldest Coptic manuscript~: all the same. af'ler the
adoption of t ltil (a non-Greek grapheme) in Cop-
tic, h was necessary to modify the fonn of the psi, t
> t, to avoid confusion with t Iti;' (1lee Coptic
tellts that still ....The t Ipsl, all very ancient. are
ran:.) Name assigned: lioid psi.
17. .1 1'1 derives from the demutic sign for i. the
third of the usual fonns, perhaps also innucnced hy
the demotic sign for' 3, lhe lil1lt of the usual forms or
the lil'!lt of the variants. Name assigned: reversed
tall·shaped Clfeplt.
18. ~ Ikl derives from the demotic sign fur ~, the
second of the usual for·ms. Name assigned: Uloid
kappa.
19. _/nl derives from the demotic lign for n. the
•
first of the usual fonn~. Name assigned: hyph~n.
.shaped nil.
20. 3. the equivalent in Old Coptic most often for
lsI. but also sometimes fur Ihl or 11.1/. has particu·
larly variable graphic forms (St..'<: above) and derives
from the demolic liign for ~. the second usual fann
(sec :1150 the thh1eenth lind the twenty·si~th variants
fOt' ~). Name assigned: J-shaped grapheme.

21. co. the cqUl\'alent in Old Coptic most oftcn for
IfO/. but also sometimL"S for 11>/. derives from the
demotic sign for h, the Iirst usual form. Name as-
signed: 6·spiroled grap/If!nre.
22. " the equivalent in Old Coptic (Hor.) of Ihl or
(DMP and less dearly)/x/. but systematically equiva·
Itnt to ItI in pruto-Coptic P (an inversion of the (;
presented just above?). deriv('S from the demotic
sign for h, the l.I.SuaI foml (?) or lim. third. or sixth
variant (strungly developed on the grnphic le\'el). or
eventually also from the demotic sign for h. tenth
vanant (?). Name assigned: 9-spirtllet/ grapheme.
23. / 151 pmbably aJi'iO derivL"S frum liome valiant
of a demotic sign. bUl which? FOI' phonological rea'
sons, one cannot compare it with the sign for r,
second usual form, or lhe silln for f. third variant, 01'
the sign for t, second usul'll forlll, or even the sign
fur (I. fourth variant. Name assigned: fmc/iou·stroke·
shaped grapheme.
24. I 1r;1 (? in Mich.) does indeed seem to derive
from the demotic sign for '!' ilCcond usual fonn.
Name 3.....~igned: Slre/ched·capil(J/,~·igllrfl·sJr(Jped graph.
eme.
25. ", the equivalent in Old Coplic of Ihl ($chm.
and Ox.). or again pel....aps 11.11 (I)MP). has panicu·
tarly \'ariable graphic fonm: it may be almost verti·
cal (Ox.) or more or Ics.s sloping ($chm.); its loop
may be closed (Ox.) or less angular and largely
open, in the manner of a demotic h (Schm.• see
further on). ,. derives from the demotic sign for h,
the usual form or the fil'$l of the variant!; (with,
probably, a £airly ck-<Ir influence from the sign for
~. the second llsual form; see also the Iifth. sixth,
and seventh variant!;. and again, phonologically in·
compatible. lhe sixth of the variants of the demotic
sign for w). Name as.~igned: P·shape-d ~rupl,,:me.
though one might specify in Ox. tIJrce-comer p.
shaped grapheme, in Schm. Irrciilled-op,m.P.shaped
grapheme, or in a different W'".!y demotic·h-shaped
grapheme.
26, 1 /1.11 derives fl'om the demotic sign for ~I, the
lhird of lhe usual fOlms (and fifth ami sixth vlll·iants).
Name assigned: h()()k·shllped f:rtll,ireme.
27. ~ leI derives f!"Om the demotic sign for fi, a
compromi.'iC (clearly evulved) hctweell the first usual
form and the last \'ari'-llll. Name 3..~~igned: mimfScule'
alpho'5/rapcd grapheme.
28..... leI delives from the dcmotic sign for !!.
second usual form (gr.lphically evolved). Name as·
signed reversed-pi-shaped grapheme.
29. &.. 11'1 perhaps deri\'l:s from the demotic sign
for ~. thc first or second variant (graphically
evolved); it is difficult to see it.~ origin in one or
'AYIN 45
othel' of the varianlS of the ,ign for g. Name as-
signed: divided-lriQtlg/IHhaped grapheme.
30, The grapheme of Mich. for leI (?) and that or
Par. I for Ichl (7) (sec no. 13 and KaMer. 1980,
p. 269) arc Uecidedly too doubtful to merit being
studied here and named, given pn'5Cnt knowk-dgc.
BI.BLIOGRAI'HY
Bourguct. P. duo Grummaire fO'lc/ilJllllelfe 111 progres-
sive de I'tgyplien deff/otiqlle. Lollr.!in, 1976.
K3..'I.."Cr, R. "Pmlegomenes ;i un essai de c1aS3iilica·
tinn s~ltlllllatique deo; dialectes et subdialcctes
coptes scion lcs principes de la phoneiiquc, II,
Alphabets et systcmcs phon~tiques:' Museoll 93
(1980):237 -97.
--:--:. "(,si cn ti et Ii pointe dans Ie P. Siling. I de
Hamboul·ll." Oulltt/i'l de la Soc/be d'cgyplologic,
Gcuil1'e 9- I0 (1984-1985): 135-40.
ROOO!.PHE KAssER
'A YIN, 'Ayin (- ') is the voiced laryngeal fricative
(Vergote. 1945, pp. 10, 72-76, 79-80), the Ar<lbic t .
It belongs to the phonological invcntCKY of ancient
and also later Egyptian, perhaps even as fur 3..<; the
beginnings of demotic (cr. VergOle, 1945, pp. 122-
23. and 1973, pp. 31-32; du BourguCl, 1976, pp.
3-4. 75). However, it probably does not belong any
longer to the phonological im'entory or Coptic or
even Pre-coptic, not even as tI CItYPTOI'lfONEME, in
eontr,lSt to "I£PII. (~Ience. this discusston will ~t
aside the hypothesi... of th~ who have been tempted
to see. or have actually thought to ~, II phonemic
survival or . in the second elemen! of the graphic
vocalic gcmination [SL'C GEMIN"TlON. VOC"lJCl typical
of certain lexemcs belonging to S etc.)
Uke the lost J or the o..'Vived 1'1 (d. AlJ-:I'II), 'ayin
nonetheless plays an important I'ole in Coptic pho-
nology; iu pn:scnce, althoub>h anterior to Coptic, has
not only inl1uenccd the vocalization of conternpo'
rdry Egyptian but has also often left it... mark in thc
VOCali1.alion of certain Coptic dialects and subdia·
IccL~. On the other hand, it will be noted that in
numel'OUs cases ' it.self has not ('ntirely disappeared
but ha... survivt'd in .some way. being u.....nsfOI11H:d
into 1'/. this phonological aleph (in tachy.
5yllabication) normally appearing in orthography (as
a phenomenon of bradysyllabicatton) through the
graphic doubling of the phonologic tonic vowel pre:-
ceding lhis 1'/ ("echo clfcct'1, exctp( in the final
position (see below and SYllABICATION).
Thus, accortling to Vergote (1973. pp. 30-33):
46 'AYIN
(I) At the beginning of the tonic syllable. both at
the tx:ginning and within the ....,orc!. • has disap-
peared In Coptic without lea\'ing tmccs (e.g.. 'Imall
• •
16nhl mIfF. life: noD"db > IWOpI oyon, be pun:) or,
jusl as in the other positions (sec below). the' (after
Ihe general disappcal'llilce of J) has taken the value
of the lal)'ngeal occlusive /'1, which is rende:n"d by
the lirst element (unslressed but Ihe mosl"voiced) of
a hiatus in the archalzing form of wr'iling nItl 'J >
languages or DIALECTS etc. S elc, Inpma61 rF!"H),O, D
/rama6/ P),H),O, M Irrpm~/ fMHO)" F5 /bmaa/
)'6tfl))" rich.
(2) At Ihe beginning and end of Ihe unstrcs,<;ed
pretonic syllabic and in the stressed final syllOlblc. '
has generally disappeared. though leaving traces in
the vocalization ("anteriori1.ation" of the stressed
vowel. Of' articulation of vowels mOf'C and more for·
ward, /01 > /a! and 111/ > le/./o/ being less fo,ward
than /a!, and /al even less than Ie/); thus atonic ),;
5, B tonic ), instC".Jd of 0; F tonic 6 instead of .a., as in
'aua/!(1!a} > lanas/ .a.11I..... elc.• oath; }'a'~iJJ/'I' >
Ija·t6't. I m.a. TOOT~. etc.• wa.~h the Imnds. At thc
end of monosyllabic WQrds the' > /'/ is sometimes
preserved in SOllle way (lachysyllabically) in A and F
and lhere rendered (oI1hogmphlcttlly) by the 1leeond
elemenl (unslressed and the less"voiced) of a hiatus
(where it Illays Ihe role of tl "simiJiglide": d. Kassel',
1981b, 1', 35). while in 8 Ihis essenlially vocnlic
linkage has becollle a veritable diphthong (ils Sl'C-
ond clement being Ihe glide Ij/). as in bo' > 00' > S
MI Uo, A, L /00:4 u.s, 8 {bajl UoI, F jbCjf 1.6(6)1,
palm (cf. AlE'tt, end of nrticle); but nOle, on the
other hand, dab.]' > S. A, L /Iba/ TL\. B IthOO1 QU,
F Itbel T&(I,len thousand.
(3) At Ihe tx-ginning of the unstressed syllabic ht....
fore a consonant and in the unslressed final syllable
of a WQrd, • has been preserved (in some ","<ly) in
Coptic in the fonn of rI, ellcept in M. W, V4, F4, JJ
•
(and its subdialee\.~), and G, as in ~(I'fld > /f.6't/ 5 cntil"Cly assimilnted to this consonant; !lOmetimcs •
OIQIIIIT, IJ lQlIlT, to Cll!. When ' wa~ the third radical,
there wa~ inversion (excepl in sOll1e particularly al"
chaic idiums; see below), but the' > /'I did not
modify lhe "timbre" of the vowel, as in "111.1"11 > S
•
/mc'b/ • HIIq/, crowd. Here, however,
H1111q108, 8 ImB/
the archaic orthography will be nOled (unstressed
finals in .), inslead of the IISllal ·6 or ·1, ....1th at Ihe
snme time gcnernJly no graphic vocalic gemination),
which allrncts allention in some idiol115: the PROTO.
DlAUCT P (in its mOSl ancient form, phonologically
very often 5imilar to a reconstrucled .ppS, cr, DlAu:.cT
p) and the pelipheral.and oflen nrchnic sulxlialect
1-7; they an: survivals from a stage in which the
metathesis had nOi yet taken place and' has retained
its value, preservIng the /al that deriVe! from old u
and u (which shows the lale date of Ihe change in
question). FS and VS for their part present at once
the gl."mination caused by • > 1'/ and the peculiar
alonic final vocalization (,6 instCo1d of Ihe usual -I)
rcsuhing fTOm the still active innuence of', Finally,
F4, V4, and W appear in a manner analogou.~ to P
and n, with, however, in this case, as in VS :\lId F5.
.
an atonic tinnl vowel in ·0 instead of the usual '1, as
,
in "111.1"/1 > I' (and F7) /lllCMa/ NIII\I.a., W, F4 /me~:l/
NI1I\I6, FS /lll~'~/ HllltlllE (5, B see above), crowd:
. • • •
d,lb'u > P /tf:ba/ "IIU" FS /t~'~/ TlllIBO, d. S /Ie'oo/
-TllltW, 0 /t~1 Till. finger (d. Kas.<;er. 1981a. 94-95).
In the cases of 1'/ < ' al the end of a tonic syllnhlc
befon: a consonant, 5 presents an .a. im;lt·..d of 0; on
the other hand, it has a tonic 0 before the 1'/ de·
rivro from other consonants, as in tJ!.f.f. > /to'lfl
TOOT" 'I, hili hnnd. This prov¢s Ihat at the lime of
the general change al first in B. later In S, from /al
10 10/ belwC1:n Ihe seventh and the sixlh centuries
A.D.• " had preserved its value as n voiced larynge-.d
fricative and hnd not yet become the unvoiced lal)'n.
geal occlusive /'/ ctilled ALE'H (Vel''SOie. 1973, PI'.
31-32). On the olher hand, the p,'csenee of the tonic
), in IJ, dc.~pile the disappearance or /'I < " shows
lhat the laller phoneme is still later (e.g., wa'bu S
/w:'t'b/ Oy.u.B'. 8 /wab/ oyn', holy), When the'
precedes ~, Santi B and even A and L present an 0;
it must be concluded thai by differcntintion ("dis·
similation") between the two laryngt:al mcations,
Ihe voiced and the unvoiced, ' had alrendy become
1'1 before the general change of /a! to 10/ had come
about (e,g" yQ'~lIf > 5, A /o'hl oat, B (phI lOt,
moon). The • that ends the atonic final syllable of a
word has undergone a melalh¢sis. wilhoul, however,
modifying thc quantity of the tonk: syllable. which
then..-by becnme dosed; when Ihe sl'Cond radical was
~, either' disappeared or (after mctftlhcsis) it was
was changed into 1.1 > ~: e.g. pOm/ > S /pO'nn/ •
ntOOlN6, IJ /phOnh/ twN2 (d. FS /r6'nal [nwm]tm), to
ehnnge; '1lI.Ia' > S /Oha/ CU2€!, B etc, /ohij O:!t, etc.,
.
stand, stay: dUIIl/l' > S /cO'm-:1/ .xCDCDHO (FS • S). B
-
Icom/ XCDH. hook (Vergote. 1973, pp. 30-33).
8tBUOGRAPlIY
Bourguet. P. duo Grilmmaire fO'lc/iarmelle et progres-
sive de rlgyptien dimotiqlle. Louvain, 1976.
Kasser. R. "Proll:gomlmcs a un essai de c1assifica·
lion des dinlcctcs et subdialectcs copies scion les
crileres de la pholltliquc. tIl, S)'$l.~IIIC5 orthogra-
phiques et categories dialectale!." Mllsiol/ 94
(198Ia):87 -148,

_ _ , "Voydles en fonclion consonanliquc, con-
SQnlll'S en fonction vocatique, el classes de
phoncffiL'S en cOplC," BlIlIelill de /n Socie/e
d'egyplologie. Gel/ell/, 5 (198Ib):33-SO.
• _.,--' "Manus Cll.'l1nc el 101 Ih~ d'une relation
phonologiquc privill:gicc entre Ics !llngues cOpIes
saIdique ('I bohaTriquc," JOllmal of Coptic Smdies I
(1990):73-77.
Satzingcr, H. "On the Origin of the Sahidic l>ialecl."
In AclS of fill! &COIIJ III/emll/ional collgress of Cop-
lie SllIdits, Romo 22-26 Sep/ember 1980, cd. T.
Orlnndi and F. Wi!i,';C. pp. 307-12. Rome. 1985.
"On the Prehistory of the Coptic Diale<:IS."
In Coptic Studies, AC/$ of ,lie Third /II/emu/julia'
Congrt.5S 01 CIJpli,' Slm/res, Warsa .... 20-25 AI/gust,
1984, 00. W. Godlewski. pp. 413-16. Wars:l.w.
1990.
Stem, I... KQPlische Grllmmatik. L-ipzig. 1880.
Till, W. C.......lll'S 'Aleph und 'Ajill im Koptischcn."
Wjeu~r Zci/st:hrifl fiir die KlInde des Morgeulrmdes
36 (1929):186-96.
-:::c~ Kop/ische Grallllllalik (5Qi"diKh~r Vit>lekt), mil
Bibliographi~,Leusllieken WId Worterwruichlli5~".
Leipzig, 1955.
V~rgoll:, J. Pllfmitique Iri$/orique de r~'Plietl, les
COII,SOfllll:S. LoU\'ain, 1945.
-cc- Grammaire cople, Vol. Ib, lulrolil/Clio", phO'
IIbiqm: el pllQlloIogie, morphologic :i)'/ll/limalique
(s/me/llre de,S si!lIlltllemcsJ, partie diacllrolliqlle.
loumin, 1973.
ROOOU'HE KAssa
BASHMURIC, TIle history of the Bashmuric dia·
!t'e! is in large mca.'iUre that of a "phantom dialccl."
Coptic Egypt had many Illore dialL'Cts than modern
sdence ha~ heen able to identify from the texl~ dis·
covered: but sollle of these never reached the liter·
ary stage. Others did (perhaps poorly enough), hut
none of their witnesses has been found as yet.
Hence, they ;ll~ as good a.~ completely lost. Such
might have been the fate uf 13ashmuric if it had not
been saved from ublivion by a Coptic gnmmmrian of
the fuuneenth century (Garitte, (972). Ath:.masius of
Qi'I~. who wr'Ote in ArJbic as follows (d. &:ala copte
44 in the Natiun:\1 Ubrrtry, I'ads, p. 154, left culumn,
II. 14-22, tl'l'lns. W. Vycichl: d. K:.ISSer, 1975, p.
403):
... 00nti you know that the Coptic language is
distributed over three regions, among thcm the
Coptic of Mi~r which is the S.,hidic, the Bohairic
Coptic known by Ihe BbJ.laira, and Ihe e.,shmUl·ic
Coptic ust.-d in Ihe countl)' of &shmllr, as you
know: now the Bohairic Coptic and the Sahidic
13ASHMUR1C 47
coplic are (alone ~ti1l) used. and they are in origin
a sirlgle language.
The firsl scholars whu in Ihe seventeenth century
SCI themselves to Ihe serious study of Coptic had OIt
their disposal only an extremely limil(~d docUlllenla-
lion-above all, Bohairie lexIS, some Sahidic. and
Fayyumic texts in even smaller number. Hence, they
had befol'e their eye.~ thn:e Coptic idioms or "dia-
lects," and they knew the lext of Athanasius of Oli!!.
who also spoke of three: Coptic "dialects" and indi-
cated their names and their location. These CoplOlO'
gists thus sought 10 give to the "diak-els" they knew
the names mentioned by Ihe bishop of ou.,.
For Sahidic and 9ohalric, the iderllificalion wa..~
made without dilficully. The Sahidic and the 9ohai·
ric of Alhanasius having been identified. there reo
mained, on the one hand, the Fayyumic documents
and, on Ihe other, the menllon of the "Bashmuric"
dialect. How could they not yield to the lemptation
to confuse them-the lJ}Ol'e so since one Ihen rccov-
en.-d the tripartite scheme dear to the Egyptologists,
with the three chief regions mal'ked by Egyptian
history, Uppel', Middle, and Lower Eto'pI?
In Tallam's grammar (1830) one sees thai the texis
of the third dialt.'CI, which could not be assimilaloo
to Ihose of the first (Bohairic "Coplic") or Ihe sec·
olld ("Sahidic"), are perforce lhose of "Ba..~hmuric."
Georgi (1789) affll'llled Ihat the region of Bashmur,
of which Ihe learned founecnth-ccntury grammarian
spoke. is not the ol1e in the eastern l>ella but anoth-
cr Bal;hmur, deriving fmm Ihe Coptic I1Cl.MII{', len;-
tol'y "beyond the river," or the Egyptian o.'lSCS of the
We~tem Desert. including the Fayyliffi (d, QUiI'
trem~I'C, 1808, pp. 147-228, for whom Fayyumic
could not be the famous "Ba..~hmuric" of the bishop
of Qii~: hence, Qutllremcrc gOlve to Fayyumic the
nilme Oa.~ilie). Clmmpollion (1811, 1817) look up
this ternlinology without contesting it: likewise
I'eyron (1835, 1841), Sehw1ll1~e (1850), :md othel'S,
I~ter ~till. at the time when the first Akhmimie texts
appeared, 13ouri(lnl (1884-1889). by tI vel)' cur'ious
r'ClISOning, Identified Ihem with Fayyumie and hence
wiln Bashmuric, tllthough recognl~ing vel)' well the
Jialeettll difference~ that rendel'Cd them fundamen·
tally dis.~imilar (Kassel', 1975, p. 405).
Maspero (lll99) was, it ~eems, the l:lst OIuthor who
caned one F text Bashmuric, withOUl explaining why
he 1ll00intained such an opinion, although it had long
been contested and become oUlmoded. In fact.
some (wenty years carlier, Slern (1880, p. 12. n. I),
following (hIOllreml:I'e (1808), had alrcady categori·
cally rejected Ihi5 tenninol<>gy. "It wa.~ not out of
 48 BODMER PAPYRI
desire for novelty that I abandoned the usual desig.
nation for Ihe di.,lel.:ts, once Bashmuric was no long-
er tenable." ShOltly afler', all Coptologists followed
him, and since there was in fuCI no Iruly Bashmuric
•
document, people ceased to speak of this dialect, 10
which only the mention made of il by Athanil.~ius or
QO$ could h:we dr.lwn the attention or schol:u's; they
oecame almOSI completely unintcrcsted in il, ir Ihey
did not J'Cach the poinl of denying ils existence as an
authenlic Coplic dialect. Thus, Steindorlr (195 I. p. 5)
wrote: "According 10 Eulychius., . {he Bushmuric·
speaking population Wil.~ in origin Greek, not Egyp·
tian; perh:lps Bushmurie was a Greco·Egypti:ln gib-
berish and not a Coptic dialect at all," W. Cmm,
however, wondered if the medieval grammarian's
famous "Bil.~hmuric" was nOI the l:mguage (written,
in principle, by means of an exclusively Greek alpha.
bet, without graphemes of demotic origin) of which
he published the pdodpal te.~IS in 1939. That is no
doubl a hypothesis in whose favor several weighly
and important argumenls speak (d. DIALECT G;
Kasser', 1975).
BIBLIOGRAI'IIY
Bouril'lnl, U. "Les Papyrus d'Akhmim (fragments de
IIItHlUscrits en dialectes bachmourique et
Ihebain)," M(jmoire.~ de /1' Missioll archiiologiqlle
lraw;aisc all Cairt: I (111114-1889):243-304.
Champollion, J. F. "Observations SUI' Ie clltalogue
des manusclits coptes du Musee Borgia :) Velletl'i,
ouvmge posthumc de G. Zoega." MagasbJ clleyc/o·
pcdiqlw 5 (1811):284-317.
_-;:~. "Observl'llions sur les fmgmenlS copies (en
din1cctc ba\:hmourique) de l'Ancien et du NOll'
venu Tesltlment iI Copen hague." Annales ellcyc/o-
pMiqul!:> (1817):284-317.
Crum, W. E. "Coptic Documents in Greek Script."
Procccdillgs 01 fhe Brilish Academy 25 (1939):249-
271.
Gmille, G. Review of G. Bauer, AthOlru~ius VOII Q{IS
OilOrlal al-Ial,lrfr {rUm at-lIllsfr, eil1t: kuplische Gram-
matik ill arabischl.'r Sprm:he ails dcm 13/14. Jllhr·
}umdcrl. Muston 85 (1972):561-63.
Giol'gi, A. A. FrllgmefJIwtl Evall~c/ii S. Johannis
Grut:cu-Cuplu-Thchai"cwn. Rome, 1789.
Kassel', R. "Dialel:tcs, sous·dialecles et 'dialccticules'
dnns l'Egyptc eopte." It:il~chrill liir iigyplisdre
Sprache Imd Altcrtumskunclt: 92 (1966): 106-11 5.
"L'ldiome de Bnehmour." Bullc/ill (Ie
I'i/wi/Ilt Irallfais d'archau/ogil.' Oriclliale 75
( 1975):401-427.
Maspero, G. "Fragment de l'cvangile selon S.
Matthieu en dialectc bachmoUJique." Ra'lIcil de
/raV<lI/X rellllils ii la phi/ologic ct il I'lIrcJu!ologie
f:gyplicnllcs II (1899): 116.
I'eyl'on, V. A. Lexicun Li~lglUU~ Copficac. Turin, 1835.
Grallllllalica Linguac Coplicut:, Arcer/wII
Acir/iial/lcllla ad Lcxicon Copticum. Turin, 1841.
Quatrcmcre, E. M. RecJwrdle~ uitique~' sllr la langllc
I.!/ la lil!f:ra/we dt: I'Egyple. Paris, 1808.
Scbwllrtle. M. G. Kopti.~chc Gramma/ik ... , ht:l"(lII~'
gegcben nach des Vcr/assas "l'odt: vIm Dr. H. Sieill'
Ihal. Bcrlin, 1850.
Steindodl", G. LelrrbHch der koplische'l Grmwwuik.
Chicago, 1951.
Stel"O, L KOfltische Grmwnrl/ik. Leipzig, 1880.
Tattam, H. A CumpemJiutl~ Gram/IJar allhe li~'plilm
/.mlgu0f:e a~' Conllli'led in /hc Captic mId Sahidic
/Ji(Jle<:/s, wilh Ob5crvaliolJ.~ ou the 13uslmlUric To·
gelher wilh Alphahc/s and Nwnt:m/s in Ihe /-ficro.
glyphic and Ellchorial CJwra,'lers, wilh air Appcndix
Cmuistillg olrhc Rlulimenls 01 a Diclionary oltlrlt
Ancienl Egyplilm Language in Ihc Enchuri(Jl Clwrac·
lers by ThomaJ Young. London, 1830.
RonOlJ'lIE KASSER
BODMER PAPYRI. The term "Bodmer P<lpyri"
is the conventional designation of an impOltant
group 01" manuscripts (75 percent on papynJs und 25
percent on parchment. lit least 950 folios) held by
Ille Martin Bodmer Foundation, at Culugny, ncar
Geneva. There are good reasuns for tbinking that
these manuseript~ were found logether as a com·
plele collection (pcrhap.~ a plivate libr~uy) in Upper
Egypt; the greal majority uf them (81 percent) was
acquired by the lea1lled Swiss collector Martin
Bodmer, for his libr.uy. The percentages mentioned,
like those below, are calculated, except in special
instances, on the basis of folios the exislCnce and
location of which are known today. (Other folios
lllay very likely bave perished during the centuries
or when Iheir discovery took place.) The Bochner
collection, origin:llly known ;IS the Bibliothcca
Bodmeriana, became, il.~ of 1971, the Fondation
Martin Bodmer. It is by no mcans limited to
papyrology, and even in thl'lt lield it has seveml man-
uscripts (on papyrus, such a.~ P. Bodmer I, XVll,
XXVIII, XLIII, and XLVII, or on parchment, such
as P. Bodmer XXXIX, XLII, and XLIV) c1el'lrly dis·
tinct in origin from the Bodmer papyri pmpcr. In·
formation un this subjcct Wil.~ collecled from reliable
informers at precisely the same time as these docu-
ments came to the Bodmer Foundalion, that is,
probably shortly after their discovcl)' in the Egyplian
sands.
All the Bodmer papyri al'C more or less complete
codices (nineteen in all, according to an estimate

confined only 10 reliable infonnation). and thl-"SC arc
works of vel)' VlU;<.::J si7.e~ and contents. They in-
clude, in Grc\lk (39 percell!), SOllle pagan litcmry
texIs, some booh of the Bible. some Apocrypha. and
Other documents From Christian Iitcnuur(: (hagiogra-
phy, lilullO'. religiou.'i poems. eIC.); in Coptic (58
• pcn:enl), primarily biblical texts, an apocryphon.
and two fragments of Christian literature; and, in
~Iin (3 percent), two pilgan literary texts and (l
fragment of Christian Iilerolurc. Hcrc, of l,;O\n"Se, ac-
count is wkcn only of published texts and of some
unpublished ones regarding which at Icast a mini·
mum of inOispcln5.'lble infonnation is available (such
is nOI the ca.«: fOl' the unpublished remainder a.. rc·
LG • the Latin-Greek codex of Barcelona; d. be-
low).
lh.:re are !lOme n-asoos for thinking thai the
Bodmer papyri were discovCR'd .some yenl's after Ihe
end of Wol'ld War II, in Upper Egypl, either ncar
AsyU! or, more probably, in Debha, a few miles to
lhe northe;\S1 of Nag Hammadi (d. Kassel', 1988),
lhus in lhe $<line geneml region as lhe well-known
Coptic NAG lIAMMMIl UIlRAR,V of Gnoslie manu.<;cnpu,
the remains of a library of thirteen papyNs codices
of the fourth and firth centuries, containing fifly.two
distinct texIs and amounting approxinuttely to six
hundred wrinen folios fairly clearly identified as
such. Although the place and time of lhese finds
were more or less the same, it is impm..~ible 10
group them logelher as one and the same diseoVClY;
while these lwO groups of m(muscl'ipIS, which (Ire
vel)' sizable, embmce, apUr1 from a 101 of more or
lw mUlilatt:d folios, a large number of tiny frag.
ments, nOi iii single shred belonging to Ihe Gnostic
library has bt."Cn found among the Bodmer papyri
and vice versa.
Thus, there are nineteen codices if one considers
only the reliable infonnatlon gathered by the
Bodmer Foundalion al the lime Ibe Boomer papyri
cnme In be included io the !ibmry. There arc some
scholars who, on lhe basis of much later research
(wrne thirty years after lhe presumed d.·lle of lhe
discovery of the Bodmer papyri), think llult they can
also include in the Bodmer papyri various other
famous manuscripts such 3..~ the P. Palau·Ribes from
Ball:elona (lhe Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John in
Sahidic Coptic, ediled by H. Qut:dl.e), and, above all,
Y.lriOUS Iclters of PACHOMIUS, one of which is pre-
served in the Bodmer Foundation bUl wilh nOlhing
til indieate llml il might bc part of the Bodmer papy·
rio Their sugg~tion iii th.l lhe actual librolry of lhe
famous Monastcry of Saint Pachomius al Faw al·
Qibll has be<:n rediscoven.-d. This hypothesis is eel'-
BODMER PAPYRI 49
tainly velY tempting. but the l'eliable infomlation
referred 10 above lends 10 weaken ralher than
slr'Cllg1hen il.
These nineteen codices arc IiSled in Table J. They
contain in all fifty·follr distinct texts and amounl 10
951 (?) pl'(:sclYCd folios of which something short of
100 arc seriously mUlila\t.'d, incomplele, and frag-
mentary (thl~ apart from a minimum of 213 folios
IOSI, if one ca.n InJi'it the dues-and th<.-)' are nOI
absolutely precise-Ihal Ihe texIS and theil' pagina-
tion provide). Of thcS(.' nineteen codices, four1een
arc slill wholly in the Bodmer Fuund;ltion; a fif-
teenlh (Divv-G) did until recently belong to Ihe
Bodmelimm in iL~ enlirely, bUl it was dismembered
when Martin Bodmer made a gift of one of his texIS
(P. Bodmer VUI, 18 folios) 10 thc Vatican Library;
two (Jer-C and Jos-e) are partly in the Bodmer
Founoo.tion and partly in anOlher library: and two
{Ball:-LG and Crosby.q arc entirdy OUlside Ihe
Bodmer Foundation; cleven of lhese codices arc
Coptic, seven arc Greek, and nnly une is Ultin and
Greek.
Following arc the signs and abbreviationli used in
the chart of codic~ and list of papyd contenL~:
A ., oldest wilness: (A) oldest witness in lhal Ian·
guage; (A') oldesl wilness in lhat Coptic idiom;
A. oldest witness for almost the entire tc",t; (A.)
oldest witness in lhal language for almost the
entire texl; elc.; A: oldesl wilness for a lar'ge part
of the tell.t; ete.
a - one of the oldei'it witnesses; ClC., 3..'1 for A,
mUlatis muumdis
AP.c - P. Bodmer XU (unpublished) (texl no. 38)
B - Boluliric Coptic language
874 and B4 = Dohairic (sub)dialt:cts (Ihe laUer
alit'Sled only by Jo-<: [imperfeclly] and [bellerj
by Ihe Pap. Vat. Copto 9, manuliCript of Ihe
Minor Prophets in the Vatican Library)
BtII"C·LG - Ultin-Greek eodell. of Barcelona (par-
lial puh!icalion: lCll.t~ nos. 5, 6, 53; llumDcr of
unpublished tex\.'1 (- 22(?) foliosJ still unknown)
BF - Martin Bodmer Foundalion
.c (at the end of Ihe siglum) - in Coptic
d. - classical veniion (in this or lhat Coptic lan-
guage or dialttt)
compo - composition
conupt - corrupl lell.tual fonn
Crosby·C - Croohy Codex (unpublished) (lex IS
nos. 12, 17, 32, 40, 42)
Ct·e - P. Bodmer XL (unpublished) (tcxt no. 16)
Div-G _ P. Bodmer XXVII, XLV, and XLVI (lell.1S
nos. 4, 23, 24)
SO BODMER PAPYRl

TAIll£ I. The Ni"e/eell Codicts ol/ht BDdlt/er Papyri

Siglulll here Mal. Formal Compo Age (cenlury) B.E Elsewherc [Lost) Sig.t.e.
Ap·C "h mi (7) (MA?]
" 2/3 w
V ',h MA(54 ?) (m; 2?)
Barc-LG
" 'II
III
'''' MA (59 ?) [Illi ?]
C"""y-C
c,e "
m 111·
w
w 5,h ml (8) (MA 71]
111- 3-41h
Div-G
" III
w
3-41h
ml (12)
MA (93) mi (fr.)
IMA]
[mi 2?) (Rahlfs 2113)
Diw-G
" w
{-I 8) (Mi +18) (P 72)
l>t·e I' III w 4>h MA (48)
F...~-C 2/3 w 4>h MA (80)
&·C "m III w 5(-6)lh MA (42)
Jcr-C m III w 4th MA (39) Mi (34) Lilli 2J
Jo-C I' 2/3 w "h MA (77) [mi 5]
Jo·G I' III w 2-3rd MA (100) mi (fr.) I' 66
Jos·C I' 2/3 w Sth MA (21) Mi (18) (Mi?24n]
l..uJo·G I' 112 V 3rd MA (48) lMi 17] "75
Mcn-G I' 112 V 3,d MA (26) Illi (fr.) [mi 6]
Mt·C m III w 4-51h Mi? (48) IMA? 70?]
"s·G 112 V 3-41h MA (49) IM135] Rahlfs 2110
Pv·C "m 'II w 3(-4)th MA (66) Lilli 3]
Vis·G I' 2/3 V 4-51h MA (22)

Divv·G '" P. Bodmer V (celt! no. 35). X (00. 36).
XI (no. 37). VII (no. 34), Xlii (no, 39). XII (no,
41). XX (no. 43), IX (no. 14), VIII (nos. 31. 33)
Ot-C '" p, I30lImcr XVlIl (tellt no. 9)
e1se.....here • ellist..~ in some 1ibr~ry or collection
olher Ihan Ihe Bodmer Foundalion
Es-C '" P. Bodmcl' XXIII (IClll no. 18)
I:.ll-C '" p, Bodmer XVI (Iell no. 8)
fr. • f~gmenl
·G (al the end of the siglu111) • ;n Greek
Jel'·C ,. 1'. Bodmcr' XXII ( - Mississippi COI)lic
Codex 11) (tcllL~ no,~, 19,20,21. 22)
Jo·C '" P, Bodmer 111 (IClIS nos. 7, 29)
Jo·G = P. Bodmer' II (texi 110. 27)
Jos·C • 1'. l.lodrner XXI (- Chcsler Beatly Libmry,
Accession no. (389) (lexlS nos. 10, II)
" - Lyco.Diospolitan COlllic dialect (or c1ullter of
dialects) (here of Iype LS)
·L (at end of siglum) - in Lalin
(lusl] '" mayellist in somc \lIIknown place, or no
longer CJl.isls (having been destl'Oyed)
LuJo-C ,. P. Bodmer XIV, XV (Iellts nos.. 26, 28)
m '" parchment (membrana)
MA "" major part of eodel (£ollowed by the nU111-
ber of the foliato. ir known)
Men·G'" P. Bodmer XXV. IV, XXVI (tellS nos, I,
2, J)
mat. - material
mi - very small part of the Codell (followed by the
number of folios, if known)
Mi • relatively small bul important pan of the
Codc:ll (followed by lhe number of rolios, if
known)
MI-C - P. Bodmer XlX (Ielts 1105. 25. 30)
N - completely new telt: (N) e0l11pletely new ICJl.t
hi that lal1guilge; (N') eomplelely new tellt in
thai Coplic idiom; N. new for almost the whole
lellt: (N.) new in Ihal language for alm01lt Ihe
whole tellt; elc.: N: new fOl' a large p:lrt of Ihe
lelll; clc,; N:, new for part of Ihe tell': ell,',
01'. - the original IlIngU;lgl.: of Ihl.: tl.:ll (the Greek
of the Sepluaginl, 'hough Imnslated from He·
bl'cw, is consil.krcd exceptionally here as ,he
"ol'lglnal language" bel.:llUSe very probably illl
the Coplic Old Testament vel'Sions were lronslat·
ed f!'Om one or olher LXX rext)
p - papyros
P • DIALF.CT r (phonologically quite ncar 10 whal
can be known about ·pS, n tenratively recon·
strocled proto-Sahidic: l"Cmarbbly archaic even
in its alphabet, whe~ 6 Is missing (replaced by
11,) and One finds Ihe following demotic or Old
Caplic letters: .l fl. 1. N. - /~/. ~ /r;/
pre-d. - preclassical version (in one Coplic dialect
or another; whal has remained of il is CJl.tremcly
rare, hence its exceptional Imeresl)

P...·G - P. I3<KImer XXIV (It'xt no. 13)
Pv·C - I'. Bodmer VI (tell:t no. IS)
S • Sahit.lic Coptic language
sig.l.c. - oUid,,1 siglulll in Greek blhllcal textual
erilidsm (of the Old Testament: Rl,hlfs ... ; of
the New TeSlament: P ... ; this is placed in pll'
rcnth~ wht'n unly one pal' of the cudex is
hihlical)
V - codex com,isling of a single quire
Vis-G _ Gn.--ck codell called (in the BorJmer Foun·
dation) Codex Visionulil (pllrtial publication: P.
Uodmer XXIX, text no. 44; unpublished al"(: P.
8OOnll:r XXX to XXXVIII, texLS nos. 45-54)
w - codell made up of several quires
1/1 - folio ltlmust 5Quure in shape (generally,
howcvllr, a little taller tlllln its width)
1/1· .. roughly 1/1, although in a form Icnding
IowaI'd 2/3
1/2 - folio of which thc width ;s almost hlilf the
height
2/3 - folio of which the width is almost two-thirds
of the height
[.•J - with variOl.l.5 gaps
An outlhlc of the fifty-four known tcxls of the
Bodmer papyri folluws:
I. Pagan Texts
1. Mcmmdel', Tire Samilm (nearly three quurters),
in Greek: P. Bodmer XXV in Men-G, lhlrd cell'
lIIry [or. N:J
2. Mcnander, 71It, Dys/wlos (- Kncllw/I Ihc Misntl-
/hropc), in Gn-'Ck: P. Bodmer IV in Mcn-G, third
crntury [or. N.J
J. Mcnandcr, nrc Slril1ld (-Aspis) (roughly half), in
Greek: P. Bodmer XXVI, in Men·G, third centu·
ry [01', N.)
4. Thucydidl'l;, His/ory ... 6.1.1-2.6, in Creek: P.
Bodrm:r XXVI] in Div·G, thlrd-foul,h centuries
[01'. A]
5. Cicero, III Cil/ilillam 1.6-9, 13-33, 2.1-29, in
!..utili: in Bare-Le, foul1h centuI)' [or. A]
6. I'oem on the subject of the sacrifice of Alces/is in
Latin: in Bare·Le, fourth centm)' [or. N]
II. Christian Texts
A. Bible
7, Genesis 1:1-4:2 in 874 (mixed wilh 84): in P.
Bodmer III : Jo'C, fourth century [(A') precl.]
8. Exodus 1:1-15:21 In 8:1'. Bodmer XVI - Ex·C,
lifth(-sl~th) century [(A:) el.]
9. Dcllleronomy 1:1-10:7 [. .] in S: P. Ilodmel'
XVIII - Dt·C, foul,h century, [(A:) d.]
BODMER.PAPYRJ 51
10. Joshua 1:1-11:23. followt.'t! immediately by 22: I·
24:3. in S: in P. Bodmer XXI - Chto'Ster Bl'3lly
... 1389, In Jos-C, fifth century [(A) eOITupt]
II. Tobil 14:13-15 (end) in S: in I'. Bodmer XXI -
CheSH'r St'Utly ... 1389, in J()~-C, fifth cenlul)'
[(A) comlpt J
12.2 Maccabl-cs 5:27-7:41 in $: In Crosby-C, foul,h
century I(N:) cl.]: unpublisht.'t!
13, Psalms 17:45-51:9[..]. 55:8-105:32 [..], 106:28-
118:44 [.. J in Greek: P. Bodmer XXIV - Ps-G,
third-fourth centuries (- Rahlfs 2110) {a] (two-
thirds of this tellt allest for the first time the type
of Gn:ck text from which the Sahidic ~'erslon of
the I300k of PlI:tlms is derived)
14. PS31ms 33:2-34: 16 in Greek: P. Bodmer IX in
Divv-G, lhird-fourth cenluries (.. Rahlfs 2113)
[:I] (s.'1mc typc of lext ".'I 110. 13 above)
15. Proverbs I: 1-2:9, 2:20-1 R: 1, 18:9-20:9, 20:25-
21:4, in P: I'. Bodmer VI - Pv-C, lhlrd(-foul,h)
century ((N') d. 5]
16. Song of SoIOlllon 1:4-3.1, 4:2-8:12, in S: P.
Bodmer XL - Ct-C, fifth century (a) (N:,) d.);
unpublisht.-d
17. Jonah, in S: in Crosby-C, fourth century [(a)
precl.]; unpublished
18. Isaiah 47:1-66:24 (end), in 5: P. Bodmer XXIII
- ['.s·C, rourth century [(A'.) d.]
19. Jeremiah 40:3-52:34 (end), In S: in P. Bodmer
XXll - Mississippi Cnptle Codell II - Jel~C,
fourth eenlUl)' [{A) (N'.) d.]
20. Baruch 1:1-5:5 in S: in I'. Bodmer XXII - Mis·
sissippi Coplle Codex II - Jc...C. foul1h cenlUry
[(A)(N'.) d.]
21. Lamentations, In S: in P. Bodmer XXII - Missis-
sippi Coptic Codex II - Jer·C. fourth century
[(A')(N':) d.]
22, Epislle of Jeremiah in S: in P. Bodmer XXII -
Mississippi Coptic Codes II - Jer-C. fuurth cen·
tUI)' [(A)(N'.) el.J
23. Susannall. In Creek (Thcodotion): P. Bodtllllr
XLV In Div-G, lhlrd-foul1h centuries [or. A (or
or. a)]
24. Daniel 1:1-20, in Greek (Theodotion): P.
Bodmer XLVI in Div-G, Ihird-fourth CelllUnC!'i
[or. A (or or. a»
25. Matthew 14:28-28:20 {end}. in S: in P. BorJmer
XIX = Mt·C, founh-fifth Cl:nturies [(A':.)(a':.)
d.]
26. Luke 3:18-22, 3:33-4:2, 4:34-5:10, 5:37-18:18
(..J, 22:4-24:53 (end), ;n Greek: r. Bodmer XIV
in LuJo-G, third (;entlll)' (- I' 75) [or. A:, 01'. n]
27. John 1:1-6: 11 [..].6:35-7:52, immediately fol-
lowed by 8:12-21:9 [.. J, in Greek: 1'. Bodl1H:r II
• Jo·G, second-third centuries (- P 65) [01'. A.]
52 BODMER PAPYRI
28, John I: 1-7:52. imlllediately followed by 8: 12-
13:9 [..], 14:8-15:8 (..], in Greek: r. Bodmer
•.
XV in LI,IJO'(;. third century (- P 75) [or. A:., or.
]
29. John 1:1-25 [.. j, 1:40-45 [. ,), 2:9-16 [..J, 3:33,
4:5-7:52 [. . J. immediately followed by 8:12-
21:25 (end), in 874 mixed with 84: in P. Bodmer
III - Ju-C. fourth century [(A:.) (N') pred.]
30. Romans 1:1-2:3 (.. J, in S; in P. Bodmer XIX "'"
Mt-C, fourth-fifth cenlulies [(A> c1.j
31. I Peu:r. in Cn:ck: in P. Bodmer VIII in Divv-G,
third-fourth CCnluries (-P 72.) {or. AI
32. I Peler, in S: in Crosby.c, fourth CCnlury [(All;
unpublished
]]. 2 Peter, in Greek: in P. Bodmer VIII in Divv-G,
third-fourth centuries (-P 72) [or. A]
34. Jude, in Greek: P. Bodmer VII in Divv.(i, third-
fourth centuries (-P 72) [Of'. A]
B. Apocrypha
]5. Nativity of Mary (or Protevangelium of James),
in Gn.-ek: P. Bodmer V in Divv-G, third-fourth
centuries [or. A]
36. Apocryphal COlTCSpondcncc of the Corinthians
and the Al'lostle Paul, in Greek: P. Bodmer X in
Divv-G, third-founh ccmuries [(or. N) or. AJ
31, Eleventh Ode of SoIOlllon, in Gn:ek: P. Bodmer
XI In Divv·G, third-fo1ll1h centuries ((or. N) or.
A)
]8, of Paul, Ephesus episode [.. J (, ,J, in U: P.
Act.~
Bodmer XU - AP·C, fourth century (N: (A:)];
unpuhlished
C. Other Christian L1teralure
]9, Melito of $.1rdis, Homily un E.,\sler, in Greek: P.
Bodmer XllJ in Divv-G, third-foul1h ccntUlics
(01". A, or or. a]
40, Melito of Sardis, Homily on Easter, in S: m
Crosby'C, fourth century [(N)]: unpublished
41. Liturgico.l hymn, In GI'Cek: P. Boomer XII in
Divv·G, third-foul1h centul'ies [or. N]
42. Liturg!ctll hymn, in S: io Cr'Osby·C, fourth centu·
IY (NJ: ullpublished
43. Apology of Phileo.s, bishop of Tmuis, in Greek: P.
IJodmer XX in Divv-G, third-fourth centuries
[or. (N)A)
44. Vision of Dorotheos, in Greek: P. Bodmer XXIX
in Vi$'G, fifth century (or. N]
45-52. Eighl religious pocms, in Greek, othelwise
unknown. with the following titles: (45)
Abratlnl (P. Bodmer XXX), (46) The Righ-
teous (P. Bodmer XXXI). (41) [ ... ] of the
Lord J(.'SUs (P. Bodmer XXXII), (48) The
Murder of Abel by Cain (I") (Po Bodmer
XXXlII), (49) The Lord to the ( ... ) (Po
Bodmer XXXIV), (SO) The Murder of Abel
by Cain (2°) (P. Bodmer XXXV), (51) Pocm
Wilh d.'ullaged lille (P. Bodmer XXXVI), (52)
Hymn (P. Bodmer XXXVII); all in Vis-G,
fifth century, (or. N), unpublished
53. Psalmus RespOrlsorius, ill utin: in Bare·LG,
fourth century (or. N]
54. Hermas the Shephel'd, the first three visions, in
Greek: P. Bodlller XXXVIII, in Vis·G, fifth cen.
tury [or. OIl; unpublished
BIBI.1OGRAPHY
P. Bodmer II
Manin, V. Papyrus Bodmer II: Evallgil~ d~ l~dn chap.
1_14. Cologny/Geneva, 1956.
___ Papyrus Bodm~r //, suppJemtltll: Evallgile de
le/m cllllp. 14-21. Cologny/Gcneva, 1958.
Martin, V., and J. W. 8. Barns. Papyrus Bodmer II.
supplcmclI/: lvaugile de lcal' chap. 14~2 I, lIouvelle
editiOlI au"mmfce et corrigl.e avec reprodl/ctiQII
pllOlographique cOlllpfete dl/ lIlalllucri, (chap. 1-
21). wlogny/Geneva, 1962.
P. Bodmer III
Kassel', R. PapyrI/ii 1J<Jdmer III: El'allgilll de leatl e1
GCllese I-IV,2, ell bohai"riquc. CSCO 111-118.
Louvain, 1958.
P. Bodmer IV
Mllrtin, V. Pllpyms Bodmer IV: Mellalldre, I.e
Dyscofos. Colugny/Gcneva, 1958.
I'. Bodiller V
TeSIU~., M. Papyrus Boomer V: Nalivilc de Marie.
Cologny/Gcncva, 1958.
P. Bodmer VI
Kassel', R. Pllpyrw; Budmer VI: Livre des Pml'l!rhe.~.
CSCO 194-195. Louvain, 1960.
P. Bodmer VII_IX
Teslu~., M. Papyrus 1J<Jdmer VII-IX: VII. L'Epitre de
lude; V/I/, Lu Deux lpflres de Piem~; IX, Les
PSill/mes 33 et 34. Culogny/Gcneva, 1959.
P. Bodll1er x-xu
TesIU~.. M. Papyms HOilmer X-XII: X. Correspolldallcc
apocryphe des Corilllhiells el de l'ap6lre Pal/I; XI,
alltieme Ode de &fOIl101l: XII, Fraglllell' d'utl

h)'lfme limrgique, rllfllmscrit du lIIe 5iiclc. Colognyl
Geneva. 1%0.
P. Bodmer XUI
TCSlOZ, M. Papyrus Bodmer XIII: Mililoll Ife Sardes.
HamMill. sur fa Piiqll/l., mamucri/ fill file tii!de.
Colollny!GenilY:l, 1960.
P. Bodmer XIV-XV
Manin, V., (illd R. Kasscr. l'lIpyms /Jodmer XIV:
Evaugile lie tuc chap. 3-24, Pllpyms IJodmer XV:
Evallgilc de )e(l" dlap. 1-15. Cologny/Geneva,
1961.
P. Bodmer XVI
!<asser, R. Papyrus Bodme.r XVI: Exode I-XV,11 1.'11
5<!hidiqllc. Cologny/Cc:neva, 1961.
P. Bodmer XVIII
!<asser. R. Papyrus Bodmer XVlII: Dclllerollvme I-X.7
til sahidiqlle. Cologny!GcncV'"<l, 1962.
P. Bodmer XIX
Kasser. R. Papyrus BOllmer X/X: t:vmrgile (Ie Mal/hie/(
XlV,28-XXVllI,20; Epilrc tWX Romaills /,I-I1,J, ell
sahidiqllc. Cologny/Gcne\'a, 1962.
P. Bodmer XX
Manin, V. Pap)"rus Bodmer XX: Apofoj;ie de Pllileos,
tvtiqlle de nil/lOuis. Cologny/Gcncy:.l. 1964.
P. Bodmer XXI
Kasser, R. Papyrus Bodmer XXI: Vl,16-25,
)OS4lt
VJI,6-XI,23, XXJI,I_2, 19-XXlJl,7, 15-XX1V,23, erl
stJhidique. ColognY/Gencva, 1964.
P. Bodmer XXII
Kasser, R. Papyrus Botfmer XJ(JI el Mi.uis.lippl Coptic
Codex JI: Ur~,"le XL,J-U/,J4: £,mll/JnlalioIlS, Epi/re
de JerClIlle, /1/lTuch I, / - V,S ell sahidiqlW. Cologny!
Geneva, 1964.
P. Bodmer XXIII
Kasser, R. PapYflls Bodmer XXlU: &ail! XLVJI,I-
LXVI,14 /!n $lllJidique. ColognY/Gcncva, 1965.
P. Bodmer XXIV
Kasser, R. and M. TestU7~
PapynlS Bodmer XXlV:
Psaum£J XVU-CXVllI. Cologny/Geneva, 1967.
P. Bodmer XXV
Kassel', R. and C. Aoslill. Papynu Bodmer XXV;
Mellalldre, La Samietllll!. CoI08nY/Geneva, 1969.
BOHAIRIC 53
P. Bodmer XXVI
Kasscr, R. and C. Auslin. PapynlS Hodm/!r XXVI;
ftfblatldre, I.e Bollr:lier; en appfmJice, cOtlll1lbll~ms
all Papyros Bodlll~r IV. Cologny/GencV"J, 1%9.
P. Bodmer XXVII
Carlini, A. "II pllpiJ'o <Ii Tucidide Jella Bibliolhcca
Budrncriana (P. Budmer XXVI!)," Mm'ellm Hd·
vellclIlIl 32 (197';):33-40 (111d pl. 1-3.
P. UOdmer XXIX
HOl'St. A.; O. Reverdin; and J_ Rudhar'dt. Pa/l)"nlS
8<Jdmer XXlX: Vision de Doro/"eos. "dili IIlIee Wle
introllllctiot!, wle traJl/elio" et des "OI~S. With ap·
pendix by R. Kasser and G. Cavallo, "Description
CI d:ll.::llion du Codex des V~ions." Colagnyl
Geneva, 1984.
P. Bodmer XLV-XLVI
Carlini, A. and A. Cili. "Susanna e III prima visionc
di Daniele in due paph; inedili dcll(1 l3ibliOlheca
Dodmedana, P. I3odm. XLV e P. Boom. XLVI,"
MflSCllm Helvetiew/! 38 (1981 ):81-120 (tnd pI. 1-
14.
Other publicatlonll
Mcrkclbach, R. "War1etext 2, P. Colon. IllY. 904.
Komooicnrragment." leitschrill liir Papyrologie
II/Id Epigrophik 1 (1967):103-104.
Ruca-Puig, R. Hilll"e a IQ Vergt' Maria, "Psalml/$ Res'
po"soriu$," Pflpir !fori del segfe IV. Barcelona,
1965.
-,-c "Fragment de 'u &imin' de Menandre. papir
de Barcelona. inyentari no. 45." BoII~lit! Je III ReQ/
Academia de bmmas /etras de IJarce101l0 32 (1967-
1968):5-13.
___. Cicero, Catilinuries (I ('I JJ ill Cat.}, Pap)"ri
lJarcillomJrlses. U:u'cclona, 1977.
___. Alcestis, Hexlulletres Llalins, Papyri RMc!'
110llCllSCS, ftiV. I1U. /58-161. Barcelona, 19l:12.
Shore, A. F. Joshua 1- VI (lnd Otlrer Pllssages iu Cop·
lic, Ediled {rum a Fourth-Centl/ry Codex II! Ihe Clres·
ler Beatty Library, !)..M". Dublin, 1963.
Willis, W. H. "A Papyrus Fragment of Cicero,"
TrQWi(JClions al/d Proceedil/gs of the American Plli/·
oIogical Associalion 94 (1963):321~27.
RODOLPIiB KASSER
BOHAIRIC, a major dialcct of Coptic, calk'd "MEM·
f'HtTtC," "the nonhcm dialecl," or "dialect of Lower
Egypl" in earlier tenninology, and simply "Coplic"
In eightccnth· and ninch,::enlh.cenlUry Irealises, 80-
hairic being lhe 6rst Coptic dialcct wilh which West·
54 BQHAIRIC
em scholarship became :Iequainted. "Bohairic" (8)
WOolS first used by Stern (1880. p. xii).
Originally the nonhern local dialect of the ","'CSt·
em Delta (Bubaira) and WIkIT al·Na!nm. Bonahic
spmuJ dramatically (beginning ;'Iftcr. and as ;'In indi-
reel result of, the ,\It.AD CONQUFST OF f£YPT) eastward
and southward. In lhe eighth and ninth centuries it
brokc the monopoly of Sahidie as a Pan-<:Optic idi·
om and by the dc\'cnth century had largely complet·
ed the proccs... of becoming vil1ually the sole dialect
of Coptic. IJoh:.irie lx:c.mlC the official ecciesiastie:.1
language. and the classical I30hairie version of lhe
ScriplUrcs. che onicial text. 8ol13ilic. which slU"vives
only a... a liturgical langu('ge. W:IS lhe dialect that saw
Coptic oul (IS the living idiom of Egypt. The old
controversial question of its prehi.'iIOl)'-whcthcr il
was never a litcrar)' Innglwgc before the Arab COil'
quest (Stern. 1880, p. 1; Lefort, 1931) or W;\S. on the
contrnry, .(In old Iiler-try dialecl (Worrell's opinion)
has not yet bcen ~ltled. Wllnt survi\'cs in lhe \vay of
Bohair'ie documenlation consists, on the one hand,
of manuscliplS latel' than lhe ninth Cl.'ntUl)' wilh
scriplural, homiletic. hClmeneutic. hagiographical,
and liturgical tellts and. on thc other, a moch small·
er collection of fourth- and fifth-eentury fragments.
all biblical (sce sec. 5 on the V3rieties of Bohairic).
Bohairie shares isoglos.scs with most other dialects
of Cop(lc. mainly with Fayyumic. Middle Egyptian
(lotf..SOI:EMJC). Sahidie, and. more SUblly. certain Nag
Hammadi varielies of Sahidic (especially some lrac-
tates in Codex VII). DIALF.CT C and I)JAu:.CT P. The
persistent. somewhat biased impression of Bohairic
as an innovating dialect is refuted by careful internal
and conlr,lSliw examination. which shows it to be
rathl."r of a consel'Valivc natUI'C (cf. Shisha.Harevy.
1981). Not only its gr.mlmatical minutiae but even
some major issues arc still obscure and in need of
rigurous and mechodologicllily car'cful investigation.
Far from being "sufficiently well known" (Knhle,
TALJUi I. Clu~ed Ullslressed Syll{jbll!~ in fJuhuiric
STRF-SS SVlL\ULE Cl.OOru
PIlI;l'ONIC SoNOIt.ANT No SONOItANT
ONSET
,.
coe••"
""......
enlreatl hear him dlOOlSC
destroy him
him
1954. p. 232), it has, following Stcindorlfs Grflm-
ItIQlik of 1894. been supcrscd...'(] by Sahidic as far as
n:5Carch and tuition are concerned. (For S!.em.
1880. it was still the primary muslralion dialect.)
Since the 18905 "Coptic" par cxccllenn- has becn
Sahidic, and Bohairic has been suffering gl'3ve schol·
arly neglect {cf. Erman. 1915, p. 161). This article
will attempt to provide a blief In>ological profile of
Uohailic gmmmar. While details of phonology and
nonsyslcmic mO'llhology t11'C rcl:.th·c1y well known.
its Y)'Mimu~ de valellr and syntall still hold quite a few
mystelies for the linguist. The account given here is
predominantly synchronic and noncontl'nSlive.
l. Phonology. Morphopholllllogy. and
Grllpltemles
1.1. Probably thc most .~lriking feature of llohairi{;
is lhe nonpcrlincnt, allophonic stalu.~ of consonant
aSpir..lliun in words of nalivc Egypl!.rn slo{;k. The
a.~pirated allophone (e, <j>, 'X) occurs "combinalorily"
before. and in eOnlaet with, :. SOllonmt (any of /b/.
11/./m/, In/. Ir/./w/. and Ij/) in initi:lI clusters :111(1
elsewhere {nOM. crown; "OHOY. immonal; <j>Me1lftT.
the bclo\'oo) or "spontaneously" as thc onset of a
stressed syllable (indeed. "stress" is a fealure equiva·
lenl to "sonority:- and thus the "sponllll1eOmncss"
is relative and only a manner of speaking). 6, lhe
allophone of x before sonor.lnts (6M)G, bed), none-
theless constitutes a phoneme (611. quince. vcn>us
Xli. dish).
1.2. The 8 phonemic inventory features lhe oppo-
silion /xl : fhf, graphemically ~ : t (:.»'tIt', lo.....er
pal':tfll¥. upper pan).
1.3. The open Iinal unstl'essed (posltonic) vowel in
8 Is III (~, man; HGYI. think, thoughl). Table I
display!> the facts in the case of closed unstressed
syllables (cr. Polotsky, 1933).
1.4. NOllfinnl historical 131)'ngeat.\ (primary and
$TRF..ss SVlL\IJl,£ OJ'EN
SoNORANT SONOItANT ONSI'" I
COM NOSONORANT
,. e
c,..". -, "'"'
h~ .. bn..ak choose

secondlll)', evolved from r or I) lire nOl realized in
Bohairie: lI,IOI1t, in existence: "'11, finger; C(JIll, re·
main ovel'; rl6-, thy. (second fcm. sing.) Finally, one
finds I: SI.'Wnd fem. sing. ~, lhou too; T«lOyHI,
stand lhee up: masl;. OY>.l, one.
1.5. Palatal sibilant assimilation is Ihe rule: ~...,."
make live, flOurish; ...... despise.
1.6. Long diphlh<.mgs lengthellt.-d from shon vow·
cis ()Ceur wilh II' and j: WIll., bl'cud: roy. honor.
1.7. TIle syllabicily of vowels and nllsal sonOI1:mls
is indicaled by means of a superposed poim (Xlllttltf;
see WINKIM). In ela.,~ical usage (manuscripts prior to
lhc fooneenth ccntury). Ihis applies to any vOVo·et
eOllSlituring by i\Self a syllabic (;L"i 1'1110/0., he went
out; i111O'(t. bring (imp.l) and 10 Mand II conslituting
a radicnl or a gmmmatical clement and preceding
another (mON, 1'eSl; ilOO'I, he; Mo/~, for God). This
syJlabichy is canceled in cel,ain combhmlolj' ci1"
cumstances (d. POIOlSky. 1949). In lalel' Bohairic,
one 6mb the djinkim on olher consonants (¢OOI
smell; KtttIO'(, you are coming).
I.&. Numbers arc usually symooli1.cd by letters
and not wriuen oot (Dt. 34:8, MX" Ht."OOOV. for thiny
days; Mk. 6:40, K"'T'" 1" 1" t1llM K;LT'" N N, by hun·
dreds (HId by fifties).
I.!l. Thc phoneme {i{ is usually exprcs.<;ed by an
iOla, even when initial (i. come, go: illl, thir.>l).
1.10. Proclitically weak elements arc nO' always
marktd 115 such (Ennan, 1915): 1tlQK., oyott-, Httoth
2. Morphology and Word Formation
2.1. There is superficial (struelur..llly resolvable)
coincidence of the pclfect base wilh the sccond
prescnl{Futurc convencl'. both ... (OpposccllO the til'-
cumstanliaJ E1). a·vocalism characteril.es Ihe preterile
con\·ener tu'll' and the negative aorist MIa....
2.2. The rclalive convener 61'0 l.. common 10 lhe
bipanite and all tripartite conjugation Forms (iIT...·I-,
relative perfect).
2.3, The relative and second perrecl convener:s
coincide. as ClT·. with systemic eonsequcneL'S.
2.4. TIt.e relative convener CT6 has no pre nominal
a1lomorph, thus differing from lhe other Ihree con-
venCB before the bipartite pattern. ere- is an alter·
nanl (variant?) of the circumstantial before the exis-
lenlial oyotI. TIle converter.> and some bases have a
1'6- allornorph before lhe shm' second plul'lll suffix:
1r6T6N·, NlorCTGN', Il,llof6TClN', (GT)"'p6T6t1·, etc.
2.5. The base of the conjuclive is irre·. prenomi·
nally as well as prcsulfixally. In Ihe firsl singular the
basc-plus-aclor is irr...·: in ihe Ihird plural it is kroy.,
which is opposed 10 ftcc·. the sole representative in
BOHAIRIC 55
Bohairic of n synt.lgm (the SahiJie conjunctive) in
which iI· lll11rks as modifier 11 nexus of ".,ClOI' plus
verb. "
2.6. The so-called third fUIUre is l:Hogely conven·
ible III Bohairic (Stem, 1880. sec. 418-19;
A.ndersson, 1904, pp. 62[.).
2.7. In one variety of Bohairic (R'C 5.3) there oc-
CUD a special negative-condilional ba~c. "'"II(J· (dis·
cussed by Cerny, 1963, (Inu Kassel", 1963). '(IJ;LN oc·
curs only in the affinnative form of lhe conditional
c1auSL..tlipanite conjugation fonll. The neg;tlivcd
base coincides with Ihe second presenl (J.....TEH-). a
coincidence thai is diachronically significant but
synchronically probably superficial.
2.8. The negative jussive (causative impcr..ltive)
00sc is in Bohlliric MtHlMOf<l·: ilS conneclion Wilh the
ncg:uivc impemllvc chamClelistic MIlCr' is thus scv·
ered.
2.9. The negative aorist base is MlI"'('), showing
diachronic affinities with the SI.'Cond lense.
2.10. T6f"'- is tht: second singular feminine form
of the future.
2.11. The first singular and third 1,lul':31 actor suffix
pronouns are syllabic with the cauS<llive infinitive
(opl', oroy-) and negalive lhil'd fulure (ilrn", ilJiOy':
d. Polol~ky, 1960, sec. 49).
2.12. Verb Lexeme{SllIllve Pecullarille.. Histori·
cal JQe ;'1/in"Qe .j infinitives (Stem's class Ill) usual·
Iy have no ·r- in the pronominal state (ClN'" , bring;
MEG •• give binh to; .Y.6M •• find; 6J.C •• exalt). On
lhe othe.· hand. thc imperotive fOl'01 marked by ...
often ha~ ./ - (irITl', do; it/IT"', bring). Verbs of
Gr'Cek ()I'igin have in Bohnhic the Gr'Cek infinitive
form ('11'1, ·eeoc) and al'e integraled in the COlllic
conjugation by means of Ihe auxiliary or- (Ilr +orlli.
bear, 6f "'OIUOCEKI, embrace. greet). The stative of
Ihe causative lexemc class ends in 'I (-ltoyr',
OloMtlloyr1 • being erc.'lted).
2.13. The imperative of "give" has tlll'ee allo-
morphs: MOl, Mlo-, HHI'" (I'OIOl~ky, 1950, pp. 78f[:
1971,2131f.).
2.14. II vcrb-nominalizalion rorm in Xit/· is gram·
maticalizcd as IUOtrrCl·!ere· (Stem. 1880, sec. 470-
72; Mk. 14:55. bnXltI~'II. to kill him).
2.15. The definite determinator pronoun {III has
only one form (with no special prccluster allo-
mOl1lh).
2.16. Bohairic has II plural infix '1/- (it/loy<l1. oalhs;
CN"'yZ, feller.».
2.17. The first plural object suffix is usually (post-
cooso'lantally) ·Tllt/ (rarely 0(1").
2.lg. Postacljunelivc Greck-origin adverbial modifi·
ers may be marked by h (AIU.Mx;).
 .. BOHAIRic
•
:I.•,....... tu. Panel.. Itt<:. (Rote
Relationship), and Prosody
3.1. FIN:.llzallon Pall~m•. The se<:ond tense fo-
cali1.es adverbs only, not actor or object (pro)nouns
(except for ),f'tITCllq 0'1', How are yvu? d. Polotsky,
1960, p. 409). Interrogative pronouns may be con·
strued with an unmarked (basic lcn.'le) topic, csJl'C"
cially me hrst perfect (Gn. 27:33. "IH oyM ),'OCCIf.lt
O'(.EOf'C 1tHl, Who then hUnl(:d game for Ille?), but
wter more usually the nominal cleft-sentence 1'01-
(em. In the lauer case, lhe topic constituent is either
the invariable U6T· (Polouky, 1962, PI'. 419£. (-CP
424). whkh difers from lhe "$Ubstanlivized" rela-
tive ... 6T- (ltw.- rel:llive eJl;panding a demonstrative
and indeliltire pronOUrui as well as proper Rames; cr.
Polotsky, 1962, .sec. 9; Shisha-Halc¥)'. 1981, »p.
32If.): Mt. 3:14, 1f«lK 6T(lf' xpU. G61lDHC, II is I ",,-ho
need 10 be bapli1.ed; MI. 9:5, oy r).f O9HOTH Axoc.
what is it lh:.. is casy 10 say? Mt. 2:22 l.fX6UOC (lTOl
Itoyfo, It is Archc1aus thaI i.~ king; Mk. 8:37. q..l rJ>r
GT6 ....,...,. "J>THl'l l'rrCl,j'fIlUlb I'lT6'....yXtl. This is whal a
man will give in cllchangc for hi~ soul.
3.2 £lr::traposltion. Bohairic is strikingly topic-
mart.ing, favoring a front (topicalizing) extraposilion
as topic of a nominal sentence (Gn. 24:65, n)I[M.
_ tJII 6TllI. Who is this man yonder?) and In other
construcliorlS (Shisha.Halevy. 1981. p. 321). 1hc rear
extmposition of a noun lexcme 10 an "intcrlocutivc"
(finl!-l;econd pernon) pronoun is marked in Bohail"ic
by:u,- (e.g.. Acts 10:41. las. 4:12).
3.3 Nominal Synt8gmallel. The Bohahie system
of detenninator nudear pronouns ("ankles") is
quaternary. ddinite-deictic ({III-}). ddini!e nondcictic
({I..}). indefinite ({oy-}). generK:. nonindividuali7Jng
01-). Of these. Ihe first lwo are interrelated in a
complicated. still panly obscun:: sel of factors. SOllle
external (cOIellltHlI). othel"'5 intemal (i.e.. selection of
{n.j by t\ special lexcme pllmdigm in a conSllllction
In.} 1'1. expressing inalienable possession. opposed to
{ttl-} NTe, which cxprcssc!l noninh<n.:nt "appurte-
nance"). Elucidating this issue is probably the most
urgem single task to be undertaken by students of
this dialect. ,.. is also used to add further Icxemes to
the de1enninator·plus.lexeme basic unil: ~,. 0V0:t
•• as in MI. 23:17. 19, HtCOX. avo: HB.6AAG. Ihe !ltu·
pid and blind; Acta MQrtyrUm 1.21.1r.. ~
~ fttU,HT (nolll, predicate) "piliful lind mcrciful."
3.4. The predico.tion of pos:'It'ssion is effected in
Bohairic by a parnrligTD of adverbial'predK:ate pat·
term prl'dicating 1rrJ>'" (U. 3: II). and IlO4 only by a
•
verboid (0'y0ffTJ>'" / HHotrrJ>+, a.~ in Gn. 16: I; d.
Shislm.li:tlcvy. 1981. pp. 317[.). The pI'onomina]
1'0.I.H!.~.~lmr never occurs as object of lhc vcrboid. bUI
as the subject of the adverbial predication (Dl. 4:38).
3.5. The pronominal subject of afJinnative bimem·
brol nominal sentcm,:cs is sometimes 7.eroctl when it
is anaphoric to a delemlinalor or an extraposed
topic (Shisha·Halcvy, 1981. pp. 328r.; I Cor. 5:18,
ClMMt tlOyOO OYJ>1 "yt rJ>N l>f'O'I XG COlt
GOytlOf"OC). The most common instance of lhis is
the dislinctively Bohltiric pos~ssive nGTlj<p->+ (11-)
(Lk. 6:30,16:12).
3.6. (trO. lhe gmmmatically opcrJlive eau!\.3tive in·
finitive of If't. is in Bohairie subject to the SIl.~rn­
Jemsh:dt Rule and Ihus incompatible with Ihe me-
diate (11·/Htio".) dirt:ct-object construction in the
bipartite pauem (Stem, 1880. p. 292; e.g.. MI. 5:32;
De Vis. 1922-1929, 1.14.6).
3.7. The bip<trtitc pattern predicating an ad\'ern
favors the internll:diation of a copulaI' Sfalive (Gn.
26:24. ;-:.01 116MAK. I am with you).
3.8. Gender. The calaphoric gender in "illlpCrson-
al" pt'edications is as a rule the feminine. On the
other hand, the pronominal subjeci of the pn..'dicate
no the dcbit/obligtttion of ...") is (at least as a
variant) the masculine: Ga1. 5:3, 'fGfO'l Cqo +t+ottoc
~. he is obliged to ob:;crve the whole !..aw.
3.9. TempusJehre Idlosyncrasll'S. The so-called
third future is in Bohairic a true tense. not a mooe.
in pal"..Idigm with the pl'Cscnt·ba.~cd imminent fulure
mar'ked by -tlJ>·. The conjunctive htL~ oflen a .~ubjunc·
tival or "that"-fot'111 value (Sterl1. 1880, sec. 442),
such as expanding the cataphoric feminine in "im-
pel'!iOnal" predications (Mt. 5:29. CClr HO'ff'I rJ>r It,U(.
ffT8 oyJ>t ~ T>.KO. It is good for you thott
one of your members perish ...). The second rela-
til'e perfcct fonn serves no! only its topicalwng ad-
nominal runction but also as a temporol.protatic
"tempomHs" 10pk before a main clause (constitu·
ling a "lopic·comment" nexus on a macrosyntaetic
level of analysis; In. 11:28, q.J>t GTACXO'I ACO,lO lue.
Having said this, she wenl away). The temporal
clause is thus not expressed by a specifie clau.se-
tripartile conjugation base. (Incidentally. the S(:cond
perfect in 80hairic cannot be further convened by
the cln::umSI8nlial COI1\·erter.) The linal and con'
ditional clause paradigms include in Bohairic the
conjunctive (aftcr Greek final conjunctions of 6o,Iul.
n:specliveJy. I Cor. 12:25. Ml. 6:14ff.). 'nle postim-
pcmtive paradigm lacks in Bohairic a specific
marked apodotic form (TJ>f'6'1' in other dialects. {'S-
pecially Sahidic) and features, typically, imperative

and jussive forms (M\. 9:6; Lk. 7:7) Ix:liiuc lhe non·
specific conjunctive (ACl~ 6:3) .wd O)"O;! plu.~ future
tcnsc (M1. 7:7; Prv. 4:6). Till: "ethical d:.ltivc" is regu·
lar aner 196 in lhc nondumlive eonjugalioll (lIJ'6 Ii),"").
3.10. Prosody and Junelure. Elements of rda·
tively ....~k SITl:'S5 in lhe ullerunce (nalive Egyplian
enclitic par1iclcs, augenlia, .).fl. the "backgmunding"
116) tend to a s.entem:c-po:;tcl"ior, "truiling" po:;ition
(Shisha·Halevy. 1981. pp. 319f.; e.g.• MI. 23:4. 26:44;
In. 5:30. Lk. 16:2).
The relative convl'r1er l'IT(\, when exp:mding lhe
formal demunstr'ative anteccdcnt I'll 01" 'hilt. may
bc separated from thc cUllvel1ed conjug:.l!iun,[ol·m
by at least two aJjacenl par'lldigms ("SIOIS"), the fil'llt
(pro)nominal and the second ad\'erbial (Shisha-
Halevy, 1981, p. 318; e,g. Dt. 2:25, "" 6T8
),~~€M lllM;'4'oUl 8y~Clr. tht:)' who shall
tremblc if lhey hear )'OUf name; Col. 3:7. lUI £Te
,*-T(ln :/WTtitl II),f'(lT(ltlHOfll ~!lf'tll ~.'}IlTOY, those in
which you 100 used to w:l.lk); this irldicat~ lhat the
converter/conjugation-form scam is juncturally open
to a degree.
3.11, TIle functional rnnge of lhe coordinating
H6tt- is considembly extended in Boh'lirie. entailing
reduced funClions for O¥O!' (lffiH- is preferred as a
coordinator of noun 5)'T1tagms.)
4. lexicon: Idlomallcs
4.1. The Boh(lific lexemc invcntol)', idiooyncrnlic
10 a considel':lble extent, IHls never heen properly
researched in respect of eithcr its inlernal or its
oonlrosth'e SIlUctUI-e. In the unstl'Uctured lexicon
peculiar to Bohairic. occasionally in common wilh
Fayyumic (e.g.• l'fIon, be wroth; oycurn, send; KHft,
cease; ~\OX, foot; ClUlH. side; ~, pour; 6ctaIa;II.
up). one notl'S eases of I: I correspondence with
Sahidic (6HHO'I' : tlktMI. breasl; XJ.Gt1 : t&OYI'. left
side; 0Il0Yt : ct!lOY2, gt!ther), 2: 1 (IOUrl + ~~ :
~lfB, children; 19),- + 2),' : 19J.-, untO), 1:2 (KHtl : oyUI
+ 2Gl, cease, have done), (lnd so on.
4.2. Although no over'3l1 statistics .we availaole
01\ the Greek-oligin component of the Bohairie Icxi·
con (cr, Kasscr, 1966. and Baucr. 1975). one
impl1.'SSionistically notes the higher frequency in
Bohairie of the use of Grt:ek loanwords as well as
their broader semanlic spectl'Um and their number
in absolute terms. which is larger in comparison
with Sahidic usolge. Some loans (e.g., 6CT1l1 1It..tI. tltl
Ole, MeN oytl 60. TO "omOtl, oy llJ.rJ. TOyTO, oy t'J.p)
arc cxclusive to Bohairic jll1d show to whal extent it
imported ready-made Greek phrnses; others (e.g.,
BOHA'RJ'C 57
IWC. 0'yH, 2JlfJ., tl~) do OCCUf elsewhere. but are
much more comllion in Bohairic.
4.3. Phraseology;m<1 idiornatlcll arc again virgin
fields of stuJy. Peculiarly 8 afe, fOf instance. or
oy
(HJ.7). what for. to what purpose?; 1iEH-, OOHlo7,
togelher with: and Noy1I.oy.xJ oUl. nol small. rO!, s
HOG, ~ W-. ClHloT8 (Act... 12:18, 15:2, etc.).
5. Varieties of BohaJrlc
.5.1, Wilhout takinx a stand on their relative sta-
tus and relative chronology. one cnn point out the
following main subdivisions, 01' Gill/WIgen, thaI B
texIS fall into, from lhe grnmmatical [lOint of view.
Given thc cun-ent statc of knOwledge. one can do no
more; as mon' evidence comes in (e.g.• following
the publication and evaluation of thc "Old &halric"
T"'elve Prophets. unbiased eonsiderution of Nitrian
sources) and as the g-tnernl dialectologieal picture
becom(."'!l clearer (as it mrcly will. rollowing thc pub·
lication and study of "Middle Egypti(IO" evidence),
one may be able 10 intcgrate these lypes of Bohllirie
in a coherent sy.~tem,
.5.2. "Classical" scriplural Bohairic conventional-
ly scrvt.'S as a point de re"r-re for judging other types
and is USltall)' used fur "Bohairic proper," Although
it is by no means homog:enous (being often variously
blended wilh Nitrian; St.'C 5.4). it nevertheless repre·
sents an optimal ttstu di lingutJ. cslX'Cially irt "good"
consistent manuscripts (such as Vnt. copto I and
Bihl. Nat. copte I).
.5.3. A group {(,gain, not monolithic) of founh·
and fifth-ecntury biblicaltcxls-extremely early doc-
umcnt(ltiOIl in comparison with Ihe hullt of Doll3ilic
scriplural sources-diffe~sharply from the classical
idiom in linguistic usage. The largest single docu·
ment of this kind published to c.ble is Papyrus
Bodmer J1J, containing the Gospel of John (Kassel'.
1958, and 1966, pp, 661f; cf. DlAl..E.CTS); another ex-
tensive m(lnuscripl conlaining the Twelve Prophets
in the Vaticana wa.~ studied by H. Quecke. In
Bodmer III one finds, mnong others, lhe following
idiosyncrasies: HtU, there; atJ.. two (for the classical
~y, au.y): 0"(0t4l, and; lhe negative condilional
J.lfH(\q.: the preterite relalive COn\'cntf 8r- (known
also in Gnostic Sahidic. Subakhmimic. and Middle
Egyplian): absence of the djinkim: (lQ/femetll of !)-!.
6-.x. t-n. Under the samc heading. one may also
include some shorter biblical texts or apPr'Qximately
the same C(lrly daling, including passagcll rrum
Jam(."'!l (wilh the djinkim; Qucckc:, 1974) and a bibli·
cal anthology (Hu.ssclman. 1947), On some "Bohai-
 • 58 BO HA IRI C
, •
ric" dem ents in Old Cop tic, s(''C Kah le (19) 4. pp.
243[ ).
5.4. Nitl'lan Doha!ric is attes ted main ly in Illlgl o·
graphical. homiletic, find herm eneu tical texts fl"()m
the Nilrian Monastery of Macarius. whe re Ih('y aIX:
gene rally supp osed 10 have been tran spos ed from a
Sahi dic Vorf(Jge in the nint h cent ury. but ill al.so
found "see ping thro ugh" hUa classical sour ces. 111is
kliorn has !lot yet been rede eme d rl'om neglect due
10 the bia.~ of "secondhandcdncs.o;'· and "tain ting
,"
and Nitn an gram mar has not had the altcl llion it
de5ervcs. Phon olog icall y, one observC$ here !) fluctu-
ating with l (e.g., in lIf)ftll, dow n) and 6 with x (in
cox , fool; XJo.Hoy>', camel). Typically ther e (lfe
C¥C9tlH, tree; CHOfIT, fann ; TIlOyOOY. stan d up; and
koyl , SOlan. Spo radi cally , com bina tory aspi ratio n is
abse nt. As regards mor phd ogy . one finds ),-(1 for
the seco nd pres ent conv erte r; t1T6f6- is found as a
vl'1rirmt of pren omi nal (lTll'; in ccri ain eltlsscs the
pI"t'suffix<l1 nllo mor ph of thc verb lex.l.'nle is cxte nded
to the pren omi nal state , leveling simplification into
two -abs olut e and preo bjcc t-al lom orph s (set"
Polotsky, 1930, p. 875 [-CP 344J); <:oyt.IH-, TO'f"OC',
(1,1011', TON-, ()Q,I', 1I,IOyO-; typical arc the conj ugat ion
ba!ICS Q,lJo.HT6- and Hru.t IT(l· (first sing. r:.tu. Hn,- ,
I(l).HTJo.'): OIUiO"( occu rs fOI' !he S(,.'Cond plur al
afte r
frroT -. One enco unte rs the "fre ezin g" of the poss es-
I.,...
sivc suffix in llC'lf'Ul'l, (Pololsky, 1934, p. 61
[=CP 366)]; Gr'eek loan ver'bs occu r al!!.p withotll {JF·.
Synlactically, one finds the relativc to Dc com pati blc
wilh indefinite dcte rmin atio n (OYJo.I OTJo.<t·, B."\lcstri
and Hyv ema t, 1907 -195 0, 2.206.23; f'H'1t OOfIJo.H£'t,
Homefies 1.101.4) and the circ ums tant ial expa ndin g
definitc nou ns (I1IMJo. 010 ""C HMo<t, Balestl'i and
Hyv cma t, 1907 -195 0, 2.184.22f.). i\,~ in Sahi dic, lhe
seco nd ten!\(' may have a nonn dver hial focus
(Polotsky, 1944, pp. 22, n. I, and 31; 1971, pp. 126,
(35). The nega tor Jo.lI is com pati ble with inde pen.
denlly negative elem ents : HttolI· Jo.H (Balcstri and
Hyvernat, 1907 -195 0, 1.9.8), MIIOf' Jo.fj (ibid. 216.3).
The regu latio n of 111- irre· vel'5US 11- H- adno min al
ex.pa.nsion appe ars 10 be disruptt..-d or chan ged. IKI
occu rs (as a back grou ndin g of mac rosy ntac tic sub-
ject) afle r verb fonn s Olher lhan the imp elfe ct
(Hyvel'nat, 1886 -188 7, 135, 13f" Jo.'I.; 146.6r., 6y-, cir·
cumstanli:ll; 150.13,0)'01'1). Although nllmy of thes e
lraits are aUributable to the innu ence of Sahi dic, Ihis
is by no mea ns true of all.
5.5. Liturgical Uohairie has neve r been t..'Spccially
l:onsidercd from the gram mati cal poim of view. The
djinkim occu rs over most cons onan ts, incl\lding
surd s; phon ctic spel ling s arc very com mon . if. is
oflen zero ed. Som e of the synlactic: char acle risti cs of
Nitrian 80h airic arc in evid encc ; the word orde r is
occa sion ally rem arka ble; "agr amm alic al" eonSlruc·
tion~ (suc h :\S X6 + ful. 1 in a final ctau~e, 1\16 HJo.~
in the dUl<llive conj ugat ion) occu r, Nominal scn·
lenc es with zcnx :d IKI arc com mon ; the conj uncl ive
occu rs in initial position.
5.6. Nonliterory Iloh airic is still a conl plet c mys·
tery. The sixt h-ei ghth ·cen tury insc ripti ons of Kellia
in Wlldi al-Na!l'itn belo ng here orlly in tl scns e (they
incl ude tom bsto ne and othe r pers onal rcligiou.~
texts); Ihey arc inten.'5Iing (and as yet unn::sc:archcdl
from !he linguistic poin l of view. One finds here
sporoldic variation of B - y, 0 - U, eM - H; Ihe
conj unct ive Til'; the spelling 6.... Jo.~)ICTOC; spor adic lib·
sene e of na.'lal-Iabinl assi mila tion (HIl1Jo.MIUI) and of
com bina tory aspi ratio n (nH6)'1). Prop cr nam es are
expa nded by lITe C-ot+ 1IT6 11T6AH6). On the whole,
Ihe language COnfOl'lllS wilh the classical mlh er than
the Nitl'ian ~hmdal'l.1 of I3ohairic.
5.7. Kah le's "scm i·Bo hair ie" Bala'i'lllll no. 19, a
foun h-ce ntur y papy rus text with passages from Phi·
lippians, show s som e Fayyumic and Sahi dic affini·
ties.
6. Sele cted Bib liog raph ical Info rma tion
6.1 Maj or or Com preh ensi ve Tex t Edll ions . Bib-
lical, hcnn eneu tic: Tau am (1836. 1852 (Prophet.~J).
de laga l'de (1867, 1886 [Pen tateu ch, New Testament
Catena]), Bur mes ler and Devaud (1925, 1930
[Psalms, Proverbs]). I'orc her (1924 Pob ]). Hom er
(189 8-19 05 [New Test ame nt]). Patristic, hagiograpb-
ical, hom ileti c: Hyv ema t (188 6-18 87), Baleslri and
Hyvemat (1907-19SO), de Vis (192 2-19 29).
6.2 Gra mm atic al DI,leull8!on. Andersson (1904)
cOlllains. besi de blat anl erro rs. a few nota ble obser·
vations. Mallon (1956) is Ihe only mod em SPCI;ia1
grai lima r (cc. Polotsky, 1959, his maj or treatise con·
cern ing Bohairic, as well as 1930, 1934, 1944, 1950)
with cxten~ive bibliography, chre stom athy , and 11105'
SOlry; it leaves muc h 10 he desil·ed. While Peyron's
veneroble gram mar (1841) is still of value, Stem
(1880) is still by far the best trea tmc nt of Boh:tiric
(lL'! of Sahi dic) gral llma r; the Sch wan e (1850) gram-
mar is skeletal, but cont ains numerou~ impol'lant
gram mati cal obse rvat ions , Note also Sch wan e's un-
wieldy wor k of 1843. and !he earl y grammal'5 by
Tuki and by Scholtl. and Woide (bot h 1778). Chal~
(1933), a deta iled and extensive contrastivt..'-(\inlecto-
logical gram mar , ha.~ many mer its and mtlkcs quite a
few pioneel'ing statcment~. Till (1931) is supcdicial
and almo st useless (cc. Polotsky, 1934). Finally,
Erm an's famous, yet unfollowed, cont rasti ve study of

juncture (1915) aims at reviving interest in Ilohail'ic,
and ShL~ha·Halcvy (1981) dwells on some conselVa-
live char.lctcristks of this diak-ct.
6.3 General Dlnlcclologlcal DlllCusslon. Kahle
(1954) i~ still the prime source of information (l..'Sp.
pp. 23lfr., 248ft). WOrfell (1934, esp. chaps.. 1-2)
trealS Bolmhic phonology and the general SIaIUS of
, thl.' diakct. Vcrgotc (1973, Vol. lb) discusses B ph~
nology as a component in a p3IlOl'amic presentation.
,
I
Bohuirk features in all of Ka<;.<;er's impOl1.anl dialec·
lologiCliI studies (sec esp. 1981. pp. 92fT.).
) Louvain, 1958.
6.4 Lexlcalogy. Only Peyron and Tatlam (bolh
,
"
1835) cater specially to 8. The priceless information
,- in Cnnll',s Dic/iOtllll')' (1939) must yet be resolved for
the individual dialects. G. Bauer's concordance
,f
, (I975) of the invariable Greek c1emenlS in the Bo-
hairic New T~ament is a wekome 1001 of research.
"n .....hich. onc hopes, is to be clllendl-d to Ihe res! of Ihe
Grttlt. as wdl as the indigenous, lexicon.
•
;- QIOLIOCRAPHV
,-
Andersson, E. Au.sgewlihlre Bemcrku"ge" ilber d,m
bohllirischetl DiIlIela itn I'ell/Il/tllth koplisch. Uppsa-
la, 1904.
Balcstri. G., and H. Hyvcmat. ACIIl Mllrl)Tllltl, I.
CSCO 43, 44. Paris, 1907, 1908. Ae/a Mllrtymm, II
r (Tat]. CSCO 86. Paris, 1924. See also Uyvemal,
), 1950.
"
10
Bauer, G. KOtlkordllllZ der /liehtflek/ierle.. gricel,i.
se/re" Wlll'/er im bQ/lflirischetl Neueu Tesiamelll.
Wicsbadcn, 1975.
h·
,d
BUrmC1ilCr, O. H. E. and E. DCvaud. Psal/erii Versio
Mcmphi/;ca e Recognitione Pallli de IAgaroe.
Louvain, 1925.
-,_. us Prol'ube~' de Salomoll (ClI. J. v. 1-14. v.
4)
26'. Cil. 24. v. 24-1'. 29 Itl v. 50'-1'. 77 e/ CJJ. 29,
,r·
v. 28-1'. 38), leXIC bohaMqllC d,1 Cod. 8 de la
.,1
Rylauds I.Ihrary, M,wcl!esler, d" Cod. 53 e/ 98 de la
n· IJib/iolhi::que Valicture el rlu Cod. 1051 rlu Musee
0) Cople uu Cllire. (/ve~' le~' \!uri,mles de 24 aulres
)s- mmuucrils el "ldex des "loiS copies el des IIlOI.~
,', gree.~. Vienne, 1930.
m
ric
m-
Cerny. J. "The Hohairic Verbal Prclix J.NN(l'l·." lei!·
sehrifl fllt iJgyplh'elrc Spraehc /Ilul Allerllllnsk,mde
90 (1963):13-16.
.0, Chaine. M. Elemell/s de grallllllaire dia/eCla/e cople.
Paris. 1933.
m·
Crum. W. E. A Cupti~' Dlclimlllry. Oxford, 1939.
by
Erman. A. "Unterschicue zwischen den koptischen
n,
Dialckten bei der Wonverbindung." Situmgs·
,~
betiellle der Prell.ui.',eheu Aklldemie der Wissel/·
":ial selJollell,lJerli1l I (1915):161-72.
Homer, G. W. The Coplic -Version 01 lite New Testa·
lIy, mell/ ill Illc NUr/hem Dia/ec/. Otherwise Called
, of Memplti/ic alld Boltairic. London, 1898-1905.
BOHAIRIC S9
Husselman. E. M. "A Bohairic School Tcxt on Papy-
rus," lounral 01 Near E(lSlenr Studies 6 (1947): 129-
51.
Hyvel'll,ll. H. US Ac/es fles martyrs de /'I::'i:Ypte. Paris.
1886-1887.
AC/Il Mar/ymm. II (Tr:mslationl, Addi/is
ludidbllS TO/illS Operis. cseQ 125. Louvnin, 1950.
Kahle, I'. E. Bultf'iUlh: Coplic Tuts Irom Deir e/·
BII/,,'iUl" iu Upper Egypt. London, 1954.
Kasser, R. Papyrus Bodmer m: EI'IlIlgile de lean et
Gen<tS4,' J-JV,2 "PI bohai'riqlle. CSCO 177-178.
_ _ _ "A propos des difrerenles romles du condi-
tionncl cope." Mudu" 76 (1963):267-70.
L'Ewmgile ulou Saill/ leall el les versions
copll!S de la Bib/e. NeucMtcl. 1966.
___ "ProlegomcnC$ a un CS5ai de classification
systemalique ~ dialC(:le$ el $Ubdialecteli coptes
selon les cril~res de In phonttique. I. Principes et
lemli/K)logie," Mllsian 93 (198Oa):53-11l. " ....
II. Alphabets ct syslcmcs phonctiqul'l;." Musiall 93
(198Ob):2J7-97. " ... , III. SYSI~mes onhogrnphi.
ques el categories dialC(:lales.'· M,uio., 94
(1981):91-152.
Lagarde, P. A. de. Der PePlla/elich koptiseh. LeipZig,
1867.
_:-_. Cllleuae ill EWlllgefia Ael:>1,liaclle Quae
SlIpersu,,/. Gt>llingen, 1886.
Lefol1. L.. T. "Lillcralure bohairique." Mllseoll 44
(1931):115-35.
Mallon. A. Grflltlltraire 001'16, bibliographie, chresl/)"
malflie e/ I'OCllblf/aire, 4lh L-d. rev. M. Malinine.
Beirut, 1956.
Peyro'l. V. A. Lexioou U"g"ae Cop/iclle. Turin. 1835;
repr., 1896.
--==:
_
Grammaticf/ Ung"ae Cop/ietle. Turin. 1841.
lAJxico,r Cuplicllm. Berlin. 1896.
Polull>ky, H. J. Review of H. de Vis. Humefies l:uples
de la ValicmlC. Oricllwlislischc J.,ilemlllrzci/1wg 33
(1930):871-81.
___,. "ZUI' koptischcn Lautlchre 11," Zcitsc!trill fur
iJl:Yplisdre Spruehe IIml Allerlumskllnde 69 (1933):
125-29.
Review of W. C. Till, Kopli.~chl!- Dill/lOkI-
grammalik. mil Lesesl/lcken wrd W(lnerbuch.
:==.
GUllil1gi)·chl.' Gdehrlc Alluiger 196 (1934):58-67.
Eludes de s)'lI/axc COp/fJ. Cairo. 1944.
. "Unc quc~tion d'orthogmphe boha:iriquc."
Bulleli,t de la SociClc d'archcologic coptc 12
(1949):25-35.
_ _ . "ModCll grees en cople?" In Cup/ie Swdies ill
HOllor of Wa/ler ElVlug CrUlII. PP. 73-90. Boston,
1950.
___. "Zur Ncugesla1tung dcr koplischen Gmm·
Illalik." Orieu/lliislische Llteralliruil,mK 45 (1959):
453-60.
___. "The Coptic Conjugation Syslem." Orien/alia
29 (1960):392-422.

60 BOHAIRIC, PRONUNCIATION OF LATE
•
"Nominalsatz und Cleft Sentence im
I(optischen." Orlen/alia ]1 (1962):413-30.
::--:-. ColJecI~d Paper-s. Jerusalem, 1971.
Porcher, E. "Le Uvre de Job, version c;;opte publiCi:
et traduite," Pa/ro{ogia Orl~malis 18 (1924):209-
239.
Om:cke, H. "Ein altes bohairisches Frogmen! des
J.,kubusbriefes (P. Hefd. kupl. 452):' Oriell/alia 4]
(1974):]82-92.
&hoIl1., C. and Charles Godfrey Waide. Gmmml/li~'/l
Al!f;Ypliaca Ulrlllsque Diu/ecli. Oxford, 1778.
Schwar11.e, M. G. Dos a/Ie AI/Ypllm, oder Sprae/re,
Geschichle, Religiotl !/trd VerflllSSUtrJ: des alum
AgyplCtl Ilach dell a/liigypfischctl Originalschrifu!tt
und den Milthei/ungen der nichl.iigyplischell Ill/en
&hrif/$/eller. leipzig. 184].
Schwartu:, M. G. Koplische Grllmmlltik ... , herllllS-
,e'~tl nllch des Verf~r-s Tode von Dr. II. Sltin·
IhtU. Berlin, 1850.
Shisha·Halevy, A. "Bohairic-Late'Egyptian Dia·
glosses." In Swdies Pr~ttted 10 Hilns Jilkob
Polo/sky, ed. D. W. Young, pp. ]14-]8. East
GlooCC!iter, Mass., 1981.
Stem, L Koptische Crummillik. Leipzig, 1880.
Tnttnrn, H. wicott Aegyplil/et>-Lalillwll, ex Veleribl4.S
Linglloe Aegyplillcoe Mottwtrenlis, el ex Operiblls Lfl
erozii, Woldii, el AlioTlltll, SWIIIIIO Studio Currges.
IlI/n, crml Indice VOCl/lll IAlillomlll. Oxford, 1835.
_ _. Dllodeeim Prophewmm Minorllm Libros in
LillgrlQ Aegyptiaea Vufgu Cuplica sell Memphilica ex
ManuscriplO Parisiensi Descriplus et cum Manu·
scriplo Johantlis Lu ... COUll lOS Laline Edidit. Ol'
ford, 1836.
_,--_ Prophetae Majores, ill Dia/eclo Linguae Aegyp-
•
tiacae Memphitica ULl Copliea, Edidu cum Ver-siorre
Lalil1a. Oxford. 1852.
Till, W. C. Koplische Dialektyammatik, mil
Luutiicken utld Wiirterbuch. Munkh. 1931; 2nd
cd., 1961.
Tuki, R. Rlldimenta Litlgllae Coptae sive Aegyplioeue.
Rome, 1778.
Vergole, J. Grammairc caple, Vol. la, {nlroollclion,
phQtI~liqllc cl pllOl1olugie, morphologic synllreml/liqllc
(slTUcmre des .lcIIIOIllemes), pllrtie syllchr'Oniqlle,
and Vol. Ib, Inlrod,lCliorr, Jlhorreliqlle el phott%gie,
morphologic sYl1lhemaliqllc (slrnc/llre des semutlt~­
mes), fXlrtie diacNr'Onique. Loovain, 1973.
Vis, H. de. Uomclies copies de fa Valiclltle. Copenha-
gen, 1922-1929.
WOrTell, W. H. Coptic Sounds. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
ARlI!l. SIIISHA-H.\L£VY
BOHAIRlC, PRONUNCIATION OF LATE.
The phonetics of a dead language can be detennined
in an indirect way only-namely, by a .scrutinizing
•
analysis of spelling irregularities that arc based on
phonetic phenomena and of traniiCriptions in the
writing system and orthography of another language
Ihe phonctics of which are better known. Absolute
proof of the issue can never be gained. But result~
obtained from different sources and by differenl
methods arc to be regarded a.~ probable if they are
consislenl.
BUI is Coptic a dead language in re.~pcct to phu·
netics? Has not the Coptic liturgy been I'cched io a
tradilional way down to this day? Although sollie
authors have e1aimed near'perfeet authenticity fol'
one or another modem tradition, It seems highly
improbable that thc 1II0ther tongue of the Copts has
Idt no mark on the spelling of the liturgiC31 Ian·
guage. It is, there£ore, advisable to take a critical
""od-tllat is, to reconstruct the pronunciation of
ancient living Coptic from contemporary sources
and to confront thc issue of such an endeavor with
modem evidence only a.~ a last resort.
For the literory Coptic of the thhteenth century
(which is, of course, the BOHAIRIC di:lleet), much
elucidation can be gained from a coclex of an Arobic
version of the Apophlhegrnata Palrum thai i~ cntir-ely
written in the Coplic alphabet (CaS£tnova, 1901;
Sobhy, 1926; Burme~ter, 1965-1966). Some n~m.,rks
on the eharocter of Ihe Arabic idiom of the text are
necessary. It has been plallJiibly classified by Blau
(1979) as "Middle Ambic Substandard:' He wrotc,
"Its author(s) intcnded to write Classical Ambic, but
whcther as a result of his (their) ignorance or negli-
gence, clements of Nco-Arabic penetra\(.'d into h.
Likc Middle Arabic texts in gencml, oor text is char-
acterized by freely altcrnating features of Classical
Aroble, Nco-Arobic and pseudcKorrections" (ibid.,
p. 215, sec. 2). The main features of its phonctics
have been elaborotcd with a SI.Ibstantial degree of
certainty. (/ WIlS pmbably pronounced In the classi·
c"l way (voicclcSIi uvular plosive), although a pro-
nunciation as lil or (g) cannot be rnlcd OUI (ibid., p.
221, sec. 8: SnI7,inger: 1971, p. 61). ~ was of pabta·
lizcd 31ticulation ([8] or [gJ). ~ and; had c;;oalcsced
in an emphatic spiront, most prob.."lbly tj.. n,is pro-
nunciation may also suggcst that!!. and! had pre·
served their spirant articulation, although there is no
direct cvidence to excludc a plosive articulation d
and I, respcclivdy (Blau, 1979, p. 221. 5«. 9;
Sattinger, 1971, p. 52). The author generally pre'
serves ow and oy in diphthong transcription, but in
some cases slips to his Neo-Arobic vernacular mon-
ophthong articulation (ibid., p. 47). In fonns of the
verb gifa, to COllie, he presents purely Nco-Arabic
features, clearly eliding the glottal Slop or hamz
 BOHAIRIC, PRONUNCIATION OF LATE 61

(geyl, 1 carne, gqydl, fCIIl. sing. active p;:It1iciple;
ibid., p. 52).
The main regul:lf correspondences between lhe
Ambie phonemes of the lelll and lhe Bohairic signs
of the lranSCliption are given in Ihe following tables
(ibid., pp. 49-50, but Wilh observations of Blau,
1979. pp. 218-22. se<;. 6-10):
I. The Consonants
zero
Remarks. Amble I is gcncrJlly rendered by the
aspirate, o. tr in the final position, / nlay also be
rendered by T.
Arabic ~ to; generally rendered by T; in nonfinal
positions it may also be rendered by o.
Arabic k is l-endered generally by x or, more rart.~
Iy, by 11... In the final position, however, k is ellelu·
sively rendered by K.. This leiter is also used to reno
del' Arabic q (see Table I).
It is remarkable that T is not used to render Ara·
bic I (ellccpt in some cases where the Iauer is in the
final position). This can be best eKplained by assum·

,
I
b
I
.
"
0; in lin:!! poliilion also T (see remarks)

x
ing a "soft" articulation (4) for T. Funhcrmon:,
three tendencies can be: observed (I) the use of
a:o;pirate signs for nonemphlltlc Mops and of nonas·
b , pirate signs for emphatic Mops, the reason for this
b • being. in all probability, the notably nonaspirated
d A character of the Arabic cmphatics; cr. Klistner, \981,
d A p. 4]); (2) the use of nonaspirate signs instead of
, r
, , aspirate signs for Mops in the final position, such as

, , T occasionally for e, and II.. regularly for x, proving

that Coptic nonaspirate stops were of soft anicl.lla-

, ,
l • tion in nonfinal positions only: (]) the use of II.. rath·
er than x (Dlau, 1979, pp. 218-20, sec. 6) (one may
d , conclude From this that the aniculation of II.. was less
I T; in nanlinal position also (see remarks)
, , lit soft than that of T and II).
In the Arabic transcriptions of Coptic liturgical
•
• texIS (of later date; cr. Worrell, 19]4, pp. 5-6), non·
final T is regularly rendered by Arabk d or 4 (or ~
I '
f , whkh had coalesced with d in Al"dbic), though not
q K in Greek words (.r.1}'Q, ~"If; ...,.,h...;> , xc;
k x, more rarely K; in final position, exclusively etc.). In what is probably the oldelit transcription
K (see rem;u'ksl tellt preserved, an undated eodell published in ell-
I , ecrpts by Gahier (1905), final T is regularly l'endered
m H by Arabic ,. The transcription that Sobhy (1940) pub-
"
" ", lished in ellccrpts-which is daled, according to
him, A.M. 1438 (but lhis cannot be confirmed from
'"
, , the printed rendering; at any rate read "9" [ .. !d')
instead of "8" [which would be 1I<1'])-is less consis-
tent in this, a.s are the reeord~ by Pctmcus (1659; d.
No use is made of the following Copli\: [etten; ror Galtier, 1905, pp. 109-110), de Rochcmontcix (1892;
lrnnscriblng Mabie consonants: ~, 4'. t. 6, consonan· taken down 1876-\877), find Sobhy (1915 and 1918;
lui oy. taken dnwn early in this century). Modem rcfomled

TAllLE I.

ARABtC COPTtC TRANSCRtPTtONS

NONRNAL POSITION FINAl. POSlTlON
,
,, e
T (0)
X (Mo)
o~)
T
Ie.

q K K
62 BOHAIRIC, PRONUNCIATION OF LATE
pronuncinlion does not al1iculatc T "softly" at all; it
is, nuber, I or ~ in all positions, in accordance with
the Greek pronunciatiun.
2, The Vowels
a. d if there is a !wrt mlllaJ!~am in the S...Ulle sylJ".
ble; otherwise, (j (sec Bbu. 1979, p, 222, sec. II,
and remarks)
i 6, ocCllSionally I
"I I 0,occasionally oy
Ii oy, but also 0 if In the vicinity of a hart
mulal!~am (see remarks)
uy ),1 if preceded by a !.,mj IIIlIttJ!!J!tJlIJ; otherwise,
(JI 01' III indiscriminately
uw ),¥
Remtlrks. TatJ!Im, or the glottali7.ing effect, is a
c\mracteristic of the ernphatics s, d. I, l, uvular q,
and, to a les.~er extent, the post<!orsal 'lI~Ulal' consu·
n;lI1ts hand g, thc pharyngcal sounds of ' and h, and
in ma;lY instances r. Allhough, fur example: both
Ambie s and .~ an~ rendered hy Coptic c, Ihe tr'fln-
scriplion di(l'cren(ialCs in rendering 51l by CEl and .~a
by C),. This proves beyond doubl thai), and (l were
pronounced diffcrently in the Bohaidc idiom. which
underlies the Coplie lmnscriptiun.
Similarly, the laler Arabic lranscriplions make use
of the Ambic emphmics 10 distinguish Coptic vowels
fOl' whicll thcre (Ire no distinct Ambic graphemes. In
the text published by Gallier (1905), lhe re(lder can
be sure that an Ambic .?d renders c),. whereas lhe
Arnbic slJ l-enders co (or CIl) nuher lhan c)" more
uften than not. Similarly, both CO nnd ClIlllre almost
alwnys rendered by ~'Ii, whereas Sli is the l'egular
equivalent of coy. TI;e writer of lhe teXI published
by Sobhy (1918) docs not proceed consistently, but a
tendency toward distinguishing), and (l is still clear·
ly disccrnible. In the Coptic idioms underlying Ihese
lmnscriplions (though nOt necessarily the copies
preserved, one of them perhaps from lhe early eigh·
leenth centUlY), the vowels)" and (I were obviously
pronounced in a different W:ly. But coalescence of
these vowels is atle.~ted as early as the mid seven'
tee/Ilh century. In the recOl·d done by Petl'aeus
(1659) both lettel'S are l-egulnrly rendered by II. The
S:lme is fuund in de Rochemonteix's (1892) and
Sobhy's (19t5 and 1918) records of lmditional pm·
nunciation. It is only in the modern refOl'llled pro·
nunciution lhat ), :md G urc again distinguished as a
lind e [B], rendered by alif and yr.', respeclively, in
the popular khulagi~ whieh have lin Arabic tl'anscril)'
tion, Here, emphatics arc only used 10 distinguish TO
and TID (tmnscribed by !u) 1'1'O1ll Toy (tmnscribed by
IIi).
Conclusion
The evidence gained from the Bolllliric Imnscl'ip·
liun, the Ambic tmnscripliuns of liturgical Bohairic,
and tmnscl'iptions of this into lhe L"llin :Ilph:loel
from the mid seventeenth century onward corrobo·
ralCS many of the results Ihat have been gained frolll
other evidence (see 80HAIRtC).
The Bohairic consonants are vuiceless, excepl M,
N, ", r, and, if in a non/inal position, 5 (sec below),
A "soft" al1ieultllion of lhe nonaspirale plosives is
nssumed fOl' all Coplic dialects. This has been cor·
rohorated by the evidence of the Arabic tmnscrip-
lions: the usual cquivulent or T is Anlbic d 01' 4. It
may, however, be aSSumed tlull It was nOl 01' Ihe
saille "softne.'i.~" as n, T, and x; it is mther often used
to render Ambic k instead of x. Worrell (1934)
thoughl il possible Ihat l3ohnir'ic II, T, x, and It were
voiced whenever going back to Egyptian b, d, t! (=
g), and K, respectively. In the Coplil: alphnbet of lhe
Arabic Apophthegmata, however, these signs repre,
sent voiceless stops: it is not T that is used for Arabic
d but ralher A (a le!lel' of lhe alphabel of Coptic
Greek). If .. is used for Al'ahic b and x tor AI'abic g,
this m:ty h:lVe been done by d"f.mlt, there being no
voiced altel'llalive available, in l:Ontrasl to the case
of T,
The problem of x is !".Ither one uf Ambic dinleclol·
ogy, as this lettel' has by and large been idenlilied
with gIm, a phoneme whose aniculation vaJie.~
gl'enlly in 1I1e Arabic idiorns or Egypt (sce Woidich.
1980, pp. 207-208). De Rochemonteix's (1892) Up·
pel' Egyplian infOl'm:mls pronounced x as J (g),
though one infOl1llant offered a fl'ee(?) vaJinnt t.
Sobhy (19 I8, 1" 54), on the other hand, daimed thnt
in Uppel' !!gypl, x is J whel'e it cOl'responds to
Sahidic oX bUI g whel'e it COl1'Csponds to Sahidic G
(but note that xe in the text he reproduces is xe,
nOI 6G, in Snhidie). In Lower Egypl, x preceding
vowel i was pronounced a.s g, but othelwise it wa.~ g,
according lu Sobhy (1915, 1" 18). A very simil.lr IUle
applies in model'll reformed pl'onunciation, which
has g before i and c. This is rcmarkahlc indeed, As it
cannot bc explained by Arabic innuence, it is obvi·
ously a testimony to internal Coptic development.
In lhe final position, n, T, x. and It seem 10 have
conlesced with the aspirates, 4>, e, G, and x, respec-
tively. This. again, is corroborated by the evidence of
the Mabic tmnscl'iptions.
 BOHAIRIC. PRONUNCIATION OF LATE
No to aspirale stopli, in thc Ar..bic transcriplkms. a
(possibly lale) tendency 10 pronounce'" as a frica-
li\'C, C\'cn in genuine Coplic words, is allcsled; il is
sometimes rendered by Ar..bic I (corresponding evi-
dence can be found with de Rochemonleix. 1892).6
is nol USl.'d for h'llnscribing Ambie. It is rendered by
.I in Arabic, 1Iithough Ihe assumed pl'Onunciation is
~ •. This can be explained by the fact Ih(\, Ar.:tbie
(both clllSSical and Egyptian) hllS no (; phoneme, and
the device of rendering Ihe Bolmil'ic phoneme by
two Ambic phonemcs (and, by consequence. two
graphemes), namely I plus S, met with reluctance,
Comparc this to the usc in modem Egypt of s to
n:ndcr Turkish t (which is '" in the Turkish Latin
alphabel; St'C Prokosch. 1983. p. II). But ~ml:Wberc
the t aniculation may have survivl--d. Although bolh
Petraeus (1659) and de Rochemonteix (1892) render
6 by s exclusively. Sobhy (1915. p. 18. and 1918. p.
52) heard ttl (though obviously not in OG. which is
lois). This could. howcV\:r. be intellll"eled n.~ a lrail
of the refonnctl pronuncialion. which has thc t
sound (rendel'ed! plus ~ in Arabic scl'ipt). again with
the exception or oc.
II is assumed that 1\ was pronounced as fl voiced
bilabial fricative, /3 (- £). This ol,lculolion wos still
noticed by de Rochclllonteix in 1876-1877; Sobhy
(1915 and 1918) notcd that nonfin'll p, is pronounced
a.~ vocalic II. and never like the rounded "' of Ara·
bic. The C\'idcncc of lhe Arabic transcriptions is in
agreement with Ihis: initial p, is rendered, nOl by
wliw but ralher by a!if plus w:'i.w. and once in the
syllable-initial ~ition hamza with kasro plus w:'i.w
(":")"!JI,~I ,HIlGJ'Uf&COI'T): by indiealing a short
front vowel. the writer obviously hinted at a non·
rounded anicul'ltion of the labial.
In the final position. ho.....ever. p, was not pro-
nounced as a fricative (ef. Tuki. 1778, p. 3). This
cannot be verified in Ihe Apophthegmata transcrip-
tion, as Ambic filml w is reali7.cd as voc:dic II in the
",,"usal forms. But both in the lr:mSCI'ipliolls and in
Ihe record~ of tmditional pl'Onunclnlion, final B is
renden:d by the con-esponding plosivc (Ambic b). II
is not pos.~ible tn ~y whether finul B fully coalesced
with final ;. or the former remained r.oflcr and/or
unaspir3ted.
It is a very remarkable facI lbat at the time lhc
Arabic transcription of the Galticr (19(5) lcxt was
produced. Copt<K;rcek words were mostly pro-
nounced according to rules similar to those of late
toine and modem Greek.
In many words, T is rendered by the Ambic voicl-...
less SlOps I or !, This indicatt.'S that it was not of soft
63
articulation. as it was in autochthonous Coptic
~"".
Thl,: voiced stops of Greek had developed into the
con-esponding mcatiV\:S in late antiquity: b > {j (b)
> v; d > S (!!); and g before front \"Owcls > J (Ji) > ,.
but uthelwise > y (t).
The relevant corrl,:~pondcnccs with A.....bie ~igns
can be explained by as.~\Iming a similm' pronuncia·
tionor the Copto·Greck wonls (see espedllly for r),
The aspirates of Greek hod developed lnlo the cor·
responding fricatives in late 'lntiquity: pi > I/J (/I) > f;
I' > " (9; and Ie' before flunl vowels > (: (9), bUl
otherwise> K (h,.
For lhe Copto-Greck words in Bohairic. note cspl-...
cially that'" was 001 rendered by Ambic b; e was apt
to render Arabic !: and x was rendered by Ambic j
(lhe sound value coming closest to f in Arabic) if
preceding a front vowel. but otherwise by Ir.
One will be inclined to aUribute the introduction
of such "learned" USo'lge to a mther late period of
Coptic literacy-for example. a period of high philo-
logical interest, such as the thirteenth and rom·
teenth centuries, Note, however, that some or lhe
misspellings in eorlier Coplic (d. Crum, 1939, pp,
48-49, 516, 540-41, 745) can hanlly be explained
otherwise than by assuming a l.....ldition of "Neo-
Gn:ek" pl'Onunciation. The queslion is, though.
whether this pronunciatiOn was applied 10 lhe
Copto-Greek words in eorlier times in lhe Sllme
maller~f.course ....'3y as in lhe Gallier (1905) text. for
example.
Note th'll lhe informanli or de Rochelllonleix
(1892) were not very consistent in the use of r, A.
and x in Copt<K;reek W(lrd~. somctiml-'S prouounc·
ing them in the "Coplic" ........y. namely g ( < g1).
even when preceding back vowels; d instead or !!.: k
instead of lJ Of f·
Pn.'Sl,:nl.(L'ty liturgical rccillltion follows the mles
of a rerormed pronuncillliOIl. It is mill'nI'ed in the
Arabic transcriplions lhot have replaced lhe Coplie
char..eters in the populo,' klrlj/ag;s, The values allli\>·
uled to the Coptic signs lIppcllr systematic and uni·
ronn, making tnlOSCliption almost a trnns!iter..tion.
Consonants are more or less rendered llccording 10
the Neo-Greek \'3lucs, X is g (spelled CS ) bcron:
front vuwcls i and e. but ot.helWis<: g (spelled
Olher \oaIucs have been mentioned above. A compic-
c: ).
UOWi k-ature is the mechanical rendering of Ihe
djillkim by hamz.a: ~, 'c'drrf; ~ , kp·l'lrmQl.
and 50 on.
These modem innovations represent the greatest
breok in lhe history of Coptic pronunciation, But
64 BOHArRIC, PRONUNCIATION OF LATE

TAIlLl! 2.
ifGK",), :x:.ll~"~T
).rrrGH
I. 'ariden ;lnOJmbU, """"
;l1lds6s hen uScb~mOI
2. arilbn enemb{;a cngas ban uiabehmOl
3. ariti!n 'en'empU 'engos hen 'uSep'chrnOt

.xo lIGHllDT GT;')oH ,*k>yI H).rG<fTOyW

I. dicbeni6t ethen nip'bJi marddlibO
2. !\;a ooni61 adhan niraul m3rarduo
3. ge pcny6l 'etl]cn Ilifi'ui mareftllv()

Nxfl m:lIl.r),H H).rocl fI.xn T6KHI1TO'(j'O

I. OJndw bck'mn lIIurcsI :m<!sc dek-medur6
2. cn!\;a b;:lkl'l\n mar.lS1 enga c.Iakmaduro
3. 'cnge pekmn mares'! 'enge tekmel'ur6

IlOT6ttl)Jl,
I. bedchn;.\k'
HJ.f'CI"'9GM lI '""'of
;lmp'rti
mal'eB6bi
2. bedehmlk mamf~bi emcbl-fJ.di
3. petehnak marefMpi 'cmefriti

"". ",.
I. ~en tp"e
H6H tlXEtl
nem hidScn """""
bikahi clc.
2. han elba 'lelll hilian ebkahi elc.
3. hen 'etll llCrll hi~cn pi k~hi ctc.

whereas present·day liturgical recitation would per- 8lDLlOGRAPilY

haps nol be comprehensible 10 the ears of a
medieval Copt, this would certainly nOl be troe of
traditional recitalion even a.~ it was heard in thi~
cen1Ury. Although it cannot be denied thtll changes
had occurred-because of the inlluence of Ambic
and inlernal development-the ancient lradition
had been preserved in an astonishing measure. An
example (fable 2) will serle besl to clarify lhis.
The lin>t line of the example is a reconstroction of
what the beginning of ,he Lord's Prayer l11uy have
sounded like in classical times. BUl note thal lhe
phonctic rendelirlg is quite imprecise. Voiceless
stops [q, 4l are meant by b and d; what is wriuen f is
thoughl to be a bilabial fricative [ell]; short t :rnd u
are open vowels (t, :I): t was rather an al! sound (or
perhaps even w; d. Vycichl, 1936).
The ~ccond line renders Sobhy's (1915, p. 19) reo
cord in the conventions used herc (.t for 511, elc.). An
Upper Egyptian pronunciation J: has been assumed
for .x.
The Ihird line is a rendering of modem church
recilation as it is Irnnscribed in Arabic script in the
popular khulagis.
Dlau, J. "Sollie Observalions 011 Q Middle Arabic
Egyptian Texi in Coptic Chametel"ll." IImlsalem
Siudies ill Arabic WId Islam I (1979):215-62.
Burmesler, O. 1·1. E. "Ful1her Leaves I"l'Orll the Am·
bie MS. in Coptic Script of the Apophlhegmatll
I'3,rom." Bill/etitt de fa Societe d'Q~htof08it cop/e
18 (1965-1966):51-64, pl. I-V.
Casanova. P. "Un Telltc arabI.' lranseril en caractcrcs
COplCS." BlllIlHi" de /'IIIS/itil/ frall"ais (/'archeologie
oriell/ale I (1901):1-20, pI. 1-11.
Crum, W. E. A Coplic Victiomuy. QlI.ford, 1939.
Gallier, E. "Un Mnnuscrit copte en CnmClCI"e!I;
arahcs." BIlI/l!litt de I'ltlsti/ilt frattrais d'a~htologil!
oril!tl/ott 5 (1905):91-111.
Kastner, H. PhO/letiJc uttd Photlotogil! des "lOdemell
Hochorabisclt. Leipzig. 1981.
Petraeus, T. P.~almIlS Primus Davidis, Cop/icf!., Arabice
et I.,mine. London, 1659.
Prokosch, E. Osma/lise/les Wortg'" iff! AgyptL~ch.
Arubischen. Islamkundliche Unlersuchungen 78.
Berlin, 1983.
Rochemontcix, M. de. "u Prononeiation modemc
du eople dans la HaUle Egypte." Memoires de fa
Sucielc Unguisliqllfl. 7 (1892):245-76. Repr. in dc
 CRYPTOGRAPHY 65

Rochemontcix. Oeuvres divl!fSes, pp. 95-129. Bi· TAOl£ 1.

bliolheque q;yptologiquc 3. Paris, 1894.
Satringcr, H. "Zur Phonctik des 80hairischen und
I • I' • 100 P
d~ Agyplisch·Arabischen im Miltclaltcr." Wietler
2 P 2. • 200 q
,
].I!i/schrif/ lilr die KIiI/cle cles Morgel/falldes 63-64
(1971):40-65.
3
4 , y 3'
4.
A 300
400 •
Sobhy, C. P. C. '~rhc Pronunciation Qf Coptic in the 5 • 5. "• 500 .;
or
Chun;h
2 (1915):15-20.
Egypt." JOlin/a! of Egypli/IIJ Ardwl!v!ogy

-::::C' "La Prononciation modcrne du cople dans

6
,
,, •
7
< 6Q

,. ,•
7'
f 600
700
X

•
w
l'Eglise." IJuIle/ilr de /'II1Sli/ll1 Ir/m~·/Ii.s d'arc/reologle
p '00
oriellw/I! 14 (1918):51-56.
"FragmentS of an Arabic MS. in COptic
• 90 900 ~ or-t

Scripl." In Hugh G. Evelyn.White. The MOl/as/eries

of the Wadi '/l Na/n'll, Vol. I, pp. 231-69. New
so on. The next set or nine letters wen: used to
York, 1926. express the hundreds, as Table 1 iIIuslrates. Here
_.,-_ "1111.' Traditional Pronunciation of Coptk in one can see thnoe archaic leuers that had fallen out
the Church of Egypt." Bullelill de 10 Societe of usc: ~ (stigma) for 6, 1 (qoppa) for 90, and " or-t
d'archtologie cop/e 6 (1940):109-117, pI. I-II. (sam pi) for 900.
Tuki. R. Rlidimellla UI/guae Cop/ae sell Aegyptiacae. During the Hellcnisllc period, imitating a Jewish
Rome. 1778. cryptogr<lphie process (called a/bam), sollie Greek
Vyt:ichl, W. "Pi&lsel, ein Dorf mit koplischcr Ober- created a similar encoding based on that division of
lieferung." AfilleiIlIIlgell des dell/$£hctl Il/s/lfIIU liir the former alphabet into three portions (or rows).
iigyp/ische Allerilimsktmde ill Kairo 6 (1936):169- This system consisted of inverting the letters of each
75. row and replacing the normal row by the inverted
Woidich, M. "Da.~ Xgyplisch-Ambische." In 11Imd·
bueh der (JTllbisehell Dialek/c, cd. W. Fischer and
row-for' example, a f3 'Y 6 ~ ~ '7/{J becoming {j 1J (
~ ~ 6 'Y {J a, and normal a being replaced by {J, {j by
O. laslrow, pp. 207-248. POI'a Unguarum Orien'
Lalium n.S. 16. Wlcsooden, 1980. 7/,6 by (, and so on (see Gardtbausen, 1913, p. 301:
Worrell, W. H. Coptic Somrds. Ann Arbor, Mich., Wissc, 1979. pp. 119-20). AJ; this systelll of inversion
1934. had the weakness of not being able to modify e (~), H
HELMtJT SATLINCER
(v), and ... (,,), located al Ihe center of each row,
spt:cial cl)'Ptic symbols wen: fabricated for them.
For Instance, e was translated by • and H by III.
Whcn the Copts bonuwed this system, the archaic
CRYPTOGRAPHY. AI times the Cop15 have felt Ictter -t, which had the value of 900 and in such
the need to use clJ'PI.ogr<Iphy in order to hide the text.s was wriuen with the letter p, had fuJlcn into
contents of certain annotations, formulas, inscrip- disuse; it was thus rendered with some lack of pn:ci-
tions, and message:>. About thirty examples of this sion, as if it wcre Ihe well·known letters yr bound
have been recorded. It would, however, be exct:ssive togethcr. Such was the basis of the cryptography that
to speak herc of a "Coptic cryptogl'ilphy," for, as the CoPl~ mostly used (Table 2). It is noteworthy to
shall be seen, even in a Coptic contell:t, the scribe I'Cmark that in Coptic the Creek 1 is currently con·
used cryplOgr<.lpltic systems borrowed from Creek fused with .., by which it is replaced.
and even preferred Greek over Coplic in formu1a.~
thus disguio;cd. Thc cl)'Plographic systems employed
can be summariwd within lhree types.
TAIlLE 2.
'-0
b-.
-
,,
.-" f·
Co.
f
Flrsl Type ,. , '-0 T_,
The two principal forms fully merit description a.~ A-, H-, y-x
"encoding." fur the Greeks took them not from tlte
cla.s.sical alphabet but from an archaic repertoire
0-' H-H t-t
<- A ,- H x-y
used in writing number.;.: the lil'St nine characters of
!he archaic Cnock alphabot were U5ed to cxpress the
,. , 0-' ,-T
,-.
11-'"
It - I .·C
units one through nine. The next set of nine were
employed to exprC5li the tens: ten, twenty, Ihirty, and 0-' f - f
 66 CRYPTOGRAPHY
•
This system was suitable for encoding a text WI;t·
ten in Greek, and in fact, in encoding fonllulas, the
Copts mostly lL'ied Creek formulas, even in the body
of documents OIhc:rwisc wrillen completely in C0p-
tic. However, when Ihey wanted to hide a truly C0p-
tic formula, they either did not modify the autoch·
thonous graphemcs (especially lV, 'l, t, .x., and 6), or
th(.'Y encoded them by means of convcnliorml signs.
Ilere an: liOme examples of this syslem and some
known \'3riations of il;
I. From the Coptic trcalise entitkod "Zoslrianos"
(Nag HaulIlHldi Libmry, Codcx VIIl [01' IV, aeconl·
ing to Dore!i.'it's numbering), p. 132) comes in GI'Cck
the following "colophon" ;1\ the 111Ictale'5 end (fiBt
half of foul1h century):
oU' " 00;: :i:6'i [0] ijir cwf
Yf'IO m:x ),(JIl.l!' OOI\J.l.l'1
UW ID.T.Il.'l rcYf>. OOF Yf[ll.x]
Ac'ryot tr)""I"fl[cr]~ 'l-rr
putuoii 1'1fOo:; aA71"fi
a<; Ai.r)<w ~O'TP(OIIl
"Words of tnuh of Zoslrianos, lhe God of trulh,
words of ZOroaster" (d. DOI'eSSC, 1950; Wis.se. 1979,
no. I; with some enlendatiOns).
2. A Gn.-"Ck graffito from the sixth century or later
found in the TIlcban mounlains (Crum and Evelyn.
White, 1926, no. 701) reads thus:
til6KO't(x~<fI!I
~
to,c;~
>.9'lKc.~rt..a
~~6f'cs[It JHOt.tIc}ll.~
t>.ocu t
'I' 'lO 'fij '19 ii:ii ·1fU.. T.
Kf Kcri. 8V1'(I~""
rW/ltryi.o/l°xO II
rWII ~-yQ~~/I fU{trU
"010 __~ rO-<; alMlPTia(<;)
JU)lJ ~yW M[71]I't't~ 0 (il)p.ap
wA{ii).. 1" 1" ,,, Ki '116 {
[n lines I and 5, the marks in braces { ... } are
superlluous. [n line 1, the first t, and in line 6, the
second and third t arc ordinary cro:s&Cs. "Lord and
power of lhe holy pl""dyers of the great [monks], pray
for my sins! 1 am Menas lhe sinner. Amen, Amen,
Amen, Lord! Ind(iction] 7" (cf. Wissc, 1979, no. 2,
which strongly improved the n'ading of this text, in
an approximale Greek; fomlel'ly published in Crom
and E\·elyn.White, 1926, pp. 147, 330, 386). The
sampi, a rarely used symbol, is sketcht.od in some
variable fashions. The siglum <to for "Aloen" is the
current Byzantine abb~viation bas<.od on the numeri·
cal value of the letten of this word:
J. + M + II + " - I + 40 + 8 + 50 .. 99.
3. Coptic formulas to proll.'Ct oneself from dOV
were not so much for the simple passerby as for
lovers or thieyt.'S who would fear the <10&'>' barking
and biting at night; thc tc;o;t shown below ",,-as cdittod
by Erman (1895) from a fragment corn;.crvcd in the
British MUSl..'\Im (Or. 1013·A). TIlc reading of the
cl')"ptographic fonnula W"olS spt.'Cified by Wisse (1979.
no. II). The revelation of this fonnula is aUribuled
10 Isis, an allrihution that places it llmong the most
archaic of Coptic fOllllUlas. Here an: the mOSl essen·
tial lines only:
[£'IIll~xrslU.xarlllll~lKqlP.f!llII~:!'t,!!
~~le{OXt-]
[Gl]MOyf MnoyJ.p mUM IlQ,lllrO NTflC~tMe
flTC TC'!MJ.[J.Y TC;)
1 bind thc dog of [ ... ], the son of the woman
[ ... ), who is hi.~ mother!
In this lext, the three Coplic lelteB originated
from demOlie, Ill. 'I, and 2. arc conserved jll51 as lhey
are. wilhout encoding (cr. Ennan, 1895; Kropp,
1930-1931, Vol. 2. no. S, pp. 14-16, and Vol. 3,
no. 249; sec Wissc, 1979, no. II, for review and
comment).
4. In the Coptic medical papyrus published by
Chassinat (1921), the namcs of a cenain number of
drugs arc encoded in the same way. The manuscripl
can be dated from the ninth or the tenlh century.
Samples: lAc-f for HXCDf' (or ~~), onion; ~
for XJo.f'KOC (or ?O.AKoc), bron7.e; lElSIl for l'tU.C6,
calf.
5. DUling the Persi:m invasion al the beginning of
the sevenlh century, lhe monks of the monasteries
in the Theban lllountains (in Dancllil'ah as well as in
Dtlyr al·Bahri) had to Wilhdl'llw to Ihe surrounding
desct'. Prub.lbly this tempomry exile would account
for the Coplie gmlliti fuund in II hermitage in the
region of Armant in 1947 by l3aehatly (cf. /\bd al-
Masih el aI., 1965). This gmllilo was written by a
monk who carne from the great Monastery of
Phocbammon; only the lirst hulf is given here:
elll~IICj>eK)),,),5}l,.I",,-fElIIIW':"'"..AIK
~y{Il'twfIl.QlIIITU.
~1[MDIIIi&fI~
_~liOlllilO"l
.utOK +Eu,ooeoc IllIlIlf'fl HKOH6C II
S161l.J.X1CTOC "AU.
KotlOC HT€lfK.T 1u.x0GlC
tc ooxc "'fI o(y)fu. NHH.\1
In line 2, the first t is an ordinllry cross.. The sign in
braces I ... } is superlluous. In line 3, the scribe
 CRYPTOGRAPHY 67

"TOIl.' the Ii~ t wilh Ihe shape of an ankh. "I am
Phil()(heos, the !oOf\ of Komes, the insignificant dea·
con of Terkllt. My Lon.! Jesus Christ, have mercy on
me .. ," Thc autochthonous coptic lellers 19 nnd x
remain without encoding (d, ibid" p. 30; reviewed
by WL~, 1979, no. 12).
6. To disguise the autochthonous COI)lie lellel's,
the Copts l1icd employing conventional signs such
as !!!: for lI,l lml! txJ for x. The following elllllllple is 1I
personal invocation inserted by a monk berore the
title of an epistle on virginity allributed to Sail'll
Athanasius (Bib1. Nat. copte 131. fol. 21'. perhaps
ninth 01' tenlh century; cr. vall LanL'lChool, 1929.
Vol. I, App. I; reviewed by Wissc, 1979. no. 14):
cH-OJl5!:. i11Of.~[KI]
),XClIlIII'b--9'lJlOC!!{n 1
1l.~)1'f'Stfl~0I0]
.,."
l.f'IlW'16Y6 I'm .\l!-MI.I]
O'(WII "1M (lTto.CDql (2M]
1~H6 H'T(lTHdilIAIU.]
~.,
and hundreds, 1111.' units are rcpn::scntoo by the let·
ters ), through 0, the tcns by Ihe same i through Q
topped by a single dot, the hundreds by )i through ~
topped by two dots. This system was perhaps bor-
rowed from Arabic (Wissc, 1979, no. 18). Each sct of
the alphabet is encoded by the signs I to 9, 10 to 90,
lind 100 to 900, respectively, superimposed one on
the other withollt r-CSOI,ing to an inversion, as was
the case in Ihe system described llhove, with the
r-csull Ihat the leiters ), 10 0 of lhe genuinc tClIt arc
not modified by this code at all (Tablc 3),
8. In a Bohairic Gospel book dated from 1327, an
invocation is tnmscl'ibed as follows:
ttit;lWW ~lJ.,.),1 ut tu.J, bll
.l..AHtI 'to 1111111
l1IEUHf1 OI)H),C eM- H.\.l N.\'"
)"HIUl 'to >.HIVl
The wretched Thomas, Cod be merciful 10 him!
Alllen, Amen, Amen.

An originOlI peculkHily: ellch "Amen" Is encoded in a

Remember' me in love, everyone lhut will read differenl way, The first l.~ represented by +.A.1l8, cor·
in Ihis book, ltnd pray for mc. responding to lhc !lIter lllelhod i11ustmted by lhis
invocation. Thc second is 'iii according to Ihe iso·
7. In a bricf message of grecting wrillcn on a
pscphic system already noted lIbove in eu,mple 2.
parchment SCl"olp (8.M. Or. 4720[96]), the Coptic let·
The third appears as .1..111111, according to the el)'pla-
ters of demOlic origin were encoded by Greek lellers
graphic process described at the beginning of this
used as symbols for thousands: ~ for 1,000; , for
anicle (cf. I-Iomer, 1898-1905, p. lui; Wis5e, 1979,
2,000; r; for 3,000; + for 4,000; and 41 fol' 5,000-
no. 18).
!hi:!;, respectively, for the lettcrs tf, "', " x, and 6.
These graphemes wen: conserved in their n.'gUlar
Third Type
order.
A third system substituled for each letter of the
nonnal alphabet the cOI"n'l>-punding letter from an-
other nonnal alphabet written beside it but shifted
down by onc 01' marc letters, a process called in
OXCf'lOTKO ),y«I TI.I.e1l),
anliquity "Julius Caesar's method." If one shift:; the
I"\5~KAX+O'I ::I:ll MlIOY.x.l.t
second alphabet by one leller, starting with fJ replac-
~K)'~)"llIl"'XTI Mn),M),IIiOYTI
ing Cl', one has the following:
Ven;o: ),IIU ll),nl'+O¥t ),1111), 1I),lItIOyl'
Wilh Godl I grcct and salute the hClllth of my
pious Abba P.olphnollti.
One can sec that the name of Ihe addR'SSCc, Abba
.-.
TABU! 3,

,-,
, -1
k-'
r -,
c-,
..

Paphnouti, is wrinen wilhout code on the parch.

ment's verso (cf. Crum, 1905, no. 669; n:viewed by r - r ,-, T_r
..
Wisse, 1979, 00. 16).
.-.
A-A
.-.
H_"-

, -.
Y-A
+-6
Second Type
.-.
C'c
0-'
x-
t-·
.-.
<;
..

,-.
A second clyptographic system burruwct.l from
II - II II-it
Greek also llSl'!'i Ihe primitive :llphabet divided into
three rows of eltamcters representing uniL~ of tens 0-0 ,-0
68 CRYPTOGRAPHY

(I P 'Y 6 t , " a~
A p. II f 0 .". P U 'T V If' X 1/1 til
K 10 be compared with the alphabctic order tron·
fJy6t(.,bl KAp.llfoTrpU'TII.px"'wa scribed a.~ follows:
9. Here is an e1tample allestL-d in a Gospel leXl OH~~6f"U'WlOl.I H H I ),k -t .. t x +
Y T C r
from Ihe White Monaslery d:1Ied 1112 A.1I. The same
lhc:sc two Jines were found scribbled On a piece of
process was only applied 10 the five Coptic lellers 'iii
through .x encoded by their own sequence being
wood recovenxl in the ruins of the Thehan Monas-
tcry of Apa Epiphanius (Crum and Evelyn.While,
shifled by one leuero
1926, no. 616). Thc gmlcsquc fonnula
""tG.x
'1t 6 .x", ltl3PoxiTt>lIJ 00 qilJtof b1JPO(vyo«op.f/1t,u'fntTtO".
The texl reads: was so well known lhat thc Palatine Anthology
r.\I~oouno.Y~lc] (9.538) had included it. 1I0wc\'(,:r, Ihere survi\'e no
"'T~~~[Y7.J~~~,t;t ellompk'li of either Coptic or Greek cncoded texts
eillployiog it as a key. And yet, the cryptogmphic
),tI()I(, 11l~1lK8 ~lkTl!'[r] purpose of this mnemonic device seems to be indis-
yc ':lQ}ltfOY[T6) '!ow ':l),l C.J~o~ putable, the normal alphabcl being COllOcctcd with
it in the fonn of three !nvel1eJ rOWS (fl'Om 9 to )"
I am the poor Viclor, son of Shenoute. Forgive
rrom 1 to I, lind from f to rl, a.~ in the fir.;t of the
me!
s)IlItems discussed above.
(cr. Crum, 1905, no. 489; van L:mtKhoot 1929, no.
Ixu-h; Wisse, 1979, no. 19, scllied the issue of its
Purpose
interpretalion.)
These syslems are the most CUll"Cnt. The fir.;t, One should ask what purpose these cryptogr.lms
transmitted by the COplic scribes to Iheir Elhiopian served, for it is clear that such systems began vinual·
colleagues, was even adaPled 10 Ihe Ge'cz language Iy al lhe birth of the Coptic language (elUlmples I
and used onder lhe dcsign;Jtion of the "learned Ian· and 3) and laslcd at least until the fool1eenth centu-
guage" or ""ggara liqtiwcrlt (Conti·Rossini, 1927, pp. ry (example 8). In answer, Ihe limited number of
524-28; unfortunately noces WT'iuen very hastily and examples so fur identified, plus the fact that severol
imprecise). cases remain unidcntifiL'<1 and that it is impmsible in
other instances 10 decide whether thc text is written
Other Types in Greek or Coptic (e.g., the calnmus box from
Anlin~ IANTtl'looPOUS] in the ancienl collection of
Were lhere other Coplic processes of encoding?
the Guimel Museum kept loday al lhe Louvre; cf.
One can suppose Ihis, since st..'Vcral formulas slill
Oon.'sse, 1951, pl. 1) allow jusl a few observations
resist efforts 10 decode them, unless they an:: crypto-
rolher than I.rue conclusions.
gram imitations devoid of meaning. It must be poilll'
It seems that inilially such systems served to hide
cd out 'hat artificial alphabets ellisted and were used
lhe entire title of an apocryphal work, to disguise a
'0 hide astrological, alchemic, and magical ronnulflS.
magic formula or make it more mystel;Ous, or to
Indeed, Hellenistic and BY7.antine occultism pro·
veil the exaCl identity of medic..l drugs from the
duced many picluresque versions (DOl'esse, 1950-
knowledge of common people (ellamples 1, 3, and
1951, pp. 221-26). FU11hennore, the Arabs, nOI
4). For the I'Cst, it became above all a guileful C1tpe·
mel'Cly satisfied to revive such formulas, added a
dient of some literates 10 communicate among
greal number of fancies that spread throughout the
Ihemselves only: an invocalion inscl1ed by a scribe
Mediterrnncan world (among othe1"5, cf. Ibn
at the end of a manuscript he has copied (examples
Wahshlya, "Lcs AlphabcL~ occultes devoi!cs," In
6, 8, and 9); a proyer of a monk Sl;:ribblcd on a wall
Hammer, 1806).
It is certain that thmugh the Dyorontiocs, the Copts
(examples 2 and 5); a brief message, esscnlially a
pmycr, to another monk (example 7). All of this was
learned the cryptogmphic method of translileraling
at once naive in il5 pmc($.~ and impoverished in its
lhe normal alphabet by a "Ioog key"-that is, by a
conlent. Apparently, Ihe worthiL'lit things hidden in
conventionalized phrase embodying all the !cUCD of
these cryptogr.uns have been totally lost, except
Ihe alphabet out of alphabetical order, as suggested
vague memories: ''The Thcbans tt'll of an angel giv.
by repetilions in the- anificial sentence
ing the liCicnce of lhe mystic language to Pachomius,
,),1f'OX6t.Um TO epyU\ OHI'~IOC, Comelius and Syrus in such a way that Ihey ex·

pressed themselvc:5 by means of a special alphabel
....-hich conccakd the meaning in hidden signs and
symbols" (Pratfatia ad ngl/las S. PQc/,ornii. in Mignc.
PL 23, p. 68). This would confiml a Ictler from
Pacoomiw; II) Syrus (ibid., p. 1(0): "Animad\'eni
cnim lerminos esse cpistolae vesu'ac Hela ct Thela.'·
where termines could specify a key 10 decodc lhc
order of lhose:: things of which one CUll only catch a
glimpsc.
HtllLlOGRAPIIY
Abd o.J.Masih. Y.; W. C. Till; and O. H. I!. Burmcster.
"Coptic Gl"'~lIiti and Inscriptions from the Monas'
tery of Phocbammon." In C. Bachally. I.e MOlla·
Sltre de PIJoeb,mmw/I dalls IQ Thcb6rdc. Vol. 2. pp.
24-157. Cairo, 1965.
Cha.Wnat, E. UII Papyrus medical coptc. Calro, 1921.
Conli·Rossini, C. "Di Olleuni selilti eliopici int.-diti, 4,
II 'Nagara Iiqiwcnt: sc:rillura convenzionale."
RCIlJicotrli dcll'Accademia IlaVol/ale dei Lillcei.
Clas~ di scicuu mr:wali. sloriche c filolegiche. ser.
6, (1927):524-28.
Crum, W. E. Cutlllo!:lIc of the Coptic MIlIIUR'ripls ill
the British MII,reum. Londnn, 1905.
Crum, W. E" and H. G. Evelyn.Whlte, cds. The Mmr-
/lS/cry of Bpi/JlumillS at Thebes, 1'1. 2. Ncw Ynrk,
1926.
[)ores.o;e, J. "'l.cs Apocalypses de Zoroa.~trc. de Zos·
Hien, de Nicothce, .. .' (Porphyre, Vic de Plotin,
116:' In Coptic Stl/dies ill Hcmr:w of Wlllter Ewillg
erum. pp. 255-63. Boston. 1950.
__~ "Cryptographic cOple et cryptographic grcc-
que:' Bullelin de /'InSii/!# d'Egyple 33 (1950-
1951):215-28 and pI. 1.
Erman. A. "Zauberspruci). fur cincn Hund." Zeits·
chrifl fiir iJgyplische Sprllche lwd Aflet1l/msk",ule
33 (1895):132-35.
Gardlh.ausen. V. Griechische Pll/iJogrllphie, Vol. 2, Die
Sellrif/, U"'erschrifiCII und Chronologie illl AI,et1/1II1
mul im bYUlIllini,tchelll Mille/llller. LciIYJ.ig, 1913.
Hommer, J. Ancient Alphllbeu Qlrd Hieroglyphic Chllr.
/lc/ers. London, 1806.
[Homer, G. W.] TIre Coptic VersiOlI of the Nell' Testa·
mlill/ in tire NOr/lrem Diulecl, O/henvise Called
Memphitic /lml Boltairic. London, 1898-1905.
Kropp. A. M. AusgewiJhlte Iroptischc. 4Jubet1e,%/e.
Brussels, 1930-1931.
lantschoot, A. van. Recl/cil des colopllOtIS des lIlalll'·
serill> chliliens d'Egyple. LouV'o1in. 1929.
Migne. J. ·P.• ed. Patrologill Ullilla 23. Paris, 1865.
Wmkler. H. A. Siegel wrd CnllrakUre in der muhaftf<
medllniscnen 4Jllberei. Berlin and Lcip7.ig, 1930.
WIS5e, F. "Language Mysticism in the Nag Hammadi
Texts and in Early Copt~e Monasticism. I, Cryptog-
raphy." Elichoria 9 (1979): 101-120.
JEAN DoRESS.ll
CRYIYfOPHONEME 69
CRYPTOPHONEME, Thc term "CryplOPho-
nClllc" designalcs any phoneme that appears not di·
rectly, through a grapheme (IL'lter) exclusively its
own in the superficial foml of the language (ilS 01'-
thogl'aphy), but indireclly, through some grapheme
not Its own and normally assigned to another pho-
neme. 111e elliMencc of the cryptophoneme, superfi-
cially concealed, can be recognized (It l\ deeper level
(on the question of Icvels, sec Hint7.e, 1980, pp. 111,
122), where it shows Itself in Indirect fashion by its
influence on neighbnring superficial phonological
SIl\lCIUI'CS, in various lellemes. and the like.
If the grapheme that renders Ihe cryptophoneme
is normally allolled to another phoneme. it is none·
theless most often chosen because of the similarity
of pronunciation belween phoneme and crypto-
phoneme. Kasser (1982) thinks he can detecl in Cop-
lie the existence of at leasi three cryptophonemes in
tachysyllabication (i.e.. quick SYUAlllCATION): the
glide IjJ of IaChysyllabication. rendered onho-
graphically by (0)1 (normally /il in lachysyl-
labicalion and always /ilin bradysyl1abic3tion. slow
syllabication); the glide Iwl in tachysyl1abic!ltion,
render-ed orthographically by (o)y (normally luI in
lachy.~yl1abication and always luI in bmdysyl-
labicalion); lhe enigmatic occlusive 1'1 (d. Dieth,
1950, p. 101; Kasser, 1981:1, pp. 26-32; and Al.Erll),
which of mx::cssity follows a tooic vowel. a chiefly
vocalic link rendered gl"'o1phically by vocalic gemina·
tion (see GEMINATION. vQCAlJc). probably always
equh'alent to tonic yowel plus atonic vowel in
bradysyllabication (d. the problem of "glides" and
"glidants" in phonology, Kasser, 1981b, pp. 37-38:
and that of aleph, rather than ·AYIN. in relation 10
vocalic gemination).
In the Coptic idioms, dialects. lind subdialecl!i
without graphical vocalic gemination, such as 8 and
its suhdialects, and C, 1'4, V4, W, and M. there are
only thc eryptophonemes 1;/ and /w/, blll nOl 1'1.
since even the harrowed grapheme that renders it in
other dialects has disappearecl, although In 8 etc., C,
F4, V4, W. and M tl'aces have survived of the influ·
ence fomlerly exerdSt.'d by lhis cryplOphoncme
upon the neighboring superficial phonological struc-
tures (e.g., S K.l...l.+T /b't/, to leave me. 8 "",.(IT
and not -"",'0.
Confronted by something lhat he has reason to
think conceals a cl')'ptophoneme, the phoneticist and
philologist may seek to "decode" it, and thus dem-
onstrate its existence. not by simple examination or
graphemes with exclusive allocation but by a com·
plex examination of graphemes with allocations that
comparative and analogical analysis will show to be
 70 DIALECT, IMMIGRANT
.,
diverse. The possibilily will 'llwa~ remain of con-
testing the existence of this or thai t:ryptophoncmc
(cr. Edgel10n, 1957, in regard to aleph and 'llyin, lhe
survival of which ['llyin only] in Coptic the author
also contests).
Because uf valious factor,; that often lll11ke il very
difficult, or' even impossibh:, lu :Iehlcve peliect cor-
respomlence between the phonological system of a
language and its alplmbclic and Olthographical sys-
tems, practically ever)' lan/!,ullge bus ils crypto-
pbonemes (d. Dlctb, 1950, pp. 36-43). [I is there-
fore not surprising to lind them lliso in Coptic.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dicth, E. Vademekum ria PhVl1etik. I'hrmelisclJe
Grulld/agen fiir das lVisse~lsc1wftliche WId
pruktisclJe StUr!illlll der Sprache~l. Bern and Mu·
nit:h, 1950.
Edgel10n, W. F. Review or W. C. Till, Koptischc
Grammatik ($ai"discher Dia/ckt), mit Bib/iographic,
Lcsestiickc~1 und WQrtc/Vcrz.cichl1issc~1. JOImwl of
Ncar Eastern SllIdie.~ 16 (19.;7):136-37.
Hintze, F. "Zur koptischen Phonologie." f.nchorill 10
(1980):2]-91.
Kassel', R. "Usages de la sudigne dans Ie P. Bodmer
VI, notes additionnelles:' Bulletill de la Sociiilc
d'egypi%gie, Gencve 5 (1981 a):23-]2.
___ . "Voyelles en fonction ConWllarllique, con·
SOllnes en l"unction vocalique, et dasses de
phunemes en eopte." Bullethl de /a Societe
d'cgyplologie, Gel/eve 5 {I 981 b):33-50.
--::::C' "Syl1abation rapide ou lente en copte, I, Les
Glides jjj et jwj avec leurs COITcspondanls vocali-
ques 'ji/' ct '/u/, (et phonemes apparics ana·
logues)" 'lnd "II, l\Ieph et 'voyelle d'alcph:"
Enchoria 11 (1982):23-27,39-58.
Ouecke, H. Review of 1. Ver'gOle, Grammaire cuple.
MIISeon 91 (1978):476-80.
Stern, L. Kuplische Gramnl/ltik. Leipzig, 1880.
Till, W. C. "Alles 'Aleph und 'Ajin im Koplisehen:'
Wi,mer Zeitscl1rift fiir die Kllnde des Morgen/mules
36 (1929):186-96.
_"'~. KUpli)'che Grammalik (!wi'discher Dialf!kl), mit
Bibliographie. Leseslilcken Ilnd W iirle/Vl'l7.Ciclll1isse~l.
Leipzig, 1955.
__~. Koplischl' Dialelagrammalik, mit Leseslikken
lind Wi:lrterhllch. Munich, 1961.
Vergole, 1. Grann/wire cople, Vol. la, IllIrodljCliol1,
pllOH<!.tiqllc el phonologic, morp}w/ngic synthc·
matiql.e (slrm:turc des semamcmes), panic synchro-
l1ique, Vol. Ib, 'nlroductiOI1, phonetiqlle et phunu/-
ogie, morpllO/ugie synlhenwliqlle (slmclllre des
sbllal1lemes), paT/ie diachroniqlle. Vol. 2a, Mor-
plw/ogie s)'lagmatiqllC, sy~l/axe, panic SYIlchr(miqllc,
Vol. 2b, Morphologie SYlltagmatique, partie diachro-
niqlll'. Louvain, 1973~I9!l3.
RouOu'tlE KASSl:1l.
DIALECT, IMMIGRANT, In Coptology, the
term "immigranl di;llecl" means any idiom spoken
nut,ide it, region of origin. The classic example is,
of coursc. Sabidic, wbicb in its f'lrthest origin proba·
bly derives in some way from a regional di:det:t;
afterward it spread upSlream and downstr'Cam, and
bec.lme gr.lduilily a supraregional ktnguage, the ve-
hicular, or COlllmon. speech ollhe Nile Valley rrom
Cairo to Aswan. It is rea,onahlc to suggest that each
Coplie idiom bas. in principle, a lerritory or wbich it
is, or originally was, the naturalillnguage (cf. GROGIl.A·
I'HY. DIALECTAL). The vlliidity uf Ihis gcnentl state-
ment is not afrected by the fact thaI a dialecl ele.
known 10 scholars only in a morc or lcs., advanccd
stage or nelilralization is evidem:e Olll situatiun uf
compromise, which, in terms of logical and chl'Ol1o-
logk:ll evolution, is only secondary, not prim'lry, a
siluation in which Ihe more advallced Ihe neutraliza·
tion is, the more diflicult it hecomes 10 delermine
lhe geogmphical origin of its componenls,
The origin of A, P, /3, and possibly M can be scen
with some pred,ion. That of I.-or more precisely,
tb.ll of eaeb cOmponent of I. (i.e., L4, 1..5, and 1.6) as
a dialectal cluster, pos.sibly evolved, collectively, if
nOI degene['l'Ite, ['emains of the previuus common
speech of al least II lar'Se par1 01 Upper Egypl-does
not emel'Sc so clearly (to the north and perhaps also
10 the soulh of A; cr. LYCO·UIOSI'OLll'AN). The origin of
S is even more obscure, even if some arguments
from its phonology (so fur a, it can bc known fmm
its or1hography, which lhe majol'ily of Coptologisls
think is possihle) and especially fmm it, morpho·
synlax suggesl placing Us origin in upper Middle
Egypt, somewhere between the region or M and lhe
areu of which L W;lS the current language. Tbe rl'a-
son is that the secondary componentS of L and Iheir
urigin ure slill nol known. This means that there is
even greater ignornnee of lhe precise chHr'l'lcter of its
chief component, but there are good grounds for
t:aJling it, too, L, or pre·L, since it was from lhis
above all thai L emerged. The lack of knowledge 01
pre-I. prevents location of ilS or'igin with any preci·
slon.
I!ven less is known about the secondary compo·
nCnL'l of S, and hence uOOUI the prccise characlcr of
ils chid component, pre·S, so mueh so that some
doubt whether it even existed and consider lhe
seurch for it superfluuus and illusory. From this
point of view, S would nOI have any precise local
origin; it would he a completely neutral and hybrid
prOdUCI, Ihe result of a large number of compromis·
es among the various Coptic dialects lhe whole
lenglh of the Nile, gathering up the results of earlier
regional compr'Omises. In Ihis view, lhen, one would

ha\'c 10 s(''C in S ultimalely some kind of a \'aS1
compromise embracing Ihc whole "dialcclal" pan.r
rama of the counlry, and hence a "language" in Ihc
broadest sense, nOI, ,"Iriclly SJ>C'.lking, a "dialt:cl" (cf.
Kassel', 1980, pp, 103-104, n. 17),
When a local or regional dialecl or idiom is spo-
kcn in lhe lemlory of iL" origin. it is the "aulochtho-
nous dialect" of lhal area, One may also use this
Icnn, by Citlension. for a somewhat neulralized dia·
lect thaI has become regional (i.e., a large regional
idiom originaling in a l:ompromise belween Ihe mi·
nor autochlhonous dialed of one place and minor
neighboring aUlochthonous diak'CIS), SO long as ils
Ulll: rem,lins l:onfllled 10 lhe region In which it has
established itself lhrough these l:olllpromises.
Some Coptic idiom,", eaeh supported by an origi·
nal milieu (geogmphical and, llbove all, sodnl) more
dynamic tlHIIl that of its neighbor!l, progressively in·
vaded neighhoring ten;tory, extenuing their own
gt-ographical area, TIlis is tnle for S nnd, to a lesser
but still considerable degree. possibly also for L, and
was perhap!! a tendency in V (mther than At). One
calls Ihese "imlllignmt dialecls" when Ihey are en·
toUntered oulSide die areas in which they are the
aUlochthonous idioms.
'Ole dialeclal invasion, Ihe mOSI important cause
of the fonnation of an lDlOun, call be seen most
conveniently in what appeaB 10 have been the prog-
ress of S. It Yer)' soon, and probably a long ti~
before the strictly Coptic epoch, became lhe com-
mon language of the whole Egyptian Nile Valk'Y
above the Delta, Bc:sidc it. of coorse. In all the im·
portant economic and polilical centers there was the
Creek of F..gypt, but thi~ was a foreign languagc re-
served for the Grt:ek minority and a small elite of
bilingual Egyptians. TIle con."t-quenees of thili inV'"d-
sion or Sahidic, in the morc 01' less long term, were
disastrous for thc:: othc::r idiom.~, especially the au-
tochthonous dialect" nf Ihe area!l involveu; lit 1ellst
on Ihc litcnlry level. S progressively SUllpla11led
them anu chokc::d thC::111 01r.
The Sahidic invasion could Inke eITecl in two main
way:;: (a) by a slow continuous progression, through
direct contaci along the road~ by bnd, which pro-
duced a fairly homogem,'ous conqUCSI and lefl be-
hind various "pockets of l'e!ilSlanCe" in comers in
the oounllY. sometimC5 concentraled around small
IOWns or (Ialer) monasleries that \l.'ere Ixu1icularly
conservative; or (b) by a more rapid disconlinuous
progre$Sion, along the lille of the river from large
port to lal"Jc porI, which I~ in lhe fir!lt place to the
esrablishment of islands of thc nt-'W idiom in certain
lOCiaI milieus of the most important towns. while
the country areas and small towns (or small ports)
DIALECT, IMMIGRANT 71
in belwccn remained prnclicnlly unaffected in thc
short and middle lenn, and continued for a long
lime railhful to Iheir autochlhonous local dialect.
According to the social class or the lcvel of cul-
ture of those who wished 10 speak it (the "social"
aspect of the Coptic diaJects; cf. GEOGRAPHY, OlAu;c.
TAt) and according to the time elapsed sincc ilS
immigralion. Ihe immigrant dialcct was itself inevlta·
bly, and in wrying degrees, subject to lhe Influence
of the autochlhonous dialect (cf. Vergote. 1973a,
2-3,5). This hyblidi7.ation may hom: bL-cn pl'llclically
nonexistent in those milieus which had thernstl.....,:>
immig'';Itc<1 rmtll the region where S originated or
IImong rcccnt immigrolnts for whom S wa.~ Iheir
mother tongue, BUI from Ihe second or third genc::·
mtion onward, even in cultivatc::d dl'cles, and with
011 the moTe rellSOn in milieus of a low culluml
level, it would be eneoumged hy continual contllcts
between autochlhonou.~speakers .IIlU immigrnnts, or
de5Cendants of immigrants, and would sometimcs
have reached the level of orthography (..-specially in
vowels), where il produced percel)tible modilica-
lions.
In milieus of a low cultural level, this conltlmina-
tion was shown by Ihe production, in quile anarchic
fashion, of very diverse idiolectal fonns, In cullivat·
cd milieus in which die immigranl dialecl was sp0-
ken, rcsislance 10 contamination fTOm Ihe autoch·
thonous dialect may have been effeclive for a short
timc after the immigralion. Succeeding generations
would eventually undergo contaminalion 10 some
extelll, despite dicir will to adhere to Ihelr own au-
tochlhonous dialeclal system. They would gradually
COllie to te,'ms not wilh die idiok'Clal anarchy of Ihe
milieus of low cuhure but with a kind of !lystematic
COlnpromise thai would emel'gC as, in some reo
spect", II new di"lcctal s)'Slem slightly differcnt from
the original system that had penetrated carlier into
this orCa of immigmtion. This would be n sySlem of
hyhrid origin, in which the immigmnt phoncmic
component to a large extent prcdomlntlte~, but the
IIUlochthonous componenl, though vel)' l1U1ch In the
minority, also has ils p..wt.
Such may have been the case wllh lll.... t.F£'T' P, in
which wme have secn a variety of proto-Sahidic
(reconstrucloo, 'pS) immigrating inla the Thebaid
even before the Coptic period. liere, along."ide a
kind of ·pS vocabulary that would be lhe major
demelll, lhere would be found also. among remains
of SOlne lost local dialcel, .several ·pS lexemC$ (i.e..
proto-Sahidic with some phonemic characteristics
Ihal are Lycopolitan or, in a Ial'Re number of eases.
Akhmimic), bul not ·pSl (i.e.• proto-Sahidic wilh
lycopo1itan or other charactl"r1slics that are
72 DIAlECr, IMMIGRANT
idiolt:ctal or nonsystematic and Ihomughly in-eguJar,
er. Kasser, 1982).
Analysis of the numerous Sahidic telllS found in
Upper Egypt would probably allow one to discover,
alongside tOOse which '111'(: pul'(:ly idiolectal and pm·
cnt S or SO fonns, others that systematically show
their adoption of some Lycopolilan or Akhmimic
phonemic characteristic. and hence present SI or Sa
forms.
Equally the product of euhiV".ttcd Sahidic milicus
in a region of which L Is the autochthonous regional
(or even local) dialect are !IOmc texts in immigrant S
whose phonological 5yslelll is enlirely S (so far as
one can judge (rom thl.' onhography) but whose syn·
talC and lexical stock arc L nuhcr lhan S. Mutatis
mUlandis, it could be A rather than S, if one is
interested in thl.' pltl.'noml.'na produced hy immigra·
tion of S into an areu or whkh the aUloehthonous
dialect w.:\S akin to A (and no doubt very similar)
and in which L, as .m immigrant dialect, may have
been the common speech even berore the Suhidic
invasion (:is in Ihe region of Nag Hammadi) and
before the region was completely swamped by the
immigration of S. Should one class these texIS as
evidence of A or. on occasion. of L, rather than of 51
That would not be very reasonable. for if in Ih(:ory
syntaclic and Icxical criteria are at least as imponant
as (or even more imporuntthan) phonological crite·
ria in the analysis of a text, the faci remains that the
last: are the only ones which can in practice be
applit..-d in almost all cin::unu.t.ances, even if one is
dealing with a trining scrap of text in which the
~lactic structures are not readily apparent and one
can identify only a few isolated and nOI very specific
words, and hence cannot lind that r.u~ word. or
observe the characteristic syntactic construction.
thai belongs to A or L and not to S. It is, thus, to the
phonological criteria thai priolity would ultimatcly
be given, not in tcnns of any theoretical superiority
hut simply as a mailer of convention, bl.'cause these
criteria are the most practical and, so 10 speak, uni·
verSally applicable.
Therefore, these cases require the usc or a siglullI
more complex than the eal'lier ones. to indicate a
veneer of S phonology on either a Icxical or a syn·
tactical system that is non·S. This kind of siglum will
designate either the non·S leliemcs adopted into im·
migrant S (with a phonological orthography perfect·
Iy consistent with S) or Sahidic tex1.5 originating in
another dialecl. subsequently adopted into immi·
grant S. and clothed. in an orthography perfectly
consistent with S. but as a veneer on a non'S syntall.
Cases of the latter sort may occur either because of
mental habi1.5 due to the non&hidlc mother tongue
of the redactor (or the translator of the first Coplic
version of a Greek original) or because these writ-
ings were first composed in anothcr dialcct and then
translated into Sahidic. These cOllipleli sigla will be
$1/1. S'/a. $1/"1. SR. and so on, for Sahidic, showing
lIS condition as an immigrant diak-ct in n..-gions
when:: L. A, M. F, or another dialLoct is the autochtho-
nous dialect: they could also be L!ja and so on if it
wa... a ca...e of Lycopolilan or Lyco-Dlospolitan immi·
gr~ting into the territory of autochthonous A, and liO
00.
Suhidie is the most neutral of ,he Coptic idioms
llnd became the common spcl.'t:h of the entire Egyp.
tian Nile Valley above the Delta. As noted !lbuve in
lhe descriptiun uf tlte origins of the phcnomena indi-
cnled by Ihe sigla Sf or S'/I, there al1: :Ill kinds of S,
of which only one is an autochthonous S while lhe
olhen; arc immigrnnt. or thc productions in immi-
gmnt S, some are as completely S as tlte autochtho-
nous; these will be described as "atypical" immi-
grant S. Others will clearly bl.'tr,ly their status as
immigrant S; they will be called "typical" jUlIni·
grant S. in a lexicon, the siglum S should be assignl.-d
only to Icxemes allested by autochthonous S
(and the witnesses of atypical immigranl S): the
OIhers (witnesses of typical immigrant S) should be
given sigla such as Sf or $1/1 (cf. Kas,o;er, 1980. pp.
108-109).
OIBLIOCRAPHY
Kahlc, P. E. Bala'iuJ}J: Coplic TexIs from Oeir e/·
Bala'i1.llh in Upper EgyP/. Oxford and London.
1954.
Kasser, R. "DialL't:tcs, sous-dialecles et 'dialecticules'
dans l'Egyptc cople." Zeilsclrrifl f/lr ilgyplw:he
Sprache Imd Altcr/rll/1sktmde 92 (1966); 106-15.
_ _~. "Prolegomlmes It un esstli de classification
systematique des dialectes et subdialectes coptes
sclon les critCrcs dc la phonellque. I, Pl'incipes et
tcnninnlogic." Museoll 93 (1980):53-112.
_ _~. "I.e Dialectc protosai'dique de Th~bcs:'
Archiv fUr PnpymsforschUllg 28 (1982):67-81.
NaScl, P. "lkr frtihkoptische Dialckt von Theben."
In Kopto/ogischc SlUdicn in dcr OOR. pp. 30-49.
Wlsscnschaflliche Zeilschrifl der Mtlr/itr-Lwhcr-
Universil111 lIalle·Wille"be!'8, Sonderhclt. Halle-
Wittenberg. 1965.
Polotsky. H. J. "Coptic." In CU"CIll TrCllds in Litl'
guisties. ed. T. Scbcok, Vol. 6, l1ngllislics ill S<Rllh
West Asia and NOr/h Africa. pp. 558-70. The Hague
and Paris, 1970.
Vergote. J. Grllmmllire cople, Vol. la, Jrltroduction,
phorri!iqlle el phmlol.ogie, morpllolog;e sytllhima.

,
liqlll! (S/fIlt'/Urll des simIJtlIemes). partie sY/lchrcr
niqlH!. Louvnin, 197301,
___ "I.e Dialeclll caple P (P. Bodmer VI: Pro-
vcrbcs), essai d'identification." Rellue d'egyplologie
2S (1973b):SO-S7.
Worrell, W. H. Cop/ic SQllllds. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
RODOl.PHE KAssER
DIALECT, SPORADIC. A "sporadic dialed" is
any dialect :utCSloo by one or more leJllS that, while
certainly idiolectal, are or a "transparent" IDIOl£CT,
allowing one to see clearly the greater part of the
essential dialccbl ch:tl".tclcnslic:s of the idiom; how-
c\'cr, throughout the document($). these chamc-
lerislics are rivaled by those of another dialect
thai is continually more strongly atlested. A spo-
rallie dialect may be known only from almost pure
witnesses that are nut idiolt:clal, but are (like
Hussclman. 1947. and Quecke, 1974, for 84, a subdi-
alect or B; d. DIALa:rs) probably (and unfortunately)
100 brier 10 provide a ,ruly exhauslive description of
most of ilS principal phonological and olher charac-
teristics.
Such WlIs the case with M .....hen Kahle (1954, pp.
220-27) described it before the discovery of the four
great manuscripts known tod'ly: lhe Psahns (in rath·
er good condition, but unpublished), the Gospel of
Manhew (in perfect condition and carefully edited
by Schenke, 1981), lhe first harf of Acts (in perfect
condilion, but unpublished), and the Paulinc epistles
(with many lacunuc, and mpidly published by Orlan·
di, 1974).
Such wa.~ abo lhe case wilh 874 (a southel1l [1]
and slighlly Ilrchaic [7] subdialect of B; cr. DIAl.E(.'TS),
which rOl'tllS one of the componcnts of the idiolecl
of P. Bodmer 111 (first hand), before lhe discovery of
Pap, Vul. C(1)tO 9, a papyrus codex of the Minor
Prophets nnw In lhe Vtltican Ubmry but still unpub·
Iished (c£. Kas.scr 1958, and 1966, p. 66-76),
So it Is, and even more evidently, with OlAlocr r. a
PROTODIAU!LT of L, for in j, where a,
may appear for
Iftl (60 percent of lhe cases), it is strongly rivaled by
~ (40 percent; cr.
Ka."5Cr, 1979; 198Ob, pp. 83-84;
1981, pp, 112-13).
A panially sporadic dialect (or PROTOOLAU£T, META·
DlAlEtT, or wbdialect) will, Iikc P, for ellample, have
:some of lis essential phQnemic characteristics fully
aUested by onhogrnphy (thus' - Iftl, !J '" lx/),
while Olhers will be attested only in sporadic fashion
DIALECT, SPORADIC 73
(thus J. - r
I in 11 primillve state of cvolution only
[graphic vocalic duplication in a secondary SUIte, as
In S, but also fn:qucntly omitted], and so on; d.
Kasscr, 198Oa).
OtOl.lOCRAPIIV
Browne, G. M. Michigll1l Copfic TUIS. Barcelona,
1979.
HuSS('lman. E. M. "A Bohalric School TCltt on Papy·
IUS." JO<lmal of Near E.tUlem Swdin 6 (1947): 129-
5\.
Kahle, P. E. &fa'ivth: Coptic Tuts from Deir el-
Bala'iUth itr UpfHr Egypl. Ollford and London,
1954,
Kasser, R. Papyms Bodmer 111: Evangile de Jum e1
Genise l-fV,2, en bohlllnque. CSCO 177-178.
lnuvain, 1958.
___ "A propos des differentcs fonnes du condi·
donne! cOfne." Muslotr 76 (1963):267-70.
L'l!vllngile ulon sainI Jean et /es ver.siatls
caples de to. Bible, Neuch4tel, 1966,
___ "Relatk>rn; de gencalagie dlalcetale dans Ie
domaine Iycopolitain." Bulle/in de 10. Societe
d'igyplologie. Genm 2 (1979):31-36.
"Usages de la surligne dans Ie Papym..
Bodmer VI." Bul/elin de /a Socitit d'tgyplologie.
Geneve 4 (198Oa):53-59,
_ _ . "Pro1egomenes II un essal de classification
systematique des dlalcctes et subdlalectes coptes
scion les criteR'S de la phonctique, I, Princlpes et
tcnninologie." Museotl 93 (198Ob):5l-112. " ... ,
III, Systcmes onhographlqucs el categories dlalec·
tales." Mustotl 94 (1981):91-151.
___ "Un Nouveau Document protolycopolitain."
Onell/aUo 51 (1982):30-]8.
Lacau, P. "Fragments de l'A,o;censlon d'lsa'ie en
copte." Museon 59 (1946):45]-57.
(Leipold!. J.] Aegyp/ische Urkumlen ails det! k/)"ig-
lichen Museetr Zll Berlin, Irertmsgegeben von der
Gencralvcnvo!lung, kopiische Urkundcll, Berlin,
1904.
Orlandi, T, I'upin della Utliversi/a degli Swd! d!
Milallo (P, Mil, Copli), Vol, 5, LeI/ere di San Paolo
ill coplo ossinllclrila, edizjOllc, commellio e illdici di
7'. Orlandi, cOIl/nbulo Iillg,Ii.~lico di H. Qllecke, Mi-
lan, 1974.
Ouccke, H. "Ein lilies bohl1irisches Frogment des
Jakobusbricfcs (P. Hcid, Kopt, 452)." Orienlo/ia 43
(1974):382-9].
Schenke, tl,·M. Dos Mol/hiJlu·EvallgeIillJll im mil/ela·
gyp/is<:hell Dialek/ des Kopiischen (Codu Sclteide),
TCllte und Untersuchungen :lour Geschlchtc del'
a1tehristlichcn Utemtur 127. Berlin, 1981-
WOlTell, W, H. Coplic Tats in lire University 01 Michi-
gall Collection. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1942,
RODOLPHE KASSER
 74 DIALECT G (or BASHMURIC 01- MANSURIC)
DIA LEC T G (OR BA SHM UR IC OR MAN-
SUR IC) , To judg e by a rath er curi ous orthogl1lphi.
cal.p hono logi cal syst cm mor e 01' less ade<luately at-
teste d by a grou p of sma ll, latc nonl itera ry Cop tic
texts of the eigh th centUIY, of whic h the prin cipa l
unes have becn publ ishe d by Kmll (1887 [extm cts} ;
1892) and, mos t com plet ely, by Crur n (1939), ther e
mUSl have exis ted, prob ably in I..ower Egypt, an idi·
om of Cop tic conv enti onal ly calle d diale ct G. occa -
sion ally cullc d llash mur ie (K{\S!ier, 1975, esp. PI).
406- 407} or even Man sori c (Schlis.der, 1969. p.
154). Acc ordi ng to orth ogra phic al crite ria, G shou ld
be inel uded in the lIOHATRtC diale<:tal grou p (Kassel'.
1981. pp. 102- 103. 121- 122) . itsel f a subd ivisi on of
the non hern (di.1IccL'i and vehi cula r lang uagc )-
som hem (veh icul ar lang uage ) Cop tic dial cct maj or
grou p (see OTALEcrs. CROUI'INC; AND MAJOR CROUPS 01";
and K.a....<;CI·. 1982. p. 51). Alth ough it is difficult to
loca te this dial ect geog raph icall y with any prec ision .
sevc ral featu res wou ld supp al1 assi gnm cnt or it to
the east crn Delta.
The mos t slI'iking ehar acle l'isti c of the G texts is o(
3n alph abet ic natu re (see AU'HAflb"'TS. COPrtc): the let·
ters used in them al'e all of Gree k orig in. Thu s, the
alph abet or G docs nol incl ude ll,I. 'I,:>. e, x. 6. and .,.
(whi ch docs not mea ll the abse nce in G o( all thc
phon emc s nom lally used in othe r diale cts by thes e
grap hem es o( delli otic orig in, as will be secn ). This
alph abet ic idiu sync rasy is glar ingl y evid enl. 10 tlte
poin t of over shad owin g othe r, nona lpha beli c char ac-
teris tics alld with the cons eque nce that thc CUlT Cnl
view o( the lallg uage o( thes e texl.'i is that it is, for all
prac tical purp oses . mOl'e or less pure lloh airic . even
if a Boh airlc disg uise d by II grap hem ic syst cm dilTer-
ent from that of Boh alric prop er. This view ha'i de-
layed the delin ition of G, alth ough its main texts had
bt.'cn edite d for ovcr a ccnlUlY.
To com pile the phon olog ical inve ntor y o( G, it
wou ld be simp lcst to com pare it with lhat or Bohai-
ric, B, the idio m to whic h it is clos esi. If one stud ies
main ly the man uscr ipt K 1785 of the Aus trian Na·
tiona l Librnry in Vien na, one may have the imp res·
sion that G lack s seve ral phol lemc s occ unin g in the
B system.
Fir.<it. cons ider the pho nenl e serk'li expr esse d in
Cop tic by lette rs or Gre<:k orig in, whic h may ther e-
fore be take n to mat ch pho nem es exis ting in Gn.~k.
Itself. ArIel' an unsu'eSScd vowel lllld befo re a
stres sed one. G repl at:es Bolm iric 1 by ll: thus , (lI1Q ....,
out( ward ), but HII6H. ever y. Unfo rtun ately , no
lexe mc begi nnin g with 1 in B is attes ted in the G
docu men ts; elscw hcl'e . how ever . G has I, whh.;h
scem s to have a Ivl ralh er than a fbI valu e (sec
belo w). Befo re the strc&<;'ClllT)'lng vowel and in
wonJ-illilinl posi tion . G appe ars to replnt:c Boh airlc
II. Idl by T /t/ fairly regu larly (e.g. , l'UO
OHU .
6ut ~#, shar ing) . B aspi r.ltc s fc: fkl. n Ip/. and T
N
Into x Ikh/. t Iph/. and ~ Ith/. resp ectiv ely. in t:er-
l:lin well ·deli ned cond ition s (Ste rn, 1880. pp. 16-2 6;
Mal lon. 1907, pp. 17-1 8; Wor rell. 1934, pp. 18-2 3;
TIll, 1961, p. 7), but G dOC!ll not (sec belo w, on thc
pho ncm cs jrJ. Ix/. Itl. and also Ithl uf 8). This Clln
be state d in spite of the OCCUITence in G of xu etc..
nO( fc:U CIC •• for "put ", sinc e this cxce ptio nal in·
stan ce of wha t migh t, at first sight. be take n (or the
IlSI)imtion /khl of /kl rem ains ell\l rely isub ted in G;
and this :to: of G can be expl aine d diffe rentl y, 011
dmc hron ic grou nds: one may assu me that the valu e
of this x is IIOt fkhl a... ill 8 hut Ixl as invari.1bty
else whe re in G. for S elc. KlI,l and LJ xtI.l slem from
Egyptian ~3', 3lth ough (01' this lexe me alon e, old J!
hilll exce ptio nally evol ved into /kl or /kh/, whe reas
non nall y !! !x-c ame /xl > COpllc Ihl, 1.1 in a rcw
case s simi larly lxI, in mos t part 1r;1 > I~J. On lhe
othe r hand . Boh niric T ItI corr espo nds to II. Idl in G
whe n prec eded by II stres s-ca rryin g vowel and rol-
lowe d by 3n unstressc<1 one (e.g., IlOyll.t, God;
COII .(lM, heal'; HlKN lII.(lC , 1'<!'X~iT'IJ~. (1l1isnn). Sinc
e t
in G not only rend ers the Gree k rp in Grec o-Co plic
wor ds bUI also corr espo nds to Boh airic " IfI In the
autochtOonou,'i Cop tic voca bula ry (e.g., (lna t.
[uPl on him) . one may assu me lhal .p in G wllS IfI
thro ugho ut 3nd did not main tain the Iphl v.tlue in
the Grec.:o-CopIic voca bula ry. Sim ilarl y, sinc e x in G
not only render'S Gree k X in Grcc o-Co ptie hut corr e-
spol lds al."O 10 Boh niric :> Ix! in lite auto chth ono us
voca bula ry (e.g., xeN·, in), it is a safe assu lllpl ion
that x in G had the \·:J.\ue Ixl thro ugho ut and did not
rnai ntain the valu e Ikhl in Gre co-C opti c-an d that
even in the appa rent ly exce ptiol llli case of G X(D. put
(see abov e).
Turn ing now to the serie s of Cop tic pho ncm es
rcnd crt'd by gmp ltcm es of dem otic mig in, one ob·
selv es Ihe follo .....ing: Boh airic III I~I cOll 'espo nds to
cz N in G (e.g., cz...·. onti l), Boh alric .. IfI 10 t IfI
in G (see abo\ 'c), and Boh airic :J /xl to x Ixl in G
(see abov e); l Ihl In D does not cOll'Cspond IU any G
grap hem es. whic h may give l'CaSOn to a....O;UrllC that
this pho nem e has com plet ely dis.l ppea n.'d (I!!:lving,
how ever , som e truc es in neig hbor ing voca lism ; see
belo w). Boh airic x IfI corr espo nds to TZ in G (e.g..
TZOH. pow er); Boh airic x Ithl also corr espo nd.. to
Tl' in G (e.g., T~-, take ). from whi ch one coul d
conc lude lhat G (pro babl y) docs not have Ihe aspirol-
lioll so typical of Boh airic (sec abov e). Fillally, G
does not USC the grdp heul c "'" Iti/. expr essi ng this
 DIALECT G (or BASHMURIC or MANSURIC)
combil13lion of phonemes liimply by " (:15 is Iht'
case in all OW COPTIC alphalK'ls and in the Coplic 1>1 ...•
U::CT H as well;c> in the Fayyumic subdialeclS F8 and
F9). The foregoing gives 50me basic ideas uf G cun·
SOI13n1ism; one should add that G replaces word·
initial Bohairic oy /w/ by !. /v/ (e.G., IIOyrz. wish).
As for the vocalism (10 give here bul the most
essential), G seems to tn-al whal is in 8 rendered by
0/0/ and u /0/ as a single phoneme, expres.'ied by 0
/0/ (e.g.• COAEH, hear) exeept in the fulluwing spe-
cial CaS<.-S: In dw;t:d syllllble. after disappeared ~ /h/,
this vowel is u /0/ in G (e.g., MI, thing); after!. Ivl
(repladng oy Iwl in BJ, thiS vuwel is oy luI (see
sovcY., wish, above); and before Oy Iwl, this vowel
Is II 161 (e.g., TlIIOy61, tomorruw). In upen syllable,
after disappeared 2 Ihl, this vowel is w IfJl (e.g., w,
fllce, person); and after c:.t' I~/, Ihi~ vuwel i~ oy lui
(e.g., czoym, become, bUI CT.Ofll, IiI"St).
The G lexts are 100 shon and ton unhomogcnous
10 make possible a detailed lind ellhauslive observa·
tion on the morphosyntactie level. However, one
may obsclve a negative imperative (or velative) H6/i-,
most often followed by the negator p;tnic1e ),fl, in a
combination that is quite unusual elsewhere in <:op-
lie (combining with Ihe vel3tive HN·, normal in A
lUld P, this negator particle that is not compatible
with it, with some exceptions, very rare in S, less
rare but not frequent in B, some indicated in Crom.
1939a, p. lOb, under ),fl, sec. d; Olhers, particularly
for B, indicated in Shisha·llalevy, 1981, pp. 324, 333
n. 51). Thus H6HXJt.<t GIl(», ),fl, Reh:asc him not;
H6ncrrort GTT.OOt HelH (?) OOHMICOy, Take not surely
or me for (?) TInnis; HollHCOAIiH fllK:04> ),fl. Hearken
not unto him; Hollmo.HT6<tcJ.HIt. AN JU.TcrTOft 6nll,i+ar,
Suffer not thai he quit (?) thee without undertaking
for himself; HEHlU.eltctU.oy T(ltttll'&'(IC T.J.(II&Of\1OY
N)Jot HO/'f7(.J. I169<tIOy T6qrUWOY .J.N, No, thL'Se two
cmftslllcn lhal I have sent thce, sulfer not evil to
befall them.
Uttle is known of the G vcrhul prefilles, till igno·
mnce duc to lhe scarcily of telllS in this uialeel, all
noolllcr"r)', as well as too rare and too ShOlto Given
below will be Ihe third-pen.on sinb"Ular masculine
ronn and then the corresponding prenominal fonn
(nom. • before nominal subject), if altc.~led. the
former in brackL-tli. n:cun5tructoo where possible ac-
cording 10 an :lSSOCialed form:
Biptlrtile plJ/fern. Present I r+-l, nom. zero (neg.
[+-1 ... J.H, nom. 7..ero ••• ),fl); circumstantial of
present I [6"'J; present II [*].
Triptlrtile pallern. Perfeel I,.J.+-, neg. [Holl"'?]: rela-
tive perfect I lin+-; perfect II [n<t.?]. Futurum
energicum (or third future) 6.pe-. Imperative .J.- (in
75
.J.H,),O"(, see), neg. 1\"Clali\'c) HGH- ••• (.J./i), see above.
Cau!ialive imperath'e, nOI1l. KJ.f6- I?). Conjunctive,
1st singular TA-, 2nd masc. 11tt· (or Tll,ilt·), 3rt! Illa$(;.
1*1 (or Til"'), and so on la morphological duality
IlOI unknown in B: st.."C Shisha·llalevy, 1981, p. 324).
nom. Te- (?) (or 6/fT(I-); combined with CU-, until
(limitative) C:.t'~*, nom. CZ.J.(H)TU-; combined
with n·. leI, allow, suffer, XJ.HT6.p. (sec: above);
combined with GC:.t'Oy-, if, a kind of conditional,
IIczoyTG.... Conditional [.J..;cz),fl.j.
It is hoped that one day the caprice of discovery
may yield a litcrary G tellt, one more extensive than
the smull documents on which observations of lhe
orthographlcal.phonological accuunl of Ihis dialect
have perforce been m.scd. Finally, a.~ an illustration,
lhe inilial greeting In the text of Vienna K 1785 is
presenled here: X6H nfl.H (lHllHOYAI 6HC)(Opn HWft
HllIllll TtCXA(lI TtOf .J.Cru.:.(f1C06 6HIl.J.M.J.61HOYAt
6t1CofHl 01TAUloyT It.J.TA CHOIiT tltllON HOH 11(l1t1l1ll
"11'4> mC:l'T:.t'lIli ltoyTZI CT..J. tIIC:.t'T(I) (In God's name.
Before all things I write and I Greet my God.loving
brother, in all ways honored, and all thy house, from
small to great).
D1DUOCRAPIIY
Crum, W. E. A Copfic Dic/iollaT)'. Ollrord, 19393.
"Coptic DocumenlS in Greek Script." Pro-
cudillls ollhe British Academy 25 (1939b):249-71.
KaMer, R. "l'ldiomc de Bachmour:' Dulleli" de
/'/,lStitllf Irallfau d'archiologie orierrfale 7S
(1975):401_427.
- - 7 "Proltgollllmes a un essai de classificalion
systcllla!i<llIc ties dialcctes et subdialcctes coptes
scion lLos critCR:l'i de la phoncliquc, III, Systcmcs
onhographiqucs ct calCgoriLos dialcctalL-s." Museol!
94 (1981):91-152.
--:'-' "L.e Gr-and·Grou(>e dialectal copte de Haute-
EgyplC." Bulll!lhr dt! lu Soci~lt: (/'{:!:ypw/ogit!,
Gelliwe 7 (1982):47-72.
Krall, J. "Aus clnel' koptischen Klostcrbibliothek:'
MiIlJwi/WlgCII aus der Sammllllrg dcr /'apyrlls En.·
hen.og RI,;ner I {I887):62-72, and 2-3 (1887):43-
73.
_,,-_. "Koplische Bliefe." MillhcilwrgCII alu dcr
SmnmlrmJ.: tier Papyrus Erzhcrwt: Railler 5
(1892):21-58.
Mallon. A. Grallllllairc COpll!, al't'c bibliographie.
chu$fOlnafhie elllOCabl/Jaire, 2nd ed. Beirut. 1907.
SchUssler, K. Epistll/anutl CathoJicaffim Vt'rslo Sa"i·
dica. MOnSler, 1969.
Shid\a-Halevy, A. "Bohairic-Late-Egyptian Dia·
glO$SCS." Sllldit'S Pre5e11led to HailS Jakob Poiolsky,
e<!. D. W. Young, pp. 314-J8. East Glouc("Stcr,
Mass., 1981.
Stem, L Koplische GrammtUil:. lciprig.. 1880.
 76 DIALECT H (01' HERMOPOLlTAN or ASHMUNINIC)
Till, W, C. Kuplischc Dilllekigralllllwlik, mil
Lesesliickcu ulld Worlcrlmell. 2nd I'd. Munich,
1961.
WOITell, W. H. Caplic SOImds, Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
RODOLPH!,; KAssER
ARIEL SfffSlf... ·HAUNY
DIALECT H (OR HERMOPOLl1'AN OR
ASHMUNINIC). Among the manuscripts of the
famous Pierpont Morgan collection in New York is a
p<lpyms, M 636, of the ninth (or eighth-ninth) cen·
tury, which contnins mainly whaf lIre e"llcd II/mllen·
ciai (Ol1ecke, 1970, pp. 97 -I 00). II hemlellcia is a
liturgical text consisting of u lllusuie uf biblicul quo-
tations, chiefly from the Psalms, selected in relatiun
tu one word thought to be centml and of pdme
impo'1ance, and so grouped, Dt'Cscher (1958-1960,
p. 63) wrote:
The Encyclupaedias in their anicles 'Concordnnce'
all huvc it that the fir.;t Biblical Concordnnce was
made in the 13th century"" [FloI' fhe Psalms the
CO]1t had rudimentary Concordances befure this.
Coplic liturgical manuscripts from Upper Egypt
shuw th'lt the principle of vernal concordance was
much followed in the liturgical use of the Psalms.
The Pieqlont Morgan manuscript M. 574 (895 A,f),)
is entitled 'The Bouk of the Holy Hermeniae.'
These Hermeniae are for the most part met'C col-
lections of versicles from the Psalms, Each Her-
menia is based on a key,wOt'd-'king: 'l'ise:
'light: 'house: 'eye: 'just: c1e,-and all the versi-
cles in the Hennenia must contain this key.word.
Common words have two or three Hermeniae.
The word CHOy (bless, pmise) has tht'Cc, the first
with 22 ver-sicles, as well as Incipil Md EJl.plicit,
the second with 46, the third with 13-in all,
some 86 versicles, each containing the word
CHOY, After the Henneniae of this kind there fol·
low in thc manusclipt what are called, 'Thc LillIe
Henneniae of the Church' but these :oeem mther
to be for the most part short, continuous passages
from the Psalms and they need not detain us.
Quecke (1978, p. 215) said:
Although unfortunately we know VCI)' lillIe about
the Coptic "Hermenciue:' this designation still
seems to be best suited as a blief and relatively
clear indication of the kind of tellts in questiun . , .
The Copts collected quotations from the Psalter
ror pal1ieular purposes in the liturgy, with the
same key·word occurring in each instance. And in
any event there are inSllmces where the descrip'
tion "Het'meneia" is connected with these quota·
lions from the Psalter. So far we hardly h:lVe any
reliable knowledge about the occasions when
these Psalm quotations were lIsed in the liturgy
and about how they were used,
Papyms M 636 is wlitlen in three different hunds,
one or which, hand a, is disfributed in seveml sec·
tions and uses (regularly or almnst so) a completely
uriginal spelling system, If it is accepted that this
ot1hogl'aphical system is an adequate witness to the
ellistence uf a corresponding phonolugiclll system,
one is led 10 think of the language of these sections
of M 636 a.~ a special Coptic dialect ur subdialcct,
probllbly ., Mm·... ul... LllCT, since if e1early gives the
impression of being a much·evolved and, indeed,
ba.~tard and degencmte fonn of the Cuptic languuge.
These symploms of degenerution, COlllbined with <'I
eenain negligence in the usc of the Ol1hogmphic
system. have encouraged Coptic ellpet1s previuusly
concetned with this text to reg<'lrd its l<'lngu(lge as a
F... YYUMIC of a very special and highly pelipheral
tvne " ur again us un odd mixture , intermediate be-
~ ~
tween'" and $: thus, in ClUm (1939), of the thil1y'
fuur words uf M 636, h'lnd a, th<lt are quuted,
twenty-three are classilied under"', silt under sr, and
five under 5, The language to which M 636, h.,nd a,
testifies is today conveniently called dialect N; it is
at.<;() termed Hermopolhan or Ashmuninic, since the
ancient Hermopolis is the al·Ashmunayn of modem
Egypt, and according to Kahle (1954), in idiulect'll S
documents, most of the ot1hographie chamcteriSlics
simillir to those in Hare m(linly fuund in the region
of Hennopolis. Apill1 from the Morgan mlllluscripl,
some other tcxts (quite a.~ latc) show a language
close to that or fl, although nevcr as coherently and
as regularly, Thus, phonological and other descrip·
tions of'" will be based, above all, on an examina·
tion of the ot1hography of M 636, hand a (d. Ka.o;scr,
1966; 1975-1976; 1981, pp. 104-112).
In listing the phonology of N, it will be appropli-
ate to compare it a.~ fill' a.~ possible with that of
di;\lcct V (or South F;tyyumic), a type of FUYYl.lmic
without lambdacism (pat1icularly as its VS variety
ha.~, like H gencmlly, the gmphic vowel gemination
tlmt testifieS to the presence of /'I AW'l! ('IS a CRYI'TO,
PHONEME). Recourse will be had to P, S, or, whet'C
necessary, other Coptic idioms when such a word is
not attested in V 01' when this additional t'Cfel'ence
seems to be of some use,
The order followcd will be th'lt of the series of
phonemes of the alphabet most genel'ally used in
Coptit:, that of S etc" which is 'llw that of F5, VS,
and almost all L, and which (ellcept for alcph, which
is graphically rendered by vowel gemination) is
 DIALECT H (or HERMOPOLITAN or ASHMUNINIC)
identical to the alphabel of M ctc......hich is also tlk'll
of W. Y4. and F4 (cr. AU'tlAIJL'TS. COI'11C). Any Coptic
alphabet. as is well kno....n, conventionally begins
....ith those phoneme!> dmt arc rendered by Coptic
letters of Greek origin; it continues with phonemes
rendered by Coptic graphemes of demotic origin.
Aleph or the cryplophonl.'ffiC fl, which ....as ren-
dered by graphic vowel gemination. will be tackled
at the vel)' end.
)./a/: II greatly fuVOl1i this phoneme (where it has
the maximum presence IImong the Coptic dialects
and subdialccts. 35 percent; Kassel'. 1966. p. 115);
see below regarding tonic (J leI lind atonic 6 lal in
V etc.
5 1'01: fI doc!> not seem to have this phoneme
(which is usual in V and In the great majority of the
Coptic dialects and subdialeets); lhe 5 of 11 is equiva·
lenlto Ivl rather than fbI. since it !llso systellllltical·
Iy replaces 'I IfI of V elC.; see below regarding '1 /fl.
I' 1&1 (appear'S only in the Copto·Greek vocabu·
lary): H docs not have lhis r Igj of V etc.. and it
replaces it by K fkl. fOI' in.~lancc. II ur, V r.a.r, for.
A Idl (appears only in the Copt{)oGreek vocabu·
lal)'); II does not have this A Id/ of V etc., and it
replaces it by T It/. for example. /I ~ V
AlKeoc, rightL"OUS; II TllUltJQltll (in one instance
only), V oUtGOCyHlI. ju.~ice.
Tonic 8 leI (exeLl" the 0 of the combination of
gt;Jphcmcs III for /if or /j/; see below under I): H
always has II I~I where, according to the roles of V
adapted to the system of II. one ought to find tonic e
lei (in fact. only in the Copco-Grcck vocabulary; see
nil, 1948-1949, pp. 18-20). for example, kl~, F
rtlHOC, relationship, rolCe, kind. A.~ regards (Ionic)
IIOWcI 0 leI in V CIC., it will be $Cen ('gain Ilk'lt on
this point H docs nol have exnctly the same vocaliza-
tion as V, F etc.; in U. there is ), la/also when it is
so in V etc. while 0 101 in S (fOf example, H. V. F
C),II. S etc. COIl, occasion; fI, V, F T.a.K.a.. S T.a.... O. to
deslroy), when it is), /al in S elC. In opposition to t:I
lei (or II lei befure I Ij/) In VeIl'. (e!>pecially for
various reasons in relation to it.~ position; Vergole,
1973-1983. Vol. la. pp. 24-25; Kassel" 1982, pp.
61-62), for example, II .a.H. V (1rI, lhe negative pal,i
de; H to., V HO, place; U 6ttk.a.t, V Hk8t, suffering; U
"'\til.
H.\t:lltl. W sign; 11 Hl.OY. V HOy, (place) Ihere;
H 10., F5 1f6(ll, pity; H -K).-, V .ml', Ihe fulUrc- auxilia·
ry, 11 flHtU,., V HllH6". with; H Dy)"'. V O"((l,',
holy; 11..,0"(. V .,.ey, usc; H te.u.J. W, V C6X1. F (V)
~, to talk; H t).!MIC, F ztlllWlC, !>hade; H ~. F
tl:e)Hz6)I., slave; 11 Z!').!, V ,tftU, upper part or lower
I"'"-
Atonic 8 la/: When V etc. has atonic la/, 11 also
has tI ItI as a general rule bul conlinues to relain 6
77
1;)1 in the following TCStricted area: in the initial
5)'lIablc consisting of 1;)1 followed by a consonanl or
COnsistilig of Iwl followed by la/. followed by a
consonant. In the first of these instances. ir the
"close liaison" phenomenon is produced (Polotsky,
1949, Pfl. 29-.30), particularly by the altachment of
the definite articlc (not of the possessive article!)
before the won.!, whal W()Old otherwi:;e be inilial 0 is
so no longer and relurn!> to the onJillal)' eategol)',
being vocalb:L'tI tI as elsewhere; thus t:lHT.a. in
InUl6HT.a. r.u., in thy presence, bUI ...rr.a. in I"IHT).
l.U IlX.\lltC, In presence of the LonJ. II will also be
noticed that H, even more than "'5, find~ it dilTJcult
to SUSlain the weight of two consecutive consonants
within the one syllable and SO sepamtes them by
insertinll between them an atonic II (sometimes cor·
responding 10 alonic 6 in F5, not In \I), except be-
fore t, where in 11 lhe inser1ed vowel Is then .a.; il
lhus divides the "heavy" syllahle into twu "lighter"
syllables. Examples. which arc particularly numer·
OUS, include II .a.tIIU.....I.IC. V ,UTtiAOC, angel; II lI'ltIlI,
F OMIII. poor; 11 "ftn'. V GftIT. proillisc; 11 ,l(;IIT, V
OClIT, ClIrth; II IIC),O"(, W oCJ.Y, sheep; II lUI', V k6"
other. also; H IUUtTll, F 1I;(!1'frn, fig; II Mil.... , V HH-, 1"
HNH-, H(8)N, there is no; 11 Hll,.., Y, 1" HH·. more
liCldom F HO"', with; II H111'f11, V H6T1'It, wilnC!i!i; 11
NOyztlH. V ttOyzH, 1"5 ItO'yt£H. 10 save; II poss.
ar1ic1es (mase. sing. etc.) sing. 2.m. I_IK', 3,m. "N·,
3J. "Ie', plur. I. I.UI·, 3. "1)". etc.. and V etc.•
respectively. nGK·. 116'1-, fMiC'. tICN', noy-, etc.; II
I....X "·, V OOX6'. to !illy; 11 ftIII.r*.l. F f$q'lkl, sleep; 11
rtlf+. V ...... F /0.(*, man of: H ptl'l', V fG.... maker of;
11 CJ.f'It~. V CJ.f':t, flesh; H cetrnlH, F <;UTtiH, hear; 11
'T*1t«, V AIKtiOC, righteous; /I Tlw....., F T(W..... , joy;
II TllH....,m', F T6tfTUH', similar; H (Cltcept in the
third pcI'SOnal pronoun) Tlll'll., V Tllf", all; H
T.a.(QI1 lllllG,l, F T).cq6 lllJlG,l, 10 preach; U 011&&1)., V
0051)., 10 humiliale; 11 O"((lltl.a.2, V OYWtl~. reveilltion;
11 OYllflln. ,.. oY0fll·t, foot; H GlMlO,l, V Gl501, F5 Gl5ClOJ.
forgetting; f/ Gltl.a.t, V Gl1'l2. life; H O,It.....IIT, F5 1V6MIIlT,
betrothed; 11 O,I.a.HIIT. ,.. O,I.a.HT, three; ff OJ.a.rltl1. V
OJ).rll. 1'51V1lf(o)n. first; 11 t1t51tC, F ~1t5C, lamp; II 21m·,
V 21'1'. F z(e)tI-. in; II 2.a.fI\2, V .a.rOt. S 2).r02. to guard;
H 2I.X.III'I-. V ~tXH-, ,.. :I;lX6/'1', on; II XII. V XO, thaI; H
XIIK.a.),C, V4 XGK6C. F5 X6te.66C. in order that; /I
G11W', F GW", ann; H &ufH6. F 61»1'6, to hunt. On the
other hand, (J is in the relalive particle (nol pre-
ceded by the :mide as an anlcccdent) II fIT· (bul
IIt1T·). V CT' (1l(JT-); 1/ 6TU .. , V ene-. because of; 11
6tfXlI, V 6l9xa, if; H eH1')' (but tlltHT),), V HT)" F
(8)HT), face, presence; 11 6NlUt.TIl, V HKJrt.T, to !>Ieep; H
0"(6K-, V 0"(1+-, ,.. Dy~. there iii. On the almost total
disappearance in H of the preposition "toward,
for" elc., which is 8· in V {pronominaJ fOnrui II
78 DIALECf H (or HERMOPOLITAN or ASHMUNINIC)
sing. J. , ...i", 2.m. ,Jo.K, 3.m. ru, etc.; d. V ctc, 6r.lo.l",
6'Jo.K, 61'''''1, etc., and F (lui", 6.UJot, 8llQ, etc.), St.'C
below.
Z /7./ (appeal'S only in me Coplo-Greck vocabu·
lary): H does not have lhis Z /"1./ of V etc. and replac-
es it by c 15/, for example, If XI9"'"e" (one inslanee
only), S KIQ"'rU!{l, to make music (with the kithar1!o,
et(;,),
II It-.!: As Ims been seen above l'egalxUng tonic 1)
!e! 01' atonic (I !al, H greatly f.lVors II Ie! (tonic 01'
atonic), Here it ha~ the maximunl presence among
the Coptic dialecls and subclialects, 34 percenl
(K<tsscr, 1966, p. 115). II even lends 10 subslitull: II
for I as a finul alonie vowel; see below regarding I
(or (1) for /iI vowel or fJl consonant.
I (or (II) for /if vowel or fjJ consonant (exec-opt all
regards the alternative I or 61, a problem too com·
plex to go into here): 1/ behaves very like V etc.; in
particular, it has I /il a... a final atonic vowel, In H,
however, there eltists a strung tendency toward the
formlltion of a metadialect, which shoWli itself in the
frequent n:pl[lccmcnt of final atonic I by a final alon-
ic It, These It amounl to 33 ~rcent of all the atonic
linallel1ers, and among them Illay be noted a whole
~erie~ of words wilh, in N, the final leller either
always in -It or in -II more rrequcntly than in -I (these
la...t cases arc shown below in parcnlhc.scsj: "'lilli,
ptlP; 6_1, 10 know; lllliU, to can)'; (ll!fH, 10 do); llll9ll,
to hang, suspend; KH"I, Egypt; MIClI, to give binh;
TH·, genilive preposition; I_I, to mo\-e; rUOI, to
bend; (.......1, man); ' .... 1, joy; ru-tl, sufficieney;
~I, field; QIHH, woman; 101"1, to look for; ~Jo.XH,
word; lfWOl, poor: 2I1M1, incensc, perfume; ~I, trou·
ble; xctHH, book; (X.l.XII, enemy;) 61Iit1, 10 find
(twcnly.three words, against thiny-nine words where
the alonie ending i.~ eilher always -lor -I more fre-
quenlly than '11, these laller C3.'iCS being six in num-
ber). Finally, Ihe final alOnic vowel disappears com-
pletely after Iw!; sec below under oy Iw/.
~ /k.~! (OCCUI'S only in the Copto·Greek vocllbu-
1111)'): H ~ometimes keeps this leller, which, howevel',
it tends to replacc by "'~, ",~c, or I(C Iks/, as in H
TtIII(CJo., 8 AOl"', glory; H {l"'~OYCI"', V {l1OyC1"', ;IU'
lhority; H arll1, V CJo.f'1, flesh,
o 101 (excepl for the 0 in the combination of
grolphemes oy for /u/ or Iw/; sec below under y): 11
has lU 161 everywhere when, according 10 the roles
of V adapted to the 11 syslem, one should find 0 101
(therefore, in faet, always in the Copto-Gn.'ck \'OCab-
ulary): for example, H Jo.NUtMIl(.', V Jo.n'flM)(;, angel;
T1KIIIlC, V AIKGOC, just.
y Iyl (occurs only in the Coplo-Gn::ck vocabulary;
y after ...., 0-, or II· is a special ca.o;e of oy lui or Iw!,
with loss of 0, on which see below): H regularly
replaces this y Iyl by" Ie/: for example, 1/ TIuo.HIC,
F AytU.HK:, power: /111Ut.eN, S 1Y"'OO, wood.
oy (or y aflcr "'-, 6', or u·; see above) for lui
vowel or Iwl consonanl: H USI.:S it without any spe-
cial peculiarity, ap;:u1 from the frequent disappear-
ance of the final atonic vowel aftel' oy Iw/: for
e~ample, /I k"'OY, V "''''yl, F5 ""'0)"1, others; H HHOy,
V, F MllOyl, thoughl; 1111I1Oy, V, ,.. nuoy!, hi:(IVi:ns; H
21"'Oy, V, F 21"'yl, roads; H 211110'(, V, ,.. 211110'(1, works.
+' IrtS! (OCCUI'S only in the Copto-Greek vocabu-
lary): H somelimcs keeps this leUer, which, howevel',
it tends 10 replace by lit lP{p).~! (which could have
ended up as nte > nc): for example, 1/ IftttXH (i'HXH
is clearly ...m::r), V 'f'YXH, soul.
" IfI: 1/ always replaces q If/ by 1\ Iv/.
x It!: Sec I> Ic/(?)·
6 Ic/(?): While generally H has x and 6 where V
also has melli, Ihere are cenain uses lhal lIIay give
the impres5ion Ihat while in /I x is Ihe equivalenl or
Itl, G has the value of some allophone of ItI (dilli·
cull to define) rathel' than Ie/. One may here com-
pare in /I Xlllrllll, to IOtumble, with Gf... n, obstacle,
and X_rt, strong, with T"'Gf"', to make strong. See
also the surprising H 611"', give btr,h, llnd Gill)., 10
insult, not to speak of 616, hand, where Ihis timc
there can be no question of the' assimilation of the
final consonalll to Ihe inilial consonant (d, H .x.I.X,
sparrow).
t Iti/: 1/ everywhen: writes " /lil where V has -I-
/li/.
f! or a1<:ph: It will be n()(ed that /1 generally has
graphic vowel gemination Icstifying to the presence
of aleph f! as a cryptophoneme (even if Ihis f!
tends 10 dis.~ppe ..l t lhen: as it al50 does in olher
Coptic idioms).
Several observations could still be made regarding
Ihe mOl'phosynlnctic and other idiosyncra.~ies of H,
as can be noted in manuscript M 636, hand a, These
idiosynel'asies havi: at yet been liule studied to date.
It must be mentioned above .111 that H systematically
omits both the preposition 6', toward, ill relation to,
01' for, and the numerous prepositions or particles
N', all of them as initial (I. (and Mo) lind N-. In n:la·
lion to classical Coplic, the sentence in II from then
on appears 10 be complelely disaniculate and dis·
membered; for u::ample, the infinitive absolute of a
vem can no longer be distinguished from its pre-
nominal infinitive, Other conditions might emerge
Ihrough the falling away of the initial consonant of
the "accusalivc" preposition in ils pronominal fonn,
which hencefonh appears 10 be felt morc or less as
a secondaly pronominal suffix, a.~ in IUflt.IIliOYZ'tH).Y,
 DiALECT i (0.. PROTO-LYCOPOUTAN 0" PROTO·LYCO·DIOSPOLlTAN)
my $a\'ior, and qlltJOtOVlHHAI, Thuu wilt save me.
alongside J.KfU....~, TIlOu hasl $3\'ed me.
In conclusion. there will be presenlL-d here the
verbal prefixes allt.'Swd to dale in H. Excepl ror spe-
cial cases (conjunctive). the rOml cited here is only
the lhird·person ma.-.cutine singular. and its COI'T"C'-
sponding prcnominal fonn (nom. - berore nominal
subjt.'CI). The entire paradiglll is nOI attesled in all
conjugations.
Unless spt.'Cifically mentioned. the rOrill is affirma·
tive; neg. - negative. Every ba.o;ic tense (abbreviatcd
hereafter to "basic") is rol1owed (ir aucsloo) by its
salellites. ariel' "And": ckc. - ch'cumslantial, reI. -
reilltive. Il = second lenM:; ant. - wilh pronominal
anlccedenl. Fonlls betwecn bmckclS [ ... ] are reo
constituted from vel)' similar fOl'ms; zero - no vcr·
bal prcfi~.
BlparlUe Pattern
Neg. 7.em particle .. , J.U.
Prutlll (basic) S·. nom. 7.cI"O. And cire. 6..•• nom.
opu·; rei. [(")TIll~'?).
FlImre (basic) 11'1).-, nom. :r.eI"O ... IU.'. Alld II
Inuu.·J. nom. lip'" , ..•u.-.
Tripartite Pattern
TenIU Wllh special negallon (If nol II).
Ptrfect (basic) ;U•• nom. ),-; neg. (1_']. nom. llH·.
And cire. (1l»),II' (?). nom, [(0»),-(1)]; reI. T>.&-. nom.
(n-]: neg. wilh zero, .. )..101.
~c'alive (or completive) (basic - neg.) Iu.n.·.
nom. ""'TII-.
COI/sIHu"diflal (01" nOlist) (hasic) "'AS'. nom. "''''1'"-;
neg. HH&•• nom. [HllfH-); rd. nLog. lllnIHlU\'), [anI.
ntlTlIMUII'). nom. [6TUMllfu,], [ant. IIHTI1H1lrH-).
FuI14rum euergicum (or lhlrd rl,ltul'c) (b."lSic) [0..11·].
(X1IPoMI- with Xli, in order Ihal, anlecedent). nom.
[lIPII']; neg. Itll"', nom. ('lIIrll')'
Cilusulive imperutive (basic) Mllplll\', nom. Hllfll';
neg. [t1IIKTpllr;·]. nom. [t1llkTfIl']'
Tenlcs with neg. [THM.].
CO'li,mctivc (bask) (sing. I.; 2.m./r.; 3.m.; plur.
2./3.) n.-, K', TII-. r;•• TIITIltI, CU-, nom. TII-. And with
.,.J.', IowaI'd (= limilfltive). ql,Wrn5-. nom. qlAtint-.
Temporal (basic) ntptlil-. nom. TIIf1l-.
Conditional (basic) O~","·. nom, G~","-.
BIBLIOGRAPHV
Crum. W. E. A. Cop'ic Dic:tiolltuy, Orlord, 1939.
Drescher. J. ''11Ie EarlIC9t Biblical Concordam:cs."
Bulletin de la Societe d'afCheoiogie caple 15 (1958-
1960):63-67.
79
Kahle. I'. E. Bala'kIlh: Coptic TexiS from DeiI' el-
Balll'holt ill Upper Egypt. Oxrord and London,
1954,
Ka'l....cr. R. "Dialt.-cICS. sous-dialCClts el 'dialecliculcs'
dans l'Egypte copte." Zei'schnft fill' iig)'p'ische
Spraclle Imd A!tenwllsJomde 92 (1966):106-115.
--'C.' "A. propos de quelques caracteri.o;tiques
onhogrnphlqucs du vocabulaire gre<: ulili~ dans
les dialeclel; H el N." Oneil/alii' Lo.'allie"sia
Periu</icu 6-7 (1975-1976):285-94.
--C., "Prol~omcnes a un cssai de c1a....o;ification
sYSI~matique deli dialcctes ct subdialectcs coptes
!\Clan it'S t:riICrc.s de la phonl:lique, Ill. Systcmes
onhogl"nphiqu(.'S CIl:alcgoriL'S llialeclalcs.'· Musioll
94 (1981):91-152.
Pulutsky, H. J. "Une QUCSlion d'011hogrophc boh:iiri-
que." Bulle/hI de Itl Sociell.! d'arc/lco!ogie cOflll! 12
(1949):25-35.
Quccke, H. UlIlcrSlldumgclI ZUlli kOplischcll Simulerl-
gebe', Louvaill. 1970.
-'''-' "Koptischc 'I-Icrrncneiai': Fr'agmcntc in
Floren7." Orlen/alia 47 (1978):215-19.
_ _ . "Zwei Blatter aus koptiscllcn Hennencia·
Typika in del' Papyl'u.-.sammlung del' O.slerrcich-
ischcn Nalionalbibliothek (P. Vindoh. K 9725 und
9734)." In fCts'sellrift ZUlli l()(J.Jlillrigeu BcSle1,ell
der Pap)"nlSsummlllllg der lJs'erreichisefll:n Nalioll-
albibliolhek, PapynlS El7,hcn.og RQiller (P, RoilIer
Celli.). pp. 194-206. Vienna. 1983.
Till. W, C, ··Betr.u:hlungcn 7.um Worukzenl im
Koptlo;chen." Billie/in de IQ Sociiti d'archlo/ogie
caple 13 (1948-1949):13-32.
Vergotc. J. GramlPltlire caple. Vol. la. Imroduc,ioll.
pJlOllttiqlle el phOllologiC, morphologic s)'II/Jriima.
lique (s,mclllre des simall'emes), panie SJ'lIchro.
I/iqlle, Vol. lb. Illtrodllc,ioll, p11O"i/iq"e el pJrOll()-
logic. morphologic S)'II,hilllolique (S'nlc/Ilre des
simall,emts). partie diachrolliqlle. Vol, 2n, Mor-
ph%gie SYlllagmu,iqllc, syuta.xe, partie sYllchro-
lIiqUfl, Vol. 2b. Morphologie SYII/llgmll/iq44e. pllr/ie
diachrolliqlll!. Louvtlin. 197]-198].
J.!.or)()I.N/£ KAs..<;ER
DIALECT i (OR PROTO·LYCOPOLITAN
OR PROTO.LYCQ.DIOSPOLlTAN). The
siglum or dialect i comes from the title of Ihe text
contained in the unique documenl allesting 10 its
presence (Lacau. 1946). "11.e Ascension or Isaiah."
This dialect (and partially its subdiak'Cls i7 and i74)
shoW\'; in its orthography phonological qualhies that
allow one to consider II a PROTODlAWCT-more pre-
cisely. the protodialt.-ct corresponding 10 Ihe ronncr
phonological level of some lost vluiely or the impor-
Ianl dialect L. a collective entity whose chief mani·
f~tatiolU an: the subdialecls lA. 1.5, and LlJ (cr.
80 DIALECT i (01' PROTO·LYCOPOLITAN or PROTO·LYCO-DiOSPOLITAN)
I.YCOPOUTAN and I.YCO·OIOSP(lUTAN). (Besides what
makes i ctc. a protodialccl, mMt of thc phonological
characlcristics of Ihis diak'Ct and its subdialccts are
tha;e of onc or anOlher 01 the branches of i.. or al
least n:scmble them more closely than those of all
the other Coptic idioms.) These Qualities cause each
witn~ of i in particular, but also of i7 and ;74. 10
be of greatest interest for Coplolog,}'. One must all
the more regret that up 10 now the telllS allested by
these manuscripts have bl.:en extremely brief and full
of gal)S (the 10Iai DllloorU of (;;(1 ellpn:s:;ing ;, i7.
and i74 is scarcely 0.01 percenl of all the Coptic
tellts known nowadays and 0.6 pcn;~cnl of those of
the L dialect). Thill CllCCltS;Ve Ill'iefness prevents any
observation in many impol1:mt ltCctors of i. Any pos·
sible observations elsewhel'C being too isulated, this
textual poverty causes useful gencmliz.ations to be
quite problemtltic, rendering dillicult a comparntive
0l1hographic system of rules nCCC$$.\I)' to compare i
with L4, L5, 1.-6, A, and .'10 on.
lt is lilting here 10 specify Ihat despitc the funda·
mental systematic clements lhat can be observed in
Ihe lellis. particularly wilh rcg.:ll'(J to Ihe prolOOialcc.
tal quality and Ihe major characterislics of the dia·
lectal group L. each of the small ICJI;ts expressing i
etc. remains a separate and special case under other
IlSpttIS (as arc mon.:over, in a Icssc:r but not negligi-
ble measure, each of the telllS Cllpressing L4, L5. and
1.6; ef. LVOOPOUTAN and LVOOOIOSPOUTAN). Here are
these protodialL"Ctal tCJl;IS. each with its {sub}dialecul
atlribulion.
i (- pL): All of Uicau (1946; a manuscripl frolll
the fOl1l1h century al the ISlesl). with thc cllCl'plion
of scvcrnl words that. Ihrough oversight or igno-
mnce, the scribe wrole with. insil-ad of proto-Lyco-
Diospolitan nomml ~. (fhese wonls al'C considen..'<1
to belong, then. to ;7; cf. infr.!.)
i7 (..fl.): The few wOI'ds of wcau (1946) men-
tioned above, not n:ally typical of i; fUlthel'lllol'e,
lhe texIS of LeilXlldt (1904; fuurth century), :md
Goehring (1984; fOll1th centlll)') if oyro+ (d. 1.-6, LS
oyJ'ITO; L4, A oyJ'HTO) can (or could) be a case
connected with the nIle of &lel (1961). Pos:;ibly
Browne (I979. nu. 6; foulth or fifth century), Ihough
unfOl1unately no lell:emc co~cred by the rule uf Edcl
(1961) is presenl. If lhL~ two lasl telllS arc nol i7.
Ihey al'C i74 (cf. below). One can be Icmpled to
relate 10 i7 in a way the telll of Crum (1934; from
the second half of the Ihird century. boughl in
Luxor), which indeed presents, by at least one of Ihe
typical central charaCieristiCli of ;7, a vulgar onhog.
raphy Ihat appears mther str1lnge (indicated by thc
siglum J in Kassel', pp. Ill-IS). Consonants: TIle
initial consonant oy Iwl is n..-placcd by I Iv/. and
Iikewi'iC all 'I IfI· Unfortunately this lelll has no ex·
ample of •• thus lacking proof Ihat Crum's leXI be-
longs 10 i elc. (Perhaps it is only a particulnrly abel"
IOml fonn of A, although A doc5 nol have lhe ·1 of
EtJcI, 1961, with certain cllccptions [Uieau, 1911).
6U.:~. ancestors. 2 Mc. 6: I. 6.) The consonant ~ is
always omitted. l! i'1o maintained in a series of cases
where i and A ha\'C I. .x is relainL-d nine limes and
l'Cplaced lhree times by x (- leI r.:tthel· Ihan Ix/; cf.
AU'l-IABETS. COPTIC). G ill replaced by tl. Stressed vow-
els: They frequently COflfonn with Ihose of A and L
(56 percent). less often with Ihose of S (44 percent).
Unslrt.'Sscd vowels: Those of L6 :Ire prefern.:d, since
the·lof F..del (1961). missing In I,j and lA, is regu-
larly found in i etc. and 1.-6.
i74 (- P"L): Possibly Goehring (1984) :lr1d Brownc
(1979, no. 6; d. above); certninly LefOlt (1939; from
the fourth century at the latest). The text of Crum
(1922; foul1h 01' fifth eentul)', oriGin unknown) eould
rca~onably (in a sense) belong to iN al.'iO nccause or
cel1nin chid charaelclislics, such as use of Ixl and
Ill. a'1o in i7 and i74 (d. below). Yel one sees in it
various sp<:llings (somelimes S)'ll'lemalic or fle-oirly)
thai are very strnngc and far from L cle.; in Crum
(1922) the nonnal c is replaced by t,I (1) in six out of
eight cases. such as ~', painful. It also has a
strong Icndancy to replace the !IOMnl (nasal) wilh
I~I followed by the sonoranl, having Ihus 1\fIT", to
cany. illh-. in; and the negation -nIH·.
One will additionally note that i (with i7 and ;74)
is a protodialcct wilh an impovelislw.-d alphabel. In-
dClod, e:teh supplementary phoneme characleri7.ing i
as II proiooiaieci. pL. with n..o.gard to L. is not wrillen
wilh a ltpCcial grapheme but wilh a grnpheme com·
man to L. supplied, however. with a diaclilical sign
in 1'1•. Thus, Illl is I in pl. (as il is ;n A). which is
! (the ordinary grapheme for {hI> supplied with a
diaclitical sign (and in fact, in the phonological
evolution, pL > L. pI.. • > L 2), wherca~ in ·pS
(reconstructed on lhe anlilogy of ntAWCT P, an
alphabetically rich protodialect), Illl is f), used for
nothing else. (One will here nolice that in A • Ix/
and in B f) /xl have no pl'Otooinlectal function, since
Ihey belong 10 the alphabet and to the phonological
stock of Ihe dialect A and the language B them-
sclvt.'S. according to their usual and traditional def·
inilion in Coplology.) Ukewise.It;1 is '" in pL. which
is • (an ordinary grapheme for IV) supplied with a
diacritical sign (and in fact. in the phonological ev0-
lution pL > L. pL i1 > L til). whereas in P (generally
analogous 10 ·pS). ltitl is " used for nOlhing else.
The essential chamcteristics of i. qualifying it as a
prolodialcct, are (I) the survival of ltitl (arising £rom
majority x~· d. PROIUDlAUCT), written ~; (2) the sur·
 DIALECT i (or PROTO-LYCOPOLITAN
\ival of 111.1 (arising from ;1;10 united wilh minority x~
d. PROTODIAl.Et.T), written a; (3) the survival of the
final unstressed \'Owcl ·1 in til'; cases described by
Edel (1961; formerly iw). a surviwl also found in the
/A branch of L.
One or more of Ihese Char':lClel'l~llc§ have dis<\~
pcared in i7 or i74 (following an evolulion lhal can
summarily be reprcsenll:d as i > ;7 > /74 > L). ;7
hs Ihe second and Ihir'(l chal':lClel'l.~lics only, while
;74 has jusl lhe second.
The Olher phonological Chl\l'llClerislics of ;, ;7.
and ;74 arc not chamclelistics of prolodialccts but,
rather, show their relation 10 (sub)dialcclS wilhin Ihc
range of L's subdiak"(;ts (LA. lJ, U,; cf. K.as:;cr, 1984,
p. 307). At this poinl, il will be inleresting 10 add A.
the Coptic langunge fonn whose vowels are Ihe dos-
es! 10 /:s and 1'5 \·owels. i. [in ;74, LfJ, and A
assimilale 151 ill IiI before 11:1: ~O. LA, l.5 C6Xll.
word. ;. li7. /741 LA, and A Il;\ve Ihe polentiallinal
aleph: aye. LS oyi;o. 1.6 Qy1l61. one: (l11as&.). aefore
the stressed vowel, i, [i7, i74J, LS, 1.6, and A have:
IfI: '1(6)1, /A &I, n;muve. i74, 1.5, and L6 have lhe
final somml, which on lhe conlr';.\1)' is lhe sonoranl
followed hy lal in I, 1.4, and A [/7 I:leks this formj:
I, lA, A ClUTHO, ;74, L5, 1.6 con1l", to hear. I, 17,
{/74], IA4, and A lose Iw/ wilh I1lctaphony in the
end strcsscd svlltl\)le that in L4 (e:;I;Ce:pt 1A4j, 1..5. and
L() is l-ew/: I, 17, [/74J, LA4, A NO. lA, 1.5, 1.6 N~y, to
see. Where i and LA mave lhe stn..-..scd final vowel in
{-Q/, i74, LIJ, and A have luI (a situation quite un·
dear in LS; 171acks lhis form): I, IA .x_, 1.6, A xoy,
to say. but i74 z«<>yoy, A zwy, IA tIGI, serpent
(fern.). The end syllable's vocalization Qf lhe pre-
nominal fonn of causalive vcr&,; with I·initial, 1.;)1
Ii]. i7. [i74]. (IA), LfJ, and f.al LS: i7 (1) nJ.J~·. to
creale; d. A T),HOo or TEHe-, L5 T~fU-. Peculiar
lexemes: 174 H6loXll, L44 (and LA, which is rare)
I'IflX6, 1.6 HClll,l.xO, 1.5, LA HElCJ1Tll (cf. P HJ.G,lTJ.), A
H~6XO, car. The panicle of the prolcpsis i, 17, 174,
L(), (LS), A Hm, (L5) .xt, 1.4 lJ.xI, bUl (lJ)ue or.xe (A)
somctimc.~ also. i, ti7, ;74], IA, 1.5, A TO, 1.6 TON,
where (inlcrrog.); ; (?), 17, 1.5, 1.6. (A) .IofI'~, A 6rH~
(or tif"lt:T6), bUI L4 tGMl6 (cf. P ::aUK), to keep.
Verbal prefixes: lirsl future Ihird sing. lnasc. ctc. I,
17. [i74], LS, 1.6, A "NJ.-. lA, (A) .....-. First pencet first
sing. etc. 17, ;74, IA. 1..5, A ),)., j J.(e)l· or :.a.(e)l- (ef.
V hybrid also, M exclush'cly tlo·i·, cte.). 1.6 J.6l· or
1.lf'. Relative pencet third sing. rnase. etc. I, 17.
(/741 lA, A un.,,-. LS, LfJ (6)HTJ.'1·.
The texlS attcsting i elc. arc unfonunatcly too
brief to allow systematic observations in morphosyn·
tactic and lexicologic fields. However. Olle should
nole form.<; such as i tu.Ci~. moulh, which has no
known Cuptic c<luivalent except A 1lJ.¥60; funher, 1
01- I'ROTO·LYCO·I)JOSPOLITAN) 81
and A have GfJI', left (hand) (d. P Kur). while IA and
1..5 ha\'c GWyf, and S, M, and F have ~.
Finally, here an: SQmc typical ex.amplcs of proto-
Lyeopolitan (pL or i etc.): 17, LfJ KCK61. lA, LS, A
KeKO obscurity; i. IA4, A eTFrl'lO. L4 (except 1A4).
LS, Ui 6"rJfMtly, Ihal (one) i7, lA, LfJ. S cJ.",,,, seven
(ma.'iC.) (LS c1e. rem. cJ.~e, H CJ.lI,ll',;l), n G,lJ.\II't, M
CO(l,)'1 (ulld lI,l6l1,ltl spedal dialeclal [?J vllliant of
n.M.Or. 5300(27), bel ween M and H ruther Ihan /0).
A CJ.I'I, P cJ.9'I; i7, A J.t,,', L4, 1.5. Ui ,1.1'1'2' (and L5
Utii"'. John (Lond.], u.~', John [Dub.]), 8 Oll~' (d.
P I>J.!I), S Offf', At, W, V, (F) J.N~', (t.) 1/ J.llJ..z'.
living; 17. lA, 1..5, f..IJ, S etc. ~"H, A ~tH, P !lIIH, lillIe.
; ~MI. P 9I)lIe, A tI)l16. lA, LS. 1.6. S etc. ",,"Ml.
become; 17 tJ.Acrl·. 174, lA, A tJ.AGT6, P :J.UTe, S
elC. :.u.a.{.l>)Tll. birtk; I, 17, 174, A aff-. P !llJ·. 8 ~N-.
IA. 1..5. /..6, S etc. tH-, in; I, LfJ XJ.Cl'. LA, l..5, A, At
XJ.Cll', P, S .xoce', 8 GOer', F. H XJ.CI' (from [I cle.],
LA. l..5, UJ. A, S. At .x'CO, mCladialectal H .xtCll, V. F
.xlCl, 8 6tCl). C;I;nhed.
1JI11L10CRAI'HY
Browne. G. M. MiciligUlI Coplic Te.tK B:ll'cclona,
1979.
C1\1Il1, W. E. "Lu M:lgie copte: Nouveuul( telltes."
DibliQlhcqllc de /'&/)Ie. praliqllc des lilllues elrll/cs
234 (1922):537-44.
"Un Psaume en diak"(;lc d·Akhmlm."
A1l!lIlQir~.~ de /'Inslilll! lrollfais d·arclroo/Qgie. oriel/-
tale. 67 (1934):73-86.
Edcl, E. "Neucs Malerial WI' HcR.llnfl del' auslauten·
den vokale .£ und -I im Koptischt:!n." 7~il$clrrill
{iiI' iJgyptische. Sprache WId Al1Cnllm~mrJe 86
(1961): 103-106.
Funk, W.·P. "I)ie Zellgen des kop(ischen U,e:rntur-
dialekls i7." leilscltril' {iir iigyplischc Spracllc WId
Aiterillmskmrde 114 (1987):117-33.
Goehring, J. E. "A New Coptic Fr.lgmcnt or Melilo's
Homily on lhe Passion." Museml 97 (1984):255-
6Q.
Ka.~ser, R. "Relations de gcncalogie dialeclale dlms
Ie domaine lycOl)()lhain." Bulletill de la Societe
/N:gyfll%gie, Genilve 2 (1979):31-36.
"Pru[(:gom~nes fa un l."S!iai de dassHication
sYSlemalique des dialectcs ct 5uixlialcctcs coptf.'S
scion Ics cnlcres de In phonetique, I, Principes ('I
tenninologie." M,I.(OOJl 93 {1980a):53-112. " ... ,
II, Alphabels 1'1 systcme5 phonctiques." Ml/seQII 93
(198Ob):237-97. " ... , lII, Syst~mes orthogr..·
phiques el calegories dialectalcs." Mlls£o,r 94
(1981):91-152.
-:-c' "Un Nouveau Document protolycopolit:lin."
Ori~lI/alia 51 (1982):30-38.
-::-c' "Le Grund·Groupe dialectal copte de Haute·
Egypte." 81jll~li" de la Societe //'igy,Jlo!agie,
GCllilve 7 (1982):47-72.
 82 DIALECT P (or PROTO·THEBAN)
___. "Orthogntphc cl phonologic de la valicte
subditllcctalc lycopolitaine de~ texte.~ gnostiques
copte~ de Nag Hammadi." Museun 97 (1984):261-
312.
_ _ , "Ent,;ore un ducument protolycopolitain."
Muscmr 98 (1985):79-82.
Lacau, P. "Textes coptes en dialectes akhmimil]ue et
sahidiqull." (Jullelill de 1'llIsfilul {ralH;ais
d'arcl1culu/jie urienlaie 8 (1911):43-81.
_ _ . "Fmgmenls de l'Asellnsion d'Isa'ic en copte."
I"e MU$eon 59 (1946):453-457,
LefoM, L. T. "Fragmenls d'apoeryphes en copte-
akl1l11illlique." Mllsemr 52 (1939): 1-10.
[Leipoldl. J,]. Aegyptische Urklllrdell aus dcn kOllig.
lie/ren Mliseell zu Ber/i", hcralHgcgcbcll vmr del' Ce-
lleralvenvalJullg. kO(Jlische UrkllluJen. l3erlin. 1904.
Vel'gNe. J. "I.e DiulcCle caple P (P. Bodmer VI:
Prvvcrbes), cssai d'idcnlification." Revue
J'e-gyplolo!!,ie 25 (1973):50-57.
_ _ . Grammairc cOplc, Vol. la, hr/roJl/c/ion, pho-
nClique e/ "hon%gie, morph%gie syllilremmiqlle
(simc/ure des semcmlcmes), parlie synchmniqllc,
Vol. 1b. IlIlmdllclioll, pllmlcliquI! .!t phon%gie,
morphologic .~Ylllhcmaliqlw (sirueillre des
sblllmiemes), parlie diadm:mi'lI4C, Vol. 2n, Mor-
ph%gle synJagmMiql4C, SyntllXe, pllrtie synchro.
nique, Vol. 2b, MorpllOlogie sYll/agnuuiqlll.', partie:
diclChmnique. Louvain, 1973-19&3.
WOlTCII, W_ H. Cop/ie SOlmds. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
ROt)()U'Jll! KASSER
DIALECT P (OR PROTO·THEBAN). The sig-
lum for this dialect. P, comes from a Coptic biblical
book of Proverbs in the form of a late-third-century
parchment codcx, P. BWllLer VI, the only existing
Jocumcnt written in the dialect (K.'lsser, 1960). Its
orthography exhibits phonological chal'actel'istics
that allow one to consider it a I'KOTOJ)JALaT. In blief
though more precise terms, one could think of it as
a proto-Theban that often resembles what can be
known about u hypolhetic,,1 proto-SahiJic, tentative·
Iy reconstructed (po.<;.~ibly a proto-Sahidic imrnigmnt
in the Theban region; d. DIALa•. IMMIGRANT).
Alphabet or P
Even if it is of .second'll)' importance to the study
of Ji"lects, it is worthwhile 10 examioe the rnther
original alphabet used in 1', which looks like the Old
Coptic alphabel~ (see Al.PHABETS. ow COI'l"lC) "nd is
incontestably the r4:hesl among the various Coptic
alphabetic systems (many of the Coptic dialeCl~ and
subditllcets having their own vaJ"ielics of the Coptic
alphabet; See AI.PllAHRTS. COI'l'IC and Kassel'. 1980, pp.
280-81). lts thil1y-five graphemes im;lude three
kinds of signs: (I) (ll1twenly-four letten; of the Creek
alphubet, as in all Coptic dialects eKcepl H: (2) a
ligature of Creek origin, J<, Ic';)/, in autochthonous
Coptic words such ;IS l' Wl. - 5 NGI. the proleptic
p;1l1ic1e, and l' J<, = 8 GO, therefore; lhis inlerllsling
gmpheme perhaps posscsse.~ the same phonological
value in the Coplo-Greek voeabuku)', where il how·
ever may be also lkai/, Ikaj/, or l}I)ssibly even Ikel
or Ik'Jl (tlpP(lrenlly the C(lse (llso in various Greek
and Coptic documentary texts where it occasionally
appe'If!;, always optionally); and (3) no less than tcn
gmphemcs Ihat Originatcd in demotic. (In contr"Jst,
Bohairic has but seven demotic cha11lcter.<: and
Sahidic only six.)
Thc simplest way to dcscribc lhc alphabet of l' is
to compare it with the alphabet of Sahidic (8). Many
graphemes of demotic origin th:ll belong properly to
P obviollsly represenl phonemes thllt 8 also posscss-
es but expres..~cs by OthCI- combined or single chal-'
:lcter'S. For inswnee, Ikl in S is K, whcrcus for P it is
::I., a grapheme observed in two Old Coplie texts
(Kassel', 1980, p. 259). Howcvcr, Icl in 8 is 6, while
in l' Icl is K, for, as with vir'lually all Old Coptic
texts, P refrains from using G (Kassel', 1980, p_ 258).
Fm1hcl·. the two following signs uf P no lunger up-
pear in P. Bodmer VI, excepl vestigially, being pro-
gressively forced out of usage hy newer graphemic
usages, in pal1icular those of S, Fin;t, in a primilive
state of evolution, P writes the sonantlnl , as _, like
somC Old Coplic texIs (Kassel', 1963). Then it st:lrts
to write it as N, as in classical S laler on. Also, in its
primitive mode P appcan; to render g11lphkally the
tonic vowel as geminate (Kasser, 1985) ;lnd writes
the voiceless laryngeal occlusive, aleph /'1, as .1.. It
pl'Obably derivcs from" combinalion of both similtlr
demotic signs fOf 3 and j (du Bourguet, 1976, p. 3).
Next, (Idopting the newer graphemic usages that will
be those of 8 etc., I' no lunger geminates stressed
vowels as such, but r'alhe.' lhe Ionic vowel is gemi·
nated when followed by aleph. For instance, for
Ilaprol, mcaning "mouth," the primitive l' has
TJ,l1fOO, while the logically secondary P and 8 have
T.l.l\ro; for leo'f/, meaning "to say it," the primitive
P has xo.1.'l, whcreas thc secondal)' l' and Shave
XOO'I.
Othcr graphemes peculiar to p. however, consti-
tute the written form of phonellles no longer in
more evolved Coptic (8 and most Coplic dialects).
Therefore, in its usage of !;) lxi, I' comes into line
with 8 etc., SO P and 8 al'C gr..phemic;dly opposcd 10
A .md ; where Ixl i.~ 0, bul P, 8, A, and i (and the

small subdialccl$ } with ., and 87 and G with x) arc
phonologically opposed to all the ~ of the Coptic
languagl'S. dialct:ts, and subdialects, where Ixl disap-
peared pre~iously and no lunger exists at all. BUI
abo~e nil. in still using" 1..;1 (a sign found invelied
in many Old Cuptie texts; Kas~r, 1980. pp. 258-(0).
P is phonologically opposed to all Coptic dialects
and subdialcrts (except; • pL, also a prutodialect,
where however 1,.1 iii i). As for ", the graphemic
combination )l3 is still seen in the final position
after the tonic vowel: HOy.n, mix; ~X9, sprinkle;
11Il.C. beal flat. This combination X9 could render a
palatalltt:d affricate It21 or 1(;1 corresponding to Itr;1
as /t.I cotTespond~ to Itiil, l'ather than It,.I, In thQ!;C
three lexemes, the otlier Coptic dialects have. as the
case arises (sec below). ·XG in S .\IId sometimes A;
'Xl!. in S; ·X,. in S. L, and sometimes A and B; 'Xl in
A; .x.:; in B; or simply ·x in S. This fOlms a mnge of
possible phonemic combinations w open and di·
~ersc that the interprctution of P .X9 iii scareely
made any easier.
Phonological and Morphological Peeuliarilles
As ful' as dialectology is concerned, the alphabet is
a decisive indicatOl' only insofar as its gmphcmcs an~
able to re~eal the nature of its phonemes, Thus. it is
the phnnology uf P thai enables one to sec il as a
type of protodialect oflen identical wllh a recon-
structed PI'Qto·Sahidic, On lhis subject, it should be
noted that nothing ill the consonant systelll of P is
incompatible with that of S (which is common.
moreover, to many Coptic dialects, namely, those
most m.'\I1ralued in this rcspttl. bask:ally L. M, W,
and V), A comparison olthe consonant system of P
with that or S is given below.
As .....--gal'ds vocalizalion, it is undoubtedly advisable
to assign a preeminent importancc to strl'SSe(l vow·
els. whit:h manifeSI most of lhe chamctelistics Ihat
alluwone 10 di~tinguish belween Coptic dialects or
subdialecl~. One diSl,:over'S thai the vocabultlry of P
agrees thus in 97 pel'cent of the cases wilh thai of S.
Nearly half of the remaining cases (P tu.K. la!'Ee; fill,
name; oy'I. one (mllSC,); oy),I, rudt; ),'" +. quench;
!If).Y, voice; and 6U1!, wrath; cf. B AwN, in Vycichl,
1983, p, IOSb) can l'VCntuaily be explained byely·
mology and the archaic 5latc of the language mther
than by the influence ol othel' Coptic diakcls, partic·
ularly from the south. such as L or A. (It will also be
noted that the strl"SSCd·vowel agreement of P with A
and L. when thcy fire completely in fiCCOI'd. or with
any speci'll valiety of L is only between 59 percent
and 63 perccnt,)
D1ALECf P (01" PROTO-THEBAN) 83
In thc remaining 1.5 percc:nt ol ca.'ics. the orthog·
mphy of p. while distanl from that of S, coincide!>
with some other Coptic diakOCI (kom Lower or Mid-
dle Egypt a... well a.~ Upper Egypt and dlUs ha~ing no
Plll1icularly tn'irked llftinilY with L or A). In CIMS i, P
always writes lhe siressed l(jl bcrorc final Ijl (first-
person singular pronoun suffix or any other e1e·
ment). Thus, P tiR"H1u', with me, corresponds 10
ffililtQ in LS and 1.6; _ I I ' in lA, FS, FS6. and B;
_ t in A; KGHGr in M and F4; and ffitu'( in S. 'OIl",
10 mc, in P, fA, W, V, FS, F56, F4, (F7), and B
correspond~ to I*llll in LS, 1.6, and F/; HEI' in M. F4,
and F46: HOOI in A; and tu.... in S, Also IV (not alv.H.tys
final): for example. ).·itt{tt)"fT8 in P; ...1"61' and
...(e)teY(Tc). etc.. in A; I"eyro in A nnd fA; ).ClCy in
L6: ).l"C(lt in M; ),rer in F 1"...1' in Sand B all me'ill "10
grow." ).o,lll(e)tTO in P; "'o,lOOITll in A; ).o,lGI'(TO) in A
and fA; "'Cllcm(TO) in Ui; ).o,lOOI in LS; ).o,l6l" in M, V,
and F: and ).~).)" in Sand B an mean "to multiply."
tmOtN in P; HUnl in Wand F; HUUII in H; ttlJ(e)lN6 in
A; H6Uf6 in L4; HGCtH in M; and H"'O'" in LS, 1.6, and
S all mcan "~ign." ctl6Ul in P; e1ml in F; (;111)_ in 8;
co{o)1Nll in A; Collie in fA: and coo," in M and C.\OtH
in 1.6 and S all mean "duelor. physician."
oyxlI(o)rro in P; OYX661 in A, f.6. and LS; oyxeltTO)
in II and L4; O)'XIjIjI(Te) in 1.6; oyxel" in M and f;'
DyX.\l" in Sand B all mean "to bc healed. saved."
~fllY in P, A, L, M. W, V. and B; ,.111' in F; and ~r"'Y in
S all mean "upper part," !>I'll'! in P and B; !pllr in A;
~ in L, M. W, and V; VJII' in F; and ~f"'\' in S all
Illean "lower pan." In lhis catl'gory alone, one finds
that P reaffirms its originality. If one summarizes its
points of contact with other Coptic dialecl~ in thc
previous narrow category. ooe finds that its most
pronounced affinities are with B, then wilh F. then
with L, then with A and M. wilh S definitely coming
last.
Some intefl'Sting obselvations call be made with
unstre!>.~ed vowels. ·e is ~cncrally the unstressed
vowel in p. M it is in S. bUI sometimes it is .... where
the COlTespondin~ Egyptian word has II final 'ayin:
for example, P M1l11,l"', S HlIl«90, erowd; P H).Q,lT S
H... )..](CJ, ear; P Tllt.),. S 1lftll\6, fing('r; .md P KOOH ',
S GOOHll', twisted, crooked, perverse, vicious, On the
onc hand, it would be penllissible to consider this
differentiated vocalizatlon as an archaism typical or
P when compared to the more neutralized S. On the
other hand, one finds thaI the dialectal regions of
Egypt where this phenomenon is manik'St arc pre'
cisely Lower Middle Egypt and Lower Egypt. In fuct,
,.. (except for £'7) and V, W h.wing -t as Ihe normal
unstressed final vowel, h.we -0 (f7 eveo has ...., like
P) in the 'ayin position mentioned eadieI'. and H
84 DIALECT P (or PROTO-THEBAN)
loses e\'el)' final VQwel in place of its nonnal ·1 (lhus,
F7 HI",),.. F5 HI.~, W HlMI4!, 8 H1M1, crowd; F7
HfiX.I., fo'5 HIl<iXO, V H(lXO, 8 t-U.IQX, car; F5 'rnHMI, 8
TH&. linger; hUi. c.g., n, F )'CDHI, W, V, 8 ptlMl, man;
cr. Polotsky, 1931; VergolC, 1945. p. 88).
HUI one mUSI not foriet lhat Ihe categories where
P moves ranhcst a....'Olly from S to approoch 8 and
especi:llly F (or pcl'haps other diak-cts) rcmain quitc
rcsniclcd (Ionic \1)wels abo\'c. 1.5 percent of Ihe P
\'ocahulal)'; alonic above. I percenl). so thai the
I'l$I.lIt could hardly call in question the slliking allin·
ily tl1;l1 P and 5 have almosl evel)'Where el5C (91
pen:enl) as well as cel1nin disnl:\I'CCl11ents between
the two in unstressed pl'ctonic vowel~ {thus. P, I., II
GHlfTO. 5 ),.HllTfI. hell; 1', L, A 6H)"~TO, S ),.H)"~T6,
seize; plul'. I' o2W((Ulr, L, It o~, S ),.2OHlIr, treasures;
P 82OH, I., A (j~H, S ),.:lOH, sigh; 1', L, A ),.-, S 1l-,
toward; 1', I., II ),.1lI\;l6, .s 6tl(J2, cternity) or the fact
thm 1', like 1.5 and 1.(" writes In'Jl rather than final
Inl, aftcl' Iwl, hut in lhis position only, while A and
fA do not recogni1.e this Ihnilalion (d. l' cooyoo. I.,
A C),.ytill. S cooyll, 10 know). Nor, finally. docs Ihe
~itualion change much from the fact Ihal 1', as op-
posed to S (and therdore coming close 10 A, I., lllld
other dialecls). readily rcplatl."S a polemial aleph af·
tel' the linal stressed vowel with fJl or 1.,1
(similiglide. Kassel'. 1981b. p. 35), while the SOl"
thography will refrain from indicating iI, For cllam·
pll', H€EI of P; H€(e)16 of .4; HllI"6 of lA; fU.OIO of L.5
and 1..6; HlO'O of M; HIll of W. V, F, and B; H6f of 8;
and He of S all mean "to love:' HlI( of P and B; HIE
of A; HlIll of l..; H6(l of 101; MGt· of IV, V. B, F4. and F7:
MG6I of F5 and "'56; ond HG of S all ml.';!.n troth,
justice. "),.6 of P, .4, and I.; ItOO of M; "61' of IV; "001
of F5 and F56; "l.l" of 0; and 11)" of S all mean "pity."
C),.f1 of P; c),.(e)IG of A and L; etl!" of F; C).l"{ll) of B,-
and c),. of S all mean "b<:ltuly," DyGll(l) of P; oyel"6
of A and fA; Dy)"616 of /..6; oyllie of M; oytll1l' of F5;
OYllr or F7; oyOl of B; and oye of 5 all mean "10 1>e
distanl, far.reaching." 260(1) of I); ~e(6)16 of A; 201'1J or
fA; ~),.6l(l or 1.5 Md /..6; ~1Il"O of M; ~1I1' of v, F4, and
(B); ~llIll of F5; ~llr of 8; and ~ll or S all mcan "to
fall."
P'~ stres..'lt'd vowels dernonslmle, if nOI ,I complete
identily with S, Ihen at leaM a relalionship close
cnOllgh 10 consider it a n..'gional dialeclal variety
vel)' like a kind of "proto-Sahidic" (a reconstructed
·pS. cf. below). More precisely. it .....ould be a ·pS
thai cOllld have become a typical. local or regional
varidy of S, distinguisltt.'d from classic S by only a
few difference1io, oot belonging, without doubt, to the
Sahidic dialt:ctal group (1' is nearly as close 10 S as
IA is to L5 and U. or 1-'4 101-'5, F7, Fa. and F9 and
conversely), Pcrhap; P wa... an immigranl varicly of
.pS. some son of ·pS from Thebes (d. i'l SOllie way
the fomler hypolhesis lhal P would be a Theoon
protodiaieci. Nagel. 1965; Kassel', 1982; on Ihis. cr.
especially P :e', on; 6CT6, behold, here is; rttl. name;
),.BO", OlItsidc; y~. to throw), More precisely. it
WOllld not be an indication lhat S was principally of
Thcbnn origin. but nath'e to a place fUl1her nol1h
(between Land M), S, as a common language
spreading (many cenlUlies before Coptic limes)
southward (also nonhward) and thlUugh Ihe whole
valley of Ihe Egyplian Nile above the Delta. WOI.lld be
implanloo fin;t of all, vel)' early on. in some greal
ul'ban cenler'S, following lhe course of that river
(Kassel', 1981), l' (a" a valiely of ·pS) could only be
"'nleblln" by means of immigl".llion (cr. DIALECT, 1M·
MIGKANT).
The clOSll relationship of I' and S is confirmcd in
Ihe consonanlS, where thc evidence (If the protodia·
lcctal character is clear (cf. l'lIO"I'Oml\WCT), In facl,
the phonemes still present in I' and absent in S
follow exacily Ihe well·known line of phonological
evolution from pharaonic Egyplian 10 Coptic
(Vergole. 1!M5, pp. 122fT.). Thus, l' slill ha."/r;1 (from
predominam x J ) wriUen ". and Ixl (from X10 relatl-d
to a minority Xj) writlen !J. The....e two phonemes are
also present in dialect i, Ihe only Olher Coptic proto-
dialt:ct known al pn:sent; this has an impoverishoo
alphabet Uf;1 i; Ixl e. as in .4), The development of P
as a protodialect near to a kind of .pS \x:coming S
is as follows; ., 1..1 > Gil M. and !J Ixl > ~ /hI. For
example, P!lI.lfII, first. in S is IQOFlI (A ""'1. I. 19J.f'11,
CIC.); and l' 1JR!»J.., servant. is S :R"tu (A tA"eG". I.
:l't6"),
A..~ fal' a.~ the vowels arc eoncemOO. the \'crbal
prefixes of P also have points in common with Ihose
of S, bUI even more willi L (CSJX.-c;;ially fA). This
should not be too much of a surplise, since they arc
all dir'Cctly 01' imlil'ectly pretonie unstressed vowels.
l\lld it is specifically in Ihe pl'elonic unslressed vow·
cis Ihall' is often closer to I., and SOlllctimes A, lhan
II is 10 S (perhaps an early dmmctelislic neulrnlized
later in S 01' the influence of native Thebes dialect
on immigrant ·pS, in accordance with thc hypolhc·
sis olTered ahove). With the consonants, however, P
sonlelimcs cxhibits original solutions approximating
alliO to A or I. (as the case atisc:l) when disagreeing
willi S. (As n..-gards the morphological pcruliaritics
of P, sec especially Ihe conjug."Ition s)'Slem below.)
Conjugation System
bcept in special instances (conjunctive, elc.), Ihe
fonn citl.-d here is only Ihe third,person masculine
singular and the corn.'sponding prenominal foml

("nom," '" bdore nominal subject). The entire para-
digm is '101 allcsled in all conjugations.
Unless specifically mentioned, Ihe for'm is affirma-
tive; "neg:' - ncg.1tive. Every ha.~ic tense (ablm::viat·
cd hen::afler to "ba.~ic") is followed (if nllcSled) by
iL~ satellites. after "And": "cke:' - circumstanlial,
"pre!." - preterite, "rei." _ relative. "II" _ second
lense. Fomls betwl'Cn b......ckcts { ... ] arc n.:consti·
tuted lTom very similar fOI1l'-"; "7£ro" - no "crbn!
prelix or no particle.
1. Bipartite Pallern.
Nt'S. zero ... .I. or So (!lie) (lr- ... J.Ii S, (If.) ... 61i
L. UrQ. , • jill A).
1.1. Pre~lI/ (basic) ..· (- S, L, A), nom. :(eru (- S,
I., A). And cire. fI'" (- S, I., A). nom. Op6- (- S, I.,
(It), e- A); rcl. 61" (- S, L, A) o,' [6"1"6'1'] (- (L5),
8Ttr· S, I., A. nom. 101'01'0') (- S. 1.4. (£.5), L6, (A),
01'0- 1.5, (l.6), A); prc!. li6'1' (= S. L, 1i)"'1- (1.6), A),
nom. [HIlf6-) (- S. L, H),,(r(J.)· A); p,-el. ,'cI. 81'6tl6'1- (-
S. L, GHG'I' S, L, 6111..,,· A), nom. (eTGH(;f(I-] (- S, t,
6H6f'8' S, L); II 6"- (- S, L, .I.... It), 'lorn. 6(fElr (6fti-
S, L, J.(re). It).
1.2. f.·II/,lre (basic) wilh .tu..: 'UUt.- ( - S, (/Al, 1.5,
L6, A), nom. zero ... liJ.· (- S, L, It). And eire, G'lHJ.-
(- S. (LA), LS, U'J, A), nom. (€f6- ... m-l (e S. LO,
6' .. , tU.- 1.5, A); rei, CTHJ.- (- S, I.. A) 01' eTfNtU.- (-
(L5), (Ld), OT1fru.- S, (/A), 1.5, L6, A), nom. lJ1'lJP6'
. . . liA- ('" S, fA, 1-6, (A), 01'6- riA' 1..5, A); II tNtiA'
(- S, L, A'IN),,- A), nOl1l, (lpc· tlA' (- S, L, A(rO)'
. . • Ii),,- A).
1.3. I'll/I"" (ba.'lic) with .),,-: '1.1.- (on!y I'lv. 19:25) (_
fA). And rei. (?) GTlJ'IJ.· (only Prv. 6:29) (6"I"IA- 1.4).
2. Tripartite: PaUe:m.
1./ Te~s wilh special /lega/iolls (if 1101 1/). Inde--
pl"ndent (!Io.:ntence) l,."Onjugalions.
2.1.1. Perfect (basic) .I.... ( - S, t. A, but twice sing.
I. 21' P - Pno. 7:15-16 (see Kasser. 1984], cf. J.~- CIC.
UI solllelimes), nom. .I.- ( - S, L, A, o.:ltCCpl LIJ ACla
Pauli from Hdddbcrg, 2A' [but .1.'1-, like P, S, L4, 1.5.
Aj, (At),,- mrcly 1..6); nCG. Rn'lf· ('" S, L, A, Rno'l' (1..4),
(1..5), (1...6), nom. [R"110'] (- S, L, A, 'ff1H1· (A». And
dre. [eA'.·] (S, L, A), nOIl1. (0),,'] (- S, f., A, CltCCpl1...6
Acla Pauli from Heidelberg, 6t),,·); neg. IGNI....-J (= S.
f., 6HtIll'l' (1.4). (L6». nom. (6Hn6') (- S, L). ReI.
OTlt.t' (- It, (e)trrJ.t-l.; ef. Funk. 1984) or leTJ....] (-
lA, A, 8IfTJ...· S, (L6). lrn,'I' (5), f.5, IJj, (6T6(~)),,'I'
U», nont. 6Tl... (- lA, (L6). A, 61fTJ.- 5. (L6), ll'n-
(5), 1...5, (L6), (If'r~J.-, eT),,(t}),,·, 6NT.Uo.- L6»). neg.
(OT6Htf'f-] (.:0 5, L, [A), 6T6H116'1' (L6J/, nom.
[CT(lHrI(I-] (- S, L. A). II [6n...] (- (A), RTl..'I· S, I"
HA'I' A, (eA'I' 1..6), also Of6(tlT)J.'I· with a causal sense
U Tr,lClatus Tripartilus; cr, P 6p)"}.- Pry. 6:3), nOIll.
[cn.] (lfT),,· S, L, tI),,- A); neg. :tel'O ... )" (elc.).
2.1.2. Comple/it'e (basic) (affirmative substitutc
DIALECf P (or PROTO-THEBAN) 85
(J.~ 6'1') (- S, L. It); neg. (- expectative) R"n.I.T.....-
(- S, L, (A)), R"1I.I.TG"f- (5), (1.4). nOIll. [R'IUT6'] (-
S, L. A). And eire. 6H1IAff· {- S, I.. A. 6H1llt.T6"- (S).
(L)), nOIll. 6HIl)"TG- (= S, 1" A).
2.1.3. CO,WIl!/uJirrlll (or ll(}ri~t) 9l..p'l· (01:a..'I· S, L,
Q,l:a..pG'I· ([,5), (1.6). tArO'l' A), nom. !lJ.I'6- (lIJ)"ro· S, t,
tJo,fll· A); neg. HA'" (e I •• A, Me'l' S), 110m. H"'l'6' (- L,
A. MAfG- S, H),,' A). And dre. ®l.f't. (6_),,'1' S. L,
[O_.I./'G"-) (1...5), (L6). GI),f'ti't· A). nom. I®),f'ti·]
(0"J./'ti· S. L, GP,fG' A); neg. (lJM)"..·j (- I., A, lJH6'1-
S), nom. (oH,\f6-] (~ L, [A]. 6M6f'6-S). Rei. O"r.)"f'
(without parallels elsewhere in Coptic) or eT~"f'I'
(e(T6)e1),,'I- S, I., (eT_:a..... L6 once). 0Tp,f6'" A). 110m.
[6T®l..fil-) (e(TG)tIJ.f(l- S. f" 6TIAre- It); neg. ()Ttlm.'1-
(- L. A. (lTGH6'1' S), nOIll. [G1'OHl..fll'] (- I.. [AJ.
(lTGM£pe· S). Pre!. [/'I(;!l)"I"'.J (Ii(101J.'I· S, L4, (1...6),
1'l0Q,lAp(l'l' (L6), [tlOeJ.fC'I·] A), nom. tlll'JJ.pe· (Hl101Ap6-
S, tJ-], [li6tJo,pe-] A). II [1l'J),,1"1'] (GQ,lA'I- S. L, r6lAp6'1']
01' )"VoI'€'I- A). nom. ~lo.fG' (0'1.\1'0- S, L. ClIl,f6' or'
J.I),fG- A).
2.1.4. "-ulllmlll .m..rgicIIIII (01' third future) G'l)"-
(probably so, nut second future) (- L. 6'1(1- S, A'I)'"
A), nom. 6f')"••.. .I.' (6f6.... :l:Cro S. L, :a..•.•• (A')
A); neg. lil("- ( - (L6), /16'1' L, A, Tl"tl6'l' S), nom. till' (-
f., A, lflill· S). 6T6'1J.·: sec 1.3.
2.1.5. Imperative: inlinitive unaccompanied (- S,
L. A) or el~ preceded by t,J.· (- S, L. A. always
cau!;3tivc verbs) or by 6· (- 1...6, A, A' S, lA, IS): neg.
H'ff· (= A. lA, (/,6), R"1Il'"' S, (L4), 1..5, 1..6, (A), R"IIWp'
(L4), (A?), R"lIwr ),,- (1...6), (A)) .
2.1.6. Callsalive Imrlera/il'e HArt· (NJo.j'(l'l· S, f., A),
nom. lUTe- (m.re- S. L. A): neg. [HlfT'l-] (- A,
H'If"Jl'fi'l- lA, R"nTJ1'll'" S, 1..5. R"IMllf ),,1fCJ'I' 1...6.
R"lIllT'l)- A), nom. NlfT6- (- It, HIlTfti· /...6, R'nl"TrO-
S. f..5, 1-6, m1llf'TG- LA. lA, R"nrr6- A).
12 Tmse$ wi/It rreg. -Tff•• Subo,'dinalc (clause)
conjugations.
2.2.1. Conilmc;/il'/: (!ling. I., 2. mase,. [fern,], 3.
masr::., rem.; pIliI', I., 2., 3., nom.) 'If1'),,- (- S, L, TJ.-
S. L, A), _}., 01' .l}.. (lJ"· S, (L4), (/...6), 'Nil.. L, K· (/A).
(L5), A), "1' or .l'l' (If'I· S, I., 'I' (fA), (L5), A, (JI'.......- A
once», .le· (twice) ('Ile· S, f., e· A), IlTlf- (- S, L,
Tlf· (1.4). A). lfTOTlf· (- 5, L, T01'lf' (1.4), (1...5), A),
lfCG- {- S, I., Cll' A, (coy- A once». nom. llTe- (- S.
1-, Te- A).
2.2.2. FWIlTe Corrjlmclil'" lfT"f'I' ( TJ./'ti'l· S, L, M.
nom. (llT"f'8·) (T"f'€- S, I., A).
2.2.3. Te/PIponl/'ffT),f'I- (If'r'l;f(;''f- S, lfnfe..- L, (A).
nFfJ't- A). nom. (WTJ.ff'-] (- L, A, lfT6,6' S, T.l.fG· A).
2.2.4. l.imilalil'e (01' conjunctive with 11.1.', until)
O1:a..tIT'I. (- S, (1.4), (1-6), OJAtl1'G'I' fA, (1.6), 01.1.1"'1- A),
n0111. 01l..tI"I'6· (- S, L, (A once), O1AT€- A).
2.2.S. COl1lli/;onfll tl'101A- (- (LA), 1_5, (f,6), (A
once), (I,""),,tI· S, lA, 1...6, ),,'1'1.1.- A), nom. 6tlA- (-
 86 DIALECT P (01- PROTO-THEBAN)
(LA), (A). 6f'Ct),- (lA). (/..5). Gf'(\l:U+- S, 6fCll9Jt.- L5, (1..6),
6/'6"),11- 1..6. ),Cf),- A, 6q!)JfTo, IA).
Characteristic Lexemell
lexicographically. P, on the onc hand, displays
wriOu.~ notable isolatt:d orthographical peculiarities
(apart from those lhal OC(:\lr more ~Iemalically
and have tK:cn alnrody shown abo\·c) and. 00 Ihe
olher, has some r1.lrc or otherwise unknown
le~cmcs:
), or i. negalivc p.i1l1ide. cr. )'Ii 5, IJ, 0" A. L. M, W,
V, F.
116M (mase.) eyes, a pluml not :llh:sted elsewhere
in Coptic and corresponding to the singular 11>..\ P, 5,
fJ, 110;>, A, L, M, W, V, f-'; 1IJ.:lOY() (mase.) eyelids, n
plural nOI (1llCsted elsewhere in Coptic, cOITe.~pond_
ing to the singullll' IIOY~O S, IIW~6 (5), A, W\'21 B.
OTII()-: See Jf1'1I0·.
00)1'6', more than, with no pamllels elsewhere in
Coptic (Prv. 9:3, I(ptluur,w ... 17, tl),ll6· ... lJO)'f(I' P,
Il),!ill' ... Jf~ ),. A, tl),llO'y ... O:lO)'E' S, 'fCOTIl
. . . 6~)nl' B).
K111f. Iefl;cr. &If A, GIIOyf I.., ~1IOyf S. M, F.
milT)" em: cr. H6/VTO LS. LA (excepl the Mani·
chacan Homilies. and lIlOrc rarely. the Manichacan
Psalms and Kephalaia, HflXe), ~o L6, m ..x B.
H.UXe S, H6XfJ M. V, HO(e).Xe F; H6!IlI;>" 10 cure,
without parnllels elsewhere in Coptic (Prv. 12:18,
100'641, "TX"60 A, TU60 5, B; cr. Bcd.ja mehel, to treat
medically, Vycichl, 1983, p. 132a); HenG. to walk, go.
cr. tu.(J.)~ A, L. tlOO liB S, HOl9I B, HUjle M, W (sk).
milt V, HUlQl F; HOy.X!l, 10 mix, d. HOyX6 A, 5. L6,
also HOyXT 5, A, (L6), LA. B, HOXk 5 (cr. Hebrew
mdwg and Ihe demolic m~, conlainer. wine-bowl.
ICpariJp (?). Vycichl, 1983, p. I33b).
Illl',;, all; cr. IllBI W, V, F, IilMIN IJ, /'lIMI F7, 111M It, 5,
L, M (demotic /lb, Vyciehl, 1983, p. 142b); W- pro-
Ieplic p.\rticlc, cr. lTGI S, A, /...6, ("'1) etc., tIGll M,
«(Il)GII A), JfXl L4, (/...6), W, Xl 1.5 (Thompson, 1924),
r1.x6 (£1')), (M), V, F, 8: TrKTOOK or .l.KTOK, prenm'
lurc(ly). with no parallels elsewhere in Coptic (PI'\'.
10:6, uwpoo;, Jfcq),r),~6 A, S, HlUTt! Tto"l' (lJG)1tl B; Pl'v.
II ;30, liwpoo;, :IT oyM'N'r-..),r ),~ S. ,'If etc.... A,
HlUTO TtOt CijQ)l11 B, cr. demotic gIg, suddl'n(ly);
Vycichl, 1983. p. 168a); mro. 10 see, Yel)' prob:lbly a
back formalion from IIl.fO", which is a COnln)Clion
for tu..(y ),)po. (cr. Cerny, 1971): lfTIIO- in lfR.6 IU".
.... so lhat is why. hUI elsewhere (l"J"W~ (C\'eo 6T&Cl
lUI, Prv. 7:15), cr. eno- S. A. t • .41, W, v. F, EOMl· B
(demotic r dbJ elc.• Vycichl, 1983. p. 47b); HOyn,
to sprinkle, d. NOyXI It, HOyxlt, HOyJt'5", HOyx 5.
HOyX!.t 8 (cr. demotic /If!.~ etc.• Vycichl, 1983, p.
152b).
lIun. 10smother; cf. I - x i A, 11IlXt;. I_Xlt. lllDXT
S. IIIDX 5 (or Sf) (cr. demolic pt}/!. V)'dchl. 1983. p.
168a).
The archaic f'Re... (masc.). rR"f:IC- (fem.). f'Rfl)"
(pl.), f'ReT· (indefinite). and not (nc\'er) f't!..., Ihe
agent pn-r.x common to all the Coplk diale<:b (;>,£1'
1'): such archaic fonns ani)' appear occasionally else.
where or at leasl are always in a minority: f'R(M}6'1-
A. ""M(6)6.... f'l'Jl1&l-. f'I>H6T- IA (Tmct:lluS Tripani·
ItJs).
'r.ll1O ele.• 10begel, bring forth, acquire; cr. T~IO
A, XJIO L. S, XIU M, (W). (V). F, x+O B.
u.l~ (rarely _.l~ or lU(u-~), life; cr. Will A, ulff
S, £4, W, V, F, II(ID)NF /...6, 1.5 (excellt lIIQI~ in the
unpublished Gospel of John m:muscript from Dub·
lin;cr. Kassel', 1981a), Otl~ M, WIi~ 8.
!,)1I1 etc., road; d. ~1I1 5, I., M, V, F.
~I)', s.omething; cr. 2>11 B, 2>161 II, 1.6 (vel)' I'llrely), :1
M, W (always "someone"); I' uses "Iso ;>"Uy(6);
~tl;>')'K, keep, the sole parallel for which in Coptic is
:(l;>,i.c L4 (neither P nor L4 uses Ihe Icxcme :),pti~ S,
M. opt~ A, ~ L5. L6, J.f6t W, v. 8, >..\Gt 1'); tlllHM,
$lccp. cr. :!tHI~ S, It, L. AI, V, F, :!tHIM 8; lllf' in Ihe
exprcsston &f2Hf .1.f'O" )" unaW:lfC5 (Prv. 6:15
itam~. tli oycilM> A, ~Jr OyC\.C·HO S, ~"
~~),utm B; Prv. 13:23 reads mlhcr C6tirr('1J; cr.
Kasscr. 1973~1975. Vol. 2, p. 324b), $hould be con·
neclcd with S ZClf' 10 guard ;agaill5l, take h~ (Crum,
1939. p. 697b); tc#1IJ, woman. cr. (C)zIHEI S, A, L, M.
<::!/HI V, F, B; ;tGI(u)Tl-I, wither. fade, c;\:pire. be
quenchOO. c;\:linguished ($hould be conncclOO with
t«I6T. t6GR•• elc. S (ibid., p. 744b); Pnt. 10:7 and
13:9 u/kJII'iJ/IQ'. MIll A, X/ltu.. S, 6OHO B; this ~.
"tcD6R" could al a stretch have been Conf\lscd wilh
tuTTI (ihid.• p. 724b). in Ihe sense or "be c;\:lin-
guished" like a sial' setting; P uses tuTTI only in the
sense of "to be reconciled," Pry. 6:35 and 15:2&1):
connected with :,:Oyo is lhe expression correspond.
ing to H2(Oy)OOIT ),- ur .l2(OY)GeIT )". more than,
which corresponds to H2O\'<) ),. A, O:!O"(6' S, (l:,:OT6'
8; the P fonn seems close to N:!O"(1ClCTtl tl·,
6:,:Oyi.mcT6- M. 62OY),fCT(0)- V, P, e:,:Oy),I"cT6 o· 1:56,
G2QY),CTtl· F7 (cr. exceplionlll OZOYOtJICTG S. Crum,
1939. p. 736(1).
D1DUOGRAI'HY
Allberry. C. R.. C. A Mallichncall Psalmbook. StUltgart•
1938.
Attridge, U. W•• ed. Nag Hammadi Codex I (The JUllg
Coda), IlItrodllClioll. Texts, Tra/lSlalio/lS. Indices.
Nag Hammadi Studies 22. Leiden, 1985.
lJ6hlig, A. Krpllalaia: lweilc J/il/fle (Ucrcrung 11-
12). Stuttgart. 1966.

(BOhlig. A., and H. J. Polotskyj. KcpllullJia: &su
Ifalftc (Udcrung 1-10). StWtg:U1, 1940.
Bourguel. P. duo Gwmmai,c IOllctioulleU/! el progreso
sive de /'Cgyplicn "'mtOliqlle. Louvnin, 1976.
Cerny, J.; P. E. K:lhlc; "nd R. Parker. "The Old
Coptic Horoscot'le." lOt/nllJl of Egyptiall Arc/me%·
IIY 43 (1957):86-100.
-,;;-_ "Coalescence or Verbs with Prepositions in
Coptic." leitsellril' lilr ug>'plisellc Sproche ul/d
Altef/tullJkllllde 97 (1971 ):44-46.
Crum, W. E. A. Coplic Victumury. O"rord, 1939.
Funk, W.·P. "Die Morphologk- der Peneklkonjug:i'
lion im NH·subaehmimischen Dialekt." uilsehrill
liir ilgyplisehe Sll'ucltc tmd A.fuf/tllIlsklfl/de III
{1984):IIO-30.
Kasser. R. Pupyms Bodmer VI: Livre des Provemes.
CSCO 194-195. Lollvuin, 1960.
-,,-. "Popyrus Londiniensis 98 (The Old Coptic
Horoscope) and I'apyrus Bodmer VI." )ollnlllf of
Egyptillll Archaeology 49 (1963):157-60.
--c "ProlCgomcncs t\ un essai de c1tlssificmion
systematique des diak'<:lcs et subdialeetes copies
scion Ics crit~res de la poonetique, II, Alphalx.1s CI
S)'Slemcs phonctiques." Afllsro" 93 (1980):237-97.
___ "Usages de la surlignc dans Ie P. IJodmer VI,
notes addilionnellcs." Bulletin de la Socittt
d'tgyplologie, Gel/eve 5 (198Ia):23-32.
___ "Voydlcs en ronclion t;onsonanliquc, con-
sonnes en ront;liOll vocalique, CI classes de
pholl/::mes en copte." BlIlIelill de 11/ SOcieTe
d'egy/lw/ugie, Ce,,~ve 5 (1981 b):33-50.
"Lc Dinlcctc pl'Olosa'idique de Thebes."
A.rchiv {iir Papyruslur$(.·/IIIt1J: 28 (1982):67-81.
--,__ "Le pariait I copte ~. ct .t.:~. el Ie I:mgage de
l'ttrangcrc (Prov. 6,24-26 et 7,15-16)." IIcgyplUs
64 (19&4):229-36.
___ "Gemination de voyelles dans Ie P. lJodmer
VI:' In Acts of 111f~ Secorrd hllemalimra/ Co"gress 01
Coptic Sludies, Rome 22-26 Septem~r /980, cd. T.
Orlandi and F. Wis.'iC, pp. 89-120. Rome. 1985.
Kasser, R.; M. Malinine; H.·C. Put."(;h; G. Oui~pcl; J.
landee; W. Vyciehl; and R. McL Wilson. r'(lCIIlWS
TripurlilllS, Vol. I, PI":; f, De Supemis, Codex
lImg {. XXVI'-f. ur (p. 51-104), Vol. 2, Pllr~ II,
De Crealiolle Humitli.~, Pars 11/, De GCl1cn'btu
TribllS, Codex lwrg I. Ur-J-XX' (p. 104-140). Bern,
1973-1975.
Malininc, M.; ~I.-e. Pucch; and G. Ouispcl. EVllIIge·
/ill/II Veri/alis, Codex lImg'. vllr-xvr (p. 16-32', '.
XJJr-XXlr (p. 37-4J). Zurich, 1956.
fl.Winine, M.; H.-e. Put.'Ch; G. Ouispcl; W. C. Till; R.
McL Wilson. EVlJllgelium Verita/is (Stlppfeme,,·
tum', Codex lllng f. xvlr -xvllr (p. 33-36j. Zurich,
1961.
Mlliinine, M.; H.·C. Pueeh; G. Ouispcl; W. C. Till; R.
MeL. Wilson; and J. t.'1ndee. Dc Rl!)'u"ecliOlle
(EpisllIlu 1/11 RhcgiIlWII), Codex IImg I. XXJI'-f. xxV"
(p. 43-50). Zurich, 1963.
D1ALECfS 87
Nagel, P. "Dcr rriihkoplische Dialekt ~'On n,chen."
In Kopf%gisclle S/Ildictl ill der IJDR, pp. 30-49.
Wiss~msella/tfiche Zeilseh,ift der Murtil/·ulllre,-
UlliversiliJl Hlllle·Wittellberg, Sonder·heft. Halle·
Wittenberg, 1965.
Osing, J. Dcr ~pillilf:YPI/M'lIe I'IIPYrl45 8.M. 10808.
Wicsbaden, 1976.
Pl.'an;on, B. A., and S. Giverscn. Nag Hummadi C{J{!i·
ccs IX alll/ X. Nag Hammadi Siudies 15. l..eiden,
1981.
Polotsky, H. J. "Zur koplischen WUllehre I." leit·
selrril' Iii' ilgyplisehe Sproehe tllld A.llemmukl/Ilde
67 (1931):74-77.
,,-,:-c Malliehilischc Hml/i!ietl. Stuttgan, 1934.
Schmidl, C. Aeta Pauli QIIS de' Hcidelbergur
koplischell Hultdsellri!1 N, I. lcip"lig, 1905.
-,,-C. "Ein neues Fr.lgment dcr Hcidelberllcr Acl"
Pauli." In SilZJmgsherichle der 8crli,lcr Ahulcmic
der WiSSCIl.~clUI{lerJ, Philu)·uphisch.Hi.~loriscJrc
Kla~Ie, pp. 216-20. Berlin, 1909.
"I1lOnmssen, I:", and L Painchaud. Le rroit~ lrirarti
(Nil 1.5), lule i!lubli, ilJ/roJui/ el eOlllllllmle IHlr E.
71101J1asstm; lrallllil par L Paillella/ld eI E.
'T1wma.uell. Bibliotheque cople de Nag Harnmadi,
SoOClion "Iellles:' 19. Ou~bcc, 1989.
Thompson, H. The Gospel 01 SI. 101m Accordil/g to Ihe
Enrliest Coptic Mamlscripl. London, 1924.
Vergote, J. Phol/~tiqlle his/orii/lle de f'tgyp/ien, les
,·OIlSOlllleS. Louvain, 1945.
Vycichl, W. Dic/iOll/wire 1!/)'lIIologique de fa lallgue
cople. Louvnin. 1983.
RODOU'IlU KAS.<:P.R
DIALECTS. Thc gt:ogrdphical chal1'clcristics orlhe
habitable area or Egypt favored Ihe S4lbdivision of its
langUl1ge. One may note first or all 1",0 linguistic
entilies, "languages" rather than "dialeclS:' or very
wide scope and more Ihan local-indeed, morc than
rcgional-char.lCter. TIle Iirsl or these corresponds
to the Nile Delta lind the second 10 the Nile Vulley
nbove the Delta. These are in tUI11 (probably in the
Delta, ce'1ainly in the valley) subdivided into smaller
linguistic units (see especially, although wilh pal1i"l·
Iy divergent opinions. Kahle, 1954, pp. 193-278;
Ka,,-';('r, 1982; Krause, 1979; wylon, 1976; Vergote,
1973, pp. 53-59; WOITCIl, 1934, pp. 63~82; and mA·
u:crs. GROUPING -'NO MAJOR GROUPS Of' and GFDCIW'HY.
DIAU'L""L).
It appears vel')' likely tll:ll 80HAIRlC (8) was Ihe
indigenous language common 10 Ihe whole or the
Nile Delta. [t Is called n "vehicular." or supmrocnr,
language because it perm[tted the inlUlbitants or Ihe
different regions or thi.~ De!t:l (where each spoke his
local dialect) to unden;tand one another. (These 10'
88 DIALECfS

TAUI.c L Charoclerisl;C wemes ill tire PrincipIII Coplic /)iQleCI~' wrd SlIbdialeCIS
"lANGUAGE" "WlTIIOlTT" "ANI)"

A ". ,."
pL
"'1'C
(espc) ". .....
L <spc ".a(d).· ,""
M auO
V "'"
[cspiJ ". ,".
F [cspl) " . ,".
(aha)
F56 lespi] Ill· nub
F1 (~pi) a(ie)l·
"'"
(aull)
H
p
{Aspi) ". aUll
auO
Iflspc] (ll-

S flspc at· :luO

874l [aspl] al· ou6hc
8 :ispi at· 006h
alh·

The followinl may ~ ob.icrvcd wilh rtgard to L: a.Hi lAo 1.5, UJ, bur:ilia (""'f'«ially) Mum .... ill... LA, Q"dh.. Or ou4/1", etc. 1.6;
~ulf·l.A i~ ~Il/"f' LS. 1.6: kD lA, l.5 is It.Oc U: ",tie LA is miuie/.J, 1.6: mb!if/flIA is ",dei" LS, LIJ, with S: ..uk VI,LS ill ""hi l.6.
w;lh lPLJ: >lji LA ill ji 1..5, nci L6;";'1 fA is pter /..5. lAo' pel·/A is pt!tll· /..5. UJ: ref· LA. LS. LIi, bu! also rome(·IA, "tI"'C'· LIi. ""tlf- fA
(r,lre) wilh;1 (rare) erc., and everywhere "lief., eiC. 1'; sJlme LA is s(,lm U. 1..6: ouD.I,e 1.4, l.6 is 0,,0:111 W; {mil L4 is ix>(IIjh LS.
«"J,,1l 1.6; ~je 1.4, LS is sltt/e L6; shii /A is sited 1.5,1.6; 16me L4 is IMl>le (WI, Ui: i"se /A, l.S is I"s,' Ui, with pI-
With l'eganlto 101: fJ/' befOIl: eenain word~ (e.g.. sill!"), and a lillIe more frequently Mill ileil· bef'OIl: other wonls (the eMe or illll.!t
or iltil"i" is no! yet attested); ptthilf· or MHllclirllC$ ptltl.af·; ...:t. but also (fairly rare) "it, etc.
With rqard 10 V: I'll/If-, also ptmaf·, moll: rardy [pelth../·] v, but also ptw.IJ/. (rarely ptlhIJf·) W; _limes ,"ij abo V4
(idiolectal?): lIit (n,":ly nil) V is tlji W; p,flp V4, W.Yuiap V5; fairly often Jhiifalso in V4 (idiolectal?);~, alone atle51ed. but
poorly, should be jip"tI V4, W. ;i>o..1tI V5.
With regard to F: Il"J F4. fS, but alw ,<.,metilllcs M... FS; ptll/ilf· FS, prlaf· F4, (FSJ; miei FS i.s m;'i f4; Ilif F5 is "o!f F4; piel F5 Is pi; F4;
loll FS, loll ~'40' shimp FS is shflp F4: j.WJI>le ~'S would he [jO"'~l N.
With regard tn n: lilia, but alw somcllnR'lI au,),
With reprd 10 II; [kim;! II is klmt H!; rt-ni //is .d.nt H!: sMpi 11 is slNipt HI; Jhfliill is sllIijt HI ([iJrn.l ur [;M.llilJ H is;Jr.~ /I!; ;D$i H
would be [j<lstJ II!.
With rrg,ard to /': o'~ (.;) three ~, M'~ three: ~, l*/I/.I (_;) one case.
With regan!tu 8: /Jlh· B befon: the (autochthonous) voiced consonants (b, l. m, n. r) and befon: the glides (i and (u)u with the
phonological Vllluc or a consonant, rot' example, at the beginning of the word ;in, falher. and "uAsh, wish): bUI even in these
cases G alWl1YS has al·; tb61 B Is epiJl G; tIC"'''''''' 85 is elt"'''''' B4, fl74; plllll B is pdi G: pht 81s pJ G; sOlem 8 is sIN/"m G; 111M or
1I16h B (lwO dilTer~m elymologi~": d. VyclchJ, 1983, p. 226); mm6f 8 is pet'haps mllt,)p/{ G (idiulcf;tlll(?); probably to' be
pronounced ol/nOIl; ",,651. 8 is bim$l G (probably 10 be pnlllOlltlCed ..00$11); 0..611 B5 is (lUcihe 84. B?4 (lind Illso G llpjXlrently);
hJb B is iJb G: jhl 84. B5 is If 874. TIle majority OrlM other specific fonns of G (probably without phonological conscquencn)
will be ruund In DIAUCT Il

cal idioms vel)' probably existed Ihere, l\!i elsewhere,
even if the pauchy of discoveries uf texts in the soil
of the Delta, which is tOQ damp, prcvenls dctection
of th..-sc dialects; one among them could be the
m~erious DtAlECT c.) On the ocher hand, it is cer'
tain thai the vehicular language of the whole Y.1J1ey
of lhe Egyptian Nile above Ihe Delta was SAIUDIC (S,
acf;ompanied ror some time in the 111eban region by
DIALECT P, Ii PROTODlAWCT that oflen looks like what
Cfln be known about the logical predecessor of S, a
tentatively reconstructed ·pS, proto-Sahidic), an au-
tochthonous language dominating (then tending
gradually to stine) the multiple local and regional
dialeclS of this habitablc zone, relatively na/TOW but
 •
DIALEcrs 89

TABLE I. (cQIl/f,med)
"WIlA'I7" I'IIIST "TO. "OlfT(W"RD}" RELATIVE
PERFECT. FlJlI." ETC, PF.RFF.CT.
SING.3.MASC. SING,).MASC.

A ,~ of- ,- ,"'I Claro

pclar-
pL Ib;J of- ,- ,"'I (Clar.}
[pelaf.]
L ..h ,f- ,- ..hal e(n)Ulf.
pc(n)laf.
M csh har· "- ebal cillaf·
J'lCthnf.
V "h (h)af· "- ehal cl(eh}3f. CIC.

, ,,- ,- ,"'I
pcl(eh)af· elC.
entaf·
penta!-
,f-
'56 ish "- d"" Clltaf·
pcnlaf-
F7 l:sh nf- "- eb..'\1 clllar-
pcntnf.
H [a~hJ abo (z.cro] b" la\)-
pCnlan.
p
'< ,f- ,- ,1>61 clar·
",oaF-
S ish ,f- ""'1 (e)ntaf-
penlaf·
874! ash ,f- ,- ,1>61 Clar·
(~) elar-
8 ash (If·
"- eb61 Claro
ph~ emf-

e~tcnding for nearly 6vc hundred mil~.
Moving Upslrc:1I11 (rolll immediately above the
Delta (the land of the Bolmil'ic dialectal group),
among the various local dinlecl~ of the valley lhal
have left sufficient traces in extant le",ts, lhis 11l1icle
""ill follow the chain that runs from classical B (10
lhe north) 10 A (the so-called AKHMlMlC dialect,
which is frequently eonsidcrcd the ancient local dia-
lect of Thebes and thus the mOSt southerly of the
known Coptic diak-<:ts). The 61"lit to eall for mention
will be the various subdialccts of FAYYUMIC. Chief
among thO!\e with lambdacism arc Fl, a kind of
"north Fayyumlc" pl"e.~ntlng interesting consonan·
lal similarities with the Bo!lairic subdialcct D74, a
kind of "south Oohairie," a transition between the
dialects of lower Middle Egypt and 84 (cf. Kasscr,
1981, p. 92), and 85, called "cia."-'iical Dohairie," still
further to the north; F5, Fayyumic of c1a.'iSical Iype,
abundantly attested but relatively late; and F4, of
more ancient allest<ltion, with some sitnilmitics with
V. Chief among the fOlms without lambdacislll lwe
V, also called "south FaY)'lIIuic"; and, at lhe extreme
southem limit of the "Fayyumic" group and almost
in the M£SC)KF.J041C dialectal group, the idiom W (or
"Cryplo-Mesokemic with South Fayyumic phonolo-
gy"). With Mcsokemie, or Middle Egyptian (M), 10-
Cllled immediately to the south of W. one is no
longer in the Fayyumic dialectal gmup, Mt:sokemic
being an independent group.
Should one thcn locate on the south of M (be·
tween M and L) the strange l)Io\.1.£CT H (also known
as Hennopolitan or Ashmullinic)? In troth, it is rath-
90 DIALECTS

TAtJLfJ l. Chfirclcleri~lic Ll!xeml!.< i'l Ihl! Pri'lcipal COfll;C lJilllecl~ ami SlIbi!iulecls (collliIllU:d)
CIRCUM· "MAKE, "PlACE, "EGYPT" "GUlI../J" "LOVE"
STANTlAL Do" LEAVE"
PRESENT, I!rc. ""
"EGYPl'lAN"
SING.3.MA~C.

A d· eire kutl kCmc krM me(e)ie

mmkemc
pL d· [eire) [k6] [kernel knif [m]eie
[rmnkCme]
L cr- eire k6(e) kCmc krM meie
rmnkeme rnacie
cr- eire k6 m~ie
" kCme
rmnkCme
knif

V cr- hi k' [kerni] [kl'afJ mfi

rmn[kCmi]
F cr- iii k6 kemi kiM m~i
lemnkCmi
FS6 cr- ili kO kCmi [klan] [m~i)
lemnkcmi
F7 ef· (e)ili k6 kemi [k"D m~i
[lemn]kCmi
II eb· iri k6 [k~mi] krab [mCi (?)]
rCm[kcmi]
cr- (e)il-e k6 k~me kr6f meei
rmnkeme
S cr· eire k, kerne
rmnkCmc
krof m'
874! ,f- lri ko kfmi h6f mei
remnk~mi
B d· id kho kh6mi khrM mei
rcmnkh~mi

er diflicull to locate exaclly, despitc thc hypothctieal
name assigned to it; one must recall thaI some of ils
Chfll1lCler'islics caused it to be cunsidered fonnerly
as a kind of Fayyumic, cel1ainly very barbaric and,
in any case, wilhout lambdacism; however, many of
its features :llso bling il close 10 S, in addition to its
vcry cvolvcd if not decadent Slroctures (sce MEITAD1A-
LECT), II is also vel)' likely thaI the regional dialect
th:11 became thc classical S, Ihe vehiclll"r language
of Ine whole valley of Ihe Egyptian Nile above the
Delta, originatcd bctwcen M and L.
However lhat may be, accol'ding to the most com-
mon opinion of C~ptolugislS, one then finds, further
to the nor1h of M, in the region of AsyU! and up-
stream, the different varietics uf LYCOPOUTAN. ur
Subakhmimic, "Suhakhmimic" is a rather deceptive
name and h:ls been :llmost complelely abandoned: il
stcmmcd from Ihc belief, held for some lime at the
beginning of the twentieth centul)' and soon re-
vealed 10 be unlenable, that L was a kind of subJia-
lecl of Akhmimic, A, which it CCl1ainly is not, in any
of ils varielies. The varieties of L arc L4, attested by
the Mflllichaenn IcxtS; LS, found "bove all in an
important Johanninc manusclipt, published by
Thompson (1924); and 1.6, known frum the pub-
lished non·Sahidic Gnostic texts and from the Hei·
delberg rn'lOuscript of the Aet:l P:luli, published by
Schmidt (1904, 1909). (With reg<ll"d 10 Ihesc Lyeo·
politan or, better, LYCO·D10SPOUTAN varieties, includ-
ing mhLlJCT I, or pruto·Lyeo·(Dios)polltan, pL, see
 DIALEcrs 91

TA8l..E I. (contillued)
''TllUTIl'' ETc. "THEIlE" "SIGN" "PITY" "SIN"
mo 'NO 'NO
''THE T1turn" "THAT" "PITILESS"
miD mmo me(e)ine
tmie eimmo "'"
almie
pC mie mm6 (meei]ne (nae) [nabi]
Imie etmmo at[nae)
C mCe mlnell ml:clne mi, nabi
tmce etmmeu nl:kin aUlae ruibc
mO< mcein nO< nabe
" tml:e
mm'
etmmc a(ei)tnee
V mci mmeu mein nei nflbi
tlllci etmmeu aUlei
timci
F mc(e)i mmeu meln neei mibi
tmc(c)i etmmeu alneei
timc(e)i
'56 mcei mmeu [m~inl neei n{,bi
(meei ctmmeu atneci
timeei
F7 mei mmeu [mein) nei nabi
tmei etmmeu a(ie)tnci
timei
H
""'~
mCei macin mi nabi
tm&:i etemaou atna
t~lIl&::i
p m~i m~cin
tmb
mmau
etmmau "'"
atn:ie
S m' mmau macin mi n6bc
,m' etmmau alna
8741 m~i mm' m~ini ruii nObi
tm~i etemma atnai
lirtl~i
B mei mmau meini nai nObi
thlllCi clcmmau alhnai
limC:i

K:wer, 1984; Funk, 1985; and PROTOt>lAlECT,)
Slill further 10 the south, probably around
Akhmlm and perhaps even as f.:tr as Thebes (if not
Aswan), seems to be the domain of Akhmimic,
v.'hich was perhaps outflanked on the south (at
Thebes and ....<jth P?) by somc variety or 1" which
tet1ded to function as a semivehicular, or supmlocal,
language (see DIAl.ECT, Uol\ltGaANT); of this function L
was to be dispossessed by the most vigorous and
active vehicular language of lhe whole Egyptian Nile
VaHey to the soulh of thc Delta-S.
II would be ledious 10 describe arresh here all
the5e dialeclS and subdialcclS, eaeh of which is treal-
ed, separately or in groups, in one 01' other of Ihe
special linguistic articles of this encyclopedia.. Here,
however, is a list of the sigla of IhCS(: idioms, in
alphabetical order and with mention or the article in
which it is presented,
92 DIALECTS

TABlE I. CharacteriSlic Lexemes in the Principal Coptic DialeelS and SuhdialeclS (COlltillued)
"Ev~v" "O~~' "To HIM" "GREAT," "l)IAT Is" "THIS" "THlS .. "
(GENITIVe (DATIVE UkCE" (PkOl'£PTIC
PREP.) PREP.. PARTICLE)
SING..l.MASC.)
pei
A
pL
"1m
Inlm]
/lIm
mc-
me'
ntc·
""""
nef
"'"
mic
nci
nci pei
pe(c)i
pc'.
pel-
pc(c)i-
L
n 1111 IltC' "Of "'".- "J'
nci! pei pei·
M
V n'bi nte- nH "'"
M) nJC pCi pel'
F nfbi nte' "if nil} nje pCl pel-
F56 nibi m~ nth nil} "J' pel pel-
pel
F1
H
nimi
"1m
"'~
,;;. """Ab mij
naj"
...."J'
J' pM
pei-
!'ti-
p "lb ntc- "or "Ak nk(e) pAl pi-
S "1m ntc· "or "Oc nei p:'li pei-
B741 n'ben m~ "or nishti nje pal pal'

• niben
"'~ "or nishti
* pMi po'.

A See AKlIMIMIC, LS Variety of Lin lhe l.ondon papynlS of John,

8 Equals 85 in agn:cment with 84: sec CIC.; fll'esented with L.
BOHAIRIC. U Variety of L in the non·Sahidic GnOSlie ICMlS
Bohahic subdiaJect; sec examples below and and the Heidelbcrx ACla Pauli; prl:$CnIL-d
Kasser, 1981. p. 92. with ‫ן‬-
.5 Clnssical Bohairic, in contl'llSl. to [J4 In the M $(,"C MESOKFJd!C.
rare eascs of disagreement betwL"Cn lJ4 and P Sec OtALF.CT P.
85; see BOHAIRIC. pL Sec DIALECT t.
874 A kind of south Bohairic: see examples below S Sec SAIIlOlC.
and Kasser, 1981. pp. 93-94.
V A kind of "south Fayyumic"; presented with
B74! Sec below. F.
F Equals FS in agreement with F4; see W A kind of "crypto-Mesokemic wilh South
fAYVUMIC. Fayyumic phonology"; pre5C:ntoo with F.
F4 FaY)'\lI11ic subdialcct. presented with F.
F5 Classical Fayyumic, in contrast to F4 in cases
of dislIgreement between F4 and F5; see
FAYYUMIC,
To allow readers who are not Coplologists 10 sam-
F56 A variety of FS vel)' often replacing <t by I; ple in somc way the "music," lhe sounds, or Ihe
presented with F. Coptic language (truly an aUlhentic foon of the au·
F1 A kind of somewhat archaic "north tochthonous Egyptian languagc) in its different dia·
Fayyumic"; pre5C:nted with F. lectal varieties, it has seemed useful to presem in
G Sec DIAlECT G. Table I a list of some phonologically rather charac-
H see DiALECf H. teristic lCMcmes. These specimens iIlustrnle Ihe most
HI See below. slriking char,lctcristlcs of the dialecIs and subdill'
i See pL. leets. To make them more readily accessible, the
L Equals IA in agreement with L5 and U; see Coplic is transliterolted here, following the system
LVCOPOUTAN and LVC().DIOSPOUTAN. chosen for the encyclopedia as a whole, but with the
lA Variety of L in the Manichaean texis; following remarks and adaptatloTUi.
presentcd with L The tonic accent of each word that h;u one is
 DIALECTS 93

TABU! I. Chllfllcteri3"/i" Uxemes irr Ihe Principal COptic Dia/eclS arid Subdialects (colliinued)
COI'UU. POSSESSIVE "HE SAys" "MAN" "NflME" "VOICE" "BROTHER"
SING. AlnICI.f~ "I-lis" "THE MAN"
M=. (SING.~tAsc.ISING. "nlE MAN OF"
3.M'\'<;c'), ''THEIR'' "J\lAKEit Qt'"

, (SlNC.MASC.jPIJ.)
pf. pajCf romc ..n ,ml "n
'" po".
promc
~- ref-
pI. pf- pajcJ rome [ren) [smf] [san)
'" pon- prome
[nn-J ref-
/. pd- pajl:f r6me "n sml "n
proffie
pon-
m,- ref-

" '"
pcf- pcjl:f rom,
pr6me
"n om'
...
1""-
~- ref-
V pcf- pcjCf rOmi "n ,m'
p(i)r6rni
1""-
, pc per· pci'!
~-

IOmi
ref-
"n ,m' "n
p(i)IOmi
1""-
lem- lef·
",b- pcj(iJ IOmi "n sm!
'" "',,- p(i)IOmi

F? pcf-
peu-
[pcjet)
lem- lef-
16mi
p(i)IOmi
IOn smt ...
[Iem-] lcr-
iI p;;b- pejab rOmi ron smf [san]
p(~)rOmi
"',,- rem- reb-
I' pf- pajM romn rin sml!(':' ) "'n
proffiC
po"-
,m- nncf-
S pef- pcjaf romn ,in smt ~6n

"',,- prumc
~- ref·
874! I~ ",f- pcjaf rOmi ron sUlA "'n
po,,- p(i)rOmi

, ",f- pcjaf
rem- ref-
rOmi ro" smt "'n
'" po"- phrOmi
pirOmi
rem- ref-
94 DIALECfS

TAUU! I, ChoracterisJjc I~e.mrs in lhe. Principal Coptic Dio/a's ond SlIbdiolecl$ (colltimled)
"HIOAIl, "WRITI!." "PuRIFY" "Dll;TUIUJ. "JOY" "WIU."
!=EN" STIR" "THE Wtu."
A SOtmc Sl.lei tbbol.l6 tol, ~"M ouill,lc
POl.lo!.lc
p" SOtmc [sl.lei] tb[OO\l6] [t61,] (ounM) [ou~eJ
[pou&;eJ
L sOtm(e) shei tuuM tbh oumif ouosh(e)
pouosh(c)
M sOlm shel touM '6h ollnM ouesh
(pooesh (?))
V SOtm shei "bI>; (t6h] ~"M ouOsh
p(i)ouOsh
F SOtem shl:i "bI>; toh oon;if ouOsh
P{i)oubsh
F56 .o.m shei 'ybb; (tOh] oon:ib ouOsh
P{i)ouOsh
F7 """m [shei] tybba (bh ounaf oUOsh
P(i)ooOsh
/I sCllCm (shail [tt:bba(?)J (toh] oumib ouosh
p{t)ouOsh
P sOlm sl,lui lbb6 t6h ounM 01.161;
poUOl;
S sCltm sMi ,blx> t6h oun6f ouOsh
pou6sh
8741 SOtem shtai 10ub6 10h oun6f ouc>sh
p(i)ouOsh

• .o.om sJ:I3i ,=Ix> th61, ~"61 ou6sh

phoot.h
pi0u6sh

noted by an aeute accent plnced above the vowel
cunecl'Tlcd. , b in F56 and especially H is prubably
to be pronounced rather [v] (it is probably the snmc
in G), 1111 and 00 in P {when lhis vowel duplication
indicatcs simply "one" vowel, but accentuated [sec
Kassel', 1985], and not the tunic vowel followed by
fI (see AU!P\IJ) are rendered respectively by t:{':')
and 0(':') and not by te or 60 as everywhere else. In
the autochthonous Coplic vocabulary of P, II. is reno
dered by k and 01. by k (the Jim po6Iilbly to be
pronounced a little more to the back of the throat,
somewhat like q qoph. the 5econd rather to lhe front
or the throat: but it remains most probable that Ihe k
in the autochthonouS" voctlbulary P has the value of c
or
in the other dialect:;, and thc k the autochthonous
P (like the kor Copto-Greek p) thnt of k elsewhere. K.
10 P is rendered by k(e). ~ in pL :\OJ ~ in Pare
rendered by <; (pronounced like the ch in Gennan
ich, or nearly like the initial h in English humun,
and thus to be distinguished from ql sh, German
seh). .1. in P Is rendered by , (which one must be·
ware of conrWling with the apo!ltrophe ' which
SCIVCS to disdnguish s'h c:: £mm sh I,l), Finally, one
cannot render Ihe polyvalent 6 of the various Coptic
idioms unifunnly by c, for lhough c filS ror A, L, M,
and 5, 6 in W, V, F4, F5, and H has probably the
value of I (10 be dislinguished in pronunciation,
without one's knowing exactly how, from j X), and 6
in 85 and 84 has the value of jh. (P, F7, and 874 do
not have any G,)
Only the Ihil1een principal Coptic idioms and
(sub)dinleclS are presented in the lable, sollle sup-
 DIALECTS 9S

TABLE l. (CQI1/imI/JII)
"L1vf," "BECOME" "USE, "SAYING." "SI!.U~' "WORK, "IN"
VAWF.'· WORD" THINe"
'""
"Be"
A On~ ~Opc shcu sheje h6uoo • hOb ~n-

pL imh
""""
,"ope
.;6(o)p
(sheuJ sheje [hOo.) [hOb) hn~

L O(ll)nh shOpe shcu "'je hOo. hOb hn~

(Ooh) ,hOOp sheje

onh ,hOp" shtu hO. hOb hn~
"'je
" ,,",p
V Ooh lihOpi ,he" seji h6£1l). hOb hn~

, Ooh
sM(a)p
shOpi ,h'"
(sheji(?))
sheji
"'". hOb hn~

sha(a)p
'56 1m'" shOpi
",,",p "'''' shl:ji
"'". hOb hn~

Ooh shOpi (sh61] shl:ji ho. hOb hin-

sMp
H onah shopi shaou shaji [hOo. ) hOb hen·
",,",p
p o'~ ,Ope shau shaje (hO+) hOb hn~

l;6'p
S onh shOpe ,Mu shaje hM. h<\b hn~

"","p
B74./ Onh shOpi ,Mu saji hO. hOb hen-
,hOp
B onh sMpi shli.u saji h•• hOb hen·
,hOp

plemenlary Iillijuislic furms appearing ill additioll in
the footnotes to the lilble. Thus, fA, IS, and 1..6 are
nnled in relntion 10 one another (L4 + L5 + L6 =
L); tv is noted in rebtiu" to V (- V4 + V5); F4 ,lIld
1"5 are noted in I'elatlon to each other; Hi is notcd in
relation to H; B4 and B74 (and even G when its
fonns are auested, in a few cases only) llre noted in
relation to one another IlIld 10 B, which is almost
always identical with JJ5 (JJ4 + JJ5 - JJ). An excla-
mation mark indicale5 "metonhogrnphy"; thus, H!
and 874! arc, respectively, Hand 874 in
metol1hogmphy. Melonhogrnphy is the Ilew onho-
graphic and phonological syslem lowdrd which IlU-
merous copyists wriling II dialect or subdiale<:1 are
strongly tending; Ihu.~, in H! the final atonic vowel is
t rather than i; in B74! ~ will be rcplacl..'<! by h and
the aspiration typielll of Bohairic, still vigorous III
874 lIS in 84 rind 85 (kh for k, ph for p, th for I, in
cel1ain well-defined conditions), will disappcllr (ih
for j in B4 and B5 is already abandoned in B74).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Funk, W.-P. "How Closely Related Are the Subakh-
mimic Dialect.~." leitschrifl fllr ligyplisch/J Spracll/J
WId AlIt.rlulIIskulldt. 1II (1984):110-30.
Kahle, P. E. &la'itJlh: Coptic TexiS from Deir d·
Bala'il/lh in Upper Egypt. Oxford and London,
1954.
Kas.scr, R. "Proll:gomilncs 1.\ UII essni de c1assifica·
lion 5ysl~malique des dialccll's CI subdiall'CICli
coptes selon les crileres de In phonelique, III,
96 DlALECfS

TABU: I. ChClTClclerislic J..uemes in the Principal Coptic Dialects and Sllbdi(l!ects (colltinued)
'7HAT. ..,...... "SAy" ''WRJTrEN "BEGET. "ExALT'''
8ECAUSE" RECf.JVE" DocuMENT, ACQUIRE" '.0
800le" "ExALT£D.
HIGH"
A i' jl jOu j6u(ou)me '"pO jlse
j..'\sc:
pL ji: jl j6 j6me [tl;p61 jist
ji\si
L j< jl j6 j6me ipO jlsc
jasi

M j, jl jO j6me jp; j'"

"',
V
"
jl j6 jb(O)me jpa
"'"
jlsi
psi
F j< jl j6 j66me jp; jlsi
jasi
F56 j< jl j6 (jOome) jp; jisi
[jasiJ
F7 i' jhl jO U6ma] jpa jisi
jl\si
H i' jl ;0 WOmi]) Ipa Ulsil
'psi
p j< jl j6 (jOoma] '<pO jisc

S j< jl j6 jOOme jpO "'"

jist:

874/ j< jl ;0 j6m jpO jisi

"'"
pi
B j< jhl j6 jOm jpM jhisi
jh6si

"PoWER, "VIOl£NCI!, "HAND"

STRENGTlI" INIQUITY"

A cl\m cans elj

pL [cam] [cans] elj
L cllm cans dj
M cam cans cij
V }lI1II ua]ns Jij
F I'm laos Iij
F5' I'm )tms Iij
F7
H
jim
I'm
i"
janes . jljh
l'l
"

P kOm gko(":)ns klj

,.~
S cOm clj
8741 , j6m j6ns jlj
B j6m j6ns jij
 DlALECfS, GROUPiNG AND MAJOR GROUPS OF
Syst\lmes ol1hogrJphiques el categories
dialcctalcs:' MIISCOII 94 {I981 ):91-152.
_ _ . "Lc Gr,lIId·Groupc dialectal copte de Haute-
Egypte." BIII/tlin de 10 Soci~l~ d'igyplologie,
Gtn~ve 7 (1982):47-72.
"Ol1hographe et phonologic de la varictc
subdialectale Iycopolitaine des tcxtCS gnostiques
copies de Nag Hammadi." MIIMon 97 (19S4):261-
312.
-c:::co "G(:mirnalion de voyclll'S d3ns Ie P. Bodmer
VI." In AclJ of Ihe Second Intemalionol COPlgre.s.s of
Coptic SllIditJ, Rome, 11-26 Stplember 19M. ed.
T. Orlandi and F. Wissc, pp. 89-120. Rome, 1985.
Krause, M. "Koptische Spral:he." l.uikon dtr Agyplo-
fOlie] (1919):731-37.
layton. B. "CQptic Ulnguage.'· In Inlerprtler'J Dictio-
nary of tile Bible, Suppl. vol. pp. 174-79. Nashville,
Tenn., 1976.
Schmidt, C. ACII.I Pallii ailS dtr lIeidelberger
knplischell Popyrllshandschri/l Hr. I. Leipzig. 1904.
-c:-~ "En nl"UC$ Fragmenl del' Heidelberger Acta
Pauli." In 5illAmpberich/e del' Berlintr Akademit
der WissclSchaften, Philo:rophisch.Hi.slorische
Klas.se, pp. 216-20. Berlin, 1909.
lbompson, H. The Gospel of 51. Joh" According 10 Ihe
Ettrlie$l Coptic MOIIllscript. LDndon, 1924.
VcliO!c, J. Grammaire copte, la, llItrodllClion. pho-
nCliqlle tl phollologit, ltlorpJlO/ogie synthemaliqfle
(SlnlcllIrt dts silllalilelllc.~), partie synchrolliqlle.
louvain, 1973.
Vycichl, W. DicliotlllOire ilymologu,1I1! dc /0 longue
coP/e. Louvain, 1983.
Worrell, W. H. Coptic $ollfld$. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
ROOOU'lIF.. KASSER
DIALECTS, GROUPING AND MAJOR
GROUPS OF, The di.'iCovcry of nlllllY Coptic
manu.'iCripL~ in the laller hnlr of the twentieth centu·
ry hllS led to a multiplication in thc idcnlification
(sometimes disputed) nf Coptic idioms, dialects, and
subdialects, an idcntification based mainly on pho·
nology, the Illost convenient and generally used cri-
terion (~ee D1AU,el'. IMM1GItANT). The mO~1 likely
working hypothesis that has been agreed upon is
lhal tht phonology of these idioms can be deler·
mined by analYbls or theil' differtnt ol1hographic sys-
lenlS; in practice, thi~ is thc only vi.:lble approach,
sinct Coptic is a dead language. The increase in the
number of known idioms is quite obvious: Stem
(1880) has only three "dialccts:' S, B, and F; Crum
(1939) has five, S, B, F, A2 (. L), and A; Kahle (1954)
has six, S, 8, f', M, 142 (. L), and A; Kassel' (1964) has
97
seven or eight, 5, (G?), 8, F, M, A2 (. L), A, and P;
Kasser (1966), has nine, S, G, B, "', M, Al (. L}, A,
and P; and Ka.sscr (1973) reaches fifteen. of which,
however, live are practically abandoned in Kasser
(1981): 5, G, (D}, B, (K" F, H, (N), M, L, i, A, P, (C),
(E).
This multiplicity has led to revision of the very
concept of "dialect" and "subdialecl" (which should
be rigorously distinguished from an IDtOLECT) so as
to eliminate certain idioR15 that are possible but too
poorly or too doubtfully alttsted and (despite
Chatne, 1934, pp. 2-3, :lnd Kasser, 1974) to clarify
dialeclic filiations (Vel'lOle, 1973b; Kolsser, 1919; this
concept should nOl be under.>lood in too literal a
way). Above all, the: multiplicity has led to a classifi-
cation of the different idioms inlo fu.milies or groups
of dialects (K.asser, 1981, pp. 112-18) and then into
major groups, to avoid complicating in lhe extreme
the view of the phonetic and phonological facts of
Coptic Egypt and to allow its more convenient inte-
gration into an analysis (synchronic and diachronic)
of the Egyptian language as a whole:. (On the termi·
IlOlogy here employed, see Il)tOl.ECT, f'IlOTODIA1..ECI'.
METADIA1.ECT. and MF.SOOtALECT.)
Although presented lhrough the medium of anoth-
er lenninology, such groups of dialects were distin·
guishcd by Stenl (1880) when he contemplated lhe
existence of two dearly distinct dialects, the Lower
Egyptian and the Upper Egyptian, which elsewhere
hc prdcrred to call Bohairic and Sahidic, respective·
Iy, and when he dt.:fincd F as "the third dialeCl, only
a variant of Sahidic" and "of less importance." In
the same way, Stelndorlf (1951) presented two
groups of dialects: Upper Egyptian (S, A, L, F) and
LDwcr Egyptian (0, and Ba.~hmuric, a dialect practi·
cally unknown).
The gmuping of "dialc<:ts" set out below is quitc
similar to that of Kassel' (1981) but with some signif.
icant diffcrences, the most important of which is the
new valuation of Sand 0: they are no longer consid-
cred as "dialccts" (as are, e.g., A, L. and M) but as
"Coptic languages," that is, "vehicular," or supra'
local, evcn supraregional common languages, which
permitted the inhabitantll of numerous Egyptian reo
gions, where each spoke his own local dialcct, \0
communicate easily and to undcrstand one another.
So 5 ill rccognized as the common speech of the
whole valley of the Egyptian Nile above the Delta,
and 8 (more hypothctically but nevertheless rather
likely) is cOllliidcred the language of the whole Nile
Della. Coptic (supralocal etc.) languages (in touch
with many local and regional dialects, which influ·
ence and neutralize them appreciably) cannot be
98 DiALECTS, GROUPING AND MAJOR GROUPS OF
compared wilhout grc-.l.l caUlton with individual (lo-
calor " ..giani'll) dialects.
According to this system, each group of dialects
has a "chief," a dialecl that is well represented in
texts and is the one with the largcst nUIOber of
phonological (and, as fur as possible, morphvsyntac-
tical) clements characleristic of ilS group. In princi-
ple, those idioms which have in common a large
number of consonantal .and voc.alic isophoncs be-
long to the same dialeclal group. Indeed, consonan·
lal isophoncs are nonnally the same within a dialcc-
I.a1 group, but they may sometimes differ, so long as
the differences are tolerable and not deci~ive. Con-
sonantal differences arc tolen~ble if they fit into the
pattcrn of the nOl'lllt\1 evolution of a dialect (progres-
sive neutralization), ll.S in IJ > /r:;/ > /~/ (the proto-
dialect with /r:;/ will helong to the same group as the
dialect that has /SI <: /r:;/ if their vocalic isophones
are in large part the ~me; ef. Kasser, 1981, p. 114).
On the other hand, a consonantal difference is not
lolerable if 11 cannot be l'eglstered in a pattern of
nonnal dialectal evolution. Thus. although the vocal·
ic isophones of ... and of some members of L are
largely the same, the dt.-cisivc difference between A
and L consists in the slriking fact lhal in A alone of
all the Coptic dialects ~ > /x/ everywhere and!! also
> /x/ steadily, and thus ~ and!! merge into I - /x/
constantly and everywhere. whereas in all the other
dialects almost all the ~ > /,./ > /V (merging with
the other (sf < j) and a1lthc!! (with a few IJl > /x/
> /hI (merging with the other /hi < h). This ex·
c1udes any integration of A into the same schcma as,
for cxample. P and S (e.g.. °A > 'p > ·S). II is
hlconcei\'ilble that if in A ~ and!! have merged into
Ix/, this distinclion should reappear at l'I later st{lge,
some of these l:c/ > /,./ > /1/ because they derive
from J~ and other /".(/ > /h/ because they derive (rom
h.
The si".( groups of dialects are listed below in an
oroer w;~ullled to cOl'respond to their geographical
order, from south to north. As II whole, this schema
COlTespond~ to a conception of dialectal gcogmphy
(~l,.'(.' (;I'.QCRAPHY. DIALECTAL) whcrein the situalion of
the chief of each group, thanks to comparison o( the
isophoncs (Vergote, 1973, Vol. la, PI'. 55-56). may
be detennlned in relation to at leasl two of the other
chiefs (those c10sesl 10 it), all these chiefs being
praclically placed on an equal fOOling vis-a·vis Ihe
criterion of local~tion constituted by their \so-
phones. Since the appfO,Ilimate geographical situa-
tion of at least three 'of these chiefs seems relatively
well known (£rom south to north, A, F, and 8, lcav-
ing out a fourth, M, which poses a mOI'C delicate
problem), it appears possible to detennine lhat of
the remaining two. 1- and S. with a high degree of
probability: 1. stands betwt,.'(.'n A and S, and hence to
Ihe north of A; S is a vehicular language (the sooth·
em lwine of Egypc) in contact (ncar Memphis) with
the second Egyptian vehicular language, 8 (the
northem koine). and hence a strong vocalic similari·
ty between Sand 8 (probably due to Ihe innucnce
of 50me pre-8 on some pre-S in pre-Coptle lime; see
Chaine, 1934, Pl'. 13-18. and Satzinger, 1985).
Nevertheless, mo:>t of Ihe typical phonological and
morphosyntactical features of S suggcst that the par·
ticular pre-Coptic idium thM became S as a wide·
spread commun language (see OIAI£(."1'. IMMIGRANT)
was located nOI directly ncar the DeiHl and 8, but
rather more to the south, bctween 1- and M.
1n the following liSl of si".( groups. Its means
"everywhere in comaet with S as a ~upl'nlocal vehic-
ular language"; and //B means "for llle subdialccls
84, 87. 874, and probably G, if not for K and K7,
everywhere in contact with D lIS a supralocal vehicu-
lar languagc." The presence of a question mark (?)
indicales strong doubt as to the dialectal identity
(i.e., the possibility that one is dealing with a "dia·
lectoid").
Akhmlmlc Group UIS)
A: Dialect; chief of Ihe group; further rescan:h will
possibly penni! the definition of some subdia·
lect.~ of It (one might in particular con.~ider that
2 Mc. 5:27-6:21 in U1c.:aU, 1911. somewhal ar-
chaic in a few of its peculiarities. auests very
sporadically a kind of prolo-AKHMtMIC (PA). a
practically missing protodialect). Sec AKHMIMIC.
Lycopolltan Group UIS)
I (or pL): Partly spomdic protooialect of I. (t.yco.
roUTAN 01' LYCO·l)losrOI.1TAN; cf. DIALECT i).
17: Subdialect of i, through parlial neutraliza·
tion and evolution toward L.
L: Dialect: chief of group.
IA.. Sllbdlalect of L.
l....s.. Subdialect of L.
1.6.. Subdialect of I..
Sahldlc Croup UIS)
P: Partially sporadic protodiaiCCI; it can be consid-
ered a regional dialectal variety very like a kind
of (reconstructed) prolo-Sahidic, probably immi-
 DIALECTS, GROUPING AND MAJOR GROUPS OF
grant into the region of Thebes (southern region
of A also, probably, and perhaps of some variety
of L). See DtAt£CT 1'.
S: language; chief of group. Funher rcscan::h will
perhaps pennit the definition of some (sub}dia·
lec:lS of S. See SAHIDlC.
MClokemic Group (//S)
M; Dialect; c;:hicf of group. FUl1her research will
perhaps pennit the definition of 50me sulxlia·
lects of M. One mighl in pankular consider that
P. Mil. Copti 1 lind the codex of the Psalms
attest a varkty of M that could be denominated
M4 lind thaI the subdialect of Codex Scheide
and Codex GlaJ.ier is MS. See MESOIi:EMI(.
W: Sec Fayyumic group.
Fayyumlc Group (/ IS)
f: Dialect; chief of group.
F4: Subdialect of F.
F5: Subdialect of F; c1a.'i.~ical FAYVUMtC,
n: Ec:cemric;: and somewhllt archaic sulxlialec;:t
of F; possibly a marginal nonhem protodialtx:t
of a \'ariety of F ill known and not attested later.
f8: Ec:centric subdialect of F.
1'9: Eccentric sulxlialect of F.
F4, F5, Fl, F8, and F9 all have the typical
Fayyumic;: lambdacism.
V; Without lambdacism: mesodialect (between a
dominant F and W, and further M) and in some
ways a subdialect of "'4 etc. by neutralization.
W: Without lambdacism: mcsodialec;:t (between V
and M). Has a typical fAYYUMtC onhography, on
the one hand, hut a Iypical Ml'$Okemie morpho-
syntax, on the other hand; hence its name
"c;:rypto-Mesokemic." One might also associate it
with the Mesokemic group.
Bohalrlc Group (//0)
B: Language; chief of group.
84: (Sub}dialcc;:t of B, possibly rather rnllrginal
and to the south.
85: (Sub)dialect of 8; classical Dohairic.
87: Ec:centric and partially sporadic subdialect
of 8.
874: Ec:centric (sub)diak-ct of B; in 5O'lie way
subdialect of B4, and perhaps more 10 the
south.
K: Mesodialcct (bctwecn'1l. very domlnanl B and V
[or SD.
99
K7: Eccelltric subdialect of K (.still funhcr fC·
moved from V than K is).
G: Partially sporadic mesodialecl (between a very
dominant Band S [?), with probably also a third
componenl, perhaps partly Hellenic and difficult
to dctenninc).
Dillicull to classify in any group I'Cmains II: meso-
dialect, on the one hand (betwccn Sand M, or
rather S and v, itself a mesodialcct associated
with the Fayyumic group); on the other hand, a
typical mct(lliialect, but too poorly repfCKnted
to allow one to define it al an earlier (ciassicIlI)
period. See mAu.:CT II.
As .seen above, the distribution of the Coptic idi·
oms inlO six dialectal groups and their geographical
locali'l.lltion In relation to one anothel' lire essentially
ba.~ed on the compal'ison or Ihe lsophoncs of these
idioms, consonantal, on the one hund, and vocalic,
on the other. If, however, one obscrve.s that there
arc very few consonantal differenct.'S between the
varieties of Coptic, that several of these differences
can be put dowll to various degrees of progression
of the llite Egyptian consonantal evolution (Vergote,
1945, pp. 122-23) in the various Coptic idioms, and
thai the 11I051 neutralized idioms (V, still morc L,
and above all 5) arc the most difficult to situate in
Coptk: dialectal geography, then another method
can be envisaged, producing different results and
manif~ing a different .system of dialect grouping.
Based again (for want of anything betiCI') on pho-
nology as il Is revealed by Ihe various orthographic
systems employed, this method would rely particu-
larly on vuealic phonology, and t.'Spt.'Cially the pho-
nology of the tonic vowels. It thereby relegates 10
the level of secondary importance ccnain sp<.'etl'lCU-
lar phenomena, such as the sonant atonal finals
(phonologically vowelS) in S, M, L, B, and F or the
voiced consonants followed by /a/ in A und in the
LA Mnnichaean witnesses (Kassel', 1982c, p. 49, n.
5), and above <Ill the Ot'dinat)' lltonal fin<l! vowels I~I
S. M, L, A versus Iii B, F, phenomenll upon which
one might have been tempted in the first place to
base thc most general divisions of Egypt into large
supradialcctal gtogr.lphical zones. The result is that,
setting aside certain phenomena of extension gener-
ally more limited (ibid., p. 50, n. 7) than the phe-
nomena given the primary diacritical function. the
observ:l.lion of the vocalic constants noted in the
systematic cases considered 10 have priority leads 10
a grouping of the six "classical" entiliCli (two "lan-
guagcs," Sand B, and four "dial~ts," A, L. M, and
100 DIALECTS. GROUPING AND MAJOR GROUPS OF
F) twO by tWO, and thus to a subdivision of the
linguistic totality of Coptic Egypc not into six "dia·
lectal groups" but into three "major dialectal re.
gions":
I. The muthem (dialects) major region (Upper
Egypt), including A and L (and their subdialeets,
etc.).
II. The middle (dialects) major region (middle and
lower Middle Egypt and the Fayyt1m), including
M and F (and their subdialccts, etc., among
them V and W).
lJI. The nonhern (dialects and vehicular language)-
southern (vehicular language) major region
(Lower Egypt [or the Delta], Middle Egypt, and
Upper EgyJx), including Band S (and their sub-
dialects etc.). sec Kasser, 1989.
By this process, one could work out a Coptic dia·
lectal gt..o graphy at one and the same time perhaps
less precise and mon: nuanced than that tied to the
conception of tlte six dialectal groups above. Even if
one admits that the moot neulr~lized idioms (V, still
more L, and above all $) of the Egyptian Nile Valley
above the Delta each had a~ principal antecedent
some idiom that was in origin a local dialect, this
tripartite system would envisage each of Ihem in the
Nile Valley as the vehicular language (potentially or
effectively) of a given major region, without funher
specifying their origin (in contrast to A, M, and f).
Thus, major region I would have as its only local
dialect mown at the present time A (Akhmtm and
environs, perhaps fairly fur 10 the south) bot would
have L as the scmineutrali1.ed vehicular dialect of
this whole region (viz., the rom: of A and other
zones to the south and north of it). Major region )I
would have as a local dialect M (cnvirons of Ox·
yrhynchus?) and F (with various subdialeI;L~, the
Fayyitm) but would have Vas a slightly neutralized
dialect tending to become vehicular for Ihe region
(viz., Ihe zone of M and F, and some zone between M
and f', aod to the cast of F). Major region III, super-
posing itsclf partially on major i-cgions t and II,
would have all the local dialects of these regions and
both their supralocal dialects (potentially or effec·
tively, V and L) and, above all, both the major C0p-
tic vehicular languages, Sand B (funher in the Del-
ta, of coune, the local dialects or subdialecu of
Lower Egypt, and K and K7 of lower Middle Egypt;
see above, Bohairic group). One mUSt remember
here that S, being dominant throughout the Egyptian
Nile Valley above the Delta, progressively $Iifled
there A, L, M, W, V, and linally F.
Both systems (siJt group!i of dialects or three major
regions of dialecu) :rn: to be considered in the pres·
cnt state of knowk-dge in Ihis lidd.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chaine. M. EMmetl/s de grammoire dlalec/alc cop/e.
Paris, 1933.
_ _ . I.es Dinlcelcs coptes assioilliqlles 112. Paris,
1934.
Crum, W. E. A Coplic Dictionary. Oxfurd, 1939.
Kahle, P. E. Balo'llalr: Coptic Texu from Ddr el·
Bala'izulr in Upper Eg)'pl. Oxford :lnd London,
1954.
Kasser, R. Complemenls QU dicliomraire cople de
Crnm. Bibliothequc d'cllldes coptcs 7. Cairo, 1964.
"Complements morphologiquC!i au diclmn·
naire de Crum, Ie vocabulaire caracteri$tique des
qualre nooveawt dialectes caples: P, !\.t, H et G."
Blllletin de I'/tlStitll/ fr/ln~Qis d'archWlogie orimtolt
64 (1966):19-66.
-,,---_ "Lcs Dialectes CopH..s.... Bullelill de I'ImUitul
fr/ltlfQiS d'archeulogie orienlale 73 (1973):71-101.
_ _ . "Y a+il une gtlltalogie des dialectcs
coptes]" In M~/Qllges d'histoire des rdigiotls o(fCrlS
Ii Hmri·Charles Puech, pp. 431-36. Paris, 1974.
_'---' "Relations de gcncalogic dialectale dans Ie
domaine Iycopolitain." Billie/in tie la Sodhi!
d'i!gyplolo~ie, Getreve 2 {I979):31-36.
"Prolcgomenes a un essai dc classification
systematique des dialectes et subdialcctes cOples
scion les crite~ de 101 phonetiqlle, 111, $ystcmC!i
onhographiqllcs et cau!gories dialt.-ctales.... MII~am
94 (1981):87-148.
-,::-_ "Le Gmnd-Groupe dialectal Coptl; de Haute-
Egypte." Bullttill de Ii> Societe d'egyplologie,
GenM 7 (1982):47-72.
-,::-_ "Le Grand.Groupe dialectal COple de Basse-
Egypte t.'t son extension vchiclliaire pancll3'P"
tienne." Bullelin de IQ Sodhi d' egyplologie,
Gelli!ve 13 (1989):73-82.
Kmuse, M. "Koplische Sprdchc." LuikOlI der Jl.gyP/Q·
logie 3 (1979):731-37.
Lacau, P. "Tcxtes coptes en dialectcs akhmlmique et
sahidique." Bulle/in de /'fllSlillll fram;ais
d'archiologie oriell/ale 8 (1911 ):43-81.
u-)'lon, B. "Coptic Lnnguage." In III/erpreler's Dictio-
nQry of Ihe Bibte, Suppl. vol., pp. 174-79. Nash-
ville, Tenn. 1976.
Satzinger, H. "On the Origin of the Sahidic Dialect."
In Acls of Ihe &colld 111/emQ/ional Congress of
Coptic Studies, Rome, 22-26 &p/ember 1980, ed.
T. Orlandi and F. Wisse, pp. 307-312. Rome, 1985.
SchUssler, K. Epis/lllarnm Cotholicarnm Versio Salli·
dici>. MUnster, 1969.
Steindorff, G. uhrbuch der koplisclretr Grall/II/alik.
Chicago, 1951.
Stern, L Kop/i$clle GrQmmalik. Leipzig, 1880.
 DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC
Vergote, J. P/'OIlCliqIlC hisloriqlle de f'tgypliell, les
CQlISQIIIIU. Lou\'3in, 1945.
_ Groll1/11oire copte, Vol. la, llIIrodllctioll, plw.
nCtiqlle el phonologic, morphologie SylllllCrtlaIiqllC
(51l'l,1cmre des UlllollltmesJ, partie 5yrlc/'ff}tliqlle,
Vol. lb, h'froductUJ,I, plrolltfiqlle et phollologie,
I/Iorpllofogie synflttmafW/llc (sf",c'"re des
stmallftmes). /Xlrtie diochrQrliqlle. Louvain, 19733.
_ _ "le Dialccte cople P (P. Dodmer VI: PI'O'
verbes), essai d'idenlific3tion." ReVile d'cgypt(Jfogie
25 (1973b):50-57.
Westendorf, W. Kopiisches lIolldwfjrterbllclI, Mar.
beitet 0111 Grund des KQPlischerl IhmdwiJrlerbllchs
von Wilhellll Spiegelberg. Heidelberg, 1977.
Worrell, W. H. Coptic SOIlIlds. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
RODOLPH!! KAss!!R
DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC,
Thc existence of quite a number of differenliallraits
in the fields of morphology and morphmyntax may
serve to show lhat the Coplic liler'oIry "dialects"
comprise 1101 just dilferenl pronunciations and spell·
ings, supponcd by slightly differing YOCIlbularies, of
the same linguistic system buI, in focI, different nor-
math'e syslems of wrinen communication rcnccting
more or less directly some of the locally, regionally,
or even sometimes nationally balanced spokcn idi-
oms. To be sure, these lilemf)' dialects canOl)( be
conceived of as me~ transcripcional records of the
spoken dialects behind them. One may safely assume
that each of thcm had undergone various stages of
balance and adjustment-be i1through its "nalural"
usage as a regional or suprorcgional vcrnacular or
through thc cxcrtion of some standardizing force in
scribal cenlers-berore it wa.o; found wonhy of being
employcd as the literolry stand:1fl1 whose specimens
have survived. Yet these dialectal vnrietics still re-
veal .';0 many diverging traits-phonologic[ll, gmm-
matic"l, lInd lexical-thai only if considered in lheir
sustained proximity to each other can thcy be identi·
fied a.o; varieties of one language. If only thc records
of, say, Bohairic and Akhmimic had survived as the
lWO eIClremes of this continuum, one would hardly
be able to treat thcm as "dialects" but would rather
classify Ihem as distinct, though d05ely related, lan-
guages.
If, as is usually done, the tenn "dialect" is taken
to cover severnl more or less dosely related varie-
ties of Coptic (i.e. lhe varieties of Bohairic,
Fayyumic, etc.), it seems that on the mOlllhological
and morphosynlaCtic levels, in general, there is
grealer similarity between dialects, but a lower de-
101
grce of consislency (i.e., less standardi~tion) within
each dialect than there is on the phonological level.
Quite a number of morphemic elements that would
be typical of dialect 0. may be used more or less
regularly in a single lext of dialect 0,: they arc easily
understood in this context nOt SO much because they
are supposed to be "known" from D, but because
they may represent basic options of the Coptic lan-
guage as a "diasystem." The higher a. given phenom-
enon ranks In the system of Coptic grammar (or the
doscr it is to the fundamenlals of Coptic syntax), the
more does il seem to be capable of ncutralization in
lenns of dialt.'Clal distinction, its remaining variabili·
ty being influenced by communicative perspective,
texl type, and individual style.
A.~ for the linguistic value of a given text or varie-
ty, what counts is not primarily its degree of accord-
ance with any standards known frOIll other SOurces
(oficn lcnncd "slandardi7iltion") but iLo; degree of
it/lemal standardimtion, which might be more ade·
qualely lcnned "nonnalization." If one takes a dos-
er look at the actual dialectal varieties (i.e., gram·
matically homogcnous corpora) of Coptic, it is
remarkable 10 see Ihat even in minor 01' marginal
dialects, the degree of nonnalization in the morpho-
logical field is cnonnous. Bolh In tenns of morphe-
mic (syntactic) usage and the phonological represen·
tation of gnunmaticaJ morphemes, Ihe greater
number of literary manuscripts and groups of manu-
scripts reveal a. degree of nonnalixation that is in no
way inferior to their observation of general (mo....
pheme-independent) phonological and orthogrnphic
nonns. This nonnalized usage (or tUlI d~ langue),
nl)(withslllnding all the inconsistencies so often de·
plored by scholars, should be one of the primary
subjects of study with both major and minor varie·
Iics. Ex/enlot standardization, on the other hand,
may be mCllsured in tenns of both the amount of
manuscripts available for one variety and the
amount of neighboring varieties shading into anoth-
er cenlral "dialecl." Investigations of the latter sort
(for a beginning, see Kasser, 1980-1981), which
seem to be mOllt promising in particular within the
Illuhiple-eentered Akhmimic/Subakhmimic soulhern
area and the more dearly triangular Bohairic/Fayyu'
mic/Middle Egyptian nonhem area, will eventually
contribute a greal deal to the historical understand-
ing of the-dialect situation and development in (;0p-
tic Egypt and provide a safcr ground for penlnent
hypotheses (which they are so much in need of).
Taking Into account the large number of "supple-
menting" dialedal varieties of Coptic that have be-
come known through publications during the last
102 DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC
few dccadCll or stillllwl\it publicalion, and consider'-
ing the deficient supply of information about the
actual morpheme-stock in many of the crucial text
editions, a review of lhe morphological relalionship
of Coplic dialects at lhe present time cannot exhaust
the whole scale of known varieties. 105 a malleI' of
fact, comprehensive comparalive analysis will have
to stan by grouping and classifying the smallest dis·
cernible units of texts that follow a disdnCllinguistic
norm and joining them gradually togelher inlO nalu,
ral groups (major dialects), with the crudal isogloss-
es and differential trailS being broadly discussed and
accurately accounted for. This is one of Ibe tasks of
fulun: research, What can be done in an anicle of
the present fonnat, however, is to providc a selec-
tion of Slandanl varielics that arc more or less lypi.
cal ()f lbe siJ,: map literary dialects accepted so fur
by a greater number of Coptic scholar.;, A, B, F, L, M,
and S, and a list of traits exemplifying lheir isogIoss-
es, in an attempt to point OI.It the complexity of the
task before scholars.
The V'.trieties referred to an:, for A, the AKHM1MlC
"medial" group of Exodus (U1cau, 1911), Epistula
Aposlolorum (Schmidl, 1919), and Ihe Strasbourg
Codex (R&ch, 1910); fur B, biblical DOHAtRlC (in
order 10 facilitatc roughly "synchronic" comparabili-
ty, only such traits as aloe in concord with the usage
of the "old·Bohairic" manuscripts will be accepled
here); for f'. some loepresentatives of classical
FAYVUMIC proper (F5, M'cond group in Asmus, 19(4)
such as 51. John ap. Zocg."l, St. Mark (E11:1I1skaya.,
1969), Agalhonicus (EriehM'n, 1932), insofar as they
are nol discordanl with earlier Fayytlmic proper (F4,
see, e.g., Kahle, 1954, pp. 286-90); for f.. lhe Nag
1·lammndi lype (1.6) of Subakhmimic (i.e., LYCOPOU·
TAN or LYCo-UIOSI'OLlTAN), exposing ilS most valuable
representative in Codex I, 2, The Apocryphon of
James (Malinine et aI., 1968; Kirchner, 1977); for M,
51. Mallhew (5ehenke, 1981; see MESOKEM1C); and for
S, biblical (in paJ1icular, New Testament) SAlIlUIC. In
order to round off the picture and facilitate laxo'
nomical opcl'(l1ions, two Olher impon.ant varieties
.~hall be added: D1A1.£CT P, the idiom of p, Boclmcr VI
(Kasscr, 1960) for ilS outstanding characteristics,
and the Manlchaean type of Subakhmimic (or Lyco-
Diospolitan), hereufler referred to as L4, that is 10
say, one vtlliety of the group symboliz.ed fonnerly as
L4 in Kasscr (1980a, PI', 68-69, to the exclusion,
noWbly, of Thompson's Gospel of John, LS), for iL'i
abundant corpus, with its most nonnalized represen-
talive being lhe Ilomilies (Polotsky, 1934). Of ailihe
minor varieties whose rcprcscntat.ivcs havc bL'Cn
published so f(II', the laller two arc wilhout any
doubl lhe mOSI inleresling. (Perhaps somewhat "less
interesting" for the network of isoglosscs arc varie-
tics such as thaI represenled by 51. John, ed. Hussel·
man, 1962 [Ihe most imponant member of Knsser's
former V, now W], which dlK'S not reveal (lny single
trait thaI is not shared by eilher F or M.)
"Morphological" traits, in lhe sense in which the
tcnn will be applied here, fall inlO Ihree groups: (i)
variables in terms of different phonological ..:pn..-
sentations of lhe samc Pan-COplic, transdialectal
morpheme, or "dinmorpheme," which may be
called "diamorphemic variablcs"; (ii) variables in
tcrms of a differenl handling of allomorphic rules,
or "allomorphic variables"; (iii) morphosyntac:lic
variables, including some idiosyncratic grammatical
morphs, While the latter lWO items seem to be fairly
eooelusive, some words of explanation may be need·
ed with regard to (i),
To ht:gin with, it mUSt be noted that the majority
0( fonnal gnammatical dcvices used in given para·
digms and/or for given purposes are either phone.
mically and graphemically inwriable for all Coptic
dialects <in dear eontrast to the majority of lexical
morphelllcs) or Iheir varying phonemie/gr~phcmic
representations an: conditioned by general phono-
logical rules. Such items eannot be the subject of a
special morphological comparison. For inslance, Ihe
vocali:auion of the stressed "stem" vowel in some
prepositions (.s/(ll.t$ prollOttlillllles) and Ihe stressed
peBOnal pronouns slricdy follows Ihe genernl ndes
govcrning the vocali7.alion of short stressed syllablcs,
dependent on the type of the following consonant.
Thus, for example, one finds for 0:),;
A, 1.6, L4, M, f S,B
),/er),'1 ,"",
...,.,
d. C),N:CO/i
-"
(N'I'),'f) (NTO'I)
t),'f ; l!O'I
But with the suffix of 2nd rcm, sing. N, one finds:
A, 1.6, L4, PIS, 0 r,M
ef. ~: t),
-
),!er o 'r>
MM> T.l.ko/TeKo : T6K),
(nro) (U1'),) o(o)~ : ),(),)2
Generally, with regal'd to suffixal pronouns, there is
very Utile dialectal varialion except for cenain con-
lexts (!ICC thc variables qUOled below as nos. 6-10),
Also, for instance, the different dialeclal rcpresenla-
 DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC
tJ.on~ of such fonn~ ll~ oy)" une; 11);i, this one;
(jCOCUfI(l, it and other full-stress pronouns and pani·
cles can be en.~lIy reduced to general phonological
rules.
The situation is thoroughly differem with those
morphemes that regularly occur in prclOnic syl-
Iabll,$, such :tS those establishing the basic syntactic
relations in verbal ~mcnces or connected in some
way with the cunjugation system. If used in pretonic
positions, 1l1orphemes occupy slots that, wilh regard
to vowel quality, arc vcry little, if at all, dclennined
by transparenl (dialecl.)phono!ogieal principles. II is
rather the morpholexieal identity of the form. usual·
ly balancec.l by a p:m,Coplic noml, that dctenTlines
the quality of the5C sytlables. Compare for prctonic e
in all dialects. the circumstantial converter; (;~,
if; 6TT.CI-. because of: 6QtT. ground; eeooy. sheep;
x6f'O. kindle; etc.; and for pretonic .a. in all dialects,
the perfect and aorist conjugation bases; >.HO/Il.IJ.ttOfl;
nio. hOIlOr; ),T-, ·Iess; tf.a.·, toward; ,• .a.(H} condit.
infix; etc.; hut on the OIher hand, II A. 1.6, LA, P
versus ), B. F, M, 5 in certain l-causatives like TJ.Jl.O,
TUO, TJ.fKO, TCUO. T.a.yo. T~. ~tc.; or II A. LA, P
versus .a. 8. F, 1.6, M, 5 In words like ~Te, prevail.
and lo.lO. treasure. If the distribution, in terms of
diak-cls. of G versus), in a particular gr,lmmatical
nKlrpheme, say, a conjugation or con\'erter base, is
found to follow one of these lauer groupings, it may
well be c1assHied as detennlned by some phonologi.
cal (though less transparent) ratio. But if it shows a
grouping of its own, diffen'm from any other phono-
logical lI"3il (as is the case with almost all grammati·
cal morphemC!l unless they arc invariable). it may
cum /;'(1110 solis be counted as a "morphological"
trait. although it still features not the morphological
"system" but its phooological representation (or the
pial! de /'e;xprcssion).
This comparison cannot be based on the phone.
mic ~ystem relations wilhin each dilliect (espcci;llIy
for the vowel system) or the phonological rules ap·
plying for the tmnsition from one dialect to another.
since Ihis would nOl provide II COlllmon basis for the
comparison. Thus, its validity largely resL~ on the
overall assumption thaI the phonetic (!) values of the
vowel graphemes are approxlmately the same in all
diakctal writing s)'lItems. or at least tlJ:tt a S:lhidic .a..
for example. is remarkably more similar in quality to
an Akhmimic or Fayyumic .a. than it is to Akhmimic
or fayyumie 6 or Akhmimic o. This cannot be
proved, even after a careful phonemic analysis of the
respective V,Iphenlic syst~ms; it simply has to be
as.~umed.
103
1. D1amorphemlc Variables
lJiamorphemiC variables lire nOI classified in re-
:o;pect of the reasons for their variation, e.g.• the issue
of historical .sameness or heterogeneity, unk'SS this
reason is synchronically to be seen as a difference in
structural principles.
Basic Elenlenls In ConnecUon with the Conju-
gation.
(1) Operator of n"'glltlve aorist, H11.\ to B; tu.. A,
L6, lA, P; H6 to 1'. M, S.
(2) Operator of affirmative perfect, .a. to A, B, F, LA.
P, S; ~ to M: ~),) to, .a. to 1.6 (depending on the
sofflJl: chosen; but not fully nonnalizcd).
(3) Operator (initial vowel) of energetic future.
.a.to A; eto B. F, 1.6, lAo At, P, S.
(4) Operator of conditional. homonymous with
second present and coinciding with vocalization of
"imperfect:' .a. to A. D, F, M; e to 1.6, IA. P, S.
(5) "Causativc infinitive:' presence versus absence
of·r- ('.....). presence 8, F, 1.6, S; absence A: nonnor-
ma1i7.ed lAo M. P.
Vocall:mtlon of Pronominal Sullixes.
(6) First singular with ncgative cnergetic future.
(H)tI.\- A, B. M. 5; (")"1' 1.6, LA; IlOnnonnalw:d F (?)
(unknown for P).
(7) First singular with "causative infinitive:' 0/.".·
D, F. L.6; T(r).a.· A, LA. M. S (unknown for Pl.
(8) Second feminine singular whh pos.<;cs.~ive
article, tlOY' AI,S; 110- ..t, B, F, 1.6. LA (unknown
for Pl.
(9) Third plural with po5Slossive anicle. lie)'· F, M.
S; noy- A, 8, LA, P; llonnonllalizcd L.6.
(10) Third plural with cau."Ol.tive infinitive (similar-
ly with the negativc cnergctic future). T(r)ey- M. S;
O/T(f)OV' A, B, F, lA, fA. P.
Formallon of Qualitative (Slidlve) Verb Forms.
whal should !lot be neglected in this conneclion is
the hasic morphemic change concel1ling the verhal
lcxcmc, that is, th"t bctween infinitive .Iml qualita·
tive (or more Pl1l1icullldy, the formation of the qual·
itative fom): "long" 01' "ShOI1" form; presence or
'Ibsencc of final/·t/. c.:tc.). However. there appcal1i 10
be but little nonnall7.nlion in this field for quite a
number uf varieties. so thaI it seems Impossible to
give distinct specimens of val'iables at the present
state of rcse'lrch. A special ellse is the qu(,litative
fOnTI or 61ft!:
(II) Vowel quality tal - 101 VCI1iUS leI, D. F. 1.6,
M. P. 5 versus A; nonnommlized lAo
(12) Presence versus absence of l-i(e)/. pn'SCnec
B. F, 1.6: absence M. P, 5; nonnonlmli:ted A. lAo
104 DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC
Mlsc:dlaneous Grammatical Forma: of Tl"I.nsdla-
leetal Idenllty_
(13) Postdelerminer "each," HIH A, 1.6, LA. M, 5:
tIlMIH B: HI&! F; HIll P.
(I") Full-strcss prooominal object of second plur-
al, ~!THI¥Y'( 8, F, M: ·nlHll A. L6, LA, P; .~ S.
(IS) PosseMive pronoun. plund base, . . . A. F,
LA: NO'(. D, UJ, P, S.
(16) Prefix negaling infinitive, TM- (Ttfi.) A, £6,LA,
M, P, S: 1lTEH- B, F.
(17) Infinitive connector: inlcrfl:,,; of affinnativc en·
ergetic future: preposition (G-/OfO. ctc.). 6· B. F, M.
S; ,l,. A. UJ, LA, P.
(18) Marker (initial vowel) uf "special" impera·
tives such as ltoNI-/ltoNl •• ltoN,l,y. ltoFI·/.l.FI •. ),.,XI •. etc..
G(FI)· UJ. P: ,l,(FI)· A. B. F. L4, M, S.
(19) Proclitic panicle of epistcmic wndition (ICXO
B. GI9XO S. ... (61),no A). second element, ·n6 A, /..6,
P: -XG B. F. L4, M, S.
(20) Interrogative adverb of place, presence versus
absence of -1'4, e/TQm/TOfl LJ, f, 1.6, M. S; TO/TOy A.
LA, P.
Miscellaneous "Nonldenlleal" Fontl5 Filling th.e
Same (or Partially Same) Pamdlgms, i.e., Lexlco.
gmmmalical Traits.
(21) Indefinite pronoun (NP equivalent in nonaffir·
mative contexts). ltoUy(e)/u,(o}ye..4, £6. LA, p. S; tM
B; u,nc/u..n t F: 21 (personal), NlIf8Y (ooopersonal) M.
(22) Prefix fOlming negative imperative. HtI· A, P;
HIl(8)r- etc. D, F. UJ, LA, M. S.
(23) Proclilic relative convener preceding perfecl
conjugation oper.ator, tIT· A, B, F, LA, M, P: NT- £6, S.
(24) Presence versus absence of a special augeRS
form H.\YU{T) + !f.wu.y,l,T+ beside the usual
OYU(T). !OV,l,tIT. , etc.. , presence D,S; absence A,
F, £6, LA. M, P.
II. Allomorphic Variables
Allomorphlc Expanilion of ConJugallon Balles.
Allomorphic expansion by 'ro- in prenominal conju.
gation forms is handled very much alike in all dio-
lects, allowing for frequenl variation in nonnormal .
ized manuscripts. and wilh slriking deviations occur-
ring ooly in Akhmimic;: (see Pololsky, 1960, sec. 52-
56). Diale<:t-spcc;ifie expansion of presuffixal bases
may pertain either to the whole par.adigm (e.g.• the
Akhmimic affinnativc aorisl, see ibid.) or to panicu·
Jar combinations, such as (a) all third-pcrson fonns
(fluctuations in the affinnative aorist paradigm in UJ
and M), (b) the second-person feminine singular.
and (c) the sec.:ond·person plural. The rationale to be
recognized behind the outstanding Akhmimic usage
seems to be a different "signaling" funclion of 1'6'..
While in all Olher diale<:u il serves to expand a
(greater) number of base morphemes so as 10 make
them more "conspicuous" with regard 10 cenain
kinds of subject expreMions thai follow it (in panic·
ular, nominal and second feminine singular). in
Akhmimic it tends to give up its ellpanding function
and become an invariable pan of Ihe base mor-
pheme for a (smaller) number of ba.~s. the resl (in
partic;:ular, present converted bases) being left with·
out any expansion at all. The resuh is stronger mor-
phemic uniformity and l~~ submorphemic ,,!lema..
tlon. The following instances in terms of isogloM;Cs
may be typical of Ihe situation:
(25) Circumstantial prcsenl. prcnominal form. firO-
(6).(1·) S, F. L4. M. S; u· A; nonnormali1:ecl (1-. llf'(;' 1.6.
1'.
(26) Second prescnt. prcnominlll form. apa·/ltop6·
(M6') B. F, 1.6. L4. M. P, S; nonnol'malizcd lto·, ltorll' A-
(27) Affirmative aorist, oil Ihird"pcrson forms.
p.r«(I)..·• etc. A. ~,l,"'- P; CI1,l" •• ell'. B. "-, lA, S: non·
normalized UJ, M (bolh seem to prefer Cl;llto'- 10
CI1.l.f'i1q.).
(28) Circumstantial present, second present, im·
perfect, and conditional, before sulli.o: of second
plum! (which then appears in different allomorphs
accordingly), (")It.f6 +/{H)q4l+ D, UJ; (")lto. /(1')0.
A, F, LA, M. P, S.
Intradl.lectal Interference of Submorphemlc
Ahem.tlon. The generaliution of an allomolllh be-
yond the contextual scope it is otherwise strictly
bound to is a phenomenon very dose to grammati-
cal error. In Coptic, as well as in other languages, it
is rarely found to be characteristic of a litemry stan-
clard variety or the language. within the same hislOri·
cal perio<!. A case in point is Ihe eombinalion of the
second-person pluml pronominal (subj...'CI) suffilt-
Ihat is, iLS two basic allomorphs -T(O)N and 'TflT(e)N
-with the Vtlrious conjugation ba~e.'l, which may be
divided into "ShOI1" and "long" ones (depending on
whether Ihey contain ·pe· or nOI). The general mol"
phological role of Coptic that say!! the short suffix
only comblnes with the long bases and the long
suffix only combines with Ihe ShOl1 bases is invali·
clat...-d in dialects A and M in opposite direclions (d.
PoIOISky, 1960, sec. 56: Funk. 1981, sec. 1.4.1). This
may be presenled in terms of l~losses as follows:
(29) Second plurn.l sulf]J(, short foml: only with
long bases A, D. F. UJ. L4. p. S: also with short bases
M.
(30) Second plurn.l suf[]J(, long form: only with
sIlon bases D, F. UJ, LA, M. P, S: also with long bases
A.
 DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC
III. Morphosyntactlc Variables
Special "Portmanteau" MorpluJ.
(31) Special clement fer-/ incorporating {rei} +
{perf} + (third·person subj. pron.), presence M; a~
$ence A, B, F, L6, L4, P, S.
(32) Special clement /·ah·/ (preceded by relative
convener trr-/HT.) incorporating (perf) + {third-
pelWn wbj. pron.}, presence A, 1.6, P; absence B, F,
L4, M, S,
(33) Special element -9l.f- f ....ar-/ (phonologically
corresponding in P 10 Sahidic "'),f·/·~r./ (preceded
by rclnlive convener 6T-) ineOl"pQl'aling {aol'ist} +
{third-pcrwn subj, pron,}, presence P; absence A, B,
F, L6, lA, M, S.
Spechtl Conjugallon Ollse.
(34) Preselll;e versus absence of n special "tern·
pornlis" clause conjugation ttrere'I'/NTlofWI- ("ab-
sence" implies the usc uf reI. perf. in the same
paradigm). presence A, UJ, lA, fI, S; absence B, F, M
(Fayyulllic proper is splil here; this notation ac·
counts for the usage of biblkal manuscripts).
Use of Dllferenl (Coell:IJlenl) FOrmJ In lhe
Same Paradigm.
(35) Prefix deriving Greek·loaned verb stems, (e)r-
/Glo- A, 8, "'; 7.ero S, M; nonnormaliled 1.6, LA, P.
(36) Nuclear clement of NP-equivalent relative
clau5C$ (not fully normalb.ed), IJH, ctc. B; 11-, etc. A,
F, 1.6, lA, M, P, S.
,. A U US
FIGURE 1. GROUPING OF EJGKT COPTIC un:RARY OIAUC'TS BASED ON MORPHOLOGICAL
DATA.
105
(37) Element forming "instans" verb form (to be
ust.-d in bipanite conjugation to express "future"),
S1alive ~rb fO,. \'CI'SUS infinitive connector 6-/),', in
particular aftcr subject pronouns like K, 'I, c, .fO,../
-Ne· A, B, F, 1.6, M, P, S; '),- LA,
(38) Prenorninal form of the "causative impera-
tive" OPCl1ltor. {H.l.-} + {causative infiniti~} ~rsus
prenominal analogue to H.l.f"6't0111'nt causalive imper-
lltive, H.l.' TIl' P; tu.f6- A, B, F, 1.6, LA, M, S.
These dialecllll isoglosses selected for a brood va-
riety of morphological items may be used as a dalll
basis to determine the degrees (and hierarchical or-
der) of relationship between the eight di:tlectal varie-
ties considered, by means of various "clustering"
techniques supplied by modern numcrical taxono--
my. Wilh a numhcr of such methods having been
applied successfully and yiclding vel)' similar l'esuIL~,
a classification based on morphological traits might
be suggested as shown in Figure 1 (neglecting, fol'
the prCSCll1 purpose, the precise hierarchical level
fOl' the location of division nodes on the tree),
The primary division in the SCI of individual dia·
lects tums oul to be that between A, L6, LA, P and B,
F, M, S, corresponding to only oue tnait (which then
is the most typical differential trait), namely, the
vocalic reprc:sc:nllltion of the Egyptian prep06ilion ,-
(as Coptic ),- vcrsus &-) in its various grammatical
paradigms (cf. item 14 abo,·e). Although nonmor·
M F B
106 DIALECfS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC
phemic (and quasi-phonologil::al) in nature, this tl-ail
seems to symbolize the most profitable division of
the whole cluster of diak-cts into two subsets In
tenns of morphological isoglosses.
Some fUr1her traits of similarity along branch 101
are (14) -TtiOO, (21) UJo.y{o)/u{o)ye> (shared with
S), (34) "tcmporalis" (shared with S), (l6) TH-
(shanxi wilh Ai and Sl, and (13) monosylJabil:: fonn
of HIM/llt1!. (shared with AI and S). Along branch Ib
arc (22) H11{O)r-, (27) aorist withoUl 1'fl~ elliension
(both shared with 1.6 and LA), (20) nIH, etc_ (sh::u'ed
with 1.6), (19) e-,x(I, ctc. (shared with L4), and (18)
~'I-, etc_ (shared with A and L4)_
The differential tn, its lit node 2 are (22) MH' A, P
ven;us MIlr- l.6, lA, plus, perhaps, thc prcscnt:c or
llbsence of -pll- elltension with the aor'ist base, (27)
e~p(ll) '" A, ~~r '" P ven;us CI,)), '" L4, (/..6). Some fur·
ther tmits or silllilllrily within bronch 201 .m:: either
shared with 1..4, as in (20) TO/Toy, (28) noneJlrended
ba...c (plus F, M, $), (2) pelfect ~ 9 (plus B, F, 5), and
(23) reI. l;lT- with perfect (plus B, F, M), or Shlll'ed
with 1.6, 35 in (19) (IIeno, etc., and (32) .~_ Within
branch 2b, !lOme further eont:urring items are (6)
(H)"-, (41) nonnonnalb.ed usc ofr' (shared with P),
(4) e>-vocalbation (shared with P, plus S). and some
other lI"'3its shared with either P or A plus B, F, M, S,
as in (3), (JO), and (38).
The differential traits at node 3 are US) zero M, S
ver.ous 6f-/a.- S, F, (16) TH- versus 'lIT6H-, (7) Tf),-
versus e/Tft-, (8) noy- ~o;u.s 116-, (I0) -6"( versus
-or_ Some funhcr trails of similarity along branch
301 are (13) tflM (plus A,I.6, IA), (1) tie 9 (shared with
F). (15) ooy+ (shared with 8. plus 1.6, Pl, (6) (tI)tI),-
(shared with 8, plus A). Along branch 3b, most of
the fUr1her concul1;ng itcms are Ilhared with M: (14)
o/TlttlO'(, (34) reI. perl'. for "tempol'alis," (23) reI.
OT- with perf. (plus A, L4, P), (4) ~-vocalization (plus
A). Shared with none is (13) dlsyllabieity in !iI";l)tl/
mel; some traits lire shared with 5 plus A. (1..6), /..4, 1',
as in (2) and (29), nr S plus 1..6, as in (5).
This dassificlIlion b.'1sed on morphological traits,
perhaps in a more fully c1abomted fonn, may be
used to supplement and reinteq)ret the results of a
dassiliclltion b.'ISCd on purely phonological dat:l (the
more so, if any such clllssifications should be used as
a guide to the geographical allocation of dialect cen-
ters). It is interesting to note that in tenns of both
serial and hierarchical order, the two sets of crileria
lead to consklerably different results_ This is easily
seen by comparing Figure I with what may be the
n::sWt of a phonological classification. Depending on
how much additional emphasis is put on the "natu·
ral" vocalwtion of stressed syllables (as compared
with that of unstressed syllables and with t:onsonant
Il-aits), eilher of Ihe classifications shown in Figures
2 and 3 may be prcfemxl. Since it has not yet been
detennined whether a binary division of the whole
sct of individuals is really appropriate here, even a
third alternative might be wonh considering. name-
ly, that shown in Figure 4 (cf. al!lO Hintze. 1984).
Irrespccti\'e of the actual hicl1m:hy preferred, the
difference between these cla.~ificalions and the one
based on morphological dma is quile obvious. The
most striking (though least sUI'Prislng) detail is thc
differing allocation of 1', not only changing its "neal'·
cst neighbor" affiliation but rather shuttling between
poles (cf. earlier statements to similar CffCl:t5 in
PolnL~ky, 1970, p. 561, n. II; Kasser, 1960, pp. lIll-viii
ff.). A satisfaelOl)' eltplanlttion of this phenomenon is
not known 10 have been proposed so far, of much
greater bearing, however, taking into lIcenun! the
historical role of rhe variou.~ dialects and di.,lecllll
varieties, is the differing degree of relationship be·
tween Sahidic and lJohalrlc, on one hand (being
remarkably stronger in the phonological than in the
morphologit:al field), and between either of these
tlIld Fayyt.unic or Me.o;okemic, on the other. Also, in
tenns of serial order, il is obvious that Sahidic is
much closer to the southern dialects (A, 1.6, U) in
the morphological field than in the phonological,
while the situation of F and M is the re~rse_ As far
as Sahidic is concerned, it may well be the social
nature and prehistory or this diak-cl as a suprare-
gional vernacular rather than lUI geographical home-
land that provides the clue to a gfC3ter part of its
characteristics and its overoll neutrali-,;ing behavior.
BlDtlOGRAf'HY
The bibliogr..phy below has been compiled to sat-
isfy two entirely different needs and thus comprises
, , , M , •
FIGURE 2. GROUPING BASEDON PHONOLOGICAL DATA,
wml EQUAL WEIGHTING FOR All. VARIABLES.
 DIALECTS, MORPHOLOGY OF COPTIC
FIGURE). GROUPING BASEOON PHONOLOGIC.... L OAT.....
WITH mOilER WEIGHTING FOR STRESSED VOWI'J.$ (HI.
NARY SOLUTtON).
rcfercnc(.'S of two kinds: (a) a number' of texthooks,
research papel'S, and monographs providing basic
infomlalion about the mOlphology of one or several
Coplic dialects. and (b) editions of Capeic lexts that
have been used ::IS main rcpresenlative specimens of
the dialectal varieti~ covered by this ankle, llpan
from "biblical" 8 and S. The laller group of items
includes Elanskaya, Erichsen, Kahle (pp. 286-90),
!<asser (1960), Kirchner, Lacau, Malinine et aI.,
PololSky (1934), Rfuch, Schenke (1981), and
Schmidt.
As 10 the particular dialects (especially the !lO'
called minor dialccts) Covct'Cd by the present ;\rtidc,
some basic int'otmalion in lhe morphological field
can be OOlllincd from Till (1928) for A; from A.~nlU.~,
and Till (1930). for 10'; from Chaine (1934), Nagel,
and Funk (1984) for LA and L6; from Quecke,
Schenke (1978). and Funk (1981) for At; and from
Kahle, Polotsky (1960), Kas5cr (1966), and VCrgOlc
for sevcral of those dialects.
Apart from Ihc:sc works some of Ihe older tell·
books of Coptic grammar, dealing wilh several dia·
, F , F
• Kahle, P. E. 8tJfu'iwh: Coptic TexIs from Deir e/.
F1CURE 4. GROUPtNG OASlm ON PHONOLOGICAL DATA,
WtTH HtGlmR WEiGllTlN(,; fOR STkESSED VOWELS
(NONIllNARY SOLUTION).
107
koclS. may slill be used with profit to gain infamia·
lion aboul dialeclal mOlphology. AmQng Ihem are L
Stem. Koplisehe Grummafik (leipzig, 1880, l'Cpr.
Osnabmck, 1971), and G. Steindorff, uhrb"dt der
koplisc!lIm Grammalik (Chicago, 1951). Still of b'lSic
rclevance .\Od indispensable for dia1cctological work
in the field of morphology arc W. E. Crulll'S Coplic
Dictionary {Oxford, 1939) and R. Kasser's CQlllpM-
merds uu tUctiOlllluire de Crtlm (Cairo. 1964). as \\.'Cll
as Kahle (1954). WeslendorlPs Koptisches lJalldwOr.
femlleh, allhough offering an enormous alllount of
infonnatK)Jl based on more· recently published
sources. does not in general guide the user back 10
lhe sources (3.\ Crum docs) and thus i~ informative
on dialeelal usage only for those who are content
wilh the c1l1SSilication of dialects used lherein.
(Much the same applies to Till, 1961.) It should be
noted that somc of the tCllt editions cited have intro·
ductory Chll]ltel'S providing ltscl"ul infOl'mation on
the respective dialects.
81DLlOGRAPHY
Asmus. H. Ober Fragmenle im miue1af:)plisdll.·11
Diu/eete. GOttingen, 1904.
Chaine. M. EUments dt grammaire dialeetale copte.
P:ui.<;. 1933.
l.es Dialcet/.'s caplCS llssiomiques 112. Paris,
1934.
Elanskaya, A. I. "Rukopis' no. 53 koptskol novollH,:lii
(7.aklyuchltcl'nye glavy Evangcliyn 01 Marka na
falyumskom dialcktc)." In Koplskie rukopisi
CQSudurSlvcmlOf Publibtol 8ibliotcki imclti M. Eo
&lly/wvll.$i:edrillu. PalestillskiT soomik 20, no. 83
(1969):96-120.
Erichsen, W. Flli;llIIlischt Fragmente der Redell des
Agalhollicus Bischofs vatl Tarsus. Copenhagen,
1932.
Funk, W.·P. "8citr:ige des mittel:igyplischen Oi:l.lekl5
zum kopli5chcn Konjugalions.syslem." In SllIdies
Presellted 10 H. J. PolO/sky, ed. D. W. Young. pp.
177-210. E:lSt CIOUClOSler, Mass., 1981.
-,-;cC.' "Die Morphologie dcr Pcrlcklkonjugntinn im
NH·subtlchmimisehen Dinlekl." ZeilsclJrifl fiir
iJgyplischc Spruelle Imd AIIl!rlwnskwlde II I
(1984):110-30.
Hintze. F. "£ine Kla.'isifizierung del' koptischen
Oialekle.'· In Stlfdiell lU Sprache IlIItl Religio'l
A.o'P'cPls. Vol. I, Sprache. pp. 411-432. GOuingeli.
1984.
Hussdman, E.-M. TIt/.' Gospd of John ill Faylfmic
Cop/ic (P. Mich. Illv. 3521). Ann Arbor, Mich.•
1962.
1Jll/o·rz.ah i" Upper Egypl. Olford and London,
1954.
Kas.~cr, R. PflpynlS Bodmer VI: Livre des Proverbe.~.
CSCO 194-195. Louvnin, 1960.
 108 DICTIONARIES
_ _ . "Complemcnts mOl'phologiquCli au diction·
naire de Cl'um, Ie vocabulaire eal'aeh~l'islique des
qualre nouveaux dialccles eoplcs: P. M. H ct G."
IJllflel;" de /'/":i#I/l1 IfI"'rai:i d'tlrc/,,!oIogie orie/llale
64 (1%6):19-66.
_ _ . "Prolcgomcnes a un essai de classification
syst~malique des dialeetcs et subdi••lectcs coptes
scIon les cl'iti:I'CS dc III phon{:tiqut·. I, Principcs et
lenninologic." !dllSiotl 93 (19803):53-112. " ... ,
II, Alphabet.~ et systemes phonetique:s:' All/sOO" 93
(198Ob):237-97. " ... , Ill, SystCIllCS orthogrnphi.
qu et catcgolics dialt:clalC5." Mllseoll 94
(1981):91-152.
Kirchncr, D. Ep;stula Jacobi apocrypha. lIel'
heral/sgcgdN!II, ii1N!rulV Imd 1commemiert. TCJI;tc
und Unte''St!chungen :WI' Gesl;:hichte del'
altchrisllidi\:n Uternlur 136. Berlin, 1989.
Lacau, P. "Textcs copies en dialcclcs akhmimique el
snhidique," Bullelitl de 1'I>l5Iilul frallfilVr
d'arclleologie on'emale 8 (1911):43-81.
Malinine, M., 11.-<:. PuC(:h; G. Quispcl; W. C. Till; R.
Kasser; R. McL. Wilson; and J. Z3ndce. Epis1ll1a
lacobi Apocrypha, Coda lUIli: f. Ir.-f. Vlllv. (p.
1-16). Zurich nnd Stullgal1, 1968.
Nagel, P. "UlIlel'SUchungen zur Grnmmatik dC$ sub-
achmimischCIl Dialekts" (Ph.D. diss., Karl Marx
University, 1964).
Polotsky, H. J. Ma"iclliiisc/le /lomilie". Stungart.
1934.
-:c-- ',he Coptic ConjUglltion System," Oricmalia
29 (1960):392-422.
"Coptic:' In CII"em Trettds ;/1 linguislics,
Vol. 6, Uugui$tics iu SotU!"vttSI Asia all/I Narth Afri·
ca, ed. A. T. 5elx.'Ok, pp. 558-70. The Hague and
I'm'is, 1970.
Oueckc, H. "II di'llcllo," In T. Orlandi, Papin" delia
U"iversita degli .~Illdi di MilaM (p. Mil. Copl;), Vol.
5, !..cllere di Smr Paolo in cuP/u vuirillchilU,
editiOIl/:, COmmelllQ e illdiei iii T. Or/andi,
(:Qu/ribll/v Iilrgllis/it·v ,Ii H. Quet·ke. Milan, 1974.
RUsch, F. Brucll.lliicke ties erSIC'1 Clemellsbrieles.
Stra.~hourg, 1910.
Schenke, II.·M. "011 Ihc Milldlc Egyplian Dialecl of
lhe Coplic Umgmlge." EllcilOria 8 (Sondcrband)
( 1978):4.1· (89) -( 104)58· .
_ _ . Ihl.~ Mallhilll$·£wwgefil/II/ im milleliigypli.
schen f)illlekl des Kup/ische,r (Codex Scheidel.
Tellie und Untersuchungen zur Gcschichte del' alt·
christlichcn Utcl".ltur 127. Berlin, 1981.
Schmidt, C. Ge.lpriJclle Jr.:SIl mit seiuell Jiin/iem /lach
del' Allfersteltllll£. l..elpzig, 1919.
Till, W. C. Achmfmisc!r·koplische Gl'IImmalik. Leipzig.
1928.
___ Kopl;scl,e CltrUlomallrie fill' dell layumischell
Dialekt, mil grammali:icher Skiue WId Aumerklf/l-
CC". Vienna, 1930.
- - c Kop/i:icl,e Dillleklgnmlllul/i1c. mil l..csesliJcken
IIl1d Wlirler/mell. 2nd cd. Munich, 1961.
VCI'gote, J. Gralll/l/tlire cOIHe, Vol. la, Introductioll.
pllOlIC/iqllc el Illu:mologie, mvrpJlfJ/ogie s}·mhemQ/;.
q/le (stmc/ure de~' :iill/all/c/l/es), partie sy"c1'R)ni·
que. Louvain, 1973.
DICTIONARIES, From the time ",hen the Copts.
like other nalions or linguistic entitk'S, felt the need
10 have at their disposal in wriling the cqui\~.dcnts,
exacl or approximatc, of the words of their Ian·
guage, aUempt.s were made 10 tomposc modcst lists
of bilingual vocabulary; these may justly be consid-
ered the ancestors of modem Coptic dictionaries.. In
general, lhese lists follow either the order of the
words as they are found In Ihe pat1icular tCJl;t thai
had to be tl1l.l1slatl-d, or a more or less "logical"
order, with lexemes classed by sobjct:t or themes.
TIIUS, although the Coptic language was only al the
beginning of its literary existence, when Chrislianity
began to spread into the segment of the popo.ll.ltion
tholt was almost exclusively Coptic and unfamiliar
with Greek, there was need for Greco-Coptic glossa-
lies.. (At tirst Christianity was diffused through WOI'k$
in Greek, and chielly in Grcek-spcaking milieus.)
The oldt'St eXlant Coplic glossar)' is in a 1l1anu-
script in the MIJSOKE.MIC dialeci that seems 10 be
from the s«ond half of the thinl century (Bell and
Thompson, 1925). Later, if use eel1ainly continued
to be made of such gloss;.lril'S (Bell and Crom, 1925,
nmnuscript of the sixth century, idiolectal S - S' 01'
5'). thcre m;IY hllve been need also of Lalin·Coptic
or Latin·GI·eek·Coptic gloss.'U'ics; one of them ha.~
been prcscrved by a rnanu~cript of lhe lirst half of
the Silllh Cenlul'Y (npparcntly Cuptic Ilingulige S; d.
Schub::tt1, 1913).
111 the middlc of the .wventh century, Egypt ",as
invaded llnd occupied, once :md fur all, by the Ar·
abs. Thl.~ event was decisive for lhe futurc of the
Coptic languagc. During the Byrantine period, in
conjunction with lhe development of the Coptic
church, lhis idiom consolldllied its position on lhe
liter:u)' level. A large number of litem/)' tellts were
ll".mslated inlO one 01' another' of the various dialects
of Roman Egypt. Here and there bilingual Greco-
Coptic manuscripts were also copied (Trcu. 1965),
bUI in comparison wilh the uniquely Coptic manu'
scripl~, they are exceptions. Thus, on the anival of
thc Arnbs, Coplic was full of vigor. At tirst, the Arabs
furthcr cnlmnct:d Its importance by pl'OSCribing lhe

1I.o;e of Greek in the Egyplian adminhur"lion: and
while from the scvenlh 10 the middle of Ihe eighlh
century Greek proKres.~ivcly di~lppeared from Egyp.
tian documents, Coptic look ils place, and so ic was
down to the heginning of lhe nimh century. Then, in
its lurn, Amhic, already offidally commiRsioned 10
n'Place Coplic in the udministralion fOI' u hunar'ed
yeollS and having for' thaI reason continued to ad·
\'3.nce to the dehimem of Coptic, soon Rupplanted il
almost evel)'Wherc in administrative tCJlts.
With this new orientation of Arab polky in Egypt.
the ninth centul)' thus saw the appc-"rnnce of the
fi~ mea.~urcs that threatened the vel)' existence uf
Ihe Cuptic language. The laller al liBt resisted with
SOme success. b\ll under constant pressure its resisl·
ance gmdually Cl1unbled (Illd carne 10 nOlhing. In
the tenth centul)' Arabic was raught to tIl\) Coptic
clergy (Casanovu. l!XJl). From the eleventh centUl)'
on, in l;()me regions of Egypt, Coptic wa..s understood
only impelfeclly, and from lhe eleventh cent\ll)' to
the founeenth, Coplic men of letters sought 10 make
good thili nc.'glcct by compiling grammars and, abo\"C
all, Copto-Arnbic vocabularies (more rnrdy Greco-
Copto-Arabic, older Greco-Coptic ones adapted to
Ambic). Such a \IOCUbulul)' was called a SUUAM
(plural, $flfiilim) or scala, and without a tmlfam these
grammars could ollly be used wilh difficulty by those
to whom they were to teach the Coptic I:mguage.
Most of them give only f10HAtRIC, notably the cele·
broted Scala IIW/:lltI of Abu al·D'H':.lkat (foul,eenth
century: ef. Mallon, 1906-1907; Munier, 1930; vall
Lantsehoot, 1948). Others, howC1/er, sct SAI1IDlC be·
.side Bohairie, above atllhe lexicolls placed after the
famous grnrnmar of Athanasius of ~ (fuuneenlh
century) and thaI of AnW YuJ:m.nn:l of Samanniid
(thinecnth Cemul)') in the Coptic codex 44 in the
National LibraI)', Prll'is. These \"OCabulalies, like thc
earlit'r gloss.'1ries, nwke no distinction between Cop-
tic WOI'ds of Egyptian origin and those of non·l?gyr-
tian OIigin (fur the most part Greek). In so doing,
thL")' arc ill perfect harmuny with the spirit ur the
Coptic language in which, except for l:ertaill vel)'
specialized Icxemes of extremely rare usage, most of
the words of Greek oligin were felt to be not fOI'eign
wonts hut genuindy Coptic, for the sallie rea..son as
words of pharaonic origin (see \IOCABU1AJtY. COFfO.
GREEK).
However, European scholars, who from the fif·
teenth cemul)', and still lllore from the d.'1wn of the
seventeenlh, took an Inlerest in this language,
looked ut it from a vcry different point of vicw. It
was 1I0t so much Coptic in itself, a I:mguugc lll'tlcti.
DICfIONARIES 109
cally dead, that al1rncted their allention but rather
Coptic a..s the only accessible fonn, however cvoh'ed
(degeneratc :md impoverished), of the ancient Egyp-
tian language. It was through Coptic that they hoped
one day to re'lch an understtmding or the hlero·
glyphs. :lOd indeed it was this I'(>;.,d that finally led tu
the success of Ch'lmpollion in 1822.
After the U"I;/III Aegyplillca Resli/u/o of A. Kircher
(1643) and the manuscript dictional)' of Fell at the
end of the scventc.'Cnth centul)' (the firsl in which
lhe words were arrangc.'<! alphabetically; d.
Quatremere, 1808), sc\ocral imponanl lexicons and
dictionaries saw the light in Europe in the eight·
c.'Cnth lind ninetecnth centuries (abovc all, L:ICI'O~.e
lIud Scholtz, 1775, Sand B; Tallam, 1853, S, B, and
a little F). A work of clearly superior quality 10 what
had appear'cd before was by I'eyron (1835, S. 8, and
~, liltle F); this book l'elwescnts u I'Cmarkable ad·
vance in Coptic lexieogrnphy. Fur the first time, the
autochthonow; Coptic words were classified like
Ihose in the majority of Semitic languages, taking
account of the consonants in the lirst place and of
the \"Owels only in secondary fu.~hion. This system
allows Ihe placing together, quile nalurnlly, of lhe
...." rious dialC(:tal fonns of a single Coptic word, since
they most ohen differ in Iheir vowels, not in their
eon5()ntlnls. For another Ihing, it makes consultation
of Coptic dictionaries easier for their pl'incipal users,
EGYPtologists familiar with the phlll'Olonic language,
in which in general unly the consonants ~II'C ell.'
pl1~sscd in writing.
HO\\"Cver, p..'1rallcl wilh the:: development of Coptie
studies in Europe, and no dou.bt also encouraged by
tlte contacts cstablished in Egypt between the Egyp-
tologists and the Copts. severnl Coptic personalities
attempted to revive thLs ancient language in the
fonn of its Bohairic variety. Theil" work cssentially
st:mds in thc tmdilion of the autochthonous gl'am·
marians of the thir1eemh and fourteenth centuries.
but it could al~o render service to European
Coplologisc.s. The chief lexicons puhlished within the
fl'3.me of this genuillely Coptic uelivity appeared at
the end of lhe nineteenth cenlul)' and the beginning
of the twentieth (Barsum, 1882; 1.olbib, 1915).
The twenlielh centul)' in Europe saw the appear-
ance of the first Coptic etymological didionary,
which finnly CSl.ablished the link bet"''ecn the Coptic
Icxicons and their counteqxu1s for pharaonic Egyp-
tian (Spiegelberg, 1921; S, A, I. [called At], f: and B);
but this dictionlll)', concent...." tillg on etymolugy,
gives ollly very summarily the vnrious wri!lell forms
and meaning of tlte words. One may assume that,
110 DICTIONARIES
knowing the pn-paroliorui Crum was making for the
publication of his greal dictionary, Spiegelberg re'
nOl.,lncl,:d in advance any thought of iI work 35 rich as
thai of his rival.
Crum published his work in [;\!iCicies and eomplet.
ed it on the eve of World War II (1939; S. A. I.
[called A J, F, and B), Although a lillIe outmod(.'l.I
' Cmm. Bibliothi:quc d'cludes eoptc~ 7, Cairn, 1964.
herc and there (new and irn()Ol1all1 manUi'oClipts
havc been diseuvered since 1939), Cnllll's monu·
menial work has scarcely aged, lInd onc may allinn
that it is even today by far the best Coptic dictionary
(the riche.'it and the most prceise) at the disposal of
Coptologist!i Lind Egyptologists. Thus, fifty years aftcr
its completion it has not yel been displaced. Uo,,'..cv-
er, Coptic lelticographers have not remained inac·
tive: they have sought in various ways to order the
new material placed al their dispo&ll since 1939
(through the Bodmer Papyri, thc Nag Hammadi
tellts, and other Coptic witnesses of even greater
intcfClit, though less "'"ell known). This material n."
veals the existence of mallY dialt:cts and subdialec!S
hithel10 quile unknown or known only in so defi-
cient a way, so imprecise a fonn, Ihat they could nOI
be properly defined and systematically use<! before
(Kasscr, 1964, 1966). Spiegc1ber'g's uld HUlldwOrler·
bllch has evcn been republished, though after a revi-
sion so thorough as to makc of it practically a new
work (Westendorf, 1977): this book, gathering up
very complelely, ahhough ~mctimes withoul
enough criticnl concern, lhc material available to
ilS aUlhor, is of grt--at servke for ~pid consultation.
The fact remains that for those whose researches
requirt consultation in somewhat greater depth,
only Crum (1939) is really sati...faclOry. CoplOlogy
lherefore has nn urgent nccd for a new Coptic
diclionary. complele and detailed, including autoch-
lhonous Coptic le7l:emes, Coplo-Greek, and Copto-
Mabie. Such a work is at pl'csent in preparation in
Switlcrland (Kassel', (972). A new Di"liomlllire
erymulugique de la lallgue eOpl1: (Vyciehl, 1983) has
also been preplIred in Geneva lind published in
Louvain.
BlOLiOCRAPHV
Bachady, C. Le MomlSli:re df! Phodxlmmoll dallS fa
Thibarde, Vol. 2, pp. 33-34, 40-42. Cairo, 1965.
Barsum, I. AI·KJraridat al·801l1yah Ii Usul al-uighul
al-Kibtfyoh. Cairo, 1882. . naloil G. Par/hey. Accl!dullt ElI!IIchllJ EpiJCQpallllllrl
Bell, 'H.'I., and W. E. Crum, "A Greek.Coptic GI~­
ry." Al!gyptUS 6 (1925):177-226,
Bell, H. I., and H, lltompson. "A Gn.-ck-<:oplk Glos-
5my to Hosea and Amos." Joun/ul of Egyplia" Ar-
chaeulogy II (1925):241-46.
Casanova, P. "Un TC7I:tll arobe: t~nscril en lcltrcs
coptes:' Bulll!titr dl! /'IPlSlilul fr(mruis d'urc1li!oIogil!
orim/ali! 1 (1901):1-20.
Cemy, J. Coplic Eiymulogical Dictiollary. Cambridge,
1976.
Crum, W. E. A Coplic /)jctionary. Oxford, 1939.
Ka.~scr, R. Complimenls Ull dicfiumwirc cople de
_--,_. "Complcments morphologiqucs au diction-
naire de Crum, Ie vocabulair'e carru,:t(:l'istiquc des
quatrl~ nouveaux dialectes coptes: P, M, H et G,"
Bulle/iu de I'/llsllll1/ Iral1(ais d'archeologie orieulale
64 (1966):19-66.
___ "Lcs DiClionnnircs eoplcs." In Tu.les ellu,,·
gages de I'Egyp/1! plraraoniqlle: /lOll/mage il Jeall'
Frallcois Chumpol/iOlI il I'occasiu/l du celll-eillqllall-
liemi! ullnivtl'$aire dl< diclriffri!n/i!1II di!s lliiroglyphes
(1822-1972), Vol, 1, pp, 209-216, Cairo, [1972J.
Kircher, A. Lillgua Ai!gypliaca Resli/llla, Opus Tripar-
/itlllll. Duo Lillguai! Coplae sive ldiomalis JIIius
PrilllUl!ui AegypliOnlm Pharaollici, Vellu/a/l.' Tern·
punllll PUi!lle Co/lupsi, i!X AbstnlSU Arabum MOllu,
melllis, Plellu Illstaura/io Comillewr. ClIi Adlli!cti/llr
S'lpplemell/ll1l/ Eamm Rerum, q'lue ill Prodromo
CoplO, el Opere Hoc 7'ripflrlilO, vel Omissa, vel Db·
scurim' Traditu Smll, Rome, 1643.
Kml1, J. "Rc~tc koptischer Schulbi.lchel'lIter'ntlll'."
Miuheillmge'r IIW' der Samlllllmg der Papyrus En..·
Irerzog Ruiner 4 (11188): 126-35.
Ulbib, C. J. 1l"'6~"U)n ~r),cm lITo mfOHkxllMi. Cairo,
1895-1915,
Lacrme, M. V, de. Laicurr tiegyptiaco-IA/inl/III ~
Veteriblu JIIiUJ Linguae MOllllmell/u Summu Studio
Co/lec/IIIII I!/ Elaboramm. Quod ill Com~lIdium
Redt'git ltu III Nullae VOCeJ Aqrp/iacae, Nullai!qui!
Eanlll1 Sigm'ficaliolleJ Omilli!rl!,lIur Ch,ul. Scho/lz,.
NOluias Q"asdam, i!l bldicn Adiedt Caro/us God~
lredus Waide. Odord, 1775.
LanlSChoot, A. van. UII PriCI/f'S<tur d'Alhallasl!
Kircher, TlIomas Obicilli ef lu Scula VUI. COp/l! 71.
Louvain. 1948.
Mallon, A. "Unc Ecule dc savanL.~ ~gyptiens au
moyen 1igc," Melallges de I'Universite Suint·Joseph
de Bcywulh 1 (1906): 109-131; 2 (1907):21l-64.
Munier, H. Lu sealll cuple 44 de la 8ibIiOlh~que
Nalionale de Paris, Vol. I, TrunscrifJliOIl. Biblio--
tlH~que d'ct\ldes coptes 2. Cairo, 1930,
Osing, J. Rcview of J. Cerny, COPlic Etymological
Dicliollary. Journal of Egypliull Archaeology 64
(1978):186-89.
Parthey, G. F. C. Vocubulariwrl Coprico-lAlillum ef
U2Iino-CopliculII I! Peyrorri I!l Taltumi Lexicis Corlci·
Aegypti,/lIdex Acgypri Grographieus Coptico-J.a/ill/lS,
Index Mgypti GeograpJr.icus J.alin~COplicus, Voca-
bula Aeg)'p/ia a Scripturibus Gral!cis &plica/a, V~
eabulo Ai!1O'plia a SCriplOribll$ IA/illis Exp!icala,
Bel'lin, 1844.

Pcyron, V. A. l.exicoll Linguae Copticlll:. Turin, 1835.
Polotsky, ~I. J. Review of W. E. Crum, A Coptic
Dictionary. Journa/ of Egyptiau Arc/we%gy 25
(1939): 109-113.
Quatl'emere, E. M. Recherches criliqlles el hi-~loriqllt·S
sur la lau):..e ef fa lilter"wre de I'Egyple. Paris,
1808.
Schuhart, W. "Ein Illteinisch.griechisch-koplisches
Gespriichbuch." Kliu 13 (1913):27-38.
Spiegelberg, W. Kopfisches Ha",I...(jrlerbuch. Heidel-
berg, 1921.
Tan.;l/11, H. wiccm Atgypliaco-lAtillum, ex Veteriblls
Ullguat Aegypfiacae AfOllumeltlis, el U Opt'ribus lA
Crotii, Woidii, el AIiQfllm, 511I11"10 Studio COllges·
tllm, cum Illdice VOCWtl lAtillan,,". Oxford, 1835.
Till, W. C. "Achmlmischc Bcrichtigungen und
Ergannmgen ZU Spiegelhrrg5 KOplischcs Hand·
wtSr1erbuch." uitschri/t fiir jJgyptische Sprache lind
AI'ertulllskllllde 62 (1927): 115-30.
Treu, K. "Gril,:chisch·kOplische Bilinguen des Neuen
Tt5tllments." In KflPlo/ogische Studien ill dtr DDR,
pp. 95-100. Wisse.,schaftliche kitschri/t dtr Mar-
tin·l..uthe",VIlIl.'er:sitat Hal/e·Willttlbt'fX, Sondemeft.
Halle, 1965.
Vycichl. W. Die/lOll/wire bytllologique de fa ffl>!l:ue
cople. Louvain, 1983.
Westendorf, W. Koptisches HaudnVrlerbuch, b<!tlr-
Milet allf Gnmd (fu KoptUclletl HtIIldwijrterbuchs
\lOtI Wilhdm Spi"I,oeJbug. lieidclberg, 1977.
RoooLPI m KASSER
DJINKIM. The djiuk/m (is,.) is a Coptic reader's
sign in the roml or a point (derived rrom a much
reduced supralineal' !;lroke?) 01', in UOIIAIRIC (Ll)
only, a grove accent, plnccd above II grapheme-a
sign thlll is eOlllnlonly round in B (c;:f. Polotsky,
1949) or in M, or Mcsokemic (d: Kassel', 1981;
Schenke, 1981, pp. 26-30) and of which only a few
traees hllve been discovered in V. (None arc known
In F or in any other of the Coplic dialects.) Polol"ky
(1949, p. 25, n. I) wrote, "The name is inspired by
the position of the point above some letters, superfi·
cially similar to that or the 1.lflmkiJI in l'elation to the
~1If1if in Arabic writing. One cannot draw any con·
clusion fl'om this regarding Ihe significance of the
point." In these V:\riOliS idioms the djinkim was lL"cd
from the beginnings of their literary e:dstenee, but is
employed in a way that differs from onc dialcct to
another or even within the samc dialccl. Thus, one
may distinguish at leasl rour syslems of its use, those
of classical D, lale 8, pre.claSl'iical M, and classical M.
In ela.~lc::al B the only leITers marked wilh a
djillkim are (I) any vowcl fonning a syllable by itself,
such as ),<tl tlWA, he went out, lind 1I4oHt.L, sin; (2)
DJlNKlM 111
the letten; Hand 1'1 when they arc gmmmatical ele-
ments (prepositions, marks of lhe genitivc, negation)
or the firSI radical before anolhcl' ~mphic
consonant, as in rCHIQ;IIHI, Egyptian; H.l>itcul~, pris-
on; HTori, repose; lind 1fOOK, thee (Polotsky, 1949,
pp. 25-29). These are lhen, in each case, eilher a
graphic vowel • a vowel in phonology also. or a
(nasal) grnphic consonant - a YOwel too in phonolo-
gy, more precisely a nasal sonanl. Hcnce, each Ieller
marked with a d;i"killl in classical 8 is a phoneme
with a vocalic runction and funning a syllable by
itself.
In laic D, in nddilion to the 5yllabic vowels and
sonant na.~ of classical 8 (cases I and 2 above),
the rollowing four categories are also markcd with
the dji.!kim: (3) the first of two consec;utive conso-
nants at th(' bc:ginning of a word or within the word
when it is a casc of Greek compounds, as in CzIHI,
woman; XAOH, crown; x+O, engender; aYulw::U,
church; 1t.\f.l.l'rrlH1Jo., offense; and .LtlOtrJo.,", census;
(4) the prefixes of lhe pre5enl 1 when they consist of
a single consonant (2. mase. K-{X-), 3. mase. ~', 3.
fern. (:.) both bcrore a consonant and befure a vowel,
as in Kc.T6H, you hear; XNl.y, you see; 'i1ol, he is
placed; K(JHI, you know; and ¢()HI, 5hc resembles; (5)
lhe WC'dk definile al1.lcle mase. 5ing. ". (.j..), fern. 1".
(Oo), both befure a consonanl and before a vowel. a."
in '''('1, ,hc son; ~l. lite man; IWIoy, lhc glory;
T+6, heaven; Ot1l.y, the mOlhcr; and t.L+e, the head;
(6) lh(' auxiliary 4,l, be able: OYl.Tt\rI~ t1poc, which
cannot be mCo'\SUI'ed (Polotsky, 1949, pp. 25-26). In
all these ca.~, which are laic and probably influ·
('need by Arnbie, Ihe consonant marked by the
diinkim never rOn11S a syllable by itself. Olle may
thus with reason consider them SIlSpecl from the
puint of vicw of Coptic phonology and exclude them
from a compa11ltive analysis limited to the invcstiga-
tion of the general value and varieties of uS.lgc of
the gcnuinely Coptic diillkim.
Tn prec!assic..1 M (fourth cell1uI)'; Orlandi, 1974)
the IcttCrs marked with Ihe djiukilll (which might
well have the same material :lSpeel as Ihe djinkim of
classical M; sec below) 1Il"C lIS follows: (I) of vowels.
only 0 when it rOmlS a syllable by itself (equally
within the word?) In bl"duysyllablc8tlon, as in lITlW,
beCaU5C of, I Tht"ll. 3: 1 (but )'1'Il.K, I, not J.Hl.K, I
Thes. 3:5): ntCT6yll, to believe, I Thcs. 2:13 (but
11l.J'OYC1.\, advent, nOI tu.fOYCl.L, 1 The!;. 3: 13); (2)
(exactly as in point 2 of classical B) sonant H or N
fonning it syllable by il~lf (also within a compound
word or at the ('nd of a wOI'd?), as in HHoT6H, you, I
Thes. 3:3; MT(JH', ncar to, 1 Thes. 2:13; AATOT(JN 01'1,
not you, 1 The5. 2:19 (Kassel', 1981).
 112 EGYPTIAN ARABIC VOCABULARY, COPTIC INFLUENCE ON
In c1assicnl M (Iiftll-century, mthcr than si.>o:th-cen-
IUry[?]) manuscript.s, of which only ol1e 11;IS bccn
published so f<lr (Sehenke, 1981), the lellers Ihm usc
Ihe d;blkim (which has soMctimes the appearance of
a vel1' shon Mroke, somelimes thnl of nil tlctuat
point; K'lsser. 1981, pp. 121-22) arc as follows: (I)
of vowels, only J. and II when each furms a syllable
by ilself, in brJ.dysytlabication, as in j,~J., treasure;
(3lin(3, trade, emf!; cays., wheat; €fJ., king; i"€fJ., liv-
er: and XlOyil, Sleal; (2) (exnctly as in puint 2 in
classical Band prcclussicul M) sonant M or tl fOl'lll-
ing a syllable by itself, as ill HK(J2, be sml; NGHt"'-. the
verbal prefix of the prclelitc of the negtllive pelfect
(no cases attested for linal 11): NKJ.T, to sleep: MilNe)"
ufter; OyN, therc is (Ka.sser, 1981).
The only traceS of the d;illkim that have been
found in V are at the beginning (Eel:!. 1-4) uf P.
Mkb. 3520 (unpublished) and appeal" it seems, only
over syllabic M or tl (hence eX<lctly and exclusively
as in point 2 of classical 8 nnd preclassical and
clnsskul M). This would be n vestige of n usnge Ihnt
is elsewhere generalized but whose influence did nm
suceecd in imposing itself in Ihis dialect.
Alltlmt precedes gives sUPPol1 10 Polotsky (1949,
p. 27, speaking especially of the dii'lkim in cltlssictll
B): this sign "relates 10 some phonetic cha''nctel"
common to the vowels and tu the nusals; one will
think directly of sonority." E<lch of the graphemes
that cany the diillkim, in B as in M (or 11), forms n
syllable by itself, often in tachysyllabieation :\nd al-
ways in bmdysytlahication: they are sometimes
graphic and concun-ently phonologic vowels, some-
times sonant nasals (eonsonanlal graphemes with
vocalic function). And when. as in M, it is not JUSI
any vowel, it i.s certainly J. and 0, the most open (or
voiccd) and one of the must open (or voiced) among
the vowels, but nbove all those mOSI used in Coptic,
whether e.leh forms tl syllable by itself or with an-
Olher phonCllle. Similarly, it is the sonunt nasals, the
most used aillong the sonants in Coptic, that carry
the diinkim (in Coptic the voiced nasals are vel1'
n"Cquent too). One may pl"obubly sce in this Ihe ne-
cessity for the use of Ihe diinkim, pUl1icuiarly on ),
and (l alllong Ihe vowels <lnd on Hand tl among the
sonants.
BIBLIOGRAPIlY
Ka'\SCr, R. "Ul Surlignc OI-t-clte precede Ie 'djinkiln'
dans les tcxtcs buhu·iliques anciens?" ReVile
d'egyplOlogic 24 (1972):91-95.
- ' - ' . '''Djinkim' ou 'sudignc' duns les leXles en
dialecte copte moyen-cgyptien." Bulletill dc la So-
cieTe d'arcMolugie cup/e 23 (1981):115-57.
Mallon, A. Grammaire (.·ople, bibfiogrrJphie, dire-slO-
ma/hie 10/ vocllbuillire, 4th cd.. rev. M. Mulinine.
Beil1.lt, 1956.
Orlandi, T. Papiri della UfIl·versi/a degli Siudi di
Milllno (P. Mil. cop/i), Vol. 5, LeI/ere di Sill/ Prwlu ill
cup/o·ossiri'/chi/a. cdiziollC, COUIII/CII/O c illdici di T_
Or/alldi, comribulo IinglliIlico di H. Quccke_ Milan,
1974.
Polotsky, H. J. "Une Qucstion d'orthogrtlphe
bohui"riquc." Bulle/in de la Sociele d'archeologie
COple 12 (1949):25-35.
Schenke, !-l.-M. Vas Mallhi!us-cwwgeliwlI im milleli!·
gyplisd,ell Via/ekl de~' KOplisd/e/l (Code.x ScheMe).
Textc und Untersuchungen del' ahchristlichen Li-
teratur 127. Berlin, 1981.
Stem, L. Kop/ische Grammalik. Leipzig, 1880.
ROOOLPHE KAssER
EGYPTIAN ARABIC VOCABULARY,
COPTIC INFLUENCE ON. Coptic loanwords
in Egyptian Arabic have been investigated to somc
extent by seveml writers, among them G. Sobhy, W.
Vycichl, W. H. Worrell, W. B. Bishai, and E. Maher
Ishtll.l.
Worrell included m<lterial collected by W. Vyciehl
and G. Sobhy. In his wOI'k, he lists 110 words, of
which 83 are Coptic. Bishai collected 205 lcxical
items, all of which had been suggested by various
scholars as Coptic loanwords in Egyptinn Ambic. Of
these unly the 109 items treated in his a11icle were
considered by him as valid loanwords. At the end of
his tIl1iclc he says, "Turkish, which was never n
vcrnllcuhlr of Egypt, left more Icxical items in Egyp-
tian Arahic than Coptic did. ·111is is indicnted by a
partial survey of Turkish loanwords in Egyptian Ara-
bic by E. Littmann (1954, pp. 107-127: d. PI'Okosch,
1983), which includes two hundred and .sixty-four
words." IJishai ''Cliched the conclusiun thut "the lim-
iled influence of Coptic on Arabic can only be ex-
plained as ltlck of widespread bilingualism in Egypt
during the transition from Coptic to Ambic....
Aguin il may be said that Egyptian Muslims today are
right in claiming (I predominant Ar..lb aneestory"
(Bishai, 1964, p. 47).
E. Muher lshuq has shown Ihat, contrary 10 the
opinion expressed by Uishai, a vcry gre(\t number of
Coptic words have, in fact, sUlVived in the modern
colloqui(\l AJ'nbic of Egypt. Some of these itellis are
lisled below. Only the most conspicuous etymologies
have been chosen (see !sh<lq, 1975, for olhel"5).
It is to be assumed beyond rcusonable doubt that
thcre arc many other Coptic words still surviving in
 EGYPTIAN ARABIC VOCABULARY, COPTIC INFLUENCE ON 113

remote villagC!i that have nO( yet been MHve)'(.-d. On S • Sahidic

the oth<r hand, Ihere are hundn..-ds of colloquial B - Bohairic
....,ords apparently of COplic origin Ihat cannot be A - Akhmimic
identified at presenl because tht:y have undergone F - Fayyumic
significant change, such as by metnthesls, by sound L - Lycopolilan (or Lyco-Diospolilan)
changes of a nonpredietable nature, or rn:cllUsc their
Coptic ctymon has not }'et been itlentilicd in any of
I. Agricultural HenUI
the published documents.
Most of lhe Coptic words quoted arc ~,lso allcsled 1\, Immd;.ilioll, dams, and camlls: (I) ilamlm, inun·
in hieroglyphic (lind/or dt'motk). For these etymolo· dlillon, from S eMlII'e, preceded by feminine al1iclc:
gies ~ J. Cerny (l976), W. Westendotf (1977), and (2) (am)', silt, deposit of the Nile, from 5 OM(I, 8 OM',
w. Vycichl (1983). mud, clay, preceded by feminine anide; (3) isl!!iim,
In the following, Egyptian "l':lbic is rendered in a dam, from 5 IlTOH, 8 QIOOH, c1osun:: (4) fibs/!,
notation systcm Ihat is phonologicalrulher lhan pho- brushwood bundle, reed, Cleo (wim deriV"<lICS fibs1la,
netic. Thus, vowel length is often indicated where it sheaf, /abbish, to Slack with reeds), from 5 "6&10, 8
is not realized, all in unstressed or in nonlinal dosed M;t~, fuel, brushwood; (5) fa11, canal. from B '101,
slressed syllables. Note also that q is rcalized as [g) 58 .... (the regular S fonn is '«l).
in Upper Egypt and as [') in Cairo and large pans of 8. unds, grunaries, and stables: (I) IHlnibiyya,
Lower f&ypt, ;md that i is reali1.ed as (g) in the latter plurul burayib, land used for Bruin, stubble, from S
== (~)fOOYtI, 8 (1},.ayi, stubble, preceded by ma.~u­
The vocabulary items arc discussed under the fol· line article; (2) s/wrlJqi, fallow, sllaraq, druught,
lowing headings: sharriq ur S}lfmaq, 10 be dl)' (land). from S, 8 lI~fKtl,
tack of water, drought; (3) sh,illa, granaI)', from 8
Q,loyNl, b(lm.
I. Agricultural items: A. inundntion, dams, and C. Preparing the land: (I) hi/II, ridge (between
canals; B. lands, granaries, tlnd stables: C.
fUioroWS), from S 'TN, gr'Ound, preceded by mflseu·
prepal'ing the land; D. cultivating lllld reaping:
E. inlcljcClions and work M>ngl': F. lools: G. the
line flrticle; (2) sikilya, ploughing, from S CK~r, In
plough; H. irrigating machilles plough: (3) lash, border, boundar), (with derivalc
II. Birds !awwisJt, 10 make a boundal)'), from S TOIt,!, 0 QOtI,
Ill. Other animals border, CIC.; cf. S ~, 8 0GJCtl, In be boundal)'.
IV. Body: A. pans uf the body; B. excretions of the D. Cuhivaling and reaping: (1) laqqiJ. to sow
body; C. di~ascs and swellings (com-St.-ctl), from S Tw(_)6e, to fix, to plant, or from
V. Buildings and related tenns 5, A, f· nlK, to throw; (2) nabdri, winter crop of
VI. Childrcn: A. children's play; B. olhcr words mai7,c (or other grains), from S to.Ilf6, groin, seed:
relatcd to children (3) "'U~tS(l, beams laid together, Cle., from A, L
VII. Clothes oy~. S oyEtcd, B oy~ZCOC, roof; literally, addi·
VIII. E.cclesia~lic tenns lion of bL"llms.
IX. Fire, lamps, ovens, and rcl:lted IcmlS
E. lnte,jeclions and work songs: (1) lmi, in Ihe
X. Fish
XI. Food and drink song lmi 61li ya la/pin ir-n·/.Ill)''' (0 mill or the hand
XII. Insects mill), from B 6ytll, nethe]' millstone; (2) tla Mb, hela
XIJI. Inte,jeetions and cries frOb, used when lifting hcavy 1\l1icles: second cle-
XIV. DI)' measures ment fmlll :!G)B, thillg, work, etc.; various expl:lIlflo
XV. Nauticaltcrl1ls tions possible; (3) sMb, hoi wind, also in Ihe verse
XVI. Groups and sorts of people Mb Ju'lb quIa/IIi sh·sJtM (the heat ha.~ kilk'tJ me),
XVII. Plants fmm S ~, ~, B ,,:11, 10 be wilhered, hiero-
XVIII. Sacks and baskets glyphic and demode ihb, hOi wind: (4) Mb. in the
XIX. Spt:t:ch, bluffing, silence, and noise verse quott..'t! above, ilem 3, and in hob)'O hob yo :01
XX. Sticks and tuols in-nob (0 sowing-SL-cds which bring fonh-gold),
XXI. Vessels and utensils
from S, 8 2tHI, work, matter; the ver= is !illid during
XXII. Other Items.
Ihe work of irrigating the field with the shadoof and
is answered by the translalion, yo IIMi )'a ~t{t/i yo. tar'
Uppercase letter.! indicate the various basic Coptic id.Ja1lab, (0 my business, 0 my business, 0 sowing
diaIL'ClS, as follows: gold): also cf. hOb hOb )'a sJrugh/ ill·IIM (0 work of
114 EGYPTIAN ARABIC VOCABULARY, COPTIC INFLUENCE ON
guld). sung while threshing wheat (Sobhy. 1950); (5)
"lib, gold (sec above, item 4). from HOV'--
F. Tools.: (1) lJiJmiJw, fI~ring bnmeh of ~hn.
used for sw<.-cping the floor, from B ~y, pn-ceded
by masculine anicle; (2) (I'I')'O and variants, pick.
hoc, cte., from 5, A TCDf4!, 8, ,.. Ttlf'!, spade, pick; also
borrowed by Old Nubian and Siwa Berber. (3)
Iu.llvial, /W;al. IIIJ;an, wooden or iron me, ele.• ITom
5 t:l.yG.u., B :l.yXM, anchor, hook.
G. The plough: (I) bajn'm, bi;n'm, name of a pole,
part uf the plough. from 5. A. L, ,.- 00"'5. 5, F 6),f'tIN,
staff; called ImluI/;a (cr. latin pIOllCO, plank, pale) in
thc Della; (2) IHlSklru, bisklw, !Xln of the plough,
share·lx:am, from S c~, B c;o, plough·shan:, pre-
ceded hy masculine "Miele.
H. Irrigating machines: (I) jubad, p:trl of the sha·
door, consisling of stick or palm·leaf sialk fixcd hy
palm.tihers, from '- 6:l.1I0T, D .:o.<j>:l.T. tiher of palm
tn::c; (2) siraltlll', Palt of the shudoof. formed by II
system of two ropes to which the buckets arc fixcd,
from 5 I,lMOOY, ~lto.Uy, implcmcnt or mLochanism
which tums, wate....wheel; (3) hamlIs. central post of
the waler·wheel. is found in a Coptic tellt as 5 ~
(Crum, 1939, 671a, 78Oa).
II, Birds
(1) bashar()s}" flamingo, probably from the Egyp-
tian root dSt', red, flamingo, though not directly from
B 6OHl:9t. flamingo; (2) ba/sl"'III, bals/lim, ba/fl5MII,
hemn. from 5 m.6Il&, preceded by masculine artidc;
(3) hlW, hew, ibl... from 5, F 2lMIl", 5 zEMIl",
III. Other Animals
n
(I) baqnj~, frug, frum 5 KfOYf. xrovr, precL-ded
by masculine anicle; (2) limsiJ~, 'crocodile: from S.
8 Hc),z, pn't:et!et! by feminine articlc (as in proper
n:lmes elf~'~, 8o.'4U«If<~, TO.'4ualf'~); (3) ~W.>ldfiS, liz-
ard, gecko, used as nicknnme for children and as
per'Sonal nllme, from 8 J.NOOyC, lizard, also ns per-
sonal name 2:l.NTOyC; (4) shalla, seQ'llinn, rrom lJ
6MI.
IV. Body
A. Parts of the body: (I) huhmtJ/. middle linge.',
current among old PL"Uple in Kam.:ak (Wom:lI. 1942.
p. 335), from !OttT, a variant foml, Iypical of nonlite-
I"3.ry lelllS from TIlcbcs, of 5 ~, three, preceded
by masculine anicle; (2) !tJ~a, variant dIJ~a (Upper
Egypt), tetrad, group of four: handful, etc., from S,
A, L TlIlfIl, hand; (3) fall. thighs, hips, anus, from S
Won; (4) las, in swearing by the belo\'Cd dead. as in
wi.kll$ aMk, by the ... of your father, from S. B K.J.C,
bonc. or from S 11.-=, corpse.
B. E.:ccrctions of the body: (I) barbaI', to have a
mnning nose, also barb"r, soft mucus of the nose,
from S {t)wpi". 10 be loosed, 10 fall to pieces, elc.;
(2) laff, to spit, from S T),'I, B OJ.'I; (3) taftaf, taftif, 10
spit repeatedly, similarly rafraf (parallel 10 rayyim, 10
foam), from 8 6O'IT6'1, 10 let fall drop by drop; (4)
jlllq, erepilus ventns, from B XOKCI; (5) if~, (rcclal)
wind, and jan'a~. to break wind, proOObly fmm 8
G«IC. flalUS \'entns; (6) Vlr(.!!, to break wind, uura!. 10
break wind ft.'peatedl)', Ulr{jl. wind, from S ci·ru,
spread feet, so ve'l/~em pllrgare; (7) farr, fartar, to
cast olf urine, from B 'IOf'IlIr, to casl off, 10 fall; (8)
lIt1ff, to blow the nose, from 8 1it'1I, to blow, 10
hreathe, to blow thc nosc.
C. Oisc'L~cs and swellings: (1) Iflkll, as in lVII/lid
'olldulr t(Jkll (a boy who has" ,), used for aCUle
ColliCS of pncumonia among children (peasants in
Minya), from S, B TJoII.O perdition; (2) jilfa, chill,
from 5, 8 ;0.'1, A, /. XlI'I, frosl; (3) ktlluj. to limp.
from 5. 8 II.CIIU, to be bent, elc.; cr. proper name
1Oo(J.}OyX, demotic ~/wJ, whence K4,Umrihr;; (4)
ka/k/"a, lump, bubo, tumor, also kofkulu, callus, blis-
ter, from S IWU., 8 II.GMU, 5 II.6.lJC.OYJ.6, lump. pus-
tule; (5) milaltil, dripping in eoryoUl, from 5 rl:rl:. 8
T6J.T6J., to drip. to let drop; (6) mikhamkhim. used of
a f(.'\'crish person, from S tHOH. B ~, to be hot;
(7) IItJs/ra, (typhoid) f(.'\'cr, cf, S HO(o~, qualitative.
said or diseases and wounds, and hiemglyphic IIwIJ,
to heat, to be scorched,
V, Buildings and Related Temls
(I) bMw, ancient temple, from S rne, temple, pre-
ced<.'d by masculine anicle; (2) ;lItrl/fIJr, roof, from S
XGN6IIlIIf', B X6004'«>r; (3) :;}"'$ha, small window,
from 5, 8 GIOY~T, window, niche; the final T was
probably considered equivalent to the conSlJuct fern·
inine ending in Ambic; (4) {.1ubba, wooden lock,
from S GilD, bolt, preccded by feminine aI1ic1e; (5)
(r'bo, brick, Common Ambic, from Egyptian, d. hier·
oglyphic dbt > dl)/, demotic Ib, Coplic 5 TlJ,KI,I5G, S, A
TUllO; Arobic f1[·(iiba passed into Spanish, ctc., as
adobe.
VI. Children
A. Children's play: (1) all, in fi'bit i1-a1l. a game
with pebbles, from 5, A, B M, pebble, etc.: (2) ;ufl.
small ball, plural ii/u1a, probably from B 6M>1, ball,
cr. 5 ~]l" to roll; (3) 1mm" the second round of the
EcYPcian peasant's ball game, from S, 8 ClU.y, two:
(4) sir, a line drawn on the ground on which the
 EGYPTIAN ARABIC VOCABULARY, COPTIC INFLUENCE ON
children stand while playing with small balls, from S
elf, line, Slripe. hair; (5) mimuill'. (from) thcre. from
B MtfU, thcre, thithel'; the diphthong Oil' appears pos·
sibly under influence of S, 11 MMJ.y there; (6) min·
'14y, (from) here, [1'Om n MtU,l, here, hence, hither.
B. Other words related 10 childl'en: (I) ala(h),
child, boy, e.g. k/lIId )'llluflr}, come on, 0 boy, from A,
B M.\y. S. IJ. F J.AOy, child; (2) "UtltlI1s. delicate,
nice. mignonne, from S H.UfOYC. il l~ nicc (fU.HOy" ,
plus suffix pronoun).
VII. Clothes
(I) /lIrlJ;, piece of canYa.~ used to coycr the backs
of tI.'\.\CS (Dishna, Upper Egypl), frolll 8 tK>yfJ..XI, part
of monastic costume, from Greek {}wpkttWI', literally,
brca5tplllte; (2) jalllJ.biyya (£gypt and Sylitl), a kind of
upper gttnllent. gown, flowing outcr garmcnt. from
S 6OUO. 8 6O;>.N. gllnnent of wool. or both from
~Q{JWII? (Cerny. 1976); (3) sMllfiyllll. plural
shanillin, woman's ample trousers (now Oul of fash·
ion), probably from S .,Hr., sheel, robe of linen, cr.
au&:.v; (4) fara;iyya (Post·Classical Arabic), loose
rob¢, outer mantle of c1ericli and monks, probably
from B +-pt\., outer mantle of derics, monks; (5)
Ililah, towel, napkin. apron, ken.:hief, ftl!a (Classical
Arabic), waisl·wrapper, cr.S 'MllTe, to wipe, and also
S UOGl, a gannent or napkin, probably for S, 8
q,n·:!O (from S '1f1.1TlJ nnd S, 8 :!O, mcc), f.lce-towel.
VIII. Ecclesiastic Terms
(I) fljbiyya. book of canonic hOUl'S, hOI'Ologium,
deriyed from S, B J.Xl1. hour; (2) ammil. liCXlon
(WolTdl. 1942, p. 331). from S, L, B. F HHOYT. pcw'.
tel', doorkeeper; 0) allb.!!, pronounced amba, a title
fo..- Coptic dergy. from Bun; (4) ;(Ib.!!lIy(J1, Our
Father, is 8 1e nel_T; (5) daqq, 10 bake, baking of
the holy bread, from S, ,.. TlIIK., TGI6, 8 OIJ.)K, kindle;
b.,ke; (6) shara, shi.rya, censer, from S, 11, ,.. O/OYl'Il,
censer, bl"'uier, altar; (7) (ubl.li'II, ]1rayerli, plul"'011 of
!"bl.l, (1Ib~1U from S, 8 TIIll\i, pray, pr.lyer; (8) liDs,
hymn, ode. from ~ song, hymn, ode; (9)
ariMltIllwi. n.:membcr me (in your prayer)!, is 8 .\fl
lWiOyi, remember me!; (10) u)'imllill'(w)i, ecclesias·
tic lernl ali a confession, is B ~"""', I commiucd
sin; (11) /co nayaw<H, forgive me!, is B XCI /1111 0110.\,
forgive mel; (12) shllttr6mbi. long live, is B I14l
iIf<:\HI•• hundred years.
IX. Fire, lamps, Ovens, and Related Tenus
(I) IClkk, 10 kindle, in IOU i/.kibri/Q, he kindled the
malch, from S, F TGlK, TlD6, 8 9IIlK. kindle; bnkc; (2)
115
rlJ:tka, burning coal, from S r.ut:!O,
B r~, fuel; d.
f'IlIk2. burning. fCI'Yor; fuel, fil'Cwood; (3) laww/ld, to
wipe, 10 clean lhe oven by mbbing (with a wet ft'Jda,
oven mop, or Iilwwildll lUppcr Egypt]); also fawlI'a(.
to wipe, clean 01' dry by lubhing, and {all'II'O(II, oyen
mop, from 'lalTO, to wipe.
X. Fish
(I) b1irf, mullet. whiling. from S ~. 8 <Port. a
fish, mugU ceplra//js. b1irf; (2) rlly, a kind of fISh,
alwes de'lle;:, from S. B f'HI, a fish, a/esles dell/ex; (3)
shiil. plural shililPl, a Nile fish. from S xm., a fish.
sMlim: (4) slrablJr, a fish, Ii/apia PlUmica, from S
/V),'+OyJ', lilapin IIi/olica; (5) shilba, a kind of Nile fish,
bream. schilbe, ~'i1llruS IPI)'SI1lS, from S (l:isooy,
(lo;>,sJ.Y, 11 1lJ""J.y, tt fish, SU,4rlU 111)'SI1lS; (6) -FIr,
small fish, sardine, ntlme of 1I fish sp<X:ies (Luxor),
usually sailed, from S, 8 XJr, brine, small salted fish;
(7) qnslrll, a filih (d. Worrell. 1942, p. 338), from S
K.\". B IO.COOY. among fish, qasllllWllt, qas},lI'a
(Crulll, 1939, I JOb); poliSibly through iteration
qashqlUh, a fish. sand s~ll, silyersidc; (8) qU, a kind
of small fish. of species sha/. from B K6't.. IOU" a fISh
(of species sl.Il/); (9) ka/li;, a kind of fish (er. Worrell,
1942, p. 339). d. 11 KOYu.xa, a fish, a!Jpaj.l.i<;; (10)
mishi, plural am.~hll!, Ii/apia rrilolicu, b/Il(i fish, fl'OlII S
CNC01Ge, a Nile fish, Ii/apia (chromi.~) "i/otica.
XI. Food and Drink
(I) b~llra, ba.~iira, puree of bc:IOS. from S oyru.
J.f'I', beans, prec<..-ded by S .-.c(CI), thing eook<..od, or S
IUoCCl. cooked food, in construct statc (?); (2) WJsll,
blish, porridge, groel, from S <Kl"(W;I, 8 ~, gruel
of bread or lentils, etc.• preceded by masculine IIr1i·
de; (3) dibdiib, dnbdlib, dibdib, a kind of unleavcned
bread, cr. S nono, to taste; S Tin, miJ(<"od (?) food;
(4) sam/I, white bakcd sluff, often strewn with scsa·
me liced. from S, B. F CJo.M1T, fine nour, U1!'j.l.iliaAI'i,
the finest wheaten flour; from thc laller, probably
also elas-sical nnd Egyptian Arabic samrd, white or
whitened flour, fille bread; (5) kWll'Ifu, (pastry mnde
of sweet) YCI'lIicelli (Posl.classical Arabic). cr. hiel'O'
gl)'Ph /gil to bake.:, kind of bl'Cad, demotic ~/1l. ~Plf,
kind of bread, 8 K6H6+rrEH. (from ·KeHC" plus
Greek ending -nov?). kind of loaf or cake;
K6HClcjrrrnc. baker; (6) mama, date-wine. barkoy-wine.
zythum; in Nubian and Sud.'lnese Arabic a kind of
beer, from S HfIC. new wine, must; (7) "'all;/ii,
bilked, roosted food, from S H), 1'+606, b.,ked, roosted
food; (8) rakhklr, be dnlllken, In locution shirib
lammu tllkhkh, he drank till hc becnme drunken,
from S hc, 8 OI~, to become, be drunken; (9)
116 EGYPTIAN ARABIC VOCABULARY, COPTIC INFLUENCE ON
slrowwaJ," tu grill, broil, as in 51IUlI'WaJ,' i/'/alIma 'ala
'Hrar (broiled the meal O\'er fil'e), from S ~,
lOIIlO"'n. to be withered, scon:ht:d, to scorch. wither.
XII. Insects
(1) bibD, a biting insect, nea, from 8 OtU, Ilea,
preceded by masculine al,ic!e Ill'; (2) hall,is, spidcr'li
"'t.-b, from S, L ~, S, B ~Oyc, spider's web.
XIII. Inlerjecl.lons find Cries
(I) i.~, behold, lo!, from S, A. L me, 8 tc; (2) 6, 6h,
oh, interjection of pain or disgusl, from cu, an excla·
mation expressing surprise, joy, !Xlin; (3) 6, o!, most·
ly together with the vocative pal,icle yll, as, e.g., CI
ya.brMrim, 0 Abrahaml, from S, 8 1lI, a p(ll,icle used
with the voctltivc lor' addr'css; (4) Iljily and jiiy, a cry
for help, from S, 8 oy.:o.l", to be whole, safc; (5) she,
sl!;'\., by, porticle of swc:lring in vows, as in she-Ila yll
silli yo. 'adra. hy God, 0 my Lady the Virgin. from 5,
8, F ~, S, B 11,I"'. by, in swearing; (6) lihl, gee!,
gee· up!, from \\16, 10 go.
XIV. Dry Measures
(1) aroabb, measure of groin, from S jFToI., er.
demotic rIb, npm.{lq, all from I\romaic ardab, this
perhaps from Pl:l"5ian; (2) rll/iall', ri!!un'. n41i1"" a
measure of grain, a quarter of a wtbD = a half of a
letla • 'II_ of an ardabb, from 5 f'6-1TOOy, a founh,
one quartl:r; (3) wi-bu, Post.classical Arabic wa)'baJr,
a measure of grain, from S 001116. ephah.
xv. Nautical Terms
(I) ralllnilll, raft. baril;, from 5, B MfItH, raft; also
d. mllrtlmma, raft (Colin, 1920, p. 77); (2) !i)'ilb.
(0.)'''11, ea~' wind, nOl,h wind, from TIIY (5, A, F TOY-,
B ooy.) wind, and 5 eto&1', I:ust; (3) mansi, southern,
soulll wind, derived fmm S, B MJ.r"e, Southerll
country, Upper Egypt. See :llso Section J, items
(D·3), (E·2), (E-3), (tnt! (F·3).
XVI. Groups and Sorls of People
(I) SMUll. dllffla. group, cOlerie, clique. plural
.~Jrilal, dllllaJ, rmbably from 8 cow..., pluml CO.l.G».,
folk, pt:oplc; (2) bavatll/l, fool, silly, probably from S
~~rr. lilerally, he whose mind goes astrny, pre'
ceded by ma<;culine article; (3) Mtr, bad, wicked, as
in d~ ru;iI hem, he is a bad man, from 5 a-tI, bad;
(4) tilim, impudent, as in mara mal!limfl, woman of
ill Me; laldma, forwardness, from 5, J. TmAH, B
OO.l.H 4', to be ddiled, 10 defile, and (noun) stain,
pollution; (5) kharytl!, to be disordered in mind.
from S, 8 ~, to be demenled. ~llId 8 !»OfT, mad·
man; (6) 116sh, enonnous, something very big, as in
qodd hl'"osh (as big or large as), wyy i"'IIOSh (like,
as. such as), from S H06, great, large.
XVII. Plants
(1) am', cypress, from B J.rO, cypress; (2) bDrsim,
clover, from 5 UfOH. c1o\'er? (found once, in manu-
script or ca. 730); (3) bomilf, CQtr)'tJI Of/orola, from S
nOrHOy'lll, a planl?; cf. demotic J1r·/Ifr. a planl; (4)
rila, a plant, Ii/lpilillus. used for derming slained
clothes, rrom B rrrJ., a plant; (5) ,'.0.11(0., acacia lIi1o-
licll, cf. hieroglyphic SI1~I, thorn tree, demotic 511/1, 5
~T6, thom 1ree (acacia .,iIM;Cll); J~as~ as loan·
word into Akkadian, Hebrew, and Arabic (terny,
1976); (6) 511WSIlII, lily, iris, cr. hieroglyphic and de-
motic 5;11, 8 II,I(l)II,ICN, lotu.'! flower; olso bor'r'Owed by
Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek (mwuoII); (7) shinh,
sprny, especially the green spnlYS or carrots, rrolll S,
F \\II'J.I',I, bundle, cr. hieroglyphic and demotic ~d
(Cerny).
XVIII. Sacks and Baskets
(1) bllqli!i. a small baskel made of p3lm lea\'e~,
Slraw basket, also baqil{I, baqil{Qh. from S, B KOT,
baskel, preceded by masculine anicle; (2) ;allba. bas·
ket for dates, from 5 .x(e)NO'I, X6N01, B ~,
~y)<t, baskel, crate; see also shilll (item 5 follow·
ing); (3) Mralita, a large sack, probably Ihrough me·
lalhesis from 5 f,lJ.l1U, bag. etc.; (4) shillda, a grass
mat or cloth in which curdled milk is kept 10 drain
its whey and become chcl:SC, from 5 ctOrrre, coiiTe,
plailed work; (5) d,illf, nel sacks, singular S/lill{/I,
plural shilla'; sllarl!f. net !lack for straw, from 8 GHO<l.
~IO'I, S X(C}1I0'f, basket, crate,
XIX, Speech, Bluffing, Silence, and Noise
(I) bill/Will, to blufr, to lie, to spellk j(lrgon, tu
spcllk filSI, fl'Orll the name of Ihe Blemmye people,
known for their bluffing, S '"2MOY (cf. Vycichl,
1983, 28); (2) mil/mala. spcech, pmllle, argument;
IIIQ/lllal, to argue, cr. S, A, L HO'yTe, speak, call, or
r.lther hieroglyphic mlllll, to discus.~, disCLLo;.~ion; (3)
IWlVlI'ash, hawlVislr, to bluff (lllOSlly by talking
roughly), 10 bully, from 5~. B~, to abuse,
to curse; (4) wa<2, tinnilu.s; washsh, from S 00"',
oolC, cry.
Xx, Sticks and Tools
(I) sMdlJ, Slick (al-Mall'ah), from S, 8, F QMIT,
rod. staff; (2) darals, awl. spike, from B or~,
TJ'.ute; (3) shqdl, bell (province of SuMj); sJrqilqil,
 EGYPTIAN ARABIC VOCABUl..J\RY, COIYI'IC INFLUENCE ON
from S lfK(e):l.KI.l.,~, and cf. 5 CQK"", anklet; (4)
slrQlish, (iron) hook, from 5, A 11""6, slmrpened thing,
spike; (5) ',,!s. Ilfl:>, an iron "'edge u.<;ed by the car-
penter in sawing, from S II),TC6, B +),TeI, piece,
plank; (6) q1l, bell (Suhaj), cr. the reduplicaH:d B
k.>Jl.L\; (7) U'a!iJII;r. ,wf:>I,,;r, Ji.aW, from 5, A, D
"""Yr.
XXI. Vessels :wd Ulenslls
(I) bllqltllu, pOl, from 5 Kll>.W>', D X>.O>., pitcher,
jar, preceded by masculine ar1icle; (2) bukla. an
earthenware vf,:sscl with IWO handles used for walCr,
from S KMI, IJ """I, vessel for liquid, preceded by
masculine article; (3) makro, 1l'H)'1a,' (Bagur), from 8
H.l.lq'O, trough, mortar.
XXII. Other Items
(I) isJrbdr. wunder, in isJrbiif 'a/ayya, alas for me,
from S, A ...'Iftl, wonder, amazement; (2) ammldi, in
the imprecation dlJlrya /w(lddik /.QIIl(ludi, maya tmg·
edy take you In hell, from 5, A ),HfTT(I, 0, F ),HtlW~,
hades; (3) ilmiY)', ,IllY thing, rrom S 2tl),(),)y, A 2tlG,
vessel, thing; (4) Mil, grave, as in Ihe name of the
Valley of tlte Kings, 'Jllil i/·mlllilk, etc" rrom S, A, B, F
5115, cave; (S) blll,U/I, to dig (also in Sudan), and 1111.1111,
from S 11GITi (cf, qual. 11021), to carve; (6) bllrus", to
squat. to lie down. from S, A. I' rllU{'iij, to spread, 10
be spread; (7) bllrsJl. lIlat. from S 11CDfiij; (8) bm)'.
new, as in U'O,.,-allU bary WQry, lilerally. he showed us
something always new. ITom S, A, L BfrcI. 8, F r.efl;
(9) mlSJrIQ, bGsJrl", bundle. as e. g. Ixuhlil (iii, a bun-
dle of radishes. from S ft()G>,.e, L IU4\O, al1 or quan·
lity of \'egeUtbll-s. duster of vegeUtblCli or fruil
(Cerny, 1976); (10) bi/hila, pill, sm,,11 b;lll. probably
fr011i S, L UlW..ll, a singlc grain of mustard, etc.; (II)
lalla, to lift, to carry. rrom 5. A. 8 T),),O lift, CIC.; (12)
lUI. as in Ihe Cllpression 1,;1 I.,awi, gather, come to·
gelher for the magician, from S TOO'(l'tl, B OOlOrl,
10 galher, to be g;lthercd; (13) j(lfjaf, 10 frolic, from
S X6fXr, B x(jfxoP, to live luxuriously, 10 frolic; (14)
~lada, before, in cite pre!;Cncc of. as e.g, ~ladak, be-
fore thee, in thy presence, from S, It ztlT'" , as tllTK.
before thee; (I S) I1D~la. to beseech. from 8. S t 20;
(16) dulJJ,. 10 apply one's self 10. I'TOm the precLoding,
meaning tum face, look; (17) dQglion, to Ihrust. I'TOm
5 TIl6N, to push; (18) doqq, to hammer. 10 insi:>I,
etc.• rrom 5, It, 4 F T-' to strengthen, 10 confinn, to
drive, hammer; (19) dih7lQ, di/lni, forehead, in
dihn(o} i/·jaho/, the front of the mountain, from S, A
T62H6, 8. F TO:tll. forehead (die hieroglyphic prola-
Iype. 111ml. meaning also mountain ledge); (20)
f(lwQsh. to huny, to won)'; fllWS!rQ, cuncern, wony.
from 5 fOO"r'tI, A r~\'VoI, 10 have elll'e for, concern.
117
WOIl')': (21) sds, oakum, low, from 5 CJ.()'jc6, B
C.l.:C, tow: (22) Slim, stibium, antimon. kohl, from S,
8 cnlH, B C911M; (23) sllkk, co draw, 10 protract the
fast (as. e.g.. ~JI Niwa yakJrdl1 sukk "'OfQ ho'd, hc
passes [the three t!;\ys 011 the fast of Nineveh in a
continuuus fasling), from S. L, 8, F C«IK, to draw, 10
prulf",lct the fasl; (24) sI1llh/ril;, to pdck repeatedly,
from S XOK.XK, D X()K.XOK, to prick, bnllld; (25)
,I/Ulk~lIll1, to be enthu,~iaMic or zetllous, 10 net with a
forced hardness; SllllkllUlW, energy, :r.eal, fnmJ 8
(QGtlIIN, lu slrive, contend; (26) simI/II, skein, hank,
p,'Obably from S, 8 110.... S. L, F 19),)" bundle; (27)
sha/lIij (South uf Oena), slwlllid (Nol1h of Qena, Fal~
shu!>, shallill (&nl·Suef, Cairo). :>ofMj (luxor
through Aswan). kick; sJrallol, s}'(ll/i. to kick. from B
6.v.o.x. F 6J..U.X, fOOl, knee; (28) sJrOIlO!. to tie. knot
(slrQllal diriJ'lf l-mtlJldl/, he hung his ann in a sling),
yerbal noon :>hllll{; !iJlitlt.{Q, running-knot, slip-knot.
from S, B. F QUHT. to plait; 5 /OOfIT(j. f1iiT6, plaited
work; (29) ¥Jril, rope of twine. of ~/Qllo or vine twigs,
from 5 CJ.I"«>. CJ.f6'1. vine twig; (30) ¥JI/iyylr, ready,
pr;,:pared, in .~af!iYYfl ''''lIIhllr-du, (our meal is :11-
ready) preparing to<llly, a polite way of refusing an
invitation to lunch (A.~W'Ir1), frolll S C()<ITa, to he
ready; (31) .~Ulm, ~'IIlm, to wait, a.~ in ,~il1l1 'cjlelz
~Ulhb", give him a lillIe time, possibly from S, A CI/'IIl,
to pass by; (32) larosh, to throw one on his face; to
Oppf'($.~, a.~, e,g., id-eliu)'u !llfSlziilli, life is oppressing
mc, from S ~. 10 make heavy, 10 temfy: (33)
!allllisJr, to remain silent; 10 feign not 10 hear; to give
a deaf ear to, from B ootM1 (Crum, 1939. S,\', 9CK4t),
to be aslonished, to SIan: with astonishment; (34)
lahma, invitation, frum S TlD~, 8 OlDtf'H, to invile;
(35) lill, 1"",wul. to putrefy (food). 10 taint. from 5
NlT6......6. to pollute, 10 befoul; (36) kiJs. pain, in
yo klisi mimlllk, 0 my pain from you: k/lyis, run
down, seedy, from 5, 8 (T)Iuo.c pain; (37) kOfaslz, 10
huny; to !lallcr, to urge importun;uc1y (i</.tli'IYU
kilf:>/zll.ri, life is hUll)'ing me; i1-wiliYY(l tli k(lr.~Jzl1h
, , ,lI'llklu Jmiiglm, lhis woman i.~ innuencing him
, , , she is i,:;lting his mind), from 5, A, lJ, F Klllpiij, to
requt.,st, persuade, cajole; (38) IUC/fls/r, to sncel', to
ridicule, from 5 (6)>.K-4,IJo.. to turn up nose, 10 slicer;
(39) (i}mjukhkJrim, putrid. ddilLxl. from S. t .xIl:fi. 8
6CD~H, to be defiled; (40) ",,,kmak. to hesitate, be
reluctant, and Ycrbal noun mQlanQk" (bal6:>" mok-
mako, /IIQ-libqdsh bi·mII "iyyo w-(rkr, don'l hesiUtte,
don't leI yourself have a hundred aims and ideas).
from S, 8 HOKH6II.. to think, ponder; (41) Plobbil, to
sew fine slitchCli. from 8 IiO'(tIT, to weave; (42)
ha"""o:>. haPl/mis, to sit. from 5 tHOOC, It, L 2H(1C, 8
tOMeI. to sit, remain, dwell: (43) Jr(lt,ui, sit down!
(region of Sal)",lna), from B tfJHCI, sit down!; (44)
wllibll, timc, hour, pcdo<! (dcl C/o'tld 'illJizra waiba, he
 118 ETYMOLOGY
remained wilh US for a while), fmm B .Lxllt, i.xn" ,
hour, prcrcdcd by indefinite :1I1icle; (45) 1I'1l~IIlS, to
embarrass, \\'O~I~, confusion, from S ()yGt-ttC6, 10
give lrouble; (46) Will)', new, 35 in do·lm Will)' 'oftno,
this is something new for us, and It'int'ir, plural IIIllr·
illvir, young, fresh (especially chicks, radishes), fmm
S, A, L Blfll, B, ,: r.cIrl, new, young; see also /xlI)'
(item 8, thi~ !>Cetion); (47) w(l(fr./ab, 10 arrnngc, to pUl
in order, to prepare, prob<lbly fmm S OyWTlI, to
c1mnge, remove, transfer; (48) Y/l, either, or (ya df )'(/
dii, either this or that, Y/1 tuq'ud y(l lim.dli, you must
either sit down or go away), from S 616 S. L, B, F, I(J,
or, whether ... or.
BIBLIOCRAI'HY
Bishai, W. B. "Coplie Influences on Egyptian Ara·
bic." JOImuJ! of NellI' &.stem Strldies 23 (1964):39-
47.
t':emy, J. Coptic Eiytlloiogiclli Diclio"lll)'. Cambridge,
1976.
Colin, G. S. "NOles de dialecto[ogie arabe:' BI/lletill
de l'I"slitlll francais d'arc1l1!o/ogie orictllale 20
(192Z):45-87.
Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictiorlal)'. Oxford, [939.
lslmq, B. M. The rlzorwtics and Phollulugy of rill!. Bo·
huiric Dialect 01 Coptic, und the Sllrvival 01 Coptic
Words ill the Culloquial alld Clos.~icul Ambie 01
EgyrJl, all/I Qf Coptic Grammaticlll COIIStme/iollS ill
Co{/oq.liul Egyplioll Arobic, Z vols. Doctoral disse",
tat ion, Oxford, 1975.
Littmann, E. '"TUrkischcs Spraehgut im Agyptisch.
Arabischen." Wwostliche AbJralld/u"~1I (1954):
107-Z7.
Prokosch, E. Osmanisches Wor/gu/ im Agypriscll-
Arnbisclre... Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 78.
Berlin, 1983.
Sobhy, G. P. Common Words itl Ihl!! Spoken Arabic of
Egypt of Greek or Coptic Origill. Cairo, 1950.
Vycich[, W. Dicliollflaire itymolo~iq"e de fa fatlgl/e
cople. Louvain, 1983.
Westend01f, W. KOplisc:!les Haudw/)rterbllcll, btulr·
beitel OIl! Gmmf des Koptisclum f{wlC/lI'vrterbllcilS
"Oil Wilhdm Spieg<!lberg. Heidelberg, [977.
Worrell, W. H. Corl/ie Texts ill the. U'live.r.firy of Michl·
gall Col/eetio.., with a Study ill Ihe Popular Tradi·
tions 0/ Coptic. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1942.
EMILE MAIIF.R 1511AO
ETYMOLOGY. The Coptic language comprises an
aUlochthonous vocabulary (see VOCADUURY OF EGYp·
TIAN ORIGIN and \fOCAIWURY OF SEMITIC OltiCtN) with
an o\'erlay of sevcral helerogeneous strata (see VOCAU·
!JURY. OOPTO·CRlm.K and VQCA8UIARY. COI'TO-ARA8IC).
As a rule, elymologic reS(.'arch in Coplology Is linlit·
c.-d to the autochthonous vocabulary. Etymology
(from Greek el)"lOS, lrue, and logos, wol'd) is the
account of the oligin, Ihe meaning, and Ihe phonet.
ics of a word over lhe eoul'Se of time lind the com-
parison of it with cognate or similar terms.
In Coptic the ba.~ic vocabulary, as well liS the mor·
phology or the language, l.~ of Egyptian origin. Egyp-
tian shares many words and all its mOlllho[ogy
(grmnm:ltica[ fonns) with the Semitic 13nguuges.
Egypti:m is transcriblld with an alphabet or twenty·
four leiters in Ihe rollowing ol'der. J, i, " 11', b, p, I,
til, n, 1', Jr, ~, I!, ~, l. S, 1, ~ (50melimes transcribed q),
k, g, I, !' d, (.1.: All these letten; repn.'SCnt consonants.
n,e sign J is the glottal SlOP heal'd al the com-
mencement of German words beginning with a vow-
el (die Oper) or Hebrew alt"h; i is y in "yes:' but
SOllll'1imc.'S pronounced like aleph; , is called 'ayin,
as in Hebrew, the cmphalic correspondent to alt.-ph
(d. Ambic 'Abda/fIJIr); lr is the English If; ~. is an
emplmtic h, as in Arabic A1111.lUmmad; I! is the Scotch
cll in loc/l; ~ is like Gennan ch in ieli (between 11
and D, and ncady like English It in hUlIIan; J is
English sh in "ship"; ! is ch in Engli~h "child"; llnJ!!.
is English; in "joke:'
The group;; is pronounced y. There is no p:u1icu·
[nr sign fol' I; this sound is transcribed J, r, II, or til'.
L:.Ite Egyptian USC$ the sign of a lion (rw) for I. There
nrc no vowels written in Egyplian, hut Ihe oliginal
pronounciation may be reconstrocted 10 some ex·
tent by the insenion of the Coplic vowels and by
comparative studil'5- Thus, Egyptian ml!, man, which
is B f'tiHI and S r-t'f(l, is reconstroclcd "romel and
was probably pronounced 'romi!, which Is the fonn
of a paniciple, as Egyptian Arabic "rdgil (c1a.o;sical
Mabic ragl/I).
Egyptian shares many word.~ with the Selllitic Ian·
guages, including Akkadian (Assyri:m in nOl1hem
Mesopotamia, B<lbylonian in southern Mcsopot(l'
mla), l-Iehl'ew (Ilingulige of the Bihle), Aramaic (Ian.
guage of Jesus Christ), Ambie (langu'lge of (he
Qur'An), and Ethiopian (language of Menclik, the
legendary son of Solomon and the Queen or Sheba,
founder of the Elhiopian dynasty), among olhcrs.
Egyptologists pronounce Egyplian words by insen·
ing e belween the consonants: Jl.!.m, 10 hear, is se;em;
ptr, 10 look, is peter. The leiters J and ' arc pro-
nounced a; I is i: and w may be pronouncc.-d 35 u.
Thus, /pp, to hide, becomes hap; ',,-,!, to live, is
Qllk1l: illY. to bring, is ini; and III"', water, is /P1II.
I!",fw, the name or the builder of the Great Pyramid,
becomes Klmfll or, more oflen, Cheops, as the
Grech rendered il. '1tls system provides an artificial

pronunciation as a practical means 10 read an Egyp-
tian text, but nOl the lroe phonetic V'.tlue of the
....-ortls.
The meaning of Egyptian words l'hows that the
primitive vocabulary of the language was 10 a large
~tent identical wilh that of semitic IOnguel': for
e~ample, Jh (Arabic II/bb), hear1; .~p.1 (Ambic $if-a.I),
lip; idn (Ambie 311~11). ear; L~, written IU. but 8, S las
(Ambic IiS~II). tongue; d. h;\lId. as valuc of the hand
hiemglyph (Ambil.: yaJ); My, to 5uckle (Ar;.,bie lady.
woman's breast); !!..h' (Ambil.: 'jfbfi'). finger; gl.r.~, gao
7.e1Je (Arabic lal,l~, ass, ga7.el1e); ~lId (Ambic ~irJ).
ape; zJb (Arabic !!.iJb). jackal; sll! (Ambic $<lb'·a).
seven; ",sI~ (Arabic "'liSt) 10 be wide; I",,, (Arabic
lawII). color. I]sb (AI'::lbic ~1U5lJb), to calculale; ","'t
(Arabic mdt. yamtit : ",aM), 10 die; ~m", (Arabic
~II"''''. yal]wllm : ~llImm). to be hoc.
There arc also Inaoy words in Egyplian thai are
not found in any Semitic IangU;lge, One might §Up-
pose that Ihey belong 10 the African 5umlr",lum of
the language. lixnmples of such words arc I,,'. chin;
111~, nose; !!.t. belly; ;'UII. skin. hide; Jhw. elephant;
IIImy, gimfTe; /IIV!. crocodile; 5tJ. turlle; 1Il1l\\'. dove;
blry, date (fruit); Ip. wood; ml!'. flax; 111(/11', \() spe:.k;
IIIlIm, to e:.t; zwr. 10 drink; I.lllr.~y, to sit; \\I·b. to be
pure; ib3, 10 dance; W/.HII, 10 repc:.t; und !!tJb. to kill.
The grammatical clemenlS of Egyptian correspond
10 those of the semitic languages. The original fonn
of somc of them ha" been reconslnJcted. l'uch as
~.t. ending of feminine nouns: .(; (not WOllen in
ancienl Icxts. tIller indicated by ....). cnding of the
masculine plural: ~y (written ,y), ending of lhe dual;
./y (written -y) ad~'Ctlve ending (cf. Arabic ·fy as in
'arab-iy, Arabic: hind.fy, Indian; turk·ly, Turkish). The
endings of the pcrwnal pronouns re5emble Ihose of
Semitic (pal1icufarly of Akkadian). with the sole ex-
ception of ·1 (probably .Ii) for the pronoun of the
third.pt:r=n masculine singular "his." The verbal
prefix s· (pronounced .~a·) forms eausntive vetVs,
such as lV'h. to be pure. s-II"b (·stl\\l'tlb). to puriFy.
also wrillcn s"& (+sO'ab); compare this with the caus-
ative prefix oW· in Babylonian. sa· (Assyrian). The
prefix 1tI_ (with different vowels) forms names of
place (nomina lOCi), namel' of instnJlllClltS ("Qmiml
instrumtllti), and passive pal1iciples, as in m·hr, low-
lying land, from ~r. under; 1tI.J.!3.t, balance, from I!Jy,
to weigh: m.~lm.l. closed receptacle. from J!tm, to
close. to seal; m'~l';. dung (d. S :04'!f'6; +1]1I;r~.l.
ancienl +~a,j-a.t).
The position of Egyptian Ihus resembles that of
Mbugu, a language spoken in Tanumi" combining
Bal1lU grammar with a largely non' Bantu vocabu·
lary. In Mbugu "finger" is ki·/Shaa (plural, vi·lshaa);
ETYMOLOGY 119
in Bantu it is ki-dole (plural. I'i-dole). The grammati,
cal prefixcs hi, (singulllr) and vi- (plural) are alike,
bul the words for "linger:' ·uJraa in Moogu :.nd
.Jole in Bantu (Swahili). arc different. The specific
Mbugu words derive from Somali, lraqw, or other,
still unknown languages (Tucker and Bry:.n, 1974).
Terminology
Coptic dhllects (Ire dIed according 10 lhe system
devised by Kassel' (198011-b, 1981): A is Akhmilllic;
B is Boh:.iric; I: is Fayyumic; L is Lycopolit;1I1 or
Ly\:OoDiosl'>Olitan; At is Mcsokemic; S is &hidic; and
(not a dialect) 0 is Old Coplic.
"Radicals" 3re, .as in the Semitic languages, the
stem consonants of a word. E&Yplian ""I. to open, is
a biradical vem, and sdm. 10 hear. a triradical one.
The radicals of a word are called a "skdcton": the
skeleton of B, S C«ITlI, to choose, is stp. "Emphatic"
a.~ a phonetic tcrm mcuns al1iculated with an aclion
of the tongue IowaI'd Ihe soft palatc combined with
a contraction of the vocal cortls. As a grammatical
lel1l1, "emphatic" means a durative or repcatell ac·
tion. an action carried oul by several subjt:cts or on
scvel'al objecls. 1) f.lo. 10 do continually. is Ihe em-
ph;llic form or JJ Irl. to do.
Egyptian reconstnJl.:tcd forms are preceded hy an
asterisk: +mi!ir, god; ·IIQ!"r-a.I, goddess; +sll~im, 10
he:.r. +tral!nl, to be strong. Still older for'ms take a
small circle: ·sat!!Il, to hear. ·lIal!"t, to be l'lrong.
Archaic fomlS are preceded by quotation marks:
-
"SCldm-u. to hear; ",rahA/·u, to be slroog.
.
Periods of the Egyptian Language
The development of Ihe Egyptian language com·
prises four main periods:
Proto-Egypllan (4000-3000 1J.c.). Prehistoric civil·
izalions of Amra (Neg."\da I), Ger7.a (Negada II).
Merlmda, etc. Formalion of the Egyptian hmguage.
No written documenL~.
Allchmt Egyptlall. Lllnguage of the Old Kingdom
(approximately 3000-2100 D.C.). Shol1 inscriplions.
religious and biographic lexts. TIle Pyrnmid~, Ihe
most famous of which are those of Khufu (Choops).
Khafre (Chcphren), and Menkure (Mykerinos), at
Gi1.l'1 (2545-2457). Pyramid texts, beginning with
Unas (Onnus) (2310-2290).
Middle Egyptian. Classical period of the Egyptian
language, mainly during the T.....d fth Dynasty (seven
kings. l;alled Amenemhel or Sesostris) (1991-1785
II.C.). After this dynasty, decline, invasion of the Hyk,
50S (1650-1553 II-C.). The classical language remainl'
in usc for religious tCJtIS until the Roman period.
120 ETYMOLOGY
Late Egyplhm, also ealled New Egyptian. Mainly
thl' language of the Eighteenth I>ynasty (kings
mUlled Thutmosc and Amenophis, and queen mUlled
Hatshepsu\ 01" lia.shpl·swc) and the Ninctl~nth I)y.
nusty. Latc Egypllan shows more amnity wilh Coptic
Ihnn Ihe preceding periods of Ihe language: definile
and indetinile at1ide, beginning of the analytic ver-
b.,[ fonns. The TWellly~olld Dyna..\ty is Uby;.m
(kings named Osurkon. Shoshenk, Takclot: 946-
720): the Twenty·fifth Dynasty L\ from Kush. capital
at arat" in Nubia. with small puintl-d pyr,lIl1ids
(Shabako. Sebichos. Taharb; 713-655). Im"J,Sion of
the Asliyrian.\, then Penoi<tu domination (Cambyse:;.
Darius I, Xef:ll,CS I, DariLL\ II; 525-404) and, aFter a
shon period of independence, a second Pen;ian
domintlliun (Al1ax.erxcs llI, Duritis Ill: 342-33Z).
History of Coptic Etymology
nle lin;l allempts to establish the relations be-
tween Coptic and other lauguagl'S were made by
Ignazio Rossi (1808) before the de<:iphemlcnl of Ihe
hlerogJyphs by Jean·Fran~ois Champollion in \823.
Russi. who was an excclh:nt $cmitis!. comp3red
Coptic word.. with related expn:s....ions in SCmitic
(Hebrew. Ar.... naic. Ambie). l..lllin, and Greek. 111e
corrl'Spondcnce of S, B las. tongue, to Hebrcw lll.Mtl
and Arabic Iislll1 was firsl nuled by him.
The fundamental work was dOne by Champollion,
whose Grtllllllwire {-gyptie/lllf! (1836- 1841) contilins
hundn:ds of etymologies. He even transcr'ibed Egyp-
tian words not with the Lalin but with the Coptic
alphabet. A'i the Egyptians wrote no vowels. the
Egyptian foml is oflcn shorter than the Coptic one:
Egyptian n1, bUI Coptic ratl, name.
Champollion's successors Imnscribed Egyptian
word\ with Latin lellel1i, a system thaI was several
times modified. '111C syslem pn:semly used is the
tmnscription system of thc BerN" Wi)rterb,jC"
(Emmn aIld GnlptlW, 1926-193 I), wilh Ihe sole cx·
s
ccption of the sibilants (s voiced • to vuiceless •
.~). Spio::gelbcrg's KOfJlis<:hes HlUlllw/jrtubllcir (1921)
groups together all the then available etymologies. II
is alr.mgcd in three colul1lrui. The lirst column con-
lains the Coptic words and fomlS according 10 the
different dialects (Old Coptic and four di<tlects; .4, B.
P, S): Ihe second, Ihc meaning, as well as the con·
structions and compositions; and lhe third, the hie....
oglyphic or dcmotic prototypes. So B i M (masc.),
giant (plural, iM) is derived from Egyptian 'JfJfJ,
Apophis drngon, In hieroglyphic scl'ipt with the spc'
clfic determinative (dragon wilh many twistings,
each twisting cut by a knife).
nlough Westcndorf's Koplischcs Iftllltl",fjr/erbilch
(1977) is just called a dictionary. it contains all the
elymologil'1> known al tltat time. It is fill' richcr and
more exact lImn Spiegelberg's work and distinguish-
es Old Coptic and fille Coplle dialects (A. 8, F, A2. S).
Etymologies arc given In Egyptian, demotic, Semitic
languagt.'S (Akkadian, I-h::brcw, Aramaic, Arabic.
etc.), and African languages (Nubian, Berber.
BeQauye. etc.) as well as in European languages.
Jaroslav CernY's CoP/it: EtYlIWlogical Diclionary
(1976) conlains many new l'tymologies. The author
was a well-known spedalisl in Late Egyplian and
dcmotic. Exploring the countless ...."Orks of carly
EgyptQlogists in ordcr 10 lind out who luad first suc-
ceeded in idemifying the ancient Egyptian or demot·
ic ancestur of a Coptic wor'd, Cerny uddel! Dcv:lud's
notes to iris own malcr;a!. His guiding principle w::Js
to adopt only etymologies that he considered eer~
tain, Pl'ob:'lbie. or at lea,\t possible.
Vycichl's l)iCliOlllrui~ ilylllofogiquf! de lu lunf!,IIe
cop/e (1983) is mainly concerned wilh the phonelic
and semantic changes that Coplic word~ have under·
gonc during their history. Thus, B HIIOy, and S
HQOy, w.ller. comes from Egyptian IIIII', which lk.~
rives from the skeleton //l-II'-y, also found in all Se-
mitic lanb'llageS. S. 8 COli, bl'Other, is not considered
a bil'lldical nUl.ln (OSllll), bUI a tlimdieal one (°StIllY-
awl. So is S ~, Jay, deriving from o/wnIJ·UIl',
laler 0",,31-1'·/1111 (cr. plural A 2f'(lY from o""rill'·lI'·{tl.
Reconstruction of the Egyptian protOtypes of Coptic
words: S IfOYTll, god: °ll(illr, S lfTure (fem.), god·
dess: O"u!M.a.l, a liO-called "intemnl" feminine (vo......
el change f:a as in Ethiopian (abib, ..... ise, (abbab
(fern.}). Etymologies include Egyptian. Semitic, Afri·
can, and some Gn:ck and utin.
Egyptian and Coptic Forms
Autochthonous Coptic Wtlrds derille from Egyptifon
pl'Ototypcs written in hieroglyphic script, a.~ a rule
without vowels. Coptic vowels help to recunstruct
the ancient ror'lllS. Thus, B, 5 r).Ii, n;lme, corre-
sponds 10 Egyptian nI (wtiuen without vowel). But
the primiti~ foml "",.IS, il is now known, not Om"
but °rill, as ancient i developed in dosed syllables
inlO a (c£. VQCA$ltlAR'I' Of' SEMmc ORIGtN). A compar·
ison of somc Egyptian and Coptic fonns follows:
,
rr.t. eye L~. .
!!.r.l, hand
B """
Km.I, F..gypt B XHHI
IIU(y).I, to give birth B Htel
;;y.I'~IYIII./, wonran n C-~lHl
 ETYMOLOGY 12\

"....
1I~1. to be SI rong IJ lfqlOT (b) slK)I' a: long I:
nJU, man
.In, brother
Itts.t·l, 10 gh'e him birth:
$11,1, sisler ""'"
IJ eamt
S MJ.C.-r'f
m, name: S rJ.ll
11I5./,to gh'e binh: S tltC6
m·f, his name: S rlN1f"
VII, blood LJ ellO'1
llo/-I, to lift him: S .:o.CT1f" It-I, to lift: S XICO
•
Scthe (1899. pp. 16-18) combined in his "Vel~
bum" the Egyplian eonsonanLS and the Coptic vow· Tentative reconslructions: "I.'~l-ro.\:, thy face, and
els. This procedure allowed a bcUcr understanding "elJ·ri.~ell, your face; ·"ak, to Ihee, and °llt"!e", to
01 the primitive word fomlS. It must. however. be you; ·"em·mtik, with IhLoc, and "lIcm.mt'!l.'II, wilh
borne in mind that there may be a I:(IP of more th,ln you; ·mri~··'ef, to give him birth, and °/lli_sel, to give
thn.-e thou!iand years between the consonants and hilth; ",atl, nOlme, llnd °ri'l1cf, his nOlme; "~M'I('f, 10
the \"owels. TIle Stlllctun: of Ihe above words can be lifl him. and "Ii-Uf. 10 lifl.
represented as follows: i1r~.I. eye; dare.I, hand; The diffcrence between H .. t and I = 1 has to be
KtrtlU, Egypt; miU.t, to give binh; ~t(y)Ime.l, woman; e:l:plained, as bolh vowels stand in open syllables. II
illlJOt, 10 be Strong; rome!, man; s<m. brother, sCme./, .. l derives from atldent I, as in the t'nding of the
sistl'r; eV1of, blouu. nistm·,.djcctivt's, while I .. I, cqually long, wa~ pri·
marily II shon vowel and bUI secOOl.brily lenglhened
Long lind Short Vowels: a and A in open syllables.
Then': is no doubtthal the vowel ....'as primarily not
Sttlle discovered that there wa~ 3 relalion bctwL"C'n
a, as ancicnt a is represented by 0 in dosed syllablC$
vo.....e1 quantity and syllable struclure-stressed vow· and by i) in open ones. 11 is now known thaI Ihe
els were long in open syllables and shon in closed
primitive vowel wa..~ (I) long i, (2) shol1 i. It was a
ones, thus:
long i as in the ending of the nisba.adjectives: 'J3.I.y,
hean: S tilT; ~13.1·y-f, his; healt: S ttl .... (d. Arabic
C"OSED
ending -I)'). On the other hand, S et<I6, pitch, derives
~(J.n.t, hand i:I,.IjOI, 10 be slrong from °vlel. andcnt fonn till (cf. Arabic tift). Thc
rome!, man sOli, bl'Other Egyptian wurd til is not atlc.o;led, but is found in
sO·lIe.I, siSler ih,"O!, blood Gcrber 1,H1guages, fu!' C:l:ample, Kabyle !i-tc{!, pitch
(Algeria). from ,mcienl °/a·vfl (ta- formcr definile
B ~TIlll l~ kill" and B J.'1'~6'I is "he killed
"((I
anicle, with metaphony li-).
him:' B ;;.Tell ha~ a long (} in an open syllable, and
B ~ a shon one in a dosed one. The vowels 0
The u-Vowels
anc.11D derive from ancienl a-sounds. as ean be seen
from cuneifurm transcriptions of the Middle Babylo- The vowels corrcslK)ndingtu ancicnt u were more
nian pe!'iod (before 1000 B.C.). diflicuh 10 delcet, but il is Cct1ain th;lt S, B MilT, ten,
As a mailer of fact, most of lhe cxamples quoted cOlTCSponds 10 cuncifonn "'",!". The real I)ronunci·
are more complicaled 10 explain Ihan they sc.'Cm at ation of the II in chis word must have been ii as in
first glance. Here one must just menlion lhat Ihe German hiJflich, til as in French fell, or ir as in
I1Idicals of ;r.I, KItt.I, and SII wcre nol simply i" kIll, British bi~ll. Anothcl' Cl\.<;e of OIn ancient II is fOllnd in
and 51! but it)', kmm, and sny, CON docs nol dcrivc the word for "woman," O'I(y)ii'IlIIl.1 (plural, °ilYlt,II'
from "SOli, ancienl ·.~m" bUI from "smtyaw, and so \\It,I), d. S C'2lMlI (pluml, tIOHO). The Ii in the singu·
00. lar W"dS pronOllnccO like ii in Gennan Iii, and u in
French pu'. AOO(her good ei(;lmple is S Tl'tr, oven
The I-Vowels (cf. I\kk.-.dian tirliir-II. from °lini"11 or 5i01.). Rmy-)'.I,
Another correspondence of shon and long \"owels le"r. is S f'R'ellll, lhe plural of which is rR"mooyo with
is found in the following c~s: o and, in A, rR"61oyo with 6, probahly tIll old V
(a) shon a: long t: (short). TIlese examples shuw thai 1('VOWels can be
represented in Coptic by el, 0, H. and I.
¥-«, thy face: S "FrJ.k ~Ir-!!I,
)'Q\lr face: S :!fHTlf
II'.\:, 10 thee: S "J.k ''''/1.
to you: S "IITlf Semantic Changes
intl·k, wilh Ihee: S IiR"HJ.K inn·tn, with you: In nmny cases, Ihe meaning of a wurd changes
S NRMHTlf
in thc course of lime; thus, 8 iMtiMt and S
122 ETYMOLOGY
»lITTG, which alwaY" appear without an m1ide as a
proper noun to mean "hell," derive £rom Egyptian
i"m.l-y.1 (probably ·yamirl.l·r.l), west, where the sun
sets, site or the underwurld, the empire of the de·
ceased, the realm or Osiris, judge of souls. In Coptic
the wonl is employed in the Christian sense or
"hell." In Egyptian imll signifies "right, dexter" and
"western:' while iJb.l.y is "left, sinister" and "<:ast·
em"; the Egyptians luokl-d south....oard to lake their
bearings.
Old Coptie lAl. soul. and S, 8 uf, night ra~n
<nycticorax) or screeeh owl, Ocrive rmm Egyptian bJ
(probably 'bU, then .'Jl), ~ul, l'Cprescnted by the
hiel'oglyph or the ;lIbiru (Mycleria cpllippiorllyndms
scm'ga/crlsis), a big stol'klike bini now found in the
Sudan and reeugnizable hy hl.\ wallies. This notion
of "soul" W(lS so closely connected with Egyptian
pnganism that the word wns replaced in Christian
times by S, 8 tyXH (as in Greek), tr'aditionally pro·
nounced ebsika.
8 XWill. S KHtHI (fern.), F..gypt, always without a
definite a'1ide. is rdatt:d to 8 XHOM, S KI1OH, be·
come black. Thus. Egypt ilO the "black one," that is.
the "black land," SO called arter the black Nile mud
or the inundation, as opposed to dJr.I, thc "red one"
or "the red land:' meaning the desert. The radicals
of the verb were k·m-m, and 8 Khimi or S Ki",c
dcri\'cs rmm the adjective ·lwmm-6.1 or ·kumm-a.I,
then ·K[;m·a.t (rem.), black. The name of the desert
wa., probably *tla.fT'-ll.1 (felll.), red.
S tu."x, S tu.l.Xtl (ma.o;c.), car, derives rrom Egyp-
tian m-s!!.r, ear, from the verb S!!..r. to sleep, because
it is on the ear that one sleeps. Af·slJ..r employs the
prelill m, which is used to lOignify place (nQmilla
loci), a'i in Semitic languages (A.....lbic maklab, office,
f''Gln k(llab, he wrote). The plimitive wonl for "car"
still occurs in the Collin Tellts as ldll (d. A''abic
'IIIJ..II, Hebrew 'OUII, Aranmlc ·<:~II.Il).
8, S M6(Q)'K, perhaps, comes from Egyptian bill
rl!.k. thou dost not know, Inter pronounced 11/(\11)
JI!.k.
B tloyou, S "0'('1(1, good (adj.), derive.~ from Egyp·
lian "Ir, beautiful, good. The word is written with
the hieroglyph for "the hellrl llnd the windpipe"
(Gardiner. 1927, p. 465, Sign list f 36). Hompullon,
a GI'~ck aUlhor who wrole :I. book on hieroglyphs,
ellplains the sign as J/,Qrdia and pharyru:
(llierog/yphica 2.4). The autho,' is not sure that
Gardiner's translation is corn:ct. In Greek, kard(a
signifies the "heart" or "the upper opening of Ihe
stomach," and pharyru:, "esophagus" or "windpipe."
Gardiner's translation is improbable, as there is in
foct no connl"Ction between the heart and the wind-
pipe, while "esophagus" and "(upper opening of)
stom{lch" makes good
sense. In spite of this. it is possibk- thai II/r may have
meant "windpipe" too because a similar wonl is
found in A.....lbic, tlatv meaning "trumpet:' this lauer
lI:ml being related to Akkadian Ilipm, which means
"offshoot, sprout" or "descendant, son." Nfr primari-
ly meanl "young"; note nfr·"" adolescents, and 11/1'.1,
maiden; in Delber (Shill}a, southwestern Morocco)
$bJb, beautiful, come £rom Arabic Jabilb, youth.
8 lIlifi nnd S "ufe derive rrom 'ui/fir, '/Ii/(ii (verbal
lldjt."Ctive - prescnt participle). One might expect B
',,6fi, and S *,,(jfe, but the vowel (Ii instead of 6) is
due tu postnao;ali7.ation. '111e feminine fonn is 8 1I0lri
01' S 'rolre, lldvantage, rrom ~II(1fir.a.I, then ·'li/fr·Il'!
(neutral meaning of the rcminine form).
8 or<j>m, S rnB (masc.), temple, today birba in
Egyptian Arabic (plu!".ll, bllrllIJD, delives from rJ·pr
or, more ellaetly, from ·rJpr(y./), door of coming out
(i. e. thc "false door" of Egyptian mastabas repre·
M!nting the deceased coming out of his tomb to
receive the offerings brought by his relatives). The
verb-'ll noun B -pci, S 'pc is the regular r(lrm or
·piry-a.I, coming out. later pronounet.-d ·piJy-a.l.
Coptic has two forms: (I) B +trt, S 06If'(l from *piri.l,
(2) S ~ from *piry-Q./ where the r has been recon-
stituted by :maIogy. The original meaning of the
wonl is "funerary tcmplc" with a "false door:' and
not the ~W.I tI!,", god's house.
5, 8 Ctl, yes, deriVt"l> £rom I~ian S.I, it (nt.'Utcr
pronoun), probably deri\'ed £rom sy (*si)'a), she. One
may compare Provem;al oc, yes, in SOUlhcm France
rrom L...tin /roc, thai one. Also French aui, yes, de-
rives from h(lC iIIud or a similar ronn (Dauzat, 1938,
p. 520).
8 0)'1'11, S CtyIlIll!O (masc.), pril'llt, comes from
Egyptian w'b. pdelOt, from ",'b, to ~ pure, which
equals S, B oyoll from ~w(l'Qb, ·"'/I'6b. The w'b
priClOtlO were the lowel' priests and the ~ml "!r, god's
serv,wt, WitS a "prophel." B 0)'1111 and S OYllItl!O lire
Christian pI'iests, while D, S 20tlT is hut a pagan
prieM.
o oyttl),M S oytl),M (fem.), right hand (noun),
right, dexter (adj.), is from thc old verb IV'IIII, 10 eat,
which is in Coptic B, S O)'CDM. The primitive mcan·
Ing or the wonl was the "ealing hand" a'i opposed to
the lert hand, which was used for unclean purposes.
"here are two different nominal fonns in Coptic: 8
OyUU.H deriVt"l> from an emphatic paniciple -watlim,
then ·watm(m. while S oytUH derives from a simplc
participle ·"'emim, then 'wQtI(m, ealing (hand).
Thcre art' many African languages thai call the right
hand Ihe "eating hand:' sueh as Logone Uttii, right,

From zem, to eM, Fulan! dyw"/:Q tlyU1IIQ, eating hand
(i.e., the right hand), E.....he iW.t!II-si, right hand (Iii·
erolly, the hand (sl1that eats [414J something r,il/n,
S.....ahili mk.ono ",a kl/Ua, righl hand (lilenilly, hand
of eating).
B tllIU. S tlillfl, poor (adj), derives from F.gyptian
~~" to be hungry, which is B, S tKO. A "hungry
man" is a "poor mtln." In Egyptian Arabic onc find!;
the same idea: "ds la'Ii",,,, hungry people, are the
"poor" and lliis !/lVIi"'II, salialed people, arc the
"rich." The fonn gUdlllll Siands for 'ida"i"
(tawlinill).
B tt:lO, S tTO (ma.sc;;.), horse, comes from Egyptian
~[r, ..... hieh primarily means a "yoke of oxen:· from
~[" to fix, to attach: compare Arabic ~atar, 10 tighlen
(a knot, etc.)_ Afler Ihe Ilyksos period. Jpr signifies
aho a pair of horses and even a horse. The radicals
of the ....,ord wen: ~t,. then ~ti, hence B zoo. An older
fonn, '~ty, has been kept in Beja. a Hamitic Ian·
guage spoken betwl'CO the Nile Valley and Ihe Red
Sea, as hatdy.
Some Examples or Phonetic Changes
Influence or i. " I), I), !!_ The preceding shon
vo.....el is alwa)'li a, a..<; in S c.u..... 10 bring up, nour-
ish, Egyptian 'sa'"a~, to make 1i\"C (So',,!!); compare
5 cooyTlJ, 10 erecl, Egyptian 'sadwan, to make
streteh (S..JWII_ then Hl'dll, with metathesis).
Nualb.allon, In Illost cases the groups t1Cl' and IW
are replaced in Coptic by HOy and 1iOy. This is due
to the nasalizing innuencc of", and II in an earlier
period of the language, as in Vai, a langu;lge now
spoken in Liberill. In many languages, na.<oalized il
bccome~ 0, a.~ in Proven~lll femu, wife, and vaeo,
cow, from La1in fembwm (ace.) and vaecam (acc.).
The intermedi;Hy f0l'l11S were 'femil, 'w/ca, or ~im.
In Coptic, cllceplion~ arc rare, among them S
f»ffl)NO, door post, frOln Egyptian 'ramm6,,·a./
(fern.), carrier: and the Sending ·anN, you, :IS in
FrMCllTlf, you (ace.).
Influence or Final ·r. In most e:L~CS late Egyptian
.iir eorrcspond~ in Coptic, not, as OIiC might cllpect,
to -1»1'. but to "OYI', liS in 5 ~fOYI', 10 be quiet, from
'hardraw; comrmrc 1J 26ft, 10 be quiet, qual. B
:o'(fQIOY, from 'harw-dw-ey, then "hawr-,hv-q. &-
ceptions due to dialectic innuenccli include 5 211(',
Horus; 5 'Ul/Jf, hou~, in 5 Xt;N60l/Jf, roof (liternlly,
head of house); lind verbal nouns such as S cwr, to
display, spread ou(.
Influence of Final h. In Bohairie, somelimes also
in olher dialects, final -1ft and -Gll! are replaced by -6:
and '02 with long and open vowels, here transcribed
ETYMOLOGY 123
t and ~, as in S IlQlt, B ~, to I'each, arTive, gU;l!. S
1-12, n 4'6:.
Influence of wand y In Dlphlhongs.
5 IUJ, to me - IIay: H "'II - "'~y (wilh short e)
S MAUIN, sign - may": B .... UUI - mL'Y"i (wilh short
,)
S HOEtT, way • l//3)'t: Ii ....T - moyt (wilh short
u)
S MOOy, water - m:"": 8 MIllOy - mow (with
shon 0)
Notc that final '3)' rcmaim; unchanged: 5 ol'Ol, to
me - crJY - 8 0f0I - eP";))' (with;) - shan open 0).
The c:lSoC of S to&(, d:ly, is differenl. TIlis word
derives from Egyptian '''am'aw (written lIrw), then
ha3waM'. In Ihis case, a and II' were nOI in direct
colliact and therefore B 6zOOY, (probably a-, 10 + B
zOOY) - phon. noJw_
Change from n 10 y. The group 11$ or 111 may be
replaced by ys or yl, as in S 11f'~ - S IlfJo.ElGJ, from
Egyptian I"' 'n~, usually translated "house of life"
but probably "house of documenL~,. Also, 5 :talC,
Ahm'is (nomilla lOCI); compan: modem MmHiya af.
Madilla. thc ancient If"'.t 11I1 Ny-sw.t, liO\..lSC of the
Prince, Assyrian cuneiform (Mil) Hf.llf_i,,_jf - phon.
"lillfllsi, then "I.filliysi - (lillls; - S tIlIIC.
Meillthuls (Change of Po.lllon: AB:BA). Ex.am-
pies are Egyplian 'sudwall, 10 make streich, then
'suwdall - S cooyrii, 10 ereel, "rilly-u·P. his foot.
then -rid(y).u·f - S fJt.-N, his fOOl. But A fUM, his
fOOl, del'ives from -ri:;d·I/-f - -,M-II·f and the varianl
A f<iG'M, from ·ridY-l/·f, -rldd·l/·f, lhen '';3d·,,-{.
IlIphlhong developmcnl In Coptic feminine and
plural rorm•. B .x.llMOy;lo. (1ll1lSC.), cilinel, n .x.ll"'AyM
(fem.), she..carncl. D CtlJt.~, bond, fetter, plural, CtlJt.Yt.
B tlliX, (ma.~.), falcon, had a feminine f01'n1 'bllyki;
compare the feminine propcr noun Thhaikhi.i
(ePa~X~<;) in Greek. ·l1te plural of S tlOyTO, god,
Egyptian ""i!lr, is 5 (JNTllr and eNTJt.tr, frolll ">law-u.
The Group tr Arter Streued Vowels. Ellamples
of the development of Egypti;," I" rr, J, follow:
11m', carmi: 8 (JtOl', S (JlOOr
IIItr.l, noon: H Mel'l, S M66f6
plr", to sec him: B +0£"1, 5 'I/OOf"
Reconstnlction: 'yalralV, thcn 'yarrt/IV (written
ym' in the Eighteenth Dyna.~ty), Ihen 'ya3raw or
sim., 'mit,·a.l, then ·mirr·/I.t, Ihen ·miJ'·II.t, ·palN'·f,
Ihen '/fflrr-I/-f, -paJr-lI-f, or sim. H .p.p, S IlGKlIf'6,
10 dream. is a rloconslitulion after 'palr-, the status
proPlO'" ill alis.
[See also: VOCAUULARY. AFRICAN CONTACTS WITH AlJ.
TQClmlONOllS COPTIC: VOCABULARY. COI"JO.ARADlC: vo.
124 FAYYUMIC
CAIIUI..o\RY. COP'Y().GRF.;F.K: VOCABU...... RY. CUNFJfORM TRAN·
SCRIPTIONS OF Pll.OTOTYpllS OF Al!I'OCHTHONOUS COPTIC;
VQCAOU ...... RY OF IOGYI'I'Ii\N ORIGIN. AtJTOCHTllONOUS COP·
TIC: VOCAUU...... KY OF SEMmC ORIGIN, AUTOCHTHONOUS
COPTIC.]
BIBWOGRAPIIY
Brugsch, H. K. Grolllll1aire dtnlOliqu~. Paris, 1855.
Cerny, J. Coplie Etylllological lJieliollory. Cambridge,
1976.
Champollion, J. F. (the Youngel·). Gralllllloiro egyp·
lit:mrc. 2 vols. Paris, 1836-1841.
Daulat, A. DictlQlllwln bY"'Q!ogiqw~. Paris, 1938.
Devaud, E. £JlId~s d'elymo1O/:ic COpl~. Friooul'g,
1922.
Edel, E. Alliigyptischl Grammalik. Rome, 1955-1964.
Erman, A. and H. Grapow. WOrIe-nllleh du iigyp-
tisch~tI 5proche-. 5 yol. leipzig. 1926-1931.
Erman, A. j(gyplisehe- Grammotik, 4th ed. Dedin,
1928.
-CC~. NClliigyplisclre Grammillik, 2nd ed. Lcip:£ig,
1933.
Gardiner, A. Egyptillll Gramftlf/r, Heilig Oil /tllrodI4C'
tioll to the- Study of Hi~roglyphics. 3rd cd. Lolldon,
1927.
Horapollon. Hilroglyphica, ed. F. Sbordane. Naples,
1940.
Junker, H. Grammatik der DePld~ratute. Leipzig,
1906.
Kassel', R. "PmICgomllnes a un t'SSai de classifica·
tion systematique dt'S dioleetes et subJiolectes
coptes selon les crithes de III phonctique, I, Prin·
cipes et terminologie:' MflsecJIl 93 (1980a):53-112.
" .. " II, Alphabets et systcmcs phonctiques:'
Mllsion 93 (198Ob):237-97). "... , III, S)'SfemC5
orthographiques et catCgories dialcclalcs:' M,.ston
94 (1981):91-152.
Korostovtsev, M. A. Egi~lSkij jalJ'k. Moscow, 1961.
Lefebvre, G. Grommain de /'egyp/iell classiqlfl!!, 2nd
L-d. Cairo, 1955.
ROMi, I. Elymologiae Aegyp/ioCCll!. Turin, t 808.
Sethe, Kurt. Vas Aegyptisc!re Verb"m 1m A!/llegyp·
lische,r, Nellaegyptisdren IlUd Kop/isclreu, Vol. I.
Leipzig, 1899.
Spiegelberg. W. Koplisches lIa"dwlJrterouc1,. Heidel·
berg, 1921.
;:--;-_ Demotischll Grammatik. Heidelberg. 1925.
Tucker, A. N. and M. A. Bryan. '%e Mbugu Anoma·
Iy:' Dul/Ill;n of Ih~ Schoof of Oriell/ol and African
Studies 37, no. I (1974):188-207.
Vergole, J. Grimmlll;re caple, Vol. la, fll/roduct;otl,
p!rC:J/llftiqfle et phunolog;e, "lOrpholo~ie .rymhe·
matique (Mrllc/ure des seman/tmes), partie
sytrc1rronique. Louvain, 1973. Vol. Ib, Morpho/ogic
symlrimolique (.~Irucmn de3 stmall/cmes), partie
diachroniqu~. Louvain, 1973. Vol. 2a, Morphofogie
$}?lfagmaliqlle, syllllUe, partie sytrchronique.
Louvain, 1983. Vol. 2b, MorpllOlugie .\)'Ilfugm(l/ique,
pllr/ie dioclJrmliqfle. Louvain, 1983.
Vycichl, W. Die/iull/lOire Ctymo!ogique de III IlIIrgue
cuple. Louvain, 1983.
Westcndorf, W. Kop/;sc1,es Uundlt'orlerlmclr,
Ixoroeitd "uf Gnmd des Koptisc"~" I/cmdll'oner·
buchs von Wilhelm 5pilgdINrg. Heidelberg, 1977.
WEANF.R VYCIOIL
FAYYUMIC, The name "Fllyyumic ditllecl" (F) is
usually given to a typical variety of the Coptic lun·
guage belonging with M, lV, and V to the middle
Coptic major group (.see DIAI..OC'r.>. GROU!'ING AND MA·
JOR GilOlJPS OF and MESOKJ1\4IC). Conlrary to many
Olhers, this dialectal variety appear.; to be located
geographically wilh some certainty, in the region or
the ancient oasis of the FnyyUm (hcnce its n..me; d.
GEOGRAPHY, DIAlJ>C"rAL). This tenninology was inaugu·
luted by Stern (1880), bUI only became eSlablished
In the course of Ihe firsl decades of the twentieth
century. Before Stem, this idiom ....'as readily de·
scribed as BASHMURlC when it appean.-d in a "pure"
Siale, while the preference was to dCliignate it "Mid-
dle Egyptian" when its fonns were Ies& typical and
could be considered the hybrid result of cOlllamina·
tion by some neighboring dialect, above all SAHlV!C
(5) (this is ptll1icularly frcquenl within F5, the chief
subdjaled of P, four-fifths of the whole). II was then
supposed that Bashmurie wa.~ more especially the
language of the central and weslern 1>-111 of the
FayyUm, while 10 Middle Egyptian was auribull-d
perhaps thc caslern fringe of the Fayyiim and still
mo~ probably thc portion of thc Nile Valley to Ihe
east of the Fayyiim (also to the northeasl and south·
cast). After Stem, thc term "B.ashmuric" rapidly fell
inlo disuse, but "Middle Egyptian" (designating from
Ihat time lhe whole of F) mailllained itself for some
time longer, until the beginning of lhe twentieth
century; then it gave way 10 the prt:scnt terminology.
The study of Fayyumic is unfo'1unatcly seriously
complicated by the facl lhat its teltlS are published In
the most widely dispe~d plaees. In addition, as will
be seen Inter and as WOolS already remarked al the
dawn of this century (Asmus, 1904), cenunl F itself
is manifold and multifonn, just as much as the edi·
tions mentioned above, at lea.~1 if one takes inlO
account some of il~ sccond(lf)' charncteristics, so
thai model'l'l research distinguishes in il scvcral sub·
dialects (which. if need be. may be subdivided in
tum). Then: can be no question of entcring into all

these dernils here, and this arlicle will confine itself
to presenting the chid" varieties of F: these are F4 (of
limited allestation and the oldcst, fourth-sixth [sev-
enth?] century; principal texts publL~hed in Crom
and Kenyon, 1900; Gasclce, \909; some F46 fmg·
mcnts. among others, in Stem, 1885, pp. 30, 34, 35,
39. and n, p. 42); <Ind FS, h;lbilually considered by
the grammarians as Fayyumic par excellence (e.g.,
Till, (930), a variety very widely allested (fOlJr-fifths
or all ,.. .. 1'"4 + FS) but lhc documents of which are
rclatil~ly late (sixth-eighth (ninth?) century; edi·
tions are very scattered and numerot.ls; only some
appear in the bibliography below; for 1'56, sec
MUller, 1962). Anyone who wishes infol'mation on
the subdivisions of ,..4 and F5 (1'46: lind 1"55, 1"56.
F58, respectively) 01' on the minuscule and very mar·
ginul F8 ami F9, whieh will be mentioned only ex·
ceptionnlly helow, will lind some I'Udiments on the
subject in Ka.'i.~1' (198 t, pp. 101-102) nnd, above all,
In Diebner and Kasscr (1989).
It is appropriate to distinguish from "centml" F
(- F4 + F5) the following entities (which some per-
sist in indiscriminately calling "Fayyumic"): the sub-
dialect F7 (sometimes called "allcient Fayyumic," as
In Crum, 1939, p. vi, n. 3), which is clearly peripher.
al in relation to central I' (l'tlition of its sole witness,
Diebner and Kassc:r, (989) and, if not spedfically
pror.odialccrnl as a whole, at leasl somewhat archaic
In a few or its peculiarities. Dialcrt V, or Fayyumic
without lambdacism (solllelimes also called "South
Fa)')'Umic"), is still morc fCmote from F because it
does nOI show lambdacism. the chief characteristic
or F (importanl texl published in Lefort, 1952, pp.
32-34; the longest witness of V, P. Mich. Inv. 3520,
is still unpublished). Dialect W (or "crypto-Mesoke·
mic with South Fayyumil: phonology") is without
lambdacism, like V, and presents close tTlorphosyn-
tactic affinities with M (edition of il.S only text, Hus-
selman, 1962). Finally, HlAU:.et It (01' Hermopolitan
or Ashmuninic; its ,<;ole wilness, P. Morgan M 636, is
unpublished) is an entity mure uutside than inside
the FaYYUlnic dialectal group, being al once a M£SO.
DIALECT (belween V and 81) and a METAOIALECT (a
manifestatiOll o( the Coptil: language typically
evolved to the extreme). This advice will not appear
useless to one who notes that several authors. still
following CNm (1939). conti!lue to describe indis-
criminately a."i "Fayyumic" a vocabulary that it
would be preferable to classify under the Nbrics Fl,
V, Wand H.
As for M (MESOKEMIC, or Middle Egyptian), the
vocabulary of which was also fonnerly confused
with that of F etc.. but which saw il.S dialectal origi.
FAYYUMIC 125
nality and identity recognized by Kahle (1954, pp.
220-27). no one today thinks any longer of making
it Fayyumic (after the lexicographical publications of
Kasser, 1964 and 1966, and, above all, the meticu-
lous dialectal studies of Ouecke in Orlandi, 1974, pp.
87-108. and Schenke, 1978 and 198\).
I. Phonology
Ln Fayyumic. as in other dialects of the Coptic
language (a dead language and hence known today
only from the lexts), the majority o( the chal1l.Clelis·
tics perceptible appear at the level o( phonology,
which is exp1'es.~ thmugh orthogl1l.phy.
1.1 Cunllonanhl (Nut Including Glide.). The
slock of the consonants in FayyUlnic is lhal of the
majority nf the Coptic idioms (5 with {. ond M; see
AL~HAUL'1'S. COI'l'lC. Synoptic T:lble). In its alltochtho·
nous vocabulary, £ thus does nOt hove lhe 1r;1 of p
and i; the /'11.1 of P, i, A. and B: ur the aspirated
ocdusives IkJlf, Iph/. alld Ith/. and the aspirated
affricate I~h/, all Iypical uf B. It will be nOled that
some subdivisions of I' (F56 in a Illajority of cases,
£46 everywhere. as in 11) replace <I Ifj hy a &. which
probably has the value of Ivl rather than fbI (see
severol examples further on). Ftlrlhennore. F (with
V but not M; no example in W) assimllalCli 1st to /il
befofC IiI, as in 1', V~, field, btlt M COM (and 8
etc. C*C9Cl); F, V ~', bitter (cf. B ... ~'). bIIt M
(and S etc.) ctai6 bitterness. F (contrary (0 V, W, M,
with LA, LS, 8) assimilatcs 151 to III berore IC/. as in
"'.,exI, to speak (d. 8 1t.L.<(I, A, L6, ltOXo). but V, W
C61I. M (and lA LS) C6X6 (B UXI).
I' as well as V, W, M, and II (and almost all the
other Coptic idioms; see AU'HABETS. come) have in
their alphabet al once x I~I and 6/cl (8, 87 6/~h/);
however, Fl has only.x everywhere. even sometimes
writing X! where the rest of Fayyumie ele, writes x
(for exomple, "', V, W, M, If Nlo.6, large, hUI f7 Nlo..X;
F, v, M GIX, hand, htlt F7 XIX(~) [and sometimes also
XIX in V, it is troe; then one will note thc sUl'pl'islng
616 of H]; see Diebner' and Kassel', 1989). However,
the tr'Uly typical chllracleristic or F is its lambdacism:
while in (he autochthonous vocabulary of all lhe
other Coptic idiums (incltlding V, W, and 11) the
propol1ion of use of), /II and F Irl is III 30 percent
and Ir/70 percent. in I' (with F7) il is III 80 percent
and jrl 20 percent. This Illeans Ihat many words
written with r in 8, M, W. V etc. arc wriuen with ),
in 1'4, 1'5, Fl, (and £8. F9) alune, as in S fGIH6. M
FOf18, W, V rm", man. but F4, F5. Fl, M)tII and F8
.l.OHI; (ef. F9 CTAT(»,'. troobled, from F5 .-r~T6.l., M
~T.lofTf, 8 etc.... t Ofl " to trouble).
126 FAYYUMIC
A:s r'L-gards the presence or absencc of AWI'Il (pres-
ence marked by vocalic gemination in tOe onhogl'a-
phy; l;Ce GllMlNATlON, V(lCAUC), F and Ihe subdialects
of its group are profoundly divided: F5. F56, F58,
F46, with VS, H (and i, L etc.. .4, P, S) have aleph;
F4, F55. F7. with V4, WP) (and M, B etc.. G) do nOI
have it (see variou." ex.:lmplcs funher on).
1.2 Glides. The glidl'S arc thc least consonantal of
Ihe consonants. Fnyyumic hns IjJ and Iwl, as do all
the Coptic dialects- In any position IjJ is wrillen I in
F (cf. Kasser, 198Ja), as in leT, fathel~ ~I, way, road;
.l.lk, br'L'ad; 2.l.Ua, some; T.l.l)" to honor; ... r'. being.
However,/wl is alw.lys wdllen oy at the beginning,
'IS in oyt.lM, 10 eill; but elsewhere orthogr.lphk pro-
cedures diverge, and now oy will be written, now y
(sec Diconer .md Kasscl', 1989): F S"'y, glory; F
T.l.Oy... (rnol'c oflen than ""'y"'), 10 produce; ,..
l,aoy«, to know; F4, F5, 1-'56 (more rarely F46, F5
MHGOY) HHGY, there; F HtlOy, mother: F4 GGy.x,
hands; F llllOy, each other; F HIIOyf, to lhink; F
CllHOy, brother.;; P Gr(r}tlOy, kings_
1.3. Tonic Vowels (Not Including Sonants). As a
general rule, when the Ionic vowels ;U'C long, the
ol1hography of F is no different from that of the
other Coptic dialects (e.g" 1t._, lIlan; !'tOYIC, to rest;
IOH, 10 move; KIl', being; an exception is F, F7, V, 101
!'G, sun, oot 5, 1.. 8 rtl and A rt). On the contrary, F is
more clearly distinct in the onhography of the shon
tonic rowels, as outlined below.
Class o. SIlon normal whcn not final, e.g,. <:oW,
brother F, with F7, V, W, M (and L, A, bUi tX* 5, B);
bdorc f I not linal (in the dial~1 01' subdialcct that
presenres il), e.g., qtJ.Jt.Il', being F5, 1'56, 1'46, with V5
and H (without fl ......n' 1'4, with F7, V4, W, and AI;
but .,10011' L, S. 10011' A, and without fl i90fI' 0);
OY(lG8o', holy 1'5, F56 (withoUi rt (lye,' F4, with F7
and v, M; but oyJ.Jt.!', Hand L5, LfJ, S, oY.l.(.l.)l,(j' L4,
A and without rt oy... &' 8); before final Ihl, e.g.,
((l)HII.(l~, pain'" with 1-7, V, and M (but GHII.... ~ H lllill
R"K.l.~ t, A, S, B); before (potenti:.l) fin;11 /'I, e,g., Htl,
place F, wilh n, V, W, ;1J1d M (but M'" H-, place of F,
Fl, [V], W, M; H'" If and t, A, S. B) before 1(')1 or /'I
or f'jl ~€I, to rise (of a stllr), festival F5 (lilctl, M,
without /'I bUl with Iii qj61 1-7, V, W; bOl qI"'(S)16 L,
tJo,o A, qI)J 8, It... S). A.... a final (csp_ causative verbs),
e.g., T.l.K.\, dcstroy F with 1'7, V, W, and At, H (bul
T6KO L. A, T.uc:O 5, 8),
Class i. Shun nonnal, e.g., t4lT. silver F wilh n, V,
and M (and L, A, but tAT 5, B); before pronominal
Sllffix fJ! (fil1i(l-per.;on sing,), e,g.. "Ii, to me F4(?), F5,
F56. V, W(?) (with P, B, and "1(6)1 L), bul lillY F46
with M (and A, and IC..... H and S); all the other
per.;ons of this preposition wilh its SllffixC$, except
the second- and third.person plural, being vocali;(ed,
however, in lei F5,/el F4. V, W. M, L, A,lalll, 5, 8:
thus F5 (and F56) mil', ICIIK, 1.1, lal'f (mfll F5lS), "HC.
IIHH, '''IT(lH, '''IOy, F4 ifnI', 1l6K, 00, It(l'l, ICClC, I+(lH,
N6T6IC. 116)', F46 similarly (but \'ery itlcomplete) ICilY,
NGK, ( ••• l, Nn&, K6C, I __ . I, V, W(?) Iftli' (At NefJ, V,
W, 1.1 NQl., 1"1 (101 alone), 00'4, ooc, OOIC, 1.ITClIC, V, M
HIlly (W lUt.y), H 1Ut.I', H.uc:, I J, 1iU, IUt.C, 1u.N,
[ ... J, IC"'OY; likewise, F5 H6M11 ... , with. 1'4 ootffi"',
ctc.; bcfol'C fjJ followed by another cunson(lJlt, most
often Inl, c.g" Hllll1, sign 1", W, cf. HlMlUi P, MHltll 8
(but Htitilll M, HeiNe L4, tffi(s)IIiG A, aud H... GlII II. t.5,
LfJ, 5; a ease apal1 is Volti', upper pal1 (or also "low-
cr" except in A, P, B) F, F7, 2fnl' V, W, M, L, A, P, 8,
t!'.l.f Hand 5; before Ihl, e.g., IHItc,:1 F (with 8, and
1l(l2C(l L, A,S; cr. ll11tcC[t] and [IlII]2CCI F7).
Class c. Shon normal (including (ina\), e.g., OJ1UI1t.I,
daughlcr 1'5, OJlI1t.l (or II1IlMJ?) n, cf. II1llrS M (but
II1G(lfO l.s, /..6, A,S, 1I16r6 lA, 1I16rl B); HGTr", witness
F, V, W, M (and HHTJ'II H, bUI MR"TJ'G I~, A, 5, HUOf'Il
B); before Ih/, c.g" MOt', full F5, F4, F46, F7, V4
(with 8, and sometimes S), but HtIZ' F56 (with Hand
M, L. A. S); GI.e.t. eternity F, 1'7, V, IV (with M, 5, 8,
bul l)IHlt: H and .J.tlt~ L. A, P).
. .
1.4 Tonic SOlllln15. The sonants 1ft!I, III, Iml,
I?I, If/) are the least vocalic of lhe vowels. At thc
,
beginning, F has no Ionic sonant, and it is replaced
by its phoncmatic substitute, the COlTCSponding so-
norant C/b/, /II, Iml, Inl, Ir/), prcredcd by 6; it is
the same in V, panly also in F7; the case is not
am'Slcd in W; this sonant is, however, charncteristic
of M (thus, F, V llto"'t, 10 carry it; F7 m or GffT"!, H
IIffl, AI ffT"I)_ Elsewhere it will be fO\lnd lhal F5 (like
F7 and H, B but differing from V, W, AI and of
course from L, A. 5) has no tonic sonnnl. f4 shows a
single case or ~, to se,ve (without inverse cases
clearly belonging 10 F4). which lco.lds one to think
Ihat on this point 1'4 occupit.'S a pOsition intennedi,
llle between F5 (without thi5 sonant) and v, W
(which have now lhe sonant, and nOw its substitute;
thus, V .l.HHt, hell; W @T~I O"II1UHO,II, ser.le; W 8R',
new; V 61fT"', to find; V IUIHTC or KHTC obscurity;
W KrSHJ'SH, grumble, munnur),
1.5 Alonlc Vowels (Not Including Sonants).
These vowels are evidently always shol1. In several
catl'gorics of thc atonic vowels, significant diffel-ene·
cs appear betwccn F and F7 and betwecn F and V,
W, without mentioning H ;md M and the other C0p-
tic idioms.
The case of the initial atonic vowel does not call
for any pal1k:ular commentary: e,g.. F, F7, V; llOy,
child; F5 l.HtItlf, hell, n >.HINt (I by assimilation?),
V ~, H .l.HHI'm, M iHH'T6; 1', n, V, W, Ai sarr
lower part, ground, 11 1I01T (always in close liaison
tlItC1lT),

More instl\.lclive and illlcrcsling an: certain cases
(,If the vocalization of Ihe atonic syllable whcn its
\'OWel is neither initial nor final (this vocalirAltion
may occur by means of a sonant in place of a corre-
sponding voiced sonorant preceded by a vowl"!,
graphically most often 6; see below); it may be re.
marked here that sc\'eral of Ihe .Ilonic "syllablcs" in
queslion arc in fact "subsytlablcs" (i.e., syllables
(,Inly In bradysyllabicalion; St:c SVllA8ICATION).
One will notice below only the e:lSClIi Ihal manifcst
differences between F, Fl. V. W. and At (manuscripl:;
of the Gospel of Manhew and of Acts. hen: always
making usc uf lhe sonant; At of lhe l'llulille letlen;
has for its par1 sollle G followed by the sollor.ant; see
Kllsser. 1987; with rcgard to the chlll7lcleristics of H.
S~ mAl.llCT II).
After an opcn tOllic syllnble, in a dused atonic
sylluble wilh a sonorant as the tinal, ,: vocalizcs wilh
e, f7 probably Hlsu (cxccpl for !lOme cases wher'c it
uses I), excepl when this sy1l3ble follows lunic Q) and
ends in II or H (F7 thcn vocalizes in o. e.g.• CQTOH,
to he3r, and ~TOr., to kill). V, W, M muke usc of the
sonant (e.g.. V, W carrR, At COTH, AI ~n: likcwise,
VaJfH, 10 go aslray: it will be noted lhat FS6 also
SOl11Climes uses S, e.g., ClDTM and, likewisc, T(D~, to
summon).
After a dosed tonic syllable. in a dosed atonic
syllable with a St>llorant as the initial only. F. Fl. V,
and W vocali7.e in 6, whilc Ai has the sonant (thus,
e.g., F. V, W lJ,n6'l, to kill him, and like....ise. Fl
I+G:'E", yoke).
Afler a dosed Ionic syllable. in II closed atonic
syllable wilh II sonorant ...... the final. ,.. and F7 voca-
lize in 6, while M, IV(?). and V havc the sonanl (Ihus.
e.g., I-'S IOoClHM>H, 10 grumble, mUI"tllur, IV ~
or (1tf6)HrR. M Il,rt'ffH; I-'S '1TMT6", 10 trouble, H
f,lTJofTIIf, V, At p....o;sim IOnm, except for a M
lljT"rTOf in ACls 9:22).
Before a tonic syllable, in a closed syllable with a
sononrnt as lhe final, F vocalit.cs in 0, execpl be·
tween T Hnd II, whcI'C FS vocali1.es In y (,..4 is luck·
ing); F7 vacalit.es ralher in I (il also ha~ severnl 0),
neepl before II (but not specially :lflo.:r T), where it
generally writes y; Want.! M (mosl often), and prob-
ably also V, have the sonant (Ihus, e.g., FS 1I6.u.1I.
blind. W, M lIllIl; F MlHztl, free. M rm-t:ll (sil:); FS
)'liH(H)O),. rich, Fl :\,1Ht-U or ),(lH{H)U. V fH(H)~: FS
TyIHII. canIe, ,.7 TCMH (sic), AI ptul';),l nm.oyG; FS
tG"*, clothing. F7 ~. At 26C_).
Generally speaking. the final atonic vowel is I in F
as it is in F7, V, W. and H (and finally In B), while it
is (I in M (as in L• .4., 5). This rute however knows a
significant systemalic excl."JXion in FayyumJ.c. with or
without lambdacism. Wilen this finu! corresponds to
FAYYUMIC 127
an ancient Egyptian' ('AVIN), we find final (I in F, V,
W (::.nd semtevolved and logically second.::ll'Y fo7),
final :\, in Fl (primitive), as in UrALJ:CT P; B then
omits any vowel. It may, however, happen that we
find, above all in FS (where this is among others Ihe
chieC characteristic of lhe subdialeet FS8), more
rarely in Illore evolvt:d Fl and evolved F4. V. fonns
of this category which have levelled their atonic Iinal
in I (thus e.g. from ms· F5 HIItKl,l(l. crowd, F4, Fl,
(:w:mievolved) W H1t1OG, F7 [11K]1O:\' (like P HI..,),). and
finally 8 HlII9: from mid" FS H6f,1XlJ. ear, F4, V H6X6.
Fl (primilive) HG:.u (compare P H),ll,lT),). finally 8
H)'Q,lX).
1.6 Alonle Sonllntll. In an initial posilion, if Ihey
arc systemalically absent fl'om FS, lho.: utonic SOnanl!;
appear in 1"4 as in Fl, and in V, Was in M (ant.! in 5,
I., A, even 8). Uul if, in the arca of Middle Egyp1,
lhey appCLU' immutable in V, W, lhey may still be
r'eplao.:ed by lheir substitute. the COI'l'espont.!ing !lO'
norant preceded by a vowel (l3 everywhel'e except
in f1, whkh prefers here I). when the phen·
omenon of"elose liaison" (Polotsky, 1949, Pl'. 29-30)
is produced. Thi~ takes place in F4 (as in n, At,
also in a certain fashion in H) only when the word.
beginning with the sonant is preceded by the
definite article (II' etc.), which is so closely Iinkl.-d
with what follows that the sonanl is no longer
considered as an initial, and the corresponding
sononlOt preceded by 6 (etc.) is substilutl.-d for
it (in B the possibililies for "close liaison" are lIIuch
mon: numerous). One will lhen have F4, Fl, M
HlI6'ffiHT:\' (lU),.. in his presence (and immulable. FS
HlI&t6I'fn 6l\.M. on the one hand. V (W probably the
sallIe] HllO...rr... 6l\.M. on the other): in close Iillison
one find!;. in eonll"oISl, F4, FS, M Kt6Kr), fll\.M H_. ill
prcsencc of, Fl f.lfllH'l')' N- ... (lJIIM) (and immuta·
hIe, ""S HnGHT), GIIM H-, on one hand, V HtlHT), Ii
[- ... flIIM], on the olher; and similarly W nH;:6y,
the lomb. John 11 :38, according to what the manu-
script itself shows).
A.~ regart.!s the atonic sonants wilhin a word or a...
linats, sec what was said abovc with reference to the
atonic vowels In these posilions: such sonants are
systcmalically lucking in F4, a... in ,,'S and F7 (lind
also in 11 and 8), but they appear rl.'gulariy in M,
very often in W also, and in V finally 1l10re frequent-
ly than Iheir substitutc (6 followed by the COlTe-
sponding sonorant).
2, The Conjugation System
Except in spc<:ial cases (conjunctive, etc.), the
Corm cited here is the lhiro.pel1ioOn singular mascu-
line only. as welt as its corresponding prcnomina.l
 128 FAYYUMIC
fonn (nom. = before nominOlt subject). The com·
plete paradigm is not attested in all conjuglllions.
Only the most specillc fonn(s) for cach dialect (F. V,
W, If) or subdialect (F4, F46, F5, "'56. F7) arc given
here.
Except ....'here specially mentiOned, the form is af-
firmative (neg. - negativc). Every b:u.ie tcnse (here·
after abbreviated "basic") i... followed (if anesu:d) by
its !lalelliu:s. aftel' "And": eire. - circumslantial,
reI. - 1'e1111ive. pret. - preterite, II - scl:onc! lense:
ant. - with pronominal antecedcnt. Fonns betwccn
brackets ( ... ) ure n:consttucted from VCI)' neal'
forms: 7.cro - no verbal prefix. Excel)t where spe-
cially mcmionoo, F56 (nol F46) is includcd in £5; "'4
and 1"5 logether are ,,:
2.1 8ipartlle Pallern. Neg. It· ... ClH F, F46, F7, V,
W, '{ero parlicle ... ),tI H.
2.1.1. Present (basic) ... F, F7, V, IV. 110' [F46] H,
nom. 7.cro. AmI eire. tl'l· (ncg. (lH't.... flH etc.) F, F7,
V, W, Oil· £46, 11, nom. (l),,(1. F, F46, F7, er6' [V], W,
(lru· 1'1; reI. 6T6't· F5, [1'56], F7, tlT'!· £4, (f7), [V), IV,
nom. 01'0(/1.0)' F, 61'6- F7, V, t1Tepe· W: pre!.
('"' impcrfel:l) It"..· F, n, [V], IV, [It'-'ll' 1"46], nom.
1t.U6· F. H),fCl· V, W; II " ... F, F7, V, W, [611' 11]. nom.
UE- F, F7: .\f6' [V). W.
2.1.2. Futllre (basic) "1M. F, Fl, V, W [r.H6' F46),
1IoIU.. H, nOIll. rem ... 1t6- F. F46. F7, V. W, zcro ...
It.-.- H. And cire. E'.oo· (ncg. 6H'!H6 ... t:H ele.) 1", [F7,
V]. W, nom. 0,\0· ... H6- F; rei. (ITti..H6 (neg.
G1'tiH'ltlO Ijli etc.) F, 6T"1111j' (F4), Fl, [V, W], nom.
O1'(1,\ll- liti· F, 01'(1· ... liti· F7, [V), (W), ((I)TOftl·
... [lIa·) (W): pret. H.-.'I»a· £4. nOIll. Ii.loftl· ... IiG· IV;
II " ..ltG· "', (Fl), V, (IV). 110m. [.u.6· ... Ito· F, 1'7],
"1'6- ... HS· V. [W], 6f"· ... w,. H.
2.2 Tripartite P.t1ern.
2.2.1. Tenses wilh special negations (if not II):
2.2.1.1. Per/eci (basic) " ... F. Fl, V, "110' F46, H, t.-...·
(V), W, nom. ,,- F, F46. 1'7, V. ~- (V), [W): lIeg.
MOO..• F, Fl, V, Mfl(l8- F46, [111111- II], nom. 1'1116- F,
(F46), Fl, [V], W (1111' 11]. And cil·e. 6""- F, Fl, [(V)],
6"8' [1'46] II, 6"'1' (V)], W, nom. 6"· F, [F46, 1'7,
(V)], [6t'" (V). W]: neg. 6H116..· F, [Fl, V, W). nom.
[6HIIG- F, 1'7. V, W): rd. rrr"... (anI. nClHn...) FS, Fl,
(V), rrr".· F46, nil· (ant. 1W1HT"1l') H, eJ'T"'" F4, (Fl),
(V), 8T{a)tJo.... W; nom. rrr,),· (anI. n6Hn·) F5, NT"·
Fl, [VI, n· (ant. IIHHT"·) 11, 61"". F4, [(V)), OT(6h'"
W; neg. (!T(lJ«M1..' F5, F7, nOIll. [6TClHll6· F5, Fl): II
U ..· 1"5, (NTJ..\'I· F4? Ii.-...· 1'"4?], NT"'t- F5, (V?), TJ.P.· 11
("... F7?), "2""- W; nom. ",),. F5, (IiTU- F4?), Ii'-'- F4,
(V?). In· II], (". Fl?), [~". W]: neg. with Ii' ... (Iii
F, F4(J, Fl, V. W, zero ... "" H.
2.2.1.2. ExpectQtive (or complelive) (b:u.ie - neg.)
HlU.T(6)<l· FS, V, [W]. ru.nlr.- II, [l1Ia... F7], nom.
!'filo.T6· FS, {V, W]. ru.n\· II, Mtu.- F7.
2.2.1.3. COllsu/twdinQ/ or aorist (basic) 1,1"'" F, "7,
V, [W], ll,l"ft· F46, II, nom. (11",\6' F, [F461, n, G,l"f6'
n, V, W, HHO'1·
V, W, ll,l"I'II' II; neg. 1'16'1' (£4), [(5),
(F4), (Fl?), [HlJIl' F46], HHIJ,· II, 110m. H6,\G· (F4), F5,
[F46, 1'7]. H6fa· [V). W, (H1lfll' 11]. And eire. ~.-....
{F), Fl, [V, W]. [nom. GIIIU(l' elc.]; ret """". F,
(6• .-.... FS? V?), (!TEllI"'" (F5). Fl, [CUQJ.Il') (ant.
IIMl"Il') H, nom. IHclI.u.tl· FJ, {(~U6- FS? V?)],
6T6f,lUG' (F5), F7, [~"fG- V? 6.,,,1'"- 11]: neg.
GTOHIJ'1· ,.'5. F7, ([ant. mm_llI- 11]), [nom. IIT6H6J.G·,
clc.]: pre!. (IiNOG,l"'" F5), nOnl. IiN6ll,l",\(I- 1'"5; II
(lill,l.-.'I· PS, nom. UG,lU(l· F5].
2.2.1.4. FIll/mill! energicllm or third Illtlm! (basic)
6'«1· F, Fl,IV), IV. EIIE· F46, [(11111'] (XHIINI' with xu,
in order lhal, ant.) H, nom. 6'\6- F, [F46), F7, (EfE' V.
IV, 6ftl' 11]: nLog. tlfMl't· F, (Fl), V, [W], Ita... Fl, KII&'
II, nom. MG· F, (Fl), (V), (W?).
2.2.1.5. CQll.tl:lti\'e imperQ/ivr (basic) H>.MI't· F, Fl.
{H).),(lII· F46], H,\ftl't· V, W, ""''''... H, nom. HU(I- F.
[F46, F7], H"rO- V, W, H"r"- 11; neg. HllO,\T)'(I'" F5,
[Alll,\T,\6..· or I-lllo,\T.\a'1 Fl], [.-m(l'\1'8..· (46),
HllerTG'1· V, [M], [(HOIiT{O)..· 1'7)], [lillKTfu"· II],
nOIll. HIlmTf6' F5. fHllG'\TU- F4], Htll,\T,\6 or Hl16,\TG'
1'7, H"S""6' V. (lV?]. ("IlKTfH' 11].
2.2.2. Tenses with neg. IIIT6t+ F or TH- V, W, TIM'
or TGH- Fl:
2.2.2.1. FlI/llre CfJtlju"clive (b:u.ic) (n..M)'l-) or
NTUG", FS. (TUG'" F4J, nom. TUG-lor NTU6') F5,
[TU(I· F4J.
2.2.2.2. COII;l4IH:/il'e (basic) (sing. I., 2. masc., 3.
masc., rem., pI. I., 2., 3.) (Ii)T.-.·, liK-, NT(I·, Ii"', lie·,
IiT61i-, lIT6TGIi-, ItCtl- F, F7, V, W, T"', TGK-, [TO']' 1i8',
[tIC']. T6II·, [T6T6H·], TOY' "'46, (n·], 11.', TlI-, I', (c.),
[nu+-], (TitTIt·?), CIt- II, nom. lIT&- F, n, V, W, TG'
F46, [111' 11]. And with .'-", toward (- llmitali\'e)
1I.-.1fT6'I· F, (F7], V, [W], .,J.NTlIll· H, nom. .,J.lITG· f.
Fl, IV, W), .,')'IlTn- 11.
2.2.2.3. Temporal (basic) NTtl.\6'1· F5, (m], lIT6J'fi'1·
[V?] W, nifl\8' II, Gn..· F4, a1'O')''1· (F5?), [6T~"'"
(W)], nom. NTG,\O· FS, [Fl?), IiTGf6' [Vi'], W, Tlll'll' lJ,
tln· F4, [(ITO,),· F5?), Gn.-.· W.
2.2.2.4. COllditiollal (ba.. ic) .-.... [£4. (1"5) with neg.,
"7, (V. W] with neg.), " ..... J.N. 1"4. [(F56)). (107), (Y),
(W], " ..". (Fl), (V), ~. FS, GIIoIVM+- II, nom. U6'
[F4, (FS) with neg.], Fl, [(V) wilh neg.], W wilh neg.,
uGtlMt- [F4), (F56), J.f'Cl~,-,. V, ,,~(,,)It. W, "~,,. (Fl),
m(6W"It· F5, (lfC9>.H' H.
3. Vocabulary
TIle lexical stock of F4, F5, Fl, V, and IV (not to
speak of If) presents a certain number of units nOI
round el.sewhen! in Coplic (or only in a single idiom,
or only in two, c1C.). They cannot all be presented

here (d. CI'Um, 1939, and Westendon, 1977), and
only somc examples will be lisled.
"'5, "'46, f7 ).t..., and, 10 be compared wilh 84, 874,
G 0'(0tEI (and B ova:), etc., 1.6 0'(Jr.V" L4 ).tW, l.:Jr.n
(Kassel' 1983b). F7 )"Xu (pI. U:"'y"I) viper, serpent,
cr. 1Xe 8 (the olher Coptic dialects prefer to't, a
word thaI F7 also knows).
M*, servant, once in F5, a word current in B
(which does nOI have tHVo"", a wurd current, wilh
tGJr., in F5): MtK is absent from the Olher Coptic
dialects. F7 .."e, u.,e, repulse, cr. 5 -.DfG, 5OOf' ~ ,
etc.
F 6H64Q1tf 6-, excepl, ili lacking elsewhere in Cop-
lie. Note F5, 5 6"1GI, branch (1), Isaiah 34:4.
F5 IO.C, roaring, clamor, is lacking elsewhere in
Coptic (Epistle of Jeremiah 31).
F .u.nc, something, 15 lacking elsewhere in Coptic,
but may be compared with B unCI, to bite, a
mouthful; on the other hand, one can only make lhe
same comparison for F, F7. V unt, something (d.
WIT once or lwic.:c in F7) if one supposes a unt
derived graphically from A..Uti', an explanalion that
remains doubtful (t /ti/ confusc.."(\ with the ancient t
• t /P5!; see ALPBARETS. COPTIC).
F5 HOyOy"I', F4, V HO'(f, new, has its only corre-
spondent in HOy'I, which appears once only in S
(Kahle, 1954, p. 701, 11), if the e1ymology liOme-
times suggesled (e.g., Cerny, 1976, p. 79) from 5, B
HO)'f, island is sel aside (Vycichl, 1983, pp. 108-
109). The parallel wilh M H...r (Husselman, 1965, p.
85) remains vcry doublful. F5 Hl.T(;H, winnowing
fan, is lacking elsewhel'C in Coplic (Is. 30:24). F
Ml9IO,l, vengeance, appcan also in B, but not else-
where.
1-7 1'1111'11, honeycomb, cf. B »lIm (a rare wOl'd). W
IiIlmY, nothing, d. M NlN6l 1'10'(0-, see oytl., against,
below. F7 1iOyt,IG, strike with amazement, cf. 5
OO)'CIIc etc.
f>? 111"'+, llwllken, unknown clsewher'C in Coptic
(Sg. 2:7 nnd 8:5). F7 1l...I·K', chiseled, d. B <PwNK with
the Sllme significance (in Imth, mther rcmole from
those of S elc. IlION"R" etc., dl'aw, heap up, etc.). F7
tU.NAAOC'U, d~am(er) (Ec.:d. 5:2), is probably 10 be
cr.
resolved into '\"(lC'II, F5 ,\(ICN, S rl.coy, dream,
and ruN...• d. S etc. UlliN etc. B 1'111'1 pl.coyl, Crum,
1939, p. 263b,3: 268;\,15). Vulglll' F5 IWlTSI, avenger,
F46 IWT"'I, d. 5 rMlTIIII.
m,
F5 CJr.t\Ill, sprinkle unknown elsewhere in Cop-
tic. F5 ClU.T, to feal', cf. S CtUT. F7 etn6l2, tool,
utensil, weapon, etc., Eccl. 9:18, cf. 5 CTeu.e~, B
CODI: etc" is a rJ~ word.
F5 l'lUH, impulse, forte (?), d. M TlUN, A TkltH
(Kassel', 1979). F7 ntH to aid, V T...elH, cf. M TUIH.
W TrOYI', hasle, d, M 'JfO'VT.
FAYYUMIC 129
F5 oytl. in (tI)lIOye· etc., against, d. M and 5
Woyc;· etc" alongside oyMl' etc, in 5 and other Corr
tie idioms (including F7).
19K....., curl (of hail'), cf. S I9K1,\,.. V5 ctG6r, price, cf.
S ".uf. F5, F7 C9n, thicket, copse, cf. eventually 5
also? (Crum, 1939, 595a), F7 .,..xJ, whisper, whistle
(1), Eccl. 2:15-16, is prob,lbly found nowhere else in
Coptic and could be onomatopoeia.
F5 :61, hc~, behold, d. M 2t and perhaps also f'
~IT(I, F5 elc. :(lIT(lC. v...u., dali::ness. cf. B to\Oo\ elc.:.
"'4, F7 z.ut. descendants, children. lam. 4:10, V
zr...t, I In. 3:7, 18, d. B .'lfOt, F5 tT61 in tl tTEl,
deceive, cf. 5 2t inl·.
F7 .xLV.1I1, shield, budder, cr. S 6'1<. F5 XJr.OyT',
base, w;lhout value, cf. 5 XOO)'T', e.g., 2 Cor.
13:5-6.
F5 66.U6C1, purple, F7 XGJr.&GCI, appears nowhere
else in Coptic. F5 6(lAH.l,.61t1, pitcher, H 61WUJ, d. S
6(6).v-u.(e)I(N) etc. F5, V4 6Jr..U.X, foot, F pI. 6.U.J,.y.x,
F7 .xJr..Uy.x(z), cr. B 6Jr..\OX, pI. 6Jr..Uy.x.
One may finally recall here various lexical or mol'-
phological petuliarilil.'S thai make IV (as distinct
from V) very dose 10 M: the fil"$l peneci prefix
(nom., elc.) W, M p.- (ran: in V) in opposition to V,
F ...., elc.; W, M tlltt(Il, nothing: only M 6tfII Htu 4-, to
do lhal, or W If1 R"H). 4- in opposilion 10 V, F, where
there is a choice belwccn Irl ,........ and , ... H'" '?; C9'6
/i(l"', to go, so aimOSI always in W, M, while V, like
F, wrilCS simply IItI (without the "dative" preposi·
tion); in IV and M the Coplo.(;reek verbs al'C nOI
preceded by the auxiliary (e)r, etc., and do not have
Ihe Grei:k final -N, which sets Ihem against Ihose of
V 01' above all 1'-, whel'e one Illay observe rather the
contra,)'.
4. Grammar
'111e Fayyumlc subdialects (ll'e eithel' too poorly
attested ur (lllested in tOO irreguhll' a fashion (this
is especllllly Ihe case with F5) for onc 10 be .lble
to establish with (lny et\;ie or pr'Cclslon lhe syntax
characteristic.: of elleh or chem or evell what might
be more Illodestly and vaguely considered the
"Fayyumic.: syntax" ill genc"l!. Al leasl, investigations
in this area have nOI as yet been sufficiently ad-
vanced for a .flaws qllaestionis to be given hcl'c
(what can bc fuund in Till, 1930 lind 1961, remains
Vel)' elemenlary and not dl~tinctive).
BIOLIOGRAPIlY
Asmus, U. Ober Fr(Jgwel/te ;m MilleJiigyplischeli
Diolekfc. Q)Uingen, 1904.
Buuriant, U. "Fragments oochmouriques," Memoires
de I'lllst;llIt d'Egypte 2 (1889):567-604.
130 FAYYUMIC
Cerny, J. Coplic Elymological DicliOllary. Cambridge,
1976.
Chassinat, E. "Fragments de m;muscrits copies en
dialcclC' fayoumique," BIIIl~tili de l'lrrsti/I/I frallr;uis
d'archWlogi~ ori~malC' 2 (1902):171-206.
Crum, W. E. A Coplic Dictiollary. Oxford, 1939.
Crum, W. E., and r. G. Kenyon. "Two Chapters of
Saim John in Greek anti Middle Egyptian," JOllmal
of 11leological Sllidies 1 (1900):415~33.
l>iebner, B. J.: R. Ka....<iCr; A. M. Kropp: C, Voigt: and
E. lucchesi. Hambllrger Papynts Bil. I. Die all/es/a·
mell/lichcll TUle lies PapynlS bifillgui5 I der SI/lIlIS-
wId UlliversitOlsbibliol/rek flallllJllrJ:. CUllliculll
Carrlicontlll (coplice), 1.alllclllolio/les leremla/!
(coplice', Ecclesiasles (gracce el cop/ice). Cahiel'S
d'orientalisme 18. Geneva, 1989.
Elanskaya, A. I. "Rukopis' no. 53 koptskol novol serii
(7.aklyuchitd'nyc glaV)' EVilngcliya ot Marlm na
falyumskom dio.lekte)." [n Koplskie mleopisi
Goslldar.m,le,mol Pllblit:tIOT Biblio/elei imem' M. E.
Saltykava-$cedrillll, Pliles/irrsleiI sOOmik 20, no. 83
(1%9):96~120.
Engelbreth. W. F. Fragme'lIu IJasmmico-Coplica
Veleris el Novi Teslamen/i qui itl Mllseo Borgiallo
Velilris Asservatlfllr, cum Reliquis Versiollibus
Aegypliis Comlili/, 1.alillC' VC'nil IIee 11011 Crilleis el
P/riJoiogicis AdllO//lIiotliblis JlJlIstravil. Copenhagen,
181 I.
Erichsen, W. Fui;wPlUche "'ragmen/e der Redell des
Agullrofliel4s Bisdwfs VOIr Tarsl/s. Copenhagen,
1932.
Gaselee, S. "'Two Fayoumic Fragments of the Aeu."
Journal of Theological SIll/lies II (I909}:514-17.
Hussclman, E. M. Th~ Gospel of JO/Ill ill FaywIlic
Coplic (P. Mich. Inv. J5ZJ). Ann Arbor, Mich..
1962.
_,---_ ""be Marlyrdoms of CYI'iacus anti Juliua in
Copiic," Jemmal of lIre Alllericun Research Cenler
in Egypl 4 (1965):19-86.
Kahle, P. E. Bala'f(IJlJ: Cop/ie T"x!S fmlll Deir el·
Bala'fUlh in Upper Egypl. Oxford and London,
1954.
Kassel', R. CumpUrw!llI.~ all die/iuIl/wire cop/e tie
Cmm. Cairo, 1964.
___. "Complements mOl'phologiques au diction·
naire de Crum, Ie voc(\bulail'e cal'ilcteristique dcs
quatre nouvcuux dialectl':> coptes: P, M, H et G."
BlllIelin ,Ie I'1l1slillll fralll;ai5 d'urcheologie oriell/ale
64 (1966):19-66.
- - c "Un lexeme copte oublil:, nmN akhmimique
(Nahum 3, 19)," B/llfe/ill de la Socii/i d'egyp-
lologie, Ce'lffl I (1979):23-25.
"Prolegomcncs a un essai de classification
systematique des dialectes et subdialcctes copces
scion les criter'eS de la phonctique, ITI, Syslcmcs
orthographiques el cati.'iorics diale<:!ales." MI/sWn
94 (1981):91-152.
___ "61 011 I pour /iI 011 fJl dan.~ les. dialcctC$
coptes." Bullelill of Ihe America,. Socit!ly of Pupyro-
logislS 20 (19833):123-26.
_,---_ "Lcs Conjunctions cOpies denvees de la .....
cine de O'(IDl 'mctlre: 'ajouter.''' (;(il/fnger Mis-
yllen 69 (1983b):43-44.
"Subdialeelcs en mkokemique?"
Misul'loniu Pupirologiea Ramol/ Roca·Puig ell e.I
sell vllila1lft allfw-rsari, ed. S. Janeras, pp. 159-70.
Barcelona, 1987.
Leforl, L 'T. Us Pues aposlofiques til COplC. CSCO
135-136. Louvain, 1952.
Milller, C. D. G. Die Biielll!r der EinselVlIIg der Erun·
gel Afielracllmd Ca/)riel. cseo 225-226. Louvain,
1962.
Orlandi, T. PI/piri della Universilii degli S/Ildi di
Mi!rIllO (Po Mil. Copli), Vol. 5, l.ellcrc di Sa" Paulo
in CoP/u o$siri"c!li/a, I!dhiollC, cammerI/O e iudid dl
T. Or/Illldi, cOlllribula lill/-:llis/icu di H. OUl!cke. Mi-
lan, 1974.
Polotsky, H. J. "Une Question d'orthogruphc
bohal·riqlle." Billie/iII de III Socihe t!'(lrclriologie
cop/I! 12 {1949):25-35.
Ollatl'Cmel'e, E. Recllerdles crili/lues el 1Iistorique.~ sllr
III fallgue ella lil/iralufe dC'. I'Egyple. Paris, 1808.
Schenke, II.·M. ·'On the Middle Egyptian Dialect or
lhe Coptic Language." Ellclroriu 8 (Sondcrband)
( 1978):43'(89)-( I04 )58'.
IJus Mall/rih/s-Evullgeli,lltr im
ltIillc1jjKYPlisch~.. Diaieci des Koplisclrell fCodex
&heideJ. Texte und Unlersuchungen WI'
Gcschichle del' allchristlichen UtC::r-.ttur 127. Ber-
lin, 1981.
Simon, J. "Note sur Ie dossier dl"S textes fuyoo.
miques." Zeilschrifl fiir die Neu/estamelliliche
Wissetlscllafl 37 (1939}:20S-211.
Stem, L KoplUclle Grammolik. Leip-dg. 1880.
___ "Faijumische Papyri im Agyptischcn Muse·
urn 7.U &l'Iin." lei/sclrrif/ fiir ilgyptischc Spruehc
mrd Al/er/mnskllllde 23 (1885):23-44.
Till, W. C. Koplische Chre.~lOtllallrie fiir dell fayu.
misclr('l1 Dialek/, mil gramm(llischer Skiu.e IIml
AWllerbmgl!lI. Vienna, 1930.
_ _ . Koplisc!le lJilllelelgrmrllllll/ik, mil Ll!se.~tiiclel!lI
wul Wlirlerbllch. 2nd cd. Munich, 1961.
Vyekhl, W. Dic/iomlClire hymolo/-:iqlle de Itl leU/glle
cop/e. Louvain, 1983.
Wessc1y, K. "Ein Spl'ilchdenknml des millclagyp-
lischen (baschmurisehen) Diu[ekts," Siwmg.~·
berichle der konigliclrell Aleudemie der Wissell'
sellafle" ill Wiell, P/rilosophisch-historische Klasse
158 (1908):1-46.
Westendorf, W. Koplisehes lIulldll'onerbllch,
beurbeile/ allf Gnmd des Koplischen
llu'ldwQrierouchs VOtl Wilhelm Spiegelberg. Ueidel-
berg, 1971.
WOlTCll, W. H. Coptic Somrds. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
_ _ . "Fayumic Fragmenls of lhe Epi!itles." Bulle-

Ii" dc fa Sociele d·arcllemogi/!. CQple 6 (1940); 127-
39.
ROUOLPtlE. KASSEit
GEMINATION, VOCALIC. I'airly frequently.
Coptic manuscripts pn:scnt ex.amples of grophic yo·
calic geminalion (duplicalion of various grophVz
gnIplll:ml.'S called "vo\\'Cls"; )" e. 11. I, O. (o)y, alld ..;
10 be dislinguished from V - yocalic phonemes,
which, in addition to lat. leI. 1:1/. 1l!I, IiI. luI. and
10/. include Ihe SOnanlS 1'( /hI, ITIII. Im/.
•• Inl, and Irl).
• these geminations from those of the second type (~(,.'C
This aniclc will ignonl the nonsyslernalic eases, aris'
ing from cauSC5 tlml produced the IDIOLECT of some
scl'!be insufliciently lronined and incupable uf adher-
ing unrcscl"Vcdly to OIle well·defined ol,hographic
syslem, CO une diale";l (d, Worrell, 1934, Pl'. 110-11;
Ka.~ser. 1980, pp. 78-82). The discussion here is re-
~lricted to the series of cases that haye a systemalic
cnuse.
Two typl'S of grophic yocalic gemintllion are found
(graphV + same grophV). each belonging to cenain
pal,icular dialect(s) or subdi.'llcct(s). of which it i~
one of the fundamental ch.:lIacteristics.
11le Ii~ of these types of gemination is exception·
al It may be observed in the examples of lhe most
archaic onhogmphy of thc texl of P. Bodmer VI, the
only exisling wilness of DIAILCT p. which is eilher
pos..o;ibly a. kind of pl'Olo-Sahidlc accon!ing to
Vergote (I973b). or (looking indeed often very like a
kind of reconstrucled prolo-Sahidic) is ralher anoth·
er variely of Coplic I'ROTODtAt.ECT. pemaps some SOl'
of proto-Theban (Nagel, 1%5; Kassel'. 1982a), if not
\I kind of prolo-&thidlc immigrant in Ihe 11leban
region and strongly innuenced by the local (nonlite·
rory) Theban idiom (see Ka......er. 1985. and OlAI.F..CT.
IMMIGRANT). Whatever it I11\1Y be, thaI type of gemina·
tion only appcar~ spomdically in Ihese examples,
being always under strong competition from exam·
pIes of a more evolved OI'lhuKI~lphy (see below).
There, the Ionic vowel of the lexeme is systemati-
C\llIy dup1i";;I\ed. (These fonns remain very much in
the minority, aboul 2 percell! of the whole, to which
may be added 3 percent of fonns in which an Ull-
usual gemination of Ihe consonant immediately pll."-
cl-dlng or following the tonic vowel or Ihe tirsl con-
sonant of the syllable containing Ihe tonic vowel
seems to have been produced through negligence
inslead of Ihe vocalic gemination mentioned above.)
Controry to what happens in regan! to the second
lype of vocalic gemination (see below). the lirst is
nol motivated by any etymological faciOr. the formu-
la for Ihi~ first type is Ihus grophV + same graphV -
GEMINATION, VOCALIC 131
Ionic V. Uerc are some chamctcri~tic examples: P
ute. existence; 0ik6 (sic). loss; pillr. '"IY (sic).
hoUKos; plur. '1OOT6 (sic). fathen, parents; ·....-Te.
dew; MX)(I!n'.c, pn:ICJlt; I. ......" to smOOlh; .loIt€E
(sic) or .loI166, head; 56;1.1>6, wages; CHlllt (sic), voice;
;'>HI (sic), rood, way; T6'(Oi5 (sic), 10 produce;
~ (sk:). 10 empty; and eyen Ihe Coplo-Grcek
flHOt"1 (- .,~). breath.
Readers will haye noll-d the suprolinear slroke
that quite oflen joins Ihe lop of these graphV; ap-
pearing pemaps a.t a late stage 10 distinguish (in P)
below). which are phonologically vel)' different, this
Slroke could well have here, as it usually doc~ clsc·
where In Coptic. a syllabic significance. indicating
lhal this gemination of graphV does not express a
"bl'Oken vowel," a "hialus," or .lIlY an\llogous phe·
nomenon, and this no more in bmdysyl1abicalion
(corresp(lIlding 10 slow speech) lImn In t:lchysyJlabi-
cation (con'esponding to nalural. lonpid speech: sec
SYll.AUlCATION); it expresses a single V (- vocalic
phoneme) simply Ionic (- stl'C$SCd).
The st:cond. much more common Iype of vocalic
geminalion appears syslematic.llly (or nearly so) in
the k-ast archaic fonns of Ihe dialect P. as well as
the dialect j (- pl.. protodialcct of l.). and especially
the idioms A. lA, 1.5. L6. VS. rS. and S (but not in M.
W. V4, £4. B and its subdialects. and G). The purely
YOC8lic aspect of this gemination is deceptive, since
its formula i~ gmphV + same graphV - tonic vowel
+ consonant (Ihe dcmon!il.rotion will be fOllnd un'
der AI..£PH). Those who haye sought to analyze this
gemination phonologically have in faci very soon
l'eali7.ed Ihat its appearance in Coplic most often
coincides with the disappearance of an oldcr f:.gyp-
liall radical consonanl. (Some lexenK'S not affected
by lhis disappearoncc later look on the yocalic gcmi.
nation by simple analogy with lexemes that were
superficially similar.) Howcver, lhe conclusion~ of
lhese investigators have nol, from the oulsel, becn
unanimous (Kassel', 1982c).
Stern (1880, p. 54): "We undersl(lOd It [Ihe dupli-
cation] as a breaking of the vowel, and compOl'e the
stcm affecled with thc Semitic roots expanded by
X ~ 1 (mediae quiescentis)." 801 if Olle notes Ihat for
this author the Coptic "breaking of the vowel"
secms Indeed to be a kind of diphlhonglzlng; Ihal for
hil" (pp. 34-35) the diphthoog is the (syllabic) com·
bination of a vowel wilh (after it) a scmivowd (-
glide); that he states (pp. 29-30) that ancient Egyp-
tinn had three semivowels U - Coptic fJl .. (e)l. W
- Coptic Iwl .. (o)y, and finally'), .....hich oflcn
became lhe second dement of a vocalic gemination
132 GEMINATION, VOCALIC
in written Cuptic; and that, broadly speaking, one
may thus say that all these semivowels appeal' as
graphV in Coptic, then one may suppose that Stem
tended, if not always, at least frequently, to identify
the second element of the vocalic gemination in
Coptic phonologically as an /'/. Lacau (1910, pp,
77-78), while aoalyling the phenomenon with much
finesse and perspicacity, nevertheless seems to have
admitted tadlly that the duplication of the vowel
caused by the dropping of the consonant i, " r, or I
is equally a vocalic duplication on thc levcl of super·
ficial phonology, the second V of this geminalion
replacing those consonants which havc cffectivcly
disappeared and for which nothing has been substi·
tUled, not even some /'1 derived from them (which
seems acceptable in bradysyllllbicatiun, but debata·
ble in tachysyllabication),
Steindorff (1930, pp. 34-35) presented a distinctly
different position: "In Sahidic, in those syllables
which have been opened through the suppression of
a following consonant, , , , the short medial vowel
is frequently doubled:". seae "daughter" for ·ser·
1'1, ·.ier·"r, ·le·,'(I} ... This proccss is called a com·
pensating duplication; it is a substitute for the
lengthening of a short vowel which appears in an
open syllable:' Later Steindorff (1951, pp, 34-35)
adopted a less deal' position, apparently seeking to
harmoni7.e his earlier explanation, in modified fonn,
with other explanations that come into play; thus, he
subsequently JistinguisheJ the cases of compensat-
ing duplication from those of "vowcl a.<>simllation,"
on the one hand, and those of "breaking the vowcl,"
on the other (see above).
Kuentl (1934) examined these v,u"ious possibilities
and finally proposed the idea of a compensating (vo-
calic) lengthening (Ersulzdehmmg, not Ersulzverdop.
pe/un£); in I'eply to the objection that in Coptic Q)
and II arc the long fonns of 0 and 6, and hence that
instead of, for eJCample, MootW, pasture, feed, one
ought to lind 'MIDtl6, Kuent7. supposed that "at some
undetennined period the old opposition of quality
became an opposition of timbre; no doubt Q) and II,
representing old long vowels, became closed vowels,
while 0 and 6 were open vowels, Thencefolth the
graphic duplication of the V:lriouS vowels eX;lmined
is naturally interpreted as a nOlation for long vowels,
whether open or closed, at the period when this
system of writing was put into use."
Till (1929) was the first to express clearly the idea
that the seconJ element (grnphV) of the grnphk
vocalic gemination examined here must represent a
consonllntal phoneme, without, however, venturing
to say which. Later Till (1955, p. 46) became more
precise (though still ambiguous): '''Aleph and 'Ajin
arc still present in Coptk, although no special letters
for them exist. Both rnllY hllve been expressed lllike
(probably'), although' in some circumstances has a
diITerent effect on neighbouring vowels from 3."
And TlIJ (1961. p. 10) wrote that "the vowel written
double i.~ to be understood as a simple vowel +
Aleph or Ajin." This author (perhaps under the influ·
ence of Vergote, 1945, pp. 89-91) thus vel)' clearly
comes close to the solution most generally admilled
today, according to which it is always A.tEf'H that the
second element in the vocalic gemination rendel~
(TllJ seems to have secn there sometimes 1'1, some·
times /'1, but then it is a /'1 practically pronounced
/'I); however, the ambiguity of his position suddenly
appears again in a different fashion in his suggestion
(Till, 1955, p. 46) that this /'I "was evidently no
longer felt to be a consonant" and in his transcrip-
lion or l\O,IQlN by bO'n (p. 46) but or 2ITOOTtl by Mdlf!
(p. 259).
EJgerton (1957, pp. 136-37) adopted a position
resohJtely oPl>osed to that of Till, refusing to admit
the phonolugical survival of /'1 or /'/ in Cuptic,
fTOm the time when they were not represented by
any grapheme of their own (the problem of the CRYp·
TOI'IlONliMll): "It seems simplest to eJCplain the non'
existence of signs for 'aleph and 'ajin in Coptic writ-
ing by assuming the non·existence of these pho-
nemes in Coptic speech,"
Finally, Vergote (1945, pp. 87-96; 1973, Vol. la,
pp. 12-15, and Vol. 1b, pp. 31-37) dearly demon·
strated that aleph is the consonantal phoneme best
suited for replacing andent I, " r, and I (anJ even i
or w), which have disappeared, His opinion was en·
tirely shllred by K."\S.'lCr (1982c), who, however,
thought that the graphic aspect (graphV + same
graphV) of this gemination (the Olthography corre-
sponding l;lrgcJy to brlsyl. - br•.lllysyllabication, an
artificially slow articulation, in which this gemina-
tion is effectively vocalic even in phonation [V tonic
+ same V atonic) is to be distinguished rJdically
from its phonetic and phonological expression in
nOiTIlal articulation (in tlsyl. = tachysylJabication,
whcre this gemination renders a tonic vowel fol-
lowed by /'I): thus, K.U,'1, to put it, tlsyl. '/ka'f/'
(monosyllabic, d. Vergote, 1973, Vol. la, p. 45), bUl
bl'lsyl. /kllaf/ (disyllabic); or MUXtl, eal', Ima'eel
(disyllabic) but '/ml.w.ce/' (trisyllabic), The transition
from tlsyl. to br';syl. would entail a kind of "echo
effect" resulting in this vocalic gemination which
appears in Coptic onhography: thus, for examplc,
Ima'ce/> '/ma'aeel > '/ma a ee/, (an idea the first
cxp1"Cs.~ion of which could already be found in

Vergote, 1945, p. 91, and which, taken up a little
differently, is developed in Kassel', 1981, pp. 7-9;
1982b, p. 29. n. 23; 1982c, pp. 33-34).
lllllUOGRAPHY
EdgeT1on. W. F. Review or W. C. Till, Kopfi$cJre
Grammalilo: (sai'discher Dialekt). Journal o! Near
Eas/ern S/lldies 16 (1957):136-37.
Hinlze. F. "Noch einmal ror 'Ersatulchnung' und
Metathese im Agyptl~hen." kitschri/t fiir Photletik
und allgemei/lc SprachwissetlSChalt 2 (1948):199-
213.
Kasscr, R. "Prolegomencs ~ un cssai de c1assifica·
tion systematique des dialcctcs et subdialcctcs
coptes selon les criteres de la phonetique, I,
Principe:s et tenninologie." Milston 93 (1980):53-
112.
_ _ "Usages de la surligne dans Ie P. Bodmer VI,
notes additionnelles." Bulletin de la Societe
d'egyplolog;e. Gcneve 5 (1981):23-32.
"Le Diall,:,.te protosaJdique de Thebes."
Archiv filr PapyrnstonchuIIg 28 (19813):67-81.
--,-c "Syllabatlon rapide ou lente en copte, J, Les
Glides IJI et Iwl avec leur.; correspondanlS vocali·
QUes '/l/' et '/u/, (el phonemes apparies ana·
logues)." EllchQria 11 (1982b):23-37. "... , II.
Alcph eI 'voyelle d'alcph...• Ellehoria II (1982c):
39-58.
--:CCC "Gemination de voyelles dans Ie P. Bodmer
VI." In Ac/s QI/he ~colld /n/emoliollaf COtlgress 01
Coplie Siudies. Rome, 22-26 September /980, cd
T. Orlandi and F. Wissc. pp. 89-120. Rome, 1985.
Kuentz, C. "Ouantit!! 00 timbre? A propos des
p5eudo·redooblements de voyelles en eopte."
Groupe U"gllislique d'ellll/es c1lamilo-semilil/lleS 2
(1934-1937):5-7.
Lacau, P. "A propos des voyclles redoublccs en
copte." zd/$cllrift far i1gyplisehe Spraehe und Allcr.
IlIm~'kl/ltrfe 48 (1910);77-81.
Nagel, P. "Ocr fri.lhkoptisehe Oialckt von Theben."
Tn Kopl%gisehe Swdien in der DDR, pp. 30-49.
Wisst./Isehaflliehe leilsehri!1 der Marlin·Ll/tller·
Universil/It Hilllll·Willellbllrg, Sonderheft. Halle-
Wittenberg, 1965.
SteindorlJ, G. Koplische Grammalik, mit Chres/",
millhie, W~rtelVet4eichnis w1d Lilcratur. Berlin,
1930.
-C::-~. uhrbm:Jr del' kopliscJrel/ Grammalik. Chicago,
1951.
Stem, L Koptische Gratmllillilo:. Leipzig, 1880.
Till, W. C. "Ahcs 'Aleph und 'Ajin im Koptischcn."
Wiencr lei/sehri!1 /III' die KIII/l/e des Morgen/andes
36 (1929):186-96.
-:c:-c KQPlische Grommolilo: (wi'discher Dialdl), mil
Bib!iQgraphie. Le~jJllckt1l lind Wone",en;eich·
nUsen. L..eiP1,ig, 1955.
GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL 133
_ _ . Koplisclle Dillfelo:lgrammalilo:, mil Leseslilclo:en
r/lld WQr{erbr4ch. 2nd ed. Munich, 1961.
Vergote, J. PIJotlcliquc }riSIQriqlle de !'egyptien, les
COIISQnlles. Louv;:ain, 1945.
Grummuire cop/e, Vol. la, hrtroduclioll,
phDllelique eJ pho/l(xogie, morphologic sytl·
Ilremal/que (.slnlcture des stmfllllemes). pOr/ie syn.
ehronique, Vol. lb. /mrodlle/iotl, phQtle/iquc el
pJlO/lofogie, morpho/ogie syntllematiquc (.slrncll/I'e
de.s semamtmes), par/Ie diochr(miqllc. Louv:tin.
1973a
"L..e Dialectc copte P (P. Bodmer VI: Pro-
verbes), c:ssai d'identification." Revue d'egyplologie
25 (1973b):50-57.
Worrell, W. H. Coplic Soutllis. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
ROOOlPHE KASSEK
GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL. A description of
Egypt in tcmu of dialectal geography must take as
its basis its physical and especially hydrogeographi-
cal chamclerisllC5. Egypt is most commonly divided
geographically into tWO elements comparable in
area, number of Inhabitants, and economic and p0-
litical importance, but starkly contrasted on the pa-
Iitical and linguistic levels. On the one hand. there is
the Nile Delta, the vaJ>1 triangle, prnctially "'II and
often marshy, about 125 miles (200 km) on each
side and bordered by the sea along ilS wholc nonh·
em "ank; its g(.'Ogruphically upcn configuration fa·
vored a ..ather undivided (or at least not mueh divid·
ed) linguistic shape. On the other hand, lhere is lhe
long, threadlike vaHey of the Nile upstream from the
Delta as fur lIS the First Cataract, a lillIe to the south
of Aswan, extending nellrly 560 miles (900 km), a
stlip of fel1i1e ground about 8-12 miles (12-20 km)
wide in the nonh, hut only 0.6-3 miles (1-5 km)
wide in the soUlh; it is locked between two desclt
plateaus of rock and sand that differ in height. The
ancient O<lsis of the Fa)'Ylim may be considered an
appendage of the valley, since an irrigation canal
from the Nile could have been dug as early as the
phanlOnic period. Such a geugrnphical configuration
could not but rovor the development of divergent
dialects within the Egyptian language, whether an·
cient (plllllllonlc) or more recellt (Coptic).
In traditional tcrminolugy, lhe Delta is generally
called "Lower Egypt," and the valley upstream from
the Delta either iii called as a whole "Upper Egypt"
or is subdividcd into "Middle Egypt" (roughly from
Cairo [He1iopolis·Memphls] to al·As.hmOnayn [Her·
mopolls] or somewhat runbcr south) and "Upper
Egypt" (comprising evel)'lhing south of Middle
134 GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL
Egypt rmm lJaylii! or possibly AsyU~ [Lycopolisl. 01'
even Tima Mid Qa,w, !IOuth of AsyU!, as far as A!s.
wan). Clearly this tenninology is not wilhout ambi-
guity.
It has also been suggested (!<asser, 198Oa, pp, 74-
76) that Egypt be divided, moving downstream, into
five regions: (I) the Upper Valley, or the upper and
middle parts of Upper EgypI in the strictest sense of
the teon {that is. from about Aswan and Philae to
Tah!a. north of Akhmim (Panopolis]): (2) the Middle
Valley, or Ihe lower part of Upper Egypl. in Ihe
strictest sense. and thc upper part of Middle Egypt
(from about al-B'-l(l'h1 [Oaw]to north of al·Balmasii
[Oxyrhynehus]); (3) Ihe Center (so called because iL~
siluation makes it a crossroads between lhe MidJ1c
Valley, the Fayy(ml, anJ lhe Delta), or the middle
and lower parts of Middle Egypt (rrom south of Bani
Sud, 10 lhe west of which is Heracleopolis, to north
of Cairo [I'leliopolisj, I.e" all the temtory of thc Nile
Valley to the cast and a little to the northeast and
the southeast of the FayyUm); (4) the FayyUm; and
(5) the Della,
Since COptic, like phar.lonic Egyptian, is a dead
language. il is nOI possible to know its dialcrts by
direct ohscrv,ltion of Ihe language as it is spoken, as
would be done for a living language. Only texIS al·
low one to attain ultimately a knowledge of the dia·
lects of a dead language, One may observe, whenev·
er occal;ion affords, systematic morphasyntactical
and lexical differences linked to this or thai region:
al; regards Coptic. these Jifferences certainly seem
to exist, but for the mm;t part Ihey remain very
modest. 10 the point that they do nOI of themsel\·es
conv!.'y the impre!i.,>ion of troe dialectal diITerencC$.
But il is known that the most striking divergences
betwecn the dialects are generally of a phonological
kind, To obscrJc thcm in a dead language, one mu~t
admit (as the majority of lingui~ts ao) that the or-
thogmphy of the language has a phonological value
sufficiently precise 10 allow one to discover, I'rom
thc various sySlemalic graphic variants. various dia·
lect:,l phonological systcms. Cel1ainly phamonie
Egyptian, in its various wrillen forms, allows one to
know the consonanlal strocture of the ancient Egyp-
tian le,l[emes but ~arccly or not at all Iheir vocalic
stroetuTC, The latter appears very dearly in Coptic,
in which all the grnphemcs called vowels, or grophV
{~. 6, t1, I, 0, (o)y, nnd .). nre of Greek origin, This
allows one to observe in Ihe Coptic le,l[ts divergent
onhographic syslellls, whleh have alway.'; been con-
sidered by Coptologl~Ui (wllh some modem e,l[cep-
tions) as having put into writing their phonological
systems in a manner still perceptible, Without this
working hypothe5is. by far Ihe nlost probable. it
seems impossible 10 \YOI'k out any dialt'Ctal geogra·
phy of Coptic Egypt whaLc;ocver. On this basis. V"~ri­
OIlS systems of dialectal gcogr,lphy have been elabo-
rated; mention will be made here only of those that
ha~ be..'Cn sct OI.lt in extenso and chiefly the most
rccem among them (cf. VergOlc, 1973, Vol. la, PI'.
53-59, and the maps hcrein).
W011'e1l (1934) divided Egypt into six dialectal reo
gions: (I) the Delta (at least the western Delta), the
land of UOllAlll.lC, or B; (2) the valley fl'Om Cairo as
far al; the Fay}'um (to north of Her,ldeopolls).
SAIlIf)'C, or S: (J) the Fayy(lm, FAYYUMIC, or "': (4) the
valley from the FayyOm as far as Oaw anti lchqau
(soulh of Tima, 10 Ihe south of AsyOl), (llso S (Wor·
rell did nOt yCl know the e:dstcnce of MESOKF.M1C, or
M, called by some "Oxyrlrynehite"); (5) Ihe vaHey
from Oaw to Thehe,,>, AKflM1MtC, or il; ;mJ (6) the
valley south or Thcbes, A :Igain. As for LYCOPOLlTAN,
or t, WOlTCIl placed it, mther vagudy, north of A
and soulh of S (region of A.~yiJ! and Tim"?).
The distl'ibution proposed by Kahle (1954) is often
tlilrerent; (I) Ihc Delta, land of 8 (prol>crly speak·
ing), excepl for Alexandria, which could possibly
have bt'en Ihe homeland of 5: (2) WOlTClI's region 2
(to Ueraclcopolis), a variety of B particularly c1Q5e
to 5 ("S('mi·Bohairie": ef. ibid., pp. 377-80: Kassel'
and S,'t1inger, 1982): (3) thc Fayy(tm, F; (4) the val·
ley, rmm Heracleopolis to the north of al-
Ashmunayn, M: (5) the valley From AshmOnayn to
the north of Nag Hanllnatli, t; and (6) the valley
from Nag Hammadi as far as the region \0 the south
of Thebes, A (which very soon achoanced 10ward Ihe
north, establishing itself in particular at Akhmim).
VergOie (1973, Vol. In) proposed a SOlution that
on cel,ain points may be considered a compromise
bc,ween the IWO preceding: (I) the I)elta, 8: (2) the
valley from Cairo to Heraclcopoli~, S: {3l the
Fayyilm, F; (4) the valley f,'Om Ikmck'Opulis to the
nOI,h of al.Ashmunayn (a little far,hcr to the nor1h
than for' Kahle), M (cllllcd 0, 01' O,l[yrhynchite, by
this author); (5) the valley rl'om nl.Ashrlllinayn 10 a
zone belween Oaw and AkhmTm, /. (called il2, or
Suhakhmimic, by this authOI'); and (6) the valley
from Akhmim al; fur as the rcgions 10 Ihe SOI.lth of
Thebes, A.
It can be seen thai COplology is still rar from
having reached any certninly conCl,:rning all points
of its dialectal geography. 11 is therefore not unrca·
sonnble to take up again briefly the various prob-
lems of this domain. One may recall first of all (an
obvious fact, thc full implications of which are nOl,
however, always drawn) that Coptic is now a dead
language, so that the investigator must adapt himself
to the inconvenience linked to this fuct. MOTeO,'er, it

has been a dead language for a very long time,
unfonumucly from a period largely prior to the first
allemptS al ob:;crv.l.Iion and sclelllilic sludy of il$
philology (seventeenlh cenlury), Under these condi-
tions, it is very often extremely difficult to localize
il~ dialects, known almost solely from lhe evidence
of literary manu~crilllS. TIlcsc arc liable to travel far,
and since thl.i majOlity have survived [IS the l"CSUlt of
clandestine excavalion one cannot even know cxal't-
Iy where they were found. (The pillec where they
were sold is often very distant from lhllt of their
discovery, precisely 10 discou ....Ige investigalion,
whelher by the police or by scholars: the "laws" of
this illegal lrallic "-'quire tllal the sourees be shroud-
ed in lhe mosl ahsolUie secrecy. so lhatthe slories of
discovery which some inquirer thinks he has been
fortunate enough 10 gather may well be no more
than fabk-s intended to lull his indiscreel curiosity;
and if by chance one actually comes 10 know the
place of discovery. it may wdl not be the place
.....here the manUKripl was copied and such an idiom
wa.s in usc.)
FUl1hcr, t..." dilional data are tO(l often vague lind
uneenain. 111US, lhe fOIlr1ecnth·eentul)' gmlllmal"ian
Athanasius of OO~ wmte of knowing the exi.~tence of
three Coptic idiollls: (I) "the Coplic of Mi~r, which
is Sahidie" (Mi~r is cairo, and for Amhic-sllCaking
Egyplians the so'jd is all Upper Egypt, in the wid~
sense of the leoll, and hence Ihe whole Nile Valk'Y
soulh of the Delta as far as Aswan; Ihe Sahidic coun·
try i:s thus by nQ means restricted to southern Upper
Egypt. the region of Thebes. as numerous COptolo-
gists have believed); (2) "the Bohairic Coptic known
by the BoJ.laira" (this is the province occupying the
grealer part of the north-eenlral western Della); and
(3) "the Bashmuric Coptic used in lhe country of
Bashmur" (nol'h·cenl ....d eastern Delta),
Alhanasius located B with relative pn.'Cision. (80-
hairic is a well·known idiom, who."C 10elllil.lltion is
now confirmed hy hundreds of ptlrietal inscliptions
found in the monastic site of Kcllia, sollle of which
arc also in Greek; no one altesL~ S or any dialect uf
the Nile Valley above the Delta.) He also located, to
a certain degl-ee. IJASIlMURlC (of which unfortunately
practically nothing remains: two perhaps doublful
words in all), As for S, he said only lhat illl temtory
is somcwhere to lhe soulh of Ihe Della.
One IIlUSl tlJcrefore have recourse to other means
of locating the majority of the Coptic dialecls, but
unfor1unately such indicalors are often lacking. Cer-
tainly. the 1811c quantity of nonliterary F teXl$ found
in this region allow one 10 believe thai the cmdle of
this dialecl is the FayyOm. Various phonemic and
graphic resemblances between an Old Coptic lIlanu'
GEOGRAPHY, DlALECfAL 135
script (Ching. 1976) arl<! the M texl~ ha~ led somc
10 locate the land of M In lhe region of Oxymynchus
and lhus call lhis diak-ci "OxyrlJynchile," bUI lhis
too-precise loca1il.alion has been contested Wilh sel;·
oos arguments (Osing, 1978). which kads one to
think that M should perhaps be located nOI exactly
al Oxyrhynehus hut a lillie farther north (or south?).
Finally, it docs indeed scem fmlll graffi,i found in
situ that A was spoken very early, and probably from
the beginning, at Akhmim (whose name in its pres-
cnl Ambic foml with Ixl after the initial lal seems
to n~f1ccl an ancient dialeClal orth~r.lphy ·a~'M. dif·
fering from S ...-. but also wrillen XHI" or XHtH,
er. Westendorf, 1977. p. 481; B ¥II" is certainly a
simple orthogrnphica.1 revival of S _"'"), BUI the
arguments (e.g., Kahle. 19S4, pp. 198-99) according
to which A was at first the idiom of Thebes, before
being driven oul. especially by S. al'C not entirely
convincing. (Crom and Kahle knew neil her l>IAI.F.Cf I
as a dialecl, proto-lycopolilan. nor I>tAt.F.Cf I'. also a
typical PROTOI>IAt.F.Cf, which oflen lnob like what
can be known ahout the logical predecessor of S, a
ll.intativcJy reconst r\lctcu proto-S.~hidic; a proto-
dialeCI thaI, Nagel, 1965, has shown, had SOI11C lIffini·
ties with the language uf Thehes and which could, as
lIIuch as II 01' I., or' at lellst :Ilong with them, have
Influenced the orthography of the local nonliler.lry
texts.)
There remain 1~ and especially S. the mosl nrotml
classical Coptic idioms, the localizalion of each be-
ing particularly dillicult 10 dclcnnine, The al-ea with-
in which L manuscripu have been found extends
apparenlly from the FayyOm to the region near
lOt..-bes (perhaps, even farther south, as far as A.~wan;
WOI,-ell, 1934. p. 74). The area of lhe atlesled exis-
lence of S is even larger, since it is certain lhat it
covers all the Egyptian Nile Valley above lhe Delta.
One must therefor-e llllve ft:course 10 other nlethods,
especially the comparative analysis of isophoncs
(phonemic isoglossl.is), in the atternplto locate Land
S in relation to the dililects already mOl"e or less
exactly localized: B in lhe Delta (probably at firsl the
W('1;tem Delta); F in the Fayy6m (and v, or
"F:lyyumic without lambdacism," a scminl'utrali:r.oo
variety of F or a MIlSOI>IA!.ECT between dominant F,
and Wand M. probably in the east or southeast [?]
of the Fayyfun and somewhere in the Nile Valley
immediately to the easl or southeast [?] of the
Fayylim); M in the neighborhood of Oxyrhynchus in
-,.
Middle Egypt; A in the center (and soulh) of Upper
To lurn to the phonemic isoglosscs (or isophon<.'S)
is to admit as a gcncrnl principle (VergOle, 1973,
Vol, la, p, 56) that "the numbers of isophnnes al·e
136 GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL

,
s ••

•
s .,
S? S S

, s
, s

, , ,
" .1

•
s S

I,

, I • ,
PROPOSED OIAL£CTAL GEOCRAPIIIES OF COPTIC EGYPT, I. Alhanaslus of OU~, foul1eenih century. 2. Stem, 1880.3.
Chaine, 1934.4. Worrell, 1934. 5. Sleindorff, 1951. 6. Kahle. 1954.7. Nagel. 19651\0<.1 1972.8. Vergolc. 1973a. 9.
Layton, 1976. 10. Krouse. 1979. II. Kassel'. 198Z. 12. Funk. 1988. and !<asscr, 1989. (In parcnthcst:s; sigla for rather
problematically located dialcels de.) [In brackcls: wpplcmcntary 5igb for dialccls elc. accepted by Kassel', 1989,
 GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL 137

F F F

" .

,
, • , ,

w
" {til
.~ (XI)

''I
1.(/;
""
" I
" I
" fA?}

not by Funk, 1988.J Funk, nol Kasscr, takes account or the "enrly vnrielies or Coptic" only (dialects. etc., attt.'Slcd by
manuscripts no lal(~r than the sixth century). putting provisionally 35ide the "Ialcr" but sometimes vel)' abundantly
allesled varieties or Coptic (85 01' "classical" Doha-iric, F5 or "classical" Fayyumic. ctc.).
138 GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL
prop0l1ionai to the diManccs between the dialt..-ctal
areas" (the greater the dislancl';$ betwt!Cn IWO dia-
Icrts, the smaller the number of isophones shan-d by
them). One must nOle the use of the same prindpk'li
and similar mcthod~ in Hint1.c (1984) llnd Kassel"
(19Rl, pp. 124-31), :lOd a more developed process
(with a copious set of phonemic isoglQSSl.:!i complet·
cd with various morphophonologkal and morpho-
syntactic isoglosses) in Funk (1988).
However, one must also "take account of the ,'eta-
tive importance of the phenomena" (VergOle, 1973,
Vol. la, p. 56), pal1i<:ularly the isophonc (which is
the most convenient and generally used criterion:
sec DIAI..ECT. lMMlGIVr.NT); there (K.:a."5Cr, 1987) some
priority might be reasonably granted 10 the canso-
nanlnl (and among the consonantal to the gelleral)
varl:tbles, excluding the cases in which the opposi-
tions arc not synchronic but diachronic (e.g., ., 1<;1 p
ven;us ... IV 5. L, A1 elc.• according 10 the consonan·
!a[ late Egyptian evolution ~ :> 1..1 :> $/; !J /xl P
VeBUS t /hI 5, L. M ctc.• according 10 !!. :> or = Ixl
:> /hI; see Vergole, 1945, pr. 122-23).
fin additional restriction may be lIdded here: the
prc::ceding !\lIes only have their full value if" one
COIllpan:5 idioms thai arc really all of Ihe s:l.me
nature-that is, local dialects (and not, like 5 and S,
"vehicular." suproregional conlmon languages; sec
OtALF..crs, GROUPING AND MAJOR GRaul'S OF), these local
di;,lects being gencrnlly nOI ncutmlized (or only
slightly neutralized)-for il is evidenl that an idiom
whOM: eJlpansion always remained strictly limited to
its local area will roonnally have undergone only Ihe
influence of similar and neighboring local dialects,
those who speak il belonging chiefly to a social level
whel'c profeSSional oc:cup(ltion (agriculture, min/)!'
trades, etc.) and often modesl way of life do liule to
encourage travel. This is a social ll.5pcct of the Cop-
tic languages and dialects. which no doubt eJlis!cd,
frequently and SCCOndllrily, alongside Iheir geo-
graphical aspect. An idiom of strong expansion, a
vehicular language, will be much more neutralized
by ilS repeated conlacts, accompanlt.-d by reciprocal
influcnces, rool only with neighboring local dialects
but also with more distant regional dialects and
probably with one or anothel' common Illnguage
f11)lll even farther afield (ef. Chaine, 1934, pp. 17-
18), because {hOl>e who speak a vehicular language,
normally I'tIther neutralized in its zone of cJlpallsion
(hence outside its rcgion of origin). belong c;;hiefly to
a soci:tl level where professional occupalion (major
trades, industry, commerce, higher administration,
cle.) and a relatively comfOl1llbie way of life encour-
aged travel.
Consider now a scmilht:orelical elUlmple. Suppose
the geographical chain of idioms I, 2, 3,.,5, and 6,
moving from soulh 10 nonh in Ihis order the length
of the Nile Valley. Of these, 2 and ('Specially I. 4,
and 5 lIre typically regional dialects. not neutralized
(or only slightly neutlalized); and 3 and 6 arc clearly
supmrcgiolUll idioms and are neulml (01' at leas!:
more ncutralil.ed than the local dialects with which
they are in touch, as immigranl dialects 01' vehicular
languages). Of COUI'SC, 3 will have isophones, alllong
uther things, in common not only with its neighbors
2 and 4, but also with lhe fanher idiom 6, because,
in spite of the remoteness or lheir geographical ori-
gin, bolh "common languages" are in touch on a
higher (supralocaJ. sodal, etc.) level. Thus, il would
be incautious 10 dmw geographical conclusions 100
mechanically, by only counting the various
i50phollCS, many of which seem to locale 3 near 6.
Uoth vehicular languagC$, a..'1 a n.:suh of lheir wide
expansion, ha\'e been brought into contacl, and this
contact has made them innuence one another, even
if Ihey may have been in their origin vel)' fal' apm1;
in fact, lheir isophones (at [cast) hring them notably
closer. One might ell.5ily lake for geographical prox-
imity whal i'l probably no more than a sign of their
similar nature as common languages and as neutral
(or scmincutrnl) idioms.
Consequently, it will be prudent to submil to
critical reexamination the conclusion (Worrell,
1934; Kahle, 1954; Vergote, 1973, Vol. la, p. 59)
thai SOIlght 10 locate the dialccts of the Nile Valley
and the Delta by their isophones in the following
order, moving downstream and leaving F aside in
its comer (:lOd remembering Ih(lt Worrell did
not know M): A, L, (M), S, B. This order has today
become allnast conventional. but one may prefer
an order more in confonnity with the theorelical
schema set out above, placing A in I. L in 2, but
5 (not M) in 3, M (nOI V) in 4, V (not 5) in 5, and
finally (as In every scheme of dialectal geography)
8 in 6.
Out perhaps such a division of Coptic Egypl is still
too detailed and too precise acc;;ording to the present
Slale of knowledge? One way of doing juslke to Ihe
reservations that this skepticism implies would be,
ror example, to classify the dialecL~ not in groups
(six in number) but in "major groups" (the number
limited 10 three; see OIALECTS, CROUPING AND MAJOR
GROUPS OF) and, in dialectal geography, to divide
Egypl inlo three main regions only (cr. Kassel'.
1982); Ihis would be a way of rclumin8, by and
large, to the trip(lrtite division most commonly ac'
cepted as regards Egypt in general.
 GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL 139

According to this schema, major region I would
be the land uf the "major (di:lleelal) group I" and
would correspond 10 Upper Egypl (including Asyli!
and maybe upper Middle Egypt). II would probably
take in seve...oIl local diak-ets, lillie neulralizc<.l, of
which only A is known today, used in any case in Ihe
region of AkhmTm and probably in other areas fur-
Iher south (e.g., the n.'gion of Thebes). In addition,
major ~gion I would include L (- JA + L5 + l.6) a.<;
a fairly nl'Utr.alr«.'<1 dusler of (sub-)dialects. used n.~
gionally al least in the area of AsyO! (_ Lycopolis)
and widespread as a sc<:und vehicular language by
the side of S, over Ihe same area, of eour!iC, and
funher 50uth over the various an;as of A, and possi·
bly, though more discreetly and weakly, even funher
nOl1h (in par1S of upper and a part of middle Middle
Egypt?), temporarily and everywhere in rivalry with
S. Gmdually confronted by ilS most serious rival. 5,
invading; from the nonh (and possibly also from
Thebes, when: S could have infihrated very early, by
way of the river), J. finally perished, a little befon: A,
both being stiOed by 5.
Major n:gion II would be lhe land of the "major
(dialectal) group II" and would eOITl'Spond, if nol to
upper Middle Egypt, at least to middle and lower
Middle Egypt and Ihe Fayyt1m. This region ...."OlIld
include !lCver.a1 local diak-cts, lillie neulrnlized. of
which the only oncs known are F (located in the
Fayyt11ll aud l'elallvely lillIe neutraIi7.ed) and M (to
be placed in the neighborhood of Ollyrhynchus or
pcrrnlps a lillIe fun her non h), ;n some respects a
liule beller neutralil:l-d than F. Hemmed in between
major regions I tllld lIl, and perhaps culturally Ies..<;
active. major region 11 would find itself invad\.od very
early l,"d lrolVerscd lhl'oughout, nbove all fmm lhc
south, by the vehicular language S (and perhaps
partially by L, the mOSl neulmlized dialect of the
neighboring major region), which would leave but
lillIe chance of development for its own most, if
lillie, neutmlizcd F:lyyUlllic subdialect V, which
would possibly have \lied to gtIin acceplance as the
vehicular language over the greater part of this terri-
tory. Finally, V would h:lVe perished, with Wand M
alld probably befol'e F (which wa.'l bellcr filled to
resist in ilS remOle comer of the FayyOm). all stined
by S.
Major region III would correspond to the Delta
(or Lower Egypt). This region would probably in·
clude severol local dialect<;, neUlralil:ed 10 different
degrees. in which 8 (as a suprnlocal and suprore·
gional vehicular language rother than a regional dia·
lect; see lANGlIAGE(S), COPTtc) is sufficiently known
(from the first, well established in the ....' estern Della.
and then gradually pcnt:tr.ating throughout the Del·
Ia). Major region III would be essentially that of
"major group Ill," COllnecting dialect<; (those of the
Delta) and, above all, two largc "ehicular languages,
of which one (8) is that of the Delta also, and the
other one (5) is used only outside of Lower Egypt,
being superposed. on all the regional di:lleclS and
local subdialecls of the Egyptian Nile Valley above
the Della (I.e., chiefly A, L. M, W. V) in the .....hole of
major n-gions I and II.
As is shown by the Inajority of the Iypical (noO\"O-
calic!) 5 phonological featun'S and by the most nu-
ml'ffiUS mol"phosyntactical variables (see Funk,
1988), il is lit leasl most likely thai 5 derives from
some local dialect of upper Middle Egypt (between a
kind of pre,L and II kind of pl'e,M) in pre-COplic
times. This pre·S, whose tonic vowels were genernl1y
like those of pre·L and pl'e-M, became, pnXlllbly vcry
early on, the southem koine of Egypt, thai of the
whole Egypt!:," Nile Valley bctw~n lhe Delta and
Aswan. As a vehicular language, it came in conlllCI
(ncar Memphis) with the second vehicular language,
8, the nOl1hel"n kolne-hence, a strong vocttlic

[SOUTH) [NORTH)
UPPER EGyPT / MIOOU1 EGyPT / loWER EGyPT

Schema J (fourth celllury)

Lang. S S S S S s / s s s s S S 5/85 85 85 85
s·Lang. 1.1 L L L L L S LI L? L?/V V V?/? 85
dial 1 A A L6 L5 L' S 1 M W V K 874 8' 85 1

Schem~ II (eighlll cenlllry)

lang. S S S S S s / s s s s s S 5/85 85 85 85
dial. ? S II ? ? .5 C
Lang.• common b.nguage; I·Lang., scmicommun language; dial.. local dial«t or subdial«l.
140 GEOGRAPHY, DlALECfAL
(~tressed Yowels) similarity between Sand B (proba.
bly the influence of som~ pre·B on some pre·S about
five c~nturies lI.c.; d. Chaine. 1934, pp. 13-18, l:md,
more clearly, S.'It-.:inger, 1985). On~ mighl "Iso sup'
pose that S penetmted vel)' soun, by way of the river
trallie, 10 Thebes, where it would Imve est::tblished 1I
ccnll.'r of ex.pansion more and 1ll0l'e active into the
VCIY heart of majol' region I (deyeloping at the same
time a variety of protO'S moving into the Theoon
reg.ion and bearing the phonological mal'ks of this
implantation, according 10 a fonner hypothcsis; cf.
Nagel. 1965, and Kasser. 1982).
TIle: sequel seems heller known and may be de·
dueL-d from what is recorded of S in the classical
Coptic period: Pl'e-S, if not S itself, would have
endcd by oecuping the whole Nile Valley (but not
the Delta) to the detriment of its local di:tleet~, in-
yading in particular major region I From tho.:: nor,h
(and possibly from Thebes; d. above), eliminating I.
and then A, and finally reducing the last pockel.s of
resistance in major reglon II by the elimination of ":'
W, and M.
OI8L1OGRAPIIY
Chatne, M. EMilie/lis de grulllmnire dinfee/llle cuple.
Paris, 1933.
-"'C.' Les Diulceles ("uples as.dfllliit/lles A2. Paris,
1934.
Funk, W.·P. "DialccL~ Wanting Homcs: A Numeric:\1
Approach to Ihe E.'\rly Varielit.'li of Coptic." In His·
IMcal DialecloloK)', Regiorlal al/d Soci"l. cd. J.
Fisiak, pp. 149-92. Berlin, New York. and Amster-
dam, 1988.
HinI7.e, F. "Einc KlassiflZicrung der koptisehcn
Dia1cktc." In S/udierl tll Sprache IlIId ReligiOfI
;(gyplerlS, VI Ehrell VOII Wolfhart Westendorf jiMr·
reichl VOII sell/ell Frelllldell utld SeMi/em. Vol. I,
pp. 411-32. GUltingen, 1984.
Kahle, P. E. BaIQ';ljllt: Coplic Tt::m from Deir d·
IJal"'iz,,I1 ilr Upper Egypl. Oxford and London,
1954.
Ka.'iSer, R. "Dialcctcs, sous·dialecles et 'dialecticuks'
dans l'E.gyptc caple." Zeitschnft filr i1gyp/iscllc
Sprnehe IlIId A.llertllmskllllde 92 (1966): 106-115.
"Dialectologie." In TUles el /uIIgUQ~S de
I'Egyple phafuOfIiqlle, hontmage a JCQtI-Frallfois
Champolli(m it /'OCCssWPl dll cePII-(:i/lqIlQtltii!me all'
ni,oerstlin dll dichiffrtmtml des hiirog/)'phes (1821-
1972), Vol. I, pp. 107-115. Cairo, [1972).
"Lcs Dialectes coptes:' Blllletin de /'IllslilW
frQI/(;Qu d'archiofogie onemQ/e 73 (1973):71-101.
- , _ . "L'ldiolllc de Bachmour." BlIlIeli" tie
/'l"S/itI4/ fr(lm;Qi.~ d'archeolugie oricnwle 75
(1975}:401-427.
_--" "Prolegomcncs 3 un essai dc classification
systematique des dialecles et subdiak'ClC1i copIes
selon les critcrc:; de la phonctique, I, Plincipes 1.'1
lcnnillulogie." Museon 1)3 (1980a):53-112. "... ,
II, Alphabets 1.'1 sySlc111es phonetiqllo.::s." M/miOlJ 93
(1980b}:237 -97. "... , Ill, SyslclIlcs 011hographi·
ques cl categories dinlectalcs." Museu" 94
{1981):91-152.
--::-. "Le Grand·Groupe dialectal copte de Haute,
Egyple." Bullelill de fa Soclile. d'tgyplofogie,
GC'nM 7 (1982):47-72.
-;:-C "OTlJs ct ()'flh, taxonomic. discememenl el
disthlction des catCgories en dialectologie ct geo-
graphic dialectale copIes." Bullelill de l'Iuslilll1
frarrra;s d'urcheolugill orietrla/e 87 (1987);225-53.
--::-. "le Grand-Groupe dialectal (;opte de Basse·
Egyplc et son cXlcnsion \'chieulail'e P'lrlcgyp·
tienne." Bulldi'J d/l III Societe rf'egyplOlogie,
Gellcve, 13 (1989):73-82.
Kasser, R., and H. SaI1.inger. "L'IJiomc du r. Mich.
5421 (lI'OuYe a Karani.~, non.l-L'lit du Fayoulll)."
Witmer ZeilscJJrifl fiir IHe Kfmde des MQrgllPl/nlldes
74 (1982):15-32.
Kr..usc, M. "Kopcischc Sproche." LaikOfI dcr Xgypto-
logiC' 3 (1979):731-37.
layton. B. "Coptic language." In IIIterprC'ler's Dictio-
"Ury uf the Bibl~, Suppl. Vol., pp. 174-79. Nash·
ville, Tenn., 1976.
LefOt1, L T. "ultcrnture bohaYl;que." Museun 44
(19Jl);115~33.
Mallon, A. Cramllwir/l c/)ple, Ul'ce hihliographif!,
cltrCSlOlllllllrie Illl'ocablllaire. 2nd ed. Ueil1lt, 1907.
___., Grllmmaire COll,e, bibliogrllllhie, chreslOmalhie
ef \lQCubll/uire. 41h erl.. I'eY. M. Malininl'. 8l'inJl,
1956.
Nagel, P. "Del' rriihkopci.schc Dialekl yon Theben."
In KOpfologische Slfldierr ill der DDR, pp. 30-49.
Wis5enschaflliche Zei/schrifl der Mar1in·LmJrer·Uni.
l'ersilat HQlIc·Witlfmberg, Sonderhl'ft. Halle·
Wittcnbcl'l;, 1965.
_-,_ "Die BedeutunlS: dcr Nag Hammlldi·Texle rur
die kOplischc Dialektgeschichte." In VOlt Nag
llclmmatli his Zypem, 1'1'. 16-27. l3edincr B)7.anti·
nischc Arhehen 43. lJerlin, 1972.
Osing, J. Der spiililgyplisclle Papym$ fJ. M. 10808.
Wicsbrtden, 1976.
_ _. "The Dialect of OJCyrhyncltus." EPfchoriu 8
(1978):29.(75)-36°(82).
Satzinger, H. ··On the Origin of the Sahidic Dialecl."
In Acrs of the Secolld IIr/C'ma/icmaf Congress vi
Coptic Studies, Rome. 22-26 September 1980, ...-d.
T. Orlandi and F. Wisse, pp. 307-312. Rome,
1985.
Simon, J. ''L'Aire et la duree des dialcctes copIes."
In ACI.~ of lire FOrlrlll Ill/emQI;mral Cm,gress of lill'
grlis/s, Pl'. 182-86. Copenhagen, 1936.
Sleindortr, G. Koplische Grammalik, mil Chresto·

mtllhie, WiJr/lirverv!icJmi., IIml [.i/era/llr. Berlin.
1930.
---CC' LeI,,'/mel! dcr kop/iscJlt!ll Grlllllllllllik. Chicago,
195 I.
Stem, L Kup/isdu: Gmmmalik. Leip7Jg, 1880.
Till, W. C. Koplische GrOlllma/ik (sfliiliS€her DialeklJ,
mil Bibliographie. u:sesliiekl'll will Wiir/erverreid,·
lIi.sse". L.eiP7.ig. 1955.
- - 0 ' Kup/ische IJialeklgrall/mmik. mil Usesliickell
wid Wiirferbllch. 2nd ed. Munich, 1961.
VCrgo!c, J. PIlOllelil/lle hisllJriqm: de l'cgyfllicl/, 11.'$
COtISOlIlICS. l..ou\'ain, 1945.
Grall/moire cople. Vol. la, 1"lrodIlClioll,
plwllbiql/e el p},OIw/ogil'. morpJw/ogie sy"lhi.
",aliqlle (SlnlClJlrtl dts ~",all/e",csJ, parlie syli'
clrl'Cmiql/e, Vol. Ib, ...• partie diacllrotliqllc.
Louvain. 1973a.
---,c "I.e Dial«lc cOple P (P. Bodmer VI: Pru-
\·l'rbl.:!,;), cssai d'k1entirt<:ation." Revue d'egyp/a1ogie
25 (1973b):50-57.
WeMendorf, W. Koplisc/u:s Halldll'OrurlJllch, bt!flroei/el
1114 Gnmd des Kop/ischell Hrllldll'onemllchs VOrl
Wilhelm Spiegelberg. !-leidelberg, 1977.
WOlTI!lI. W. H. Coptic Smmds. Ann Al'bor, Mich.,
19l4.
RODOlJ'HE KAssER
GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS. The rendering of
Egyptian proper nameli into Greek characters was a
lirst Slcp toward the writing of Egyplian in an alpha-
betical script, that is, tOW'drd the creal ion of the
Coplic scripl (sce I'Rf..(X)PTIC). These proper names
are mainly thOU53nd~ of Egyptian lInthroponyms.
IOponyms, and tcmple names, as well as names of
gods, divine epitheL~. and sacerdotal titlcs, wrillcn in
the Greek alphabet in order to adapt them to, and
insert them into. a Greek context.
Apm1 from !-lomel' (ninth century D.C,). where one
linds. for Instance, the first mention of the lenn
AI'ytnrroc;. the oldest real examples arc from the Saite
period (Twenty-sixth DyntlSty), when Greek merce-
naries and merchants were present in Egypt. To this
eady redod belong.~ the famous Greek graffito of
Abu simbel (on Egypt's southern border). which
dlltes buck to 589 B.C. and which conlaim, among
other things. the name of a well·known Egyptian
general, rendel'ed as nqmUl/-l-"" (see Diuenbell;er.
1915, no. I). As carly as Herodotus, who must have
visited Egypt around 430, the language problem the
Greeks had to cope wilh in Egypt appears clearly in
the evidence. Wriling for Greeks, lierodolUS gave
several Egyplian gods the names of Greek counlcr-
GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS 141
parts (e.g.. "Hephaeslos" for "Ptah." and "AphnxH.
te" for "Hathor"), but hl,l had 10 lrans<:ribe the "baJ'>
harian" personal names Into Greek characlers. Apart
from a number of words adopted in the GI'eCk v0-
cabulary (e.g., Ilk", '~K1';, &uno:: see Pierce, 1971),
there arc only a few, quite exceptional cases of in·
digenous generic names that are lrdnsliteratoo into
Greek, such as "'lp&)/A&" (HerodOlus 2.143), corre-
sponding to the I30hnlric ,.,...., lhe man, the human
being.
Following the conquesl of Egypl by Alexander the
Great (332 B.C.). a large numiK'r of Greeks sellied in
the Nile Valk-y, and with the establishmenl of Ptole-
maic rule, Greek became, along with Egyptian, a
commonly spoken tongue. The increasing contact
between natives and Greek-speaking people in every-
day life and on a more intellectual levcl kod to rather
widespread bilingualism on the upper levels of na·
tive Egyptian society (see, e.g., Peremans, 1982). A
number of Greek words were even adopted by de-
motic (st.'C C)aryssc:, 1984); they can be considered
distant forerunners or lhe Copto-Gret:k vocabulary
(see VOCABUlAJIY. COI'TO.(>RF..EK). nll''Oughoul the R0-
man occupalion (from 30 B.C- onward) and until the
AllAR CONQUEST 01' EGYPT (640 A.D.), Greek remained
the language of the adminiSlrolion.
The innumerable Greek documentary lexts from
me end of the fourth century B.C. and later (con·
tr~el5, lellers, lax lists, invenlories, etc., wrilten
mosdy on papyrus, OSlroCll, or wooden lags) contain
numerous Egyptian proper names written in Greek
leiters, usually provided wilh 1I Greek ending to inte·
grate them bcuer into the Greek conlext. It is clear
that the Gn..-ek phonological system wa.~ quite differ-
em from the Egyptian and that the Greek alphabcl
wa.~ not an ideal means to render Egyptian. Thus,
the s<:hwa had to be rendered by ~ or 0 (sec Lacau.
1970, Pl" 131-36) and eon50nanlS such as -d or -I,
unknown in Greek, were wdlten in various ways
(sec Ouaegebcur, 1973, p. 99). Although lhe graphic
transposition can val)' wldcly, detailed study clearly
rcvcllls SOllle systemi7.ation In the tnll1slitcmtions.
Many of the scribes of Greek documents were Egyp-
tiuns. so one need not be surprised thm allcmpts
were made to write sequcnces of words, short sen-
tences, or formulas in lhc Greek alphabet. Since the
intention here i!'O less restrictcd than, and different
from. lhc purpose or tile Greek transcriptions of
Egyptian proper names. and sinee it concerns here
only a tcmporal)' slage hi an evolulion, Ih~ cases
merit SCparalc treaBnenl (sec PRE-OLD COPTIC).
From the first century A.I). onward, lhere appeared
Egyptian tcxts, mOSl of a magical or related nature,
142 GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS
in which lhe Creek alphabet was enlargoo wilh :1
varying number of supplemental)' signs derived
from demolic (see oU) COPTIC). One can also notice
in Gn.ock transcriptions of Egyptian proper names,
especially from the later Roman period, thm occa·
sionally supplemental)' signs were used to render
phonemes that do not occur in CrLock, such as j and
~,. Since they ....' ere incorporated in Creek texts (of-
len wilhout Greci7.allon), these cases are aiM! regard-
ed as Creek tr:mscriptions. Creek texts containing
tl'lln&Criplions of Egyptian proper names continued
to appear along with Coptic until about the eighth
eentuI)' (i.e., even after the Ar",b conquL"Sl).
A special case is the colleelion of texIS published
by Crum (193%). These documents of Ihe eighlh
centul)' 01' later in the Coptic Illnguage arc wriUcn
in fI cursive hand making exclusive usc of Ihe Greek
:\Jphabct. Thcy arc much too late to be considered
Pre-old Coptic and seem to n:prc5ent a panieular
idiom related tlJ 1lOHA1RlC (sec D1ALf.C:T c).
The imponance of the Creck transcriptions for the
study of Coptic is apparent frum. among othel''S.
Crum (l939a), terny (1976). nnd Vydchl (1983).
The toponyms in Gl'eek tranSl;;ription melltioned by
Crum have also bt.ocn registered in a separatc index
(s.ce Roquet, 1973). but for the numefOlL~ anthro-
ponyms incorporoted in his dictionary, there i!> no
index. In thi.~ field, indeed, much work remains to
be done (sec, e.g., OmlCgehew', 1981). A comparison
of Coptic Wilh the data of the Creek lI'anscriplions
can be imponant for various research aspects.. Thus,
fOt" instance. Coptic orthography sometimes reveals
the innucnce of Greek transcriptions, such as t for
pJ (tlOll. As for the study of phonetic!>, the ocea.~ional
rendering of f by (0)1) ean be mentioned: for exam-
ple, ·"'"I/.Wi alongside 'Pf""iJlfl'lC;, and t11l1l6'1 for
i.nffi><; (see QuaL-gebeur, 1974, p_ 417, and 1978, p.
255). With Coptic and, for much earlier pcriodli,
cuneifol1n trnnscI'iptions, Greco-Egyptian onomas-
tics also supply interesting infol1nation on the vocn·
lil'.ation of Egyptian, which in ilS own written form
noted only the consonanl~; mention can be made of
research on word :lCcent and word fOml.l)tion (see:
Fecht, 1960; VCI'gOlC, 1973; Osing. 1976). Finally, the
stlldy of spokcn dialects and their dispersion must
be undCl1aken for the PI'C·Coptic period in the light
of present knowledge of Coptic dialects. A methodi·
cal investigation in thili field (of which the first re-
sults, Ouacgcbcur, 1975, wert challe'lged by
Brunsc-h, 1978, on-in the view of this author-
inadeqU!lle and insufficient grounds) is being conlin-
ued.
IUHLlOGRAt>HY
8n1l15ch, W. "Untersuchungen :ru den griL'ChiSl;;hen
Wiedergaben ligyptiSl;;her PCfS(Inennamen." Ell'
ehuria 8 {1978):1-142.
Cerny, J. Coptic Elymologic!!/ DictioIUlI'y. C:lmbridge,
1976.
Clal'yssc, W. "Gn.ock Loan-Words in Demotic." In
S. P. Vlecming. cd., Aspects of Demotic Lexicog·
raplry. Acts of the Seroml IlltemaliOllal COllfer-
ellce fur Demotic Siudies, Leidc/I, 19-2/ Selltemher
/984. Studin Demotien I, pp. 9-33. louvnin,
1987.
Cnlln, W. E. A Coptic Dic/iollary. Oxford, 1939:1.
"Coptic Documcnts in Gn.-ck Script." p~
ceedillgs of the IJritish Academy 25 (1939b):249-71.
Dillcnbcrger, G. Sylloge InscriptiOlllmr Graccamm,
Vol. 1. leipzig, 1915.
Fecht, G. Wort(lk~111 WId Silhcll5lruktllr. Agyptnlo·
giSl;;hl,: Forsc:hungen 2 J. Cli.lckstadt, Ilamburg. nnd
New York. 1960.
lJK:au, P. Ellldes d'igyptologie, Vol. I, Phonitique
igyptietme allcienl1e. BibliothCque d'elUde 41. Cai·
ro, 1970.
o.~ins, J. Die Nomilla/hi/dwl/; des )fgyptischel1. Mninz,
1976.
Peremans, W. "Sur Ie bilinguism~ dans l'Egypte ~
lagides." In SII.dia P. N,Ultr Ob/ala, Vol. 2., Oriell'
talia Allliqua, ed. J. Ouacgebcur, pp. 143-54.
Louvain, 1982.
I'ieree, R. H. "Egyplilln loan-Words in Ancient
Greek." SYllll10lae OsloenSl!S 46 (1971 ):96~ 107.
QuaegebL'1Jr, J. "Considerations sur Ie nom pl'Opre
~ticn Teephthaphbnukhos." Orientlllia lAva-
niellsia /leriodica 4 (1973):85-100.
---;;-_, '111C Study of Egyptian Proper Naml.-'S in
Greek Tr•.mscrlptlon: Problems and Per'S[lCelives,"
0'1011/11 18 (1974):403-420.
-::--. Le 011111 igyplien SlIa'( dallS /" rdigiotl et
f'ollolllostiqlle. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 2.
Louvaln. 1975.
---;:;-. "SCnenoophis, nom de femme et nom
d'horome." ClmJlliquc d'Egyple 56 (1981):350-59.
_ _. "De III prchistoire de l'ecl'ilurc copte." Or/·
cllMlia Lovaniet1sia Periodieu 13 (1982): 125-36.
Roquet, G. Toponyttles el fiellx-dits igypliens ellregi·
Slra dalu Ie Dictiolllluire cOplC de W. E. Crl/m.
Bibliotheque d'etudes coplcs 10. Cairo, 1973.
Vergote, J. Grommuire coplc, Vol. la, Illlrodllcliorr,
pholletil/lle ct phonologic, //Iofplr%gie sy"·
IhclIlulique (slructure des simall/cltles), partie Sy"-
ehrollique, Vol. Ib, ... , partie diuchroniqlle.
Louvain, 1973.
Vycichl, W. Dicliollnaire itymol~ique de la laugur!
cople. I.ouvain, 1983.
JAN OUAEGllOllUR
 IPtllM '(':;)Ia '1",!dO:;) :>q 01 Illal alii JO Imll "pOM
JO :>:)cld sll.J .JO ICI.JI '13aIClP J:>I.JIOW sll.J) SI;l.1IClP
snopeto JO "B~IMOOl\ IU;)!3!Unso! UC JO IllalU03 alII
ul ',(:;)enbapIlUl :>11l13pOUl Il IllOJj JO 'sI3aleJP J31110
.JO :>3u;muU! AUC Wo.1J l.IooC puc uOl~'S;).Id1l3 U311!.1'"
[CUO!lua/lUO:l S1] ul ISC"[ IU '13;)[ClP ,wIllOW S!II U;)/I;)
~U~I;)ISUW Wo.I) wII.J SIU3A;ud l.J:lll.J'" 'kmnb:lpllUl [UIlI
-:J"II"luI snop3S wO.lj ,1;)1\l;)lI'''' 'UOPU;)/lUO:l [UIJ<:I[U!P
U;)AI8 U 01 a.I;)II]>1l 01 ,mp,lO U! S:I!::luapU;)1 [1l11[l!/I\[lU!
sll{ ;)WO:>,1;)AO 01 rcnpl/l!PUI Ull JO Alpudu:lUl oUlll
-UIl[OIlU! pUU ;)AIlUI;),1 tllll IIlOJJ S;)S\.l1l l! 'SI Ilollil :X;)[U
-WO:l A]JIl;:!I:I pUll [Imp!/lIPU! AIlJplS S! Ulfi!JO ;)11l!P
-alUlU! ,)s0'l"" uoUalUOU<ll[d C '1SC,IIUO:l U! 'sf Pill0!p1
aql-II!'" S!11 JO ~lOJJa Ull pUll a:lU;)SIll')lU! IU;)PIJjns
JO SUIl3W Aq X3PU:lPU:l1 Iunp!/I!pul sl4 llu!wu;).I:l/lO JO
alqlldc:;) S! all SC ,lCJOSUJ S;'I,J"lIPIl[cnp!"lpll! ;)IP l[:lllIM
01 pUll dnOJ~ 11 Aq P;)ll!J sIl11l11 uOllu;I/IUO') ll_:l[dWIS
A[3APC[aJ puc ,,/111;)0111°;) S! UI5!,IO i11Clpalttltl! ;)';04M
1I0U:lluou;)\{d :>!ISln'ilu!l IJ sl 1:l:l11J!P :1111 'U;)l[1 'JI
·"lhrrU!UC[
Jllln:>!II;)I\ ,lplll S(lO!!;U lU;):>Il[l'lI ;)111 ul pUll ~1;)41
ACM C U! 8Ulwo:>:l<j puc 'llaJC !ill IIUIICUIWOP '(Ul~!)
·It'll'll 'J.:B'"IVIO ~) 13alcl!> IlU:,IlJ,WW] Ull (lllI·lu"nu
_U! AlllU':lU;)~ 'sassup ICpoS U\C).I;)3 ull j»SOdWJ-I:xlns
X\ 4:l\\{..... uo '1:;);lllllP ~"Il0U0411.J::lOJnll UMO Sil SIlI.I 11ll{1
oUol!-Ual ,(UC U! uOI"I\ap AI<i!lS!~! IllIl1 UO\I~L\P!Jq,{4
:)!ISlnBu!1 JO IlU;)lUOU;)lld ;)1{1 1I1l::JaJ AIlW ;)UO 'AeM
1c.J3uaB :>JOW e UI ·4:>;1ads \c.Jll\cu :1If1 se..... 13a[ClP
,1al{lOuc ;'I,I;)IIM uOI8aJ C 1.11 AI!I\II;;lC S!l{ uo BUIMtC:l
U:l1{1 puc 1:l;)I1l'!p U!CIJ.1:) II I.JU\q WQ.lJ jUll\IIJds SJ:)II:>I
JO Ullm I)' JO sUOIl:'lnpo..td A.lc.Jal!l alii SCM (P(.JOit\ wa
-pow :'Il{l ul U;)A:'I pUll) ldAJ:3 :llldo::> U! Iuaun:) I50W
OlSO\jl ;luowc AI<ilXJO-ld -(I\PI-lll odd 'W!ll 'J<JS'SC)I
:Lf-9f 'dd 'SS61 '[[!.L :mn ·d '((61 ';)UII!l{J) S"l;);)\
oOlP! JO uO!JllWJoJ ~I aJ(O/Iwd ,(uw ~"C:l 11l.I;)A~
'AJlll Un \O.\Ul
l'AEM.\ll S3SCJ l1ll O! puc SOOPSUO:'l .(r;).lc.J SJ
uOllCJf>:JP S!41 'P31OJPI 341 OIU! [[cJ 01 l:>aIC\P alJl
IUWJ ,(ISllo!Jas SS31 ,10 ;).lOW sued~ 'jU!IJ.1M U! U;)I\:1
,10 BUlJ(c.1ds ul 'AJO<lPUJI 11l.InnlU S!4 AISIlOI;)SuoJun
8I.1\1"0IlOJ 'aj!l AI!11p SJIJ JO S"lU;)tUOlU U!CIJ~:;)
111 uOSJ:xl AJ;)II;) ,((.JC3U JO 4:>\,..;) j! U:'II\:'I ·SIl4.L
'(aJII S!4 JO Iuawow anb\un
AIP!_IIS II Ie [CllP!/I!pU! 311b!un AIP!J15 e JO 1;):l[OIP!
"I{I Aldw!s IOU pue AJOI~ll{ n! JO po!Jad e JO ;)S",,(noJ
"I.{I ul dno.I8 U JO ;)Scn!UUI "III 51 II asllll;);)(( 1",,[R!p
C SS:lp4pUOU Inq 'PI-lOA\ 8u\pOnO.Llns :'II{I JO SIll;).l41
al{I puc SUO!I;'I,I:)SjPUI "III mo.lJ 1Xl.l:'l11"115 'S;)I\I:lSlU;)111
3uolUI: ;)11::'I!UnUlUlOJ 01 AlpOl.llW 11 JO SJ:I<lW:>UI :>1.{1
SMollc 11141 "i!cnBucl I<lJ:l;)S"IW;)S" ;)41 ;))j!l 'dnwB nUWS
al!nb C JO IIlO!]>1 "III <Xl UOlsc33() tlO AUlU 11:111 P;)[
-P.IP u) SJOIIUO[JJIUI 511{ JO l:l;)IC!P ;141 UI UCIJI J;)41C..l
£.1 .LJ310IOI
';)OOIC JI;)SW!"l 01 .I'P.!ln;l.'ld S! 1{:l11(..... ·1;l.1101P! UP. U!
JiallWl4 Waldlla 01 :»SOOI.J:'I AI!JclunlOI\ 1'[1'10/I\ J041nc
;)]qllUOSC;'l,l C lUt11 3U!13ewl U:'IIII IOU 1'1"0') ;)\10 -;)13
-Clsqo \lC 51 l:l.110!]>1 ;)41 ;).1;)4..... pnru C SI p.1rll!p :I\{l
a[doad Ua:JMliKl UO!IC:l!UnWlU03 ICOI;);)I[:lIUl U! 11l\{1
1:'II1J :'IIJI JO SIlOPSUO;) '1113nolll S!4 JO unlsn1JIP :l~!1
-Jalj,) a41 aIClH!:lcJ 01 S:l4s1..... "4 ~"ll UOOS ~"ll A;)U:lPUa1
11:111 Il:qwo') Il!/I\ ;)11 JIlq '.I;)UUUUI [U13;)IO!P! Oil III JP5
-W!1l ~'S;udx;) 01 A:lU:lPU:lI [CJIlIUU 11 :lA1l4 111'" ,,').I01J:I
1~'C,)1 JO :l[d!:;)u!,1u" :llll A'HIO 01 l'alulU;)1 '[cnp!lI!pu\
l{:lP.:I ':lS,.m0:l JO 'uo!snmp "]>IM AJ:l1I \l S:lIIS!," J041nr.
Sl! 4:l!l["" .IoJ ')jool.J C jO SJaptw.I ;)IP JO Alllll101 a41
5! Stt ';)II!I:'1;)II0;),10 ;)\Ull!llJ,l;)I;)PU! ',\,IlJ,lIUO:'l ;)111 ttO '5!
jn<:j (uMoull IU:lIX:I :lWOS 01 Alqlssod S! 1:I:lIOlp! :ls04'"
[Ilnp!o\!pu! Ull '·a·\) ,1aIW[ tl JO lU;)!d!;);).! P:lPU:llUI
:141 ,,[dlu!s IOU S! "'::J!~ ul ,10111:lOj.J::JIU! :l41 U:lIIM :'lJOW
i141 HC S!l{1 pUll '3uo[:l4 _1:'Il\ll[ alii 4:'1!l1M 01 dnO.lB :141
JO ;)5lln8ull[ AJ;lI\ ;)tll 'UIO!!>I awll'S ;)lll 3[Qlssod Stt ,1IlJ
~"ll 's.tolll;)Q(.J;)IUI J!:l41 01 ;)[l.JISU;)4:lJdwo:) luoIPI lie
;)I!JM,IO lfcad5 01 ;)[t.l!:'Iupd (I! '\'11 a3cn3ulll Il JO s.l:J5n
:141 Al{..... sl 1P.l{1 ::)ldo:x! U;)3Mlaq UOllp.:l!unwwo;) JO
SUll:>W Il 'SUO!IIlI3.l [C!;)()S jO IUOIulIUlsuI uc AlICIIU;)Ss;)
5! ;)31ln3UIlI U ICllI UMOU)j S! 11 ·SJ;)Sn Jl;)111 JO SUO!I
-~lloW ICJ!Bo\OIPAsd J;)II.J:I ;)1{1 :'IlIp:Uad 01 JOAll:lp
·U;) Isnw auo 'AI!lC<lldmo:'l IUOI..leddc ,1lalll UI ..13a[C
'l!>•• puc .. 13a[OIP!.. CllatuOU;)lld alii AIUlJ!.! dSllJj 0.L
'1\ JO waJS.\s
e SU!)juw JO IUled ~I{I 01 UO!S!>~ldx" 511 SUfl!JClnlbJ
,(1IC;}..1 U! p;>;):.'IJ1lS J;)A;)U .\ol1{1 Inq '1;);)\011'1 :'1111 .. pUJl
"'Ins.. swals.\s as;)41 11lI{1 ,{cs ual.{l AllW :'IUO -(SIJ3IlllP)
SWJ)S.\S :I!IU"4me WQ.lJ !U!A!J:I(l 5lUalU;)p jO ';)Wli
pall!:! 'C IC Icnp!A]pUl "IBu!~ C Aq 'UOllculqw03 31
-11roJ~Is.\SUOU puc [IIIU;)fIP;)C "III 'J;)411l1 'sl I! :U1:'1\S.CS
31qcIs II JO uuoJ ~I(I U\ J:IJ\.Iasqo :)1(1 01 Jl.lS1! Iuas:ud
lOu SOIOp 1:>aIOIP! "1(1 'A.lOl!S01!.l1 ,([[lllIUas5;) pue BUll'll
-m:lnu s.\llJl\\C 'I! 01 p3o\.1asqo :>q un:l 11ll{1 sasn \t!JIUJ
-JaJald a41 OIlldsaP 'sma ,:;'W!l ~x!:! C IC IcnP!A!PU!
U;)A!S I)' 01 ,11l'![n»d "SCNlucl C jO~"Il "I{I JO Al\IClOI
31{1 0~l{1 S] j:);)IO!Pl ;)1{1 :SW;)r.;.(S .If) SWO\P! :'I!I!:>ads
so:: paSCS!Aua ale 4:'1!4..... puc 'wa41 pu;nqns 1(314'"
51UI)'I5OO:'l :'IlIS!nSU!1 01 ;):'IU;)J~J:lJ Aq ~11S!lqe~
'UOSJad ;)130!S C Aq pa:lllprud Clup =»{I JO AI!lClOl
;)111 ~Iouap a ..... ,I:>:llol!>!, Aa .. '(SL -d '086\ 'J:'J5S1l)l]3
::>lo&.t:>A jO UO!Is.1m1ns :141 uo P-'!Jlpow AI148115 '6tZ
·d) pappc .(;)1{1 'puCII J;)410 "1(1 uO ,:W~lsAS.. II JO
uuoJ alii U! SJead<h: 1;);)llo'\P A.lal\a 'slllLl ..][:J5I\ 33cnB
-UP.l "41 UC41 lu:>wuOJIAua p313!J1s;)J ;).lOW c ul P;)!'"Il
5! IP!4M puc 'W;)lsAS 3!I:lUOlld puc :)!I:'lCIUAS 'lc:l1ll:l1
U/I\O SJl SU4 1(;)!4/1\ ;:,3unjucl 11 JO IWOj 11 S! .1.1.11
'l!!P, ;)4.L. ';)10.11\\ (1)1>1 ·d 'fL611 'Ic I;) S!oqna ,:13;)1
-C\l)" :1111 III!'" P;)IS!lIIUO:'l ;'1(1 ACtu lelll AlllUJ :'I11S\n8
-ull C 'UO!llu!J;)P Aq 'sl ,,13aIOlp!.. uv '~:>:Il0IaI
 144 IDIOLECf
prevents him masrering them so that he does not
eonfuse them in ornl or wrillen expression.
In either case, what subtends the idiolect is the
elements that are opposed one 10 another, whose
presence creates a state of tension in lhe text
(whether oral or in writing). In f..<:t, if it ha.<; been
Ihought possible to differentiate two "dialects" from
one another in Coptic, a dead llmguage, it is because
in them can be distinguished two (orthogmphic,
morphosyntactic) systems, which because of their
n::ciprocal Opposilions cannot as a whole bt.: reduced
one to another, and the copyist who is subjected
(um;:onsciously) to the contnldietol)' innuenee of
these two diah.:d.s finds himself in a state of tension,
of linguistic instability (and !iO also if he attempts to
conform to a single standardized dialect, but does
not know vcI)' well the standard17.ed orthography of
this dialect). One might then say that "the idiolect is
the result of a tension provisionally resolved:' It is a
point of b.... lallce achieved luday (different from the
balance achie1led yesterday or the one that will be
achie1led 101llOITQW) between (I) what the individual
has of necessity had to learn, or may have leamed,
of the dialect of Ihe society in which he lives (ll
dialect related to his molher' dialect and in which he
in lends and thinks to express himself) and (2) wb:1t
he h(\.<; for lhe moment ce.lSCd to learn, because his
vernacular form of expres.<;ion (his /IIother dialect) is
sufficient for him to make himliClf understood by the
society, to some extent alien, in which he lives.
Most ff\.'quently, this Sl:l.te of tension remains un-
known to the conscious subject, so that it should
rarely be understood as a state of crisis, painful and
dramatic. Indeed, with a Shenute, a 1Iery strong per-
sonality, one may imagine a calm aMIlrance and a
kind of pride in spt:aking and wliling Sahidic with
sume touche~ of Akhlllimic, which make this lan-
guage, tllrclluy vigorou.<; on his lips, even more lively.
Each case (If nn idiolect is the resuh of a personal
SilU:ltioll, und there are as mftny such situations as
there arc individuals. If, then, the language of
Shenute is 1111 idiolect (weakly Idiolectal), so is thnt
(oFten very idiolectal) of many nonlite.-.Iry docu-
ments of the Theban region and of the copies of
litermy works that ha1le survi1led; for example, the
majority of the Bodmer papyri art' not 1Iel)' idiolec-
tal, but the Nag Hammadi manusclipls and other
literary copies from the fourth and fifth centuries are
generally much more so. At any rate, tht:: onho-
graphic anomalies in these copies <in relation to one
or anOlher of the dialects thai havc been, or are on
the way to being, standardized) are never truly sys-
I
tematic, !iO that it would be a mistake to classify the
linguistic expression of these texts among the "dia-
lCC"ts" or subdialects, all of which require the pres-
ence of a minimum of systemati1.lltion.
Thus, an idiolect by ils nature has sc1lernl compo-
nents, of which one is the mOl her dialect or the
individual. Another lIluy be either his profound igno-
mnee of any particular dialectal orthographic con·
venlion (ineluding Ihat of his mother' dialect) or his
knowledge of nther dinlects combined with hi.<; ina-
bility 10 master this knowledge to the point of suffi-
ciently distinguishing them in their eon1lentional
wrillen expression,
Theoretically, the oral and written expression of
an individual can only be idiolt:ctal. in 1Ial)'ing de-
gree. But in texts written by individuals wilh ade-
quate intellectual capacity and strength of will, the
idiolectal proponion (in relalion 10 the dialect cho-
sen as thc means of expres..<;ion) is so weak that it
may be neglecled; there the idiolect in no way ob-
SCUI'CS the dialect, which can be sufficiently known
through these ICXts (if they are long enough and
1IlIricd enough). Here one lllay spcllk of :1 "tr•.IIlspar-
ent" idiolect.
In other texts, the idiolectal expression is more
"opaque:' II then demand<; from the ir11lestigl1lor an
effort of analysis to decOl.lc wh:u i~ hidden by the
phenomena of hypoeorrection and hypercorrection,
in pa.iticular, and to succeed in identifying the com-
plments of the idiolect, among which he will be
specially interested in tht:: dialectS that subtend the
idiolect.
It will be convenient to designate idiolectal
lexemes by indicating, first, their plinclpal compo-
nent with an italic capital and then their secondary
component(s) with an italic lower-case superscript;
for example, SO signifies Sahidic innuenced phoneti.
cally (and to some extent, but in'Cgularly, phonulogi.
cally) by Akhmirnic.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chalne, M. Ele.mellis de grammaire dialectale copte.
Palis, 1933.
Dubois, J.; M. Giacomo; L. Gucspin; C. Mareellesi;
J.·8. Marcellesi; and J.·P. Mevel. ViCfWlltIllire de
linguisliqulI. Paris, 1973.
Kasser, R. Complimenls all dictiollllaire cople de
C"lIn. Cairo, 1964.
--:7 "ProlCgomenes a un essai de cbssification
systematique des dia1ectcs cl liUbdialectes coptes
scion les Crit~I'eS de 18 phoOl!1ique, I, Plineipcs et
lenninologie:' Musiol! 93 (1980):53-112.

lill, W. C. Kop/isl:he CrammatiJ: (saiilisl:her Dialekt).
mil Bibliographie, Lesutuclcl't1 lwd Wijrlerverzeich-
I1Usen. Leipzig, 1955.
ROOOU'1i E KAssER
Li\.NGUAGE(S), COPTIC. Coptic is the Ia.~t
stage of the Egyptian language in the eourse of its
very long e~istcnce and slow evolution (we can ob·
serve it over a pel'iod of mOl'e than foul' thousand
years, l\ quite exceptional phenomenon in Iinguis·
tics). Since Coptic is today a dead language, and has
been for scvcn'll centuries, the death of Coptic has
therdore meant the m'ath of ancient Egyptian. Will
the Copts of loday ~ve enough mith, devotion. pcr-
scvcnmce, and perspicacity 10 SUCCl.'f.-d in reviving
the glorious language of thcir ancestors, one of the
most beautiful, mosl cleverly slnJctured, and most
musical in the world? 11lO5C inspired by the love of
Egypt can only hope so.
Although people habitually speak of "the" COplic
language. it must be stated that in reality there al'e
two Coptk lnnguages (d. Kassel', 1984a, Pl'. 26t-62;
Vycichl, 1987, pp. 67-68), caeh of which is accom-
panied by various regional dialect~, themselves lhe
succeSSOI'S ill some fashion uf the dialects of PRE-
COPTIC.
The first is 5ahidic ($), which is the common
speech, or "vehicular language," supl1llocal and sup-
raregional, of the Yllllcy of the Egyptian Nile above
the Delta, afler having probably (but in what distant
past?) itself been a local dialc<:t that may have issued
from some region of upper Middle Egypt without
direct contact with the second language, Dohainc
(8), as a local diak-ct, but probably in touch with
Dohairic in the region of Memphis as a common
language reaching the boundary of the neighboring
common language (see DtAL£CTS, GROUPING AND MAJOR
GROUPS OF). The most ancient S mrmuscript is of the
end of the third centlll)' A.n.; the latest arc of the
fourteenth century, a period at which S.'1hidic (as
indeed already from the eleventh century) was no
langeI' anything Illore than a language virtually dead,
surviving only artificially in the ecclesiastical milieus
of some communities in Upper Egypt which had not
yet been WOII to the exclusive usc of Bohairic.
The Bohairic language is the supra regional vehicu-
lar language of the Nile Delta. haYing been, it seems,
the principoil regional dialc<:t of the western Delta.
like Sahidic, Bohairic ceased to be a truly living
language from the eleventh century. Its survival in
the course of the following centuries remains a phc-
LANGUAGE(S), COPTIC 145
nomenon in large part artificial, a means of commu·
nicatian particularly esteemed among clerks of the
church (a vel')' closed institution, turned in upon
itself and much pl'eoccupied, and indeed with good
reason, with its survival in the midst of a hostile
environment), a language above all religious. In this
reg~lIx1 the testimony of the wfitel' al·Maql'l":d (fif·
teenth century) is not very signific.mt: he nffinlled
that in his time the Christians of Uppel' Egypt still
spoke Coptic (and cvcn GI'eekl) among themselves:
one may fC(;eive with the liame circumspection what
is reported by the Jesuit Vansleb (sc\,cnll.:cnth centu-
ry), who said he met in Egypt an old man who slill
knew how to express himself in Coptic. For a long
time, in fact, and throughoutlhe country, Antbic had
become the only liVing language and the sole means
of communication among all its inhabitants, Chris-
tian as wt:1I as Muslim.
It is stated that the oldest 8 manuscriptS are of the
fourth century A.O.; the latest are of the ninetl.-c:nth
(I) century, and one might even say of the twentieth
if one admitted to this category the copi~ of old
Coplic manuscripts made by Copts 10 study them 01'
to aid them in one way or another to save their
ancestml language I'rom oblivion. Boh.,il'ic was lhe
living language of the Delt., exclusively bcfOl'e the
eleventh century, a period aftel' which Coptic as a
whole became a dead language among the Egyptian
p(:ople, even Christians, and survived only in purely
ecclesiastical milieus and usages. Bohairic then
spread rapidly throughout the valley, as far as the
southern extremities of Upper Egypt, but as a litu'l;i·
cal language. artificially practiced by the clergy
alone (and the officiants who accompanied them).
Even so, Bohairic's very restricted mil." dOl.'S allow
thc enr to hear the 50unds of the Coptic language,
expressed by Coptic mouths and throats, beneath the
eeilings and the domes of the Coptic ehUl·ches. Bo-
halric is a survival, then, of ancient Egyptian in a
very p:U1icular form, regrettably restricted lmd de-
prived of its Oliginal life and creative capacity, but
despite evcl)'lhing a survival. Howeve)', even this fcc·
blc remnant of the ancient trea......rcs of Coptie intel·
lectual life is threatenl.-d in modem Egypt. In fuct,
from one side certainly and for more than It century,
certain Copts inspired by their Faith have been work-
ing with an admirable perseverance and devotion to
revive 8, teaching It 10 the Coptic pl.'Ople (Vycichl.
1936; Vergotc, 197], Vol. la, pp. 1-2; Bal'$um, 1882;
Labib, 1915; ef. the work of the modem t~'achcrs,
among whom the admirable popular savant Emile
Maher stands out). But, from another side, some
 146 I.ANGUAGE(S), COPTIC
part isan s of a religiOWl rene w011 in the anci ent CoptiC
chur ch are pres sing lhe chur ch to Arabi1.e liS who le
liturgy, in which, alongside brie f GrL'Ck Jl"lssagC~,
som e filirly long sect ions in Bolltliric Imvc survived:
the essential thing is, they say. thaI the peop le of lhe
chur ch, who know only Arabic. shou ld und erst and
"eve ryth ing" that is said and chanll..-d in the liturgy.
One mny und erst and and appr ove this reas onin g on
lhe religious level, but unf011unalcly lls cons eque nc-
es deal a morlal blow to wha t, afte r tcn cent urie s of
exha ustio n, had in SOllle fashion smYived of the pub-
lic usc of the Cop tic language. Egyptologists and
Coplologists cann ot but depl ore lhis com plet e
clr~lccmcnl (pro jecte d or rea1i~cd) of liturgical Cop
' less (68 perc ent) in diak-ci P or pl'Oto·Theban but
lic.
The wor d "Co ptic " thus desc ribe s. c~ipccially to-
day. the !()(ality of Sahi dic and Boh airic , as well as
the loca l dialC\:ls that they cove.. (Kah le, 1954;
Kassel", 1980 -198 1). Then~ is no need to repe al here
all Ilwt has been Wl"i!tell else whe re in Ihis rega rd;
see in gencr:al OI"I£CT. IMMIGllAHT; D1ALOClS: Ol"u :crs.
MORPHOLOGY 01' COPTIC: <,>EOCIUPIIY. OIAl£CrA~ MhT
"·
I>t"I.F.cT: QU) COI'TIC: PR£.COI'TIC: PIlI'...ou> COI'TIC; PRo.
TOlll"LE.CT: and in pal1 ieul ar AKIIM1MIC; lKlHAIII.IC: DI"·
LECT G (OR BA$IIMURIC 011. MANSURIC): DIALEC1' II (Oil.
ImRMOl'Ol.lTAN OR ASllMUN1N1C): OIAlJ'..C'1' i tOR PIlUTo.
LYCOPOUT"N); DIAl.ECT P (OR PR01'Q.THEBAN); FAYYUMIC
; may diSlinguish fi\'e SUCCCS5ive SlagC$ in the long
LYCOPOUTAN (OR SUUo\KHMIMIC): MESOKIlMIC (OR MIODLF.
F.cYPTt"Nl; and SAIIIOIC.
The word "Co pt" itself deri ves fl'Olll the sam e
wor d as "Egy pl" and "Egyptian," a lerm lhe orig in
of whic h appc<ll1i !O be aUlhelllically Egyplian: 1.11 k3
Pt~1 (Vyc ichl, 1983, p. 5) 0.. 1,/11'/ le3 Pt~l (Kro
use,
1979, p. 731), "the hou se of the spid l of (the god)
Plah " (that is, Memphis, several kilo mete rs sout h or
mtx lem Cairo). This "'1 k3 PI~1 beca me in Gree k
Ar ~, Egypt, whe nce Ai ~, Egyptian. rlah
\\'a~ the god of the lown of Mem phis , and Ihe loca
l
Iheology cons idcr ed him !.he crea tor of the wod d.
Disl0t1ing to som e exte nt A~'}'iI1T'TW'; (the nam e of Ihe
anci ent inha bitan ls of the coun tt)', then of Ihos e
amo ng them who rem aine d Chri stian s), the Ar.1bs
(con quer ors of Egypt from 642) mad e of it (A;)gyp-
1;(0$'; then g)'pl; beca me qllb!i eVergote, 1973. Vol.
la, pp. 1-6; Ster n, 1880, Pl'. 1-6. who ciles the
Coptic forms of this nam e 1-ytITIOC, KynT)'IOC; ef.
also Gardinc.-. 1957, pp. 5-6; Layton, 1976: Mallon,
1907, pp. 1-7: Stei ndor fr, 1930, pp. 1-5, and 1951.
pp. 1-6; Till, 1955, pp. 29-3 9). Kr.1use (1979, p. 731)
Iioies that the fOlm gibti'" is alrc: ldy foun d in vari ous
pass ages of the T:tlmud In the seco nd cent ury ".0.
The CoplS of the clas sica l peri od (bef ore Ihe Arnb
inva sion ) calle d them selv es by anot her nam e in
Sahi dlc: f'R' IDotHtJ (tr.l.nscribcd in Gree k
fp~ XV~ ), whic h mea ns "Ihe inha bita nts lor
"me n:' f'R'.J of the Black Land lKHH6]," an :llIusion
10 lhe dark colo r of lhe sedi men l whic h fOI'nls Ihe
culti vabl e and hnbi lable land :llon g the Nile and in
its Ddl a, in oppo sitio n to Ihe yello wish or redd ish
colol'$ of the dcscrn, steri le :lnd unin h:lb itabl e area s
whe re Ihe Egyptian did nOI feci in any way :It hom e.
lIow can one affirm that Cop tic is aUlh entic ally
Egyptian, whe n it has :0;0 muc h a Cree k air at firsl
sigh l? In foct. anyo ne not fore wam cd who appr oach ·
es a Cop tic lext fo"l he first time noti ces at onc e that
its alph abet is four·fifth.~ Gree k in S, ind<.--cd a lillie
actu ally muc h mor e in othe r idio ms (up to 100 pcr-
cent in diale ct G, 0" Bash mur ic 0" Man suri c, and up
to 83 peT"Cenl in dial ect H, or H('r mop olila n or
A.~h muni nic: cf. "1J'tIABET IN come. CRI'.EK and AI.J'lI
A·
Illll'S, COPTIC). Funhennol"C, one eneo unte l's man y
Cop to·G reek wor ds in the Cop tic texts (d. VOCAIll>-
!.ARY. COPTO-CRE.EK). Nev erth eles s, thes e appc ar.1n ces
ough l not to dece ive: Cop tic in all its t.'ssenlial Slruc..
ture s (POIOIsky, 1950) and at II prof oun d k'Vd (lOyn-
ta~, elc.) is an auth enti c forn1 of Ihc Egy ptian
lan-
guage.
Building abov e all on Gard ine.. (1957, p. 5), one
evol utio n of this lang uage ove.. sever.t.l Ihou sand
years: (I) Ancienl Egyptian (fro m the First to lhe
Eighth Dynasty, abou t 318 0-22 40 11.C., or 940 yC:ll1i);
(2) Middle Egyptian (fl'Om the Nint h 10 the Elev enth
Dynasly fully, 10 lhe Eigh teen lh Dynasty less l,:k-arly,
abou t 224 0-15 70 D.C., or 670 years); (3) Neo·Eg,yp-.
ti:1ll (fro m the Eigh leen th to the Twe nty·f om1 h Dy.
nasty, abou t 1570 -715 !l.C.. 0.. 855 ye:IJ's); (4) dem ot-
ic (fro m the Twenty·fifth Dynasty 10 the thin ! cent ury
A.o.. Egypt bein g from lhis time Rom an aile.. havi ng
been Gree k, and (.oven as fa.. as the reig n of the
Byall1tine emp ero.. Leo I if one tak~ acco unl of
Cel1ain spom dic exte nsio ns or the usc of dem olie
duri ng the lirsl Cop tic cent urk'l i, henc e from abou t
715 D.C. to 470 A.D., 01' 1185 yeal'$, 0" only 965 year s
if we stop at lhe lK:ginning of Ihe Coplil,: peri od); (5)
Cop tic (not coun ting Old Cop tic, whic h pn."(;L'<Ied it
::and was nOl yel prop erly Coptic), a stag e thlll one
migh l arbi trari ly and appl'Oxim:ltcly reck on 10 begi n
in the mid dle of the third cent ury A.D. and the end of
whic h is difficult to fix with any prec ision (the re are
no nonl itera ry Cop tic docUmenlS from the e1evenlh
cent ury on, and il is nt1ificiatty that this lang uage
still surv ived for som e time , say 10 the thh1 eent h
cenl ury if one may fix a limi l ther e, agai n arbitr.1rily,
fo.. conv enie nce in chro nolo gica l eval uati on, and

e\'en though Ihe :;;Iow agony of Coplic during Ihe
Middle Ages is difficull 10 discern wilh p",--cision);
onc may Ihus admit lhat u,e Coplic !lIage could ha\'e
Iasled approllirnatcly a thousand yt'ars (cf. Kasser,
1989).
lIowever lilal may be, Coptic (in its t",'O principal
forms, S and B) is indeed Ihe last Slate of Ihe Egyp-
lian language. II might have been Ihe lasl but one, as
some investigators would have it, if the Coptic Ian·
guage had nol failed, for want of vigor, ill Ihe lasl of
Ihe nlelarnorplJOScS it was undergoing locally and
endeavoring 10 undel1ake from the eighth ccnlUry
.,.
On the basis of Gfll'l:liner's scheme, one may try to
imagine more concretely the succession of Ihese
slo.gcs of Ihe Egyplillll kmguagc. It is known thai
evel)' 1::lOguage constantly evolves, and it is very
prob'lblc that Egyptian is no exceplion to lhis r'UJe.
BUI if the spoken languagc is in perpctual cvolution,
the wrillcn language, on the control)', strives to re-
main SlabIe-or r-dther, the intelleclual class, that of
Ihe scribes, .....hich could nOI carry oul ils work in
condilions of unduly accenlualed 011hographie
(chiefly), lellical, and morphosynlaclic instabilily,
slrin'S for a clear definition and fixillg of orthogra-
phy and related mailers. for a Sirict control of all
impulses toward evolution, to immobilizc u,cm as
far as possible. The result is lhat ahhough the or·
thography corresponds fairly well to Ihe pronum.:ia-
tlon of the spokell language at the time the rules of
orthogrnphy become fixed, il is no longer the same
afu~r a number of cenluries; Ihen Ihe distance be-
Iwccn Ihe wrilten and Ihe spoken languages be·
comes ever grealer, and the orthography becomes
more and more arbitral)' in relalion 10 whal is spv-
kCIl; it Ihus Ix:eoml:s more and mon~ diffieuh 10
[cam, 10 Ihe point wherc the dilliculty becomes in·
tolcn:able and the tension leads to ntptur'(!. l'eop1e
then proceed 10 a rdorlll of the arthogrnphy, adapt·
ing it to the contemporary spoken language.
When lhe langu(lge studied is a language enlil'ely
dead, 11.~ is Egyptian, a langU'lgc known only from
teXis that no modem scientific observer has ever
heard pronounced by a lIIan who spoke it a.'l his
proper living language, Ihen the scheme skch:;hed
above remains a hypotht.'Sis, however probable it
may be. The in~igalor, inslead of being able 10
grasp the spoken language in iL'l constant evolution,
lays hold only of Ihe texis, showing lhat lhe fi~
stnge of the Egyplian language (Ancienl Egyplian) is
quite soddenly soccn-dcd by the second (Middle
Egyptian), then the third (Neo-EsYptian, rnther dif-
ferent from Middle Egyptian), then Ihe fourth (de-
LANGUAGE(S), COPTIC 147
motic. r.lther differenl from Neo-Egyplian), and fi-
nally the fiflh (Coptic, ndhcr dilfl·rcnt from
demOlic). But by eomparison with what he can 0b-
serve in other languages, I<xlay still living, he knows
thai Ihe evolution of the spoken languagc (which is
thc "troc" language) ought not to be confused .....ith
the irregular progress shown by the wrinen lan-
guage, wilh its ahrupi mutations.
The result of Ihcsc consideration!' may be a stighl-
ly more nuanced vision of Ihis evolutioll. The one
thai Vergole (1973, Vol. Ib, pp. 3-4) prl$Cnts is \'el)'
illuminaling. First of ..II, hc admits (wilh B. H.
Stricker (1945)) that Middle Egyptian is fur1her rc-
moved fronl Nco-Egyptian thal it is fl'Om Ancient
Egyptian, so that one may bring togelher Ancicnt
Egyptian and Middle EgypTian in a "line I"; similnr··
Iy, NllO·Egyptitln is fUliher rcmoved from MIddle
Egyptian than it is from dllIllOlil,;, so tlml one mllY
brinK Nco-Egyptian and demotic together In a "line
II"; Coptic, by itself, forms "line Ill." (Vcrgate add..
a line IV, of which no account will be taken here: it
is the Gl'eek of Egypt, eontcrnpor.try with Ihe au-
lochthonou!' Slage!' of Ihe Egyplian language from
about Ihc sixth a"d seventh ccnlurit.'5 D.C.).
0" thc other hand, Vergote consklel'S that al the
lime .....hen Ihe orthogrnphy and rclated mailers be·
come remOle from the spoken language to such a
point Ihal Ihe. ntpturc lakes place, enlailing a "'-fann
of the orthography, this refonn is nc\'er accepted at
a stroke by u,e .....hole intel1ee.lual class, in all its
milieus and in all thc Iilcrory genres. There are Ihell
al....'ll)'l'i liOffie mon~ cOrlSelVlltive circles which, al
leasl for somc vel)' particular usages 10 .....hich an
archal,jng slyle is espedally appropriate, tend 10
make Ihe ancienl statc of the language endul'e, and
for ll... long lIS possible and as intact as pos.'lible in
thc midst of an environment hencefol1h greatly
changed. TItuS. an ancien! stage of a language Illay
survive for .'lCveml centuries, or CVllll millennia,
alongside sttlges that logically have succecdcll il
(somewhal as, in Coptic, a prmodialcct lllay have
survived for some Time alongside the di")ecl lhat. in
the IOKie of dialect(ll evolution, ha.~ succeeded it).
The !'c:heme Ilmt I'e$ulls fram these eonsiderntions
(VerKOle, 1973, Vol. Ib, p. 3) thus shows a line I
("writlen classical Egyptian" is t.'quatt.'() .....ith Ancient
Egyplian followed by Middle EgypIUIII) which starts
from Ihe beginnings of Ihc third millennium B.C. (or
even a little earlier), deviates perceptibly from the
line of the spoken language toward (-24001, and
nevertheless ellTends down to the middle of Ihe thin:!
c:cntury A-D. (+250). Next is a line II ("written vulgar
Egyptian" being Nt."O-Egyptian followed by demotic)
•
148 lANGUAGE(S), COPTIC
staning from the middle of the S(.~ond millennium
H.C. (or even a Iinle earlier, loward [-IBOO]), which
deviates perceptibly from Ihe line of the spoken lan-
guage toward l-1200]. and nevel1hc]css extends be-
yond the middle of the fifth centu,)' A.ll, (+470).
Finally, there is a line III (Coptic), a simple prolon-
gulioo of the line of the carlier spoken language
(tlftel' ils scpurotion from line II), Sinning from the
middle of the third century 0'\.1). (+250), which nu
doubt also devltllcd 10 somc cxlC~nl from the line of
the spoken language al a certain point (but this does
not appear in Vergotc's scheme) and which extends
approdmalcly down 10 the end of the first millenni·
urn. In this scheme, then, in the third cenlury A.I>.
the lhn..~ stOlgCll of Egyptian happen 10 exisl simulta-
neously: line I (very close 10 extinction), line II (on
the way to decline, but still cnpable of enduring for'
another two centuries), and line III (still very close
10 ils hinh).
111is vcry nuanced conccption of the evolution of
the Egyptian language, from Ancient Egyptian down
to Coptic (the Coptic langu:lges Sand B, with the
various region:t.l dialects that accomp;:my Irn:m) ap-
pears the most probable in the prescnt suue of
knowledge in this field. It may be represented a:I in
Figure I,
The "Coptic" of Ihis scheme is in fact the totality
of the two "Coptic languages" (5 and 8) with the
various regional dialect.~ which llccompany Ihem (A,
L, M, W, V, F, If, G, not to speak of the protoclialects
I' and i>. Docs this signify that each of these idioms
ill the direct prolongation of a like t:arlier dialectal
fonn which ellilited in Egypt already in Nco-Egyptian
and in demotic (not to speak of Ancienl and Middle
Egyptian)? A "prolongation" probably yes, but pel'-
-)000 -2240 -2000 -r570
...........::...
:
M d dIe
•••::... _~~;,~.=-;;;",.;"_~c=~~~~_.D;';';,,;;m;,,;;o=,;,;'
••:: II.:
••••••
••••••
•••••••
•••••• ........
••••••
: . •••••••••........ . .
FIGURE 1. EVOI.lITION OF THE EGYPTIAN I..ANGUAGll Adapted and simplified frum Vergotc, 1973, Vol. Ib, p, 3, lind
LUddeckens, 1980, p. 251.
hap$ not quite "direct," in the sense that one might
be tempted 10 give it in a rather Shllplistic fashion
(cf. Ch{,inc, 1933, p. xviii, llnd 1934. pp. 2-3, which
mlL~t, however, be adapted to the present knowledge
of m<tllcrs of Coptic dililectology). '111C Coptic dia-
lects (and languages) are Idioms of laiC Egyplian that
appeared in the middle of the Greco-Roman period
and are panicularly perceptihle thanks to the Coptic
documents, which in contrast to the older Egyptian
documents provide infonnation not only about the
consonants but also about the vowels. It is thus ell·
tremely difficult to compare these idioms with this
or that orthographic or semisystematic \'Olnant en·
coonten:d in the Pre.(;optic Egyptian texts, in the
hope of thus effecting a COlnparison between the
Coptic and Ihe Pre·Coptic Egyptian dialects,
CCl111inly the latter must h.we existed; Ihal is high·
ly probable, But how is one to know them? Pr\!-
dcnce in any case advist:s one to keep some distance
from the Op(imisLic hypothesis that would consider
each Copcic diak'Ct a.~ the direct descendant of a
pharaonic Egyptian dialect corresponding 10 it. ((or-
tainly each historical period in Egypt must have seen
the manifestal;on of numerous local idioms clIisting
side by side (a circumstance evidently rovol'ed by the
geographical condition.'l of the country), but one
cannot simply affil'm Ihllt eaeh of them was coment
10 perpetuate itself, if it could, in a linear fushion,
re;lppcal'ing from one period 10 anuther in rejuve·
nated funn, Consider'ing the relative or1hographie
unifol1l1hy of the successive pharaonic Egyptian lan-
guages, in all probability Egypl also knew periods in
which there was something like a linguislic leveling;
as a n:.wlt of reciprocal interferences that had ac-
crued or under the constraining action of a "dia·
-715 o +250 +470
Egypllnn
~'c=--
II
•••••••• ._~=';.;o;.;;,~';,;';._~_
••••••
•••
: :
III
.
•••••••••
••••••••••
•••••••••
: .

leel" thOlt had acquired some supremacy in iUi field
of influence (geographic or social)-for example,
becoming a supra regional vchic:;ular language-
there mUSI have been formed several times over in
lhe course of Egyplinn history a kind of kuine whose
influence extended iL~elf over the grealer part or
even the whole of one or the other of the halves of
Egypt (Ihe Nile Delta, on Ihe one hand, and the
\'allcy of Ihe Egyptian Nile abo\"e the l>elta, on Ihe
Olher), This koine may have been able 10 eliminate
cenain local idtoms, profoundly inhibiling and radi-
cally modifying the others in such a way :l5 to efface
the grelller part of the differences that constituted
their originality. Thus, cach local dialecl whcn it
reappears aftcr such 1I leveling is Ihc synthesis of
two different eun'ents. Like a son in whom one find~
certain features of his falhe[' associaled with others
coming from his mother', the reemergent dialect has
quite certainly something of the diaieci formerly
used in the ~mc region bul also bears very strongly
the mark of Ihe koine thai, al least on the literary
level, has supplantt'd the earlier dialect. The relation
belween the Coptic idiom and iUi putative ancestor
annal then be other than ambiguous.
Anyone who examines the scheme above will note
that the passage from language I (Ancient Egyptian
and Middle Egyptian) to language II (Nco-Egyptian
and demotic) represents a "leap" much less grelll
than thilt from language II to language III (Coptic).
Despite their by no means negligible differenccs, 11
is easily compatible wilh I, and there is no doubt the
reason for thcir long coexistence (over about two
millennia). III, on Ihe c:;onttal)', is much less easily
compatible with II (and with n, and thilt no doubt is
the cause of the rapid and, so to speak, cat:l5trophic
disappearance of II as soon ;l." III has reached hs
zenith (rcdudng their cocxistenc:;e to some two cen-
turies only; (he coexistence of III with I was c:;hrono-
logically zero, or nearly so).
The writing exprc~~lng I nnd II Is purely Egyptian
and, on the lcvel of phonology, .~hows unly lhe con·
sommls. The writing of III, on the contnll)', is about
four·fifths Greek and, in comparison with I and II,
presents the immense advantage of showing not only
the consonants but also the 'IOwels, The slight incon-
venience linked to this advantage is that hencefOf'
ward the same onhography can no longer, :l5 for-
merly, be C:;OrmflOn to all Ihe dialccts, thus veiling
their existence on the level of writing.
It is thought Ihat the idea of writing Egyptian by
means of graphemes fixing not only the consonants
but also the vowels could have been hom in the
bosom of certain bilingual social groups in Egypt
LANGUAGE(S). COPTIC 149
who dcsin.'<I to practice magic with greater security.
The majorily of the Ic;o;ts called Old Coptic are in
fact magical texts, disparale C5.'iaYS from the first to
the fifth centuries A.D. that logically, if nOI always
chronologically, preceded lhe first lruly Coptic texts,
CCl1ainly the idea of using, even for ~yptian, an
alphllbet showing the v(Jwels also had already becn
in the air for several centuries. More than onc:;c, and
above all from thc second ccntul)' A,I>" some man of
lellers had tried to apply it for his personal usc, and
this evidently with recourse to G~k, a SCripl with
which every Egyptian was confronted every day (and
whose convenience he well knew), since it was that
of the Greek language, the administrative language
of the countl)' over a vel)' long time and thus omni·
present in the innumerable documents that one of
necessity had to have wrilten 01" be able to read to
gel out of difficulty in the face of the authoritics in
cveryday life.
Such initi:l.tives were taken in the Greco-Egyptian
milieus in I:.gypt above all when it was a case of
\\-Titing in a manner c:;omprehensible for a Greek
some magic formula that brought healing or life to
oneself or a friend or suffering and death to a hatt'd
enemy, A Greek in Egypt endeavoring to read aloud
a lext in Ancient Egyplian would perhaps have pro-
nounc:;cd his consonants correctly, but he would
probably have been mistaken several times in m1icu·
laling his vowels, since they do not appeal' In the
hieroglyphs or in demotic, Now the demon... whom
the magician invokes to employ positively in his
servicc or to unleash against an enemy are like
fien:e dogs accustomed to obeying precise onlers. If
the fonnula is ill pronounced, howC\/er slighlly, their
rencxes make them act in a manner impossible to
foresee, If they are contenl to remain asleep and
inactive, that is still a lesser evil; bUI the fur worse
risk is lhat they may awake, excited and bewildered
by the incomp['Chensible order, the magic phrase ill
pronounc:;ed: in fury, tht..'Y willtut"ll against their bun·
gling master and tear him to pieces. Egyptian writ·
ten in Greek lellers (consonants and vowels, with
some additional letters for spccialllOunds) pcrmiuoo
a much more sure pronunciation and thus seemed
to protect the Greco-Egyptian magician against reo
grettable "technical accidenu."
Taking up and systematizing better the idea of
these isolated prctlcccssors (each of whom hnd in,
vcnlt'd his own reeipe withoul knowing too much of
those of others), the Copts then decided to adopt the
popular Egyptian of their time, and since lheir Ian·
guage had some phonemes thill did not exist in
Greek, they completed theIr alphabel by adding
-
,so tANGUAGE(S), COPTIC
SOll1C Suppll:mcnt31)' grtlphcmc~
(between six and
len. depending un the Coptic diulccts: cr. AI.I'IMUETS,
COPTIC).
An admimble rdoml of the Ql1hogmphy, one will
say. bUI why did no onc think of it sooner? YC!i
indeed, but a. refolTn as c.langcrou~ as il was :wimira·
hie. In fact, in any bogunge. the more fundaml'ntal
:l "dorm of the ol1hogmphy is, the rnon: it pl'Oduccs
rcvnlutioll(ll)' and deslI'm:livc effects. including
llbow all a mdical incision in the very heart of the
nntional culture. The "old" litemlUl'C, thai from be·
fore the refonn, becomes inullcdiatcly incomprehen-
sible, hence more than difficuh, impossible of ac-
ccs.~. fOl' all those who h.we been inlcllccu.mlly
Illolded according to the "new" principles (10 the
exclusion of the old princip!t..'S, quickly fa11en into
ucslIcludc and forgotten), We know how many proj'
eClS for n:form of lhc orthography of numerous
modcm languages have failed in the face of lhis
fonnidable obstacle,
The obstacle can only be ~"Unnounted if lhe parti·
sans of fund:l.Inenlal reform are ani'nated by a revv-
lutionaty spirit, little disposed to be hampered by
scruples about a despised and hated past. If the
ehllJllpions of lhe ncw syslem arc ready wilhoul roe·
gret to scc thc ancienl Iiter-tlurc of lheir JX.'Qplc sink
illlo oblivion and disappear, its centuries·old or mil-
lennial trJditions (at lhat period evidently above all
rdigious tradilions), they will nut hesitate 10 sacri-
fice 10 lhe "progress" thai they proclaim a whole
culluml heritage; not only have they no esteem
whatcver fol' its valuc, but they prob:tbly even judge
it inauspicious. dangerous. dcserving of being dc·
stroyed,
So aggn'S.'iive and oc'Slructive an aUitudc is evi·
dently very t\!lIIote from the more respectful state of
mind thaI animated 1m.: promoters of !he cullural
refonn which permilled the Egypt of tm.: second
millennium Re. to create its language II llnd to usc
It in paml1c1 with its language I (in no way threal·
encd with diS:lppcarance on lhe occasion of the
bi'ih of this I'ival); it wa.'i no doubt found convenient
and appropriate to be :tble to employ II alongside I
for certain prderential usages. but nobody desired
the death of I on the occasion of this innovation.
TIlis ''evolutionary and iconoclastic aUitude a~
pocars. on lhc contntry, 10 have b(.'('n Ihal of the
promoters of lhe culluml rcfOlTll which in the third
cenlury A.D. 111'Ovokcd the birih umllhe prompl flow-
e,ing of III. on the one hand, and lhe rapid dcca·
dence and soon the extinction of 1 and II, on the
()(her. 1bc partisans of the old syslem of Egyptian
wriling, lhe "conservatives," were the pagans of
Egypl. p:u1icularly allacheu 10 their Ihous:md·ye:II"
old traditions or a dazzling richness. But Over ag(.inst
them wcre arrayed, in cver.incn~nsing numbers, eh..:
cn-ators and partisans of the lIew system of Egyptian
writing. the Coptic alphabet; for Ihese Christians of
Egypl, revolutionaties so convinced that they scarce-
ly troubled thcmselvC!' with nuances. lhe whole pa'
gan paM of their country wa-~ not only withoul value,
hill also inauspicious, diabolical. to be extirpmed
from lheir' civiliwtion for reasons of mental hygiene.
The Copts Ihen did not shed or. single te:lr, ralhe,' the
contrary, over the death of the hieroglyphic Egyptian
preserved in lhe wrillen cultural language I or over
the definitive disappearance of Neo-F..gyptulIl. above
all in its demotic fonn a'i it thclI stilt appeared in lhe
wrillen cultural language II. Fo" them, lhese means
of eltpresSion w(.'re indissolubly linked 10 lire mani·
fold and al all poinls monSll'OUS phenomenon of :l
diabolical and detested puganl'im, which Simek fear
into the simple soul and pt'OvokL-d the horror of the
Christian. Far from regretting the treasul"C5 of their
own civili1.3tion sinking henceforth into general in-
compl'l:hension and oblivion. lhe Cupts on lhe con'
lrary apl)laudcd what they considered a sallllary in·
lellectual cleansing: the lriumph of the Tl'll1h.
One mu.~l keep equ:Ilty presenl in memory lhis
dramatic aspect of a choice now sevenleen cenluriCli
old, brutal as every revolutionary choice is; a crud
choice, but nonetheless one of genius. since ie was
only through Coptic that EID'Ptology ....-as able in
1822. thanks 10 the per:;picacily of Champo!lion, to
attain 10 a real knowledge of lhe ancienl Egyplian
(pharaonic) languugc, and it is lhrough Coptic lh:t!
even now Egyptology can "hea,'" in a manner eel"
tainly approximate but nevcrthclcs.s concrete ;lOd.
oc')'Qnd hypothesis and the dry conventional nota·
lion, nevcnheless gripping, the true "sounds" of a
mY$lerious language, the voice of antique Egypt.
Dlnt.tOGtMPII'V
Barsum, I. A/·Kharfdal a/-BahIYll}, fi U$u/ a/.Lug/1Il1
ll/·lf.ib(lJflh. Cairo, 1882.
Chaine, M. tlitnellis de grllJtlltlllire J;ll/ec./ale cop/e.
Paris. 1933.
lAS Dill/«tes copIes assioll'iql/t-S ,42, In
carac/trisliques de leur p/'ul1Ctiqllc, de lellr S)'ll/a.u.
Palis, 1934.
Gardiner, A. Egyplimr Grammar, /JOlin!: all IlI/wdtW-
lim! 10 Ille Slud)' uf Hicrogl)'ph~, 3rd cd. Oxfor'd.
1957,
Kahle. P. E. Bala';tAh: Cuplic T~lS from Deir d-
Bala'itAh in Upper Egypt. Oxford and london,
1954.
 LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOLITAN OR SUBAKHMIMlq
Kasscr, R. "ProMgotllcnes a un essai de c1a.'i.~ifiea·
lion systematique l.k-s tlialcctes ct subdialecles
COpies scion les criterl,'s de la phonctiquc. I, Prill-
cipcs ct tCl'mhlOlogie." Le MIIS!!O" 93 (1980):53-
112. " ... , II, Alphabets et systemes phone.iques."
Musfim 93 (1980):237-97. " ... , III, systemes
orthDgl11phiqucs ct calcgori<.'S dialeetales." Museo"
94 (1981):91-1.52.
"Orthogr..lphc ct phonologie de la wriele
subdialectale lyeopolitaine des lcxtcs gnostiqucs
coptes de Nag Hammatli." MI/sio" 97 (1984);261-
312.
_::-_ "Le copte ...mimenl ...ivant, ses idiomcs Cents
(bngue:!, dialectes, subdialectes) au cours de leur
millcnairc (III'-XII' siecles cn...iron)." Billie/iII de
fa Societe d'arch~ogie copte 28 (1989):11-50.
Krause, M. "Koplische Sprnche." u~iko" dl'r Agypto-
logie 3 (1979):731-37.
l.oIbib, C. J. III).(llIKOfl Ht.l.a1I kTo NIf'6N'tXIIHI. cairo,
1895-1915.
L.a)10n, 8. "Coptic Language." In Illterpreter's Dictio-
Ilary of Ihe Bible, Supp. vol., pp. 174-79. Nash...ilIe,
Tenn., 1976.
Liiddeckens, E. "Agyplen." In Die Spmchen im
rOmUchen Reich der Koiseruil, pp. 241 ~65.
Beiherte del' Bonner Jahrbiicher 40. Cologne.
1980.
Mallon, A. Grtlmmtlire cop/e, ovee biblivgrapJlie,
ehreslomalhie el l'OCobllltlire, 2nd cd. Bcirot.
1907.
___ Grtllllmoire caple, bibliogroplric, clrres/omot!lic
el vfJCobllloire. 4th l'tl., re.... M, Malinine. Beirul,
1956.
Nagel. I'. "Ocr Ul'Spnmg de:> KOplh.chen." Dos Aller-
lum 13 (1967):78-84.
Pololsky, H. 1. "Mool."S grecs en eople?" In Copri(:
Studies ill HOllor of W. E. Crum, pp, 73-90. Bos·
lon, 1950.
Slcindodf, G. KoplLocJw Grammarik. mil Clltes/o-
mil/Me, Wiirlerwn,dclmis Imd Uleralur. Berlin,
1930.
---;=:. 1.e1rrbrlclr der kop/ischell Grlmrmalik. Chicago,
1951.
Slem, L. KOT)/ische Crammolik. Leipzig, 1880.
Siricker, B. H. De illdeelillg cler Egyplisclre II/o/ge-
seilicdcm·s. Lciden, 1945.
Till, W. C. KopliscJw Grllmmtl/ik (sol"di.lc!lI:r Dia/ekl),
mil Biblio!;ruphie, I-esestiicke/l und Worlerven.eich-
nis,sfm. Leipzig, 1955.
Vergotc, J. Gramllloire COple, Vol. 1:\, fll/rodlle/iorr,
pho/U!liql4e el phoHologie, morpho/ogie
sylllhimatiqlle (Slnlcture des silllalltcme5), partie
sYllellrOlli(/U/!, Vol. 1b, IIIlrooue/ioll, pJwm!liqlle el
pllo,,0/ogie, morph%gh! sylllhemu/ique Is/ruellm!
des semoulrmes), partie diocllffllliqll/J. Louvain,
1973.
Vyeichl, W. ·'I'i·Solsel, ein DOIf mil koptischer Docr-
Iicferong." Milleilwlgen des I/ell/scirell ItlStilWS filr
151
(Igyp/isdre AI/er/rrmskumle ill Koiro 6 (1936): 169-
75.
_ _ . Die/iotl/ulire i!lymo/ogiqlfe de 10 Iimgue cople.
LouVilin, 1983.
___ . "Bude sur la phOllctiqllc de In Inngue
hoh:iirique." Discffssious ill Egyplology 8 (1987):67-
76.
ROOOU'IIE KASSl!R
LYCO_DIOSPOLlTAN. A llew dialectological
d<.'Signalion connecled to the .!iiglum L (.!iCc LYCOPOU·
TAN (011. I_YCQ-DIOSPOUTAN OR SURAKIlMIMIC)), now
considel"'('d :IS :IJlprnpriate and aceept<."<! by seveml
Coptologists. Indl'l'tl, not only Ly,;opolis (A.!iyU!l and
its area but ...irtually e... ery place between this area in
lhe nonh and Ihe al"'(':! or Diospolis Magna (Thebes,
Luxor) in the south must be taken into consider.rlion
as a possible home or the I- dialec:ts (lA, lhe Mani
dialect: LS, the John dialect; U;, lhe Nag Hammadi
non·Sahidic diakcl).
ROOOU'IiE KASSlllI.
WOLF-PETER FUNK
LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOLITAN
OR SUBAKHMIMIC). TIle troditional "iew of
lhe "Ly<:opolitan dialect" (also called "Subakhmi·
mit") has become increasingly dispuled in recenl
years, and the queslion arose if I.y<:opolitan in fact
existed as a distinct dialect.
I. Research History lind Problems
1.1 Attempted Definition. A group of Coplic sub·
dialects (or, beHer, diall,:els) is usually classed logelll-
er as LyeopoHlan 01' !-yco·l)iospolhan (siglum I- or, in
earlier years and even sometimes tOOny, AI) or
Sub"khmimie (morc r<ll'ely and In fonner lime~ Asyu-
lic). Each Coplic (sub)d\nlecl i.~ composed of anum·
bel' of individual texis (sec Il>Il>LI!(,.T) :1Ilt! groups of
texiS whose unifonn designalion (1inguis1ical1y and
in lenns of dialectnl geography: sec GI!OGRAPlIY, DlA·
LECTAL) seems somewlml difficult. The entir'C gl'OUP
of L (sub}dia1ccts and connected idiolects can justifi·
ably be given a colleeti...e descriplion only in lerms
of the linguistic cenler stretching from Qa,w to A.~yit!
(Lyeopolis), with ...adous possible extensions to the
south and north, and in terms of the linguistic tr.rilS
thai place L among the dialects of Upper Egypl bul
Ihal both as a whole and in relation to their disuibu·
tion cannot be assigned ehher to Akhmimic (A) or to
Sahidic (5). Furthennore, because of diversification
152 LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-D10SPOLITAN OR SUBAKHMJMIC)
and subdivision within I~ it cannot be described a5 a
"neutral"' dialect.
1.2 Unity or Diversity of L. The oliginal assump-
tion of relative uniformity of L (or A2) has bcen
clilleu into question by the increasing number of
tC~IS, some of which await public(ltlon. The fin;t tex·
tual witness to become known w..\S the Acta PUllli
(AP. Hcid.), which Cllrl Schmidt published fmm the
Heidelberg P3pyros Collection (1904 and a further
folio in 19(9). In 1924 Sir Herbert Thompson pub-
lishl..'(\ extensive fragmenlS of St. John', Gospel in a
dialect vel)' dose 10 the AP. Heid. but showing some
charucleristic peculiarities. In the same year, a leller
of the Mclclian archives (Crom, in Bell, 1924, no.
1921l, the sole nonliterary text tllUS far known in L,
was edited and was considered by the cditon as
belonging to "the latcr type of Achmimic (Acta Puu·
Ii)." Since 1933 the comprehensive corpus of Coptic·
Manichaean texts from Madinat M!\~I has become
known and has bl..'Cn published to a great extent.
TIlis was followed in 1945 by the disco\'ery of the
Nag !'Iammadi library, of which the codices I, X,
and XI once again reveal a new variety of
Subakhmimic. Publication m'pn in 1956 ....itb the
Go1;pel of Troth (Evangelium Veritatis) from CcxIcx
I. While publicalioll of the Nag Halllllludi lind.'! has
almost been completed, a wide ronge of Coptic Man·
ichaean texts is stilJ unpublished. FrJgmenlS oUlside
lhe Nag Hammadi !ibmry, but belonging to it in
con ten I, were publi.~hed in 1975; the Sahidic parallel
version to these is in Nag l'lanlllludi Codex II, 5. In
1978 rragmenLS of the Letter 10 Philemon and of
Hebrews from !he Sir Herbert Thompson Collection
(now in Cambridge University library) Wi:!re pub-
lished (but these are peculiar in their dialect and
seem to be wrongly described as Suookhmimic).
One te:tt from the Sir Chcster BeallY Collection in
Dublin (pal1S of the Gospel or John) and one from
the Bibliotheca Uodmeriana in Geneva (palu of the
Acta Pauli, or AI'. Bod.) an:: still unpublished. These
lwo texts (U'C not identical either eoJicologicatty 01'
linguistically with tbe texts published by Sir Het'bel1
Thompson and Carl Schmidt.
1.3 Texts and Edltlolls. The L texIS now known
are almost without excl-plion literary and belong 10
various categories.
IJ.I. Biblical tuts:
JoL - Go1;pcl of John, London manuscript
(lbompson, 1924). Provenance: Qaw, fourth centu·
0)'.
laD - fnlgments fmm the Gospel of lnhn (10:18-
11:43), Dublill manuscript (unpublished). Tnmscript:
R. Kassel'. End or the third century.
Yet a lillie different from every (sub}tlialt.'Ct of l-
(i.e. lA, LS, or /.6, see below) and not too far from At
and V is the diak'Ct of the following fragments of the
Pauline Epislles (cd. Bellet, 1978, Pl'. 45-47; pel'·
Imps provenance Suhllj (Dayr ul·Ahiadl. end or firth
centul)'; see Funk, 1986, and Kassel', 1986):
Hbr. fragment of Hebrews (Heh. 5:5-9, 11-14).
Phm - f....,lgment of Philernon (Phlm. 6:15-16).
The language of Hbr and Phm is not taken into
uccount here.
/ J.2. ApocrypJUl.'
AP. Heid. Acta Pauli m3nuscript in Heidclbcll;
(Schmidt, 1904, 19(9). Source: Akhmlm antique
dealer; perhaps from Edfu, lifth century.
AP. Bod. - Acta Pauli manuscript frogmellts in
Bibliothcca Bodmeriana, Geneva (unpublished). In·
complete tmnscript: R. Kassel'. Provenance: caSl of
Nag Hammadi (but not with Ntlg Hummadi Iibmry
or nea,' Dislml\), foul1h celltury.
1.3.3. Coptic M(mich"euI/ texu:
ManiH - Manichaean 1·loOlilics (Polotsky, I934).
Provenance: Madlnat MsQl, in the Fayylim (but per-
haps from Lycopoli5{?]; see 1.4), filth century.
ManiK - Manichacan Kephala'ia (Polotsty and
8Ohlig. 1940; IXlhlig, 1966). Provenance: same as ror
MimiH, foul1h-lil'th century.
ManiP - Manichac:m 1'~ltel' (Altbel'ry, 1938).
Provenance: ~ame as for M:lI1iH, foul1h-firth een-
lut)'.
/.3.4. Coplk Gllostic wxts:
With one exception (OW; sec below) att these
texts are Nag Hammadi te:tts (NagH), so called
because they were discovered cast of Nag loIallilnadi
but not in the same place as AP. Bod: Thdr num·
crotion follows thaI of the Nag Hammadi codices and
the st:qucncc of the individual tractatcs in each
code:t:
1.1 - Pl1lyel' of Ihe AlX'!itle Paul (Kasser et aI.,
1975b; Attridge, 1985). Fout1h century.
1,2 or Bplnc - Apocl)'ph(ll Lellcr or lames
(Mulinine et at., 1968; Kirchner, 1977; All1idge,
1985). Founh century. '
1,3 01" EV - Gospel of Troth (Malinine et al., 1956
And 1961; Till, 1959; Amidge, 1985). Founh century.
1,4 or Rheg - Tractate on the Resum:.'Ction or
L..ctter of Rheginos (Malinine ct aI., 1963; layton,
1979; Anridge, 1985). Founh century.
1,5 or Trip. - Tripartite Truclate (Kasser et aI.,
1973a, 1975a, and 1975b; Attlidgc, 1985). Fourth
centul)'. The folio with the f>royel' of the Apostle
Paul hllcr turned out to be a flyleaf of Codex T and is
now reckoned as N:tgH I,!. The language of Trip. is
taken into (lccount here only with regard to mar-
 LYCOI'OLITAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOLITAN OR SUBAKHMIMIC)
pbology. not orthography and phonelllics. a.. it is
clearly n unique phenomenon (wild orthography. 0s-
cillation bel ween 5 tlnd l., a series of syntactical
errors lhm arc not only irregultlritics 01' exceptions)
and is perhaps not the work of someone whose
mother tongue was Coptic.
X,I or Mar - Marsanes (Pt~oIT'$()n, 1981). Fourth
century.
XI. I or Inter - Interprelation of Gnosis, pp. 1-
32. Copied by W.·I'. Funk. FO\lrth cemury.
XI, 2 or Exp - Valentinian E1iposition, pp. 33-39,
Copied by W"P, Funk. Fourth centul)'.
Appendix - five Valentin inn prayers, PI', 40-44.
Rhln&. - colk'(;tive designalion for Rheg, Inter,
and Exp (NagH I. 4-XI,1.2.).
OW - On lhe Origin of lhe World (Oeyen, 1975).
Pro\'enancc: unknown. According 10 Ocyen (p, 134)
the London fragment shows an older stage in the
development of the tClIt th..n the Sahidie version of
NagH II,S, but this does nol allow one 10 draw any
direct condusions as to the age of the manuscl"irt,
which Kenyon (in Crum, 1905, no. 522) pu~.. in the
fourth cenlUl)'.
I.J.5. NOlllilera')' luiS:
Mel .. Letter of the Mclellan Archive, no, 1921
(Crum, in !leU, 1924, pp. 94-97). Provenance: an·
tique trade; :lpprux, 330-340 A.D.
Note tmt there is still :I number of tellts that are
closcly related linguistically 10 Ihe L tClllS but u.<>e
the grarheme I for /x/; for this reason, they were
rl'elliously-nnd wrongly-described as
"Akhmimic" or "Akhrnimie with Sllhidic influences"
because they usc this a only in part, a~ A docs. l1H..'SC
preliminary sluges (to somc ClItent) in the develop.
ment of L (Kassel', 1979 a.nd 19823) :Ire dt!al.t with
undcr OtAlF.CT i (with its subdialccls, cspc.:cinlly i7;
sec also Funk, 1987).
1.4 Date, Place of Dlseovcry, and Place of Ori-
lin, The l. lexts for Ihe most part date from the
fOUI1h and fifth centuries (Ntlg Hammadi :lnd JoL,
f0U11h century: ManiK and MUlliP, foul1h-firth cell'
turies; Mallill :lnd AP. Heid., fifth century). On the
other hand, the unpublished Gospel of John in Dub-
lin (JoD) seems to be much earlier, e\lcn from the
end of the 1MI'd century. It is interesling to see that
the witnesses of I. are writlen on papyrus. whereas
lhe fragments wilh Ihe P:luline Epistles (libr and
Phm), which al'C to be excluded fl'Om l. for linguistic
reasons, at'e written on parchment.
In some caws (Nlig Hummudi and MUlli text.~, aod
JoLl, the pltlce of discovery is CCl1aln, but Crum's
dictUlli is to be kept in mind: "place of finding is not
necCMtlrily place of origin:' The Mnni tClItS were
153
discovcred in Mndlnat M. '.II, a place whel'e Ihe L·
diak-ct never had been spoken. Rnthel', Ihe place of
origin of the Coptic Maniehaean text.~ seems to hnve
been LycopoHs (Asyilll. For a long time it WtlS
regtlrded a~ a hiding place for the Manichacan
"heresy" (Schmidt :lnd Polotsky, 1933, pp. 12-14).
In the case of JoL, thefe is no comrelling reason
why the place of disco\'ery should not be conside~
the same lIS the pl:lce of origin (Oaw!Antaiopolis), As
the Nug U:lmmadi Ubrary resulted from the pur-
poseful collection of various lexts, the place of ori·
gin of the 1_ tcxts of Nag I'!nmmtldi is not guanm-
Iced. A.~ thcy, howellel', represent 11 different Iype of
L fmlll M:lni and JoL, they should be placed ful1her
south.
After Ihe fifth cenlury no telllo:ll wilness of L is
attested, :lnd one may conclude lhat by that time L
had gone oul ol use as a literary language.
1.5. Descripllon. of DlaleCl and Geographical
Loeallon, The alternaling descriptions of "dialect" l.
thr'Ow light 00 the history of the problem or I. :lnd
on Coptic diulectology tiS (1 whole. Carl Schmidt, the
editor of AP. Hcid" charncteril:ed the dialect of lhis
manuscript as "a dialect related to the Akhmlmic
teXIS." Its consonants :Ire consistently identical with
those of the Sahidic, while the vowels show lhe pe.
culiarities of Akhmimic (Schmidt, 1904, p. 14).
ROsch (1909) interpreted this oosclV.llion to the ef·
fect thut the AP. I-Ieid. represented the transitional
slage frolll the (older) Akhmimic to the (later)
Sahidic ("I:ltc" or "new" Akhmimic: simi1:1rly,
Crum, in Bdl. 1924, p. 94, wrote of "lhe younger
type of Aehmimic" with regard to the Mclellan lellel'
no. 1921). H. Thompson grouped the dialects of AP,
Heid. and JoL under Ihe dcsign:ltion "sub-adllni-
mic," whleh established itself subM:quentiy (Jot.. p.
JIlt). He subscribed to Schmidt's view lhat Subaldllni-
mic stood between Akhmimic and Sahidic, but he
raised the fundamenlal question whether thai inler·
mediate posilion should be interpretcd in temlS of
chronology or ditlleclal geography. Chaine (1934)
prefel,-ed the gc::ogrtlphical view, describing the dia·
lect tIS "A5siutic" (Asyutie, siglllln A2). The view th:lt
Akhmimic was n..-plaeed by Snhidic by way of Sub-
akhmimic had already been dismissed by Till (1928, p.
3), who said tha.! A, .42, and S had "basically come
into being independently ol each other ... and [had
lx:cnl spoken at an l-arlier period simultaneously,
and :llongsidc eaell other, in V:lrious districts of Up·
per Eml." Nevel1heless, the term "Subakhmimic"
was retained (Till, pussim; Schmidt and I'olotsky,
1933; Worrell, 1934: Kahle. 1954: and even Vcrgote,
1973-1983, Vol. la),
154 LYCOPOUTAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOUTAN OR SUBAKHMIMIC)
WOlwll (1934, pp. 63-74, m3p p. 65, region V),
assumed lhal Ihe region of I'bow in Ihe soulh as far
a.~ the al·Ashmunayn-Antinoi! line in the n0l1h was
the area in which A and A2 spread, bUI rcjt.'Cted lhe
idea of a more drcurm;.cribed localiz:lIion. Kahle
(1954, pp. 2061£.) placed It2 bet.....een Akhmimic and
MesoKf.1iltC, or Middle Egyptian, and consilkrcd the
l'egion from Abydos to al-Ashmunayn to be the origi·
n..l :lrca in whil:h A2 spread (basically in :lgrecmenl
with Worrell), 1·le cnvi~ged for' Ihe first time a
grouping within A2 on a broader te:rtlual basis, lead·
ing to three maill groups.: (I) JoL, AP. Ueid, Mel,
OW (Kahle panly other sigla: OW • BM522; Mel ~
J. &I C. 1921): (2) thc M:mi tCJI:ts; and (3) lhe Nag
Hammadi texts (slill unpublished at the time and not
taken ful,hel' into account by Kahle). A2·Mani was,
according to him, ch;l1"llcteri1.ed by Akhmimie influ·
ences, whill.- A2·AP. Hcid. and A2-JoL repr'escnted
"much more truly the ancient Subachmimic" (p.
219). Pololsky (in Schmidt and Polotsky, 1933, p. II)
had already noted that Ihe Manichaean A2 was clos-
est to the Akhmimic and also drew allention to
agl'eements of Mani·JoL against AP. Heid. These vb-
scrvationll were not taken inlo account by Kahle.
Alihough Kahle's first m'lin group C3nnOl stllnd up
to llCrutiny, one i~ nevet,hcle~~ indebled 10 him for
many fine indivit.lual obM:rvations on A2.
According to VergOle, 1973-1983, Vol. la, p. 4,
KOC. 5), A2 was spoken in 8 region stretching from
Akhmlm.Eshq3w in the llOuth to al·AshmOnayn-
Antinoe in the not1h with Asyti! (Lycopolis) as cen·
ler. As against Kahle, it may be reg..rded as a back·
ward slep Ilml A2 ill tr'ealcli by VergOlc as a dialeclal
unlly. From Worrell to Vergolc, thcre is agreement
that the al-A,-,;hmOnayn-Antinoe line is the nOl1hem
frontier while the frontier for expanllioo soothward
remains open, so 10 speak.
Recognition that A2 is an independent "dialect" in
relation to A and S is contradictory to the still rather
widely current description of Ihe t.li:tlcct as "Sub·
nkhmimic:' which, like the siglum A2, tends to lead
one to a....-,;ume a subdialecl or coll:Jteral t.lialcct of
Akhmimic, or A, even if the tenllillology is only used
conventionally. Hence, in a series of publications
since 1972, Ka....o;er has proposed instead of "Sub-
akhmimic" Ihe t.lialeetnl designation "Lycopolitan" (I~).
10 eOITeSponcl to the linguistic center of this dialtoct,
01', more eXllctly, of an important bmnch of this
dialecl (see especially Ka.'I.'ler', 1982b and 1984). This
deseriplion at.l:tpls a variant of Chaine's "Assiutic"
and has the advantage that the siglum consists of just
one sign, com."l'ponding to the signs of the other
main dialects of Coptic. For a rather long time, vari·
ous iodices were used 10 designate the individual
hr':lllches or types of L. Since 1986, however', a gen·
eral agreement ha.~ been rClIched among Coptoln-
gislS. Now numel'il;:ll indices are preferred: thus, lA
rather than L-Mani, LS rather than L·JoL.. L6 rather
than 1~·Nagll (ROC also LVCO·OlOSI'OUTAN).
Far more impol11l111 is the question of the pat1icu-
I:lr type of L to which the textual witnesses can be
ullotlet.l, Ihe more so since pl'l'lc1ie.,lly every manu'
llcrillt exhibils peculiArities and even inconsistencies,
as L in fact is nOt a thoroughly standardi1.ed dialect
in any of its bmnehes. The individual groups will be
denoted below in accordam::e with their main char-
acteristics..
1.6 Mean5 of Olaleclal Subdlvlslon. Like the
Coptic dialects in general, the individual representa-
lives ;lOd branches of L (as an L group) I'll'C also
mainl)' dislinguished from cach olher phonetically
(insofar as this c:tn be recognized from the ot1hogm.
phy) and in specific areas of morphology. Except for
Funk (1985), where some primary elements of t~
kind are already shown, t~re have been until now
no available investigations for differences in the lexi·
cal lind s)'otaeticallicld (lICe, however, DTAI.F..cTS, MOR·
PHOI.OGY OF COPTIC and AKHMIMIC). These L hl"llnches
(Irc designntet.l as follows:
lA (01' IA.ian!) (all Mani texts)
LS (or L·JoL) (JoL.. JoD and AP. Bod)
L6 (or L-NagH) (all Nag Hammadi L texts, and
also AP. l'leid)
2, The Phonemic Inventory or Lycopolltan
As u.~ual, consonanl.~ and vowels will be treated
~parately.
2,1 Consonants. The L consonantal phonemes
and graphemes (according to Vergotc, 1973-1983,
Vol. la, p. 13) are those of most Coptic dialects and
therefore also of S, M, W, V, and F (apal1 from F7)
(see Table I), There fll'C sixteen gr'llphemes ma~hing
the sevenleen consonantal phonemes or Lycopolitan.
'l'he laryngeal stop phoneme /'1 has no sign of ilS
own bol is CJl:pressed, or is recognizable, by the
break in the vowels (c,g., K.U. ~", to place him 0"- it),
a.~ in S (with pS) and also A, as in most of the F
br.tnches.
111e usc of some of these consonants, espe<::ially
,,/-. and C/III, is indicative of a dilfl'rence within the I.
dialecl (sec 2.3,1.3 lint.l 2.3,2,1).
2,2 Vowels, A comprehensive description of the
vowel phonemes of Lycopolitan can be found in
Verg()(e, 1973-1983 (Vol. la, p. 41), The vowel indi-
cators of Lycopolitan are imponanl because they
 LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-D10SPOLITAN OR SUBAKHM1MIC) 155

TABLE I. COllsotlUlllul PlIonemes IlIId Graphemes

BtUBIAl.'i l.ARIOI>F.NTALS
0"""" PRF.PAUTALS POSTPAU,TMS LutYNGEAUi

Voiceless

."'"
Votceless
Iplll

/1/.
/t/ T

/sic
~ .
/t./:/cl

/1/ •
/kI' f/ c.g.. u

/hi,
spirants
Voiced Iwl (o)y /bI. fJ! (e}l
spirants
Nasals ImlH /n/ II
Laterals/Yibr.lnts 11/ /lo,
/r/ r

ortcn show and clarify relationships with A and devi· T1t.NTNO, to be equal to. 111C ol1hognlphy ll/T1t.f'Tl'1l in
ations rrOn1, on thc OIlC hand, M, F, etc. and. on thc ManiK 4,3 is unique (CI,lT),f'Tf" twenty-five times in
other, 8, 8, etc. (see Till, 1\161, pp. 8-11: Kasscr M:lIliK I).
1982b, p. 58) and because they emphllsizc differenc· 2.3.1.2. Thc short tonic vowel bdorc the Iii open-
es within £ and so llrc indispcn.'lahle in defining £4. ing a syllable appcan; in L4 a~ II and in the othcr L
LS, and UJ, a~ the case rllfly be. branches ali l,:
2.3 Indicators of Differences Within Dlalecl L.
These differential markcD between L4. 1.5. and L6 MANI - IA L5 AND L6
arc mostly Y()Calic hut sometimes can be consonan· H616 to love
tal. ze'ie 10 full
1.3./. fA versus L5 atld L6:
2.3.1.1. The characteristic that most clearly distin· Whcn f!l doses Ihe syllabic, then II appears uni·
guishes fA from the other L branches is thc treat· ronnly: c:<t(8)1, to write; ze(e)I, husband
ment of the syllabic leR! (- voiceless consonant +- 2.3.1.3. The labial spirant at the beginning of
voiced consonant or son[ orJant) and f!l + voiced wonls berore the tonic VQwel bee;omes In IA voiced
consonant, or rR! (- f'/ + voiced consonani or • fbI and in the other L branches voicck'Sli Of If/:
son[or)ant), in the final position after an open tonic
syllable. In these cases, as in Akhmimic, an anaptye· MANt - LA L5 AND /..6
tic rowel -Cl /(;,)1 follows the yoiced consonanl at the
• •....
-....
10 eany
end of the syllable:
hair

~-
MANt -JA 1..5, L6
em';; to hear
~,..,

.....
~T' 10 annihilate
to jump
MO'iNG H),tllN sign 2.3.1.4. With the verb N)" NHyt. to come, the non-
O'(1t.i....o Dy1t.tlltl light Manlchean texts (/.5, I../) show 11(15:11 gcmination:-
oy),so'/wa'b(a)1 0,.","' to be holy l'fN)" l'ftllIY.
(I'llrcly oyuse') 2.3.2 IA and L5 Versus L6. In a numbcl' of phono·
loglcnl phenomena fA and £5 stand togcther a~
Only when /wnl closes a syllable is the anaptyctic against 1.6.
yowel founll in all the /. teKts: (;1t.(O)yN6 (d. 2.3.2.1. The alveolar spir,lnt is shown (ll! C 151 or Cl,l
cooytlll). recognize. Note also that in the spelling of /1./ when oX /t/ is involved:
the Mani ICXts. the anapty<:lic yo~l aftcr /eR! is not
completely standardized. U$ling the lexeme "to JA ANDL5 L6
hear" in ManiK I, the results are CttTtffi (sevenly-
ooxe lf6.XtI to speak
rour) and Cln~ (Iwcnty.four). In all comparable in·
e.utH6 tt).XH6 counsel
Mances, Ihe orthography with the anaptyelic vowel
Cl)Xf"i ~X1J (b) to be lert Oyer
predominate!>.
Mler a closed tonic $yilable leR/ does r'IOI pro- laIx. (8) 'l),6tx. (b) warrior
ducc any anaptyclic vowel: L TJ.KTN as opposed to A (al no evicknce for JoL; (b) no evidence ror loP. Hdd.
156 LYCOPOUTAN (OR LYCO·D10SPOLlTAN OR SUBAKI-IMIMIC)

2.3.2.2. In the unstressed syllabic finale a signifi· CII < to drink:

cant difference oceurs betwccn the (wo groups.
Wherever the old inilial ; has become syllabic (vo-
calic) .j through the dropping or the ending ·w, -I is
retained at the end or the word in L6 «(sjw >
X,),O'): if, on lhe other hand, another weak como-
nant has fallen out, then ·6 appears in this position.
11tis Edcl's law of finales (Edel, 1961) takes effecl
only in L.6; in l.5 and lA one also finds -(i in the
conditions fonnulated by Edel (5Ce Table 2).
2.3.2.3. In the case or 1(00, 10 sel, to place < hJ',
the original lal)'llgeal finale in 1..6 (NagH, AP. Hcid.)
is rctained as the anaptyctic vowel -(i: KIHl (likewise
OW 3,3). In L4 and l.5 (Mani lol) the anaptyetic
vowel (or laryngeal) does nOI emerge, and lhe long
back vowel is shown differently: ManiHK KW, ManiP
KOy (1), Jol KOl (5), Kay (9).
The stable opposition is the presence of the allap·
tyetie vowel (AP. Hcid. and NagH • 1.6) as against
it.~ absence (Mani - L4, lol - l.5). There is no other
example of that kind available in Corlic lexicogra·
phy.
From the above, one should dislinguish the syllab-
ic finale fsibilanl or labial consonant + long back
vowell, where an original nonlaryngcal consonant
has fallen out. The vowel in finale is shown consist·
ently as -uy only in L6 (NagH), whereas otherwise
no unifonn group fomtation is recognizable (ror
texIS other than NagH, cr. Kahle, 1954, p. 209):
$",'.
ce JoL(9), MnniP (7), ManiHK;
coy JoL(I), ManiP (4), AP. lleid. Nagll
CM < sbJw.I, teaching:
CM Jol (4), Mani, AP. Held. (1):
C&Oy Jol (4), NagH
:.at < ~d, say:
XII Jol (plur.),
ManiP (plur.), MnnilIK;
:my Jol (2), ManiP (I), AP. H~id., NagH
tTca < J,bSW.I. garmenl:
tie- Mani;
~ Jol, NagH < z<icoy hiler 11.38.
2.3.3 L6 Versus lA (l1l(1l.5. The fcalure of L6 thaI
most ~trikingly distinguishes h from lhe other
bf",mchcs of L is on the morphematic level, e.~pecial·
ly in lhe perfeel conjug.ttion (bolh .lilinnalivc and
relalive), where the lo6 lexts (including Trip.) exhibil
t before prenominaJ Jo.. and the pronominal actor
Cllpressions (see 3.2.1.1 and Funk, 1984).
3, The Conjugation System
11le SUllllllary of the system is ba.'lt'd on rolOlsky
(1960) and Funk (1981). Excepl in special instances
(such as the conjunctive), lhe fonn cited here is only
the third·person masculine singular and the COfTeo
spanding prcnominal fonn (nom. - before nominal
subject). The entire paradigm is not attested in all
conjugations.

TABLE 2.
L4 (MANI) L5 (lol) 1.6 (AP. HEm.) NAGH
>0.
6~6T6
.." ""
O[I].).t
damage
months (OW 3, 6)
GKGlJo.t drachmae (Eplac 8, 9)
KCKC K(lKC KOKCI K6K(0)1 darkness
UIIC'
N.l.~(J

C.l.N6
NJo.II0
CJo.N6
.,.
C.l.NI
",.).11.1'

NJo.II(O)1
CJo.Nl
to be mad (Inter 20, 39)
sin
robber
C""", CJo.',ll' (;.),lI,ll' 10 be biller
><>.c.' ""a' ""a' to be high, sublime
Poco' ",a' t.).C1' to be suffering
"",m "",oj- birds
but:
oy. oyoo (passim) oyo.. oyo.. onc (numeral)
OV'CI (2)
0V'CI01 (2)
 LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOUTAN OR SUBAKHMIMIC)
Unless specifically mentioned, the rorm is affirma-
tive; neg. - negative. EveI)' b.."Ili1c tense (abbreviated
herearter to "basic") is rollowed (ir allcsted) by its
satclHtl'S, after "And"; clre. - clreulR~tantial, reI. -
relative, pret. - preterite. II - St.'Cond tense. Foons
between brackel~ ( ... ) are l'eConstilllled rrom very
sirnilar rorllls: :tC'ru - nu verbal prefix; I.sg. - fir.>t-
pel'Yln singular, 2.m.5&. - second masculine singu-
lar, 3.f.sg. - third reminine singular. I.pl. = first
plural, 2.pl. - second plural, 3.pl. - third plurnl:
I. - lA with LS ;u\d U. AP. Heid. • Schmidt (1904
and 1909); Trip. - Ka$scr ct al. (1973 and 1975a);
U( ... ) • 1.6 without AP. Heid. and Trip.
3.1 Blpar1l1e Pattern: Neg. If· ... 6tl.
J.I.I. Prcunl (basi<:) I. .... nom. I. reru. And <:ire. I.
E'f- (twice l..Jj Trip. ).~'. and 1.sg. fA tlT-, 1.5, US 661-.
2.p\. lA, LS eT8"T1f-, (LS), 1.6 Ef6T"R), nom. I. 6f'&
(also sometimes LS. LA C', on<:c LA Trip. ,},fE-); reI. I.
6fll"- (also sometimes L 1'ITtI..•• onee LA Trip. GT""-.
and 2.p!. I. eTcn1f-), nom. LA, (LS), 1.6 6T6f6' (twice
L6 Trip. GT"'f'G')' (1A), 1.5. (LA) eTa-: pret. Hll'l' ((L6)
Trip. fU,.... and I.sg. 1.4 Hfl", 1...5, Uj K661-, 2.pl. 1.5
NOTOTlf-, 1.6 NGf(l11J-, nu allestation ur 2.p!. in U),
nom. H6ftl·; prel. cire. L 6tff1'1· (1.51. L6 fiHtI(iI', 2.p!.
1..5 GNGf'ClTlJ'); pret. rei. L GTfiHe..• «L6) Trip.
OT6n)...., and l.sg. IA GTMtll-); 11 I. (\.... (l.sg.fA (US
Trip. once) (ff·, LS. US (without Trip.) e61·. 2.p!. IA
(1..5) (1.6) 6Tm'R", (1.5), (£.6) cf'ClTR-). nom. I. €fE-.
3.1.2. Future (basic) (/A), 1.5, LA 'ItU.-, IA cu.- (2.pl.
lA, 1.5, (1.6) T61'N).·, (Ui) T6"T1lN).·), nom. I. 7.ero . . .
Ii)". And cir<:. (IA), LS, LA C"Ii)'-, IA e.. k (I.sg. LS
eStli).-. 2.pl. fA enlTtl).·), nom. LA Gro· ... ru.-, L5
0' ... H).·; rd. (1.4), 1.5, 1.6 e-r...."., (1.5), (/..6)
OT6.. tu.', fA (1.6 once) on).- «1.6) Trip. OT"~N"-. and
2.1'1. lA, 1.5 6TeTli)"), nom. lA, 1..6 OTOrO· ... N).·
((L6) Tlip. onro- ... Ii),'), LS 6T6· ... N),'; pret.
(1.4), 1.5, l.6 NO"Ii)", (LA) [NO"),-] (l.sg. 1.5, US
li06IH).-, 2.m.sg. 1.4 lieK).-, 2.1'1. 1.5 lieTeTN).· or
NerU"").-), nOm. L4, L5 H(jpO' ... N).-; pret. clrc. US
Trip. once lIliS'IN).·, but once Illso 3.f.sg. CN).CN).- ...
no; [I I. 0""),-, (1.4), (1.5) 6'1),- (I.sg. 1.4, (1.5) e"ili).·,
f.5, 1.6 IWIH).·, (L4) (1Y).-, 3.m.sg. L6 with Trip. 6'IN).-,
l..Jj Trip. once ).'IN).·. l.pl. LeN)." 2.1'1. lA, L5
OT6TN"·, 1..5, L6 GptlTN.).-), nOlli. I. GpU- ... N).·.
3.2 Trlpar1lte Pattern.
J.1.J Ttnses wilh special negations (if not 11). Inde·
pendent (sentence) conjugations.
3.2.1.1. Perfeci (basic) L " ... (I.sg. 1.4 ).Y-, LS, L6
)'61" also L6( ... ) ~-. I.pl. I. ).N-, also Ui( ... )
).,zlf·. 2.1'1. L U6Tlf·, 3.1'1. I. ).y'. Illso L6( ... ) ~-;
d. Shisha-l1alevy, 1977, p. 113), nom. I. ,,- (but L6
AP. Held. prerel's :).', once also in Trip., also r",rcly
157
US( ... ) .\:,,-); neg. I. RH'I"- or RII6"- (2.pl. L
R1I6Tlf·), nom. Roo·. And cll'e. 1. cu.... (I.sg. 1.4 wJ·.
1.5 6).et-, L6( .•• ) once S).:I-, 1.1'1. I. (tUli') no alles'
tlltion, LA( ..• ) once 0),:"-. 2.pl. IA CU(ITlJ-, J.pl. L
tI"Y·. f.6( .•• ) once fU.:OY-), nom. I. cu.. (but 1.6
APh. St),·, perhaps once also in Trip., Ui( ... ) once
6.\:"-); neg. lA, 1.6 6M11'q"- or CMllC"- (2.pl. 1.6 once
6H[ll]6Tlf-), nom. L 6M116·; rei. IA (and (1.6) Trip.)
eT)."-, LS, 1.6 lfT)..... L6 Trip. (and (Ui) elsewhere)
(ltIT......, (also (1.6) Trip. 61'6.)..... , once 6T6:"....) (I.sg.
1.4 tlnT-. 1.6 Trip. "n'l- or 61'lT)"{-, (L6) 6Nn·j-. LS, L6
R'T).CI·, also 1.6( • •• ) liT~-, 2J.sg. IA GT.a.,e-, 1.5
liT.).·, LA( ••• ) lfT).V.-, I.pl. 1.4 (and (L5), Ui Trip.)
GTlJt-. I.S, 1.6 R'T.l.M-, (IA), (1.6) 01'lT).li·, (also (1.6)
Trip. GTC.l.M-). also LA( ... ) 'R"T).:lI"-, 2.pl. IA
6Tu8"T1f·. LS, 1.6 liTueTlI"·. also L6( ... ) once
liT).V.TaTlf·, 3.1'1. 1.4 (and (L6) Trip.) eT).Y·, 1.5, L6
liT).y-. (LA), (1.6) ol'lT"y· (also (1.6) Trip. OTe.).y·).
also Ui{ ... ) liTJ.lOY· (or 6MTJ.lOY-», nom. 1.4 (and
(1.6) Trip.) en-, LS, (1.6) lfT).-, L6 Trip. (and (1.6)
elsewhere) eMT"·. LA AP. Heid. sometimes liT~·
but prefers R'T).- (also (L6) Trip. GTS"-. once each
one 6T~·. OT......-, 6MT"""-). also 1.6( •.. ) lfT~' (or
eNT~-): neg. 1.4, Ui OT6H111("· or 6T6M16.... (2'1'1. 1.6
eTOHnoTR"-), nom. L6 6T6H11G'; pret. 1.5, 1.6 fKl.a......
nom. 1.5 H6).', L6 AP. Ileid. N6tJo·; neg. (3.p{. 1.6
tteHllOy-). nom. US NSHllfI·; pret. eire. - Irrealis LA,
1.6 (jH(lfIT)'1- (2.p!. LS OIiGHnT(n'ff·): neg. - I.rrealis
(I.sg. LS OHOHfU', 3.1'1. 1.4 I3MGHnOy'), nom. 1.5
6N6M116·: 11 L JfT)."- (also (Ui) Trip. once EHT""',
twice 6)."', and I.s8. L4 liT"", 1.5 liT"tll', US( ... )
perhaps ollce l.'1.T)).:Y-. 2.1'1. 1.5 liTUCJl'R"· (or
GliT)'TaTlf-». nom. I. liT).·.
3.2.1.2. Complelive (basic) (aHinnative substitute I.
"'IO'yW 6..·• nom. " •... oyw S,,·); neg. I. R"1U.1"lr·
(alsu lA R"tU.TO"·, and 2.1'1. LS R"tl).T6T1'1"-), nOIll. 1.5,
L6 R"lUT6·. And eire. neg. IA, 1.6 6H\U.T6"·, 1.5. 1.6
eMlI).1"lr·. nom. I. 6H1t).Te·; reI. neg. Ui ftTSHlU.1"lr
nom. L6 GTGHI1).Ta·; prel. neg. LS, 1.6 NOMIU..r1r·,
nom. 1-6 li6MlUT6·.
3.2.1.3. Aorist (basic) lA, (1.5). L6 ~)'''-. L5, (1.6)
~"FO'" (I.sg. lA II,I).Y-, 2.p!. Ui II,I).F6T1'1"·), nom. L
~"FiI': neg. I. M)...· (l.sg. 1.4 H).Y·), nom. I. H"r6-. And
eire. 1.4, (1.6) 6~)'''-. LS, (1.6) (flll,l),f'U'I'] (I.sg. LA
1311,1"Y-, H.sg. LA 611,1).C-, 3.p!. 1.5, (L6) 6C11).roY·), nom.
lA 6C11).P6·; neg. L4, [1.5, £.6] SH.\..- (3.£.sg. 1.5, US
6HM:-), nom. IA (lHlorO-; reI. (L4), (LS], US e...)...· (1.6
once 6TGl)....), 1.4. ([LS]), [1.6] fITs...)...· (I.sg. lA
GT6IO>J-. H.sg. £.6 once flT6".).C·, 3.p!. (IA once), (1.6
once) oo;t).)'-, lA, (LS once?) L6 6T6f,l).y-, LS (1.6)
M,I>.f'O"r'" (1.6 Trip. ftTc,),f'Oy- once, GTG19).('OY- once),
nom. (1.4 once?) L5 6ct"P6-, lA, 1.6 GT6CIil),fG'; neg.
158 LYCOPOLITAN (OR LYCO-DIOSPOUTAN OR SUBAKHMIMIC)
(L6) [eM),"·], lA, IA eTCM),'I- (3.pJ. L6 once 6M),y-,
L4, 1..6 6TIJMJt.y-, (L6 onl:e) G1'OM),f'OY-), nom. L4, L6
OT6M),pe-; pre\. (3.p!. lA, lA [no attestation Trip.]
NC(1),Y·, 1..6 Trip. N6lij,),roY· once); II L4, L6 (H1,l,),"·
(3.p!. IA 601,),Y·, L6 Trip. (Jlij),fOY- once), nom. L4
601,),1'6-.
3.2.1.4. Fwurnm c,wrgicwn (or lhird future) (ba~ic)
L 6"),· (I.sg. lA, L5 of),·, (LS), L6 661,),·, 2.pJ. 1..6 oncc
epeTN,),-, once Up6Tl'f·, 3.pl. L (without Trip.) lJyl.·,
1..6 Trip. once l.y(),).), nom. L4, L5 IJP6-; neg. L4, L5,
(L6) H6'1-, (1..6) H....·, (/A AP. Hcid.) UHOp- (I.sg. 1-5
Nl.-, 1..6 AP. Held. eN661- or Nm·, L6 also m-, 2.pl. L5
NOTfl"-, 3.pl. L NOY- bUI L4 also NNOy-, Ney·, NNey.,
L6 AP. Heid. ot*Oy-), nom. fA, L5 tlo·; rd. (3.pl. 1-6
Trip. once 6Tl.Yl.-).
3.2.1.5. fmpcralive, e.g., I,A, L5 l.N6Y (1-4 no aues·
tation rrom PolOISky, 1934), L6 onl:C GI-l<iy, see: 01' L
infinitive; 01' f, Ml. + T-eausative; neg. (fA?), (L6
once) MN·, L FfUJF· (1-4 once, l'olol~ky, 1934, p. 5, 20)
R'l1wp., lA( ... ) Ffnwp l...
3.2.1.6. CUIIsu/ive imperalive lA, £5, (L6?) Ml.P€'I-,
nom. L Ml.PO-; neg. L5 R'tffTp<i'l-, L6 once
Rnwpl.Tj'tJ<to, once HlfTPOq ·, (L4 I.s8. Ffllrr).·, l.pJ.
RlllIlpTlf-), nom. lA R'1lWfT6-, L5 1..6 (AP. Hcia.)
0
RUrTpe-, L6 (not AP. Heid.) once MNTj'6·.
3.2.2 T(!IJ.W!$ with neg. TRo. Subordinate (dau~e)
conjugations.
3.2.2.1. Conjllnctive (singular I., 2. m., f., 3. m., f.,
plural I., 2., 3.) L4, L5 Nn- or "),-, L N'\(- (or (L4),
L6 NI'-, (L4), (L5) Ko), L 'ffTe· (or L4 1'0-), I- N,,- (or
(lA), (L5) 'I., (L4 onl:e), (L6 once) NTlfo), L NC·, L
lfTl'f. (or (L4) TN·), I- NT61'lf· (Of (L4 Ollce), (L5
once) TOTN-, f. Nce-, nom. L NTO-.
3.2.2.2. FI41urli cmljunellvlI lA T,),P0'l- (I.pl. LA
'u,pN-), nom. L4 Tl.r6·.
3.2.2.3. Tempural L 'ffTl.P<i<t· (I.pl. L4, £.6 NnpN·,
(U once) NTl.p6N-), nom. NTl.p6-.
3.2.2.4. Umitalive ("ontil ... ") L4, (US Trip. once)
(1).tIT<i<t·, (L4), (£.6 AP. Heid.) O1J.NT"r-, (Ui Trip.
lI,Il,TO'l· twice?), (I.pl. lA once O1l.Tfl"., 2.pl. lA once
lI,l),ToTN·, 3.pl. L O1J.NTOY- (lA once) O1J.TOY-), nom.
L (wilh Trip.) lijJ./'ITO- (1...6 Trip. once lij,),1'O-).
3.2.2.5. Fiw cOlldiliollal lA, US e'IG,IJ.No, (L4), 1-5,
(L6) U'IO,lJ.· (I.sg. L4 llYo,):u.., L5 601(1,)),.-, L6 6G1lij),(")-,
2.p!. IA tlO,llJ'freTN·, f.5 6T6T'tfIO),.-, U.s) 0poTNlijJ.-, 1-6
6pGTfl"01J.N·), nom. L4 6lijJ.N1'6-, (L4), (L5) O['ql),.-, (L4
P.<>alms of Thomas) tlO1l.·, 1.5, (L6) llpllll,l,),·, 1-6
tlfillij)'N·.
3.2.2.6. Second conditional L6 [0'1-], neg. LA 6<fTM-
(1.sg. neg. L5 661TR"-, 3.pl. L6 oy-, neg. L5, L6
<iyrFl"-), nOn!. L6 ef(lo, neg. LS op0TR"o.
3.2.2.7. CallSalive infinitive L °11'tl'I·, L4, [(Ui)] ·Tlr-,
(I.sg. [L4], L5, (lA AP. Heid. once?) .1')',),., L4 ·n·,
L6 APh. -11'1-, I.pl. L -TpN-, 2.p!. 1-6 -1')'(JTN-, 3.pl. I,
-l"f'OY·, lA, (L6) .TOY-), nom. L -Tj'(I-, fA -1'6·.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allberry, C. R. C. A Manie/Illean PIalmbuuk. StUltgl1l1,
1938.
Attridge, H. W., cd. Nag Hammndi Codex I (nze Jung
Codex): IntroduCliol1, TexiS, Translations, Indices.
Nag Hammadi Studies 22. Lcidcn, 1985.
Bell, H. I. Jews lind ChriItiuns in Egypl. London,
1924.
Bellet, P. "Analecta Coptica." Cnlltolic Biblical Qllar·
Ilirly 40 (1978):37-52.
I3i:lhlig, A. Keplrafuiu: lweite Hiil{te. Stlltlgal1, 1966.
Chaine, M. Les Diu/ec/es Cuple$ AS$ioll/ique$ A2, fes
curaclim's/iqllcs de leur phOllclique, de leur symaxe.
Paris, 1934.
Crum, W. E. Ca/lllugue uf the Cup/ie MunuIeripls in
the British Museum. London, 1905.
Edel, E. "Neues Material zur Herkunft der auslauten·
den Vokale -E und ·1 im Koptiscben." Zcitschri{t
(iir iigyptiselre Sprachll Wid Allerlumsklmr/e 86
(1961); 103-106.
runk, w. P. "Bcitr'Jge des miltclagypti~l:hen Dialekt~
zum koptisl:hen Konjugations.~}'5tem:' Tn Stl,die$
Presenled 10 HanI Jakob Polotsky, ed. I). W. Young,
pp. 177-210. East Gloucester, Mass., 1981.
-:-::0 . "Die Morphologic dcr Pcrfektkonjugalion im
NH-sobachmimischen Dialekt." Zeit.~chrift {flr
iigyplfsche Spraclte WId Allerlllm~kulldli III (1984):
110-30.
-::-:. "How Closely Related Arc the Subakhmimil:
Dialel:ts?" Zeitsclrrlft fiir iigyplische Spraclre lmd
Aitertumskllilde 112 (1985): 124-39.
-::--. "ZUI' Frage des Dia1ekts der kOplischen
Paulus·Fragmente der Thompson·Sllmmlung in
der Univcr.;itatsbibliothek Cambridge." HulleIche
Beilriige ~lIr OrientwfsIcnschafr 8 (1986):45-61.
-::--. "Die Zeugen des koptischen literaturdialekts
i7." leilsclrrifl fiir iigyptisch/!. Sprache lind Alter-
twnIkullIle 114 (1987):117-33.
Hedrick, C. W., cd. Nag Hammadi Codices XI, Xli,
XIf{. Nng Hammadi Studies 28. Leiden, 1990.
Kahle, P. E. Bula'izulr: Coplic l'CJII$ from Deir d-
Ba!u'izah hI Upper Egypl. Oxford and London,
1954.
Ka.<;SCf, R. "Relations de gcnealogie dialeetale dans
Ie domaine Iycopolitain." BIIlIetil1 de la Societe
(i'~gyplologie, Cellt:ve 2 (1979):31-36.
---c:--' "Un Nouveau Document protolycopolilain."
Orlentalia 51 (1982a):30-38.
_ _ 0 "Le Grand·Groupe dialectal copte de Haute-
Egypte." Bullelill de fa SociCie d'egyplologie,
GClIeVII 7 (l982b):47-72.
----c' "Orthogf"dphe ct phonologic de la vadele
subdialectale Iycopolitaine de~ tcxtes gnostique~

eoptcs de Nag Harnmadi." Mus~o" 97 (1984):261-
312.
"l.'ldcntite Iinguistique du Ms. Cambridge
Univ. Ub. Or. 1700.1 a la p{oriphcrie de I'aire lyeO"
politaine." MllsOOti 99 (1986):221-27.
Kasscr, R.: M. M<llinine; I·I.-e. Puech; G. Quispe:l; J.
bndee; W. Vydchl: and R. Mel... Wilson. Truelaills
Triptmi/lls, Pa,sl. De Supemb, Codex /llIlg f. XXVI
,.-f. WII. (I'. 51-104). Bern, 1973...., ParslJ, De
C,eatume 1/Qttlitlis, Pa,s 1If, De Ge"eriblts Trihlls.
Coda JII/Ig I. VI v.-VOl v. (I'. 104-140). Bern.
19153.
OrQtio Pallli Apostoli, Coda Jmlg. f. LXJP.
(I'. f4J.LI44?" Bern, 1975b.
Ki~hner, D. Epi:>llIla Jacobi Ap<Xrypha, nell he,-
tmsgege~1l lind kommentiert. Te;c.te und Unter-
suchungen zur Gcschkhte cler a1tehristlichen u-
tcratur 136. Berlin, 1989.
L..aytun, B. The GmJs/ie TreQ/ise on ReslIrTet:tio'l from
NQg HQmmQdi. Harvard, 1979.
Malinine, M.; H.-e. Puech; and G. Ouispcl. Eva.rge-
fillm VeritQlis, Cod~ J""g f. VIII v.-XVlv. (I'. 16-
32), ,. XIX ,.-JaJ/ '. (I'. 37-43). Zurich, 1956.
Malinim,:, M.; H.-e. Puech; G. Ouispel; W. C. Till; and
R. Mel... Wilson. EvmrgdiuIII Verila/is (Suppleme,,-
lum), Codex JUIIg I. XVII ,.-f. XVIII v. (I'. 33-36'.
Zurich, 1961-
Malinine, M.: U.-e. l>uech; G. Ouispel; W. C. Till: R.
Mel... Wilson; and J. Zandt.'1:. De Resurrectio"e
(Eplsw{(1 ad RJlegitrum), Coda 1I1/1g I. XXII r.-I·
xxv II. (I'. 43-50). Zurich, 1963.
Malinine, M.; '-I.-e. I'uech; G. Ouispel: W. C. TIll; R.
Kasscr; R. Mel... Wilson; and J. Zandec. EpisJula
lacobi A.pocryplra. Codex /llIlg f. I ,.-f. VIII II.
(I'. 1-16). Zurich, 1968.
Deyen, C. "Fmgmenle ciner $ubachmimischen Ver-
sion der gnostischen 'Schrift ollne Tilel.''' In Es-
.~Q)'$ 011 Ihe Nt/g HQlllmacli Texis, ill HOI/our of p(llwr
Labib, cd. M. Kf'".luse, pp, 125-44. Leiden, 1975.
Pearson, B. II., ed. NQg ffammadi Codices IX and X.
N<lll ~llUlUlllldi Sludies IS. L.eiden, 1981.
Polotsky, H. J. Mimidlllisdie Hvmilit;/l. Stuugart,
1934.
I'olotsky, H. J" nnd A. B5hlig. Keplwlaill: 1. Hallie
(Liefer,mg 1-10). Stutlg11l1, 1940.
_-:::~. ''The Cuptic Conjugal ion System." Orlelllll/ill
29 (1960):392-422.
ROM:h, F. Vomclllu/amgell UI ehrer Grammlltik der
achmimischcl1 Mlmdart. Strasbourg, 1909.
Schmidt, C. ACIU Pauli ails der ffeidelherger
Iwplist'hel1 Papywshwldschrifl Nr. /. L.eip7.ig, 1904.
...,:-~ "Ein neues fragment del' Heidelberger A<;tn
Pnuli." Sitllmgmericille der Berliner Akudtmie cltr
WL~~tm.~clIQltell, Philorophisch.historische Klasse
(1909):216-20.
Schmidl, C.. nnd I-I. J. Polotsky. "Ein Mani-Fund in
Agypl.en: Originalschriflen des Mani und seiner
SchUler." In SillJmg.Werichle de, Se,Um.., Akademie
MEMPHITIC 159
der WisserrscllQftell, l'hiloSQphi!iCh·hislon·St:he
Klus.~e, PI" 4-90. Berlin, 1933.
Shisha·I-lalevy, A. "Bohairic Tcuoytl (TIItl +): A Case
of LeItClnic Grammaticalisati<m." Encltorill 7
(1977):109-113.
l1lompson, H. TIle Gospel 01 51. John A.ccordirrg to lite
Ellrliesl Cnp/ic Mamlst·rip/. London, 1924.
Till, W. C. Acltmimiscl,.kop/isclte G,ummalik. Leipzig,
1928.
_ _~ "Die kairencr $citen dl.'5 'Ev;mgcliums der
Wahrneil.''' Orielltalia 28 (1959):167-85.
___ Koptisd,e Diulektgramlllatik, mit l..fiestiicke"
unci Wilf/erbI4t:h. 2nd ed. Munich, 1961.
Vergote, J. Grammaire cople, Vol. la, 1"lroJU~liOll,
pholleliqlle 1.'1 phonologic, morplrologie
S)"Fr/JrtmQ/iqlle (stmcll4fe cia simamemes}. pelf/ie
syncl,rolliql/e, Vol. Ib, IIllroduCIWtl, phOflitiqlle 1.'1
photlologie, nrorplralogie sy>l/httllQlique (slmcture
du simQm~mu), pelf/ie diQch,Cnliqlle. Vol. la, ....
IIIorphoiogie Sy>llugmatiqlle, S)'Illau, partie syn-
cllrol1iqlle, Vol. 2b, ... , nlo,pholQKie sytllagmQti-
que, pelf/ie diat:h,cmiqlle. lDuvain, 1973-1983.
Worrell, W. H. Coplic Sounds. Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
PETF.R NAGF.L
MEMPHITIC. Wllal was fonnerly called the Mem-
phitic dialect (an appclltllion now abandoned) vms
one thai Egyptologisls and Coptolollists long sought
10 identify and gel to know, Ihinking thai il must
have been one of Ihe principal dialects of Coptic
Egypt. It WllS in fael known thlll Memphis had been
one of lhe two lIery great metropoli.o;es of pharaonic
Egypt; it wa.~ therefore nalul".ll thai, soon after the
beginnings of the sciellee which was 10 become
Coplology and which W:t!l at first considered t."Sscn·
lially lin au~i1ial)' of Egyptology, allempls were made
10 discover the Idiom of ancient Memphis and that
sehollirs ende<lvured to identify this dialeci with one
or Ihe dililects found In Ihose teltlS believed to have
been found at Memphis, or al leasl in II region nOI
too distllllt from it.
ATilANAS1US OF OO~, n grnmmarian of the fourteenth
century, in listing the Coptic diakcts knuwn in his
time, spoke of "Sahidic," "Bohairic:' and "Ba.~h·
muric" (Ka.">SCr, 1973, PI'. 76-7"/). Since the first
Coptologists were above nil Egyptologists, they natu·
rally sought to find in the Coptic idioms attested by
I~ docuUlenlS at lheir disposttln reflection of Egyp.
lian "dialccu:' which COITC!ipondcd 10 the two (or
Ihree) centers of lhe political and cultural lire of
pharaonic Egypt: Upper Egypt (fhebes) and Lower
Egypl (Memphis), wilh !IOmetimcs lhe intenncdialc
region of Middle Egypl. In trying 10 superimpose
160 MEMPHITIC
these lWO triads, scholaD had no difficulty in under-
Slanding me "Coptic or Mi~r" or "sahidic" as S, and
they soon localed it in the upper third of Upper
Egypt (the upper Nile Valley; cr. GEOGllAPtiy. OlAU.C
TAL), in the region of Thebes. Ukewise, "Bohairic"
was evidently B, and if thc center of this dialect was
the WC$tem Delta, it was conjectured lhat illi region
could be praclically identified with the whole of the
Delta; to meel lhe needs of the easc, Lower Egypl
could even annex to itself lower Middle Egypt (the
region of Memphis). Along the 5aI1le lines. "Dash·
munc" was idenlified wilh F. l1H: first of these iden-
lifications still ha.~ it.~ defenders today. for it is ce....
lain thai S was spoken at nIChes. if not probably at
the origins of this dialect, at leasl in the penod of illi
greatCSl cxtension (cla.~sical Coplic; see ntAt.F.CT. iM·
MIGRANT). The third idcntifiC(llion quickly encoun·
tered great difficulty and was ulready rcjcl:tl:d by
Qualremhe (1808, pp. 147-228).
Since the second identificalion (of Bas "Mcmphit.
ic") is more probable, although also en'Oneous, il
endured for a little morc than a century (1777-
1908). It was proposed for lhe first lime by Woide in
1777 (according 10 Stem. 1880. p. 12. n. I) and Tuki
in 1778, after whom we may mention Mingarclli
(1785). Quatrcmere (1808), Zoega (1810). Engel·
breth (1811). Peyron (18]5 and 1841). Schwanu
(1850), Tattam (1852). Uhlemann (185]), Abd
(1876), Rossi (1878), and finally Stem. (Stem, how-
ever, expressly rejt."Ctt."(\ it (1880, p. 12): "Earlier
scholars called Lower Egyptian 'Coptic' KUT tttJxill'
and when Upper Egyptian gained in significance for
s<:holarship Woide 1777 proposed for it the name
Memphilic. This name ilO nol al)propriatc, because
lhe lanauaac of Memphis. which is preselVed, e.g., in
the papyri from the monaslel)' of Abba Jeremias and
the Bible lranslation of which Tuki still knew and
cited as Memphilicus ul/er, is .....thcr 'Middle Egyp.
tian,' I would have no objection to lhe description uf
lhe Lower Egyptian dialect as Bohainc, since il
heal'5 this name in Arabic, while lhc Coptic texts
themselves call it t.J,.cm tlr6Hn6H~1T 'the northern
language.''' Moreover, he required the SiglUlll M for
"Middle Egyplian," which is Fayyumic in the widesl
sense of Ihe term; Fayyumic in the strici sense (with
regular lambdacism. etc.) was for him "F
(fayy(imisch)." But it look a dozen years before
other Coplologists (Krall, 1892) followed Slem's ex·
ample, so thaI one finds Maspcro (1886) and Ciasca
(1889). amona others, still calling 8 "Memphilic."
It was apparently Steindorlf (1894) who succeeded
in persuading the majorily of CoptologislS to give up
calling Bohairic pure and simple "Memphitic," no
doubt by presenting 10 lhem a siglum M correspond-
ing to a "Memphitic" thaI was certainly Ihe language
of Memphis bul quitc dilfen:nl from 8, and in fact
an idiom lhat corresponds ralher well with &em's
"Middle Egyptian" M. either P in modem terminolo-
gy or"" (?) 01' even st. After him, lhl.: usc of the term
"Memphitie" in We>sely (1908, p. 185) appears as no
more lhall an isolated sulViV".iI. The siglum M is used
loday for the MESOKEMIC dialecl. al k-asl by lhose
who have not been pul off by lhe recollection of lhe
diverse significance romlerly given 10 this siglum in
Coplic dialectology and who distrusl lhe idenlifica·
lion, slill disputed, of Mt:sokemic and the autochlho-
nous speech of Oxyrhynchus.
BIBLIOGRAI"IIY
Abel. K. Kop/i~'che U~llersuc1mllgc'/. Berlin, 1876.
Ciase:l, A. Sacromm Bihliorulil "'rul.',mmlu Cvp/v-
sahidica Mu.~ci Borgialli I/lssi/ 1,1/ Smllp/ibllS S. CVII'
gro!galiOllls de Propagmlfl(1 fMe Swdio ... Edita.
Vols. I alld 2. Rome. 1885 and 1889. And [without
aUlhor or cd.]: 55. Bib/iofllm FragmeUla CoptQ--
SuhMicu Musei Bargiani. Vol. 1-2. Tabulae. Kome,
{1904].
Engelbrelh. W. F. "-ragmen/a BuSlllllrico-copticli
Veterts et Novi Testamellti quae III Mu.leO 8orgilitlO
Ve/itris ,Uservamllr, CIIIII Reliqllis VersiQ"ibus
Aegyptlis COPllulit. IAti>le Vertil I!ec 11011 eriticis et
Phi/ologicis AdrlOiationiblU llillStrtwi/. Copenhagen,
181 I.
KaMer, R. "Lcs Dialectes COpICS." Bllfletill de
I'histilllt lranfau d'archtQlvgle orientale 73
(1973):71-101.
KI'l:tll, J. "Koptische Bride." MittlleilJlllgeu ailS der
&11/11I"11I1: der Papyru.~ EI7)1erw~ Ruiner 5
(1892):21-58.
M05pcro, G. "Notes sur dillerellts poinlli de grnm-
mnil'e el d'hisloirc," Recllldl de travallX re/alils iJ. 10
philolugie 1,1/ il l'arclll~ologic cgyp/;em/cs 8
(1886): 179-92.
Pcyron, V. II. Lex;col! Unguoe Cop/leae. Turin, 1835.
-,--__. Gramma/icu Lingl/oe Cvp/icae. Turin, 1841.
Qunll'erncrc, E. M. Recherches critiques et historiqllcs
Sllr Itl IUlIgue et 10 !il/era/ure do! I'Egy,Jle. Par'is,
1808.
Rossi, F. Grammatica cop/Q--gieroglifi"o "VlI Im'apper/-
dice del prillcilHlli seJ;lli siflablcl e del loro signifi-
cato. Rome, 1877.
SChwartz..:. M. G. Koptische Grammatik ...
herallsvvbetl lIiu:h des VerflUUrs Tode lIQII Dr. H.
Steillthal. Berlin, 1850.
Sleindorlf, G. Koptische Grammutik mit ChreSlQ--
ma/hie. Wiirterverx.eichnis Ilt/d I..iteratllr. Berlin,
1894.
Stem, L Koptis<:he Grammatik. Leipzig. 1880.

Tallam, H. Proplteloe Mojores, in Oiafeclo Ullguoe
Aegypliocoe Mempllilico .sell Coplica, Edidil Cll'"
V~rsioPle l,.lJlin(l. Oxford, 1852.
Uhlemllnn, M. A. Lillgl/oc Cop/kat GrommaIica in
U:UlItI Scltolamm Academicarum Scrip/a, cum
ChrtS/DfllD./J!ia c/ Gl~rio: fnlit!rtae Sum Observa·
Iiolles Quacdam de Vdenml AcgypI;orlltll Cramma.
lica. l..eip~.ig. 1853.
Wessely, K. "Lcs Plus AncicnlO Monuments du christia·
nisme ecrits sur papyrus," Patrolagi(l Oriellta/is 4
(1908):95-210; 18 (1924):341-511.
Zocga, G. Ca/(l/~us Codicllm C0l',ic<m.lm Malluscrip·
lomm (/Ili ill M,fSco &rgiQIIO Vefitris AdsctvQlltllr.
Rome, 1810.
RODOIJ'HE KA.'iSER
MESODIALECT. If lhe term "di:llcct" is confined
to idioms who$(' originality, when compared to
others, is slrongly ehllnlcterized (by a large number
of phonological and mOlphosyntactic:ll oppositions
of a cogent quality) and if the tCI'll\ "subdialect" is
confined to idioms whose originality in relation to
others is but weakly characteri1,ed (by it lOmail num-
ber of oppositions of uncompelling or inconclusive
quality) (cf. DIAlECTS, CROttPINCi AND MAlOR GROUPS
ot'), then: would still remain a residue of idioms that
one would hesitate to class either with the indepen.
dent dialects proper (because their originality seems
tOO ~k) or with the sulxlialects (because their
originality .seems too strongly pronounced). One
could thus (Kasser, 1980, p. 103) call this last group
mesodmlects-that is, quasi-dialcctli, situated almost
midway, phonologically and perhaps also geographi-
cally, between other dialects-and ao;sign them, fol·
lOWing due consideration, to the dialect group to
whit;h they nevcrthclC5.o; stand c1mest.
In view of the unidimensional dialectal configura-
tion of the Nile Valley, in which 1he local dialects
are strung out like pearls on a necklace, a mesodia-
leCI will be encountercd musl often betwecn two
di:\lects; howevcr, there are Cel1ain rcgions (sueh as
lhe Nile Valley ncar the FayyUm or in the Delta)
where dialectal geography admits of a second di-
mension, and there II mesodialeet may consequently
lie enclosed between three (or, theoretically, even
more than three) dialects, linguistically and geo-
graphically speaking. Should one assign to a given
dialcct a particular tenitOI)' in Egypt, one would
apparently be attributing the same tenilory to the
whole dialectal group of which the said dialect is
pan, so that this tl~nitory could be subdivided and
pllreeled among the various member dialects or sub-
dmk'Ctli of the gmup; in such a case, the district of
MESODIALECT 161
the 111csotlialect would logically lie near the dialectal
frontier, adjoining the tenitory or tenitorics of the
neighboring dialect(s), with which it would share
affinities (charncteristics that are, however, less im-
ponanl than those it shares with the core dialect of
its group).
A typical example of a mcsodialectal text is the
papyNS Mich. 3521. Kahle (1954, pp. 224-25) con-
sidered it "Middle Egyptian with Fayyumic influ·
ence" and therefore to be attached to the M dialcctal
group n'llher than 10 the F group, but HU5.'lClman
puhli...hed it as belonging to the "Fayumic dialcct of
Coptic" (1962, pp. vii, 11-18). This judgment was
confir'med on the whole by Polotsky (1964, p. 251):
"Although the dialect of the MS does not share in
lhe shibboleth of Fayyumic, vir.. its lambdacism, allY'
one previous to Kahle would have unhesitatingly
chal':lcteri1.ed it as 'not quite pure' Fayyumic. Kahle
calls it 'Middle Egyptian with Fayyumic influence.'
The editor, however, maintains (II) that the basis of
the dialect appears to be Iypical Fayyumic nonelhe-
less, in which I must agree with her. On the other
hand, Kahle is cenainly right in Ihat the non-
Fayyumie infUlOion is 'Middle Egyptian.' ... One
could perhaps cOlupromise on 'Fayyumic with Mid·
die Egyptmn in8uence.''' P. Mich. 3521, one sees,
illustrales well the properties nccCS5a1)' for defining
a mClCX!mleCl
It has been suggested that the same tenn be ap-
plied to DIAU£T G (or Basmuric, or Mansoric, partly
sporoldic, belonging to the dialectal group B, situaled
between S and a highly dominant B, with a probable
third componenl thaI is perhaps partly Hellenic but
difficult to detcnnine; see DIA.LECt. SPORADIC) and 10
K (situaled between V or S and a highly dominant
.).
When a mesodialect docs not contribute any im·
pa11ant OIiginal element, one not found in its classic
neighbor dialects, it may conveniently be neglected
in a systematic and general study of Coptic dialects.
BIBLIOGRAPHV
Browne, G. M. Michigan Coptic TexiS. Barcelona,
1979.
Chaine, M. I£/imttlls de grammuire diufectafe copte.
Paris, 1933.
Cnllu, W. E. "Coptic Documentli in Creek Script."
Proceedings of the Brilich Academy 25 (1939):249-
71.
Funk, W.·P. "Eine frUhkoptische Ausglciduortho-
gl':lphie fiJr Unter- und Miltclagypten? Bulletin de
fa Sociltl d'igyptofogie, Gene,.e 44 (1980):33-38.
Husselman, E. M. The Gospel of John in FQyumic
 162 MESOKEMIC (OR MIDDLE EGY(YfIAN)
Coptic (P. Mich. It,..,. 3521). Ann Arbor. Mich.•
1962.
Kasser. R. "Lcs Dialectcs Copies." Bulle/hr de
1'I,15Iill1' fra,,~au d'arclr~oIogie orientale 73
(1973):71-101.
Kahle. P. Ii 8ulu'izph: Coptic Tuu from Deir d-
&la·il.llh in Upper Egypt. Oxford and London,
1954.
''L'ldiome de Bachmoor." Bulle/in de
l'In5tillll Irall~au d'arch~oI08ie Qriell/ale 7S
(1975):401-427.
"Prolegomcnes a un cssai de c1a'iSification
sYSlemi"ltiquc des diak'Cte~ Cl ~ubdialeCles copIes
selon les coten'S de la phonctique, I. Principcs et
tenninologie." MlI.~011 93 (1':I80):53-J J2.
PoloL~ky. H. J. Review of E. M. Hussclman, The Gos·
pel of lvllll ill fuyumil: Cop/Ie (P. Mich. "lV. 3521).
Orieli/uUs/iselle Li/Cflltlll7.c//IIlIg 59 (1964):250-53.
Worrell, W. H. Coptic Somu/s. Ann Arbur, Mich.,
1934.
ROOOU'11l: KAssER
MESOKEMlC (OR MIDDLE EGYPTIAN).
The Mcsokemic or Middle Egyplian dialect, siglum
M (also called Oxyrhynchite), belongs to the Coplic
dialects of Middle Egypt. It ~ one of Ihe rdath'cJy
minor Coptic idioms and probably flourished only
brielly in the early period of the Coptic language
(foonh and fifth cenluries), but ncvenhclcss
dt:vdoped in Ihis period inlo a highly standardttcd
wriuell dialect.
Both according to its tht."Orelical system and ac-
cording 10 the probable gcogmphy of the Coptic
dialecL<; (see (;1'J)GRAI'IlY. DtAI.ECTAI_). M lies between
I'AYrUMIC (siglum F) and I,YCOI'OUTAN (siglum I.). JIS
homeland may have been the region of Oxy'
rhynchus.
Jt is to the abiding cl'edit of P. E. Kahle that on
the basis of a vel)' few small fragments hc W;\S the
flt'St It) postulate M as nn independcnl dialect (1954).
Since then, three larger manuscriplS written in this
dialect have come to light. These three primal)' wit·
nes.~ for' this di;\lect are P. Mil. Copti I, a fragmen.
tal)' papyrus codex containing Ihe whole Corpus
Ptiulinum (Pauline Epistles), and Codex Scheide and
Codex Glmo.ier, two small pan:hmenl codices pro-
served complete, the first containing the Gospel of
Mauhew wilh the so-called Great Doxology, the sec·
ond containing the first half of Acts (1:1-15:3). An-
other pan:hmcnt codex containing the Psalms has
since been excavated in Egypt.
I. Characteristics
In comparison with other dialectS, M in ilS gcneroll
outward form comes closest to Fayyumic, nO! 10
Fayyumic's central variety, ,.. (charoctcmcd by its
lambdacism), but 10 varieties like V (defined as
Fayyumic ....ithout lambdacism) or even bellcr W
(said 10 be a kind or crypto-Mesokemic wilh a rather
Fayyumic phonology. although withoul lambcbcism:
sec below).
Indeed. the phonolOK)' of M shows ilS most impor·
tant affinities with that of Wand V. lIS consonanlS
are those of evel)' Coptic dialccI, cxccpt P, i, A, and
8. (Like F, V. W, t, S ctc., diulect M docs not have
Ihe Ixl of P, i, A, and B, or the I~I of P and i.) And
like F4, V4, W, 8 etc., M docs not show the graphic
vocalic gemination meaning pllunologkaJly /'1 (see
ALBl'11 and eliMINATION. VOCALIC).
The .~tr"essed vowels of M 'Ire mo.~t frequently
those of Fayyumic, as in C.a.N, brother M, W, V, Fete.
with A. L (not CON S, B); HK6z, pain M, [W), V, II Clc.
(not Riu.t S. A, 1.• D): T.u;.a., destroy M. W, V. F ele.
(nOt T.a.KO S, B. 'rotl.O A. L); paN. name M, W, V wilh
A, L, "6N F elC. (nOI r.a.H S, 8). The unstressed final
vowel is 0 (as in S, A. I.), nO! 1(as in W, V. F etc" 8).
M In 61re, to do M, L. A. S (compan: wilh If1 W. V. D,
IAl F etc.). Also charucterislic of M are some endings
with (graphic) vocalic gemination of e (difficult to
interpret phonemical1y, e.g.. H(iO, truth AI; compare
litis wilh tte'j W. V. F4, (B). H6C1Y F5. H1U' n, HH6 L.
!'tie A, Ht,I S) or ending.'!i in 'Hle (e.g.• ef'l.l"ie. lemple
M: compare this wllh LrpI( w. 0Al. .« F5. Ef+;l B.
T0061 1.6, "fllE(E)"iE A, Tnee 1.5. Tne IA. S).
Mesokemic agrees Wilh SAlllOIC in its full integra·
tion or the Greek verb and with IlOltAllilC in Ih:lt the
Ai system of the suprnlinear point is vel)' closely
connected with the older Bohai/ic system concern·
Ing Ihe placing of the DJINKIM. 111ere lire IwO llIain
chalUctcrlstics peculiAr to M. Fin;t, the lettcr omi-
Cl'un is used in the stressed syllable, where all other
Coptic dialects have omega, as in the infinitive corn,
to choose. This omicron docs not, huwcvcr, repre·
sent II short Q sound, as wa.~ at fin;1 uncrilically
assumed, but. :IS H. Oueekc was the fin;t to recog·
lli7.c, II (long and) open 0 5OUnd. The second charac-
teristic is the perfeel in t.a." togethcr with all the
satelliles (perfect I ,....: cin:umstantial Ot.\...: relative
6o.a....: perfect II Ot.\,!.: prelcritc Nev.'!·). This foml
produces the most important morphological peculi.
arily of the M conjugation system, the completc dif·
fcrentialion belween circumstantial first present
(o't-), present II (.a....). and perfcci I (Po't-).
 MESOKEM1C (OR MIDDLE EGYPTIAN)
Another point to b~ emphasized in regard to Ihe
tonjugation system is Ihat the peculiar morphology
carnes with it the cxistente uf a tirtulllstantial of
pn:scnt and future ll, but not of perfect II. Of the
individual tenses, the affinnative simple conditional
is the most striking. It has the same fonn as the
presenl II. bul its syntax shoWl'> lhat it belongs to the
verbal sentence (tripanite pallenl). TIle "energetic"
future «;<te-, negalive fmo,,·) can also he used in
either fonn with a relative convener (GTill'l(l-. nega-
tive tIT6 f\H6'1-). while combination with the eireum-
~Ianlial couVCl1er is documentl,.-d only for the nl,.'ga·
tive fonn. M has only four ~ubordillate dausc
cunjugations; the firth. the tempoml, is missing. In·
stead, the dialect makes usc of the subordinate tern·
poral function of the relative eonver1el', which the
lutter lIIay have in past tenses. Among individuul
forms in the pamdigms, the form uf the third·person
plural in present and future relalive clauses (6TctI·
or OTCC"'U') is especially typical for M.
2, The Conjugation Syslem
ExcqJl in special inslances (e.g.• conjunctive:), the
fonn cited here is only the third-person masculine
singular and the corresponding prenolllinal fonn
(nom. - before nominal subject). The entire pam-
digm is not attested in all conjugations.
Unless spcrifically mentioned, the foml is afflnna·
ti\"t:; m::g. - negative. Every basic tense (abbreviated
hereafter to "basic'") is fol1owt.-d (if allcsll,."d) by its
satellitcs. after "And": eire. - cireumSlantia!. pret. -
preterite, reI. '" relative. II - second tense. Fonns
between brnckelS [ ... ] arc reconslitutoo from very
~imi1ar fonns; :.r.ero - no verbal prefix.
2.1 Bipartite Pallern. Neg. iI· ... e....
2.1.1. Present (bnsic) 'I', nOIll. 7.ero. And eire. E<t·,
nom. tlpll'; reI. liT- or l'lT'I', nom. OTE' (for the third·
pen;on pluml the stand:;lnl form here is OTce', al·
though GTOY- lIlfly also be found; nom. only once
appears (]Tllpil·. Act~ 7:48); pre!. "),'1· ... (UG), nom.
"'),fll' ... (IJEl); pret. eire. ONN),'I-, nom. (lNNJ.pll- (in·
troduces the prowls of an ilTeal clause); pre!. reI.
6TI'U.'1-, nom. e-r... J.fG. (there also appear'S once a
fonl! with the OTG- convener: third.person plural
tlTtl to.y', ML 26:35); 11 ......., nom. irG-; II cire.
[U'I-]. nom. 01f'<l-.
2.1.2. Fllmre (basic) 'IIUI', nom. lero ... 00·. And
eire. 6__ , nom. tJrtt- ... 00-; reI. (tTH6- or t!"T'fH6',
nom. on- ... Ha (for the third-pet'50n plural the
standard fonn here is e-rC6HO-, although 0T0yt+0.
may also be found occasionally); pret. to.....6· ...
163
(ne). nom. H"'f'6- ... ne- (no); pre!. rei. (rr"'J.'1NO-
(Acls 12:6), nOIll. (6TN).f'Il- 00,] (in ACL"I 12:6 that
relative ha.~ also a tempornl [accessory) function); II
11.'1116-, nom. irE- 1fG-; II cire. (1U.'I/i(I-], nom.
1G.1tG- ••. 00-] (for [ ] first·person plural btHl-,
ACIli 4:12).
2.2 Trip\llnlte Plilttern.
2.2.1 TenSD with sptdQlnegQliotls (if nO/Il}. Inde·
pendent (sentence) conjugations.
2.2.1.1. Perfeci (basic) z.\'I'. nom. z.\- (occasionally.
especially In thc Glazier codex, also wrillen wilhoUI
:); neg. HI,...., nom. Hn(!·. And choc. 11"'1'. nom. 11,.-
(on(:e appenrs also the third-pel'5On pl\ll111 fonn
IIJ.y-, Acts 2:22); neg. llHlI't-, nom. OHllO'; rd. l'lOJ.'1·
or (ITO :),'1-, nom. tlo),· or 6T6 ZJ.· (but op-, participial
prclix, may be used in the ca.'lcs where the pronomi-
nal suflix of the third person, singular or' pluml, is
identiclll with the antecedent; once appcaJ"li, more-
ovel', the relative petiect also in Ihe S fonn (thil·d·
person plurdl] GIiTJ.y·. Acts 5:9); neg. 6T6 MlI'I-, nom.
OTG MllO-; pret. He;'I- ... (ne), nom. HG,.- ... (00);
ncg....e HlI'I-. nom. "'6 HlIG-; II 0:11.'1'. nom. tl~),- (but
in Ihe P. Mil. Copti 1 .\:-\'1'. nom. 11.:11.', Col. 1:16. I.
Thes. 2:3, cf. Hcb. 7:14); neg. iiiJ~J."· ... 0"', nom.
tMl~),· ... 6N.
2.2.1.2. Completive (basic) (affinnative subslitule
tJ.'IOy'lD 6...., nom. tA- .•• oyCl 6'1'): neg. ....u.T't.,
nom. Hfu.TO-. And eire. m-.u.'T'I'. nom. 6HlU.Te-; pret.
NCl Hn.\'A' (Acts 8: 16). nom. N6 HtU.TO·.
2.2.1.3. A.orisl (basic) 'II)'''', nom. 'Il;a.re- (the en-
largt.-d forlll [convened or not] 19"'f'6'" may also be
found); neg. H61-. nom. H6f'6" And cire. tI'Il),'I-, nom.
4I.,J.ffI-; neg. 6H6'!-, nOill. OHflI'fl': reI. tIT",J.<t·. nom.
tlT",).f'Il·; neg. tlT6 MIN-. nom. trre H6ro-; pret. HQ'Il.to.<t-
. .. (110), nom. N6C1i1"'f'6 ... (no); II tlCIiI),..·• nom.
c19J.pe· (twice however appcaJ"5 also a form with N'
converter, third.pcl1iOn plural r..,J.y.• Heb. 6:16, and
nom. tto,lJ.f(l·, Mt. 6:32); neg. NIIlIIJ.'I· ... (lN, nom.
NOlIIJ.FC· ... e....
2.2.1.4. Fulrmml ene/1;icllm (or lhin) IUllIre) (basic)
0'16,. nom. Opo- ... (tI·) (in the pl'e.'ICnt state of
knowledge of M texis, the co..lesccnce of the
filiI/film tme/1;icl/m with xo· to xe'lfl', nom.
X(lI'6' ... (tI·) is typical for a variety of M represent·
ed, for example. by the P. Mil. Copli I; fUI1her 6<4- in
Mallhew 3:12, inSlead of nonnaI6'le-, is possibly nOI
a spelling mistake. but may be the short fonn of the
!ulIlnm, ctlcrgicum [apodalic c/mlll']; the standard
spelling of the Scheidt codex is Ooy& for lhe third·
person plum!. in spite of 5 ~" and the same spell.
ing appears in the P. Mil. Copti I; in the Gluier
codex one finds only 6'(6-; in the case or a nominal
164 MESOKEMIC (OR MIDDLE EGYPTIAN)
subject. the form with the element t· bctwL'Cn the
nominal subject and the infinitj,,'e appears only in
the Scheide CodCll and lIS II Icss-uscd form (Ih~
limes with E-, seven limes withoul (1-): neg. NHE't-,
nom. Ami-. And eire. neg. 6KN6'1-, nom. tiUN6-; reI.
m-_-, nom. 8T6ftl- ••• (G-): neg. GTG kml'l'. nom.
(ITo Nti6-.
2.2.1.5. Impera/We, e.g., ~6(Y). sec; or infinitive:
neg. tin(e)t- + infinitive; HJo. + T-causalive; H6 + ~
MG., go.
2.2.1.6. CalfSll/iw imperative M~"', nom. tU,re-,
absolute M.\f.l.": nLog. ""(6)1'""', nom. w.(e)FTlh
2.2.2 Tctl$e$ wilh "eg. TH·, Subordinate (clause)
conjugalions.
2.2.2.1. CQll;W1Clive (singular I., 2. m., [f.J, 3. Ill.,
f., plural I., 2., 3.) tin·, 1'11(., [NTG-), Ntl', IiC', frrN·,
NT6TN' (P. Mil. Copli 1 chietly NT6TON·). Nce-, nom.
NTO-,
2.2.2.2. FUlure cO'limlclive NT)'pG'l", nom. NT),p6-,
2.2.2.3. Temporal. cl~where normal, appears only
sporadically and seCIlIS 10 be a foreign body in M:
irr6Ffl"', Acts 10:10; irrtlfOY-. Mauhew 11:7. Its fune·
lion is covered by the relative formes) of the lirst
pcrfect eo.a.... or trr~ t.a...•• nom. 00.a.- or trrli t.a.-; the
fonn with the converter trr6 appears only as a $C(;-
ondary form (in that function) and only in the Gla-
zier codex.
2.2.2.4. Limita~ IIJ.HT"1-, nom. •loJfT6-.
2.2.2.5. Firsl l;onditiona.1 .a....,.a.Jfo. nom. 1f6IIw,
(neg. always second conditional).
2.2.2.6. Second COPlditiotlOl .a..... nOIll. J.r6-.
2.2.2.7. Causalive infinitive -T(r)6..·• nom. -T(r)6-
(neg. -THTf6'I-. etc.. only once appears a form with·
out r. ·THTGy·. Acts 4:18).
3. Vocabulary
Other char...cteristics of the dialect include the
combination H·t-. that is. the use of the word Hoyt.
God, from the neighboring (flayyumic) dialect to rc-
producc the M word NOYT6 by a contraction; the
fonn N61l fo!' the particle that Introduces the subse-
quent noun identifying the pronominal subject of I'
conjugation; the indefinite PrQnouns ~I. anyone, and
"tHeY. anything; the perfect participial pt'elix lJ!"'; the
modal verb Hfl""
to be able; the intetjcction tt, tt1'ino.
and (in combinntion) t(fl~l6 tI. 10. see; the form of
the compound preposition Hoye-. f4oytl'l' with its
wide range of application; the rich use of the noun
16T in itself and for the formation of the preposition
(~)JU6T fl-. beyond. and of the adverb bU,6T, over,
the substantival infinitive HHT ~LV. as a constituent
of the prepositional expression ""tHIIT 611.),), it-, MtIG 4-
HUT 6U.>.. before: the compound verbs .xE~. an·
swer, UI (-(\f)T.... ' 6&..l.A. cry out. and ~ ... re-
cline (or sit) at table; the funn and syntax of the
verb funn xsz. touch. which appears as an actiV1!
Infinitive (to which the object i<; linked by 6') and fur
which there is no evidence in the present (bipa.l1ite
pallem); the qualitative fonns .,..-m and ttlm
(fmm q,on. reeei~, or z()IIl, hide); the use of the
noun "1', compa.nion (the singular of the fumiliar
pluml ol'uy). to cxprt'SS reciprocal relntionships
("onc another"); the omission of the linal {o)y in the
verb lHl, st:e. and the advcro HHO. there.
4. Syntax
TIll; syntax of M also has some special features.
The most chanu:teristic is a type or sentence in
which the relative p:u1icle OTC apptms to take the
position of the copul.. in a nominal sentence. such
as N1'lok ilTtI TIllXfC ntijllrO Hut 6Tlo":. "Thou al' the
Christ. the son of the living God," Matthew 16:16. In
reality, however. this is the slx:dal fo.m of an abbre·
vi..tcd deft ~ntence.
818UOGRAPIIV
Barns. J. W. B.• and R. KasM:r. "Lc Manuscrit
moyen·tgyptien B. M. Or. 9035." Mllseall 84
( 1971):395-401.
Funk. W. P. "Beitrage des llIillelligyptischen Dialekts
wm koptischen Konjugationssystem." In Sllldies
Prc$etlled to Hans Jakob Po/oISky. ed. D. W. Young.
pp. 177-210. East Gloucester. Mass... 1981.
Husselman, E. M. ''The Martyrdom of Cyriacus and
Julina in CoptiC." JOllmol of the American Re·
searr:h Cenler in Egypt 4 (1965):79-86.
Kahle. P. E. Bala'iwh: Coptic TexIS frottl Deir d-
/kJ/o'iwh in Upper Egypt. Oxford and London.
1954.
Orlandi. T. Paplri del/a U"iversilll deg/i Swdl di
MilaI/O (1'. Mil. Cop/i). Vol. 5, LeI/ere di Sail Paolo
in cuplu ussirinchila. edizjolle, commelllo e iudici di
T. Orlandi, con/ribula fin/J1I6'/ico IIi II. Quecke. Mi-
lan. 1974.
Osing, J. lJcr spiJ/iJgypti~he J'apyrllS 8M. 10808.
Wieslxlden. 1976.
Schenke. H.-M. "On the Middle Egyptian Dinlect of
the Coptic lmlguagc." Etlchorio 8 (1978):4J'(89)-
(104)58'.
-::.,-c Das Mallhiills.Evtltlge!iwll iltl mitteliigypti.schetl
Dialdt des Kopti.s<;hen (Codex Scheide). TeXle und
Untersuchungen WI' Geschichte del' llltchristlichen
Ulcratur 127. Berlin, 1981.
HANS-MARTIN ScltEXKE

META DIALECT. By common consent the term
"dialect" is ust.'t! by Coptolugists for those idioms
whose originality, in ,'elation to one another, is very
strongly markcd. The b.a.'lis for judgmcnt is, of
COUrliC. on the lelllcal and morphosyntlll;tical lcvels.
but also and above all, using the ,nost convenienl
and practical critelion, on the phonological level,
through the numb<::r of phonemic oppositions. their
qualily, and Ihe clarity of their represenUltion in
their rcspcttive orthographic systems. This originali.
ty is, hov.oever, located at the very heart of the dassi-
tal Coptic stage of evolUlion. and nOI at lhe immedi-
ately anterior stage (thai of the P1l;OTQOtAu:.cr) or al
any stage immediately poslcrior. On this basis, if
such a posterior stage of evolution should manifcst
itself dearly enough in one tellt Of' another (normal·
ly late), one might call Ihe language of this tellt a
"mctadiak'Ct" (Kasscr, 19803. p. 112).
II is in fact known that after the beginnings of the
history of literary Coplit and long before the Clttinc-
tionor the language and its reduclion to the status
of a fossil piously prcscn,'l'<l as a purely IilUl'&ical
language, all Ihe COplic idioms ellcept for n, and
perhaps to llOmC clltent F, were pr0gn:5Sin:ly sti·
ned by the most tenacious among them, S, the "ve-
hicular language" of the whole Nile Valley above the
Delta.
One can detect more or less the point at which
they were stilled on the litel':lry level. But no doubt
lht.'Y sUI"Vived for llOme time further on a strictly oral
level. though undel'going very profoundly the eon-
taminalion imposed upon them by !.he dominant lan-
guage. S. This survival can be secn (through orthog-
raphy and its deviation.~) from the phonological
idiolectalism of many copies or 5 wrillen in lhe
region of lhe old lapsed dialect: in these IDIOLECTS
undeniable influenccs rrom lhe defeated idiom con-
linulllly appear. in valying degree, alongside typical-
ly Sahidic forms (Chaine. 1933. Pl'. xv-xxiii. and
1934, PI'. 1-9). Such (Irc lhe peculiaritics uf numer·
ous documents found in the Theban region. in
which a suhterranean L (or A) through under- or
ovcrcorrcetion sllecceds in dislUl'bing very effective-
ly lhe vocnll~.atlon of copies that are theoretically 5
(or evenlually 5'/1. morc oftcn than S'/a, rrom their
lexenlcs) but in any case are genel':llly characterized
by the prcsence in grealcr or smaller number of
ICllCI1lCS strongly itlioleetalii'.ed into S or SO (on the
phonological level).
It is nOi inconceivable Ihat as a result of particu-
larly favo....blc gene....1 circumstances (e.g., weaken-
ing of the dominanl "language") or of the ob!.tinacy
META DIALECT 165
or a scribe deeply RllllChcd to his local p."ltois long
after the apparently linal exlinction of a dialect on
the litcl'3ry lcvel, this tlialect. considered dead.
should SUlfate again in one isolated copy or anoth-
er, It could then he a ea.-.e oot of the reappear-
ance of the dialect in its ancient form bUI of an
avaUlr of Ihe dialecl, a ralhe,· different and, in
some ways, developed fonn of it, an original form
thai clearly shows Ihe effects of the influence of
5 hUI onc in which can be found, nonetheless,
several of the characteristics of the old dialect,
which had not quite died out. This late, postclassical
fonn of a diak'(;t, surviving in a developed condi-
tion (or degenerate, according to the criterion by
whith one judges it), could be described as a
"metadl."llect,"
It is also not inconceivable that in the Arab peri·
od, at the time of the decline of the dominant ncu-
tml Coptic idioms S, some minor dialect that was
nOl quite slined by S should have come to life for
somc time in a very poor and mediocre whion 00
the literal)' level, profiting from the space it could
briefly occupy in those times of cultural anarchy
when S had lost its supremacy and Arabic had nOl
yel conquered it absolutely (enough 10 make impos·
sible the survival of any remnant of Coptic cultural
life in the depths of some remOle dislrict). The cul-
lural anarchy iL<;clf, and pcmaps thc influence of
Arabic, which gave this linguistic renaissance an
original character, may give the impression, on the
one hand, of decadence in the I:mguage and, on the
other, of the binh, slill vague and confused, of a new
fonn of the Egyptian language, in !lOme ways "post-
Coplic:' Even if such a phenomenon did nOl have
an 0ppol1unlty to display iL~elf in full bloom, even if
il was reduced pcnorec 10·a llrnid and ralher clumsy
essay, it remains nonetheless very interesting for the
linguist analyzing "Ie fait copte" diaehrooically and
in its vadous dialects. Here one mighl by analogy
call lhis new idiOln, even poorly outlined, a
"metadialect:'
TIle only meladialcetal Coptic idiom aClually well
enough known to allow one to study the phenome-
non is OJALa,. II (or Hermopolilan. or Ashmuninie).
Since metadialectallstll shows ltselr, above all.
through phonological and morphosyntactical impov·
erishment, it is possible thaI it will scarcely afford
any significaot original elemenL~ on these levels. In
such a case, il will be legitimate to concede lhat the
incorporation of the metadialect into a general and
systematic study of the Coptic dialects Co; not indis-
pensable.
166 MUQADDlMAH
IJIBLIOGRAPlIV
Chaine, M. Elimetrts de grllmmllire dilllec/llfe cap/e.
PaOs, 1933.
us Dia/Ules copIes tJ.5$iou/iqll/!$ Al, les
CarnClc,istiques dt! /t!lIr plrontliq'le, de /t!ur syll/lUt!.
Paris, 1934.
Kasscr, R. "Dialcclcs, sous--dialeclc.~ et 'di:LIecticules'
dans l'Egypte copte." 7.eilschrift liir ilgyp/ische
Sprnche ulld A/lerlllJIIsklllltle 92 (1966): 106-115.
"Pr())~omCncs a un C$S3i de classification
sYSlematique des dialcctC5 el subdialectes eoptes
scion les critcres de I::a phoncliquc, I, Plincipes el
telminologie." Mlm!(l1I 93 (198&):52-112. " ... ,
II, Alphabets el syst~mcs phon(:tiqul,..'S." MU$Coll 93
(19BOb):2J7-97. " ... , Ill, Systbnes 011hographi.
ques et l:t\lcgorics ditllectalcs." Mlm'!OIl 94
(1981):87-148.
RODOLF'HE KA!;SI'.R
MUQADDIMAH. Muqoddil/lllir is the Arnbic term
for a grammar of Ihe Coptic language in Arabic.
When thl: Coptic language was facing extinction in
the Ihineenth cenlury, Coptic scholal'S began 10 fix
the rules of their own nntional and religious Ian·
guage in order to enable the reader to undcr.;mnd
the Coptic of biblical and liturgical texts.. These
grammar.;, called mllqaddimalr (plural, mllqaddimal),
meaning primarily "introduction" or "preface" but
also "account" or "statement," were written in Ara'
bic and used Ambic gmmmatical lenninology. There
is no refen:nce 10 earlier Greek aUlholilies, such as
Aristarchos of Samothrace (217-145 B.C.). the cre·
alO" of grammatical tcrnlinology, who lived in A)c}[·
andria, or to his pupil Dionysus Thrax, the aUlhor of
the first Greck grammar, in only lwenty.fivc para·
grnphs, a model for countles.~ IMer trealises.
The creation of an 1l1)pr'Opl'iale gmmmaticaltenni.
nology for Coptic wa.~ the work of several scholars
using lerms of lhc Amble national grammar' and
:\dapting othel'i'i 10 lhe spirit of thc Coptic language.
When comparing thc diffcrent authors, one sees Ihal
thcre wa.~ a continuous pl'Ogn..'SIi in c}[actitude thai
reached ils pt'Uk with the QiJadall of Athanasius of
~, Ihe longest and most c1aborate such treatise
that survives. The term mllqllfldima1l has been retain·
ed by Arabic and Western scholar.; for independent
treatises, such as Ibn Khaldiln's historical won:.
There is, however, a different form, Illl1qaddamlllr,
meaning literally "what has been proposed", used in
the sense of "preface (of a book}" (de Biocr.;tcin·
Ka7Jrnir.;ki, 1868. Vol. 2, p. 692) or "first chapter"
(AI·Munjid, 1962, p. 613). In some dictionaries both
form~ (lI1l1qaddinrah, mllquddumulr) occur (Wehr,
1952, p. 669).
nlC firsl of these grammars is the MuqaddimoJr of
Ambd Yuhanna as·SamannOdi (laic name al·As'ad
ibn ad·Duhayri) who was con~cmted bishop of
SamannOd (westem Della) in 1235 by Patriarch
cyrillus in Old Cairo (Gmf, 1947, Vol. 2, pp. 371-
75). There are 1"-0 versions: thc Bohairic one (Codex
Vaticanll.~ Copt. 71) was published and lmnslated
iUlu lo'llin by Athanasius Kircher (1643, pp. 2-20). A
translation into French was done by E.. Dulaurier,
profeSliQr of Malay and Javanese and aUlhol' of differ·
ent publications on the Coplie langu:lge (Ca/aloglle,
1849, pp. 360-64, 718-39); Ihis (par1illl) publle:Jlion
brilhlOlly iIIustr.llt's the work accomplished by lhe
Coplic scholar.
In Arnba Yu~ann;i as·Samanmidl's work one can
obse,ve the birth of new grammatical sludies. Some
definllions seem 10 be somewhal primitive, but lhey
nevenhell-ss led to developmenl of a real grnmrtlllli·
cal terminology. Thus, it is true that "wonl~ begin-
ning with Ill" are masculine, those "beginning wilh
·t" are feminine, and those "beginning with iii" are
plurals. He observed lhal masculine words in Coptic
OIay be feminine in Arabic and vice versa, as with
Ihe Coptic feminine ~ , fox or vixen, and the
Ambic masculine ath-tha'lab, fox; conversely, the
masculine t~, earth, ili the feminine aJ-anj in
Arabic. There is almosl no thool')' conccming the
prefix conjugalion, but thc examples quoled are
ncvenhcless helpful: JoU.f'61iCJo.Xl - li-ka)' Ila/akal·
luma, lhat we may speak; Jo.<tCJo.X.l - laka/lama, he
has spoken; 6'1(1CJo.X1 - )'tIfakallamll, he will speak;
elc. At Ihe end of the Mllqaddimall there is a list of
similar words: the n:ader has to distinguish between
COH, brother; CONI, robber; and 'l'C«)IiI, the sisler.
The different c1Hlpters arc repl"Oduced and lrans·
laled, sometimes accompanied with lingui.~tic notes,
so thai the logical structure nr the lrculisc beeome.~
fully apparent. DuJaurier tldmired the logical compo'
sition of lhe Coptic possessive pronouns consisting
of the definile article and the suflix pronouns: "C'esl
une idee trk logique qlli l\ conduit 11$ Egypliens a
fOl'll1er leur pronoms posscssifs de I'anide detenni·
natif accru des marques des personncs" (e.g.. t\6"',
his, - anicle n and suffix # 6'1).
When reading Amoo Yu~annli's Muquddilllah one
is well aware thai hili work was a crt!ali{) U llihilQ, as
thene was no tradition of linguistil: studies. He had
to use grammatical tcrms of the Arabic nalional
grlImmar and, when necessary, adapt them to the
need of Coptic. His language is medit.-val Egyptian

Arabic: IIIIU/il/(kllr, mnsculine (Ill "lll~llkkar), nnd
mwvalllllll, fl'mininc (- mll'/lIUlath). Coptic word~
beginning with oy arc "indctel'minatc si'lgulars"
(mll/rad hi.ghayr a/·ali/ lIIa-I·Mm, lilemlly "singular
without the !cUel'S a/·," i.e., without the Ar...bic dcll·
nite aI1icle).
The po5lSCript read~ as follows: "This is Ihe end of
the A1l1q/llldimllh, Whocvel' will remark a mistakc
may nOie and correct il and in l~tlJm for this servo
ice he may rt.>ccivc the retribution and the recom·
pense that he mcrits" (Duhlurier'S tellt; omitted by
Kil'Cher, 1643), A Sahidic veBion of Amba
Yul,lan~'s A1//qaJdimIlJr, probably the work of anoth-
er scholar whose mOlher language was Sahidic, has
been published in Ambic and Coptic, but without
translation, by Munier (1930, pp. 46-64).
Al.Wajlh Vul,lannA al.QalyUbl (from Qalylib, nOf1h
of Cairo) wrote a Cop!ic gmmmar to fulfil a wish of
his friend AbO Isl)Aq ibn al·'AssAI. lie was still living
in 1271, for in that year he com~ a funeml
oration for Patrian:.h Gabriel, Instt.'3cl of using lhe
paradigmatic method of Amba Yu~nna as-
Samanm"idl's work, he began to establish rules for
the morphology of Coptic. His introduction has been
translated by Mallon (1906, pp. 126-29). Abu Is~aq
mentions hhu in his own gnulIlIlnr as "the estima·
ble, learned, veneroble Sheikh al.Wajlh Yul,mnn:.,
son of the Priest Michael. son of the PriLost ~qah
al-QalyObl" (Mallon, 1907, pp. 222-29).
Ath·Thiqah ibn IId.Duhayri wa.<; the author of a
grammar in which he tried to improve on the works
of Amba Yul.l.'lnnli and al·Oalyitbi. When he saw Ibn
K!tib Oa~l"s Tah.~ira, he noticed how it depended
on lhe muqllJdimflt of as·5tlnmnnCldi and al-QOIlyilbT.
His Mllqaddimah follows the Arabic categori7.ation of
won.ls: ism (noun - substantive, adjcctivc, numeral,
pronoun), li'/ (verb), and ~larl (pal1icles, such as
prepositions and conjunctions). Its appendix discuss·
cs somc slUlerncntS of Ibn Kt'lliu Oay~r"s gmmnlru'.
It is now known lhllt Ibn Klitib Oll~r wrote an
cxplanation of thc Revelation of John 20:4 in A,M.
983/A.D. 1266-1267, bUI aner this j)ass.'lge Ihe manu·
scripl hreak~ off. [t is thus certain that Ath·Thiqah's
MlIqll<ldimalr was written IInCI' thai ycar, probably
the year in which Ibn Kt'ltlb Oay~r died,
AI-Mad Abu al.Filmj Hib..\t-AI1;:lh ibn al-'As:;al was
il mcmber of a famous family or Coptic scholars, the
'Ass:ilids (Mallon, 1906, pp. 109-131; 1907, pp. 213-
64), being al.~n's brother and al-MU'laman Abo
Is~liq's half brother; he lived in the first half of the
thirtt:enth century, He, too, intended 10 improve as·
Sarnanm1dl's work. Bohairie and Sahidic are de-
scribed in the s~uue book.
MUQADDIMAH 167
An·Nushu' Abo Sh:iklr ibn BUlrus al'·Rt'lhib was the
son of an archon and administralor of thc Sarga
Church in Cairo. l1te narllc an·NushO' is in full
Nusho' al·Khil:if'ah, which means "growth of the cal-
iphate." His activity in A.I>. 1249 and 1264-1282 is
known (Gruf, 1947, p. 428). 1·le was deacon at the
Church of al.Mu'allaqah in Cairo and wrote two v0-
luminous thcologic;:al treatist-os and a gr.ullmar, He
endeavored to be more pedagogic than his PI-edecCS·
SOB. ellplaining Ihe meaning of monolilcral prdlXcs
()" 0, I, H, Ii. 1\, till, _, x. t) and translating complex
word foons and scnteneetli collected from the works
of "the bishop of Sakha" and Ibn Ra~al or RaI,\I.uU,
as W("II as from biblical and liturgical book.~, hagio-
graphic tellts, and 51. Cyrillus' "Book of Tn:'-'1>"UT\:S."
The introduction to his MlIqQliJimah has been trans-
lated by Mallon (1907, pp. 230-58). The origin of his
biblical quotatioru is alwaY!' indicated by sigla.
A grammar called AI-Tab.firoh (The Enlightment) is
the work of Ibn Katib Oa~r, literally "son [in fact,
grandson] of [the Emir] Qa)'!!3r's secrelary." His full
name (with genealogy) is AbO I~q 'Alam ar·Ri'asah
Ibrahim ibn ash-5haykh AbU Th-Thanll ibn ash·
Shaykh ~fl oo·Dawlah Abu I.Fa¢J.'il Katib ai-AmII'
'Alam ad·Dln Oa~r (i,e., his grondfuthcr ....'as St:cn.~
tal')' to Emir 'Allllll ad·Dln Qa)'!!3r). His grammar,
though appredated by AbU Isl)liq ibn al·'A.~<;31, de-
pends both on as-&mannOdJ's MlIqllJdimah and un
Amble gr.tmmar, Thus, he distinguished three nu(\\·
bers of the noun (~ingular, dual, pluml) as in Arabic,
while there are only twu Il\llnbcl1i in Coptic (singu·
lar, plural). Nouns are either primitive (IltJO.tl, the
eanh) or composed (1"H6OHlU, the truth). If the pro-
nouns al~ numbered 1-5 (singular) and 6-8 (plur·
al), he gave the following order: 12674358. Also the
l'Cllltive pl'onouns arc quoted as 011, <Ptl, till. His ex-
amples are nol alway.~ correct: ~J.NXIIHt, Egyptians, -
MifJ'1yiill (Kircher, 1643, p. 27). In spitc of this, Ibn
Kiitlb Oay1!U1' was an aUlhol'ity In the exegetic field
(Com mental)' on the Apocalypse, the Corpus P:\uli·
num, the C.ttholieon, etc.; cr. Cruf, 1947, p. 379).
Alhanasius, bishop of Ou~ (Upper Egypt, north of
Luxor), the author of the Ia.~t und most completc
Coplic gram iliaI', wns born ncar 0.1Im1111h (nor1h of
Luxor, but on Ihe wcstCITI bank of the Nile). His
father, called ~llb, was a priest and Ath:masius be·
came a monk in the nelll'by Monastery of St. Victor.
His grammar, which ha.~ been transmitted in two
versions, Sahidie and Bohairie, bears a rhymed title:
Qi1<ldal al-Ta1}rtr Ii '11m al.Ta/.dr (Nedlace of Redac-
tion in the Scicnce of Ellplanation), inspired by Ara·
bie models, Nothing i~ known of his life, but there is
a detailt.-d study on his work by Gertrud Baucr
168 MUQADDIMAH
(1972), who was able to collt.'Ct some dala on the
time in which he lived. lie 1l1entioned a vocabulilrY
called AWlIUanr al-Kaua'W, by Yu~annoi as·
Samanmidi, who died after 1257, so it is certain that
he lived in the second half of Ihe thirteenth cenlury.
It may even be that he lived into the fourteenth
century, as then: was then a bishop of Ofu:; callt.-d
Athanasius who was the author of several writings,
including "History of the Mymn,CorlSCCTation Under
Ihe Palriarch Gabriel IV" (ibid., pp. 11-12). Thai
these two authors were the same person i~ probable
bUI nOI absolutely certain, for Athanasius is even
today a common name among Copts.
The Qilildah uses, a.~ do earlier "wqoddimlJl, Ara-
bic grammaticallenninology. In many cases, expres·
.~ions occur with differenl meanings 10 med the ne·
eessities of Coptic. In her study Bauer presented an
exhaustive clltalogue of Arubie grJmmatical terms
used by Athanasius, in which she speCified whether
each was used in the sense of the Arnbic authors or
in a special sense for Coptic.
A l}arakah (movement) is in Arabic a vowel sign
placed over or under a consonant; in the superior
position it significs a or ll, and in the inferiQr, i. A
mlll}armk is a consonant bearing such a vowel sign
and is pronounced with a follOWing vowel (a, f. Il):
00, bi, b". In Coptic the "mJ.la",ak means something
different, the auxiliary vowel preceding a word. such
as the name rfW'OftOC, Gregorios (protlOUnced with
a short central vowel, 19hrtghfJriyOs, wriuen
V);J,........ I ). in order to fadlitale the pronunciation
of a conSOnant dustcr at the beginning of the word
(ibid.• p. 40).
In Ambic al·hunif aZ·VlIv/i'id (additional lellers)
are the consonants " t, S, f, III, II. h, IV. and y used a.~
prefixcs, infixes, and suffixcs. In Coptic the same
expression means the additional letters at the end of
the Greek alphabet, that is, the leiters of demotic
origin, such as CI,l (ibid., p. 123). MurllkJwb (com·
posed) is a term created by Athanasius for the three
letters ~ (ks), t (ps), and + (Ii) (ibid., p. 124). TahIr
jam' al·a5mii' is not the phenomenon of broken plur-
als, as in Arabic (e.g., buyl, house, plural. buy/il), but
the normal plural form of Coptic nouns (ibid.,
p. 125). The juvn, in Arabic the modus apocopllluS
(as in lam YfJktub, he did not write, not yuktllbu, he
writcs)-that is, the vowellcss form (third-person
singular yaktub)-is in Cop(ic the impcrativ<: or the
prohibitive (ibid., p. 126). TasJuJid is in Arabic a
gemination (double If as in A1/4h. God), but in Coptic
(Sahidic only) it meam 0 .. Tt and +- Ilt (ibid.,
p. 127).
Like other Coptic gr,lmmarinns, Athan.a.~ius adopt-
ed the classification of words in lhrce cnlegorics:
bill, noun; fi'I, vern; and ~Iarf, pnrtlcle. It is astonish·
ing thai there is not the slightest trace of the famous
gn.mmatical .school in Alexandria. There arc only
four cxpressions derived from Greek temlS: u~1r14
¥JlI'lfyah, vowels (rp6I~..m); al.m4 IIawiiriq. vowels
(nnother translation of the preceding term); af;t~lnlf
all-'li# rrawllriq, semivowels (i!IoIUpwJ'O'), in Arabic a
postclassical formation; and a~lr1/1 fUlI'ii",il. \'oicclcss
consonants (&rp6lPa, sci!. 0'TI"Xt"Ur. ibid., pp. 147-48).
Almost all quotalions in the Qi/adalt arc of biblical
or liturgical origin, including even lhe beginning or
Genesis in 5."\hidie, olherwise not conl;C"'cd: zlf
T6tOY6rr6 ~l1NOyl"6 l"~M1U TIll! MN r1K~2, "In the be·
ginning Gud made the heaven and lhe ear1h" (ibid.,
p. 197). In lIny case, Alh;\I1a.~ius did not wish to
lench his r~ade,"S CopTic as n spoken language.
Quile new arc the phonetic pm':l.gl'll.phs al the end
of the hook, where one finds, ror example, the pro-
nunciation of II as wl!ah (-w), e.cept at the end
where it is bi!l/h, as in lllOytlll, the pliest (ibid.• p.
230). Ukewise, x L<; pronounced sir in four (or five)
words, such as XCl('G. a grt.'Cting U'lI:ipo!), which sur-
vives even today in sharll, but elsewhere it is k. as in
tyXK, soul, and 6yXH, prayer, today pronounttd
tbslka and awka al lainlyah Oibli, a village nonh of
wor, and in other places..
AI the end of his Oiladoh, Athanasius spoke of thl:
Coptic dialects still spoken in his lime. There were
still IWO diak-cts alive: (I) Sahidic, spoken from As·
wan to Muny:11 al.Qays (i.e., Munyat Il.'lnl Kh~lb.
today Minyah), and (2) Bohairic, spoken in the
"Bohail'll.h" (Bu1}airah), pnXr."\bly the northwestern
Delta, in Old and New Cairo. A thil'd, Bashmtiric,
formerly spoken in "the region of Bashmtir" (proba-
bly the ea.~lern Della), was e.linct.
Athamlsiul> also spoke of Coptic words That sound·
ed alike but were wriuen ditl'erenlly (ibid., p. 306).
He had decided to write a kind of poem called
mll/hal/Il/Ir (threefold) 10 Teach thcm 10 his rcaders.
This verse form is Al'll.bic and has been used in
Coptic only once, in the so-called Tdadon, the
"swan·song or Coptic literature." It employs strophes
of four lines; the first three rhyme wilh each other,
but the last onc rhymes with other last linl'S: produc.
ing the .scheme aaab, cccb, dddb. alld so on. Then:
are somc anonymous mUqQddimllt (Gr.ll, 1947, Vol.
2, p. 446) not yet edited. Two scholars known to
have written gmmmars are "the bishop of
SamannOd" and Ibn RaJ:laI 01' RaJ:lJ:mI, bolh men-
lioned by an-NushU'.

Togelher wilh Ihe Coplic scalllS (sec SlJUAM), the
muqllddima/ proved exlremely impo'1ant for the
study of Coptic and F..£YJlIian in Europe. Thank!> to
Alhanasius Kircher's UJlgull Aegyplillcll R~li/ulll
(1643), Jean Frarn;ois Champollion was able 10 rec·
ognize lhe partly phonetic character of the Egyptian
hieroglyphs. mainly b<-~ausc of lhe monoliteral pro-
nominal sullllles, and 10 achieve their decipherment
in a relatively short lime. On lhe other hand. a Cop-
tic pric:sl, ROf.l..ll. AI./r()KIII (1695-1787). used
YuhannA 1IS.$alllannudl's Muqllddimuh for his Rudi-
mel/la Lillguae Coplae sive Aegypliacal1 ad Usum Co/·
legii Urmmi dl1 Propag(l/ufa Fitle (Rome, 1778).
BIBLIOGRAl'lIY
'Ahd :l1·M:lsl~, Y. "AI.Muqaddimi1t W:l,s,S:llalim." In
Risl1lal [Jam'I)'<lI] AMr Mltlll, Vol. 2, PI'. 59-68. AI·
cllamlria, 1947.
AI·Mlluiid fj·I.lugha al.'Arabl)'/Ih. Beirut, 1969.
Bauer, G. Alilullasill.~ 11011 OIi.J, Oi/tidal at.Tal.lrir fi
'IIm al·Talslr. £ille kO/,/iS€he Grammalik ill arabi·
seller Spruclle fillS de", 131/4. JahrJII",dert. Frei-
burg im Breisg.au, 1972.
Blbcrslein-Kazimirski, A, de. DicliomlQire arabe,
Iran~ais. P3ris, 1868.
ClllQlogue gbu!ral des mallll$cros dts bibJiOlhtques
publiques des diptlrlemelllS, Vol. I, Paris, 1849.
Gmf, G. "Die k.optische Gclehrtenfamilie der Aulad
al·'AssaI und ihr Schrifttum," OrielllQliQ 1
(1932):34-56, 129-48, 193-204.
_ _. Ge.schichle der (;hri$/Ii(;hcII urobisehert LilerQ'
lur, Vol. 2. Valic:on Cily, 1947.
Kin;:her, A. LinguQ AegyptiQcQ Res/illlla, Opus Tripar·
lilUlII. Rome, 1643.
LanL"Chool, A. Y.ln, UII PreCIlTSl1llr d'AIJulnase
Kircher, Thomas Obid"i et 10 $calli Vut. (;op/e 71.
Louvain, 1948.
Mallon, A. "Ibn al·'Assal, le~ trois ccrivains de ce
nom:' Jell/mal asialique 6 (I9<l5):509-529.
-,-C' "Une Ecole de lll'IvanlS cgypliens au Illoyen
IIge." Melanges de Ifl FfI~'ul/e oriell/ale de
/'U'Jiv('Tsitc Saim.Joseph de BeyrOlUh I (1906):109-
131; 2 (1907):213-64.
_,-_. "C."llalogue des scllias copIes de la Biblio-
lheque Nillionale de Paris." Me1cmges de la Facu/le
orie"tale de I'Ulliversile Suim·JosepJI de Beyrowh 4
{I910):57-90.
Munier, H. 1.0 $cQla cop/e 44 de IQ Oiblioiheque
NQ/iOtlale de Paris, Vol. I, Tnmst:riplion. Biblio-
lheque d'ctudes copies 2. Cairo, 1930.
Sidarus, A. "La Philologie cople arabe au moyen
:1ge." In Actts du B' COIIgrts de tUtlilm europiemJe
dts QrQbisams et WQIPli5l!ms, pp, 267-81. Au-en·
Provence, 1978.
OLD COPTIC 169
Wehr, H. Arabisehes WaT/enlllcll lilr die &hriltsproche
der Gege,,",aT/. Wiesbaden, 1952.
WERHER VVCICHL
OLD COPTIC. Although Coptic dictionaries use
the abbreviation 0 (or, in German, Ak, or Aftkop-
lisdl) in the same manner as lhe inilials of the Cop-
tic dialccts (A, Liz 1.2), S, M, F, 8, elc.), Old Coptic
is nOI the name of a specilic dialect, The lcrm OC is
used for the lallguagc and script of a number of
pagan leXl~ Ihal are earlier than, or eontempornry
with, the oldest texts in Coptic proper-lhat is, the
oldest COllllc lellts of ChriSlian nr Gnostic (including
Manichaean) contents (Haardl, 1949; Kahle, 1954:
VC'll0IC, 1973). Not unlike "demolic," OC may be
primarily regarded as a Icnn for the writing systems
or ALPHABETS of thc respectivc texIs, rather than for
lheir luntluul!:e. secondarily, il may refer to lhe reo
spective idioms. Thus, onc may speak of a lext writ-
len in OC script, bUI nOI in OC language (sec below,
2.7),
The more important OC lellts may be grouped,
according to lheir character, into pagan magical
lexlS and pagan astrological texIS, 1.0 addition to
ICX1.5 entirely written in OC, some OC passages or
shorter lexts are embedded in Greek contexts. Fur·
thermore, one has to take inlO account the OC gloss-
es in several demotic magical papyri. There are a
number of OIher altempts to write Egyptian (Late
Egyptian or contemporary VCJ'113Cular) in Grt:ek let-
ters, with or without addition of demolic signs. This
male rial may be adduced for comparison, but it
should nOl be labclt:d OC (d. Quaegebeur, 1982).
The telllS that have hitherto been .'egarded as ex: (cf.
Kammerer, 1950; Steimlorff, 1951; Million, 1956;
Vergole, 1973; Osing, 1976, p, 128, n. 3; the glosses
on lS:J.iah in Kammerer, 1950, no, 1756, arc here
cllc1udcd, since they 'lre of Christian conlexi and of
pure I'ayyumic phonology) may, in respect to their
conlents, be c1a..~silied a..~ follows:
I. Main Group: Old Coptic Tellis
Pfllyer, or plea, to an Egypti:m god (Osiris):
1, I. The OC Schmidl Papyrus (present location un·
known); firsl 10 second century A.D. PerhaPJI
from the Hennopolitan area (Satzinger, 1975).
Horosco~:
1.2. The London Horoscope Papyrus (P, London 98);
first or second century ....D. (Cerny, 1957; d.
170 OLD COPTIC
Kammerer. 1950. nos. 1761, 1762. 1763. 1766;
Kasser. 1963).
1.3. TIle Michigan Horoscope Papyrus (P. Michigan
6131): second cenlury A.D. From eAc3V'dlions 31
Soknopaiou Nesos (WulTeli. 1941).
Magical spells and prescriptions:
1.4. The OC passages of the Mimaut Papyr'ls (P.
Louvre 2391): late third cenlury A,D. (Preisell'
dlln1., 1973. pp. JOlr.: cr. K1l1l1nlerer. 1950. no.
1776).
1.5. The DC passngcs uf the Paris Magical Papyrus
(P. Bib!. Nal. suppl. gr. 574): founh cenlUl)' A,D.
Acquired al ThL-b{'S (Pn~isend.UlZ, 1973. pp. 66-
77; cf. Kammerer. 1950. nos. 1732, 1758, 1759,
1760. 1762, 1763, 1767. 1772. 1776; Kahle,
1954. Vol. I, pp. 242-45; Roeder. 1961. pp. 218-
22).
1.6. The OC lnsc.nion in Ihe Berlin Magical Papyrus
(P. Berlin P 5025): fourth to fiflh cenlury A.D.
Perhaps from Thew. This vel)' short lext (fif·
teen words) cuntains no demotic signs. A sign
for f is expected as a suffill: pl'Onoun attached to
the last lYord, but it is umitted. Hence, the tell:l
may be con.~idered an example uf Greek TRAN·
SCRII'1'I0N l':.lther than OC.
2. Compllmtive Malerlsl
Under this hL-ading are grouped lsol:.led words.
such as glos.'leS, and a telll IYrillen in the DC scrip!,
but in an idiom that is considerably older than that
of the other DC tellts. For the rendering of Eg)'Ptian
in Gn.-ck letters from an earlier period. see PRF..ow
rome
OC glos."Cs on magical names and the like wlillen
in demolic or in cipher:
2.1 1n a delllotic magical papyrus of the British Mu·
scum (I'. Brit. Mus. 10 58/1); third century A.O,
(Bell el aI., 1931). (Note; The glos.~e~ of 2.1. 2.3.
and 2.4 arc on magical names and the like only
and do 1101 contain any true Egyptian. Thcy do
not lIIakc usc of any leucrs of demotic origin. It
is only for their close relalionship to lhe truly
OC glos.~ of 2.2 that they an! here taken into
acCOllnl.)
2.2. In the demotic Magical Papyrus, or "(Bilingual)
G~K: Papyrus," of London and Lciden (P.
Brit. Mus.. 10 070, fonncrly P. Anastasi 1072,
and P. Lciden I. 383. fonnerly P. Anastasi 65);
Ihird century A.D. Acquired al TI1t:bcs (Griffilh
and "lompson, 1904-1909; cf. Kammerer,
1950, nU!i. 1763, 1769. 1779; Roeder, 1961, pp.
185-213).
2.3. In a demotic papyrus of Lciden (P. Lcidcn
1.384): third century A.I). or slightly later, wrillen
by same scribe as 2.2 (JohnSOll, 1915).
2.4. In a demotic papynls of the louvre Museum (P.
Louvre E 3229. fonnerly P. Anastasi 1061); third
or fourth centul)' A,I), (Jotm.'M)n. 1977).
Glosses on II hier'alic onoma.~ticon. in both demot-
ic lind OC;
2.5. In a Copenhagen papyrus (P. Carlsbcl'g 180; fur·
Iher fragments tm: prcscr'I'Cd in Bel'lin and f1or·
ence); aoolll 180 A.Il. From Tcbtunis (Osillg,
1989).
Demotic name lisl with OC glosses:
2.6. A Municll papyrus (schoolbook?): second centu-
ry~.
A magical lellt wrillen in the OC liCript bUI in the
lale classical Egyptian language:
2.7. The Egyptian Oxyrhynchus I'apynls (P. Bril.
Mus. 10808); second centUl)' A,n. From the
Oxyrhynchus excavations (Clurn. 1942; Osing.
1976).
Bilingual mummy labels (Greek and OC):
2.8. Two mummy labels in Berlin; second ecntury
A.D. From AkhmTm (Kammerer, 1950, nos. 1770.
1775).
The DC telllS and the comparative material arc
pre:so:nted in chronological order in Table I.
It can be SCen from the chronological ammge-
ment thaI in spile of lhe scarcity of Ihc material. and
allowing for thc random nature of lhe SlImple, lhere
is a development in the usc of the DC language and
script. One of the oldest tell:ts. the Schmidt Papyrus
(1.1), is from the realm of Egyptian PDI'Ulflr beliefs:
just a.~ cady Egypllnns who found themselves in des·
perate situations would have recourse to dead pel"
sons by writing "lettcrs to the dead," they would
later address their pleas to gods (cspecially, perhaps,
those of the nL-cropoli~; see Satunger, 1984). But
whereas earlier picas (&lite to PtolelIlaic periods)
were written in demotic, around 100 A.D. OC was
chosen for a similar purpose.
Two more ohhe earliest OC tellls (1.2-3) are horo-
scopes apparently connected with the l'ctivitics of
bilingual astrologers. Othcr tcxls of the second cen-
tury (2.5, 2.6, 2.8) sen.-ed practical purposes. None
of the lellts mentioncd here is of magical character,

Table I. Old Coplic TUI$ alld Coltlpora/ive Ma/erial
First 10 Sl.'Cond ccnlllry A.n.
Third cenlury A.I),
AboUi ISO A.O.
Third century A.O.
Third or third to fourth century A.D.
Fourth centufY .Ul.
I Fourth (0 linh century A.O.
I
but about the same time, DC was being applied 10
magical tcxls. The oldest of the texts preserved L~
wrincn in the classical F.&yplian Inngu.\lge (strongly
i"nucoccd by Late Egyptian) but in the OC script
(2.7). From a later dale there arc demotic magical
lexlS in which names and eenain tenns are glossed
in OC script. Magical tcxts in the OC language seem
to be the latest stage of this devdopment. When they
.....e re produced. Coptic writing wa.~ already in full
usc in the Egyptian church as well as among copy-
isIS of Gnoslic and Manichaean te:tlS. It may be as-
sumed that some inconsistencies in the latest OC
te:t1S are due not so liloch to a lack of pnlctice in a
pioneering stage as to a reluctance to use the con-
ventions of the Christian licribes or even ddiber.ile
choice of funns that were lhought to give to the
le:tts an an;h'lit: appcamnce. Another significant fca-
tore of many OC te:t1S is their connection with
Greck tc:tts or even with Greek language (Satlinger,
19M). Both horoscopes an: wrillen on scrolls that
also contain Greek lexts (cf. Kammerel', 1950, nos.
1766, 1778). The DC London horoscope is appended
10 a horoscope wrillen in Greek; the vel1iO of the
papyrus beal'S the famoos funeral Ol'ation of
Hypcridl'S. The OC magical texts arc just part... of
larger bodies, the greater part being wrillen in
Creek. Some peculiarities of writing and alphabet
may point to writers of the Greek tl1ldition as com-
pilers of these Egyptian lexls. TIle demotic magical
texIS with OC glosses seem to be, partly at leasl,
translations from the Creek. Some Greek spells and
several Greek words occur in lhese texIS, wnllen in
Gn:ck or OC and occasionally in the alphabetic de-
OLD COPTIC 171
1.1 proyer
1.2 horoscope
1.3 horoscope
2.6 glosses on demotic name list
2.7 Egyptian magicallext
2.8 mummy labels
2.5 glosses on hieratic onomaslic;on
1.4 magical lext
2.1 glosses on dcmOlk magiClIltc,lC1
2.2 glosses on demotic magicallexls
2.3 glOll.~cs on demotic magicallCXI$
2.4 gl()l;sCS on demotic magicalll:XIS
1.5 magicaltcxt
1.6 magical text
lllotk script. I'honological evidence has been ad·
duced for assuming that the gl~"SCS were aimed nOI
at a speaker of Coplic bUI r;uhcl' al a Greek-speaker
(sal1.ingel', 1984).
The Wriling System of the OC Tex:ls
OC telllS are written with Greek charactel'S supple.
mented by a number of sign... or demotic origin that
resemble rather closely their demOlic prototypes.
This Is the mOSt conspicuous feature of OC. The
systems or
the individual tcxl.s are inconsistent inso-
far IlS more than one sign may be used for the 53me
phoneme. In some cases, historical phonology may
aCCOUI1l for this. 8y analogy to the demotic spelling,
an allcmpl may have been made 10 distinguish
sounds thllt had once been dilfcn::ut bUI IHid coincid-
ed by the time the respeClive OC te:tts were written.
Thus, in SOllle texl~ (1.1, 2.2, 2.7) a distint:tion is
madc bctwcen fih and 1 ~I (or v.wl-mts), according
to elynlology, no less carefully linin in contempoltu)'
(Roman period) demotic. The London horost:Opc
(1.2) oncc (I. 142) uses a dcmotic m-sigu in )CWOy
(i.e., 'R'CCDOY, F..gyptian m sJ.w), whel'e the clement"
goes back 10 Middle Egyplian m. In thc SOInlC leXI, :.t
is used for an s-sound Ihal goes back to an·
cient _ (Cemyet al., 1957, p. 92, n. 149), which is,
however. coinddence. The use of - (a demotic .,-
sign) for an initial" of syllabic qu:llily, In the Lon-
don Ho~ope Papyrus (1.2), offers a due to the
origin or
the .supralinear stroke of Coptic proper
(Crum, 1942, p. 22, n. 2; in other tellIS, i.e., 1.4 and
1.5, the stroke Is Slill usctl in connct:tion wilh "
172 OLI> COPTIC
only). The Pari.. Magieal Pap)'l'\ls (1.5) makes LL'ie of
the Greek spiritus a.spcr for It (originating bolh from
Egyptian It and ~). In some !e"'ts whole words are
wrillen with demotic Iigatul'eS or id(."Ogrnms (1.2;
2.2; cf. 1.1).
The principal ex: signs of demotic origin al"C pre·
sented in Figun: I.
The Quesllon of Dialects
The OC mngical te"'tS were writlen down at a time
whell the Slttndanlization of the COptic dialects had
just staned. Other OC lexl.S were wrillcn considera-
bly earlier. In gencl<tl. the langunge of many Chris-
tian and Gnostic Coptic texts of the fOUl1h cenhliY
shows an :tdmixture of elements of other dialects.
but also mistakC!i (e.g.. overcorrect ions) that arose
from the fact thaI the writer ust.-d a dialect othel'
than thc one he was most familiar with.
Similar observ.ltions can be made in the OC leltts.
None of them is written in an idiom that does not
show the influence of one or tllore of the Olher
dialects. FUl1hennon:::. one text has obviously to be
regarded as an attempt 10 display several different
dialects m Ihe Sllllle lime (sec below. on Ihe second
Pill1 of the OC texts in thl,) Ptlris Magical Papyrus).
GenenLlly speaking. it can be said thaI the OC
prayer (Schmidl Papyrus. 1.1) and the OC nlngicnl
telt!... (1.4-6) display a kind of Sahidie. whereas the
gl~'S on the demotic magical papyri (2.1-4) can
be identified as 1I kind of Akhmimic (Sat1.inger.
1984). Of the t"""O horoscopes. the language of the
Oxford e",arnplc (1.3) is close to Akhmimic, whereas
the Michigan papyn1S (1.2) shows typical Fayyumic
features.
Too lillie of such comp,uative material as the
glosses on the demotic Munich papyms (2.6) and the
mummy labels (2.8) exists 10 allow for a more pre-
cise lahcling than "Upper and/or Middle Egyptian."
(To pUI it more exactly. they hardly digress from Ihe
chametcrisl1cs of A. L. and M. but dilTer in various
dl,)l;lils from S. F, and S.) The langunge of the Egyp·
tian OXYI'hynchus Papyrus (2.7) is not Coptic. An
allempt ha... been made, howcver. to establi..h the
position of the phonological system of this lext
among the Coptic dialects (Osing, 1978). The results
(namely, an intcrmediary position between M and
L/A?) would be invalidated if it turned out that the
crucial features arc due to a trndition of pronounc-
ing c1a......ical texts in a more consclVtltil/e way than
contemporary vernaculal' speech. At any mte, the
phonological system of this text differs considerably
from Sand 8.
The Schmidt Papyrus (1.1), wrincn in S. has, ho",'-
e\"1:r. 1*4-. with (S Rlf-, 8 11(;1+). and HOfl6. nurse (5.
HOOIKI; 8. HOt_). thus perhaps proving a certain t\f·
finily to 8. On the syntactic le\'el. note the use of the
third future in a rdati"e clause (as in B), where 5
would hal/e tlte first futUl?
In the Akhmirnic London Horoscope I'apyrus
(1.2), a few forms agn:e with S nnd IJ. controlry to
the A ehnraCleriSlics l/ral arc found in lhe remaining
mlilerial: IlOfx (quaL). 10 be Sep;u<lled; ~J.Il, law; tlJ.'I.
to him; ~YJ.M, dosing; tlJ.Oy. to .'lCC; l:tlJ.OY. two.
Lack of vowel·doubling produces lin agreement
with IJ and AI only in I&QIH, evil. The !'I'efonllativ....-:; of
the conjuncti\IC display the full B fol'lTls. contmry to
1111 the other diak'Cts: _T6_ (read KTG-) before noun.
_n-, _Te·. _TOY,. Dut this may be due to an al'(;ha·
istic attitude. The syntax shares ccnain featUre!; with
late demotic (conditional constl'\letiol1s).
In the few intdligiblc remains of the Michigan
Horoscope Papyrus (1.3), the following forms di-
verge froln F: Hlt.. give (a.... S. A, I•• M; cf. IJ HOt. Hl.-);
Il.\t-, this (as in 11). 111is llIay point tow,ud an influ-
cnce from KjK71 (Kas...el' Md S.11-..;ingcr, 1982). inter-
mediar)' idioms between B and V (Kassel'. 1980. p.
69. under sy: V).
In II "Cly corrupt passage of tire Saliitlic Mimaut
P;tpyrus (1.4). a FOil, n;\me. occurs (II. 347 IL).
when'as in II. 396lf.. 418, and 6331f. dcfinite non-S
featUl'eS arc lacking.
The invocations of the Paris Magical Pap)'nJs (1.5).
recto and verso of fol. 2. arc S except for EMIT.
Abydos; 6HOy. come (impcr.uivc). I. 76. but .).H()y. I.
92; OHI-. bring (imperative). II. 14 and 16. but 1.H1-.
pa....... im; 1'(Ul. name. II. 21. 22. and 84; f4fl) X (read
Hl'Kt). neck. I. 76; 0\'. to be (qual. or 61f'6). I. 17;
l.+a>ro. about the m:\llcr, I. 25. may correspond either
to S En;:(M (.4 and f.. J..) or to tl. ll~. All these
non·S features could be expected in an L-likc idiom.
L 94 is the beginning of a mythologicill story of
Isis. I\t this point. lhe character of lltc idiom chang.
es. A distinction is made between II ('. '. ClC.) and ~
(x). as in 8 (~ and p, respectively) and A (~ and t,
respectively); the te~t has. however, the ;i·sign where
A would have I. eontmry to the II,l of lhe othcr dia·
lect..: ooi6. du~, II. 95 IIl1d 97 (cf. A. pm.).
11le aspirate consonant.. of B are alien to thc phO'
nological system of the papyrus. "The glottal stop.
lacking in Band .41. is indicated by doubled rowels
when following an D-sound (~. slim. I. III;
n:xrr'" . hand. I. 120 bis). but never when following
lin A- or E-sound (I),Y"'. 'i6T"', eye. II. 9S and 97;
M6f6. noon, I. 94; «l('t, d.1ughtcl', pa........ im; fffiyl, to
think. I. 152; H60Y. mOlher. I. 102). There is no
 Hieroglyphic Hieratic Demotic Old Coptic Coptic Phonetic
derivatives value in OC
-",
.J etc. '"
:U
1.3, 2.7
2.2, 2.8
• 1
.J,'J 1.2

? ? ? /' 1.I 0

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, • r

),1
,
7,1 2.7
1.5

./'. /) 1.1,2.2 0 h
n f> 2.7

, l ,
- 1.1,2.7 h
~
,
£
.-/
" )
1.2
104,1.5

J j I 2.7 0 h

>,> 1.Z, 1.3, 2.2.

2.7
l!
I !, 1.2

,.4 ,r , 1, l!
• , , "'& I.S (used for (P.Bodmer VI)
J and l!)
G
2.2,2.7

I
•
<l.
lA, I.S (1.77)
1.I
x !
1.2, 1.3, I.S.
l-Ll- 2.2,2.7

..n- '-
'L
2.2
1.3
•
(P.OudmcrVI)
k

2.7 6 k'

? ? 1.I k'

1.2

•
~
1.1
2.2
0 0

-- '" <. ,. 2.7 d. .L •

<I'.Oodmer VI)
,

FIGURE 1 PRINCIPAL OLD COPTIC SIGNS OF 1la.1QTIC ORIGIN. Numbcn refer 10 the clas..~ific:l1ion or
lexls given above.

173
 174 OLD COPTIC
trace of Ihe ,.. lambdacism. As regards \'OCaHSIII,
many words are PIl)Vi<!t.'(\ with glosses, indicating
varianl dialcct forms of words or parts of words.
(The g1os.~ are h.1rdly corrections, as Ennan (er.
Kammercr, 1950, no. 1759J calls Ihem.) llut neither
the main lell:t nor the glosses ret:lin the same dialect
Even when a word is repeated, it may a.~sume a
different form-for example, OXON 1'I0T! TI.Io,TO, in
the momen!. tIle moment, II. 121-22. In this way,
three or four known ui:lleets are indicated simul1a.
neou.~ly (not to speak of forms thllt are alien to any
known idiom): G, S, L, and perhaps ,...
Examples of words of pure IJ phonology :lI'e
(.u)ooHc. (he) found her, I. 96; Tfll'(tll. lise, I. 106:
C.lo,T1, flame, II. 114 and 115: l.'ITOY, to do lhem, II.
116 and 117: 1llOy, glory, I. 127; cf. ecoye, 11Ioth, I.
139. Some words of pore S phonology are TOOy,
mounlain, I. 94: Ge,H;, dust, 11. 95 and 96: DOOyT,
Tholh, II. 96, 99, and 105: eOyH, in (adverb). I. 96:
1ro., what is themallerwith.lI. 96 and 99: oyo'I/'l,
light, I. 142. Some word~ of pure L phonology an~
IllTll, your (fem.) eye, I. 98: lJHGOY, there. J. 108 (Jf
prescnlS both Coplic Ff and lJ): r<lT "'. foot, I. 111:
COTe, flame, t. 114 (gloss): C/'lOoy, Iwo, I. 140: oyo,
one (masc.), t. 148. Some words indicate mixed fea.
tures (/. versus S and B): OOM, sigh. 11. 95. 91, and
lIS: 11G6GC, she said, I. 98. A few words appear in a
foml that is nllcstl."tI only in F: mill, every, II. lIS and
116 (var. '.MI): Oylll', to be remote (?), I. IS I: 1Ht, 10
know, I. 151 (but 6HH1, I. 130). But perhaps F (as
well :L~ V and A1) has 10 be discorded, since none of
ilS mosl charocteristic features can be found ()" for r:
H for B, S, ~ and A 0; 1\ for B 6 lind for S, L. and A
B). li rna)' appear as oy, but nOI onl), in the cases
where I. has oy; 'loyT, father, II. 95 (gloss), 99, tOO,
104, and 105. II may appear as 0, but not only in Ihe
cases where M ha... 0: CO, to drink, I. 147. It lIIayalso
OIppcar:L~ 01 (no dieresis!): (.l.II)oI(T), Abyclos, I. 107
(gloss): (l.x)oI(i), I. 114 (gI055); 000((, over me, l.
125: WtOto (Illoss [IIJlOOI[O]), I. 116; Kl.Tl.KOI1'1 (gloss
['11.)0)1'6), I. 117; 0601110, if, I. 147 fer; 0YOIM, 10 elll, I.
147.
SUlllming up, i1 may be snid thai in II. 971f. (III
allempl wa.~ nllldc 10 eneompa.s..~ several Coptic dill'
leelS simuhaneousl)'. It IIlll)' be assumed Ihal this
\vali to ~rve a pr.te-lical purpose:. The individual
reader should be placed in a position 10 be able to
usc Ihe spells in his own vernacular idiom. It should
be remembered that the telll was most probably pUI
down by a Gnxk compiler. If he found the source of
the telll wriucn (or recited) in ::10 Egyptian idiom
other thnn the one(s) he was most familiar with. he
may have changed ii-partly in the main texi and
partl)' in the glosses, though retaining the original
ven;ion. lie may also have subs!ituled vowel signs
according 10 their sound values in contelllporory
Greek, if such differed from the Coptic graphic Imdi.
tion (e.g.. oy and Qt, respectively, for Coptic _. Ihlt~
indicating II pronunciation (0), not (:)), and 141 (?),
not [oj, respectivel)').
Pre.Coptle Features
Ikcause of Iheir pagan backgr'Ound, DC texl~ emr>lo)'
man)' names, epithets. and lelms Ihat al'l;: not found
in Coptic pl'Oper, such as TIlJo.lTGly, who is on (his)
mounlain, an epithet of Anubis (EiYPtian, lpy.dw./):
CI- or a N', son of (Egyptian, zj, zj II): and Tli,
underworld (Egyptian, dJ/). Apart from that, words
are used that have become obsolete in standard Cop-
tic, sueh :L~ AOOtM, help 1.1, 1.8 (Coptic 101100..);
"_6 (?), to copulate, 1.1, 1.6 (Coptic, T'NOOII.):
H.l.0)"C6, liver (?), 1.5,1.117:00". rise (?, imperative),
1.5, n.I23, 138, CIC.: ~.., strong, 1.5,1.15: 1I0y, limbs
(?). 1.5, 1.122: IMJ~', enchant, 1.5,1.149-150); Ken.,
fumigate, 1.4. 1.665: COYHO)"lO, good still' (sbJ ufr),
OOYlo.l.t! (d. dClllotie 1.l'1, prefer), agrce:lble (?) star,
COYIO)/'l, evil star, t:oyol-.\.J-O, hostile stal', 1.2 passim:
l.~ll't, l.~'l (?), 1)('1;00 of his life (?), 1.3 and 1.2,
1.164). A conspicuous featu!'e is the almost comr>lete
lack of GrCi!k words. ElCccptions are j,n'O,\OC, mcs'
senger, 1.5,1.16: and 1.11f, air, 1.5,1.23.
Olher prc-eoptic features can be found in Ihe
morphology of the verb, such as residul.'5 of Ihe
demotic n:lative form (Ilaardt, 1963-1964; Sa-
IZinger, 1975, pp. 42f.) or the fonn -11f'TOY·. before
lhey, 1.3, 1.153 (Coptic, Ffru:roy.).
A rather stmnge feature is ~HO'(-, in (1.2, passim),
since the w of Egyptian m·~"w had already oc'Cn
dropped in the second millennium B.C.: possibly the
form is influenced by the IIW sign of the tradilional
Egyptian spellings on a purel)' graphic level. S)'ntac.
tic uscs or a pre·Coplic naturc in the London Horo.
scope Pap)'lus (1.2) include lack of an indefinite
l\l~iclc (.l.:;ltfll l.GwnOlil.'1, a woman shall be to him,
Ihlrd future, 1.144): pos,~essive usc of suflill: pronouns
wilh a word like ?rl..,., voice (1.141): and condition'
al construction l.'lGIDtMJ l.' (a construction found in
Roman-period demolic). Nevertheless, the OC texis
are definitely not tr:tnseriptions in OC script of de-
motic tellls: their morphology and synlall. are CS5oCn-
tiaIJy Coptic.
ltlBLIOGRAPIiV
8ell, H. I.: A. D. Nock: and F. H. TItompson. "Magi.
cal TexIS fronl a Bilingual Pap)'rus in the British

Museunl. Ediled wilh Tn:mslalions. Commcnlary
and Facsimile." Proceedillg:; of Ihe Ori/isll AClldelPlY
17 (1931):235-86.
Cerny. J.; P. E. Kahle; and R. Parker. ''The Old
CopIic Horoscope." JOlln/al of Egyp/ia" Ardraeolo-
10' 43 (1957):86-100.
Crum. W. E. "An Egyptian TCXI in Greek Charac·
ters." J014n1al of Egypliall Archaeology 28 (1942):20-
3J.
Grillith, F. L. and H. F. H, ThOlllpson. The DeJIIO/ic
Magical PapJrIls of Loudoll alld Leideu. 3 \,o[s. Lon·
don, 1904-1909.
Haardt. R. "Vel'such einel' ahkoptischen
Gl'ammatik" (Ph.D. diss.• University of Vienna,
I 949).
____ . "ZUIn Gcbmuch des Pl'titcritalcn Rclativums
'.'r (131'") im i\ltkoptl.<;chen und Koptischcn." Wie·
lIer lei/sehrifl fiJr die Kllnd" des Morgen/wlI/"s 57
(1961a):9O-96.
_ _ . "D.I.S Tempus W3~I-f slim im altkoptischen
Text des PariseI' Zaube~pyrus," Wiener
Zdl!ichrift fiir die Kuude des Morgen/mules 57
(196Ib):96-97.
___ "Residuale Rclalivfonnen im Altkoplischen.'·
Wi/mer Zei/s<;hrif/ fiJr die Kmll/e des Morgell/allde.s
59/60 (1963-1964):95-98.
Johnson, J. H. '"The Ocmolic Magical Spells of Lei·
den I 384," Orulheidklllldige Mededelillgell I/il hel
Ri;kslt/14sel/lPl VQII OudhedQl /e LeMen 56 (1975):29-
64.
"Louvre E 3229: A Demotic Magical Tex\."
EnchorifJ 7 (1977):55-102.
Kahle. r. E. Bnlll"iwh: Coplic Tols from Deir el·
Balll'iwh in Upper Egypl. Oxford and London.
1954.
Kammerer. W. A Coptic BihUogrophy. e.~r. pp. 100-
101. Ann Arbor, Mich.• 1950.
Kassel'. R. "Papyrus Londiniensis 98 (the Old Caplic
Horoscope) and Papyrus Bodmer VI." Jmmra/ of
Egypli'llI Archaeo/ogy 49 (1%3): I 57 -60.
_--C. "Prolcgomcnes a un cssai de classification
s)'litcmatique dcs dialectes et subJialeetes coptes
selon les cliteres de la phonc1ique, I, Principes et
tet"m ino[ogie." Mustul1 93 (1980):53- 112.
Kasser, R., and H. Satzinger. "L'idiomc du p. Mich.
5421 (tmuve a Karanis, nord·est du Fayoum)."
Wleuer Zelt!ichrift filr die Kmrdc des MQrgctJltmdcs
74 (1982):15-32.
Mallon. A. Grllmmaire COllie. bibliographic. chres/o-
lIIa/frie e/ WCllblllaire. 4th ed.. rev. M. Malinine,
esp. pp. 288-89. Bcirul. 1956.
Morenz. S. "Das Koplische," In Agyptisc/le Spraclle
lI11d Schri(/. Handbuch dcr Orienlalislik 1/1/1. Lei-
den and Cologne. 1959; 2nd cd., 1973. p. 92.
Osing, J. Der spClliigyplisdrc Papyrus 8M /0808. Wies·
baden. 1976.
'"The Dialect of Oxyrilynchus," £nehan'a 8
(Sondelband) (1978):29·(75)-(82)36·.
PALEOGRAPHY 175
"Ein s¢ithieralisches Oslrakon aus
TeblUnis." S/Ildietl VI' ailligyplisciler Kllimr.
Bcihcflc. 3 (1989):183-87.
Preisendanz. K. Papyri graecac ItIllgicae, die griechi.
$Chetl Zlljj~rplIpyri, Vol. I. Leip-Lig, 1928; 2nd cd.,
rev. A. Hcnrichs. Coptic lexts by G. Moller, StUll'
pn. 1973.
Oua.egebcur. J. "De la prehiSloire de I'krilure
cople.'· Oriell/llJiu Wvaniellsia PerioJica 13
(1982):125-36.
Rot:der. G. I>er Al/sHaug der iigyplisc/rell Religio/l mil
Re(onnatioll, Zallberei lllld Jcrrseilsg/twbe. Zurich,
1961.
Sta1.inger, ~I. '~rhe Old Coptic Schmidt Papyrus."
JOllrtla/ of lire Amen'can Research Center in Egypl
12 (1975):37-50.
-:-C' "Die altkoptischl'n Tex1e als Zeugnl.'l..'lc del'
Bel.lehungen 1.wischen Agyptel1l und Gr'iechen."
In (,'rllc,'o-Coplit·u, ed. PeteI' Nllgd, pp. 137-46.
Wisscnsch;lf1[iehe Beitr'.ige del' M:u1in·Luthl'r-
Uni vCl'liitlit H;I[[e·Wittenberg. Halle-Wittenberg,
1984.
Sieindorfr, G. I.chrbllch dcr kop/iu},(Ju Gmllmlulik.
esp. pp. 2-3. Chicago, 1951.
Vergote, J. Grammaire cop/e. Vol. Ib, Inlroductioll.
pllOllitiqlfc e/ phollologie. IIlOrplloiogie sylllhima/i_
que (MnlC/IIre des semalllimles,. panic diachro--
rriqlle. esp. pp. 12-13. Loovain, 1973.
Wom:lI. W. H. "Notice of a Sccond-Cen!ury Text in
CQplic Lenel'li," American JO/lrtral of Semitic La,,·
Il/ale.s aud Li/era/urts 58 (1941):84-90.
For funhel' references, see especially Kammerer,
1950.
HELMlTT $ATLlNCFJI.
PALEOGRAPHY. Paleography, Ihe science of the
cri1ical analysis of ancien1 scripts, not only makes it
possible to l'ead, date, and fix Ihe I)l'ovenancc of
documents produced by scribes bU1 also draws out
othet" info1'1l1fl1ion of eXlr-eme value foJ' the knowl-
edge of the his101y of culture. In analyzing ancient
scdpts criliclllly, one has to tmce the hist01Y of
grnphlc forms and to determine all the special fca·
turC8 lhott ehar.lcterize the individual scripts, lhus
making iI possible 10 classify them by ;\gc, origin.
and funclion.
FUl,hcl'Illore. Ihis science also incJudt.'5 Ihe study
of the materials wilh whieh Ihe scribes did their
work (and how Ihl..")' used. them). such all ink. cala·
mus (reed pen). and the medium on which the texl
is wtillen. This last would include (a) pliant materi-
al, like papyrus, parchmenl (seldom leather). and
(later) flIIper; (b) rigid materials. such as wood (for
176 PALEOGRAPHY
mummy labels), potsherds of terra'eoUa when suit·
able (ostraca), and lIaked stolle of appropriate quali.
ty or shape (ostracn); (c) stone or tell';)-cotta li'om
which a stekl or 11 dcui\:;\tory, commemorative, or
funenll)' inscriplion could be made; (<I) the rock
wall of a 10mb or tht, like with some inscription
carved on it; and (e) an adeqm\tcly smouth, brightly
polished coating of mortar 011 a wall, represenling a
whitish surflu;e on whkh some tc.~t or other has
been lmced on with a brush.
When the medium is a material suffici\:ntly pliable
and appropriate (papyrus, l)al'chment, etc) 10 take II
litemry text, cithel' as a scmll, or volwlUm (bul this
is uncommon in Coptology), ur as a hook, or codex
(almost 31w3Ys in f3et), modern ])aleogmphy cannot
f:lil to base its findings on those of al least onc
accessory discipline. For elmmp1c, codieology ana-
IYf.es the various processes or codex nmnufaclure,
whether as II single quire or as several gathered
quires, and sludies the way in which the folios
were sewn into quires 3nd the quire.~ were sewn to-
gether'. Codicology also examines sut:h fealures as
the quality of the thread th"t was used to sew the
quires, the presence or' absence of tabs, and the
binding.
[I is easy to underst,md that the philologic'll study
of the Coptic 13nguage and its Iitel':l\ure (not to men·
tion cvcr)'thing relative to Cuptic history) must be
bascd on a chronology of the rn:HlIlSl:ripts ,md othcr
written documents that is as precise as possible,
However, despite these desidemta, (kspite the wor-
thy effon.~ of i.~olated rcsear'Cher'S who edited newly
disl:overcd texts and who drew mostly on Greek
p31eogmphy to resolve the problems encountered
ca.~e by ca~e, and despite the more .~ystenlatic effor1S
of the few Coplologists who have liltempted to al1ive
at a unified view of Coplic writings as a loundation
for paleogmplry, at least in Olrtline, this science is
still f3r from reaching the maturity needed to satisfy
the most demanding among .~peciali?.ed user'S. All
Coptologists recognize this one fact: Coptic p3leogra.
phy is still a new field.
At the present time, Coptologists have at their dis-
posa.l three monographs on Coptic paleognlphy.
&leh one ha.~ been more or less useful. They will be
reviewed herenlier in dlronologkal order,
As clearly indicated by the title of his work, Hyver·
nat (1888) never' made any lIlll:mpt to l:over the
entire field of documents written in Coplic, There-
fore, he should nut be blamed for giving only one
manuscript rl'Om Ihe foul1h or fifth century (which
he placed, moreover, in the sixth) or for providing a
very substantial number of spedmt'ns dating f!'Om
the sixth centur), to the eighteenth century, which
most often were produced in be3uli!l11 ful1-pnge
plates. His plates show complete pages of the manu'
SCl'ipl~ (and thus naturally take up wholc pnges in
his publication), Furthcr, unlike more modem pale-
ogr~lphel's, Hyvemat never worked properly by ana-
Iyl.ing the details of the various scriJlts; he merely
presented and rapidly identified manuselipts he was
intereSled in.
As the length of its title indicales, the work of
Stegemann (19]6) WllS a gre<lt de"l more .,mbitiolls
(even though in his roreword he gave 3 vcr)' mooeSI
estimate indeed of the value of his work),
Slegemann tried to include the whole field of strictly
Coptk writing in his an3lysis. He studied borh 1itel~
llry scripts lind documentary ones, from the e:u'liesl
uncCl1ain beginnings of Coplie (third century)
thmugh the stal1 of iL~ decline (eleventh CenIUI)') to
its death as a living hlllguage (four1l:emh el:ntury).
Taking into consideration both the available manu-
st:ripts and the state uf Greek paleography when
Stegemann wrote, one must recognize that this wor-
thy p<lleographer mostly :lehicved his goals, Even
though some of his conclusions. deductions, and
c1assificatiuns of writing styles might now he con-
tested, no one can deny that Ire did sterling sl:l'Vicl:
for Coptology and that his wOl'k is still of substantial
usc, His Kuplisclw Paliiugraphie remains a nec('ssary
reference 1001 for l'esear'Cher'S and will continue to
0(' so as long as Coptolngy rcmains without a more
effective, f\llly developed working toul. the product
of 3 mooern p3leogr'npher expert in Gr-eek and Latin
:md familiar with discovclies made in thcse vaJiou~
fields since 1936,
On the one Imnd, Stegemnnn comp3red Coptic
manuscripts from the third l:entury to the eighth
(which never expressly give their dates) with con-
tempoml)' Greek manuscripts, thus producing a
Coptic p3leogmpltic chronology much less r'Ough-
llnd-re.ldy than Hyvernat's, On the other hand, speci-
mens of Coptic dated (by colophons) arc tu be fuund
from the ninth centuI)' onwar'd, and this enables the
p<lleographer to establish his chronology on a more
dependable basis. Simultaneously he tried to analyze
lmd to follow the successive Coptic writing styles in
their development. Modem scholars m,ty now cen-
sure hi.~ tendency to analY'.e isol31ed graphemes 3nd
to compare them with one another. When be gave
morc extensive samples, they wcr'e nOlhing mor"(!
th,m small rectangles cut out from the middle of a
manuscript page, The above·mentioned limitations
were the resulL~ of inadequate rcsourccs for the pro-
duction of his edition, mther th3n of his free choice
of 3 pm,icular working principle, That same kind of
constraint is naturally experienced by any compilcr
 PALEOGRAPHY 177

of cont,ibutiorlS to eneydupl..'tIias, which eliplains "--,:,

why this anicle is also iIIustmted by extr.lcts from
pages ralher than whole pagl'S, (1.<; is frequently the
case in Hyvemat (1888) and emmer (1964), despite
the undoubted fuct that a scribe's handwriting would
be much bener studit.'tI on a whole page. But one
must admit that despite these limitations and con·
straints. Stegemann made the m()l;t of the material
he sought to organi7.e.
The same cannot be said about the monograph on
Coptic paleogr-aphy by Cr.lmer (1964), Failing 10 as·
similme the progn~~ made in this lield after 1936
and too oflen providing inadequately checked in£or·
malion, this work has not rullillcd CoplologisiS'
needs; thus, il has been mther disnppointing (cr. M,
Kl'lluse, 1966, an extremely cireumst:lOti;l1 repOl1 on
this suhject).
11le present ar1iele makes nu ;rHempt to presenl a
complete sUlVey of the state of Coptic paleography.
It is written merely for thuse of the educated puhlic
at large who w:l.nt to know llbout the IlUlUy facets of
Coptic civilization in all its brilli;lnce, pending the
publication of more·specialized studies. Medieval or
Byzantine Coptic writing, which is beautiful even
simply as a majuscule script (capitals) llnd is some-
times, in l;lter periods, iIIuminatt.'(], represents an
impunant mark of civil~tion 10 which the reader's
attention must without fuil be drown. Without this,
one would have an incomplete, distorted view of this
cultun:.
frolll the lime when Coptic (as the lales! fonn of
the Egyptian language) adopted all the signs of the
Gre<:k alphabet, augmentt.'tI by a few additional sym·
bois borrowed from demotic script (cr. AU'lIAlII:.T IN
COPTIC. GkEtlK; Al.PHAUI:.-r5. COPTIC; LANCUACE(S). COP·
TtC), this language eltpressed icsclf through the
~rnphlc styk'S specific to Greek writing during latc
antiquity. Two grnphic styles ill p.u1icular wel·e em·
ployed for Coptic (al leasl fO!' writing books and
runnul documents): biblical majuscule, or capital
lcnel'S (see figures Ie, 2a, 2b, 3b, '\Ild 4b); and Alex·
andrian maju...cule. Within those two styles or scripl, FIGURE I. (a) THlkO-fQURHt CENTURY: 1'. BOllMER
two kinds (In:: distinguish.\ble: fint, script in letler5 Vt (PARCHMEN1). Published by Kasscr(1960). Dialecl:
of uniform chameler (sec tigUl'CS 2c, 3c, and 4a), P. (b) THtRD-FOURTlI CE.NTtJRV, P.BtL I OF IIAMUURG
and. second, scripl in letten; of contrasted ch;lr-actel', (t'AI'YRUS). Publi.~hed by Diebncr and K.a....'lCr (1989).
wherein broad and nalTOw g.... Iphcmcs are both Dialect: 1-7. (c) FOURTH CENTURV: P. llOllMl!R 1Il
found (sec figures Sa, 5b, and 5c). (l'AI'YIUJS). Published by Kasscr (1958). Oialccl: IJ4
A phenomenon even mon:: peculiar 10 Coptic with 874 (idiok-clal mixture; see IlIAU'.CT. SPORADIC and
graphic usages, allhough occasionally found in other tDtOLECT). Scale bar - 5 em. Courtesy ROllo/phe KQSStlr.
teltlS (Greek or bilingual), is the eltiSlence of mixed
types of script that an: a kind of compromise be-
tween biblical majuscule and Aluandrian majuscule la and lb). Here. however, discussion can suitably
(see figures 3a and 4<:). Othcr grophic styles hor· be confined to standard categories and fundamental
rowed from Greek script can be round (Sloe ligures phenomena.
178 PALEOGRAPHY

b~'",",~r,~"/(1r"TUY""--'fi
. ,
nt.:(i,-'IJ\' '''I ctlCti
J\ :oc d ., eAti M II

tot UyUJ<\N.... Ut't"'Y

LllWII,CMI"UIM<':
Ou 1",·1 ,rr-c-~'I Fl.Un
~"I'C""(;OOt
......
'tU~lt.......
"'
'.... 2 au
.
CJf'y""X't"', N..-ycueptt, ..
;""U,' roc""" '1 olIiIIIIINt) • "'• • • • I
II:UC;-"'IU~' .,."nuN:laalM.
· ••otCJUHA......
l.l"U.'''"~
.. :1 f"·' (:)(jol "'ICO~l; .GUVlAf'lo':

FIGlJRE 2. (a) FOlJRTH CENTURY: P. BODMER XVIII
(PAPYRlJS). I'ublished by Kassel' (1962a). Languagc: S.
(b) Fll'I'H CENTURY: P. IJOOMER XIX (PAJt.CIIMI!HT).
Published by Kassel' (1962b). Langll3ge: S. (e) un
Ami CEHTlJRY, P. BODMER XVI (PARCHMENT). Published
by Kassel' (1961). U!.nguage: S. SCale bar ,. S CPl.
COUr1UY RoJo/pht Kassu.
FIGlJRE 3. (It) SIXTIl CENTURY: VlIlNNA K. IS
(PARCHMENT). Published by Wesscly (1911), and pho·
tograph in Cavallo, 1967, pI. 104. umgu.1gc: S. (b)
SIXTIl CEI'mIRY: VIENNA K. nil (PARCIlMENT). Published
by Till (1937). Language: S. (c) SIXTlloSEVEto'11l CENTU-
RY: B.M.OR. S9804 (PAPYRUS). Published by Thompson
(1908). Language: S. Scale bar - 5 em. COllnrsy
RoJoIph~ Kasur.

Any allempl 10 dale Cuptic scripts by eomp;lIing

lhem to Gn-ck scripts raises quite a critical problcm. raised to the milk of methodological plinciple. can
Thi~ appl'ollCh, which may have seemed at first hold its own when applied to bilingual (Greek and
ghmce Ihc obvious one "nd which Stegcnmnn (19.16) Coptic) manU~elipL~. But with manuscripts written
 PALEOGRAPHY 179

< ~""'---""'''''''''''''~'J~===''
OK...·HU

F'IGURE4. (il) SeVENHI CENTURY: B.M,OR. 5001 (PAPYRUS). Published by Budge (1910).
Language: S. (h) SIlVI:.NTH CENTURY, VIENNA K. 9095 (rARClIMI!N'T), Published by We~~ly
(1912). Language: S. (e) EtCHTH CENTURY: VII:.NNA K. 9062 (PARCtlMIlN'T). Published by
Wessely (1911). Language: S. Scale bal' a 5 ern. CUllrle~y Rodu/phe KllJser.

only in Coptic. one should be very caUlious when
making 5Uch compmiliOns. K:\hle (1954. Vol. 1. PI'.
260-61) rightly nOled that "texis which Clln be daled
either on external evidence ... or on Ihe basis of
Gn.:ek texts in lhe same manuscripts ... reveal a
mlher dilfel'enl picture from thaI which we obtain
from early Coptic manuscripls which have bl:en dal-
cd purely on the basis of Coptic supponed by Greek
palcogrnphy."
Indeed, one finds IMI In Coptic prnetice Greek
scripts appear as a borrowed clemenl and arc fre·
quently related diachronically 10 Ihe same scriplS
evolving In Greek usage, 50 a Copeic script Ihal pos·
sesses Ihe same grJphle eharnclerisllcs as II Greek
180 PALEOGRAPHY

•
NU"r,INl·
III ..
el.lJ'lNWPlUtLuta
f7~HeeNtinJJn
:V-WflTND~f
iD" KP I-raf e "'I!V:IIN_ _

FlGwm 5. (a) NINTH CENTlJRY: VIENNA K. 9791 (I'ORMERLY K. 97(2) (PARCIIMElNTj,

Published l1y Wcsscly (1912). umguage: S. (b) TENTH CENTURY: vmNNA K, 9390
(PARCIIMENTj, published l1y Wessely (1914). Language: S. (c) ELI£VENTlI CENTURY: Vll!.NNA K.
9161 (PARCIIMF.N'l'), I'ublished by Campagnano (1985). Uinguage: S. Scale bal' - 5 em.
CVl4flesy Rodolphe Kasur.

one lIIay nevcrthclcs.s be of clearly later dale. It i!i
possible in this way 10 explain the cvntr.ldictions
nvted by Kahle with Iheir allendant substantial risk
that.some perspeclives 'llay not be correct. More-
over. various hybrid... were crealed by the Copts as
they developt:d many typt.'S of !leript, each of which
united chamcteriSlics borrowed from scvernl kinds
of Greek scripts (especially by mixing biblical and
Alexandrian majuscuk'1l). This makes a whole series
of comparison... and additional contrasts necessary
when discussing "mixed" nlalerials of this kind,
where the 1....' 0 types vf script arc pn.'SCnt at the same
time. As mentioned above, this is especially relevanl
to the script in books. But clearly, in working out a
eO'llplete Coptic paleography, it will be essential to
examine also the documentary (that is, in some
sense infonnal) scripts-an undl.."rtaking beyond the
~ope of the present encyclopedia.
To enhance the undcntanding or the above obser·
vations, I~ author has thought il useful 10 include
 PALEOGRAPHY 181

rlGURE 6. (a) TwELfTl1 CENTURY (A.D. 1112): IJ.M.OK, 35819(69) (PARCIlMENT).

Publl~h(:d by CI'11ll (1905). Lnnguage: S. (h) TwELFTIl-THIRTEENTH CENTUII.Y, VATICAN (;OI'T.
S (PARCIIMI!N1'). Unpublished. Language: 85. (c) FOUIl.TEI!N'1'1l CENTURY IA,t). 1339): PARISCOPT.
21 (PAPER). Unpublished. L::m~lI"~c: 8. Scale bar - 5 CIll. Courtesy Uodo/I,lIc Kassel',

herein some specimens of Coptic majuscules. while
making a very limiled selection from what was avail·
able and nb.1ndoning any nllempl co give lhe reader
a complete r.mge of paleography. These specimens.
wichoul p..'lleogr:.phic COnulIenls, l.re in chronologi-
cal order. Ahhough resuicted, this will conslitute a
useful villUal basis for whal \:ould be a small album
of Coplk: paleography In outline.
Thmc who neoo to inve51igate the subjt:ct in a
more lhorotlgh way should consul! Stegemann
(1936) :<11<1 (moslly for medieval manuscripts) Hyvel"
nat (1888), but In view of their relative age they
~hould be hllndled wilh caulioll. MOf(.'<lver, lhere is
impol1ant ll)'Stematic infnnnation in Till (1940) on
lhe Capti\: biblical parchments of lhe Auslrian Na-
lional Libflll)' in Vienna; and ill Kahle (1954, pp.
269-78) can he found a liSl of all lhe Coptic manu·
scripls ffUm the third-fifth centuries known at that
d.'lte. However, it lllUSI be noted lhat Till's work is
not illustrated, and Kahle'5, poorly so.
182 PALEOGRAPHY
rinally, il is important not to ncgl«t Greek pale-
ographies, among them the chief production of a
scholar working particularly in Greek and Greco-
L:uin paleogl'aphy and now entcring the Coptic pale'
ogr,tphil; field, G. Cavallo (1967 and 1975).
A great deal of complemental)' infonllmion may
be gleaned from numerous COplic te"l euitions illus·
Il,lled by photogr-..lphic pltlles 01' hy other plates of
lhe Sllme qunlity, allhough lhe uating systems pm·
pused by such dilTerent author'S cannot be used with·
oul extreme caul ion. Even if one docs nol consider
the real pos.sihility of varying quality levels in the
information pltlvidoo, each author ha.s his own per·
sonal tendencies concerning thc importance given
to thc various criteria and his own paleographic sen·
sitivity. Consequently, the accumulation of all these
isolated dates is far from constituting a coherent
whole and is useful only wilhln the broad outline of
a relative dtronology.
In Ihe following lisl, which is no more than a
selcction uf what se<:ms to he nlO!il significant, the
editions giving the complete photogmphic rcpnxlue.
lion of:1 m:lnuscript an' marked by an nsterisk. Such
editions nl'e eenainly lhe 1I10st useful in every way,
paleographically and olhel'Wlsc, for Ihey not only
pI~sel'Ve enlirely such fnlgile witnesses from furl her
dcstllJclion hut also permil e:lch researcher to. chcck
on the delails in which he is mOSI interested and
which might have becn lert out of 3ccounl by the
author or Ihe cdilio princeps.
In order not to encumber the bibliography below
with too many items, all the lilIes lhat can be found
in A. Coplic Bibliography (Kanlmerer, 1950) arc ex·
c1uded and only the naml.'S of lhe author.; in alpha.
betical order and the ye:w of publication appear
here, followoo by Ihe number in parentheses as·
signed by Kammerer, now standard: Allberry, 1938
(1665): IBohlig and PolOL~kyl, 1940 (1700): BOhlig,
'[1963]; Budgc, 1910 (1097) and 1912 (775): Clasen
and Balestli, 1885-1904 (779: has numerou.~ plntcs
or Ci'tecllcnl quality Ihat rcproduce full p:lgcs of
medieval malluscr'ipts): Crum, 1893 (718), 1905
(147), 1909 (170). and 1926 (749): D."Iumas et :II.,
1969; Fnrid 1'1 al. °1972-1979: Hall, 1905 (1907):
Husselman, 1962; Hyvemal, °1922 (726); Kasser,
1958, 1960, "961. °1962a, '1962b, '1963, '1964,
and °1965; Kasser et a!., 1972, °1973, °1975: Leroy,
1974; Malinine 1'[ aI., '1956, '1963, and '1968:
Micha~wski, 1965; Monneret de Villard, 1933
(1980); Orlandi, 1974a-b; Plumley, °1975; POIOlsky,
1934 (1693); Ouecke, 1972, 1977, and 1984; &lttin·
gel', 1967-1968; Schenke, 1981: Schiller, 1973:
Schmidt, °1904 (1033), 1908 (1140), and 1919
(1(94); TIlOmpson, 1908 (810) and '1924 (980);
Wessely, 1915 (890); Worrell, 1923 (751) and 1931
(869); Zocga, 1810 (753).
A selection mainly from idioms other lhan c1a.-.si-
cal &lhidic (S) and Bohahic (8) includes Ihe follow-
illg: A: BOhlig 'f1963J: Schmidt. 1908 (1140) and
1919 (1994). n (plioI' 10 Ihe eighth century): Daumas
et aI., 1969: Ka.~ser el aI., 1972. 1174: KasSCI', 1958: F:
Hyvel"lHII, '1922. L4: Allberry, 1938 (1665); [Bohlig
and Pololsky), 1940 (1700): 1'010tsky, 1934 (1693).
L5: Thompson, '1924 (980). L6: Ka.'i..ser el aI., '\973
and '1975: Malinine et al., '1956, '1963, anu '1968.
M: Orlandi, 1974: Schcnke, 1981./': Kasser, 1%0. IV:
Ilussciman, 1962 (see DIALECT'S: U.NCIJACF-tS). COf'T1C).
A variely of iIluslrated complemenlary paleogl'3ph.
ic infomlalion can be found in variOIJ..S articles in
joomals giving space to Coptology (e.g., BlllIetill d~
f'/llstilll/ frall(;ais d'arr:heologit orimlalc. 81llletill of
Ihe Americon Suciety of Popyrologis,s, Blllleti" de 10
Sociele d'archeofogit copte, E"choriu, JOIln/al of Co".
lie Studies, JeJlfmaf of EgYPli(l1l Archeology, and I..e:
Museo").
The pans of manuscripLs reproduced in the six
figures here arc published with thc kind permission
of Iheir respective owners, 10 whom Ihc aUlhor
lenders warmest thanks: the Valican Apostolic U·
brary in V:ltiCllll City: thc National Ubr;lry in Paris,
France: thc Mal1in Bodmer Founrl.Mion in Colognyl
GcncV'"<I. Switzcrland; the Brilish Library in London,
Englnnd; the Austlian NatiOOl11 Library in Vienna:
tlnd lite State and Univer.;ity Library in ~lall1bu'1\o
WCSf, Gcnnany.
OIOLIOGRAI'IIY
OOhlig, A. Pro'lCrbitll-Kade.x. Leipzig [1963].
Budge, E. A. T. W. Coplic Homilies ill Ilrt Dia/ecI of
Upper Egypl, Ediltd from Iht Par'yms Codex Orie,/·
IU/ 5001 ill lire 8rilis1l Museum. London, 1910.
Campagnallo, A. Prdimirrary Edilions of Coplic Codi·
ce~', MONO.GD, Life of MalUusc.~, EncomiwlI of Mo-
scs, EncomiulII of Abraham. Unione Acclldemieu
N37.ionale, Corpus dci manoscnlli copli leltcruri,
Centro Italiano Microfiches. Rome, 1985.
Cnvallo, G. Ricudll! Slllla lIlaillscola biblica. flor-
ence, 1967.
---'-7 "rpQ~p.&7n .i:AEta~_." JaJ"bJ,c1r der Osler.
reichiscllclI 8yu""il/istik 24 (1975):23-54.
Cramer, M. Koplische PllfiJugraplrie. Wicsbaden,
1964.
Crum. W. E. CalalOf:lle of Ihe Coptic JofatlllScripls i"
llie Brilish MIf-'f!III11. London, 1905.
D:aumas, F.; A. Gul1laulilonl; J.·C. Carein; J. Jal1)'; B.
Boyaval; R. Kassel'; J ..c. Goyon; J.-L Dcspagnc; B.
Lenthcric; and J. SchruolTcnl.'ger. KdUa I, kOm

2J9, IOIli//es effeCIII/!eS ell 1964 1.'/ 1905. Cairo,
1969.
Diebner. B. J.; R. Kasser; A. M. Kropp; C. Voigt; and
E. Lucchesi. Hamburge, PapynlS Bil. I. Die
IllltesJQm~lfjchel1 TOle des Papyrus bilillgllis f
de, 5laats- und Ul1lvl.'l'Sitiilsbiblialhek Hamburg.
Cal1/icum Cal1tiCOf'um (coplice), Lamematimle5
le~tl1iae (cop/ice), &clesia.sll.'s (graece ef cop/ice).
Cahiel'5 d'orientalismc 18. Geneva, 1989.
Farid, S.: G. GarinI.': V. Girgis; S. Civersen: A. Gui!·
la.uffiOnl: R. Kasser; M. K....lllsc: P. Labib: G.
Mchn:-.t: G. Moktar; B.·C. Pucch: G. Ouispcl: J. M.
Robin50n; H.·M. SchenkI.'; T. Stivc-st.idcrbcrgh:
nud R. McL Wilson. The Facsimile Edl/ion 01 /I/I!.
Nail fllmmwdi Codices. Lcitlen. 1972-1979.
Hussclman, I!. M. The Go.~pcl of John ill l'a)'lImic
Copllc (I'. MidI. IIll!. 3521). Ann Arbur, Mich.,
1962.
H~verml1. H. Album de pllliiographie coptc pOljr sen!ir
a I'imrodllclilm pIIIi:Q~raph/qlje des Acles des mar·
tyrs de I'Egyptc. Paris and Rome. 1888.
Kahle, I'. E. Bala'iZllll: Cuplic TeXiS from Deir eJ·
Bflla'ilJl/r ill Upper Egypl. Oltfonl and Lonoon.
1954.
Kammerer, W., A COpl;C Bibliography. Ann Arbur,
Mich., 1950.
~'It'r, R. Papyms Bodmer /flo' EWlIIgile de Jeall ef
Gell& 1-IV,2 ell bohai"rique. CSCO 177-178.
Louvain, 1958.
-::C~ PapynlS Bodmer VI: livu des l'rovemes. CSCO
1~-195. Louvain, 1960.
_::-_ pflpyms Bodm;!f XVI: £:todt J-XV,lJ err iUlJri·
diqllt. Geneva, 1961.
---:-c. Papyms Bodmer XVfIIo' IklllerotlOlP/e I-X,? en
Silltidiqlle. Ccnc\'a, 1962.a.
....,::c-. Papyrus Bodmer XJX: l~·allgill!. tie Mauhiell,
XIV.Z8-XXVIJI,lO, lpitre (lilt Romaills J.2~II.J. ttl
sahidlque. Geneva, 1%21>.
....,:;-:-.. Papyms Bodmer XXI: Josue VI,16-25, VIJ,6-
IX,2J, XXiI,J -2, J9-XXlII,7,15-XXIV,l3, ell sallidi·
qljC. Geneva, 1963.
-,_. PapYnls Bodlller XXIf el Mi.uisslppi Cuptre Cu-
dllJ: flo' Jerbnie Xt.3-1.f1,34, Lamelllatiolls, Epitre de
Urbllic, Baruch J,I-V,5, 1111 salridiqllc. Geneva,
1964.
_....,. Papyrus Bodmer XXJ1J: Esale XLVJJ-LXVJ ell
salticliqlle. Geneva, 1965.
Ka."SCr, R., ctl. Kellia, lopograpltie. Recherches
suisscs d'archL-olugic cupte 2. Geneva, 1972.
Kasser, R.; M. Mtllininc; H.·C. Puceh: G. Quispd: J.
Zandt.-e; W. Vycichl; and R. MeL Wilson. Truc/alm;
TriparlilllS, Pars I, J)e Sllpemi.~, Codex JWlg f. XXVI
f.-/. UI v. (I'. 5J-J04). Dem, 1973.
TraClallil Tripanims, Pal'S II, De Crell/iollt
lIo",i"is, Pal'$ IIJ, De GelleribliS Trib/ls, Cudex Jmlg
,. UJ ... -!.XX v. (p. 104-140). Bern, 1975.
Krouse, M. R....'Vicw 0( M. Cramer, Koplische Paliio-
,raphie. Bibliolheca Orien/alis 23 (1966):286-93.
PALEOGRAPHY 183
Leroy, J. Lcs !t1auuscrils copies ef cop/es-Qr(lbe~' il/IIS-
Irrs. Paris, 1974.
Malinine, M.: H.-e. Pucch: and G. Ouispel. Evallge.
lillm Verilalls, Codo lung I. Vf/J I'.-XVI v. (p. 16-
31), f. XIX r.-XXII r. (p. 17-41,. Zurich, 1956.
Malininc, M.: H.·C. Puech: G. Ouispcl: W. C. Till: R.
McL Wilson: and J. landee. De Resumclrone
(Ep/slllia ad Rh",gillllm), Codu lmlg f. XXlI r.-f.
XXV v. (p. 41-50). Zurich. 1963.
Malininc, M.: II.·C. Puech: G. Ouispcl; w. C. Till: R.
l<:Isscr; R. MeL Wilson; and J. Zantlcc. Epislfllu
Jacobi Apocrypha, C(}{Iu: luolg f. 1 r._I. Vf/J v. (p.
J-16). Zurich, 1968.
MidlOllowskl, K. FarO-s, louilles p%llaises J96I-I962.
avec lles cuntribullolls de T. Dzler..ykray.Ragabki, S.
Jakoblelski, H. l~(IT7.eielVsku, WI. Kllblak, M. Mllrci,r·
lak. Wlll'lmW, 1965.
Orl:tr1di, T. Kuptische Papyri Iheulogischell "llwIIS. Vi·
enna, 197411,
_--'-' Paplri del/II Universitil degfi StlUll (Ji Milano (I'.
Mil. Copli), Vol. 5, LeI/ere. di Srlll Pllolo in cop/o-
ussirilwhita, cdlt.kme. commellio e imUd di Tilo
Orlandi, cUlllriblllQ UnglliS/ICQ dl H. Ollecke. Mihul.
1974b.
Plumley, J. M. The Serolls allJishop Timollreos: Two
IJoel/meIllS lrom Mediel'af Nubia. Londoll, 1975.
Qucckc, l-I. Vas Markll5el'llllgl'lilml saiflise": TUI der
HllIldsehrill l'pQloll Rib. Illv.·Nr. J81 mil dm VQri·
all/I'll der HUlldse"rill M 569. Bartelona, 1972.
--;-C Dos ulkuSf!l'ullge/iw1I suidi.sch: Tut der Halld.
sellrill PPalau Rib. Il1v.·Nr. 181 mil de" VariQlllen
der Halldsellrill M 569. Bartelona, 1977.
Das JQlla"'I~l-'(IlIgellmtl saidi.scll: TUI der
lIumlscJlril1 J'Palall Rib. Jllv.-Hr. 183 mil tlell Vari·
alllell tier lIalld.<;chrif/eIl 811 uml 8J4 tier CheSle,
BeallY library lIl1d tier Hamlscl"ill Ai 569. Romc
and Bartcluna, 1984.
&u:dngcr, H. KOpllsche Urkmltlell, JII. 2 vols. Berlin,
1967-1968.
Schcnkc, U.·M. Vas Mllllhalls.EvallgeUIIII1 11/1 II/llIeW·
gyptischell Dill/eki des KopliKhm (Codex Scheide).
Telttc untl Untersuchungen ~ur Geschichtc dcr
:lllchr'iSlllchcn Litcrutur 127. nCl',lin, 1981.
Schiller, A. A. Tell Coplic Legal TexiS. Ncw York,
1973.
Stegemann, V. KOl'lische PaliJoKrtlphie: 25 Talel,! ZlIr
VeTllllsc!,llulicllllllg der Schreibslile kO/Jriu:her
Scllriltdcllkmuler allf Papyrus, Pe>1:umelll lind
Papler Illr die Zeit ties JII.-XJV. Jahrll/llulerrs, mil
eim:m Ver.~lIch /.'iller StiJgeschicll/e der koplisdltm
Sehrill. ~lcidc1berg. 1936.
lbompson, II. The Coptic (Salridic) Version 01 CeNuill
Books 01 fire Old Tesiamelll. I,am a Pap)'11lS ill the
British M,uelllfl. London, 1908.
Till, W. C. "Saitlischc Frogmente des Allen
Tcscamentn". Muuon 50 (1937):175-2]7.
Wcsscly, K. Griechische IIl1d koplische Texfe Iheologi.
sehel1 IlIha[ls IJ, JI/, JV. IX., XII., XV. Studicn zur
 184 PHONOLOGY
Palaeographie und I'oflyroskunde. Leipzig, 1911.
1912, 1914.
ROOOLPIlf. KASSF.R
PHONOLOGY. In Coptic. as in any other lan-
guage, it is vital 10 di!ilinguish carefully betwccn
phonology and phonetics. AcconJing 10 Dubois
(1973, p. 373), "Phonetics studies the sounds of I;m·
guage in theil' conCl't."Ic realization, independently of
their linguistic function," Phonetics is thus'l science
concerned wilh a phenomenon purely m:lIe,illl and
physical, and therefore mensurable by means of in"
slr\JrIlcnlS of phy:;ics. sensitive and especially adapt-
ed for this dclica1o:! task. Conscquently, phonetic.~
docs nul treal the semantic use of these sounds or of
their' combin<ilions; it is concerned neither wilh
their significaTion 110r wilh the message they take
!'at1 in expressing.
On the olher hand. "phonology is the science thae
studiL'S the sounds of [ungung,;: from the point of
view of their function in the syseem of linguistic
communication. It studi~ the phonic elements that
distinguish. within one and the same language, two
messages of different meaning" (ibid.• p. 375). Thus.
in English, for insulIlce. It is only the difference
between the phonemes Id/ and ItI that distinguishes
the two ....,ortIs. entirely different in meaning. "&:>0-
dlc" (scrawl) and "tOOl Ie" (tOOt n-pcatedly). or
course. both of these word~ could be pronouncL-d in
a great many different WolYS and with nuances that
may be studiL-d. m('a.~ured. or deli ned. according to
the speakelJs linguistic habits or Co Ihe conditions in
which he pronounces them at any given lime (local,
dialectlli. personal habils, or possihly the pronuncia·
tion arising from a physical lllllifommtion, an occa·
sional cold. a brokcn tooth, a mouth full of food, a
Mate of fatigue making for negligent elocution, and
so on). Yet, on the phonological level, these nuances
nrc in no way taken into 3ccoune: each of these two
words is subjecl 10 but II single interpr'Ce;;leion,
/,du:dll and /,tu:el/, respectively. Practic311y speak.
ing, whatever the speaker'lI accent (provincial, negli·
gent, or obstntcted, within cel':ll" Ilmies), the liseen·
el' will llSuaUy dt'Code the message in the Si.lme way.
In AU'lIADt:TS, COPTIC, the synoptic table gives (on
the extreme left) the phonologicnl value of the \'3ri·
ous Coptic graphemes, a value well known or at
least sufficiently well known or probable. This value
occasionally \'arit'S from one dialect or subdialect to
another; one even observes certain idioms Wtlnling
one or several phonemes present in others. Howev·
er, Ihe present ar1icle will nOI lreae these dialeclal
differences bUI prellenl a complete i",'eneory of COIl-
tic phonelllcs [T3ble I). "Coptic" considered com·
prehl,'nsi\'Cly, as a total phenomenon comprising 311
par1icular idiomatic, dialeclal, and subdialcetal
diasystems (cf. Stem, 1880, p. 7: Mallon, 1907. p. 7;
Chainl,', 1933, pp. 2-3; Worrell, 1934, pp. 83-98;
Vergote, 1945, p. 10; Steindodf, 1951. p. II; Till,
1955, p. 40, and 1%1. p. 3. and especially Vergole.
1973, pp. 7, 13, 18, and Kassel'. 1981).
"1e synoptic table gives only the graphemt'S of
foul' Coptic idioms-vehicular languagC5 Sand D,
dialecl A, and prolodlalect P-considered hen' a.~
the most typical phonologically and 11lph,;\betically.
(More deeails can be found in ,Ill,: synoptic table in
ALl'ftAflt:TS, COI'HC; gem. - grnphlc vocalic gemina-
liun; the phoneme Ivl is found only in the subdill'
leces il7, J, G, F9. llnd H [Ill'llpherrlc r.]; [wa] - pho·
neme wllnting in lhis di;\lect).
From Ihe following lise of Copeic phonemes mUSI
be l'crnoved, of course, Ihe phoneme combinations
rendered in the ~riPI by a single grapheme-/ksl
(14)./psl (23),/til (30), Ic;,1 (33), and, in all Coptic
idionls except 8 and il~ subdialecl$, Ithl (8), Iphl
(21). llnd /khl (22). In D etc. tht")' are, respectively.
aspirated allophones of ItI (19)./pl (16). /kl (k), as
It.hl l~ the aspiraled allophone of 1t.1 (28) (see
UOllAllllC).
Coptic has eight (or perhaps nine) vowels proper,
namely lal (I), M (Sa), lal (5b),/tl (7), /il (93).101
(15), lui (2Ob), 101 (24), and pcrhap!l/yl (20a). 1;,1 is
a medial \'owe!, lal is lhe most open (or mOSI
voict-d) vowel, and iiI and luI (llnd. as the case may
be, Iy/; see below), lhe most e10se (or least voiced):
Ihe gradalion from mOSI open to mQ:\1 close being
lal, leI, leI. IiI for ehe pal:llal and anterior series.
and lal, 10/, 16/. luI for the vel3r or IlOSterior one.
Coptic has livc (perhaps even six) sonQm.~ (of truly
vocnlic value, al1hough c",pn.'SSCd in chI,' scrip' by an
app3l'ently conllOnantal gl'3pheme), namely I'll (2b),
III (llb),/rpl (12b), II}I (lJb),/rI (17b), and possi-
bly Iy/.
till chI.' above Coptic phonemes are thus, on the
phonolo]l:ieal level, vowels. On the other h.md, all
olher phonemes of Coptic presented below are, pho-
nolo]l:ieally considered, consonants.
Coptic has probably only IWO gUdts, or sclllivowds
(or voiced fricatives: sec below), which are voiced
consonants (their consol'lalltal value is t,;crtain. al-
though they are rende~d by app;:a~nlly vocalic
gr.aphcmcs): fJ! (9b) llnd Iwl (2Oc). It is possible 10
conceive that Coptic mighl have a third glide. ~/. ill
some very rare CoptcK>r=k words, such as S, B
:y.utlttOltfOtl (Ucrll'iv6no;), hyacineh-colourOO, written
 PHONOLOGY 185
••
TARl.F. I. Sytloplic Table 01 Cupfic PhQllemes
p 5 B A
I I-I • • • •
• •• •l-J •
,,'"
fbi
'b !tI/
/gf ,• , , ,•
/d/ A A A A
5. lei • • • •
5b
•
M
,• ,• •, ,•
7
8
/'/
/./
Ilhl
H
0
.
0
H
0
.
0
9. IiI (e}1 (e)1 • (e)1
9b
10
IV
/k/ ,
(1l)1
,,
{ell
,,
• (e),
,
,
II.
lib
/1/
/1/ ,• , 1'1 ,
12. 1m/ M M M M
12b /m/ M M (M1 M
•
13. M H H « H

13b-c /?/
I . (H) H

14 1"/
H
, , , ,
IS

"I1b
/0/
/p/ .,
0
.
0 0
. 0

"r
11. M
/f/ r
e
,
e
r r
Ir)
e
r
e
18 N
19 N T T T T
,0. /,f? y y y y
'Ob lui oy oy oy oy
2<Jc /w/ {o)y (olY (olY (o)y
21 /ph/ ~ ~ ~ ~
22
23
24
..
/kh/
/ /
/./
X

••
X

••
X

••
X

••
25 /./
/f/ • • ••• •
26
27 M ", ," , ,"
28
29
/'1
/el
x
, ,
X X
twa] ,X

30 Ilil t .~ t .~
31 /'I L gem. [wa] gem.
32
33
M
leal ,
twa] twa)

"elC.
twa]
twa)
[Will
"CIC.
,
34 !<I
•[-I
[wa] twa]

,• ,twa]

,.
35 M
fch/
[wa]
[-I l-J

frequently n-iJOhUlliOH or even B ~1KII'OUiOH. prob-
ably pronounced fhy a kin thi nonl or even Illore
likely /hi
a kin thi non/: however, IlJll kin Ihl nonl
seems not inconceivable.
Coptic has six $OIIOl'QIIls, ur votc':'-G consonants: fbI
(2a), /II (1Ia),lml (Ila), Inl (I la), Irl (17a), and Ivl
(32). of which /II is a lateral, /T/ is a vibmol Il'ilI,
1m! and Inl are nasals, fbI and Ivl arc. like the
glides, voiced rricalivC$.
All the other consonants below arc unvoiced. Note
Ihal the Greek voiced fricalh,c Iz/ (6) and the Grct'k
voiced 5tOPS Igj (3) and Idl (4) occur practically
 186 PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OF EGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ON THE
only in Copto-Greek words (d, VOCAUULARY, corro,
GRIlliK), in which, however, they have p,'obably lost
theil' original (Greek) voicing: thus, as clements of
Coptic. 11./ - lsI (18), Igf .. /k/ (10). and /d/ ; /1/
(19).
Coptic has 6 trieu/iva: lsI (18), I~ (25). trI (26).
/hI (27), 1,>1 (34). and I~I (35).
According 10 Ihe tmditional COptic gmmmar, Cop-
tic has only a single ufTricalc, /~/ (28). However, OIA,
La" H (and pcrhups even ,.. :l/1d Ihe sllb(lltllcct.'l of
the Fayyumic dialc<:tal group, e,l[ccpt F7) may also
have I¢I ljt.1 being pronounced nearly like (is), and
IV nearly like [I,>n,
Coptic has five SlOps: /kI (10) (and Icl (29), which
is a palatalized /k/ corresponding approllimatcly to
(kiD: Ipl (16); /1/ (19); .md rt (31) (see AI..EPIt: CRYP·
TOPHONHME: .md GEMINATION. VOCALIC). Fur the aspi·
rated :Jffl'iCllte and stops in 8 etc, (/l:.h/, Ikh/. Iph/,
Ith/), s(:e above.
HI.8UOGRAI'HY
Chatne. M. EMllle.lls de gramJlluire dialec/ale cuplc.
Paris, 1933.
Dubois, J.; M. Giacomo; L Gucspin; C. Mrll'Ccllesi;
J.-B. Marcelksi; :md J.-I'. Move!. DiCliOllIwirc de
Ii'lguis/iq,'c. Paris, 1973.
Kasser, R, "VoyeUes en fonction consonantiqlle,
consonnes en fonction vocali<lue. et classes de
phonemes en copte:' Bulle/iPl de la Soditt
d·tgyplologi~. Getlel'e 5 (1981 ):33-50.
Mallon. A. Grmmtlllire COpll!. allec bibliograplrie.
chresromarhie el VQCllblilairf!. 2nd ed. Beil,",l, 1907.
Stcindolif, G. ultrbuch der kOplischcll Grllmlllalik.
Chicago, 1951.
Stem, L. Koptischc Grllmmlllik, LciJTi.ig. 1880.
Till. W, C. Koptische Grammatik (slli'disclrer Dialek/),
mil Bibliograplrie. Lesatiicken lind Wonerveruich·
tliS5ePl. Lcip;>Jg, 1955.
- - 0 Koplisclre Dia/~k/gramma/ik, mil Lesaliick~"
I/Ild \'Iurlerollch. 2nd cd. Munich. 1961.
Vergote, J, PhQ,,~./itl"e 1Iislorique de /'tJgyptien, la
COllSOIJIIC.~. Louvain, 1945.
_-.,._. Gf//lllmaire cop/e. Vol. la, 1,,/rodIlCliotl, pho-
'1~liq"e e/ pllDtloJogie. morphologie sy/llIl~",a/iqlle
(stnlcrure des sematr/tmes). parlie $yrIchroniqu~.
Louvain. 1973.
Worrell. W. H, Coptic SOl/lids, Ann Arbor. Mich.•
1934.
ROOOtJ'IHl KASSER
PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OF
EGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ON
THE. 11w: main source for the Greek languagc in
Egypt is the mass of nonliteml)' p.'1pyri, ostrnca, and
in!\Cl'iptlons lTom the Ptulemaic, Roman, and By.>.ml'
tine pcriods, 11 tutal of almost fifty thousnnd docu-
mCllts. An analysis of the 0l1hographic variations in
these doculllents indicates that the pronunciation of
the Greek koine spoken and wrillcn within thc con-
fines of Greco-Roman Egypt refleels to a large extent
a transitional stage between that of the cla"''lical
Grcck dialects and Ihat of modem Greek. But there
is also extensive evidence of bilingual intclference
in its phonology by Coptic.
As rcg.'l.rds consonants, there is WIllC cvidence
from as far back as the e.'1l'1y Roman period for the
dlift of thc classical vtlict:d stops Ib/. Ig!. and Id/.
represented by (j, Y. and 6, to mcalives. as in mod·
em Greek. But then: is abundant evidence frolll doc·
uments of lhe same period and place that these
sounds were stilt stop.~, for')' :md Ii intel'Ch:mge vcry
frcquently. and 13 ocea~ionnlly, with the symbols for
Ihe corn:sponding voiceless stops x. t. and "'. re·
spectively. Similal'ly, K. ii, and ~. the symbols for the
aspirated stops f';:J1f,/th/. and Iph/. also interchange
frequently in lhe same documents with x. t. and
'11'. ThL~ confusion, found eMtcnsively only in Eg)'Pt
and paralleled in the spelling of Gr<:t:k lo:mworcls in
Coptic. has no s(ltisf:Jctory explanation in IC1111.~ of
Grcek phonoloa,y, for although oolh the voiced and
aspirated stops have shifted to fricativC5 in modern
Gn:ck. they have never mel'gOO with those of anoth·
er order but have remained distinct to the present
<by.
In Coptic. howevcr, there was no phonemic dis-
tinction between voiccd and voiceless stops in any
dialect, But the sound l'epr'c~cnted by II occun; as a
distinct phoneme. pronounced during the Grcco-
Roman period a~ a voieL-d bilabial fricative (11];
hence. the symbols for Ihe labial stops are not 50
frequently confused. Similarly, the unconditional in-
terchange of aspiratcd and voiceless stops is cau.-;ed
by bilingual interference. In Coptic. aspiT'lued stops
wen: phonemic only in the nOltAIJUC dialect, where
Ihe opposition OCCUlTed only in accented syllables
and the aspiratcs were lost in late Bywntine timL'S.
In addition. the voicL-d bilabial fricalive quality
p<lStubtcd for Gn~k {j especially when it interchang.
es with 01' Iwl or v Iyl coincides with that of Coptk
II. and the fricativc quality of intclVOCalic Greek y in
conm:ction with rounded back vowels llIay repre-
sent the 11lbiuvclal' fl;cativc quality of the Coptic oy
Iw/.
There is also widcspn-ad confusion of A and p.
Although in Gn,<:k the phonetic quality of these Iiq.
uids variL-d considerably, nowhere outside Egypc was
there an identification of lhe two sounds. In Ihe
FAYYUMIC dialeci of Coptic. howc\'Cr, from which
 PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OF EGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ON THE
area most of the documents showing Ihis inter-
change come, there may have been only one liquid
phoneme /II, for most wortls spelled with r in other
dialects show), in Fayyumlc, lIlthough r is retained
in many words.
The final nalla] is frequently dropped in pr'Ol1uncia-
tion. a tendency that hall continued in spoken Greek
to the present day. In addition, medial nasals are
frequently lost, especially after Slops. This is also the
result of bilingual interference, for in Coptic a voice·
I=> Slop had a voiced allophone following a nasal.
This fact, combined with the underdiffen::ntiation or
voked and voiceless Slops, made )17', T, 8, and 1'6, for
example, simply orthographic variants of the same
sound It/.
Initial aspimtion is frequenlly dropped. This l'epre-
sents a phonelic lendency within Greek itself, in
which aspiration was generally lost during the peri·
od or lhe koine. Aspiral.ion was also losl ill sollie
Coptic dialects in Byzantine times.
In vowels, the classical long diphthongs wen:: reo
duced to simple vowels by the end of the first centu-
ry S.c. The short diphlhongs In ., became identified
....ith simple vowels, f~ with , in /il already in the
third ccntury B.c., a~ with f in IfI in the second
cenlury 1lC.. and <l< (and Il1o) with II in Iyl by the first
century A.U.
The short diphthong 011 had hecome a simple vow·
el/ul before the heginning of the Ptolemaic period,
In lhe Roman lind Byzantine period:;, it inter-
changed ocea.~ionally with Col and 0, hodl represent·
ing lo/. Since this interchange was rare elsewhere in
Greek but was paralleled in Greek loanwords in
Coptic. it may rest on bilingual interference. In Cop-
tie. or is a rena of II) and Hand I'l, and it has been
proposed that co after or represented the same
sound; but a phonemic opposition betwccn 101 and
luI seems well cstablishL-d.
By lhe second centuIY Li.e. the ShOI' diphthongs all
(Ind IV were showing evidence of lhe reduction of
thcir second elemenl to n consonantal sound (w],
which closed to a bilabial fricative (Ill in By/..3ntine
times. TIlis corf(:spon~ to the known historical de·
velopment of these diphthongs from originallau eul
to lav fYl or Ia! 01 in modem Greek. Parallel onho-
graphic variations in Coptic suggest that Greek au
and tv may have been identified with Coptic ),yand
6'(, both arising frequently from contraction from
),O'y and coy, which also represented a vocalic plus
a consonantal element.
The simple vowels for the moM pal1 preserved
their classical Greek pronuncilltion, but itacism was
nlore advanced because of the nature of the Coptic
vowel system. in which then: were only three front
187
vowel phonemes con-csponding 10 the four Greek
front vowels. In addition, 11 seems to have been
hivalent. since throughout the Roman and Byzantine
pcriod~ it was confused sometimes with thc IiI
sound represented rnimarily by t and f:~. and some-
times with the IfI sound represented by f and ai, as
well as frequently with v. In Coptic, II occurred only
in accented syllables and was bivalent. In all dialects
it represented an allophone of /il before or after
SOlllllltS. In Bohairic, it also represented an allo-
phone or lac/.
The simple vowel represented by 1.1 W3.'i particular·
Iy utlstable. In the koine where the diphthong 0lI
camc 10 represent luI. 1.1 apparently represented the
Allic value Iy/. until it finally me'ied with IiI about
the ninth century A.D. The inten:hange or the sym·
boIs for Iyl and Iii possihly indicates the
ullrounding of the jyl and its merger with /iI ill
Egypt during Oytl\llline times. But the constant con·
fusion of v with other vowel symbols, especially 11,
suggests underdiffcrentiation of phonemes through
bilingual interference, since Coptic had no Iy/
sound. There ~ parallel inten:hanges of y with t
and II in Greek loanwords in Coptic.
There is also a rrequent interchange of a with f
and 0, mainly in unaccented syllables but occasion-
ally in accented syllables as well. This is also the
result of bilingual intetference. ror in no dialect of
Coptic were lhere more than twO phonemes con-e'
sponding to the thl'ee Greek phonemes repl'cscnted
by a, f, and o.
Finally. all quantitative distinction has been lost.
This in tum reflects a changc in the nature of the
Greek accent from pitch to stress, which came about
In Egypt, as generally throughout the koine, through
the transfer by nonnative Greck-speakers or their
own accentual patterns to their Greek.
The possibility of the influence of Coptic on the
phonology or the Greek of Egypt has long been rec-
ognized but usually not invoked to exp1t\in more
than isolaled phenomena in documents clearly ema·
nating from the Egyptian element of the population.
Ilut the evidence or bilingual interference in the
nonliterary papyri, ostraca. and inscriptiorui. espe-
cially from the Roman and B)'7.antine periods, i$ 5Q
elltensive that Coptic innuencc must have fairly per'
meated the Greek language in Egypt.
D1tIUOGRAPIIY
C7.er'mak, W. Dill Lolile der ugyplisclrCIl Sprtlche: EirlC
plwllclischc UtlIerslIl:lrl-lllg. Schriften der Al'beil~'
gemeinschafl der Agyptologen und Arrikanisten in
Wien 2. 3. Vienna, 1931-1934.
188 PRE-COPTIC
Gignac. F. T. "Bilingualism in Greco-Roman Egyp!."
In AClrs dll Xr Congres itrttmarional deJ !inguis/rs.
PI'. 677-82. Buchareu, 1970:1.
"The Language 0( Ihe Non·ute....lI'y Greek
P:1pyri." American SII/dies itl Papyr%gy 7
(1970b); 139-52.
__~. A Grammar of the Grerk Papyn' of the Romall
ami By<'amiflc Periods. Vol. I. Phurwlogy, Vol. 2,
Morphology. Tcsli e documenti per 10 sludio
del1'untichilA 55. Milan, 1976-1981.
Kahle. P. E. 8ala'jzah: Coptic TexIs from DeiI' eI-
Ba/a'fza/I in Upper Egypt, Vol. I. Oxford and Lon·
don, 1954.
Kassel'. R. "Prolegomcnes a un essai de c1assifica·
lion systemalique des dialec:les el wbdialcctes
Copies scion les crileres de 101 phonetiquc, I,
Principes ct lenninologie." M'l.seon 93 (198Oa):53-
112. " ... , n. Alphabets et sYSlemes phonetiques."
MIIShJ/I 93 (I98Ob):237-97. " ... , III. SYSlcmcs
or1hogrnphiqucs el categories diaiCCIaIes." Mluion
94 (198Ia):91-152.
_ _ . "VoyeUes en fooelion consonantique. con·
sonnes en ronction voealique. et c1assL'S de
phonemes en eopte." Bullelin de fa Soc/iIi
cNgyfllOlogie. Geneve 5 (198Ib):33-50.
-77' "Syllahation Tilpide 01,1 lente en copte. I, les
glides IiI et Iwl avec leurs COITesponclunls voeali·
ques 'Ii/' et '/u/, (et phonemes appalics ana·
logues)." Enc/wria II (1982):23~37.
Knudsen, E. E. "$aidic Coptic Vowel Phollelncs."
Acla Oriell/alia 26 (1961):29-42.
umbdin. T. O. "The Bivalcnce of Coptic Ela and
Related Problems in the Vocalization of Egyptian,"
Journul of NrQr Easttrn Studies 17 (1958):177-93.
Mayscr. E. Gramma/iJc du grirchischtn Pap)"1 QIIS flu
Ptoftmiirrui/. mit EinschlrlS,s du gltichu.itigen
Ostraka und der ill i(gyplell vrr(as.sten JII5Chriftell,
Vol. I. Lam· lIt1d Worlfehrr. L..cip'Lig. 1906. 2nd cd.
or Pt. I. EI"fei/ulIl; ulld Lautlehre. rev. ~Ian.~
Schmoll. Berlin. 1970.
SmieS1.ek. A. Some l/ypothtses COllcemillC II,,~ Prehis·
lOry oflhe Coplic Vowels. Mcmoircs de la Commis·
sion oricntaliste de l'Acadl!mie polonaise des sci·
cnces. Krnk6w, 1936.
Vergote, J. "Hel problecm van de Koine volgens de
lantste historisch.philologischc bevindingen." Phil·
oJogisd/c Smdle" 4 (1932-1933):28-32; 5 (1933-
1934):81-105; 6 (1934-1935):81-107.
Pho/lilique Itistorique de l'igyptien. fes oon·
SOtmes. Louvain. 1945.
"U!:s Dialcclcs dans Ie domainc ~ien."
ChrolllquC d'Egyplr 36 (1961):237-5\.
Grammaut coplr. Vol. la, I",rod'lctiall,
phcmetiqllr rl phOllologir. morphologie synlhtma-
tiql/c (struclurr des stmQtltemesJ. parrir syIlchro-
niqut. Vol. Ib,. _., purrir diachrcmiqur. Vol.
la, . , . , IIlOrphoiogic syulagmuliqur, $yll/ru:r. parlie
5)'1IChrouiqllt, Vol. 2b, ... , mCNpllOIagit synlagma-
tiqut, parlie diachrolliqur. Louvain. 1973-1983.
Worrell. W. H. C011/ic Sounds. Ann Arbor. Micho,
1934.
FRANCIS TIlO~tAS GIGNAC. S.J.
PRE·COIJTIC. This general terlll indicales dill'er·
cOl stages of seripl or'scripl rorms lhal to a greatcr
or lesser extent prepared or influenced the crclliion
of the Coptic scrip!. Since the usc or the Greek
alphabet is CSSClltial to the defillition of Coptic, it is
obvious that one must go back to the fu"St more 01'
less regular contacts belween Greeks and EgyptiaOli
-such as Ihe foundation of the Creek colony of
Naucratis in the T....'Cnly-Sixth Dynasty {se\'enth-
sixth century a.e)-to sean:h for the \-ery begin·
nings of Egyplian wriucn with Greek lellcn. Indeed,
Ihe lransliterntions or Egyptian proper names in
Greek tcxlS (CREEK TRANSCklI'11QNS) are the first
sceds or Pre·Coplic. But an occasional rendition or a
Greek namc in hieroglyphs can :llso be encountered,
such :IS JrkskJr.~ for Alexiclt:s (Ouacgebeur, 1976, pp.
SO-51; cf. de Meulellaere, 1966, PI'. 42-43). In thc
same period (Twenty·sixth Dynasty, sixth and sev-
enlh centulies D.C.) demotic script came into general
use in the administl-ation. Demotic scribes regularly
employc..-d phonetic, instcad of etymological. Or1hog-
raphics. l1lis phenomenon and its effcct on phonetic
or1hogrnphics in hieroglyphic merit Inore detailcd
S1udy (Ouaegel.>eur. 1980. pp. 68-69). Somc authors
even think that phonetic and, in p3r1icular, alphabel'
ic spellings in hieroglyphic tcxlS from late pharaonic
times onward are to be explained 3:'i tendencies 10-
ward simplification caused by the udvanUlges recog-
nized in the simple Greek script system (e.g.•
Brunner. 1965. p_ 767). But we must not ovedook
Ihat in this period Aramaic tel-ts too are known in
Egypt. All eumple is the notation of the word IIII'
(god) by means of Ihe uniliter;.I1 siglls II + I (com·
pare 110'('1'0) on lhe Naueratis Stelll (I. 5; Ncctanebo
1; cf. Uchlhelm 1980, p. 87. for bibliog....lphy).
From the late fatnth and carly third cemmics B.C"
when after the conqucst of Alexander the GI'eal
many Greeks scllied in Egypl, one finds an enol"
mous number or Egyptian proper names imcgralL-d
into Greek texIS. On the other hand, many Greek
M1throponyms, such as those or Llxmymous pricsts
and priestesses. were rendered alphabetically in de·
motic documents (Clarysse et at. 1982). In bolh
kinds or translitel1ltion a measure or systematizalion
occurs with local characteristics.

AJ)'lrt frum the custom of writing Egyptian proper
names In Greek documcnts in the alphabet used,
there sllrvivl'S evidence fronl Greco-Roman times of
a few isolatcd allcmpts to transcribe Egyptian gener-
ic names or somewhat longer tCJl,ts by making exclu·
sive usc uf thc Greek alphabet. In such cases. onc
speak.~ of I'IIFAtD COPTIC.
The last stage of Pre·Coptic. then, is oU> COPTtC.
From the lirst ccntury A.D. onward. atlempts to write
Egyptian (Late E&,yptian or contemporary vernacu-
lar) with Greck charactcl1'i to which were added a
.....rying number of supplementary sign... derived
from demotic became more numerous and more
systematic. Morcov{'r, it is inl{,re5ting to see that in
the same period demotic scribes were making (:\'('1'
greatcr U'IC of alphabelic orthographies (Spiegelberg.
1901, pp. 18-19; LiiddedclI!l, 1980, p. 256). Unique
cJ their kind are the demotic ostr.tCa of NannUlhis
(Madlnat M54!) from the second century .... 0 .• .school
exercises of a sort (Brcsdani et aI., 1983), in which
Creek is mixed "ith demode; not only arc Greck
words in Gl'l,ek script integrated into demotic texts.
but al'lO some attemptS arc made tu write native
\\lOrds in an alphabetical way, combining Greek and
demotic signs (I'cmigotli, 1984).
The trall!lilion from the Eg}ptian scriptS to Old
Coptic was fost{,l'l'd by cin:umstam::Cl;: finot uf aU.
mention should be made of Ihe decline of the tem-
ple scriptoria, which put an end 10 Ihe tradition of
complcx hieroglyphics and uf the difficult demotic
script, which was also uscd for religious, literary.
and scientific works. (The last hieroglyphic inscrip·
tion, found at Philac, dates fTum 393-394 A.D.: de-
motic sUlvivcs in graffiti at ]>hilae until the fifth cen·
tury, the last datcd cxample belonging to 452-453.
TIlis southcl'll center of the Isis cult was only closed,
by a dccrl'e of Justinian, in 550.) Further, it should
be bOl'Oe in mind that frolll Ptolclll;lic timcs onward
the belll'CI'S of the phnraonic heritage often knew
Greek or even had a Hellenistic education, as is
apparent from Greek tr'flnslutions of demotic litem·
ture.
The ub:mdonment of sueh 11 clmrllcteristic script
systcm implll!s a fundamental change in cultural tra·
ditions. (That is why the Le.xikou dcr ifgyplOlogie dOl'S
not devote M m·ticlc to the Coptic script.) The na·
tional language survives, but taintcd by a large num·
bel' of Greek words (sec VOCAUUU.RY, COP'rQ.GREEK).
The transition from thc demOlie to the Coptic Ian·
guage is difficult to date prl'Ciscly (Scthe, 1925;
Vergote, 1973. Vol. Ib, pp. 1-4). Nor is the relation
between the Coptic DtAu::crs and any dialectal differ-
entiation in the earlier, Pre-Coptie and in particular
PRE·COPTtC 189
Pharaonic, language phases definitely clear (Osing,
1974).
BIBLIOGRAPIIY
Bresciani, E.; S. Pemigolli; and M. C. Betm. OS/ra/w
demo/ici da Nanl/ll/i, Vol. I. Quade."i di Medinet
M.adi I. Pisa. 1983.
BnlOncr. H. "Dic altligwlische Schrifl.'· Stlldillnl
Gcntrole 18, flO. 12 (1965):756-69.
Clarysse, \Y.; G. van del' VeKcn; and S. P. Vleeming.
TI,e Epur'Y'"olls Priests of Pto/emait: Egyp/. Papyro-
logica Lugduno-Balava 24. Leiden, 1982.
De Meulenaere, I-I. "La lIl~re d'imouthes." Chro-
niqlle d'Egyp/e 41 (1966):42-43.
Gcssmunn, A. M. "The Birthdalc of Coptic Script."
Urciversity of Solllh Florida lAnguage Quarterly 14,
nos. 2-3 (1976):2-4.
Grapow. H. "Vom Hieroglyphisch-DemOlischen 7.um
Koptischen." Sill.UIll:~rit:hte der Prel/S$ische"
Akadcmie der W~llSChaflen, Plrilosophisch-
hi510rischc Kla$$C, 28 {1938):322-49.
Kassel', R. "Prol~olllenes a un CS$ai de cl:JSSifica·
tion systematique des dialCClCS el subdialectes
coptes scion Ics I;rithcs de la phonetique, I,
Principcs et tenninologie." Mljslou 93 (1980):53-
112. " ...• II, Alphabets et syslemcs poon{-tiqucs."
MI/~QIl 93 (1980):237-97. " ... , 111. Syst~mes
onhographiques et categories dialeclales." Ml/~o"
94 (1981):91-152.
Uchtheim, M. Ancierrt J:.):)'pliau !iteratllre, Vol. 3, The
l..ate PericxJ. Los Angeles and Berkeley, 1980.
Uiddeckens, E. "Agypten." In Die Spracl'el/ im
romisclleu Reich dcr Kaiscr;.eit, pfI. 241-65.
Bcihefte del' Bonnel' Jall1'bOchcr 40. Cologne,
1980.
Morenz, S. "Das Koptischc." In AgyplLo;cllc Spraehe
wrd Schrift: Halldbrlclr der Oriellla/i.~lik, pp. 241-
65. Leidc:n and Cologne. 1959.
Oslng, J. "Dialckle." In wikoll der Xgyptologie, Vol.
[, Lief. 7, pp. [074-75. 1974.
Pemigotll, S. "II 'Copto' degli ostl'll.ka di Medinet
Madi." In Alii del XVII COIrgn:S$o lulemllzjQul/le iii
Papirologia, pp. 787-91. Naples, 1984.
QUllegcbcur, J. "Dc Griekse weergave v:m kone
Egyptische dodenteksten." Phoenix 22 (1976):49-
59.
_,---_ "Une cpith~te meconnalssable de Ptah, Uvre
du Celltcllairc." M(!Ol()ires de /'Imtilut franfais
d'urcheologie orientale 104 (1980):61-71.
___. "De la prehistoire de I'ecriture cople." Ori-
cmalia Lowmiens;a PeriotJiea 13 (1982): 125-36.
Sethe, K. "D."\S Verh:iltnis :f.wischen Detllotisch und
Koptisch und seine Lehren fUr die Gcschich!e del'
agyptischen Sprache.'· leitscllrifl der dell/schen
lIIotgellliludischeu Gese/lschoft 79 (1925):290-316.
Spiegelberg, W. Aegyplische IIIld s:riechische £ige,,"
 190 PRE-OLD COPTIC
numen tms Mumiefletikel/ell del' romisehell Kaiser-
?I'il. Dernotische Studien l. Leipzig, 1901.
Vergote. J. Grammuire COplC, Vol. 1a. /Illrodlicliml,
phoncrique 1'1 phonologic, morphologic 5Y'llhcma-
lique (Slmelure des semanlemes), panic synchro-
mque, Vol. Ib, ..., parlie diachroniql-le, Lou...ain,
1973.
JAN QUI\EGEllEUR
PRE-OLD COPTIC. Pre-Old Coplic is a compo·
nent of PRE·COPTIC. more specifically the slagI' pre·
ceding OLD COJ"I'lC, II differs from Ihe Jailer prepara·
lory slagI' mainly in that no supplementary signs
borrowed from demotic were used 10 Irl\nslilel'llte
phonemes Chal did nOt exisl in Greek. GREEK TRAN·
SCRIPTIONS of propel' names had demonstrnted the
possibility of writing Egyptian in an alphabetical
script, evcn though a number of sounds could not
be rendered adequately. In Greco·Roman times
there are, in <lddilion 10 Ihe Gl'eek transcriptions of
proper names, a number of other allempts to render
Egyptian by means of the Greek alphabet. The aim
of these instances, which can be individually differ-
ent, is most of the time not very clear. But chI'
moti...e has to be dHrerenl from Ihat of the, usual
Greek tl'anscriptions of proper names integrnted in a
Greek context.
Fairly well known are a Heidelberg papyrus and a
graflilo from Abydos, hoth of the earlier Ptolemaic
period. A number of other eascs can be added, bUI
se...eral remain uncenain because of difficulties in
the interpretation. Here is a short sunoey:
(I) P. Hdd. in.... no. 414 verso (mentioned as P.
Heid. inv. 413 by Pack, 1965, no. 2157; the recto is a
grammatical treatise). extracted from mummy
cartonnage from el-Hiba (Teudjoi), is a list of Greek
words with their Egyplilln eounlerparts wrillen in
the Greek alphabet. Bilabel (1937, pp. 79-80), who
described a few extracts of Ihe text, dales it 10 the
middle of the third eenlury ll.C. Beel'luse this lext is
not well known (not inCOJTlOmted in Cel"Tly, 1976, or
Westendorf, 1977), the available data are presented
here: Af'l<6'vwv-xpwpt; aflVTJ-lWUpliW; II-lxxat{KZ-
UTi""; ~.tl}aXf!'l-ai'<M (the accentlike mark above the y
apparenlly indicated that the consonant did not cor'
respond exaclly to the Greek gamma, which equals
the Bohlliric ).60'\). The text now appears 10 have
been lost (Quaegebeur, 1982, p. 129, n. 18). Tn
Silabel's view, the Icxil:on itself reveals its purpose:
"Ocr Tcxt zeigt ... class auch in den Kreisen del'
hen-schenden Griechenschicht dllS Interesse an del'
aheinheimischen Sprache aus dem praktischen
BedOrfnis heraus bestand." On the other hand, it
cannot be ruled out Ihat it was a manual 1'01' Egyp.
tians 10 learn GI'Cek.
(2) Graffito from Abydos (Temple of Selhi I), edil·
ed by P. Perurizet and G. Lefebvre (1919, no. 74),
which is discussed by P. Lacau (1933-1934); new
edition with commentary in P. W. PestmMl el al.
(1977, doc. no. II). Of (he seven lines of Greek
lellers, only foul' can be interpreted with sufficienl
certainty. The interrupted first Jinc is repeated in filII
in line two. After the ..egnal year, given in the Greek
manner C'E'l"OIJ<;) Ii ( - 5), we read: nopw Y(J-yulI(l<P<'P
11-1/' EUlo 1'Op. OI!UloP~ JJ.T/' E~IIAaO"(wT7/P Tl'1'01W, which
is 10 be regarded as transcribed Egyptian: "Phal'aoh
Hyrgonaphor, belo...ed by Isis and Osiris, beloved by
Amuo, king of gods, the great god." B("C(lllSe this
phal'aoh is identified with the indigenous rebel king
whose name should be read 1;lr·wn·nfr (Clal1'sse,
1978, pp. 243-53), the graffito can now be exactly
daled 10 202-201 B,C, (Vandorpe, 1986, pp. 299-
300). Apart from the dating fonnula, the content of
the text is not clear. Yet it remains an imPOl1ant
historical and linguistic piece of e...idence, which
l'aises the question why a scribe would write sueh a
long Egyplian lext in GI'Cek characters. Was he an
Egyptian who could read and write Greek hut had
not mastered demotic script?
(3) Greek papylus urz I no. 79 (Wileken, 1927),
dated to 159 B.C.. known a.~ tbe dream of Ncklembes.
In a dream the latter is told (lines 4-5): </Ja4KfJIi m
wfJli1/€ •.. X/LlilllJ, .....fA ..lEA xatroll xa"" Though
the attempts 10 understand the lext by way of Egyp·
liM were unsuccessful, the editor wlites, "Dicsc bar-
barisehen Lautgruppen ... kUnnen naeh Lagc del'
Dinge nichls anderes sein als gl'iechisehe Transkrip-
tionen von ngyptischen W011em."
(4) Greek inscriplion from Hermopolis Magno. (aI-
Ashllllmayn) presenoed in Alexandria, Greco·Roman
Museum no. 26.050. The document was published
by V. Girgis (1965, p. 121) and again in 1'. W. Pest·
man 1'1 al. (1977, doc. no. 12). Thi.~ dedication by
priests of Thoth in honor of a .llra/ego;; is to be daled
at the end of the second or beginning of the lirst
century fl.C. After the name enY6 follows n n n
NOBZMOYN. If laken <IS Egyptian, this means
"Tholh, tlismegas, lord of Asbmunayn/Hennopolis."
Since it is the mime of a god followed by epithets,
Ihis example could be treated a.~ a special case
amoog the Greek tr.lI1scriptions.
(5) For Roman times two paltieularly interesting
mummy labels in the Louvre (inv. 532 and 550) arc
noteworthy; they contain the same demotic religious
fOl"TllUla in Greek transcription: A"X"/ fJwv Oll-/LU
OI!troPXOllffJJ.OllT I'OllTCAJ IIOP1/{Jwr, to be lranslated as
"May his ba [soul] li...e before Osiris, foremost in the

West, grcat god, lord uf Abydos" (Ouaegebeur, 1978,
pp, 254-55). Notwithstanding the synchronism (2nd
or 3rd century A.D.) wilh Old Coptic, this text be·
longs rather to the stage of Pre-Old Coptic because
of the exclusive use of the Greek alphabet. An inler-
esting feature is that J'QV1(W) - /lfr (3J seems to
com:spontl to the Akhmimic form HOyrrr6 (-
Sabidic HOyT6).
(6) Pcrhaps a Munich papyrus lIlay also be men-
tioned here, rep.rtled by the editor as a kind of
schoolbook (Spiegelberg, 1928, pp. 44-49) with
short demotic sentences, among which are per.;onal
names: for a few expressions, a Creek transcription
appears between the lines. Because of the use of
additional signs, making comparison pao;siblc with
the Old Coptic glosses, this item should rather be
treated as an example of Old Coptic.
(7) TIle deTflOlic ostraca of Narmuthis (Madinat
~), which an: essentially school exercises from
the second century A.D., als.o deserve special men·
tion. Besides using Creek names and words written
in Greek, they contain some attempts 10 render
Egyptian tenTIS by means of Greek lellers combined
with demotic signs.
(8) An uncel1ain instance from Ihe beginning of
the Roman period is P. IFAO III 34, dating to 32 R.C.
(Schwartz and Wagner, 1975), an extremely difficult
text of which, apart from the name of a prdect and
a few e1emenl.~ pointing to Greek, one cannot make
sense. Presumably, the scribe was a native who did
nO( know Greek very well at all. but the question
was put whether Egyptian was nOt inserted, wrinen
in Greek chal'Scters.
(9) Finally, the two lint'S (9-10) of text in P.
Hamb. II 187 (Morenl., 1959, p. 92, n. 1) from 246-
245 B.C. have wrongly been considered as Egyptian
lmnseribed in Greek characters, as was shown by E.
IItln 'I l)ack (1964, pp. 62-63). The two Oxyrhynehus
texts referred to in this edition (P. Hamb. II 167), p,
Oxy. 90 (not 40!). 11. 6-7, and 287 (second hand),
bolh rrom Roman time5, were rightly not interpreted
a.~ grcci7.ed demotic by thelr editol'li.
DIDLIOCRAPnY
Bilabcl, F. "Neue litemrisehe Funde del' Heidel·
berger Papyrus,o;ammlung." In ACles dll yo COllgres
fmerna/iollal de papyrologie, Oxford 30 a011l-3
septembrl /937, pp. 72-84, especially pp. 79-80.
Brussels, 1938.
terny, J. Coptic E/ymological Dicliollary. Cambridge,
1976.
Clarysse, W. "Hurgonaphor et Chaonnophris, les
demiers pharaons indigenes." Chroniqlle d'Egyple
53 (1978):243-53.
PROTODIALECT 191
Girgi~, V. "A New Stmtcgos of the Hcrmopolite
Nome." Milieill1ll8ell des dell/schell archilologischen
111stilWS, AbieiluII8 Kairo 20 (1965):121 and pI. 39.
Kassel', R. "ProMgomenes a un essai de c1assilica-
tion systematique des dialectes ct snbdialectcs
coptes selon les critcres de la phonclique, I,
Principes 1."1 terminologie." MIIStOIl 93 (1980):53-
112. " ... , II, Alphabe15 1."1 S}'5tcmes phonetiques."
Musiall 93 {198O):237-97. ".", Ill, Systemes
orthographiqucs Cl catcgories dialcclalcs." Mllsioll
94 (1981):91-152.
Lacau, P. "Un graffilo tgyplien d'Abyclos ecrit en
lellres grecques." Eilides de papyrologie 2 (1933-
1934):229-46.
Moren:!;, S. "Das Koptische." In Agyptis<:he Spn~che
lIlId Schri't: Handbllch der Orienla/wile, pp. 241-
65. Leidcn and Cologne, 1959.
Pack, R. A. The Greek and l.lItin Literary Texts from
Greco-Roman Egypl, especially p. 117. Ann Arbor,
Mich., 1965.
Pertlrizet, P., and G. Lefebvre. us Gra(fiJu grecs dll
Memnonion d'Abydos. Paris, 1919. Repr. as Inscri~
l;emu Graeclle Aet:YPti 1I1,Inscripti071u "Memnonii"
/ksGe Oracllfi ad Abydum Theb6iJis. Chicago, 1979.
Pestman, P. W.; J. Quaegebeur: and R. L Vas.
Reclleif de IUles dbnotiquu el bilinglles. Leiden,
1977.
Ouaegebeur, J. "Mummy Labels: An Orientation." In
Texles Uecs, dimoliques el bilill8l1es, pp. 232-59.
Papyrologica Lugduno·Batava 19. Leiden, 1978.
___ "De la prehistoire de I'ecriture capte." on-
enlalia Lcvaniensia PerioJictl 13 (1982): 125-36.
Schwartz, J., and G. Wagner. Papyrus grecs de
ntls/illll frallliais d'archiofogfe orientale, Vol. 3.
BibJiotheque d'etude 56. Cairo, 1975.
Spiegelberg, W. "Demotica II." In Si1vmgsberichle
der Barerischen Akademie der Wissenschaflen, Pt.
2, pp. 44-49. Munich, 1928.
VandoTpc, K. "The Chronology of the Reigns of
Hurgonaphor and Chaonnophris." Chrfmique
c/'Egyple 61 (1986):294-302.
Van 't Dack, E. "Coniccturac Papyrologicae." In
SWdien lW Papyr%g/e WId AliI/ken Wirtschafls,
geschichle Fr. Oerlel lim! 80. Gebllrlslag gewiclmel,
pp. 62-63. Bonn, 1964.
Wcstcndorl, W. Kop/isclzes Halldw/jrlerbuch, bear·
beilet auf Grund des koplischen Handw/jncrbllchs
'11011 Wilhelm Spiegdblrg. Heidelberg, 1977.
Wilcken, U. Urklmdell cler f'lofemUel7.eil, Vol. I. Ber,
lin and Leipzig, 1927.
JAN QUAEGEBEUR
PROTODIALECT, From the earliest time that its
existence is attested (before 3000 II.C.) until its most
re<:tJnt form, prior to its extinction as a living
tongue, the Egyptian language has evolved some·
what in its phonology. To be sure, while Ihis Ian·
192 PROTODIALECT
guage w.tS slill alive, Copcology had not yet been
born,50 that no phonologist pmsessing modem 5Ci-
entific skills could, by hearing the language pro-
nounced as it was spoken, note precisely ils articula·
tion. However, there ClIist thou!i3.nds of Egyptian
texis, both pharaonic and Coptic, thaI rei:ord the
exiS1C!tlCC of diverse 011hographlCll. If they <Ire sinmJ-
taneous, they arc considered dialectal orthographies
synchr'Onil:'llly. If they (Ire successive, they arc con·
sidered to IndlClllC v"rious evolution~n)' stages of the
h,"~u"ge.
Even though orthography is merely a conventional
system whh an essentially pr.lctical usage and then....
fore a system with ralher empirical founootiol1l:, and
though il is velY fdr from answering all theuretical
questions asked by phonologists and from satisfying
the concerns, curiosity, and needs of the researcher,
one cannot deny that or1hogru.phy has some C'"dpacity
tu inform one of the nature of a language's phonolo-
gy. This is p.1rticularly lrue eilher when the 1Iocabu-
lary of this language hM adopted lexemes of olher
languages whose phonology Is beller undel"Slood or
when 1Itnious lexelllCS of Ihe language in queslion
ha1le been cited, if not adopted, In texts from a
neighboring langu<lge with .. hetler·known phonolo·
gy. To (I certain extenl, such is the ca~e with pIHlr~\­
onic I!gypci:m and. to an even greater degree, Cop-
tic, because of lhe c10liC cllCxistence of Coptic and
Greek in Roman·Bywntille (!gypt, in which Ihe an·
tochthollous majorily who spoke Coptic were polili.
cally domin.1ted by the Helleni~ed minority, even
within lhe fl1UTlework of the imperial Roman admin-
istration. Thus, one finds many Egyptian proper
nouns n:an5Cribed into Greek, and vice versa, as well
as numcrous Greek word.~ adopted into Coplic, a
language whose alphabet is in fact mostly Greek (see
\lQCAOUUkY, COPT().GRF.F..K and ETYMOLOGY; also AtJ'tlA·
BET IN COrTtC, GREEK. and ALPHAIlETS. COrTIC).
The phonological evolution ubservable in Egyplhtn
before lire Cuplic era is Unf0l1unlllcly limited 10 con-
sonants since pharaonic writing exhibited no vowels,
In Coptic, on tbe other hand, the vowels were wl'it-
ten along with thc eonsonanlS. Concerning Egyptian,
one sbould not be sUl'ptised to observc some phono-
logical evolution, since the language can be analp:ed
today on the basis of texts covering more than three
thousand yean;, Coptic, however. existed for 5Carcely
a millennium, and even less if one stops ....ith the
epoch in which it ceased to be both prodUCli1le in
the literary field and truly living as a spoken Ian·
guage among Egyptians, surviving with difficulty and
increasing anificialily for severol centuries only
within the dosed and conliCrvalive ,nmeu of the
Coptic clergy. Consequently. one might expect to
observe no evolution within Coptic and to lK--C here
only one SIage, lhe single and final stage in the
evolution of the Egyplian language_ At most, by com·
paring the idioms of Coptic with ea<:h other. one
finds that some, IXlr1icularly Akhmimic (A) and
Bohairic (ll), have a phonemic invemory slightly
richer than cel1aln others, such a~ Sahidic ($), Lyco·
(Dios)polilan (L), Mesokemic (M), CtyPto-Mesokemic
(W), South Fayyumic (V), and F'ayyumic (/'1. Fur
cxafllple. A and 8 have retained phonemes such as
Ixl from pharaonic Egyptian, which classical Sand
L h..ve l~. This is, of course, an interesting phe·
nomenOn. But the phenomenon is even more re-
markablc when the presence and disuppcarance of
such a phonemc can be noticed in the documenls of
a single dialect, as it ellOlves from II formative archa-
ic stagc, relatively rich in phonemes. to a mure reo
cent, neutraliu.-d and impo\'erisht..-d slate.
Such obserwtions can also be made here or there
in the study of vowels (Kasscr, 1984, pp. 2461£.),
where the phenomenun remains stl'ictly confined to
CoPlic because pharaonic Egyptian texts exhibil no
written vowels. One must admit lhat, if one finds in
the same position and quality (I.e., long stressed,
ShOl1 Slresscd, unslressed) a greater variety of vocal·
ic usage, this is a sign of archaism. This vocalic
archaism i.~ frequcntly confirmed by consonantal ar-
chaic phonology (see below). Thus, for example, in-
sofar as final unstn.'SSCd vowels arc concerned. A,
lA, £5, M. and S have only one (-6). while 1.6 still
possesses two (-@ and -I), as do V and F (~ and ~).
F7 also has two (,1 and -J.). One could also say that B
retains two ('1 and g, that is, uro vowel, no vowcl at
all). Funher. one also sees IWO in pl"Olo-Lyco-
(Dios)pulitan (pl., -0 and "I) and in proto-Thcban (P,
-6 and 'J.), diak-clS whose consonantic inventory is
1Iery archaic (see beluw).
It can thus be observed Ihat almost all Coptic
dialecl~ hove auopted only one or the other of Ihe
two vowels -6 or ·1 in the unstressed final position,
the second tightl)' dosed and the first less closed or
more or les.~ medial. But the archaic P and F7 show
in that position a vefy open, UnSlre~ final vowel,
-J., an unusual and remarkable phenomenon in (0p-
tic.
The study oJ Egyptian phonological evolution re-
mains musl fruitful when dealing with consonants,
which have been tral1$Cribed over a period of ap-
proximately four thousand years. from the most an-
cient of pharaonic texts 10 the later Coptic docu-
ments. In fnct. the result of such an analysis can be
a synoptic table like that published by Vergote

(1945, pp. 122-23), whieh expanded Worrell's study
(1934). As far as Coptic is concerned, however, this
lable shows only synchronic and interdiak-ctal differ·
ences, cxcept in the cases of silencing (disappear.
ance of phonemes).
Nevenheless. somc thiny ~rs later, Vergote
(1973-1983, Vol. la, p. 57) di5Covered some rare
archaic documents in Coptic that aUl'S! and manifest
the existcnce of a "proto-Subakhmimic" or rather
(in present Coptological tcnninology) "proto-lyco-
(Dlos)polit:m" (St:c OIAWC"T I and Kasser, 1990), and
of a "proto-Sahidic" (according to Vergote's tenni-
nolegy, now rather to be considered II "proto-
Thelmn" very similar '0 some reconstn.lcted "proto·
5ahidic": see DIALECT P and Kusser, 1990), sigla
respectively pI. and 1', These renmrkllble idioms had
conserved up to lhe IhirJ-founh centudes two pho·
ncmcs that can reasonably be considered archaic in
the Lyco-(Dios)politan cluster, allu also in compari·
sian with Sahidic. Slill surviving in pl. and P, they
have disappeared from L. and also cannot be found
in S. The first is lxI, which is derived from h • IxJ
(rarely from ~ • IxJ). The second is the phoneme
1f;/, which is the principal intennediate fonn in the
evolulion that suns with,! • IxJ and finally ends at
I!/ in all Coptic dialects, except for Akhmimic (A),
which has Ixl in its place. This Ixl is apparently
kkntical to the Ixl deri\'ed from /xlI. Therefore,
even within Copdc, in the conson.1nts there is a
small segment where a modesc but significant pho-
nological evolution in the Egyptian language can be
observed.
Present terminology is thaI of l<asscr (198Oa, pp.
109-111), woo called prolo-Theban (considered
more pn.'Cisely a kind of proto-Sahidic) and prolo-
Lycopolitan "prolodialects." When, through the very
rare discovery of archaic teJtlS, protodialeCls oppear
in Coptology, lhe pr'Otodialect exisL~ a.~ an entity logi.
cally nnterior to the Coptic "dialects" th"t hllve been
defined and named al:cording to the habiluol and
tradition"l cI'iterin. It is anterior not exal:tJy in the
same way that a father is anterior to his son, but as
someone of the father's gener'Jtion, pcrimps the fa·
ther's brother or cousin, is logically anterior to the
father's son. Concerning Ihe dialt.'Cts, their characler
as "dialects" came to be recognized because their
differentiating tr.aces were observed throughout the
known Coptic texts. Furthermore, these dialects I-ep-
n:scnted, each in ilS own way, the state or the pho-
nologkal evolution of the Egyptian language in the
various regions of the country. This held true during
the entire Coptic era, or at least for A., L, M, W, v,
and poMibly F until they were smothered by S.
PROTODlALECT 193
Then.fore, in contrast to these various idioms in
general. but lIIore particularly in contrast to Land
also S, rt'$J)CCtivcly, pruto-lycopolilan (PL) and
pruto-'J1K.'ban (P) are called "protodialects." A spe-
cific procodialect of B. F, V, W, 1.1, or A. may yet
come to light, should new tc::xts be discO\'cred with
such archaic phonological features.
Concerning L and also S, it is known that Ihesc
idioms lost Ir;! and cven Ix! at the telmination of a
well·known phonological evolution: the majorily of
xJ> 1.;1 > IiI, while Xl> linked to a rninorlly of xJ , >
/xl > Ih/. Consequently, it is the sulVival of 1..;1 and
Ixl in pL and I' very similar to some rc<:onstnlcted
"prOIO'S:lhidic") thai makes lhe fonner a pmto-
dialect of I. and lhe latter a protodi;dect thai
looks very like a tentalively reconslructed proto,
dialect of S, pL in the reSI of its phonological
system being vcry Lycopolitan :md I' being more
often than not identical with S. In A. and IJ, on the
olher hand, one can see in the ma....~ of their manu-
scrip's from each period thatlxl was always present,
so that this phoneme plays a role in Ihe definition of
A and 8 as dialects and has nothing of a
protooialcctal stage.
A protodialect, therefore, can exist only in rela·
tionship to a dialecl to which it is extremely similar,
if not kkntical, in most of ll.~ phonological traits.
This dialect, however, shows a phonological evolu·
tion in somc pn.-eisc point-almost always in ilS
consonants-away from its prolodialect. This 1)'pC of
relallonship of protodialcct to dialect is also that
which cxists, in a reversed sense, between a dialect
and a MeTADlAI.ECT, with this lalter showing a state of
evolution poslerior to that of the dialccl to which it
cOlTCsponds.
For rea.~ns tied to the status of the present knowl·
edge of Coptic, which is based on documentation
known to lhe present day, the prcsence or absence
of 1f;/-or even 1x.1 in a dialect Olher' lilan A Of
a-in lhe gmphicophonological systcm of one of the
vllrieties of the Coptic language forms the only cel'·
tain criterion lhat will permil one to dislinguish be·
tween a Pl'OlOOilllecl and a dialect.
A.~ fOI' the age of these protodialeclal doculllenlS.
one will nOle 11},1t Ihey are among the mOSI ancient
Coptic manuscripts, an observalion thaI S(.'CmS logi-
cally normal, However, occasionally a cenain "din·
lectal" document will slightly predate a particular
"procodialectal" document (just as the father's son
may be, in certain cases, a little older than his uncle
or some relati\'e from his father's gcncnttton), indio
cating that the protooialect sul'\'ived in one region of
Egypllonger than in another, And when it vanished,
194 $AHTDIC
its disappearance would probably be progrcssivc,
wilh a certain pcriod of contcmporaneous usage of
the protodialcct by the conservativcs and of thc dia-
lect by the innovaton; in the same area (sec
lANGUAGE(S). COPTIc).
It will be instructive here to borrow some compo-
nent parts ITom the synoptic table of Vergote in a
slightly modified order, adapting and illustrating
each one with an example and choosing in particu-
lar thosc components that are useful in the defini.
tion of a protodialcct.
The abbreviations and adaptations employed are
as follows: for periods, MK - Middle Kingdom, NK
'" New Kingdom, pC - Saitic and Greco·Roman (or
prolO·Coptic) period, C - Coptic period; for dialects,
L .. A2 of Vergote; S ... - S, F, and its subdialccL~,
as wcll a~ M and V, which were still unknown to
Vet'gote in 1945; L ... within the pC period. pl.
(and through P a reconstructed' pS). Without postu-
lating or defining any phonological difference be-
tween them, two varieties of 11.)1 will henceforth be
distinguished here: the major fonn whose evolution
wa~ 1r;1 :> lsi in L ... is 11.))/; and the minor form
that evolved into Ihl in L . .. is 11.),1.
(MK) IJ :> (NK) IJ :> (pC) Ihl :> (C) /h/; for exam-
ple, lJ~r :> zK,O L, S ... , B, A, to be hungry.
(MK) h :> (NK) h :> (pC) Ihl :> (C) /hI; for ellam-
pie, hb > tQll'. L, S ... , B, A, thing.
(MK) x) > (NK) Xz :> (pC) 11Il! [A), 11.1 L ..• , (B)
:> 11.,1 A, 11.1 B, but /hI L, S , .. ; for ellample,
!!nw ~" B, P (and a reconstructed ·pS), lOY"
A, pL, but 2QyN 1.., S ... , inside part.
XJ • (MK) XJ1 > (NK) XJ1 > XI - (pC) 11Il! [A], 11.1
L ... , [B]:> IXll A, 11.1 B but /hI L ... ; for
example, 'n~ WN,!) B, W.L,!) P and a reconstruct-
ed 'pS, wNi A (and pL through ~ pl.), but
0l1G" L, S ... , to live.
Xl - (MK) XJJ > (NK) XJJ :> (pC) 1r;1 L . .. , [B],
but IXJlI [Al, then (pC) lroll•. .. , [B] > (C) /Sf
L, S.,., B, and (pC) Ixlll [A] > 11.1 A; for
example, ~pr > 'Ol1l6 P and a reconstructed
'pS), .owno pL, [etc., and Ir;Opil pB] > 1I,lW116 S,
L, lIIOO6 M, II,lWfIl W, V, F, B, but [/x6p:l1 pAl >
IQlIW A, to become.
SAHIDIC. Saltidlc (siglum S) is a major Coplic
(MK) I > (NK) I > (pC) lsi> (C) Is/; for exam-
ple, sp, IQGlIl L, S ... , B, A, to receive.
[See also: Dialect i: Dialect P.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cerny, J, Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge,
1976.
Edel, E. "Neues Material zur Herkunft del' auslaulen·
den Vokalc -(l und -I im Kopti~chen." Zeitschrill
fiir agyplische Sprachl' und Altertwnskutlde, 86
(1961): 103-106.
Kassel', R. Papyrus Bodmer VI: livre des Proverhe.~.
CSCQ 194-195. Louvain. 1960,
___. "Prolegomcncs a un essai de classification
systematique des dialectes et subdialecles coptcs
selon le~ cliteres de la phonctiquc, I, Principes et
terminologie," MW'eon 93 (1980a):53-112. "... ,
II. Alphabets el systcmcs phoncliques." MU.~eml 93
(1980b):237-97, "... , III, Sysleme.~ orthographi·
ques ct categories dialectales." MI1Siiol1 94
(1981):91-152.
_--,-_. "Orthogt1lphc et phonologic de la varicte
subdialectalc lycopolitaine des testes gnOSliques
cuptes de Nag Hammadi." Museon 97 (1984):261-
312.
_,--_. "A Standard System of Sigla for RefetTing to
the Dialects of Coptic," Journal of Coptic Studies I
(1990); 141-151.
u'cau, P. "Fragments de l'Ascension d'Is'I'ie en
copte." Museon 59 (l946}:453-57,
Polotsky, H. J. "Zur koptisehen Laullehre I." Zeit-
schrif/ fiir agyplische Sprache und Altertumskun(/e
67 (1931):74-77.
Vergote, J. Pholletiqlle historique de /'iigyptien, les
cml.~mmes. Louvain, 1945.
--7' "Le Dialecte copte P (P. Bodmer VI: Pro·
vcrbcs), essai d'identification." Revue d'cgyplolo(;ie
25 {I973):50-57.
_-'--' Grammaire caple, Vol. la, In/roduction,
phonitique et phonologic, morphologie sylllhbna·
tique (structure des sema"li!mes), partie sy"chro·
nique, Vol. Ib, httroductio", pholletique 1'1 phono·
logie, morphologic synthiimatique (slnlcture des
semanti!mes), partie dia~'hronique, Vol. 20., Morpho.
logie syntagmatique, syntaxe, par/ie sym:hronique,
Vol. 2b, Morphologic symagmatique, partie
diochro>liqlle. Louvain, 1973-1983.
Vycichl, W, Dicticmnaire etymologique de la Imlgue
copte. Louvain, 198],
Worrell, W, H. Coptic Sounds. Alln Arbor, Mich.,
1934.
RO\)()U'ltH KASSI!R
dialect, carlier known as Upper Egyptian, Theban, or
the soulhern dialect; the teon "Sahidic:' used by
Athanasius of QU!f, was adopted by Stern (1880). In
twentieth·century Coplology, S has been the main
dialect of study and research-indeed Coptic par
excelltmce, today totally supplanting BOHAtRIC in this
respect (compare, fOt' instance, its precedence in
Crum, 1939, to that of Bohairic in Stern, 1880). This

procC$!i, virtually complete by 1915 (d. Erman.
1915. pp. 1801".), lIlay be said to have been initiated
by Steindorffs grnmmar of 1894; yet nOle early state-
ments ravoring Sahidic as "older." "richer:' and
"purer" (Stem, 1880, p. I; Sethe, in Kahle, 1954, p.
202), and "magis rt'gularis atque ad analogiam
ellacta" (Peyron, 1841, p. ltilt), the earliest observa-
tion of its relatively innovating, leveling nature. In·
deed, thc repulation of S as "old," or at least
"older" than 8ohairic. Is due rather to ilS early doc-
umentation and its chronologkal precedence over
Bohairic, which replaced it as the COptic koine, than
to typological mel.
Stliithe prestige or sahidic Is ccrtainly justified by
Its rich litcrnture, both original and trnnslated, scrip·
tuml and nonscriptural (homilctic, patristic. monas·
ti.:, Gnostic, nlugical, poelic), religious and nonreli·
gious (epistolary, documentary, legal, medical).
Sahidil: was probably the fll"St Coptil: dialect into
which the Scriptul'es were translated, apparently in
the third century; by the fourth. the trnnslation wa..~
completed. Almost all original Coptic literature was
written in Sahidic (sec ANTONY OF EGYPT. SAt"": rACHO-
MtLlS. SAINT; SIlEN1JTE. SAtNT). By the ninth century, S
had become the official dialecl of the Coptic church.
but as early as the fourth century, perhaps even
earlier, it was a common Pan-Egyptian written liter·
ary dialect, spread at least from Heliopolis to ..\swan.
In subsequent centuries, it completely replaced the
minor dialects (A, L. M) as a colloquial idiom. By the
time of the ARAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT. S was the sole
literary dialect beside northern Bohairic. From the
niOlh century onward, S gradually receded before
Bohairic, a process much aecc1cmted from the elev-
enth century on.
Sahidie occupies "a position apart From all other
dialects" (Polotsky, 1970, p. 560) in that, first, it is
"neutral" (Worrell, 1934, p. 73; Kahle, 1954, p. 241)
or, better, most leveled, di:\leClOlogically speaking; it
Is the diAlect most difficult to characterize distine·
tlvely, a "mean" dialect, the one with the fewest
exclusive tmits and the most isoglosses shared with
OIhers. Second, it raises (I) the t1iachronic, nonde·
seriptiv!: question of its local origin and "proper
domain" (the statement by Athanasius of Q~ that
Sahidic is "the dialect of Mil;r" is not helpful here)
Ilnd (2) the synchronic question of its integration in
the overall dialcclOlogical scheme. Question I is
controversial: Worrell (1934, pp. 6811".) considered its
initial range to have been O'lyrhynchus and the low-
er valley (his "region IV" or perhaps an area even
more I1Or1herly); Vergote (1973b, Vol. la, pp. 2f.)
and Kasser (19803, pp. 10311".) suggested it spread
SAHIDIC 195
southward from around Saqqara·Memphis (perhaps
WOlTell's "region II"); Polotsky (1970, p. 561) con-
sidered Thebd as a possible point of origin. Rather
extreme appear Kahle's thesis (1954, pp. 256ff.) ten·
tatively identifying its point of origin in Alexandria,
and Schcnke's denying Sahidic any oriainal local
basis, considering it to be a Imine type of idiom born
out of eonl:l.ets, interaction, and leveling of local
dialects (1981, pp. 349ff.); Vcrgote's conception
seems to be the most plausible.
In any case, the eharacteri:rotion, still encoun-
tered, of Sohidic as "artificial" to a degree is descrip-
tively irrelevant. It is true that standard literary
Sahidic is largely "a gift" of the translation of the
Bible (and in this sense many lite I'll!")' languages are
"artificial") and that Sahidic probably owes its dms·
tic expansion to the progressive suppression of dis·
tinetive phenomena. What specific traits Sahidic has,
it shares most usually with Akhmimie and Subakh-
mimic in contrast to Bohairic and Fayyumie. ("Mid-
dle Egyptian" really occupies a roughly middle posi·
tion between the hYO dialed clusters.) This is, how-
ever, r'I() more than an impression and may be
proved erroneous by a precise investigation,
Although standard, or "pure:' Sahidic is more of a
construct, an idealized average, a research poilll de
re,nre than linguistic reality, some varieties of the
dialect approach 11 more closely than others (see
below); Sahidic is a Mi5chdiall'lct, an aggregation of
Iinguislic habits only imperfectly alld variously
Sl:l.ndardUed (d. Mink, 1978, pp. 911£.: his statement
that "die Annahme von Dialektcn ist ... sprachwis-
senschaftlieh ein Konstrukt" is especially cogent
when applied to Sahidic). However, extreme cases of
"tainting" (e.g., by Fayyumic, Bohairic, Subakhmi·
mic) must be specially treated. The dialect P, docu-
mented In the Papyrus Bodmer VI text of Proverbs
published by Kassel' (1960), is held by Vergote
(1973a, p. 57) and Kassel' (1980a, pp. 62ff.) to be a
"protodialect of sahidic," with non-sahidic [fheban
or Subakhmimlc) traits; according to Nagel (1965),
it reprt'senlll early Theban.
I. Standard Sahldlc
I.l Phonology, Morphophonology, lind Ortbo!-
raphy. As a rule, S agrees with Bohairie in points of
vocalism, while sharing its eonsonantism with A-L
-according to Kasscr, in a way renectina an evolu-
tive scale (sec Vergote, 1973b, sec. 60 p. 58, and
Kassel', 1981, sec. 25, for lists of "isopOOnes").
1.1./. Sahidic has no aspirate phonemes; 9, +,
and
x are (in native words) monogram graphemes repn:-
196 SAHIDIC
senting a combirnttion of two phonemes. (They may
have a different standing in the system of CI-eek·
origin phonology.)
1.1.2. Sahidic has only one unvoiced laryngeal spi-
rolnt (2 Ihf).
1.1 J . .x and 6 represent distinct phonemes (vdo-
palatal or palatalu.ed SlOp and alveolar affricate. re-
SJX.'Cti\-dy, .x6 and 66, as in XlD, say, and GC.I, reo
main).
1.1.4. Sahidic has at least one laryngeal stop pho-
neme (lXI - Vergotc's and Kasscr's rf), sym;:hroni.
cally suprasegmental: "(proneness to) vocalic redu·
plication." Its distribution is complex (see Satzinger,
1979), Wilh the allophones "1.ero" (e.g., nonsyllilbic
/X! in the final position and pausal junctive: MU,
lnllh) and ~ (syllabic, pl'elOnic !X/: nHO, infOlm).
In P, lhe Im)'ngeal SlOP hns Its own spomdic glouph-
CIUC (J.).
1./.5. In Sahidic Iher'C Is no pro~res:;ive sibilanl
assimilation to 1'101 (cuNij", make live, nourish), bUI
progressive sibilant assimilation to 11.'1 does lake
place (~)"x6, speak).
1.1.6. Sonorants (fbI, III, Iml, Inl, and Irf) c1os·
ing the tone syllable are graphically "reduplicated:'
occurring in two neighboring syllables as syllnbic
and nonsyllabic (onset): 2'1"10, plow; 2no, old;
cR"I't6, report; KIfH(!, be fat; 1"f?CJ, new.
1.1.7. The Sahidic vowel in the unstressed syllable
(after PolOlSky, 19]]) is outlined in Tablc I.
J.J .8. Stressed ~ represents the allophone of 101
before IhI and /XI <R"U2, be paincd; Tu., ten thou·
sand). In similar prelaryngeal environments, 6 rep-
resents lal (c661:)e, be left over; 2fI, way).
1.1.9. Orthography (see in exhaustive dctail
Ka....<;el·, 198Oa). Diagroms: 61, &y. Monograms: 0, t,
x, " t. 1'""¥Te, God, is not included among the
TAULI! I.
PRI;'TONIC
FIN.... L No SoNORANT,
SONOIlANT INITI .... L
SoNORANT STRESS SVLUr.BI.F.
INtTIAL
SoNORANT
•
"""'"
HOK"<K
(var. H)
"""~
IIomitlD $(Jcra abbn.-viations.. Thc :wpcrlinear stroke
QCCUI"5 above one or more nonvocalic clements, sig-
naling thcir syllabic phonological status (nO! their
phonetic value or manner of actualization: see
PolOlsky, 1957a, pp. 22Iff., 1971, pp. 227f£.). Proclitic
pl'OSOdk; relative wcalrncss is fully reflected in the
standard orthogrophy: see 1.3,7.
1.2 Morphology (Sy.t~mlc and Nonsyslcmlc)
and Word Fonnallon.
',2,1. It superficial vocalic ~'merger of Ihe four
conveners (G- eire., (l. second present, H6. preterile,
6'1'(6)' relative) is characteristic of sahidic; of these,
lhe fi~t two are actually homonymous. The relative
and second pelfcct forms arc not homonymous in
the heM standard onhogrophy (0l'IT'~' versus 1l'T-~"
I'espcctively); the second penect may be further eir·
cUlllslnntilllly convened (o·1l'T·),·: Polotsky, 1957a,
pp. 232ff., 1971, p. 2]2, 1960, sec, 1 lobs., e.g., Mt.
20:28 and Ecd. 19:15).
1.2.2. The Sahidic fulure tense is the extendcd
bipal1itc ttu.CQlTR; the so-called third future (6'16-/
lfN6'1') is a mode rather than a tense (cf. Polol-'lky,
1950, pp, ]4ff., 1971. pp, 219ft) and has vcry limitr..od
convenibility (unly cire. of the negative base:
Polot.sky, 1957a, p. 233, 1971, p. 2]], 1960, pp. 400.
401, 1971. pp. 246ff.). Ttll'~' is a special second·
peo;l)n singular feminine future fonn.
1.2J. The S conjuncti\'e presuffixal base consists
of a nasal (Jf) and no dental, except for the first·
pel'$On singular (1fT~-, KT~-). The conjunctive is in S
a tonjugalion fonn apan, standing midway between
the tripartite and bipartitc pattcrns, with ll- (pre-
nominally R"Te·) marking the modifier status of a
nexus of (pro)noun and infinitive; mO'llhologically,
this special stalUS is manifested in the pronominal
clements, which are (with a single exceplion in the
POSTTONIC
Al-Tt!1l. CWSIID AfI"rER OI'1i.N
Sl'Il.ESS SVLUr.UU:
No SONORANT, 1NlTI.... I.OIl. NO
FlN....L Fl""- SoNOItAN'T
SONORANT SoNORANT
(var, 6)

first singular) identical wilh lhe bipartile actor pr~
noun~ (prefix pmnouns).
/.2.4. Tl.f(l'ICuTR, the causative or "fulure" con-
junctive, a specific postimperalive, postinlerrogalive
form with a lirsl ~ingular causation or guaranlee
5Cme (Pololsky, 1944, pp. Iff., 1971, pp. 1061£.), is a
lypically Sahldic form. The causalive infinilive is
11!ied as a noncausative "lhat" form after st.·vcral
prepositions {bot less usually after olhers}.
/.2.5. Sahidic clnploYl' a ...pcc:ific "temporal"
clause conjugillioll, lripartile pallern form
{JfT6f6'I(1fJ)Cu'I1{} distinct from the second and rei·
alive perfect fol'll15.
1.2.6. The negatived conditional conjugation form
h:u in Sahidic two variants (alternants). namely
6"I:t).lfJffCGTf{ and o,""CVl1l.
1.2.7. It. special prenominal allomorph of all con-
\'ertcl1i and some tripartite conjugation bases is char-
acterUcd by the ending -ro.
1.2.8. Verbs of Greek origin occur in Sahidic in a
Ur<Hitem fonn (usually identical with the Greek im-
peouive) and are directly incorponued in the conju·
gation and generally grammatical fonns without
the intermediation of an auxiliary: ),,,"ICT6yt.l,
ll6"nIH6rrol, lOHl)l.0f'61 (imperative/infinith'C).
/.2.9. The verb t, give, has in S two impcrali~,
t and 1'1), (Polotsky, 1950, pp. 761£., 1971, pp. 21\ ff.).
J.2.IO. Pn:momlnals: Sahidic ha.'i a ternary deter-
minalion catc..-gory-definite, indefinite. and zcm
(In), (oy-), fJ-} determinators, expanded by noun
lexernes. The lll'oclltic form of the demonstrative ,..,
namely 111-, has (wherever dislinct from nm-, the pro-
c1itic a.llomol'Ph of n),)) affective and specially desig.
native value (Polotsky, 1957a, pp. 2291£., 1971, pp.
231lT.).
1.2.1/. Numbers are expl·es....ed a.'i a rule by num-
ber words, not letters (e.g.. Acts 23:23).
J.2.12. TIle fil'llt.peI'Son singular suffix-pronoun -I-
has the allomorph~ .),. (lfN.),., Tf-),') and ·T (ali object
of infinitivcs following a consonant 01' IX! or prepo-
shions in similar environments). The second,pcrllon
singular feminine suffix·pronoun consiSlS of the all~
morplis -0'/-ro nncl' conjugation bases .fj./-/J-!-TIJ as
object of infinitives. The second-person plural suffix-
pronoun consislS of the allomol'phs 'TN- and ·T6Tl'f·.
The third·person plurnl suffix·pmnoun is nonsyllabic
after 'ff"Q., TfO-, II(J' (possessive article). A special
objeclive prolloull·par'adigm is charncterized by the
third'person plural tenn -CfJ/<OY. (Thili paradigm
occurs moslly after allother pr'onoun, e.g., as pro-
nominal object of the po$Session verboid oyl'fn,,..)
1.2.13.61"- forms in Sahidie lexical (nongrammati-
cal) action noUllS.
$AHIDIC 197
1.3 Syntagmatlcs and Pro.cdy.
J.3.1. Focalization patterns: The second ten~e focal·
izes in Sahidic not only adverbial~ bUI also aclor and
object (pl'O)nouns, and may even be aUlorocal, thaI
i~, with the verb lexeme or prcdicalive adverb iL'ielf
the infornliltion focus (see POlOlsky. 1944, pp. 5Uf..
1971, pp. IS5ff., 1960 !>Cc. 32 01»., \971. pp. 408ff.,
as in Lk.. 20:13, Cltu.r oy, "What shall I do?"; Sir.
5:4, lfr).()y ....M tu.i", "Whlll has Ilappelled to me?";
Acts 12:15, Efe.\Of.fJ, '"Thou an mad"; Pli. 67:28,
!J"4R"H.l.y, "Ibi est"). The clefl senlence wilh (pro)--
nominal focus (wdclIe; PoloL,ky, 1962) ha.'i the fonn
"{pro)noon·I\OT- (elc.)." with the glo~ marker 11-
tending 10 be invariable, and omissible only after a
penonal-pn,llloun focus (Polotsky, 1962, p. 420,
1971. p. 421).
1.3.2. Nominal syntagmatics: The nominal expan·
sian of a noun syntagm is effected by Jf./JrTfj. regu-
hued by the delerminalion of the nuclear noun andl
or other expansions thereof, apparendy with no lexi·
cal considerations involvc..-d.
I.J.3. ·HN· is limited to coordinaling non-7.ero-
delenninalcd nouns: the range of ),y.l is accordingly
eXlended. (Zero-determinale<! nouns are coordinaled
by mean.'i of -1:'-.)
J.J.4. After converters, an indefinile or zcro-deter-
minated aelOl' noun does not necessarily condition a
fY>(Tf-/H'ff- allolagm of the bipartilc pallelll (Polotsky,
1960, sec. 21 and 35).
JJ.5. Final clauses are expressed hy lhe conjunc-
tions .xG, .xOKl.()')C followed by fUlure III or the
second fulUre (cire. negalive fulUI"C III following
.xl>KUC: PoIOL~ky, 1957a, p. 2lJ, 1971, p. 233) and
nOI by means of the. conjunctive (whiCh does, how·
ever, resume .x6K).),C after an interposition; Lefort,
1948). The S cOlljuctive occurs ,Ifter a limited num-
Del' of conjunctions (the consecutive ~'6 and
HllltwC [H\lIIOTO), both of Greek origin) and docs not
usually funclion as a "thut" form or expund imper'-
sonal verb predications (Stern, 1880, p. 275, sec.
445).
I.J.6. Thc poSSeSSiOll'PI"Cdiealillg oyNT),'I and
HRT),« have in Sahidic verboid status-thlll is, par·
take of all syntactic properties of vCI'btll pr"Cdictltians
(conjugal ion ronns): lhe 11OsseSSIirt/ may be ex-
prcliSed pronominally a.~ an object adj."lcent of the
pronominal possessor (Acts 3:6, 116T6oylfTJ.I«, "that
which I htlve": sce ibid., sec. 316).
J.3.7. PrO!iOtly: Prosodic proclilie weakness is con'
sistently reflecled in the standard S orthography (sec
Ermtln, 1915: oylf'/HJf-; )'Hl""-,fR'r1( ... ; 1I6Y';
oyNT'f-: ct-; etc.). The relative converter joins in
Sahidic in close juncture with the convertc..-d eonju·
198 SAHIDIC
gation form (e.g., Lk. 12:5). Vowel reduplication oc-
curs sporadically in monosyllabit;, final.laryngeal
words before an enditic (0,,"66 116; Poiolsky, 1957a,
p. 231. 1971, p. 232, 1957b. pp. 3481£., 1971, PI'.
390ff.).
1.4 Lexicon. As a rule, Sahidic shares lexical iso-
glosses at least wilh Akhmimic and/or Lycopolitan
(or Subakhmimic), such as &cI)Q)pe, push, protrude.
(This, however, may be refuted by further, more
sophisticated invesligation.) Lexemes not oecuning
in Bohairic seem rdatively more common lhan ex-
clusive S + 8 oncs (e.g., lIjlCIHIloGfl, wound; BQ)I<., go;
TGJK, throw; :!GIN, approach; I_Nfl, tum; KIDMiij',
sneer; ()yGl(ijT, answer; ~ (particle), on the other
hand; XOOY'T'R"liOOy, send). Relatively few conjunc-
tions of Greek origin arc found in Sahidic.
2. Varieties of Sahidic
2,1 Classical, or Scriptural, Sahldlc. As a lule,
elassical Sahidic conforms to the standard described
above. However, more-precise scanning is called fOl"
in this case, differentiating between the Old and
New Testaments, between various pans thereof, and
even between the v(nious manuscripts. Sahidie
boasts more early (fourth or fifth century) manu-
script sources than any other dilliect of Coptic, and
in this corpus many idiosyncrasies arc observable,
which may be subsumed together under the heading
of "early Sahidic." The grouping of manuscripts in
this catcgory is helpful: the British Library
Deuteronomy-Jonah and Psalms (Budge, 1898,
1912); the Bodmer Papyri, complemented by Ches-
ter Beatly and University of Mississippi fragments
(Kasser, 1961, 1962. 1964, 1965) with linguistic in-
troductions (note the forms NAEI, Nr).p; HR·, with;
the rarity of the preterite relative prefix 6p-, Dt. 4:42;
IOtal assimilation of na<;als to sonorants; omission of
nasals, etc.); the Turin Wisdoms (de Lagarde, (883);
the Berlin Psalter (Rahlfs, 1901); and recently the
Palau Ribes Gospels (Quecke 1972, 1977; note the
idiosyncrasies pointed out in the editor's extraordi-
nary introductions: HR_, MJo.'!- (negative aorist).
TIU'lOY second-person pluml object, variation of 6T6-
- 6T6pE', T6'!· - Tf6'!, sporadic omission of adverbi-
al If· (TtJyrroy, 0., O)'dlT), even some special
lexemes). Sec in general Kahle's (1954, p. 233) di.~·
cussion of this kind of manuscript; "Old Coptic"
similarly presents mainly Sahidic trails (ibid.• PI'.
242IT., 252ff.).
2.2 "Gnostic" Sahldlc. One must distinguish here
between the Gnostic texts with no special dialecto-
logical problem (the PisHs Sophia, Ihe Bruce Codex,
some of the Nag Hammadi tractates) and such Nag
Hammadi tractates as exhibil non-Sahidic traits. The
former group conforms by and lal'f~e to the eady-
Sahidic type, with some idiosyncrasies (total nasal
assimilation, 6P- relative prefix, 1T'r).pG'l' ror the clas-
sic n.pe'!-, ),-future coyalH-, ~6IDC QJ),(IiT6') [PS 178f.,
313]). perhaps a more pronounced tendency to n::-
sume a converter/conjugation base after a nominal
extraposition (PS 31,173, 275f., 320). A profile of the
Nag Hammadi idiom(s) 01' idiolect(s) will eventually
be achieved on the basis of a series of monographs
(d. Nagel, 1969; Layton, 1973, 1974). The Nag
Hammadi grammatical !'y!'tems, which vary from
one text to another, orten Sel:m inconsistent even in
one and the same text. One encounters tractates
written by a "speaker of some form of dialect AI"
(Layton. 1974, p. 379, Codex II). Certain texts (nota-
bly in codices 1lI, V. and especially VII, tractates 2,
3, and 5) reveal Bohairic or "Middle Egyptian"
(morpho-)syntaClic traits, e.g.• open juncture of the
relative converter (III, 42.5f.), interrogative pro'
nouns berore basic tenses (VII, 103.3f.), Ihe conjunc-
tive a "that" form (Vii, 80.13, 99.29f.), the relative
compatible with indefinite determinators (2ClN-
6000y, VII, 85. I If.), relative conversion or the fu-
ture III (lIl, 114.2f.), and, most striking. a four-term
determination category with consequences ror the
expansion of the noun syntagm (m-NT6-). Codices II
and V rellect early Sahidic with non-Sahidic traits,
mostly Akhmimoid (A, 1-, and, in the case of Codex
V, Middle Egyptian as well). Note the following ),-
Colol'ing in val),ing ratios: A forms of lexcmes and
morphs (~HJroCT, KII)6, X6K),C6, TllXllN, .xoy); lexical
Akhmimicisms (c.g., ~rrc, fear; Jro),tw, cease [also
Pistis Sophia]; T),IiO, make, create); HH- - RnT'
(negative imper.); 1" -1i1- with Greek loan-verbs; 11- -
n6- for the definite artiele before a consonant clus-
ter; 116- (possessive anicle second !'ingular feminine),
noy-, Troy- (third plural); the perfects ),~),-, ~ <-,
6TJro~·. ~)''!-.
2.3 Nonliterary, POlilelasslcal, and Late Sahldlc.
These terms, often confused (if only by implication),
demand dear definition. On the one hand, there are
late literary texts, especially hagiogrnphical, manyro-
logical, and liturgical, but also popular literature
and poetry (Drescher, 1947; Till, 1935-1936; Erman,
1897; Junker, 1908; etc.), mostly posterior to the
Arab conquest. This corpus has to be carefully dis-
tinguished from the extremely important one, of
high standardization, of postdassical literary Sahidic
of the founh, fifth, and sixth centuries (note espe-

cially Pacoomius' wnllng.<> and, above everything,
the Iingul~lic usage in ShenUle'~ works, considered
by the present writer at least as llignificant for lhe
description of Sahidic grammar as is the scriptural
idiom).
On the other hand, there ill the immense body of
nonliterary SO\.Irces of late documentation, largely
overlapping the late-S corpus in its grammatical
norm. This category includes !ellen; (privale, formal,
official), documenlS (receipts, contracts (md agret......
menlS, demands, tcstamenlS), magical and medical
recipes and spells (see, e.g., Chassinal, 1921), and 50
on. This corpus has had very scanl attention hithel10
(see CnJlll, 1926, Vol. I, c!lnp. 10; Knhlc, 1954, chap.
8), and grammatical investigatinn of this area is still
a fUIUl'1l goal-perhaps the greatest challenge before
CO[lliC linguistics lO(l<1y.
The overpowering impression conveyed by lhesc
lexts, lipan from Ihcir shcer numbcr.l (major collec-
lions have been found at 11lebes, al·Ashmiinayn.
Wlk!1 Sarjah, Dayr al-Bala'iuh, Armant, and Aphro-
dito), is their bewildering variety and degn.'C5 of de·
viation from the classical sLandanl; bUI therein lies
their value. The lellers <eighth-eleventh centurieli. in
all calalogic collections, e.g., the Brilish Ubrary and
the John Rylands l.1br.uy ones, by Crum; Berlin, by
Sawnger, Vienna. by KI-all and Till) and documcnta·
ry legal tellts (again, in most collections) lire to a
large extent characterized by fonnulas. The poetic
(tenth-eleventh centuries), magical (seventh-tenth
centuries; Kropp. 1930-1931; Stegemann, 1934),
and liturgical (see Quedc, 1970, pp. 350-89, M 574,
a ninlh.century manuscript) all to a lesser or greater
extent ellhibil non·Sahidic characlerislics (Althmi.
moid, Fayyumic, Bohairic). Strikhlg are lhe follow-
ing traits:
Phonological (if not dialectal) a'ld orthographiC:
Vocalic and (to a lesser tlltent) consonantal varia-
tion is common; nOle espcchilly the voclilic (G')
treatment of syllabic nasals (Mll-, with; 6T()<l, he) and
the fluctuations II - .l., II - II - £1, 0 - co, 6 - k, ~ -
"I, voiced - unvoiced, aspiralcd - unaspinl1ed. Many
magical texts show Fayyomicism (stl'essed .a. for 0, 6
for .a., II for G and even £1, and B for "I), although
some (e.g., KI'OPP's A and Il) are pure standard
Sahidic; so on the whole is the Bala'izah collection.
Some IC,cts (e.g., Till's MartyrdomS) show a miJtlure
of the 5 superlineation and Bohairic DJINKIM. Ob-
serve that incomplclc or hesitant standardization
must on no account be laken for "misspelling" (d.
Kahle, 1954. p. 254, n. 5; Kahle'$ Ii$u [chap. 8}
constitute an unsurpassed, indeed unparalleled de-
SAHIDIC 199
scnpllon of the phonologie-orthographic usage of
the Theban nonlilel-ary sources).
MCJt'phological. First·pcrwn singular CI;l;urr.a.-; !i.eC'
ond plural T6TJ46- (Theban); second singular femi-
nine 6f'" (convener),.tot- (perfect) (Polotsky, 1960, p.
422, nbs. I); 'R"11.a.'I-, rclative aorist, 1'16, future (F);
T6..• conjunctive (especially Theban, but also else-
where; also 'R"T6'1-); e"I.\- future, oy.a.- future base,
Hlf(T)- conditional (all Theban); verb lexerne sporad·
ically unreduced before the direct nominal objecl;
verb·lexcme morphology-(Theban) ~ , MOyHC,
Tt.oo .
Tllmpllslehre fwd syntax. A future·eventual usc of
1IIl....; a final·"subjunelive" use of the conjunctivc
(e.g., Mtll1yrdoms 1.8.1, Ryl. 290, 321, also Theb.,
Kahle, 1954, pp. 1601f.), also in a "thatH·form role,
as direct object (Martyrdoms 1.5.9), even with past
lenses; future final·consecutive use of T.a.r6'lcwTR"
(Ryl. 316, Murtyrdoms 1.5.29, Epiph. 162.26);
qll.tn'lf· (also final) and Xtlk.a..a.C acquire lhe value of
conlent-elauscs (d. l"m). The second tense is used as
a "that" fonn outside the c1efl sentence (SKU 335 .a.
IlClMCOfi T.utOl" lfTMilJ1"'I, "Our bralher hall told me
thai you found him." The circumstantial occurs ad-
nominally, atlriootive to a definite nucleus (Kropp D
20 IItk)6 R".a.OTO(; (ire; ttG'fTll't nOf'qi ClIO.\, "The gnoat
eagle WOO5e wings are spread"); the drcumstaruial
as glo~ in II cleft sentence (Kropp 0 TOK IMl SKt t'R"
IWtOT, "It is you who pour"); the possessive 61W.
Il6 (e.g., Ryl. 325, 341), also nu.oo a.~ an augens of the
possessive article I1Cl't- (KRU 36 Tlbl'THQC ~ R"HIN
R"HON). Note SlIch Bohairic·like features as oy.a.
lfT.a.... (Martyrdoms 1.58.1, a generic relativc, an in·
delinile IffiH'U"·), 'h.a._TR" (relative/Sl-'Cond per·
feel) used all a temporal clause, HIH Jr.'I· (Manyrdoms
1.3.7); also 'R"CJ". lfTo'I (ibid. 1.34.3).
2.4 Sahldlc Alloyed wllh Other Dialects (cf.
Crurn's S' and 5'). This is, in view of the reservations
and obser'Vlltions made above, to be understood as
an ad hoc te,ct·specilic de.<;crip!ive appellation (1010·
ucr) T'.ltner than a clear, definable dialectological
phonornenon. The qualit)' and degree of cornponcm
admixture val)' considerably from one case to anoth·
er, lind it is doubtful whether dialeclOlogically mean-
ingful classification and gradation are at all feasible.
For instance, the Fayyumicisms pcc::uliar to many S
manuscripts in the Morgan collection are neither
predictable nor uniformly distributed. In "Pseudo-
ShenUle," M 604 (Kuhn, 19(0), the F elemenl con-
sistli. of sporadic grammatical characteristics -trrtiH',
negative conditional .a.p6COT6f+, .second singular femi·
nine possessive article ner-, and lexical'phonological
 200 SAHIDIC
Fayyumicisms: CWOT, OyN, what (interl'ogntive). In
the unpublished parallel source, B. LOr. 12689, the
vocalism and generally the phonological shape of
words is drastically affected.
3. Bibliographical Infonnatlon
3.1 Major, Comprehensive. or Authorltallve BI-
ble Editions. Old Testnment: de Lagarde. 1883 (Wis'
dom of Solomon. Ecclesiasticus); Gasca. 1885-1904
(Old Testament fragments, a basic edition); Maspero,
1892-1897 (<I complementary edition of Old Testn·
ment fragments); Iludge, 1898 and 1912 (Psalms,
Deuteronomy, Jonah); Rahll's, 1901 (Psalms);
Thompson, 1908 (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song
of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus)
and 1911 (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith, Esther);
Worrell, 1931 (Proverbs); Shiel", 1942 (Ruth,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, fragments of Genesis,
Jeremiah, Bamch); Kas.~er, 1961, 1962, 1964, and
1965 (the Bodmer manuscripts: Exodus, Deuter-
onomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, L...'lmentations, Epistle of
Jeremiah, Baruch). New Testalllent: Horner, 1911-
1924 (authoritative critical edition of the New Testa-
ment); Balestri in Ciasca and Balestri, 1885-1904,
Vol. 3 (Borgia New Testmnent frngment~); Budge,
1912 (Acts, Revelation); Thompson, 1932 (ACts, p:lUl-
illc Epistles); Kassel', 1962 (Matthew, Romans);
Quecke, 1972, 1977, and 1984 (Mark, Luke, John).
3.2 Grammars and Grammatical Monographs.
Stern, 1880 (best grammor yet); Steindorlf, 1894,
1904 (reprint 1930), and 1921; Till, 1961 (still the
most commonly used, for its convenience mther
than for descriptive mel;t); Plumley, 1948, and
Walters, 1972, are rather sketchy. Dialect eompal'll·
tive gmmmars: Stern 1880; Till, 1961; Chaine, 1933
(very detailed); Steindorff, 1951; Vergote, I973b,
Vol. la. Special studies: Ennan, 1897; Levy, 1909;
Wilson, 1970; Kickasola, 1975.
3.3 DlctlOOltrles. There is no special Sahidic lexi,
can, but the Sahidie eumponent of Crum's Die/io-
'lUI)' (also Spiegelherg and Westendorlf's Handwijr-
Il!rbllch) is certainly adequate. Wilmet's invaluable
Concordance (1957 -1959) covers the Suhidte New
Testament. Many text editions include special glossa·
nes.
BIBUOGRAPHY
Balestri, G. Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragtlumlil Cop/a.
Sahidiea MW'ei Borgiani. Vol. 3, NovlIm
Teslumenlwn. Rome, 1904. Sec also Ciasca, A.
Budge, E. A. W. The EarlieSI Known Coplic P~'ld/er.
London, 1898.
---::-. Coptic BibUt·u/ Texis in Ihe Dia/eel of Upper
Egyp/. London, 1912.
Chaine, M. Elemems de grammaire diulec/ale caple.
Paris, 1933.
Chassinat, E. Un Papyrus medical caple. Cairo, 1921.
Gasca, A. Sln'rorum Bibliorum Fragmen/a Cop/&-
suhidiea Musei Borgiani lussu d SumplihllS S.
COllgrl'gatiollis de Propa!:lnu!u Fide S/udio.
Edila. Vols. I and 2. Rome, 1885 and 1889. And
[without author or cd.): 5S. BibliorwlI Fragml'll/a
Copla-Sahitllt·u Musci Borgimri. Vol. 1-2. Tabulae.
Rome, (1904]. Sec also Balestri, G.
Crum, W. E. "The language of the Texts.. ' In The
MOIla.~lery o{ El)iphunius UI Thebes, Part 1. The M·
ellI/eological Ma/crial by H. E. Wbr/ock, The U/crary
Mil/erilli by W. E. Crlllll, pp. 232-56. New York,
1926.
- - C ' A Coptic Viel/mlllry. Oxfurd, 1939.
Drescher, J. Three CuP/I<; Lege'lds. Cairo, 1947.
Erm,lll, A. Bruchsliicke kopliseher VolkslileYli/lir. Ber-
lin, 1897.
___. "Unterschiede '!:wischen den koptischen Dia-
Ickten bei der' WOI1verbindung." S;lvmg.~l!erich/l:
der PrellSsisc!lIm Akadclllie dcr Wissc'rsehafli'll 1
(1915):161-72.
[Horner', G. W.] The Cup/ie; Vcrsiv,r vf lire New Tes/a-
men/ in the SoU/hem Dia/eel, Glhenvise Called
Sahidie and Thebaic. Oxford, 1911-1924.
Junker, H. Koplisehe Poesie des 10. Jahrhlllrderis.
Berlin, 1908.
Kahle, P. E. BIlla'hah: Coplie TexlI frolll Deir el·
Ba/a'iwh ill U'lpcr Egypl. Oxford and London,
1954.
Kasser', R. Papyms Buchner VI: livrc des Proverbes.
cseo 194-195. Louwin, 1960.
_-;:-_. Papyrus Bodmer XVI: Exode I-XV,21 ell suM-
dique. Cologny!Geneva, 1961.
_-,.,' Popynls Bodmer XVIIJ, Veul/!.ronumc l-X,7 e/1
sahidique. Cologny/Geneva, 1962.
_:-. Pupyms Budmer XXl1e/ Mi.Hissippi Coplie Co·
dex 11: Uri!mic XL,3-Ul,34, l..tlmen/a/IOIlS, £pilre de
Ji!rcmie, Bameh 1,I-V,5, C/1 si/hidique. Co[ogny!
Geneva, 1964.
_-,.,. Papyrus Bodmer XXJJJ: Esal"e XLVI1-LXVf, en
sllhidique. Cologny/Geneva, 1965.
_ _ . "Prolegomenes a un essai de classification
syst~matique des dialectcs cl subdialectes wptes
selon les erltt:res de la phonctique. I, Principes et
tenninologie." Museon 93 (1980a):53-112. "... ,
II, Alphabets et systcmcs phonetiques." Museoll 93
(1980b):237-97. "... , Ill, Systernes or1hoglllphi.
ques et categol'ies diakctaks." Muse-on 94
(1981):91~152.
Kickasola, J. N. Sahidle Coplic (fl.) ... .ioN Negation
Pal/ems: A Morpho.syll/oelie Descriplion of Sell/lillt·-
es aud Ad;mleIS. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1975.

Krupp, A. M. Allsgjlwilhite kop/isehjl Zaumiflexljl.
Brussel5, 1930-193 I.
Kuhn. K. H. "s/!Ullo.S/u!Ilollte OIl Christiou Beholliol/f.
CSCO 206-207. Loullain, 1960.
Lagarde, P, A, de. Ajlgypliaca. Wtlingen. 1883.
Layton, B. "The Text and Onhogr.lphy of the Coptic
1'lyposl:lSis of the Archons." aluellrifl /iir Papyro-
logie I/Ild Epigroplllk 11 (1973):173-200.
"The Hypostasis of Ihe Archons 01' the Reali·
ty of the Rulers: A Gnostic SIOry of Ihe Creation,
Fall, and Ultimate SaIV'oltiun of Man, and the Ori·
gin :md Reality of His Enemil'S. Newly EditL-d
from the Cairo Manuscript with a Preface, En·
glish TrallSlation, Notes, and Indexes." 1/o/'VQrd
Theological Review 67 (1974);352-425; 69
(1976):31-101. P-olrtieularly "Preface," 67
(1914):351-94.
Lclort, \... T. "xmu,c dans Ie NT sahidique." Musion
61 (1948):65-73.
Levy, A. Die S)"I/iU du koptiscllell Apophtllt:gmata
Pa/mm Aeg)'p/iorlllll. Berlin, 1909.
Maspcro, G. fraKmelfls de 10 .oersioll Iho!/H:lill/~ dl!
rAlleiert Tes/omelll. M~lIIoires de I'lnslitut franllais
d'Arch&l]ogie orienlale 6. Cairo, 1892-1897,
Mink, C, "Allgemeine SproehwisscnKhafl und
Koptologie," In Tlll~ FWllre of Cop/ie Sludies, ed.
R. MeL. Wilson, pp. 71-IOJ. Leiden, 1978.
Nagd, P, "Dcr frilhkoptische Oialekt von nlehen:'
in KOplologisdle S/Ildiell I" der DDR, pp. 30-49.
WisseflSehoflliehe uiUehrift der Mortill·Ll/lher·
Ul1i"usifiJt Uolle·Wilfenberg, Sonderhe£t. Halle-
Willcnbcrg, 1965,
..C.....mmatische Untcl1iuehungcn w Nag H.
Codclt II." In Die Araher III der a/1m Weft, cd. F.
Ahhehn and R. Sliehl, Vol. 5, Naehlriigc, Dos
chris/liche Aksu"" Ikrlin, 1%9.
Peyron, V, A, Grllllllllil/icII Lill/Plat! Cop/ae, Turin,
1841.
Plumley, J. M. All fmrodllelory Coptic Grammar
(SahMlc IJiuleet). London, 1948.
Pololsky, H. J. "Zur koptischen l...allilchl'c II." lei/·
sellrif/ fllr iigyplisehc Spruclw IIml AI/tiflwnslwllde
69 (1933):125-29. Repl'. in Collected Papers, pp.
358-62. Jcr'Usalem, 1911.
- - C ' E/udcs de ~'YII/llxe eople. Cairo, 1934. Repr', in
Collce/cd Papers, pp. 102-207. Jerusalem; 1971.
___. "Modes gl'cc~ en caple?" In Coptic Sit/dies i/1
/fOllor of W. B, Cmlll, pp. 13-90. Bo.~ton, 1950.
Repr. in Colle(;/ed PI/PUS, pp. 208-225. Jerusalem,
1971.
-'-'C,' Review of W, C. Till, Koptisehe Crt/mlllatik
(soi'di.~cher
OIolekt). Orielltalis/ische Litera/14neitllllg
52 (19570):219-34. Repr, in Collected Papers, pp.
226-33, Jenlsalem, 1971.
--::-:c "Zu den koptischen litel'3rischen TCJtten aus
Balai71\h." Orijlll/alia 26 (1951b):347-49. Repr. in
Colleeled Popers, pp. 389-91. Jerosalem, 1971.
___, "The Coptic Conjugation System." Orim/olia
SAHIDIC 201
29 (1960):392-422. Repr. in Collected Papers, pp.
238-68. JCl'usollelll, 1971.
"Numinal5:llz und Cleft $entence im
Koptischen." OriclI/alla 31 (1962):413-30. RL'Pr. in
CoIleelCd Popers, pp. 418-35. Jcrusalem, 1911.
"Coptic." In Current Trends ill !..i./guislies,
Vol. 6, South West Asia mId North A/ri"a, cd. T, A.
SCbt.'Ok, pp. 558-70. The Hague, 1970.
Ouc<:ke, H. Ulltcrsuehungert Zlfm kop/iscl/ell SllIlIdetl-
gebet. Louvain. 1970,
___. Das Ma,*If~V(mgelilllll $iJidiseh~ Texl de"
lIandschrif/ PPo/all Rib. Itlll.·Nr. 182 mit detl Vori·
OllIe" der Handsehrifl AI 569. Barcelona, 1972,
___ DIU l.llkosevaPlgelillm saidisch: TUI der Hand.
schrif/ PPaloll Rib. 1I111.-Nr, 181 mit dell Variallttn
der J1atldschrift M 569. Barcelona, 1977.
DIU JoIlalll1eSe"angdil411l $iJitlisch; Text der
HOl1t1schrift PPo/a" Rib. Illv"Nr, 183 mil den Vari·
an/C1 der Hal1dschrif/C1 813 11l1d 814 der Chesler
Bea/ty Library ulld der Halltlschrifl M 569. Rome
and Barcelona, 1984.
Rahll's, A. Die Berliller lJalldschrift des sohidischtl1
I'sa/lers. Berlin, 1901.
sat7.ing~r, Ii. "Phonologic des kopti.'o;chen Verbs
(sa'idischcr Dialekl)." In Fes/schrifl £. l'def, 11
Miin 1979, pp. 343-68. Bamberg, 1979,
Schenke, H.·M. Review of Joseph Vergotc, Gram-
maire cople. Oriel1laUstisehe U/trawruitllng 16
(1981):345-51.
Shier, L. A. "Old Testament Texto; on Velh.lln:' In
William H, Worrell, Coptic TexIs ill Ihe Vlliversily
of Mlchigoll Collectioll, pp. 23-167. Ann Arbor,
Mich., 1942.
Stegemann, V. Die koptischclI Zallher/l~xle dtlr
SOlllmlllllg Erzhet?Og Raitler ill Wiel1. Heidelberg.
1934.
Stcindorif, G. Koptisclle Grllmmallk. Berlin, 1894,
--::-. Kop/isclle CrammQ/ik. Berlin, 1904. Repl·.
Berlin, 1930,
--::- ' Kllrzer Abri.~s dcr koptischell Grammatik. Ber·
_=.
lin, 1921.
1951.
Lellrblwh der kopliselle" Gralllma/ik. Chicago,
Stern, L. KopllscJw Grallllllalik. Leipzig, 1880.
ThOlllpson, ~I. 'J111~ Cop/it: (Sahidie) Versioll of Cerloill
Books of the Old Testumem frolll a Papyms ill the
Ori/ish Museum, London, 1908.
_ _ , A Coptic Palimpsest CO>l/abli>li; Joshua, Judg.
es, Rlllh, JI/dilll mId ESlher l>l Ihe SallMie Viall!e/.
Oxford, 1911.
_--" Ti,e Coptic Versioll of the Ae/s of the Apostles
allli the Palllille Epistles ill the $ahidie Dialee/.
Cambridge, 1932.
Till, W. C. Kop/Ische lIeiligell' WId Mortyrer/egetldell.
Rome, 1935-1936,
_--" Koplisehe Grommotik (soi'discher Dio/ekl', mit
Bibliogrophic, uses/ilekel1lmd Wf'rterven,eiehnissell.
Leip7Jg, 1955.
202 SHENUTEAN IDIOM
Koplische Diafek/graltlltlatik, mit uses/llcktm
lind Wtirterbllch. 2nd ed. Munich, 1961.
VergOle, J. "lc diale<:tc copte P (Po Bodmer VI:
Proverbes), essai d'idcntificalion." Revile
d'egyplOJvgie 25 {1973a):50-57.
Crammaire cop/e, Vol. la, Introduction,
phonbiqll~ ~t phonologie, morphologie s)'mhema-
tiqu~ (stnlcmre des siml:lllfDllesJ, pllr1ie S)'tIchroni.
que, Vol. Ib, In/roduction, phOlle/iqlfe e/ phom:r
logie, morphologie S)'II/hema/iqlle (slmc/uTe des
sema"/t:mes), partie diachroniqlle. Louv.lin, 1973b.
Walters, C. C. All Elemenlary CoP/it: Grammar of Il,e
Sohidic IJiaJec/. Oxford, 1972.
Wilmet, M. COrlcordl:ltlcll du Nouveau TeSlamell/ saM-
dique, II, Les MolS tUilochtholles. CSCO 173, 183,
185. Louvain, 1957 -1959.
Wilson, M. R, Coptic Fllltlre Ttmses: SYIltacfica/ Swd·
ie~' ill Suhidic. The Hague, 1970.
Worrell, W. H. The Proverbs of S%man in S(/Mdic
Coptic According tt) Ihe Chicago Manllscrip/. Chica-
go, 1931.
Coptic 5oU114£, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1934.
ARIEL SHISHA·HAlEVY
SHENUTEAN IDIOM. "shenutcan Copdc" is
the term applied to the idiom, including the gram-
matical norm and stylistic·phrast.'Ological usage, 0b-
servable in the corpus of writing by the archiman-
drill" Apa Shenute (3J4-451), outstanding among
Coplic literary sources in that it constitutes the sin·
gle most extensive homol;enous and authentic testo
di lingua for $ahidic and Coptic in general. Thl..
corpus provides the linguist with a precious oppor-
tunity to achieve a consistent and complete descrip-
tion of a grammatical 1iystem. The other eltensive
corpus, that of the Scrip'ures, although somewhat
earlier and so enjoying the prestige of a "das... ical"
bal de langue, hIlS the disadvantage of being tr,l.nslat·
ed from the Greek; its native Coptic constituent ell'"
men. can be properly determined only after a com-
plete strueturnl description of the gr,lmmatical
system of its Vorlage, preci.w knowledge of the quali.
ty and degree of its dependence upon this Vorlage,
and diacritical-contrastive application of an indepen-
dent, llntranslated grnmmatical system such as ttult
abstractable from Shenute's works. The desirability
of such a grammar makes an early analysis of this
corpus of paramount importance.
Compilation or the Corpus
Although only slightly more than half of all known
or sunniscd Shcnllte sources have been edited to
dille (1982), there Is no great diRiculty about compil.
ing most of the elttant corpus: the task of i1iOiating
unatlributed Shenute fragments from the host of
homiletic and rhctoric-cpistolary ones is largely
technical. Linguistic (grammatical and stylistic-
phnlSCOlogical) data eltractable from the unambigu·
ously Shenutcan sourccs in the tlll'ee major editions
(Amelincall, 1907-1914; Leipoldt and Crum, 1908-
1913: Chassinat. 1911) and the many minor oncs-
mostly in catalogic collections (by Crum, Munier.
Pleyte-Boeser, Rossi, Wes."Cly, and Zocga) ilnd occa-
sionally in spt.'Cial publications (e.g., by Guelin,
Lefort. Teza, Young, and the pl'l"$ent writer), as well
as unpuhlished sources-serve :IS probes for locat·
ing other sources. Identification on the ba.~is of sty-
listic impl'ession alone, although ce11ainly unavoiull·
ble a.~ a practical guide, is nOt always adequate,
especially when the style is untypically pedestrian
l'ather than in the usual powerful, involved vein. The
main unedited collections of Sinuthiana are those in
Paris and Vienna repositories and in Blitish libraries
(Oxford, Cambridge, and Manehcster).
Linguistic Characterization
Shenute's dialect is what is convcntionally con-
ceived of as hi&h.~andard Ulera!)' Sahidic, albeit
with distinct Akhmimoid traces (Shisha-Halevy,
197601.), which arc probably duc to his nati~ Akmi·
mic background and consisl mainly of {morpho}
phonologic, morphologic, idiomatic, and lexical fca-
tures, with mon: elisivc synt~ctic affinities. (Present-
day knowledge of Akhmimic syntax Is notoriously
inadcqUOlte, because or insuffieient evidence.) Some
of Ihe morc striking phenomena in Shenutc's grom-
matical usage arc the idiosyncr,l.,ic usc or the con-
junctive and of object constructions and the favoring
of one of the "mediaton;" or lexeme premodifiers (T
:eoY6-, T 1lK6-, ajrn (li).). Note twO (or severol) dis·
tinctive nomlnahcntcncc patterns, nall1ely # 0 -ne
I/" (e.g., Leipoldt, 1908-1913, IV, 23.22, RK),2li~HT
no ClllTR" 61l6'kv~6; All1elincau 1907-1914, I, 228,
III),Q<I ne )(00'(. 11I111(1 11(1 can'R" 6fOOY) and a
hyperbatie construction with a demonstrative sub-
ject (Chassinal, 1911, lSO.3fT., R"~ N6 N.J.r
R'n,YCIII),l1, "These are 'the cords which broke"');
X6, used adnominally (ibid., I 25.38ff.. PHlf 661kT\(;,
RI'flf 66z4WlIC lf2tK R".u-Jo9C," X6 Mlf".,ooI1 M),C ),M,
'ihere is no raith, there is no hope of goodness that
does nOi belong to it").
As regards the use of the second tenses, one finds
numerous distinctive figures and constellations vari-
ously combining topicalillltions and foci. Striking Is
the clert sentence with the circumstanlial topic

{OJ...·. (;N'f- . . . JoM, (l- -+ nominal sentcnce). Negative
seeond'lense topics seem to be avoidl.-d. TIlis list can
be much extended with numemus other minutiae as
well as eenlrnl issucs of grolmmar, which still await
monographic study (for sollie discussions and exem-
plifications, see Jemstoot, 1949; Morenl, 1952; Rud-
nitl.ky, 1956-1957; Young, 1961, 1962, and 1969:
and Shisha.Halevy, 1975 and 1976a-b). It must be
5trt'SS(:d that idimyncr.nic stylistic syntax (e.g., ··rhe·
torical figures" (see belowl, typical word-ordcr ami
conlext panems) is at present Indistinguishable from
syOlax 1011/ CUllrt. Nole :llso lhat ahhough most of the
above traits are mel with elsewhere, their cumula·
tive ami pronounced reoccurrence .md dislribution
in Shenute is syndrornic, (Ind Iherein lies lheir diag·
nostic value.
SherlUle'S "style" (bel ween which lind syntux tht're
exists no clear·cut objeclive boul1dfll')') tillS been dc-
scribed, at its most characteristic, as fervent, pas-
sionately eloquent, full of pathos, and orten argu-
ml'ntalive, polemic. occasion(lily itx'IIlic. Still, placid
and pedl.'Strian passagcs are not uncommon (cf. Lei·
poldt, 1903, sec. II, 13, and 15). '111e long, involved,
occasionally convoluted sentence <:omplcxes, some-
times anacoluthic, are well known. Similarly distinc·
tive are a number of exclusive or near-exclusive She·
nulcan idiomatic expressions. su<:h as TlD 6TaI, "how
can one compare ..."; .,J.HT6 oy IQCDIKl, "QIfOUsqll~
/alldem ... "; 6tx. tcuJ .1:6, "by whi<:h I mean to
say"; .xG lnu•.xooc, "pollr ne pGS dire"; and many
ochers. Probably the ~·kllown typic."llly S!lcllutc-..n
tum of phrase. the quintcsscntial "figurQ Siml/hiQIIQ"
par excellen<:e, is the npp:wently lllutologkal. often
disjun<:tive repetition of an idea with a slight varia·
lion in this rorm: CCftlC loY" CGfOOlC. ttl.cotl H
to.Clilty, fi<;.lIlAY6 II lN~lIlAY6, J.'IOylD1i II ,l.yoyam
RMO'I, ), 1tl.2HT 0)'(IXlJ1::" J..tOyUIII,ll::" :!fJ.r
II 'Jfiltrr,
J.yHOCIyT'lf It ),yr.u.'1 llTOOT'll'" FrllHOy ...
Vocnbulary
The ShenUlean lexicon-which conSlilutes a con·
sidemble pan of the S::thidic e~idence in Crum's
Cop/ic Dictiollury (1939) and is still in ncl.'<.! or deler·
minntion and structuru.l·scmantic resolution-is per·
oops most idiosyncratic in the favoring of certain
W(lrds, some of which have acquin.-d a Shenuteall
/Iavor and association: Kf'O'!, guile; AOIHOC, pl.'Sti-
lence; K"",,. mock; ~, butTOW; ~, ~,
filth. be foul; Al56, be mad; HOyl, look; A6'f'6, £mg-
men!; lllf:'I:, be firm, secure: ~, have authority, be
responsible. There are some exelusively Shenutean
lexemcs, a few with obscure meanings: It_All £&0)"
(Crum, 1939, p. 102b); KOfI (part of vine? ibid p.
SHENUTEAN IDIOM 203
lllb); M111l::" (ibid., p. l44a); 1t-rR", smoke; A.UAO,
teem; ttOyC, term of abuse; also some common 10
Shemlle (tnc sole reprcsentati~e for Sahidic) and
Akhmimic or Subakhmimic (Shishil·lla.levy, 19700,
pp. 364ff.). There are forms and funclions altested
only in Shenutc: &AloH, blind (fem.); 1il'f6, blow
(tmllS.); FQ(l1C oyw-, keep watch :lgainst; ~T Gl!I'J.f,
be struck down. Some lexemcs are lypically Shenu·
tean in collocation (fOG'C -+ ..tiC, to. -+ HI",) and
5C)mc in their tllorphology (e.g., ItTO(ifT', retumed;
1iOy6T6 - HOG, hig; 6.>.HlIl, sycamore fNlt; THOH.
furrow).
BIBUOGKA..HY
AmClincutl. E. C. Oell\;res dll Sell/mOil/ii. Pads, 1907-
1914.
Chassinal, E. fA! QUll/ricme Livre de.~ emre/i<ms et
cpitrlls d~ Slrelluu/i. Memoil"e!l de l'ln.'ltitut fmOl;ais
d'archcologic oricntulc 23. C"iro, 1911.
Cnllll, W. E. A Cop/ic DictiOll/lry. Oxford, 1939.
Frollldscn, I'. J., and E. Ri<:hter·AcI'Oc. "Slumollle; A
Bibfiugrapl,y." In Studies Presellled 10 HailS Jakob
Polo/liky, ...-d. D. W. Young, Pr. 147-76. East
GIOUCct\ICr. Mass., 1981.
Guerin. II. "Sermons inedits de Scnouti." Rt,;\'lfe
igypto!Qgique 10 (1902):148-64, .lOd II (1905):15-
34.
Jemstoot, P. V. "K dctcrminacii v koplskom jazyke."
Sove.I.sk.oje VOSloIwvedellije 6 (1949):52-62. Trans·
laled by Peler Nagel as "z,.,r Detcrminalion im
Koptischcn:' Wissel/schul/fiche l.eitscltrill der Mar·
lill·LlI/lrer-Utli~rsitjjt Halle·Wille,,~rg 27 (1978): 95
-106.
Leipoldt, J. ScI,cllo,,/e 11(I11 Atripe mId die E,,/ste/umg
tIes IIatiOlwWgyplisdlell Chrislell/IIIIIS. Leip-Lig.
1903.
Leipoldt, J., .md W. Eo Cmm. Sillllll,il i\rdlimlllldri/ae
Vi/II el Opera Olllllia. CSCO 42:lOd 73. Paris, 1908-
1913.
Ml,lren..:, S. "Die 'Jf61·Kon.'llruktion als .'Ipnlchlichc
und stilistisehe Erscheinung des KOlltischen." AIl-
'lUles flu Service des Ullliquiles lIe {'E.gypte 52
(1952):1-15.
Rudnitzky, G. "ZUI1l Sprachgebl'ilUch Schenutcs:'
Zei/scllrif/ flir iigyplisc!,e Spmcl,e Imd Aherr'IlI1S'
kWlde 81 (1956):45-58. and 82 (1957):143-51.
Shisha.l-lalevy, A. "Two New Shenoutc·TexlS from
the Blitish Libr.:IIY, II (Commentary)." Orielllu/ia
44 (1975):469-84.
-;-c:. "Akhmimoid Features in Shenoute's Idio-
leet:' MIiSioll 89 (19700):157-80.
"Commentary on Unpublished Shenoutiana
in the IJrilish Ubrary." Etlchoria 6 (1976b):29-61.
Coptic Grammatical CQlegories, Structural
Swdies ill the Sytrtcu of Shclou/ea" SDhidic. Ana-
leeta Oricntalia 53. Rome, 1986.
 204 SULLAM
Young. D. W. "On Shenoute's Use of Present I:'
JfH.nlClI of N~D.r E4$Wnl Sludies 20 (1961):115-19.
___ "E.~ and the Condilional Conjugation:'
Jcmnllll 0/ Near ED.lilem Studies 21 (1962):175-85.
- ,__ "Unfulfilled Conditions in Shenoulc's Dia-
k'<:l." JOlm/D.I O/Ilre Americ,m Oriell/al Society 89
(1969):]99-407.
AKlf:.L SIlISHA-HALEVV
SULLAM (or liea/a). The Ar"llbic tern! for a Coptic·
Ambic dictiontuy is liul/am (ladder, plural salil/im),
because the words an~ al1'3ngcd to the left (Coptic)
and the righl (Ambie) in a manner that givC5 the
impression of a ladder (L.·llin SCClla; Coptic !'IOyt(.t 8,
TIlf'T(jf or s>.oooe S).
Coptic ICll:icography started at the sallie lime :1$
Coptic grammar. Anba. YOi)anna al'Samannudi, the
aut hOI' of the fi~t grammar, also wrote the first
known Coptic dictional)'. Anba. Yu~::mn!i, who ....'US
bishop of Samannud (wcstCI1I Delta) in the middle
of the thlrteenlh century, wrote AI-Sulfu", ul·KulI{r'jlil
(or Scala EcdesiasliclI), of which lWO versions sur·
vive, Sallidic (Munier, 19]0, pp. 1-4]) and Bohahic,
both found in Illany m:lIl11sc!ipls (Gmf, 1947, pp.
]72-74). II is not a dicliollU1Y but a glms:llY of
terms in biblical and liturgical books, 1I1'1inly the
N..::w TeSlament, a portion of the Old Testament, and
some liturgical texts. The WOI'ds arc given with their
Ambic lI'3nslalion in the order in which they occur,
C)[cept repetitions. The suI/am begins ....~th the G0s-
pel of St. John bt~causc of its easy style. Anba
Yli1)ann.1 did I10l intend tl,) write a dictionary in the
Illodem scnllC of the term but a manual for his
readers, to enable them to understand n~ligious
teXIs. The beginning of St. John's Gospel luns as
follQws: tii • If, in; TG-2QYGrre • ul-bad)', the begin·
ning; 1i6<fO,1OOn = kUII, kdyil1, wa.~; 1KJ,l)'x(J • 1/1·
kulimull, lhe word (Munier, 1930, p. 1). In the pref.
ace of his BlIlgllIIl al·TilUMI1 (freely lmns!;\ted a.~
"What 5cekers Find"; B.luer, 1972, pp. 30]-]U6) he
announced his intention to wril":: :\ poem of the
IIlll/hallalh kin(l (strophl'l'i with three rhymcs) on
words pronounced in the S,'Ime way but wrillen dif·
ferently, bUI this has not survived.
Abu Isl)jq ibn al:Asst\1 (full name al·Mu'taman
AbU IsI.\l1q Ibrahim ibn al-'Assal), a member of the
famous 'AssaI family (Mallon, 1906-19(7), wrote a
"rtlymcd" dictionary called al-Sllllam al.Muqa/fd wa-
I·Dllallab a{.Mllfuffa (The Rhymed Dictionary and the
Purified Gold; Kircher, 1643, pp. 273-495, not quite
complete). Words are cla....... ified by the Inst leller, as
in Arabic diCtiOnaries (e.g., the ~i~a~ of al-JawrnrT;
Sidarus, 1978, p. 129). TIle order is l3Sl leller, Ihen
fir.;.( leller, and thcn ~ond lener, as in 1O.C, leave
her, XUHIC, shil' (00 XUHyC); XOf'OC, tllmbourine;
Xf'OIIOC, time; ( ... ) xlIlf'l;, except (Kircher, 1643, p.
443). Also words with affixes are IlStl'd; Ihus, MX.\ft, 1
ha\'e put thee. and TIIf<lIi. all of us, are found under
·k and ,/1. As a matter of fact, Iheir arc no ··dlYlllCS"
in his diclionrll)', (IS only the lasl leller is I.lken inlO
consid..::r:ltion. His vocabul:uy is IImiled 10 religious
Icxts (Gmf, 1947, pp. 407-411).
Abcl Shakir ibn al·RAhib (full name al·Nusho' Abo
Shakir ibn IJU!fUS al-Rahib, authl,)r of a gmlllmar
(MUOAOUlMAH), wrote another "rhymed" scala, which
he finished in 1263-1264. I-Ie used a larger number
of liturgical books :md two ancient SCillaI,', :1$ is re-
vealed in the preface of his book. His scala is lost. As
a SJ,I/lum rrwqa!f6, or rhymed scala, 'it was arranged
after the last leller of the words. II comprised twO
parts: simple word foons aod word~ with prefIxCl'i
and suffixcs (Sidarus, 1978, p. 130).
An independent ...., ork is Ihe anonymous Sahidic·
A.rabic Dara; as-SuI/am (Book of SleflS), called in
Grcek B!pAitw .,w" /kdJJLijJ" and in &\hidic lI'l'ml'1"'f
Jl"nI6l<.0060 (Thc Rung of the Ladder'; Munier', 1930,
pp. 67-249). Its eonlenls arc as follow.~: chaptcr 1,
miscellanea, as pal1icles, prepOSitions, nouns, and
verbal forms: chapten; 2-19, a cla.'l.~ilied pal' begin·
ning with God, good qualities of lIIen, the heavens,
the earth. the sea and mountains, the whole uni-
verse: chapters 20-2], various subjects; chapters 24-
26, words and sentenccs of the Old TClitament (lack·
ing in al-sn.mannudl's scala); chapter 27, "difficult"
words (~(J,IC (J~; ibid, pp. 135-36).
An anonymous Creck-Bohai,;c·Aroibic vocabulary
of the Vatican Library (Hcbbclynck and van Lant·
school, 1937-1947, Vol. 2, 82-85) arranges the
words by first leuer, a.~ the oldest Greek lllph3betical
dictionaries do: )., leiter a; U.U,Ut, )'lU.lt (sic), un'
h.mned; ),A.tKI)" injustice. There arc tWI,) Olher cop--
ies in Ihe Nalional UbralY in Paris (Mfilloll, 1910,
Pl'. 87-88), lhe lirst delted 1]18 :md the second fmlll
Ihe fl,)urtcenth or fifteenth century.
Greek lexicogl'llphy, like the Coptic, began with
the explarutlion of difficult passages as tht.')' occurrcd
in the tell:t. Alphabetical arrangement was a relative·
Iy laiC development. The first alphabetical dictionary
in the world was perhap!io Glaukias' ICll:icon. dating
from 180 R.c. In the bt.-ginning. the alphabetical or-
der .....as nol strictly observed, for only the fIrst leuer
was taken into eonsidemtion, and later the Sl..'<:ond
and even the third. The Icxieon by Hl$ychius Alex·
andrinus (fifth or sixth century A.I).) \"'.IS entirely al-
phabetical (Scltwyrer, 1939, p. 29). So ;t ~nlS thaI

the alphabetical arrangement in Coptic lexicography
wa.~ an indL"pcndcnt allCOlpl tu arrJnge words in
alphabetical order. Furthermore. the demotic "al·
phabelical" ....,ord list had nothing 10 do wilh Coptic
classification, as thcre was nO real alphabet with a
fixed order of signs in deOlnlic (Vollen. 1952. pp.
496-508).
Thc scalae hilherto published are not free of mis·
takes-mistakes of the author. the copyist, Ihe edi·
tor. and the prinler. Here are bUI IwO elamples:
trJ.l'1ll, lioness (8) - (J/./(Jhw(J, which elsewhere (5.
8) is Af'\, bear (fern.). from Greek afJICoc; (masc./fem.)
(Vydehl, 1983, I). 16). a confusion due to the fact
lhat there were no bears in Egypl. In this case lhe
definite (Irtick has been put in twice: -j-.T·J.r6't, Bo·
hairic .,. :md Silhidic T. S tlll'tllt, ba.~in for ablutions
(?) .. al·kimill (Munier, 1930, p. 174)-bctwecn III·
1II11!llllf{l, vcssel for lIbluliollS, and ,)'ll!1 (- slI!l), buck·
Cl, JXlil-should be spell XOI'Ill'!' .. Greek XfPI'l1jJ,
Waler for ablution (xflp, hand, before consonant
Xf{1', vtj3, to dean, from (I pr'e·GI'eek root ·tligw.).
In Olher cases, such as Coptic manuscripts from
lhc eighth cenlUl)'. lhe spelling of Coplo·Greek
(chicfly) words reflects phOnelic changes of Ihe sp0-
ken language. Three well·known cases need 10 be
mcnlionctl. " and y are inlerchangeable: S tytU.f'.
Ii\'er" t1-ur (~). Coplo--Creek J.l - 6. and some·
timC5 me \·er.sa; "'ere;, welcome (greeting) • xttipE.
be happy. and 5 t.uTl.ce. 96 (Crum. 1939. p. 273) ..
phonetically ·pset-ll5i. r and A oftcn interchange
with tl11n.scribcd K und T: lhus. TGHOH. demon, gen·
ius" &14<""', and Kr»tllll (Munier. 1930. p. 165) -
5 rrJ.HtIH (ibid.• p. 167) - It.pirJ4J'1, cabbage. BUI
there are other cases as well. such as insertions of
an aUlCiliary vowel (wrillen 6) in ;I lhl\........consonani
cluSlcr. thus. S CCiKf'04>l., sow (ibid., p. IIJ) '" Lalin
Sl:rofa. and 5 CG.pGrl., vault of hC;lven - Greek
(Trpa"ipa, ball, vault ur heaven. Also (T7'/1()iJ{}o<;, spar·
row, tlppcar'S as S CllT'fOyOOt;, bird ."~,('II#'ir)
(ibid., p. 114).
The group ks (~) wa.~ often pronounced Ilb in the
fintl) position and lalcr, with ;1Il ;tultitiary vowel,
·niks: Il-a~. whip. appears a.~ 5 HJ.C111'~ (ibid., p.
171). still without aultiliary vowel, but Il-Vpll-'T/f, ani,
appctlrs as S HGfHGtlll (ibid., p. 116), and (Tr.pij!,
wasp. is S oft••" instead of S ci'I.u~ (ibid.• p. lIS).
A similar case is S l.UOI(,llyHttC. apocalypse, from
im-aA.~. loday pronounced (JM gJ'(J/(J/IIsls. The
group II is often wrillen llA, probably influcneed
by .u..u (aAAa). bul. a frequent conjunclion. Thus.
one finds S. B l'Ill.Uf'oN, palace. from 'lrttAirn.o...
Ullin /Xl/atill/II. 5 .uoy, B l.AAO'(, pupil of thc ..-ye. is
nothing else lhan 5, 8 llO'Y. child. in this case the
SULLAM 205
"girl or Ihe eye" as in Egyptian ~1l'1I,t j",./ i,.t, lhe
girl in lhe eye. or Gn:ek 1t.0pfJ. girl, pupil of C)'C
(Vydchl. 1983. p. 7).
1bc Copto-Greck words of the .scalae oflen repre·
sent Greek postdassical fonns. 8 OKTOHtIf'aoc, Octo-
ber. is neilher Latin, nor modem ' O ~ or a
similar form, but a postdassical form. One can com·
p:lI"C Armenian Ilok/ember and Ruuian Okl)'obr'
('Oktembl1). There an> four 5 words for "water":
yAuf' (licSwp). ItGl"I"1 (I'e"pi...). H»tJ. (IVll-tt). and
llHOO)' (Munier. 1930. p. 109), "Y&Jp (ltytIOr) is lhe
classical word; VEpiJ.. (lleroll). lilerally "the new,
fresh one," is lhe current elCpression in model'll
Greek; Mfll-(t (",1m") is "runninlj: walcr"; ,lnd lI'HOOy
Is the autochlhonuus Coplie word for "water" (5).
'!'leMOC and IIKHTO art' translated ;oj) jJ I (fj~·
(./llwlfjh), Ihe ear1hquake (ibid.• p. 107). The etymol·
ogies arc quilc clear. II + (]"f:tn~Qt;, e;u1hquake, and
lhe (lulOl;hthonous Coptic form derives from S If.tM,
to move, and lhe old word 5 TO. eat1h. This S If.HTO
Is another word lhan Old Coptic If.HTU, crealor or
the (,'anh (Vycichl. 1983. p. 82).
S ib._UI, the piclures • Arabic ....,.;JI (a~·
~If\"u,) (Munier, 1930. p, 122) derives fmtn Greek
AtIOIl-WI', lillie picture (S1ephanus. 1831-1865. Vol. 4,
p. 42: "imaguncula vel pl'Otome"). The Cupto-Grcek
fonn is influenced by Greek },ljl..,,,. harbor.
Another problem is lI.,l.fToyrtII.. he-a.o;s - al.J]im""
and rOA.>,fkJH, she·as,<; '" (Jl~t{moh (Munier. 1930. p.
112). The normal spelling of these word~ WQUld be
·rJoJ/•.oyrIH (accusali1le) and ' r ~ (neuler
nominnti1le or accusati\'C); conlpare modem Greck
..,6"i&tpo<;. a.....~. and ya"i&Npti...<. lillie a....<; (Dcmell11kos.
1936. Vol. 3, p. 1535). The word occun;; in Egyplian
Greck lIS yo."iMpw.., donkey. in a lexl of the sixth or
seventh cenlul)' ,0\,0. (Grenfell and Hunl, 1901, p.
153). Also ')'O'·wwp<. occurs in modem Greck (ibid.).
Coptic vocabularies t'eveal that in somc c;\ses
namcs of (Illimais lIr'e derived from n(lme~ of the
corresponding Egyptian (theriomOl'phic) gods. f\
nllme or the crocodile was lJ'fwT (Crull!, 1939, p. 63)
- aI'lim:i{/~I, wrongly - al·tirslI!r. tunic (Kirchel',
1643, p, 171), but the same word occuni as
!hllJEr.pw{J, soul or Ephot, in a Grcek-Coplic gloss.'\l)'
.. MC~ (Bell and Crum. 1925, p. 197). According to
Epiphanius. the Egyplians ca.lled cl'Ocodilcs ~
from Egyptian Nfr IJtp, epithet of sevcral gods. nOI
only Suches (Vydchl, 1983, p. 49). The inilial H was
considered lhe plural anidc-thus. 8 lJ+-rT, croco-
dile.
In the chapter on languages and peoplC$ one
reads 8 J.CCVftOC (As.lyrios) - V~..- (SlIFy"nl). Syri,
an, (Kircher, 1643. p. 80). This translation is duc 10
206 SULLAM
an old confusion between Syri.1 and Assyria
(Cannuyer, 1985, p. 133) und not to a misonder-
!\landing. for as with Armenian Asorikh, Asor...slal1 i.~
nonhem Syria, because of the "As..~yrian Christiaru;"
in the region of Edessa (f'-roundjian, 1952, p. 58). SO
called after their coreligionisls in Assyria, the nonh·
l'm pan of Mesopotamia. Another strange lenn is
0'j56f'OC, Arml'nian (Kircher, 1643. p, 80). This is of
course a mistake. The preceding word is ..r.,b '"'
Kllr;i, GeOl'gian (compare Persian Gllrji). So B
C\"(Wf'OC stumJs for ·OY·llWfOC, till Iberian, because
'l,B€p€'i. a people of Ihc C!lucasus, are considered the
anCl.-ostors of Ihe Georgians. They dl'SCend from l/dr,
and /heros is 1I11I.:sled as a IlCl'!IOnal name ("1,8£ptX),
One mUll! rcad OY'18(1POC, 01 GcOl-gi:m.
Coplic glossuries were highly appreciated in the
Middle Ages and e,,"en in Illodern times as Ihey per·
milled thelr readers ael:ess to the .~cnsc of rhe Holy
Scriptul"Cli in Coptic, The shuation is however some·
what different for modern scholars. They prder to
collect words in religious sources from originallexls
und not from secondhand g100..<;,aries. But ordered
lelCicons l:onl3ining words from lhily life are can·
!\l3ntly referred to, mainly for natural history, gl'Ug-
raphy, 3nd. of course, dictionaril'S (Crum, 1939;
Vydchl, 1983). These lexicons were wrilten :11 a time
when Coptic. both Sahidic and Bo~iric, had under-
gone major changes, phonelically and Icxically. The
spoken language W-'S full of Arabic words, as one
can SL'C from a medical papyrus (Chassinat, 1921) or
a lreatise DO alchemy (Stem. 1885), Thcn: seem 10
be only very few words of Arabic origin in the
scalae; for example, 8 ou,f'!'oc, rice (Kircher, 1643,
p. 194) • modem Arabic ar-mu. II ml.--dieva1 and
modem form of II~ (with many variants) from
Greek opv(a. Another word i~ S 60.uooy::t. almond
(Munier, 1930, p. 164), from Mabic ;i1falVz., kinJ of
h:l7.e1 nut; compare Tunisian UJ/fliz., 31mond, from
iii/aWl- S IIYfIKOIo,., apricot (ibid., p. 164), derives
from Lalin pra/!cox, 3ccu&'llivc praecoce(m), pr'Cco-
cious; hence Greek -rrpauthN.ux and Ar.tbic barql4q,
npricot (Neal' East), plum (Nonh Africa) with ;I
change p:b.
In this conle~1 onc must menlion Kircher's Lillgua
Aegypliaca R...stilllla (1643). AlthOligh it cel1ainly
does not meel modem slandards, it was for il.~ time
excellent and marks the very beginning of Coptil:
studies in Europe. Champollion used il 180 years
later for deciphering the hieroglyphs.
BIBUOGRAPHV
'Alxl al·Masil), Y. "AI·Muqaddirn.A1 wa·s-Salalim," In
RMlat (Jam'Iyal] Mdr Mlnll, Vol. 2, pp. 59-68. AI·
exandria, 1947.
Bauer. G. Allwllasil/s roll 011~, Qilftdal al·Tal!rir /I
'11m al-Tafsir. Eille kop/is.che Cramm(JJik in
arabischer Sprache ails dem 131/4. Jahr/nmd""1.
Frciburg im Breisgau. 1972.
Bell, H. I. and W. E. Crom. "A Grcclr:<optic G1~·
ry," "egypllls 5 (1925):176-226.
canlluyer, C. "j.. propos du nom de la Syrie." JOllmal
01 N... ar EnsI...m Srudi...s 44 (1985):133-137.
CatalogJj(~ gbll'!ra/ des m/llllfscrils d...s bibliotlleqll",s
pl/blit/lles des diqHlrleme/l/s, Vol. L Paris, 1849.
Chabol, J.·B. "lnvent3ire sommaire des manuserilS
CoplCS de 13 Bibliothcque nalionale." ReVile des
bibliolheqllcs 6 (1906):351-67.
Chassinal, E. UII PapynlS met/ical cop/e. Cairo, 1921.
Cl'UlIl, W. E. Catalogrte of the Coptic Mallllscripts in
Ihe Uri/ish Museum, especially nm;. 920-931. Lon·
don, 1905.
,..-_. A Coptic Dic/iorrary. Oxford, 1939,
Demetl'ako~, D, Mega /..e.lik(m Ii!s He/lelliki!s G/6SSi!.I,
Vol. 2, Athens, 1936.
Froundjian, D. Anntmisdz·d,!lj/sches Wilrterhllch. Mu·
nielt, 1952,
Gmf, G. Geschichte dl!f chrislliclrell·llrabisclzen Lill'ra·
IIII'. Vol. 2. Vatican Cily. 1947.
Grenfell, B. P., and A. S. Hunt. TI,... Amh... rst Papyri,
Vol. 2. London, 1901.
Hebbclynclr:, A., and A. van Lttntschoot. Codices Cop-
tiei Vatica"i, Barllerilliani. lJurgiarri, Rossiani. Vol.
I, Codices Copliei Vatica,,;. Rome, 1937. See also
van Lantsehoot.
Kircher, A. Linglla A...gypliaca ReS/i/llltl, Opus TrilHlr·
lillllll. Rome, 164).
L;lOlSChOOl. A. van. Codices Copliei VII/ica"i,
Barlll!ri"ialli, Borgiani, Rossialli, Vol. 2. Pars Prior-,
Codices 8arberillialli Driell/ales 2 ...1 17, BQrgitln;
1-108. Rome, 1947. See also Hebbclynck.
UtZ Priic"~lIr d'AI!ralluse Kirc!,...r, ThOlllllS
Dbieilli et /a "Scala" Val. Copte 71. Louvain, 1948.
Mallon, A. "Une Ecole de savanl~ egyptiens au
moyen Age." MiJ/lttges de la FaCII!te oriell/ale de
I'Ulliversi,ii Sail/l,Joseph de Beyrolllll I (1906):109-
131; 2 (1907):213-64,
-,e;-' "Calalogue des scalae coptes de la BibBo·
theque nationale de Paris," MIHanges de la Paell/le
oriculille de rUniver.lile Sailll-/oseph (Ie Beyroulh 4
(1910):57-90.
Munier, H. l.ll Scala cople 44 de la BibUotheque
"aliollale de p(/ris, Vol. 1, Trall.reril',io". Bibll<:t-
theque d'cluoc-s coptes 2. Cairo. 1930.
Schwyzer, E. Cril'chische Gra",,,mlik, Vol, I. Munich,
1939.
$chuban, W. "Ein laleinisch-griechiseh·lr:optisches
Gesprlichbuch," K/io 13 (1913):27-38.
Sidarus, A. Y. "Coptic LelCicogrnphy in the Middlc
Ages," In The FlltII,.... 0{ Coplic Slzfdies, cd R. MeL
Wilson. pp. 125-42. Leiden, 1978.
Stephanus, II. Tht!SQllrus Lilllitall CraflCae. Paris.
1831-1865.
Stcm. L "Frngment eines koptisehen Ttaklates lihcr

Akhimie." uitschrift fUr iigyplische Sprtlche wzd
IoJtutumskwlde 2] (1885): I02-119.
Vollen, A. "An 'Alphabetical' Dictionary and Gram·
mar in Demotic." Iorchiv oriental,.i 20 (1952):496-
508.
Vycichl, W. DicliomlQire elymologique de III IUIl~ue
cople. Lolll'aln, 198].
WERNIlR VvcrcHi.
SYLLABICATION. It Is common knowledge that
the syllabication of a language Is always closely re-
lated to ib; phonology. This appears at once in the
definition of "syllabIc" givcn by the phonologiU
Grammont (1939, pp. 99-103): "A syllable ... is a
sequence of increasing apertures followed by a s,e.
qucnce of decreasing apertures." This occurs with-
out the degree of apcl1urc neccs.ooarily incrca.slng to
the point where the decrease begins or diminishing
from this poinl to the end of the syllable; in both
increase and decrease two phonemes of the samc
apel1ure may follow one another (cf. below). Gram·
mont Ihen added: "Moreover, a phoneme of given
aperture lIlay be followed by a phoneme of smaller
apel1uI'c in the Increasing part, and by one of great·
er aperture in the decreasing pal1.... There is no
syllable without a vocalic point, and in phonology
there is no ~yllablc withoul a vowel. ... This vowel
always appears at the vocalic point, and ... when it
is the only one, it is always the phoneme of maxi-
mum apertufC in the syllable and Ihe first the ten-
sion of which is decreasing. But it is not uncommon
to find in phonetics, that is, in languagC$, syllables
which have no vowel [such as] the French inteljec·
lion pst'" Here s is increasing since some pronounce
this word (psit] while Ihe pronunciation (pis') never
appears in French; the vocalic point of this wtlrd
therefore lies between s and I, for "the vocalic point
always appears lit the transition from the last in·
creasing phoneme to the lirst decreasing phoneme.
... Every time the phoneme which has the largest
aperture in the syllable is not a vowel, it does nOI
become a vowel through its posilion, but it has the
vocalic point beside it, and is itself now increasing,
now decreasing:'
Gr.mImonl eJltended this principle even to the so-
noranlS (- consonant{s] on the level of phonological
function) /0/, fll, lOll, Inl, and Irl, to which he
n:fuscd to attribule any capacity for becoming vow.
els on the lev<:l of phonological function, and hence
sonant <ft/I, ~/, ITI, I~/, and Irf). according to Ihe
tenninology of Kassel', following Dieth (1950, pp.
379-80). It will be noted Ihat even in these delini·
SYLlABICATION 207
lions appear the data essential for solving the prob-
lems of Coptic syllabicatKm.
In any discussion of a dead language like Coptic,
which can only be known from writtcn texIS, to say
thai its syllabication is alwa)'li closely related to its
phonology is to make a gratuitous Slatement that
leads to nOlhing if it is not admitted th'lt the phonol·
ogy can be detennined with considerable cllU;ty
through the various on/logmphic systems (genemlly
consillercd dialectal) of the texts in lhe dead Ian·
guage. This is admittedly a working hypothesis, hut
is still very widely accepted because it is much more
probable and fruitful than the COntrD1'Y hypothesis
(Loprieno, 1982). It is therefore penni55ible to lay
down here the principle that the syllabication of
Coptic (or, rather. that of ilS various "dialects," In
the traditional sense of the tennl is to be found in a
nllher close relationship with its orthography (or lhe
varioos diak'Ctal orthographic systems).
Before going funher in the examiMtion of Coptic
sylla.bicalion, il is appropriate to recall Ihal Ihe nor-
lOlil phonology of a language is evidently that which
governs the language in its most natural spoken ut·
ter.mce. hence in rapid speech. There ure in any
language two kind~ of ullCI'ancc (cr. Kassel',
1982a-h). Rapid spcl,'dl is characterized by, among
other things, the use of the glides <lj/ and Iwl in
Coptic) and AlEJ'H (except in the idioms M, W, V, F4,
and B, which have completely abandoned it). The
syllabication thai rapid speech entails is "tachsyllabi.
calion" (producing tachysyllables, siglum t/syl.).
Slow speech is characterized by. among other
things, the abolition of the glides and aleph, the first
being replaced respeetivdy by fiI and luI. the sec·
ond by an atonic vo_1 idenlical wllh Ihe tonic vow·
el Ihat precedes it; this speech is clearly artificial,
but ir it is nOl Ihat of normal phonology, it has
nevertheless contributed powerfully to the shaping
of the orthography, the only surviving witness (un·
fortunalely indirect) for tachysyllabic phonology.
Thc syllabication that slow speech entails is
"bradysyllabication" (producing bradysyllablcs,
siglum brlsyl.).
Certainly the tachysyllables (the only ones truly
intcrcsting for phonology) oughl to be the syllables
of Coptic as a living language, in ilS 10051 common
use in ordinary "prose." Since Coptology came into
existence as a science, It has never been possible 10
make them the object of direct inVC!itigation, be-
cause Coptic has been too long since a dead Ian·
guage. Thus, the grammarians (e_g., Stem, 1880, p.
39; Till. 1955, pp. 49-50; VergOlc, 1973-1983, Vol.
la, p. 44) have reconstructed it, (or want of anything
beuer, on the basis of theoretical and aD:llogica!
208 SYLLABICATION
n:a~uning (in some ca.'ies comparative), by taking
into conslderalion the vocalic and consonantal pho-
nemes (including eventual CRYMl)PIlONEIol£S), taking
account of the grnphemL'S not merely according to
theil' graphic kind ("vowel" or "consonant" graph.
emes) hut according to theil' phonological funClion
(vocalic or consonantal) (Marouzeau, 1951, p. 209;
Ka.,~r, 1981c), and by observing Iheir syllabic com·
binations in V'.lriou.~ living languages or in dead ones
phonologically beller known than Coplic.
The bradysyllablcs, as the result of artificial and
abnonllal1y slow enuncialion, could be, among
olher things, the syllables of recited Coptic "poelry,"
but like the t/ayl. Iht:y Cijually evade direct observa-
tion. But, above all, it seems probable that the brl
syl. were those of the syllabication practiced by the
scribes in their work, since br.uiysyllabil.:ation
(alongside OIher faclOrs) 10 a I~e extent conditions
Ihe orthography; in fact, the creDtion and fixation of
an orthography is of nccessity accompanied by an
inte"-~ effort of rdleclion and phonemic analysis,
which goes hand in hand with an artillcially slow
aniculation.
The majorily of I/syi. phonemes could have re-
mained idenlical brlsyl. phonemes. but a minority of
them \Ya.'l modified for this purpose. In fact, it SL'Cms
(in Coptic and in various other languages, at least
modem ones) tn.,t a glide can exist only in "sy!.,
and if it is necessary to p;:l.\S to brlsyl., one passes
immediately lind of nL"<::cssity from the glide to the
corresponding glidant (Kassel', 1981c, pp. 37-38):
for ell8mple, 61G,1T, father, t/syl. 1;011 (monosyllabic),
.
but, hrlsyl. '/(:I)i Ot/' (disyllabic); QyalH, to cat, t/syl.
Iw()ml (monosyllabic), bUI brlsyl. 'Iu omr (disyllab-
ic); lind aleph, which survives only in t/sy!. and be·
comcs an "alcph vowel" in hrlsyl., as in 19oont,
being, t/sy1. Is6'pl (monosyllabic), but hrlsyl. 'I/;6
op/' (disyllahic). fit the snme lime, since orthogmphy
llnd thc ~igns it uses arc strongly influenced by brl
syl., onc should nOI be astonished if the differell1
vadeties of the Coptic alphabet arc found 10 corre-
spond in principle only to the phonemes found in
brlsyl. lind Ihese 1I1pllllbclli (cxcept for 1. - /'1 in P)
arc found to lack the graphemes lhat might render
lhe cryptophoncmes, or phoncmes that have dis.,p-
peared in the transition t/syl.>br/~yl.
One must now rctum to tllchysyllahication, whil:h
1I10ne is really imponant in phonology. In regard to
the laneI', it may be said that the v.-ay in which
various CoptologislS have considercd it is, in gener-
al, somewhat variable, the various theses being sup-
poned by divergent arguments, none of which can
be lightly set aside.
Some phonologists, perhaps moved more than
others by a concern to facilitate compal'ison of Cop-
lic (the latest fonn of Egyptian) with pharaonic
Egyptian. accord to Coptic 011hography only a mther
approximlllc indicative value. This relative impreci·
sion affords them the appreciable advant3ge of, to
some extent. "unifying" the Coptic languagc (as op-
posed to ancient Egyptian as it i.~ known through ilS
writings, a language also considered "one" and not
divided dialcctally in i15 literary fonn); they consider
as phonologically insignificant certain graphic differ-
ences that belong to the doffi3in of the various "dia-
lects," in the traditional sense of thc tenn (cl. Lopri·
eno, 1982, p. 79: "The methodology applied can for
c)[ample show that the phonological structure
Isol.:lml is cOlllmon Coptic, and that differences like
S arrH, 8 OOT6H, and A c.TtflI are purely graphic
variants"). Another by no means negligible advan-
tage is that it brings Coptic phonology (thus neatly
"unified") closer to pharaonic Egyptian (which is
unified 10 the extent lhat hieroglyphs and the like
allow one to know it).
Other phonologist!> tend to consider Coptic or·
thography a.~ a much more precise criterion of pho-
nological knowledgc, which has, as a result, some·
what increased the distance established between
Coptic phonology (thus conceived) lind the phonolo-
gy of pharaonic Egypt.
Hintze (1980, p. 58) had the great merit of at·
tempting what may appeal' as a way of reconciling
these divergent positions, by presenting his concep-
tion of a Coptic phonology Oil sClJerollclJC/s. a pho-
nology in somc sense "stratified" (cl. Kassel', 1984b),
the teml "Coptic" being understood in a vcry wide
sense, including also proto·Coptic and pre-eoptlc. In
this passage Hint~.c distinguished with great perspi·
cacity the successive lllyer'S of Coptic phonology as
lhey can be reconslructed on the basis of the traces
they have left in lhe surftlec layer (the most recent
l:tyer, attested in the strict sense by the vlirious Cop-
tic "ditllcctal" olihogruphic systems) and Oil lhe ba-
sis of what is known of plmmunic Egyptian phonolo·
gy; among those lnye,'S that may he called
"underlying," it is evident thai the highest (the most
recent) will be the most similar to thc surface layer,
with its diversity of dialectal phonology, while at the
deeper levels the dialectal phonological differences
do not yet appellI'.
Rclying on this 1I11ractive conception of a Coptic
phonology on several levels, one may, among other
things, present side by side (without the opposition
synonymou.~ with exclusion) II "superficial syllabica·
tion" (siglum syl/sup.), corresponding to the superfi-

cial phonology, and an "underlying syllabication"
(siglum syl/und.), colTt'Sponding to the underlying
phonology. On numerous points these two types of
syllabication are in complete accord. Elsewhere,
however, they diverge. On the one hand, in syl/sup.,
autos)"llablc I, A, H, N, and r (generally marked with
a struke-or in the case of Hand N, with a OJINKIM
or some other sign-as T, or If etc., or k etc.) or I,
A, H, N, and r capable of funning the apex of a
syllable (by themselves as liOnants. according to
Polotsky, 1933, p. 126 [prob...bly]: Die_h, 1950, PI'.
379-80; and Kassel', 1981c; or through their vocalic
point, according to Grummont, 1939, pp. 99-103)
have the phunological value v (vowel). But the pho-
nemes rendered by these graphemes lire assimilatcd
to voiced c (consonants) preceded by I~/, and hence
have the value ve (vowel plus consonant, respective-
ly IrJb/, IrJl/, laml, lanl, /ar/) in syl/und. (Vergotc,
1973-1983, Vol. Ill, pp. 45-46). Vergote gave to this
vocalic point, in the absence of a vowel gmpheme,
the same phonological value as alOllic 0 - 1;)/): for
example, T (in T(TOIt), al1abe) syl/sup. v 11'1, syll
undo vc lar/: 1...1fT",
, the
~)'I/und. ccvcc l))funt/.
wunn. 5yl/sup. ccvc .
•
Ipfntl,
On the other hand, in syl/sup., it is pcnnissible to
think that certain groups of conSQnants cannot, in
the absence of v, properly speaking fonn a syllable
together (at least in taeh)'5yllabication, although they
have probably acquired this capacity in bradysyllabi-
cation); according as these c are together increasing
or decreasing, th<.'Y will be attached to the following
or preceding v to fonn a syllable. (It is here under-
stood that a e eenainly increm;ing follo~'d by one
cenainly decreasing could fonn a syllable with a
vocalic point not marked by a vowel gruphemc, cr.
Grammont, 1939, p. 102, and below; this case is
practically alwa)'5 improbable in syl/sup.-brudysyl-
labiclltion exdudcd-compariwn of the different
"dial«:tal" olthographies being of no use in this
mllllCI", since, with equal lexemcs, the same pho-
neme may well be increasing in one idiom but de-
crea.~ing in IInother-this inversion of apel1ure he·
ing precisely one of the criteria for po:;5iblc
distinction between the dial«:ls, such as Iml de-
creasing in S CUlTR", to hear, inerem;ing in A CQlTHo.)
But these groups of e most oftcn fonn a syllable
(syl/und.) in underlying syllabication (as alliO in
bradysyllabication; cr. above), beelllU!i(: etymology or
interdialectal comparison (some other idiom having
a vowel grapheme there) invites one 10 consider the
first of these c as increasing and the: following as
decreasing. so that there is a vocalic point there that
in syl/und. will be marked by lal even in the ab-
SYLLABICATION 209
sellce of any vowel grapheme (cf. above with refer-
ence to Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. la, ))p. 30-32) in
the orthography: for example, , CQlTft, 10 choose,
monosyllabic syl/sup. evce Is()tp/, disyllabic syl/und
cy eve 156 t/:Pl-
All that precedes is bao;ed on the principle accord-
ing to which a syllable cannot cxi51 without an apex
around which lhe elements of the syllable gather.
On the one hand, this apex may be it5 phoneme of
strongest sonority; on the other, the syllable (then
called III "syllable of junction": Ka5s4,:r, 1982a, n. 7
and 26) may regroup, disreg.,rding the limits of lhe
lexemcs, various graphemes and phonemes that he-
long to several different "wurds" (scrnanlernes and
morphemes), such as oy.u,I ll.:!OH, a sigh, ~cmantical·
Iy oy ),lI,1 ),zOH,
, but syllabically I1lther t/syl. OYll. lI,1ll.
~M Iwa ~a hom/.
None will dispU1C that the f1pcx of the syllable m<lY
he a v - vowel gmpheme (which is by f:11' the mOSI
common case in Coptic. as in mOSI olhel' languages).
In Coptic again it will be noted that this roll.' of v
may be played fairly often by II sonant (- v, accord·
ing to Polotsky, 19:33, p. 126, Dieth, 1950, ))p. 379-
80, Kassel', 1981e; - decreasing [voiced] c, having
Ihen beside it or in front of h the vocalic point lhat
sel"lCS as v, according to Grammonl, 1939, PI" 99-
103, Vergote. 1973-1983, Vol. la, pp. 31-32, 45-
46). Opinions are most al vari:l.llce when the pre·
sumed apex of the syllable, assum<.'d to be fonned
solely of consonantal gn~phcmCli, is not a voiced c
but a fricative or, wu~ still, an ocdllSive. Polot5ky
(1933, p. 128) scem<.-d to admit the possibility thai
these voiceless c (sometimes even voicclc.ss ~0p5)
may play the role of sonams; "In and ror itself it is a
peculiarity of Coptic that in atonic and especially
posnonie syllables it admits simply any consonant as
the apex or the syllable." (Vieth, 1950, pp. 379-80,
did nOI exclude this in theory, although he limited to
the extreme thc realization of such an eventuality:
"Pmcticully excluded are thc poore81 in soutld"-
i.e" lhe stops.) Vergote (1973-1983, Vol. la), follow·
ing Gl'ammont (1939), arrived at almost the same
conclusion, although he placed lhc apex of the sylla-
ble not on the fricalive or SlOP but on the vocalic
point, which phonologically (Ihough not gmphical1y)
exi5ls alongside them. However that may be, the
admission of Ihi5 possibilily ought not to be Widely
opened except in syl/und. and 5hould not be a mo-
tive for unduly limiling. or even eliminating, the
possibility of having two 5ucccssive c :It the begin·
ning and/or end of a syllable in syl/sup. (Stcindorff,
1951, p. 36, excluded it, however, at the end of a
syllabIc).
210 $YLu\BICATION
Those who cOllsidcr Coptic orthography as a rela·
tively and sufficiently pre<:ise criterion for phonolog·
ical kllowledgc will naturally lend 10 admil in syl/
sup. the minimum of possible cases of syUables
called "surdisonanf' (d. Kassel', 1981<:, p. 43) or
even praclically to exdude them. In this respect,
they will be able 10 draw SUpPOrt, in all cases par-
tially, from Stem (1880, p. 39), whose statement,
however, seems ambiguous: 'The syllable (in Cop-
lie) is eilher open, ending in a vowel or dipthong. or
closed by one or more consonants. Where it ends in
two or three eOnJIiOnants, prcmullciation is some·
limes facilitllted by the insertion of an 6 without
signification, a sh'WQ mobi/t:, although this is u~ually
left unwritten, as in COll1'l, pl'esumobly pronounced
.IOIPc/. 1\ syllable lllay begin with one or more conso-
mmts; but later pronunciation usually prefixes an Ii
10 Ihe opening double consonant, and this is some·
times also wl;tten, e.g, ... C01T€KO for O1TtlKO. . . .
Beginning with three consonants, as in c:qSZT :
CGf'l>.2T (to rest) is lin lIbnonnality." From this pas.
lhlge it clearly emerges thai for Stem there are syl.
lables beginni"g or ending in cc or ccc, even if thc
latter are rare and indeed exceptional, and even if
the dilliculty of pronouncing them soon gave birth
to a tendency 10 divide them into several syllables
less awkward to pronounce by adding an 6 (or pho-
netically a kind of [~l, which did not appear in
writing) as the apex of a supplementary syllable (a
relief syllable, one might say); such a tendency is
phonetic and nOl phonological in origin, and is real-
i7.ed phonologically only at a second. logical stage.
In what follows (in the main, after Vergote, 1973-
1983, Vol. la, an eltcellent work of synthesis) the
Coptic syllable will be pre~nted as a late-Egyptian
syllllble, under its various forms. It will be seen that
some types of Coptic syllables are identical in syl/
sup. and in syl/und. The presentation of other typt:s
will hilve to mark clclIdy the distinction between
whlll is syl/sup, and what (In slriCt conformity with
the principles or VCl'gutc, ibid., pp. 45-46) is syl/
undo The list of types of syllables that is found in
Vergote will even be extended to make room for
sollie of the most complex syl/sup, (and nearly al·
ways not syl/und.) types (also admitted by Stem,
1880, p. 39; cf. above).
In comparing pharaonic Egyptian syllabication
with that of its last avatar, Coptic, one may establish
obvious constants, but one is nonetheless struck by
significant differences, the result of the evolution
and profound rransfonmuion of the language. It is
admiued (Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. la, p. 53) that
only the following syllables existed in Egyptian prior
. , .
to Coptic: la V, Ib v; 2a vc, 2b YC; 3a cv, 3b cv; 4a
dc, 4b cVe (c - consonanlal phoneme, v - vowel
phoneme; - long. • short, • Ionic accent). "Accord·
ing to the theories of SethI.', ollly types 3a, 4a. 4b,
and perhaps 2b in its later conception eltist in the
most ancient form of Egyptian" (ibid., Vol. Ib, p.
53). In Ihis pattern, as can be seen, only the tonic v
in an open syllable are long; all the rest are short.
On Ihe other hand, it will be noted, there is no
syllable beginning or ending in several consonants.
The roles for the formation of lhe syllable in Cop-
tic are clearly rather different. The eltample ~
/phmOjt/, the way, clearly Illonosyllabic, cdicc (in
which Bohairic /ph/ is one phonellle, not two, i.e.,
lISplroted /p/), already shows that the Coptic syllable
may very well (and probably not only in 8 but also
in the other idioms) have seveml COnsonants at the
beginning and/or' end.
Some authon; (according to Vergotc, ibid., Vol.
lb) seem to have admitted that a Coptic syllable. like
a phllr.lonic syllable, ought always to hegin with a
consonant (SteindorfT. 1951, p, 36, and Till, 1955, p.
46, however, expressed themselves on this subject in
nuanced fashion). The result would be that despite
appearances (i.e., orthography) lexeme$ such as 1Dfl,
to count, and e-m., burden, WOllld in rea1ity begin
phonologically with fI, hcnce with a c (unvoiced
laryngt:al stop): thus -(&p/ and '(iltp6/, respective-
ly. Vergole contested this interpretation, because of
"the way in which, for ex.a.mple, the article is joined
10 the substantive in ... nll'i, Ihe house." He added,
'The presence of the decreasing laryngeal occlusive
is always marked by the doubled vowel, and one
does not !Ie(! why it could not be notL-d in an in·
creasing position:' Certainly there is n()(hing to pre-
vent onc thinking that in principle it could be, but
that people were not prompted to mark the pres'
ence of /'/ in that position, where its presence did
not produce Ihe "echo effect" ill bradysyllabication
(ef. below). However that may be, it seems reason'
able to admit with Vergote that in Coptic there arc
5yllables beginning with a v (which apparendy
phar.lonic Egyptian did not have).
Here, then, is the list of the types of Coplic syl.
lables (cf. above). On the left are placed the tonic
syllables, and on the right. the atonic. Each type is
illustrated by a few examplcs; unless otherwise iden-
tified, they are chosen from 5; the part of the
"word" that is not involved in thc eltample is placed
between parentheses; - or . above vowels indicates
respectively their brevity or length, and • marts the
tonic accent. It will be noted thaI long v can only be
found in tonic syllables (open or closed), while short

la. V: EI Ii/, to go; 0'/0/, being
2a. Ye: '"' /As/, to cry; '"' /h/. what
(intc~ti~)
3a. ci: c. /s6/, to drink: ne /~/. heav·
en; syl/sup. C9R'(~) /SJ,(~)/. to
serve, (but syl/und. eYc /~m{~)/)
4a. eYe: .c:UT {k6t/, 10 build; oon /roAp/.
time; syl/sup. <tR"T /f~I/. worm (but
syl/und. eYee /f!nt/) ,
Sa. ecv: CHO'( /smb/, to bless; ~ /ht6/,
hor:o;e
6a. cdc: C6Hf' /setr/,
to navigate; CfT')'H
/sdm/, to dose: syl/sup. 11'IR"T /~t/,
the worm {bul syl/und. cevee
/pr;.,,/)
73. Yce: B DIK bread; OOT' /~'t/.
/Ojkj,
pregnanl (woman); syl/sup. 'R'T'C"
/~ts/ mol'105yllabic, 10 cal'T)' her (but
syl/und. disyllabic /~ t~/)
Sa. cYec:
, UMHoI
/majn/. sign;
/bO'n/, bad; H.Io.EaH
syl/sup. 6lfT1:" /cnts/
monosyllabic. to find her (bul sYI/
undo disyllabic /dn t:,s/)
9a. ccvcc: nCQHll'l /ps~j'f/, the pollution;
CN.),61N /sn!jn/, to loiter
v, which may also be found in tonic syllables (open
or closed), are the only ones that can appear in
atonic syllables (open or closed).
Beyond point 9, for practical purposes, Ihc only
cases to be found (more and more rare because
increasingly difficult to aniculate) belong to syl/sup.
(to the almost complete exclusion of syl/und.), and
present conglomerations of four c or (at any rate in
theory) even more, to the point at which one may
ask if their difficult phonological scructure was al·
SYLLABICATION 211
•
lb. v: .),(I1OVH)/a(mun)/, (god) Ammon:
syl/sop. R(Ta.l/rp{ton), res! (bUI syl/
undo vc /!Jm(ton)/)
•
vc: 6.\(~)/!JI(C6b), heron; syl/und.
2b.
/~m{ttn)/; cf. Ib
3b.
•
CV: 6Cl(l1ll) /c~)/, haste; (HOy)TG
/(na)ta/. god; syl/sup. nT(po)
/pt(rOlI, the king (but syl/und. cvc
/p)r(rO)/); syl/sup. (ce)T'R /~s6)t~I/.
10 hear (but syl/und. eve /(w)l~m/)
4b. •
cve: rlCIr{.c:1lI6) /p::tr(klb:')/, breast; II
(_)".),2 /(6)nlih/, li£e; syl/sup.
HlfT(HOyT(I) /mi'lI(nalli)/. divinity
•
(but syl/und. evee •Im;\nt(nut~)/); syl/
sup. (lI,lO)MR"T /(So)m~t/, three (bul
sylJund. cvcc /(~)m:mt/)
Sb. ccv: nr(l(MIIT) /pr;'l(m~t)/, the tithe; A
(ew)TBO /("O)lbfJ/, to kill; syl/sup.
llf'R(p.ll,I) /pnn(rASJ/, the mild man
,
(but syl/und. ~eve, /p~lII(dJ)/); s)'l/
sup. (N.),)2Hlf /(na)hmn/, to save us
(but syl/und. eevc /(nA)hman/)
6b. ecve: 'IfG..(,X41) /praf(c6)/, the singer.
, (to)T&G<t /(h6)tbM/, to kill ,him; syl/
sup. THWr(HOyrG) /tmnt(nut;'»)/,, the
divinily (but syl/und. ccvcc
/tlll~nl(nalfJ)/); syl/nnd. /pfiim(roU)/;
cr. Sb
7b. vee: nothing in syl/und.; syl/sup.
61'lI- /:Xp/ monosyllabic, to shul up
(but syl/und. disyllabic /;\ t)P/); syl/
sup. lfT1r /f1I£/ monosyllabic, he (bw
•
syl/und, disyllabic /~ 1M/)
.
8b. cvec: IlGCT{C06lf) /p!JsI{sAcfl)/,
, .
fumer; (00)>.611,," /(s6)I~f/. 10 break
per-
if; syl/sup. HWI"'r(ooyc) /1lI?tf(n~!l)/
a disyllabic expression, he has no in-
telligence (but syl/und. trisyllabic
/m~n tM (",\s)/); syl/l:up. (CO)HlfT'f
/(sA)mnt£/ disyllabic, to slrelch him
(but sYI/und. trisyllabic /(,s6)m!m
tfJ£/)
9b. ccvcc: nMl.CT(f'UlME) /pmaSl(r6I1l;:l)/,
the misanthr'Ol)e
ways truly realized in phonetics and i£ the speaker
did nOI often readily have recourse to the "reHer'
/3/, not written in orthography, of which Stcm
(188O, p. 39) spoke: for CJlsmple, cccV: syl/sup. t,lxpo
/ll,},/ monosyllabic, be able to be victorious (but
syl/und. disyllabic /:ii crO/); ccev: syl/sup...xre-
/llr.i/ monosyllabic, be able to be viClorious (but
syI/und. disyllabic /:ii cr.i/); ccc{·c: syl/sup.
•
O1CfYj)T/isl6f./ monosyllabic. be able to tremble (but
syl/und. disyllabic /:i!. still/); cCcVcc: e6rl.2T/scribl/,
212 SYLLABICATION
tr.mquillity; cCVecc: syl/sup. ~Itr /Wtpf/ monO"
syllabic. be ablc to choose it (but syl/und. trisyllabic
I ~ slit'_"-t '
,.... f); cvecc: ,
syl/sup. COTlI1l', cf. above; vccc:
syl/sup. O'nfff/6tpf/ monosyllabic, 10 load it (but syl/
undo disyUabic /& P""/); and even ccccV: syl/sup.
•
'f'l't:"TO /fts16/ monosyllabic, he rums aside (but syl/
undo at leasl disyllabic /ft~ to/). One can, ho.....ever,
find similar homOS)·l1abic conglomcrntions of conso·
nants in modern languages too (e.g., Gemlan (dllJ
halfsl, you hold. monosyll~,bic /h'I!.!;t/. c\'cccc: or
French [fTom English] scripl, monosyllabic /sknpt/.
cccvcc).
One may also, in a more genero.ll fa.~hion, desclibe
the Coptic syllable (in ...yl/sup. ahove all. but often
(1150 in syl/und.) by resor1ing 10 the idea of a phone·
mil.' link increasing or decl'C(lsing as a whole, and
hence taking account not only of lhe aperture, in·
creasing or decreasing, bUI al ...o of the global hI'
crease in Ihe degree of sonorily of Ihe phonemes up
to the apex of the syllable and Ihe general decre:lsc
in this degree frolll the apex to Ihe end of Ihe sylla'
ble, il being understood that it is a mailer of laehy.
syll:lbication (d. above) and that this increase or
dC!Crease. uninterrupted as :I whole. may be irregu-
lar, sineI.' two phonemes of the same sonority or
resonance may follow one another in the increase or
oc'Crcase or a les.~·voiced or less·resonant phoneme
may follow a more-voiced one in Ibe increase and a
more·voiced or more-resonant phoneme follow a
less· resonant one in Ibe dC!Crease (in each case with
appropriale apenure; cr. Grammonl, 1939. pp. 100-
101 ).
Phoneme:; may be c1a.s,~ified. a.~ is well known. in
increasing order of sanOI;ty (d. Dielh, 1950. p. 166:
N3gcl, 1965, p. 76: Kassel', 1981c, p. 3) from the
unvoiced occ1usivcs to lhe unvoicL-d fricatives. then
the sonoran\.'> (otherwise called voiced consonan!.!;),
the glides (or voiced fricatives, VergOte. 1973~1983.
Vol. lao pp. 13, 18), the sommls. the glidant.~. and
the nonglidanl vowels. of which /al is fin:llly the
mosl strongly vuieed phoneme (see PHONOLOGY). On
the other' hand, if no syllable can exist without a
syllabic apex. which is ils mOSt strongly voiced pho-
neme (Dieth. 1950, pp. 377-79; Ih(' syllable llIay
naturally have only one phoneme and hence com·
prise only its ";lpeX" or "lOp" without "slopes" that
lead Ihe speaker to It in voiced increase OT after
which the Spt:aker com(:s down again in voiced de-
crease). it is equally evident that no syllable can
ha\'e morc than one syllable apex. (Two successive
v, nongHdant or sonant. cannot exist logelher in lhe
same syllable. and. separnted by a hiatus, they are
automatically assigned 10 two difl"ell:nt syllables, e.g.,
ro.Jo...O(l /pd ~ h!J/, my existence: hell: one must, of
course. understand two aUlhentit v. and not, for
example. a tonic v followed by the second element
of a vocalic geminalion in writing. which is phono-
logically a c: /'I.)
One may Iherefore say, broadly speaking, that
Ihell: all: four categories of syllables in Coptic, plus
five subcategories:
I. The single phoneme syllable. lhe single pho·
neme of which is 0.1 the same time its apex, such as
• crow.
... /01/ in "'(&a*) /a b6k/,
lIa. The regularly increasing syllable, consisting
only of an increasing phonemic link of which each
phoneme is more strongly voiced than the previous
one and hence a syllable in which the l(lsl (lnd most
strongly voiced phoneme is the apex, such as nco
/psOI in nCO(TG) /ps&(t~)/. the ;lITOW. (The presence
of anothel' syllabic apex. for preference a. vocal
grapheme v. immedi:ltcly before the increasing
chnln does not auract to ilself Ihe first I.' of Ihe
chain, sInce Coptic has no aversion 10 open syl·
lables.)
lib. The irregularly Increasing syllable, consisting
of a phonemic link that i.~ increasing as a whole but
of which each phoncme is not more Slrongly voiced
than the preceding one (this irTegularity does not
ho~ver intefTUpl the lOla] voiced increase or inven
the apenure and splil the syllnble). such as TTIIl
/tr6/ in (6)~/(i'I)lpb/. burden; ~(N6) /ssf(na)/.
she seeks; or even CKD(T6)/sk6(til)/, she tums.
ilia. nil! regularly decreasing syllable, consisting
of a decreasing phonemic link of which each plIO-
nelllC is less \'Oiccd than the previous one and hence
a syllable in which the first phoneme. the Olost
strongly voiced. is the apex. a.~ in oMC/6m.../, im·
merse. (111e presence of anOlher syllabic apex, for
preference a vowel grapheme v, immediately arter
whal would seem at first to be a dccrea.~ing link.
deprives h by syllabic annexalion of its last c. since
Coplic ha.~ a distinct averllion tn syllahles bellinning
with a v; hence OHCOy, 10 immerse lhem, /&m sii/
and nOI '/6ms iif.)
IIlb, The irregularly decreasing syllable. consist-
ing or a phonemic link lhat is decreasing as ;\ whole
but in which each phoneme is not less strongly
voiced than the previous one (this irregularily does
not. however, inlefTUpt Ihe ovemll decrease or in-
ven the apcnure and split lhe syllable). as in .m1
/6tp/. 10 load: 0.,1: /Oss/. read it; or evcn _-rr/6th!.
to weave.
IV•. The regularly increasing and decreasing sylla·
ble, composed of a regularly increasing phonemic
Ullk (d. Ila) articulated (by the apex phoneme) ....;th

a regularly decreasing link (d. lHa), such as rJlXlfT
Ipshrtl monosyllnbic, the wool (same final handicap
, as in ilia).
IVb, IVc, Illld IVd. The irl'cgularly increasing and
decreasing syllable, composed respectively of an ir-
regularly increasing link combim.:d with a regularly
lk'Creasin& one, a regularly increasing link com·
bined with .till irregularly dccn'3Sin8 onc, and an
irregularly increasing link combined with an ilTegu·
larty decreasing one, such as IlTW&Z Iptobhl • thc
pl1lycr; CTGlIT IstObh/, she prays; 'lCf'Tlt Ir:sb-P/, the
elecl; TCAf'l/lSArb/, the flesh; IQCUTlf If.sOtp/, to be
able to choose; and ...Tt:" /fpbts/, he splits.
As can be SCX!n, the problems posed by Coptic
syllabication are vel')' complex, and those who have
dealt with them arc far rrom being at one. No doubt
the last word has not yet been spoken on this mat·
leI'.
81OLtOCRAPHY
Allen, W. S. Vox Gratca: A Gilide /Q Ihe Ptl)fIImcia·
1;011 of Classical Grulc. Cambridge, 1974.
BOhlig. A. me t:riechischeN uhmviirler imsalli-
dischell "lid lNhairischell Neue" Ttslamelll. 2nd cd.
Munich, 1958.
Cerny, J. Coplic Etytllo/ogical DicliollaT)'. Cambridge,
1976.
Chaine, M. Efimetlls de grllll/II/aire dilllecwle cople.
bohalhque, Stlhidiqlle, aclmri",iq"e, fll)'Ollmiqw:.
Paris, 1933.
Dieth, E. Vademelclllli del' Pholle/ilc. Bern, 1950.
Dubois, J.; M. Giaeomo; L Guespin; C. Marccllcsi;
J.·B. Marcel1csi; and J.·P. M~vel. DiClimlllaire de
litrgllisfiqrle, Paris, 1973.
&Igel1on, W. F. Review or W, C. Till, KopliS€he
Grommalik (slli'discher Diolekl). lmmwl of NeIlI'
EaSlertr SWdies 16 (1957):136-37.
Gardiner, A. Egyplillll Grummar, 8eing all Ililroduc·
lioll 10 Ihe Swdy of Hieroglyphs. 3rd ed. Oxford,
1957,
Gignac, F. T. A Grummar of Ihe Greek Papyri of Ihe
ROIlUm alld Byumlbre I'eriod, Vol. I, PitOl/o!ogy,
Vol. 2, Morphology. Testi e tlocu!1lcnli per 10 stu·
tlio Jdl'antichltll, 55. Milan, 1976 anti 1981.
Grarni1l0nt, M, 'I'rail~ de pll(lIlCtiqw:, avec 189 figwes
dalls Ie lexle. 2nd etl. Pllris, 1939.
Hinl1:e, F. "Zur Struktur des WOrtes im Agypli~hen
('Ersal1:dehnung' und Melathcse)." Zeilschrifl fill'
P!lQ>ICIiA: ulld allgemeine SpruchwissenS€lrafl 1
(1947):18-24.
_.,--_ "Noeh clnmal O/:ur 'ErsaI1.dehnung' und Meta·
these im Xgyplischcn:' Zeilschrifl fill' Phonelik lwd
allgemeine Sprac1/1vissellsclrafl 2 (1948):199-213.
--::=. "Zu,' koplischen Phonologic:' Enchoria 10
(1980);23-91,
SYLLABICATION 213
Kahle, I'. E. }JIlla'izah: Copllc TexIs from Dcir c/.
Balcl'izalr I" Upper EIO'PI. Oxford and London,
1954.
Kassel', R. "Usages de III surligne dans Ie Papyrus
Bodmer VI:' Bullelill de la Socibe d'egyplologie,
Glmeve. 4 (198oa):53-59.
___ "ProlCgomcllcs II un CSS<'li de classification
systemalique lk.-s dialectcs el subdi.;..lccles copIes
scIon les crit~res de la phonetiquc, I, Principes el
lerminologie:' MrlSiQII 93 (1980b):53-112. " ... ,
11, Alphabels et SYSI~mes phonetiques:' Museo" 93
(198Oc);237-97. " ...• III, SystelllCS orthographi·
ques ct cat~orit:s dialcctalcs:' Mlfsio" 94
(1981a):91-152.
___ '''Djinkim' 00 'surlignc' dans Its (eXits en
dialt:clc tople rnoyenoCJYpllen." Bul/Clin de la So.
ciite d'archiologie cuple 23 (198Ib):IIS-S7.
"Voyelles en fonction cOll5Onantiqut', con-
sannes en fonction vocalique, et classes de
phonemes en copte." 81111dill de fa Sociele
d'igyplologie, Gellble 5 (198Ic):33-50.
___ "Syll3OOtion rapldc 00 lenle cn copte, I, Lcs
Glides Iv et Iwl avec leurs COl'T"e!'pondanl!i vocali-
ques 'Ii/' et '/u/' (el phon~mes apparies ana-
logues)." Ellchoria II (1982a):2J-37. " ... , 11,
Aleph CI '\IO)'c1lc d'ah:ph.''' ENChorio II (1982b):39-
58. ".,., III, Syllabcs ou sous-syUabcs non voca-
lisecs en 0'1hographe sai·dique." Ellchoria 12
(1984a): I5-26.
___ "Phonologic superficielle et soos-jacenle en
cople." Bllflelill de fa Societe d'Qrchiologie cuple
26 (1984b):43-49.
--"-C' "Gemination de voyelles dans Ie P. Bodmer
VI." In IIcu of Ilu~ SeculUf /tllenUlliOllul Congress
01 Cllplic Studies, Roma. 22-26 Seplember /980,
I'd. T. Orlandi and F. Wis...e, pp. 89-120. Rome.
1985.
Kuentz, C. "Ouantite (X, tirnbre? A propos des
pscudo·rcdllublt'mcnl~ tic voyel1es en cople."
Ororlpe lingllistique d'clrldes chQmilu·semitiqrles 2
(1934-1937):5-7.
lacau, P. "A propos des voyelles I'edoublees en
copte." Zdtschrifl fill' ilgyplisdre Spradll: und Aller·
III/llskundc 48 (1910):71-81.
Lopl'icno, A. "Melhodologische Anrncrkungl'n zur
Rolle der Dialckli: in del' tigyptischen Sprachent.
wicklung." GVllillger MiSl)Jlhm 53 (1982):75-95.
Mallon, A. GrUlIIlIIQire COplfl, IIvec bibliuWllphie,
chn!Slomathie el lIocablllaire. 2nd cd. Beirut, 1907.
Marexneau, J. £.exique de la ":mrlltologie Iblgui$lique,
fra/l(,;ai~·.ulIemmrd-aIlRluis·i/Qlicll. Paris, 1951.
Nagel, P. "Zum Problem de" konson:mtiSl;:hen Silo
bentrtigcr 1m Koptischen." Zei/sellri', flir
iJgyplische Spraelle uud Allertumsluwde 92
(1965):76-78.
Polotsky, H. J. "Zur koptlschen lautlehre 1:' Zeit·
sellrifl flir iJgyplische Sprache IIml Alterlilmskulldc
67 (1931):74-77.
214 VOCABULARY, AFRICAN CONTACTS WITH AUfOCHTHONOUS COPTIC
_::-_ "Zur kopti5chcn Laudchre 11." Zeilschrift fur
iJgyptische Spmche WId Allerlurns/nmde 69
(1933):125-39.
'"Unc Ouestion d'orthographc bohairique."
Bllllelill de la Sodiri d'art:hioiogie COPlf! 12
( 1949):25-35.
Robert, P. DicliQ>maire alphabilique el analogique de
la langue /ranfQ~. Paris, 1970.
Stcindorlf, G. Koplische Graltlmatik, mil Chresto-
malhie, Wonervemichllis mId Utt:ralur. Berlin,
1930.
::--:::C.' l..ehrbueh der kupliM:hen Crammulik. Chicago,
1951.
Slern, L KopliscJre Grammatik. Leipzig, 1880.
Till, W. C. "Alles 'Aleph und 'Ajin hn KOplischcn."
Wiener leitselln'ft !IJr die Klmde des Morgen/audes
36 (1929):186-96.
::-::::. Koplisclre Grammalik (.~ai"dischcr Dia/ekl), mil
Bibliographie, Lese.~tIlckc IIIlJ Wi.lrlll"'erzeicimisse'l,
Leip7,ig, 1955.
_---:. KOl'lisclle Diuillklgrummalik, mil LesestUckcn
Wid Wi.lrlerbuch. 2nd cd. Munich, 1961.
Vergote, J. Pizolieliqm: hislon'que de regyplien, les
COtlSOlllles. Louvain, 1945.
-::-c Grammaire cople, Vol. la, /n/rodllc/iotl, pho-
niliqlle et photloJogie, morpho/ogle synthima/lqlff:
(SlnlClUre des .seman/emes'. ptJrtie synchronique,
Vol. Ib, IntrodllCliorr, photrbique el phonoJogie,
morphologie sytlthimatiqlle (structure des
sbrraJl/emes), ptJnie diachronique, Vol. 201..
MOf'Phoiogie syrrlagrnaliqlle, synlaxe, partie
synclrroniqlle, Vol. 2b, MOf'Phoiogie synlagmaliqtle,
ptJrtie diachroniqtle. Louvain, 1973-1983.
RODOLPH£ KAssER
VOCABULARY, AFRICAN CONTACTS
WITH AUTOCHTHONOUS COPTIC.
There were doubtlt.'ssly close conlacts between
Egyptian or Coptic and the neighboring Anican Ian·
guages. The latter have almost enlircly disappeared
in Egypt, and tlte three langutlges slill spoken there
arc of relatively recellt date: (I) Berber, the lnn-
guage subfamily of the Berbers of Siwa Oasis in the
west, ncar the Libyan border, who setded there in
lhe Middle Ages, though the people of lhe oasis itself
were Berber·speaking from the oldest times; (2) Nu·
bi:m, the tongue of the Nubians in Ihe Nile Valley
from Aswan southward, who penelmled there after
the fall of the Meroilic empire, probably in the
fourth cenlury A.D.; and (3) Be4awlye, the language
oftM Beja of the E.aslem Desert, belween the Nile
VallL")' and the Red Sea. appTOlIimatcly south of 1M
desert road from Qif~ tQ Ooteir, who seem 10 be the
oldcst inhabitants of their terrhof}', though they are
mentioned further south in an inscription of Ezana,
king of Elhiopia (fourth century A.I).).
Berber
In all these cases, Qne must di~inguish between
Hamito-Semitic words and loanwords. Ilamito-Semi·
tic are the words for "longue" (Arabic lislIn, Egyp-
tian Is - 8ohairi<;; (B) and Sahidic (S) ;v.c, Berner
i·les, and Chadic lisi in Mubi) and "10 die'" (Arabic
milt, yamlil : maw" Egyptian mwt - S HOy : HC\OYT',
Berber emmel, Chadic mllill in Hausa). Berner
shares scveral words with Egyplian lhat are nOi
Hamito-Scmitic, such as rliSen, jackal (Shilha in Mo-
rocco, Kabyle in Algeria): wtd • 8, S QylllliGJ; a~<!tla,
date (fruit) (Ghadames in Libytl), Egyptian bllY - B
BON!. S B1'fNO; also S KoyK, fruit of lite dum palm
(flyphaelle Ihehaica), corresponds to Tuareg a-klika.
A Berber loanword of the Uby.1O period (Twenty·
second DynaslY) is 8, S HOfT, beard, Berber tamar/
(Shllha of Morocco), wilh variant!i, in almost every
dialect.
Be4awlye
In B$wiye, the language of the Ik:ja in the Easl·
em Desert, the horse is called hatily (plural, hat6.y).
This word derives from Egyptian ~Ir, yoke of allen,
later pronounced ~tj • B 290, 5 tTO. Vel halay dOC$
not derive from ~tr or ~/j but from a lhird form, ~ty
(probably pronounced °l,ta/liy), not found in Coptic
dialects.
BcQawiye san, brother, looks like 8, S COH. In
spite of the similarily, the words are of different
origin. This can be seen from the differenl deriva·
lion~. Coptic has B c.NI, sister, and the plural B
CMlfOy, brolhel's, while the Cushitic languages have
different forms: Be4awiye kwa, sister, and in
Dembea tJ}n, in Khamir zin, in Bilin dan, brolhers.
Meh<!/, to treat medically, is probably of Coptic or
Egyptian urigin; compare P H6,""', to heal, apparent·
ly an emphatic verbal noun (Omal!l!rlaw or similar).
Nubian
Nubian is not a Hamito-Semitic language. In the
Middle Ages there were scvera] Chrislian kingdoms
in Nubia and lhe old-Nubian lellts contain a certain
number of Coptic and Gn.'ek loanwords, such as
om,
.t.J't.a., temple: B 6rt~lI, S 'fI16; wine: S, B Hrll,
probably °ji;rep or similar; and cu.e.a., pmy. with
whieh compare B, S ~, to pray, and Be4awiyt"
silll, pray, prayt"r. In modem Nubian one finds Q&r,
winter • the month Hathor or, more cuctly ilS

Greek form A.9yJ'. prollOllnccd A.ti, (without h); and
bora", a month name (Ambic 8a)'/IIIS) from Greek
tU.XUlI, pronounced Pake", (without II).
K/Jm, camel, derives not direclly from B XA.HOy'\,
5 6l.HOY'\, camel, but from an earlier fonn, ·~amli/j.
l1lcre were no camels in phal""olOTlic Egypt unless in
the last centuries H.C, but Cambyses' expedition to
Siwa Oasis is unthinkable without camels; it look
place snonly after 525 D.C But the name of me
animal, which is of Semitic origin (Akkadian
",mll/alll.m, Hebrew gamal, A("'"maic gUIIlI-lJ but
glmil/. beron: a genitive, Arabic J:Ilmal, gllmal), must
havc been known in Egypt a long time before, as the
shift from a 10 () (gll/tIl'l/.j : gll/nOI.1) took place before
1000 H.C, TIle Coptic forms derive from ~allliili, il
being due 10 postnasalizatiun, and the smne form is
the ancestor of variuus forms in Berber, such as
Kabyle u.l((em, plural j./el:"mllll, where a· and i· arc
the old singular and plural lu1ides lind ~ is Al"tlbic
ghayn, a fricalivc g as in the modem Greek gala,
milk. TIle Bel'ber form derives from ·~ulilmi (me·
Iathesis for ·kamiilt), and similal' fOl'ms are found
in numerous languages in the WClitem Sudan, such
as lIausa r:M'umi. camel, Kanuri ktJ-{igilllo (pre6x
.l:a·), probably also Fulani i,.gelaba, camel, and so
on. In Nubian the word has 10lIt its last pan (kam
inStead of kalllu/), but the plural is stillluJml·i (plural
ending .j).
B18UOGRAPIIY
Vyckhl, W. Diclitmnujrc bytllo/ogiqlle de la fatlgue
cop/e. Louvain, 1983.
WEkNER VYCtCHL
VOCABULARY, COPTO·ARABIC. No Ian·
guage is entirely homogeneoulO, and w it is with
Coplic. There is a majorily of IlutochthollOUS words
deriving from ph:U"IIOnlc Egyptian, but after the con·
quest of Egypt by Alexander the Great (332 u.c,)
many Greek words wcre adoptcd. And, later on, af·
ler lhe cnd of thc Byarntine domination, Egypt. sub·
dued by the Arabs [A.D. 641), began to undergo thcil'
influem;e. al fiBt imperceptibly bUI later more obvi·
ously. Thus, Arabic loanword.~ were extremely rare
in Coptic immediately after the AltAR CONQUEST OF
00'1''''', comprising but a few pen;onal names and
some substanlives. ThL')' became more numel'QUS in
Ihe very last period of Coptic, :IS evidenced by
Stem's texl (1885) on alchemy and Chassinal's medi·
cal papyrus (1921), both probably translated from
the Arabic. In Ihe fonner, most nouns are preceded
by al· or ;m assimilated form:
VOCABULARY, COPTO-GRE.EK 215
S UKA.f'OOI'(l (fel1l.). boule:Arabic al·~(lnira.
S UKA.TA..2 (masc.), be:iker.Al1lbic ol·~fII/a~l.
S >.AU..."t1 (masc.), c03I:Arabic al·fo~lIIl.
S ),),),.1I'flT (masc.), sulphu("'.Arabie al·kibrll.
5 MXClhOyt'l (masc.), ovcn:A.mbie ol-klltuill.
S ),),XA.frOOIMl (fern.), carob bean:Arabic al·
harrfiba.
S ).(;(;t1l1tt:6 (fern.). sheet of melal:Arabie aNafi~la.
S A.cceplllt:! (mllSC.), al'Senic:Ambic a~.;jmiJ!.
S M:Cllo..ut (masc.), mercury.A("'"bic aNO)Va~.
n,el"C are fonns withoul article, such 11." 5 T6rz»t
(mn.o;c.), dirJram (unit of weight); 5 TJt.NJ>I(, (mase.),
dlllla~ (unil of weighl); and S Jt.l\Il.T, white, from
At"llbic 'allyll(!, while.
D1DLIOGRAPHl'
Clmssin(\[, E. IJ" Papyrus med/cul cOP/I!. Ml:moires
publics p;.lr Ie! membres de l'llistitut fmnl;ais
d'arehcolugie orientale du Caire 32. Clliro, 1921.
Stet'll, L "Fragment eines kOplischen Tt"'llktlltt'S ilber
Alchimie:' Zei/scllrifl fiir Ul:YptiS€lle 5procfrt I/Iul
A{terlwIIsklmde 23 (1885): 102-119.
WERNER VYCtCIlL
VOCABULARY, COPTO·GREEK. The reader
who has not been warned in advance, approaching a
Coptic text, will probably be Slruek by its "Gr\.~k"
;Ippcal'ance. But even if il~ JiOperlicial appearance is
almost entirely Greek, the body Ihus clolhed reo
mains authentically Egyptian. Funhennon·. the pro-
ponion of clements of Greek appearance to those of
Egyptian aspeet may v"ry from one Coptic lext 10
another (bt'Clluse of Ihe Ol"u:crs, Ihe subjt"Cts treat·
cd. the stylistic and linguistic preferences of the au-
thors, not to mcntion the level of thelr CUltUl"c, ctc.),
as will be seen fUl1hel" on. The two following exam·
pies, itl which will be fuund either S..,hlclic (5).
Mesokemic (M), "classical" Fayyumic (FS), "elassi·
cIlI" BulHlitic (llS), on the one h:md, or Akhmimic
(A.), Oil the OIher, will shuw this sUllltllaJily and in ;1
preliminary Wily.
First is the best known of Ihe Gospel pruyer:s (MI.
6:9-13), allcstt'd as it happens in four dilTet"Cnt Cop-
lie idioms (Exhibit I). The proponions cited here
are ealculau:d chieny on the ba.'Iis of the Sahidic
lext. In S this p;l.o;sage requires 219 lellers, of which
204 (95 percent) arc Greek (see on thl'l subject "U'IlA·
Btt IN covnc, CRI'H). If one counts the "words"
(following the conventional procedures and omitting
the artieles and various prefixes, which are always of
Egyptian origin), one finds here 41 words, of which
216 VOCABULARY, COPTO-GREEK

ExHIOIT I.
Our Father who an in heaven, hallowed be Ihy name:
S I1fl.IffiItn" GT1;'If ff''"YG fUl'flOOIq'J.ff oyol1
M Il6Ii6XJT 6T~ff ~1H ,~ H.\f(NToyu.
FS 11€tlilllT eTtNff .... IOy'" ItGIO.6" H.U6<ny1U
85 oo,amT tiT~ 1II;II0yl HJ,f6<fTOyW h e IHlKp,ff

(10) thy kingdom come; Ihy will be done

S TClKHlfT'rto HJ.J'flC6' 1lI,lK0yaMIJ HJ.~'O
AI T€kHHT6l'J. HJ.1'flC6' nOT6,tUClK HJ.('6'M1O'H1
FS TtiKM6TtirrJ. H,U6Ct' IH;TOtlUlk
85 HJ.fi)Ci ilXG T6KH1)TOyfO 1I6T6:to.k HJ.f6'ft111D1'

on earth as it is in heaven; (11) give us this day our daily bread;

S ROE 6T'lf~lf Tl16 HJ.FO~16 all etxA' 11KJ.t 1l0NOlllK eTtlllY TU<I NJ.U ffnooy
M ffOll 6Tll,lJ.1l ~N TIll' MJ.rOClIXMlG ~'XN I1KG~6 n1lffimK f~OCTG Ml.GI<I IlOH M11J.OY
>'5 ~H TlIlI MJ.>'O'fllllU1II ~'XON I1KG~1 1l0NJ.'iK Il>'OC'~ HJ.'i'1 llHll HllJ.OY
85 H<l>rll'~ .~6H 1"1>11 NIIH ~lXllH llIKJ.~1 1l011WIK NTII 1'J.ct Hili" HJ.H M<j>OOY

(12) and forgive us OUf trcspa~se.~ as we fOl'give lhose

S KW N..l.H llW..l. llN6T6fOl'l Roo ~Ij all llTlTKw coo>.
M KW llu.>. NN6TCF..l.N Nett 2Q)1l llTlt,l..l.IUUII (IBM
FS Kli tUWJTC"..l.N mlH 6u.>. tIT~ HT..l.t'ltW 6u.>.
85 0'r'0t X" tlOTGrot+ taN ll&O.\ H1'rt.... 2ItI' (lT6HXW (lr.(»,
who tn'''pass against u.'1; (13) and lc"d us not into temptation [ft:Ip(fUPoi<;)
S RH6T6 oyJfTJ.U 6fOOY RMfixn'ff 6:OY'I enelfJ.CHOC
AI f11l6T6 O"(HTCfI tl!'l.Y I1IlffITH tt:oyH enl1lfJ.CHOC
FS HIl6T6 OYJo¥TlUl GUy l'1n6.\CHT6N C1,zOytllllnl"M:HOC
85 WIN GT6 oyoff f1TJ.H 6f'C1lOY K1€F6,mm (I~ (l11IfJ.CHOC
but [oAAti] deliver us from cyi1 [1I"O~J.
S £Wl.~ 1IlOI11fOC·
AI (I LU fIT),.T"l ,,"lOtlllfOC·
FS "'~ ...1Ml:T:!),.Y·
85 (1:10.\ ~J. Iltl6T:eoy.

only 3 (7 percent) arc of GrL'Ck origin (in M likcwi:;c
3 words oul of 40, in /15 2 01.11 of l5 .. 6 percent, in
852 out of 46 = 4 percent; if inslead of considering
Mt. 6:9-13 OI1C considered only 6:9-12, one would
find in all these idioms no word of Greek origin).
This lext, a~ can be seen, is particularly sober in its
use of lhe Coplo·Greek voclIbuhuy.
The First Epi:Hle of Clement 42.4 in A (Exhibit 2)
is as far as can be from this sobriety, This passage
u.~ 108 lellers, of which 103 (95 percent) arc
Greek. If onc c.:ounls the wunls. thcre arc 17. of
whic.:h 12 (71 percent) are of Greek origin.
These twu examples arc probably eXlreme cases,
and the great mass 0( the Coplic lellts lies sam.....
where belween them, ~ily making use of this Ilel·
lenic material, without parsimony 01" anti·Greek pul"'
ism but also without falling into "HellenOlnania."
Thcre can be no question here of examining in
eve,y delailthe problem IXlsed by lhc variable u~ge
of the Copto'Greek wun.ls in thc various Coplic telllS
(thc most dctailed sludy of lhe subject, although lim·
lted 10 lhe New Tcsltlment and to Ihe "langlluges,"
ruther than "dialec.:ls," S lInd E, is BBhllg, 1958; willi
l'cgrll'd to the Coptic dialects oulside Sand 8, see
Kassel', 1983). This discussion will therefore be con-
rincll to the most imlXlnant fuelS.
Eve'y language earries word~ borfowed from
neighboring languages; in English, for ex.ample,
there are Illany words deriving from French. in par-
tic.:ular bc<::auM: Ihe political history of England was
oflen and ovel" long periods closely interlocked wilh
that of France. However, the ProlXlnion 0( thc
Greek words in Coptic (J1U-ely of words thai passed
into Greek from Semitic.: langu:1ge5 or from Latin,

EXHIBtT 2.
They preached [~IVJ in C\'CI)' [Karol city [...QA..~] and in cvery [KO'1li'] country [xWpa],
l.y.,. KIIf'YCCCl 6tI Iu.Tl.
they inst:lllcu [KitlflU'1"O"lfn] (in office] their fir'SI·l'mit [tl1Tapxi/. i.e., those who were to be thc first among them],
;t,Yr I(,l.T2t(;.,.l. lTtIOyl.lIl.rXII
they pr'U\·I.'dI/i("t(4Ui(€lV) by the [I-loly] Spirit (... vt:i'I,=J bishops [e:...iuKo...oo;] :lnd dc.1cons (&aKOI'O<;]
l.y'f A.OKItlJJ.(l tR .1110.
capable (now and in .he futul~] of having {and preserving) the faith [1n(1"TtilflV).
H6TH),1 T rtK:T6)'4l.
Persian, or other tongues) is enOmlOl.lS-aOOUl 40
pcn:elll. This is. of course, counting each lellcrnc as
a unit, for it happens that VCI)' often the Copto·Greek
word~ arc of rtll'cr usage (because more speciali1.cd)
in ordinary Coptic tClIts (nol those devoted to law.
thoology, medicine. etc.), so that their presence
there is more Inodest (about 20 percent on avcmge).
This very l."Vident and massive prt$Cnce of the
Greek clement in the Coptic languagc (llS an Egyp-
tian language) has no doubt some relation to the fact
that the majority of the Coptic tex!.s prt:!;crved today
were translated from thc Greek. TI,e tmnslations
were generally carrico.! out in a mther free manner
in S, rllther literally in B, where the Greek terlll of
the original wa~ readily tllken up into Copto·Greek,
especially where the term was difficult to under·
stand. whereas in S, the effort ....'as made 10 inter·
pret, by means of a more accessible vocabulary, al
Ihe COSI of departing somewhat from the Greek.
However, that is not the chief cause of what ap-
pears as a kind or
Hellenization of Egypcian. It re-
sults in foct, above all, from a PI"QC(,'SS of linguistic
interference, in which Greek naturally most often
plays the role of the "donor" and Egyptian that of
the "recipient" (Brunsch, 1978, pp. 60-61). This
phenomenon is the inevitable result of the Helk'nk
grip on Egypt dUdng the five centllries or SO thaI
preceded the formation of Coptic llS a literary Ian·
guage (sec AU'IlIillL'T IN COPTIC, GREEK). Since Greek
hao.! been so long in a dominant position in Egypl, a
country of which it b<..'Came the administmti\'C lan-
guage from the beginning of the Ptolemoic period
and in which mere was a strung Greek colony, there
gradually came about, of noec~ity and also through
mixed IIl.1lTiagcs (e.g., between Greek soldiers and
Egyptian womcn), a bilingual milieu, which facilitat·
cd the smooth functioning of thi~ heterogeneous SO'
cial whole, and the diffusion of numerous word~
from the Greek koine of Egypt (with certain mdi·
VOCABULARY, COITO·GREEK 217
noAte MYy Kl.Tl. XIUfl.
lTlf(llllCKonoc Hlf tGHA..U.KOUOC
mentary concepts that accompanktl them) into the
widest circles of the native population, which in the
beginning did not know Greek.
Fmthermorc, this diffusion could only have heen
acceler'lltoo and extended by the diffusion of new
idea~ brought by Gl~ck texts (Jucko.Christianity.
Gnosticism, lielmctlcism, ManichaeiSIll, etc.). These
ideas first took root alllong the Greek minority in
Egypt: l:lter they contaminatl'tl the bilingual milieu
and then the milieu in whkh only Ihe native (Cop-
tic) language was spoken. II may be remarked in this
connl'Ction thai, on Ihe one hand, the Coplic words
dCI'iving from Greek are for the mO$t p3rt so well
as.~illlillited into the Coptic I:mgulige that it is 3ppra-
pri:ltc to call them "Copto·Gr'eck" rather thlln
"Greek" (Ihey were pr'Obably no longer felt to bc
"Creek:' and thus foreign, by the Copts who micd
them): but, on the other hand, these Copto-Greek
lellemcs only rarely playa truly indispensable role in
Coptic, for in the majority of cases one could ....ilh·
out serious inconvenience replace them with some
a1mo:ot synonymOUlii :lutochthonous equivalent. (The
old Egyptian language was supple enough alld rich
enough to be oble to face up to lhese diverse new
situ:ltions, to an~wer these "modem" needs and
adapt iL~elf, as it did sevel'llltimc~ in the course of a
histoJ)' of sever'lll thousand ye'II'S.) The usc of the
Copta-Greek vocabulary thus l'ernains very often op·
tional, this aspect of "free choice" being fur1her un·
derlined, mol'c than once, by the facl that the writer
apparently delighted in placing side by side the
Copta-Gn:'Ck word and the nativc Coptic word (fe>
dundancy in some sort, llS in ~l. xe, in order that:
0yX OTt XG, not because: ru.MH OH, again; xe rAt,
lx.'C.IUSC; 01' in tautologies like .lJ"Jr.OOC Jr.'(lD 6fOoHOy<l
in the I'istl~ Sophia; cr. Schmidt and MacDcnnot.
1978, p. 550). But it is evident thtlt othel' factors in
pructiee limiled this theoretical Iibelty. In fuet, the
use of the Copto-Creek vocabulary IlHly be imposed
218 VOCABULARY, COPTO-GREEK
by cer1airl conventions. such as those of some spe-
cialized milieu or olher. It may be linked also to the
personal laste of some author or translator for a
given lerminology. some writers probably pUlling on
a certain affeclalion of Hellenizing their discourse
while others. for other ideological molives (purism.
desir'e to safegullr'd an ethnic and religious parlicu-
larism. etc.), r~'acted negatively in face of this incli·
nation, which tended progressively to assimilate
Egypt to the somewhnt hybrid Hellenisll1 of tbe
olher provinces of the Bywntinc Orient.
In shor1. one may Ihink thaI certain ecclesiaslical
milieus in thc third amI fOUlih centuries encouraged
Ihe Helleni7Jtlion of lhe native Egyplinrr idioms:
Greek wu.s the language common to all parts of the
chur'Ch, il was Ihe language of Ihe Iheologians after
having been that of the Septuaginl version (Gr-cek
Old Testament) and of the entire New Testament.
and so of Ihe Gospel itself. Cer·tainly. it was consid-
ered necessary \0 tran.slate the Bible inlO Coptic. bUi
this waS above all to answer a tr.:msitory need. that
of the Christiani7.ation of the rural masses of Egypt.
Once this cnd htld been alttlined. the p~u1isans of
Greek thought lhat Ihe sooner the Coptic church
became Hellenized. the belter: hy this means they
would avoid a dangerous ptlMieularism. productive
of ~chisms. And, in fact. it was well r'ecognized thM
by the fon:e of events the Grcek voeahulm)' of the
Copts was becoming richer from generation to gene-
mtion: it would suffice to accelerate Ihis movement
further by multiplying the borrowings from the Hcl·
lenic patl'illlony. FrOIll this poinl of view. every
Greek word used in Egypt already belonged by right
10 Ihe Coptic language and could find its place one
day or anothcr in a Coptic sentence; ever)' word in
the koine was in some sort potentially a Coplic
word. Thus. one may observe here or there the ap-
pear.mee of sollie Greek word. new in Coptic, uscd
in a mOlllent of audacity or with an urge to empha-
sis. according to the temper.lment or thc whim of an
author.
Tbis movement of openness 10 Greek was opposed
very curly by ,I re:lction of native punicularism.
growing ever slronger. which prevenled many Greek
words newly introduced into Coptic from becoming
profoundly assimilated to it lind so becoming pan of
common usage. Besides, in the third cenlUry h.D. the
pr'Cpondentnce of Greek in the Roman empire, at
least in the plincip"l ports and in wide areas of its
eastern pan, and in Rome, had been breached, espe-
cially by Latin but also. more regionally, by other
cultural pal1icularisms. One might thus define Cop-
tic, as it presents itself to the observer in all its
diversity. as the fluctuating result of a very incom-
plete Helleniwlion of the popular Egyptian Ian·
guage. Ceria-in Greek words were thoroughly assimi-
lated to it. in all levels of the population; other'S
were part of Ihe current professional baggage of
specialists (jurists, theologians. physicians, etc.) wilh-
in their specialization, while r'emaining foreign to
lhose who did not know sufficiently well the science
expressed by this particular learned terminology:
still others remained tlue foreign bodies in Coptic,
being used only exceptionally, by an author who did
not know how to translate them or lOok delight in
the mystery of a lerm underslood by him alone (or
by a very few initiates). Therefore, one cannot de-
scribe all these Coptic words derived from Greek
uniformly as "assimilaled," "burrowed," or "for-
eign."
A very small pan of the Coplo·Greek vocabulary
appears to have entered into the Egyplian lang-
uage a very long time before the beginnings of lit-
erary Coplic. and probably even before the Ptolemaic
period. at a time when Greek had not yet acquired
the preponder-ant !'Ole thaI it laler pJayed there
for close to a thousand years. One can recognize
these words from their orthography. ofteo some-
what distorted in Coptic in compalison with their
Greek orthography. Thus, for example (OOhlig,
1958. Pl', 6. 80), Q-'YKIlpa. anchor. S ;y6.u, F5
2ltoy6l1...., B ltoy.x.u: IJ.71AId'T'iI, skin garment. B
H6MP111 but again S HG....mT, S Hlt.,\MPT, and
above all S u.:wT, A. F5 UUT; ."t-AlflCtI<;. ax. S,
}j IUlA611Itl: ."illa€, platc. dish. S. M Illtlltol but
£5 nmG6, B IIlro..x; Otll&iw. linen cloth (or
garment). S. A, M cm.....wtl but also S tI11TTW, B o,lGIITW:
rrrari]p. statcr (weight or coin), S, W CltoTflllf6.
/..5 CT,lt.T66fl;l. fA ('''T).T6af. M cTltoTHfa, £5 CltoTHH.\I, B
Clto06fl.
Howevcr, the majority of the other words derived
from Greek in the Ptolemaic period or cvcn later
("derived from Greek" here \IIay also signify "de·
rived from other langupges vip Greek." as is the
case. for example. with the Latin cel1sus. which be·
came KlIl'I7O'>, tax(ltiOll, S KIINCOC. M KIl«COl'l, 01' with
A'~(mJ<:. ineen.'iC. S, A, /... M, F. B .... tlUt.NOC, F7
lto61\6NOYC. derived from the Semitic linguistic do·
main. and with vap8cJ<;. nard. S, A, W, F, £7, B
l'lltof.....OC. derived from Persi:m. etc.; Mhlig, 1958, PI'_
8-11). 1n all the Coptic dialects except H (which
follows its own ways; .see Kasser. 1975-1976. and OIA-
LEC.'T 11. OR IIllRMOI'OUTAN OR ASHMUtlINIC). these
words of Hellenic origin have preserved their origi-
nal orthogr.lphy. eilhcr cxaetly or nearly so (perhaps
thanks 10 the bilingualism of the majority of the

copyists, who knew well the form of Ihe same terms
in the Greek of Egypt). of CUUI'5C, since Coptic syn·
\.all is entirely and radically Egyptian, Ihe CoplO'
Gret'k substantives arc freed from any Greek declen-
sion (they remain in principle invariably in the nom-
inative singular), and the verbs nrc equally fn:cd
from any Greek conjugation (remaining. as a general
rule, fixed in a form of the infinith'e or, acconJing to
the dialccts and with los... of lhe final '1> of Ihe infini·
live, in II foml idcntical with thllt of lhe imperuli\'e),
a... \10.111 be seen fi.JI1her on.
Sy:;tematic consonantal mooHiclllions are rare and
very limited. Conside,'ing only the principal chamc-
tcristics, one may mention here above all ·kl- be·
coming ·61· (by palatali7.ation) ill S, A, L, llnd M (but
not in the other Coptic idioms, which leads onc to
think that thcre ti had a phonological value other
Ihan Ic/): lor example, Kmd.a, wlckedncss, S, A, L
KloKllo but also S, M klo6l),; ,dvSv/JIJ<;, danger, S, A, L
I\tHAyt~ or S, A, L, M 6lfiAytlOC. It is probably a
more complex phenomenon, in which, however,
p.11111tlIization also plays a ccl1ain role, which pro-
duces in the case of Xl. the mUlation of XI imo XI in
S, A. L, and M (/khil > •/kr;il > .Itvil > • Mil>
Iti{ [1]; see further on wilh regard to j,. zt· some-
times becoming (Qi-): Ihus uPx~, high priest, S, A,
F, B l.fXItlfiI)"C, I- "l'X1t1f'tIYC: apx~I/JO'I., chief
cook, S, B >.f'Xltw"IfOC, S "l'XItOJ"61fOC; Xu;,,,, linOW,
S, A, L. F, 8 XItlN, S, A, 1.1 ~; and so on,
lt is IL-gitimale to include in the consonantal do-
main the rough or smooth brc:.lthing at the begin·
ning al Greek word.. stal1ing wilh a vowel. Very
often (and in S more alten than in B) the rough
breathing i.. rendered by : and the smOOlh breathing
by the absence of any special grapheme before the
initial vowel. One dm-e nOI Sl>eak of II mIl.' here, for
thcre are t(lO many exceptions, proving that at the
dawn of literary Coptic the Greek uf Egypt nu longer
made allY difference In pronunciruion \)ctween the
rough and the smooth breathing (what continued in
the texts and lcft ilS r-cllcction in Coptk is only the
more or less complete SUI'VIVlll of II Illore 01' less
inlact Greek ol1hogmphieal tradition; see BCihtlg,
1958, p. III, etc.): ror example, fI.&KO'i, unjust, S, A,
L, F5, B loAIKOC; £1,1''', simultaneously, S, I. t»U, B
»tJo.; oml>, when, S, A, L, M, W, V, F5, B :0T>.H;
fiK"", image, S, A, L, M, F5. B ~lkf»H. It will be noted
that in a narrow idiomatic (and archaic) Coptic sec·
lor (especially L6 and 5 al the Coptic Gnostic texts
from Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypl; Kassel', 1980),
the initial Greek j. has as ilS equivalent \91 rather
lhan :t (a phenomenon of palatalization, in which
ll;iJ would derive from an ancient'1,,11 issuing from
VOCABULARY, COP'rG-GREEK 219
Ihil (?J): for example, iKal>6<;, sufficient, S, A, £4, B
2IKJo.NOC, S, L6 ~tOC. On the other hand, it may
happen that the Gn:.-ck ·w is renden:.-d by -rt- mther
than by 'rr', as in ~, fnocdom of speech, 5, A,
L, FS, 8 tu.rf"CIlo, S, A, L, 1.1, W IUotztlCU., V I~
(idiolectal),
In the area of the vowels, various idiolectal modi-
fications appear (above all confusiolU between II, I,
and y, somelimC5 also bL'twt:cn e and H, 0 and II,
etc.); they will not surprise anyone who deals wilh
lhe lexts of the koine (eontemporury wilh the gene-
sis of Coptic literature) in Egypt and has notL-d its
graphic fluctuations, panieularly in vowels (BOhllg,
1958, pp. 91-106; Gignac, 1976-1981; and I'HONOLO·
CY 01' TltF. CRI!F.K OF F.eyPT, INF1.UI!NCF. 01' COPTIC ON
TIm); being 100 numerous and not systematic, they
e:lllnol be sel out here. However, the substitution of
6 for Greek ,n in B, P, V, and W is very general and
regular; thus afpe"m~, heresy, S, L, Ai ~lolpaCIC, B
2tlr6CK: (also her-e and there in Sand l.): al(.rD'1Ql~,
inluition, S, A, I. lolCOHClC, F, 8 ftCOlICIC (also here
and lhere in Sand L); Maw;:, juSl, S, A. L, M
AllUlOC, V, F, 8 AJKtIOC (also Ilel'e and there in 5
and M). LA often replaces a verbal fmal -t:ll>, normal-
ly 'til in I., by -II, as in f1l'l-h,l«"I>, to desire, 5, A,
61I1Oyt16I, £.6, M 61116yHl, LA aUloYHlI (with regard to
F5, 8 (ltlt6"(HltI, 5(.'(.' funher on),
In a general way, Coptic invariably uses tile Greek
subslantivcs in the nominative singular, as with Mat·
thew 24:7, MJ'O<; (nominalivc singular), a people, S
0)'t60tt0C; Mauhew 6:32, Tit iDI>7f (nominative plur·
al). the Gentiles, 5 If:eenoc; Romanli 11:13, E,.w
';;D"",,, ~O<; (genitive plural), I, the aposlle of
the Gentile;, S J.H1" lU.I1OCTOM)(: lO'f2tlOilOC. Other
fonTls are Quite exceplional. as in Luke I :], the voca·
tive K{Iirrw'ff, 5, 8 kfJo.TlCTIl. or the nominative plur-
al of UKri".oo<;, object, vase, plural CTKWrI, regularly
attesled in S, A, and I" as in Romans 9:22, UKWrJ
bprir;, vellSCls of wrath, S ~Hekeytt lfapt'l but 8
2Jo.HCkGYOC ATG tt:J<:QlHT. One rn(ly note tinully thaI
Coptic tends 10 imJl'Ose its own native pluml end·
ings, In 5 ·{owal etc., on Copto·Greek word.. ending
in tonic -II, as with I/AJxiI, soul, plural 1/AJ)(aI, Coptic
plural S tyxooye, P i"(XIly, 1.6 (1) 'fYXIIOy, L4
tyxJo.yo, M ty1UoylJ, FS6 tyxJo.yt, B +yxO)()'(t; com-
pare S etc. TTHII, callie, plural S TTNOOytI, 8
Tti&HClO'(l, A TrM6y6, LA 1'T1Uy6, M TIIU.O'y1l, H
T1HJo.O)', F5 T)"UU-yt. Should one be surprised Ihat
Coptic did not likewise use its plurals 5 etc, -Ot
(plurals c;i words in final tonic S ele. -0) for Copto-
Greek words ending in -oc, which would have corre-
sponded to the Greek plural (nominative), such as
~, plural ~? see for conlparison, S, L. elc,
220 VOCABULARY, COPTO-GREEK
zX'''O, old man, S plural 2X"Ot and B ~lJo.oY. A
tAUt, L :!A"l,Y, M V>M)y\" (F5? zouoy"lJ. This is nol
the place for an answer to so delicate a question.
One may note finally that, Coplic having only two
genders (masculine and feminine, not neuter), a
Coplo·GI'cek word corresponding to a Greek neuter
is masculine in Coptic, as in Romans 1:32, TO
6IKa/.wp.a. the act of judgment, the verdict, S
n.... IKJ.IOJM),.
In regard 10 the Copto·Creek forms corresponding
to the Greek adjective, it may be noted that the
usages of Coplic arc clearly different from those of
Greek. The feminine form is rarely presclved: it is
most oflen replaced by thc masculine form. In (lny
case, the allocation of these forms (always in the
nominative singular) is as follows: the masculine (or
on occasion the feminine, when it has survived in
Coptic) for persons, the neuter in all other cases.
Thus Matthew 12:35, b ol'ya{Jil<; 'h.{Jpwm:l';, the good
man, S l'lflUH6 l'f~r~ooc; Titus 2:4-5, ~~ ...
f
<!wa, ,
..• O'KOt!pyot.';"«ya " a~,
h t e young women ...
(are to be) ... domestic, kind, S lfl!1C6pO lI,IlIM (01'
... ) l'fp6'/T6G,l H~ l'f~r~9OC, B NI~'\GK»'t N210HI
(66p ) ... N(I)f(I</C621i0 noynt io.r~611; Philippians
4:8, Qua li'KaUl, whatever is just, S ZWP. IiIH lfAIK.t.tOIi,
B NH ilTe 2~tlA.IK60li Ne; Romans 7: t 2 1]
fl'TOAiI &Kai.a, the commandment (is) just, S
1'6NTO,\1I OYAUUKlN TO. According to the adjec-
tives and the usc that may be made of them in the
text, it may evidently happen that only their "mascu-
line" or "neuter" fonn is attested; thus, for example,
in the Coptic texts at present known, there is always
aip<!1'UI'Ot;, heretic, S tJ,lf6T1KOC, 8 (2)6p6TIKOC (it is
difficult to imagine a heretical "thing:' although it
could be a dogma. a book. etc.), and 1'l'1'pa')'",I'O<;,
quadrangular, S, 8 T6Tf'~rmNON (a quality that one
can scarcely conceive as applied to a person).
In the area of the Copto-Greek verbs (considering
only the most important facl~) two different usages
can be observed (varying with the idioms). First of
all, they lire only fully felt as verbs (and used as such
on the same ba~is a~ the native Coptic verbs) in S,
M, W, and F56, while in A, L, and B, like any sub·
stantive that one wishes to make into a "pseudo·
verb:' they are preceded by an auxiliary (the pre-
nominal state of the verb 5 etc. 61f6), A, I. T-, B <lp-;
in V and F, howevcr, thcre is a variation: about 50
percent with 6,\- and 50 percent without in F, and a
majority of cases with 6f- and a minority without it
in V; one may observe the same nuctuation in P.
On the other hand, if the foml of the Corto-Greek
verb is similar to that of the Greek infinitive in B,
and often in F and V, il is without the final -N every-
whcre else in Coptic. So far as thc vocalizatiun of
this final syllable :/iW or -/ltV in Greek is concemed, it
is invmiahly -m in 8 (F etc.), while it is 6 for :<!tl' and
-(6)1 for ·<!Iv elscwhcre; for cxample, Coptu.Grcck
pseudo-verbs in Gahllians 4:19, p.1.I{I<PQiJlff}m, 10 be
fanned, S XI HOftu; Baruch 2:18, '\v1l'<!iu,1m, be
sorrowful, S T ,\YlllI; and thell Copto-Grcck vcrbs,
such as 1l'W"rfV/fll', believe, S, M, W, (V?), (F)
mCTey6, A, L T I1ICTOyO, (V? op lIlCTCly<l). (F 0,\
llICTOyO), V, B Of llIGTOyltl, /.- 6,\ llICTOYIN; aITli'I',
ask, 5 ~lT61, (5) M ~ITI, A. L T ~rr(6)1. B or 6TUi. F
0,\ (JTIH. Othcr verbal terminotions include 11'Aav(iv,
go astray, S, M, W, F5, F56 lIUNl., A, L5, L6 'f IIU1U"
L4 T I1.\~NH, 84 6f II.\~IU,N; p.mrn')'ovv, whip,
SCOUl'ge, 5 MloCTIroy, M M~(:T1ITOY or Hl.Ccn..-oy, A,
L T M~eTlroy, 85 op Hl.CTlrl'Oltl, B4 or H.t.CTlrOltl.
Onc may note flllally (Bohlig, 1958, PI'. 136-37) that
B especially has pl-eselved several Greek deponents,
such as CrfNTa(uT'{}m, to salute, S. M. V, F5. F56
l.Cn.t.IW, A, L l' ~cnl..l:6, B 6f .t.cnU(lC06.
As a general lule, when Greek words were being
carried over into Coptic and becoming Coplo-Greek,
relatively simple ones were given preference, sub-
stantives above all and then verbs (although still
treated as substantives by about half of the Cop1ic
idioms). Despite appearances, Ihis does not prevent
one from finding in Coptic some adjectives (e.g.,
aya{Jo<;, good, lor).OOC), derivative substantives signi-
fying some abstraction (e.g., /iUrn{3/iUl, piety,
t1YC6UlI.t., but also, and most often, MllT6ye6111lc
from €lxn{3ft';, pious; see below), and even a small
numbcl' of adverbs (e.g., KaAw.:, well, Kl..\lIJG).
All the same, Coptic more frequently manufuc-
tures its Copto-Greek deJivatives by adding somc
prefix or similar auxiliary clement in front of the
simple Copto-Greek term. EXllInples here ure re-
stl'icted to S alone (and above all from the New
Testament; see Dragucl, 1960).
A Copto-Greek pseudo-verb is cl-eated by addition
of a verb such as T-, to, or Xl-, before a Copto-Greek
substantive, its complemenl as a direct object; thus
AV1l'<!Un'Jm, to be sad, is rendered now by '\)"1161, now
by T ,\ytlll (see below, from AV1T1/, sorrow).
A Copto·Greek pseudo-adjective is created by the
addition of the genitive preposition and the al1icle
before the Copto-Greek substantive; thus Romans
16:26,liw ... ')'palpiiJl' 1l'fKXP'l/nKWV, through prophetic
writings, ~ITl'f N61l'l.q..1 A'tlfo<j>IITIKON, but I Peter
1:19, EXOP./il' ... WI' Trpoi{>T/1'UI'/)v '\0')'01', we have ...
the prophetic word. oylfT.t.N RH~y RllU,J.t.X1l
RI161lfo1'IITIlC (from 1l'/WT,TIJ<;, prophet). This
pseudo-adjective, when it includes a Greek negative
prefix 0,(1')-, will again spring from a Copto-Greek

substDntlve preceded hy a Coptic negative prefix
such as ),T- or ),Xli"- or from a verb pn::ceded by a
negative verbal pl'efiK: Ihus ii K ap7r(>o;, wilhout fruit,
barren, l.llu"noc or ),Xli" IUflIOC (from Kap-rrix,
fruit). This p!lCudo-adjective is created also by the
addition of a circumSlalllial prefix in front of a
Copto-Grcck verb: Ihus Philemon 6, ~Ji'tpyir;, effica-
cious, 6'MlHGf'f'G1 (from fllf~iv, 10 be efficacious).
A Copto·Greek ~udo-5ub~antive signil'ying an
abstraction, a Imde. or the like is created from a
Copto-Greek adjective or verb. in front of which are
placed one or morc prefixcs. Thus, a1lW'ria,
unbelief, may be rendered either by U1IC11), or by
HlI"TJ./1tCTOC (rrom iill'U1'7'O'>, unbelieving):
Ko)J,ufJurrir;, mom..'Y·changer, is in S ~'lXl
1lC».'(H1OtI or 6TXI KOAyHIOtl (from KiMAvfJoo;, small
pie<'e of money; Band M have adopted KO),yucn«:
and KO.v..)'NC"rnC, resp«tivdy): fi.SwAo.I.crrpla, idola·
Iry, never appears as a Copto-Greek word in Coptic
and is rcplacl-d (c.g., 1 Cor. 10:14) by S
Hll'lyG~'IG 61'&"),00, 8 HClT~)'HlIXI lAJD),OO (from
fJ:&o.lOJ', idol).
A Coplo-Gn:ek pseudo-advcrb is created most of-
ten by placing zll" OY', in a, by a, in front of a
suhst.a.ntive; thus Luke 7:4, 0"Ir0lI6a~, zealously, is
QIOyMl« in 8 bUI !If oycnoyAU in S (Iilerally "in
a 7.eal," from tnrWliil, 7.eal).
It is filling to mcntion here in addition some
Greek preposilions that became Copto-Greek. Most
notable is Kani, according 10 (distributive), S, A, L,
H, M, W, V, F, 8 K),T:a., which even has a pronominal
form in lhe nalive Coplic manner, S, 8 K,Io.T,Lf'O Ii,
bm K:a.TJo.f:a... in the olher idioms except for F
K.\T..v..:a.+ (in fUCI U combin'lliOn of the Copto·Greek
K:a.T:a. whh the native p1"(:po~ition 5, B e·, era Ii, M,
W, V 0', Of:a.'" , F 0-, o),:a. +, A, L ),', ),T), 1'), uscd in
panicu!;!1' in expr'Cssions such as Kam yfVQ<;, (each)
according to it~ ~pecies (e.g., Gen. 1:25), S, pL, B,
874 K.lr.T:a. rotlOC, or again /<tum rill' uapKa, accord·
ing to the flesh (e.g., In. 8:15) S, IS, 8, 874 KU),
C),1'1. One also find~ '1rapOt, more than, beyond,
against, S, A, L, fI. M, V, fI, D tt),T)" thcn (in thc
native fa.~hion) S, Jj n),f),fo+, A, J. IUf),f),lj; '1r~,
to, for, 5, A, L, M, fI, 8 tt!'OC, uscJ most frequently in
the cltprcssion S tlfOC O'(OOto/, L, M, F nroc
oy),(e)lCJI, L, B tlf"OC OYCllOy, for a moment (only),
cphemcr,ll; xt.lpi~, CItCept, apart from, 5, L, V, F, B
xlIf*C, then in 8 alone XlUftc l' (Prv. 7: I,
dill' . .. airrov, except for him, B XGJI'tC'I but P, 5
R"aJ;":u.'1, A R"'1i:"MI'I): and so on.
Other grammatical elemen~ passed into Copto-
Greek only in stcn..'Otypcd cxpressions liuch as inrO
pfpwt., panially, S ),110 HClfOYC, S, 8 ),110 HGfOC: &it
VOCABULARY, COPTO-GREEK 221
roVTO, that is why, 5 (e~pccially in Gnostic texl~) A.t),
Toyro (altcrnating with OTIO IU't'); Kai. yap, and be·
sides, S, A, I., M IU.t r:a.r, V, "', 8 K41 r),T; K(liWlfP,
although, S, A, L IU.RIS" F, B "6tMir; KaiTl)l')'E, and
yet, S, L ..),ITOtrO, V, F, 8 "6TOtrO: P1J ')'I1"",ro, God
forbid, 5, L .... roHOn'O, S (idiolectal) He r6r46TO, B
"" r(J"OTO; oinc tttcmJ'. it is not pcnnillL-d, L5 O'(K
4l\OCTttl, 5, M, f' oytt tt\OCTt, F56 O'(K 8~et: and so
00.
One may also note here, above all In the legal
documents (5, see Crum and Steindorff, 1912), some
even longer Greek formulas, so long that one may
perhaps hesitate to consider them as Cotxo-Greek
and not quite simply Greek (islets of Hellenism pre-
served by the notaries, who considered them truly
indispensable in a context thai had become Coptic
after the Arab invasion). Thus (ibid., texi 48, I. 60) ~"
1l'lilrl) (iI'MwC~, with all due (legal) confonnity, ON
tu.DI )JU)...ayoou: (teKI 98, I. 36) i'ri ...au, KaA-;
TrPOOlpeuU, with every good intention, 6111 IUCH It..UH
~q'tlCtil: (text 39, I. 52) KenO 1l'Q(JQ'I' 1'OP1J1' Kai
05tum:mtov, with full right of free conduct and deci-
sion, IU.T), IUe.ut HOf'*VI K,Io.t AOOtDT6LU$; (lCJr.t 44, I.
96) 1l'pix miouJ' 1'd.fial' oi-mrAAayi.w, in every opera-
tion of definitive division, 11J'OC tl:a.e.ut TEJ"EIlJ4
~m_
In any ca..'iC, certain words of late Dohairic (S1ern,
1880, p. 78) are Grcc.:o-COptic rather than Capto-
Greek: lhe preponderant element is autochthonous,
bUI they have ~n superficially Hellenized by the
addition of a Gn..-ek ending: thus, for example,
KOH01'mIC, baker, from KOH04>n'OH, bread baked un·
del' the ashes (Vyclchl, 1983, pp. 83-84).
There remains to be examined the $¢nlantie aspect
of the use of Copto.Greek word.~ in Coptic. Apart
from various words in common use and of vcry
general sense, lhere is lhe matter of the technical
terminology of ~pecial fields (~mctimes partly un-
known to pre-Greek Egypt): religions and philoso-
phies newly inmxluced into the country, political or
military life, administration, weighl~ and measures,
law, medil:ine, pharmacolotD', magic, botany, zoolo-
gy, mineralogy (including the fumous precious
stones), clothing, householJ l,lr agricultural hnple·
rnents, sPOI1S, theater, and much else. Appreciation
of what was required may thus vary (rom one idiom
to another. Umlling oneself to the two main "lan-
guages" of Coptic Egypt, 5 and B (see DtALECTS), one
may note, for example, that in the New Testament
both Band S ('ender ~, cross, by cnvroc;
but when it is a queslion of translating onlIlIpll'W,
crucify, 5 has Opted everywhere for CT:a.YfOY (save
one case of 6lfI6, hang, suspend), while 8 has thought
 222 VOCABULARY, CUNEIFORM TRANSCRIPTIONS OF
it possible 10 use the native 1000l, susrencl, wilhoul
inconvenh::nec lhroughout (but in other literary
texts in B one may also find the Coplo·Greek verb
up cTlo'(fwNm),
In a general way, ,lnd as is usually the ea~e with
any vocabulary borrowed by one language frum an-
other', Ihe Cupto.Greek terms arc used in a much
more restricted sense Ihan the Gn::(:k terms from
which th(.')' derive. For example, if in Greek a")"}'E"Aoo;
designates all kinds uf "messengers:' including "an-
gels," in Coptic ),... ·e~o(; means only ":iIlgds," while
the ordin<lry messenger is '1),'iO,lINC in S <lnd peM N~~
in B. If in Greek 7r(H:"{J,,",(lO<. designates llny aged
person, any "old man:' in Coptic an ordinary old
man is S ctc. ~);'~O, while only Ihe "elder" (member
of Ihe mling council of a religious community, etc.)
is I1pGCII)"TUrOC. If in Greek eUxapll11'kr is "gratitude"
in a very general manner, in S (New Testament)
GY'XlofICTI), seems to describe more panicularly
(Rev. 4:9, 7:12) a service of Ihanksgiving or "eucha-
fisl," while elsewhere (in a non ritual expression of
thanksgiving, evcn if il is effusively addressed 10
Gud) S contents itself with lI,Ilf ~HOT, render Ihanks,
or ~HOT, grace (Acls 24:]; I Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor, 4:15,
9:11-12; Eph, 5:4; Phil. 4:0: Col. 2:7; I Thes, ]:9; I
Till. 2:1, 4;]), M;l1ly other ca~es of this kind could be
mentioned.
BIBLIOGRAPIIY
Bl:lhlig, A. Die grieehischell l.elmwOr/er 1m
sahidischen Imd bohairi.~cJwn Nellen TeMume'lt,
2nd cd. Munich, 1958.
Brunsch, W. "Untersuchungen zu den griechi.~chen
Wiedergaben 1igyplischcr Personennal11en." £11-
choria 8 (1978):1-142.
Cmm, W, E" and G. SteindOI'IF. KUpli~che Reclll~ur_
ktmdell des uell/ell j"hrlnmderts aus D;eme
(Thebcn). Leipzig, 1912,
Oraguel, R. lui/ex wp/e e/ grec·cop/e de lu Concor-
d/mee dll Nouveau Temunen/ $ahilli{ille (CSCD
124, 173, 183, JSS). CSCO 196. Louwin, 1960,
Emstedt, P. V. "Gl'ueco·Coptiea." lei/sehrif/ flir
agyptiselte Spruche ul1Il Altermmskullde 64 (1929):
122-35.
Gaselcc, S. "Greek Word~ in Coptic." lJyz{lIl/illische
Zeitsehrif/]O (1929-19]0):224-28,
Gign,le, F. T. A Grammur 0; Ihe Greek Papyri of the
RomwJ and Byumthle Periods, Vol. I, Phollology,
Vol. 2, Morphology, Tcsli e documcn!i per [0 stll-
dio dell'ulllichit;) 55, Milan, 1976-1981.
Hopfm:r, T, Ober Fonll lind GebrOllch der griechi_
schell Lelmworfer ill du kop/isch-sa'illisellmJ Apopil-
I1wgmcllvcrsioll. Vicnna, 1918,
Kasser', R. "Ut PcnclrJlion des mOl~ grecs dans 1.\
langue eopte," Wl.uellschaftliche Zeitsehrif/ der
Mar/i,,·Llj/her-Ullivers'ilii/, Hulle- Willmlbcrg 15 ( (966):
419-25,
_--,-_ "A propos de quelques caracteristiques
ol1hographiques du vocabulair'e grcc ulilise d;lIIs
leg dillkert's H et N." Ori.sll/aliu l.ovullicfl$l'U
I'aiodicu 6-7 (1975-1976):285-94.
_---,-. "Expression de I'aspiration ou de la non-
aspiration a I'initiale des mots copto-grecs corres-
pondant fl des molS grecs cornrnem;anl p;rr (E)I-."
Bulle/in de la Sodete d'egyptologie, G,meve 4
(1980):5]-59,
___. "Onhographe (suh)dialectale du vocabulail'e
copto-grec avant Ie VIII' siecle de noIre el'e." Mu-
sewlr Ife/lle/rwm 40 (198]):207 -215,
Lefort, L T. "Lc Copte, suurce auxiJiairc du grec."
Ammuire de /'Illstilli/ de philologie e/ d'historre ori·
en/ales de I'Unil'er.lite fibre de Br<udles 2
( 19]4):569-78.
___ , Concordance dll NOllveau Te.•tumellt sahidi-
que. Vol, I, Les Mots d'origine grecqne. CSCQ 124_
Louvain. 1950a.
___. "Greco-copte.'· In Coptic S/IIIJie~ hi Honor of
Waller Ewi,rg Cmm, pp, 65-71. Buston, 1950.
Nagel. P, "Die Einwirkung des Gricchischen auf die
Entslchung del' koptischen LileratUl"spraehe." In
Chris/ellllllll um RO/en Meer, ed. F. Altheim and R.
Stiehl, Vol. 1., pp. ]27-55. Berlin, 1971.
Rllhlfs, A. "Gricchischc Woncr im Koptischen." In
Si1vmgsbericJue der Prell.Hisci,elJ Akademie dcr
Wi-Hensclraften, pp. 10]6-1046. Berlin, 1912.
Schmidt, C., und V. MacDel'mol. Prs'/is Sophia, Lei·
den, 197!l,
Stem, L. Kop/isclie Grammalik. Leipzig, 1880,
Vycichl, W, Dic/iclllllaire e/ymologiqne de la langue
cop/e, Louvain, 1983,
Weiss, H.-F. "Zum Problem del' gdechischen Frcmd-
und Lchnwoner in den Spl'achen des chriSllichen
Orients." Hc/ikou 6 (1966):18]-209.
_ _ . "Ein Lexikon del' gl'icchischen Waner im
Koptisehen.'· Zei/sdlrif/fiir iigyplisclw Sprache WId
Allertmmkunde 96 (1969):79-80.
Wcssely, K. Die griechischen 1..ellllwOr/cr der sahMi-
schen Wid bohcirischclI Psalmfjnversiol1, Denk·
schriften del' kaiserlichen Ak,tlJemie del'
Wisscnsclmfren ill Wiell ]4, no. 3. Vienna, 1910.
ROIJOIJ'HE KAssER
VOCABULARY, CUNEIFORM TRAN·
SCRIPTIONS OF PROTOTYPES OF AU-
TOCHTHONOUS COPTIC. Fully vocalized
prototypes of Coptic words arc found in cuneiform
transcriptions. Thus, it is known that the month
name B 'XOilok (5 kOI),:)k and many variants) WHS
pronounced in Late Egyptian °ku·ih_ku, 01' some·
thing close 10 it. These tronscriplions arc uften pre-
 VOCABULARY, CUNEIFORM TRANSCRIPTIONS OF
ceded hy determin:ltlv(:s, such as (ifll), god; ('II).
male person; (MIl), IOwn; and (1Il4/U). country.
Three pericxb havc 10 bc distinguished (all d"lt::s
according to Bc<:keralh. 1971):
I. Middle·IJabylonian transcriptions: the so-called
Tell el·Amama Lcuerl>, which comprise the corn."
spondcnce or Amenophis II (1439-1413 B.C.) and
Amenophis IV (Akhenaton) (1365-1349 B.C.) wilh
their allies and va:;:;als in Asia, tablets round in the
rorcign-<>fliee archives at Tell el·Anlama (eemral
Egypt). and letten and documents or the Hittite roy-
al archives of IJoi!,hazkeui (Asia MillOI') of the lime or
Ramses II (1290-1224 o.c).
2. Assyrian transcriptions: inscriptions, annals,
and commercial documents rrom the time or Sargon
II (722-705 B.C.). who conquered Palestine and n."
ceivcd tribute from Bukuminip (l3occhoris in
Gr«k), king orI-:'.&YPt in 714 o.c; of Assarhaddon
(conquest of Memphis, 671 D.C), and or Assurbanipal
(conquesl or the Della. 667 D.C.).
J. New-Babylonian and Persian transcriptions:
mainly eommen:ial documents or the time or Cam·
byses (525-522 B.C.), Darius I (521-486 B.c), Ana-
xerxes I (464-424 II.C.). and Al1axerxes II (404-359
a.c.).
Some examples are given below.
Middle-Babylonian Transcrlpllons
(illl) A-"m-a·/lu. (illI) A-IIUHla: Ihe god Amun. B
»tOy"; (m) A-ma,oll.J!a,ol.pi, n. pl'. m. Amenophis,
where the group ~a,ul-pi corresponds to the qualita-
tive B zOmt; (aIr') A·Ha: n. loc. Heliopolis, Egyptian
'Iwm\!, Hebrew '0,,: Bill"; (m) Ri-a·na·pa: n. pro m.
Ranofcr, lilerally "lhe good Sun" or similar, where
according to Edcl the name W.lS pronounced Ri'·
nlite or similar, but in any case Wilh Rt' and nOI
with Rl', sun. S, 8 I'U; (JIll) !fo-a.ra: the god Horus.
5, B 2lIf.
Assyrian Transcriptions
(m) U·rlll·/IIri'llll: n. pl'.
Wen-Amun ur similar,
III.
whieh contains lhe name of Amun, 8 ),MOyIl; (m)
T"ULl! J.
M iddle·llabylonian
A·ma·u·nu ('Am4H)
A-IIU (".4/1)
KQ-si ('KlJs)
'!Q.Q.ru ('1;/4r)
'IIQ'pa ("-nale)
223
BII.kuNli.IJi.ip: n. pro m. I)ocehoris, Egyptian 83k "
m·l, Iiter.llly "servant of hi~ name," where Ihe Cop-
lie ronn would be 8 'MII( "fIN" (the transcription
~hould read ·(m) Bu·kll-ml·ri·lli·ip); (m) HII·II·m: n.
pl'. m. Hol1.ls. 5, B zIDf; (alII) Me.im-pe: n. loc. Mem·
phis, 8 H(IH'll.
New-Babylonian and Persian Period
(m} A./IU1'Hll.,a,pl/.t/Q.aJ.!.ti: n. pl'. m. Amon
te/-rrQhte. literally "Amon is his strength:' with
AIPIlmli • "Am6,. or Amil", 8 ),H()yH; (m) No_'Q_ (ill/)
£-$i n. pl'. m. literally "Gn:at is Isis:' where the
Coplic ronn would be B "KU·IIC1.
Commenlary
Middle-Babylonian /I corresponds to later (Le.• As·
syrian or Neo-A.'I..~yrian or Peniian) " (~ Table I).
This comlXlrlson shuws that lung /I befon: 1000 a.e.
is transcribed a.~ long Ii after 1000 B.C. This long u
must be read o. as the Coplic has 0 in two cases (OH
and IU:"). Arter a nasal in A'llJIl-IlIl and in .m-u·pi
(reconsll1.lcled), the Coptic ha.~ OY Ii, which is due to
postnasalization. As a mailer or raet, it is not known
ir A·mll-PIlI and IIl/'Il'pi wel"(' lilill pronounced "AmOH
and '"lJfi or aln:ady Amal1 and 1Jl1fi.
81OLlOCRAPilY
Bcckerath, J. von. Abriss dcr Gcs.:hic1l/c des alleH
Agyptflil. Munich and Vienna, 1971.
Edel, E. "Neue keilschrirlliche Umschreibungen
iigyptischer Namen aus den Bogazkoytcxtcn."
10llnral of Ncar EQslenr Slrldies 7 (1948):11-24.
_,--_. Die Or/SlrQme."lisrelJ ailS dem Tote"'empel
A"'~>lQplris JI/. Bonner biblische Beltrlige 25.
Bonn. 1966.
_ _~. "Ocr Brief des ilgyptischen Wcsirs Pa.~ij;"ira
an den Hetiterk/:lllig l~al1usili und vernoandte Keil-
schriftbriefe," NIII:lrrichlt.1I tier AkQdemh: tier
WisslJ~udlllfl/m i~J Gullillgel/, Plrilosophisdr.histori.
selw Kla~'se I, no. 4 (1978):117-58.
-,-,_. "Neue Deutungen keilschrirtlichcl' Umschrei·
bungen ligyplischcr' W/:l11el' und l'cl'sonennarnen,"
In Sill.Imgsberidlle der Oslerreidrischet/ Akade-
Assyrian or Coptic
Nco-Assyrian and
Persian
A·mll-nll (AIII(m)
U-II14 (0/1)
KII-l/·si (KlJ$)
'!l/-14-m «(llIr) S, B zIDf
"·HII·II·pi ('HlIfi) B ""Y"
 224 VOCABULARY OF EGYPTIAN ORIGIN, AUTOCHTHONOUS COPTIC

mie der WisRnschallen, Philosophisch.Jlislorische i.ANcUAGI:(S), CoPTIc). In these circumstancl,.'S, one is

Kl~. SilumK~richle, p. 175. Vienna, 1980.
lambdin, T. O. "Another Cuneiform Tmnscription of
Egyptian msi). 'crocodile.'" JOllrnal 01 Near Eas/ern
Silidies 12 (1953a):284-85.
-,,---. "Egyptian Words in Tell el Amarna Letter
No. 14." Orien/alia 22 (1953b):362-69.
Ranke, H. "Keilschriftliches Material zur agyptischen
Vokalisation." In AnhanK 1.U dell Abhalldlungen der
Koniglichm Preussischen Akademie der Wim.'/I·
schnfte/l, PhiJosophisch·hislorische Kl~, Abhand-
lung 2. Berlin, 1910.
Smith, S., and C. J. Cadd. "A Cuneirorm Vocabulary
of Egyptian Words.." Joumaf 01 Egyp/ian Archaeolo-
gy II (1925):230-38.
Vitlmann, G. "zu einigcn keilschnftlichen Umschrei·
bungen llgyptischcr Personennamcn." GlJui/lger
Miszt//e/l 70 (1984):65-66.
WEII.NER VVCICIIL
VOCABULARY OF EGYPTIAN ORIGIN,
AUTOCHTHONOUS COPTIC, Coptk is the
autochthooous language (or languages, S and B)
spoken and written in Egypt from the third century
A.D, down to the Middle Ages (eleventh century or a
little later). Moreover, it is the latest and most
developed form o( the Egyptian language itself
(known at first in the form called "pharaonic"; d.
not in the least surprised to observe that the greatcr
part of the Coptic vocllbulary is of Egyptian origin
(phMUOnlc more or less ancient, down to demotic),
so that one might justly describe it as "llulochtho·
nous Coptic of Egyptian origin:' and this even if one
observes in the Coptic language the not Insignificant
presence-indeed mther conspicuous and impres--
sive but nonetheless in a minority-of words of non-
autochthonous origin (above all of Greek origin; d.
VQCABUu.RV, CQrro.GR&K).
This autochthonous preponderance In the Coptic
vocabulary is illustrated below by two brief Sahidic
texis, one wrilten directly in Coptic by Shenute (Ex·
hibit I), the other probably translated from the
Greek (Exhibit 2). Examining the total of the vocabu-
lary of these two texts and taking no account either
of the various articles, the prepositions, or the au-
tochthonous adverbs, one counts. in terms of
lexenles, fifty-eighl units. Among them is one proper
noun, .u'.uHHt, and then seven Copto-Greck words:
.b.U, now, then, from 6t; .. ' .... OH(;I, to serve, from
&aKowiv, ....,.u<._,
serpent, from 6p6-KIltV, 61T6,
whether, from tJTt; H, or, from fj; toMDC, absolutely,
altogether, from oA....; cymJ"CIlnt, community, from
OVl'lJ'l'VYiI.
Among the fifty other lexemes, all to be consid-
ered as autochthonous in the broad sense of thc

exHIBIT I.
Everylhing excellent, everylhing mediocre, whether of bread or any (other) nourishment,
tHU.y HIH 8'!C01'1f tnuy HtH 6"l6OxT €lIT6 OEm en'e tHuy 'R0'yUltt

whether any vegetable or salted things or cooked (foods) or cucumbe~ or any other thing of any kind,
81T6 0'y00T6 61T6 t8NtKUy 6yHC»oT II oynoctl II teH'f1>o II Ke>..uy 'R'tHU.Y tOAGC

(all) will be for us such as the Lord has prepared them or will prepare them «(or us). Those who dwell
0yt4u,.o6 H~ 'Reo 6HTlo. JtXOeIC cTTIDTOy FfHOC H eTE<tHlo.cTTQ)TOy. OfO 116TOyI'l

in these (mona.~tie) communities, at all times, will eat (all these Foods, good or less good) with one another.
t'R' NGtCYJU.l"1lWlt lfoyoetlll HtN NAoyClHOy Hlf H6y6rtly

And lei there not be anyone or any people who eat the excellent things
Arm lfll6 OY'" II toOlH6 OY6N MeTcoTlf

It all times, or the good things, whHe (on the contrnry) another or some others eal the mediocre or
lfoyo6Mf litH H HeTtU.HOyOy R'TO kOOY'" II ZOHkClOye O'y6H flfJTGQXT

despised things. And the rault (in respect) of those who (always) eat the good things
II ~1f. lo.ywere ~ lfHOnu.ClylDH 'R'i/6HtHuy 6Itlo.HO"(OY

or the bad will fall upon those who serve (at table) or those who distribute the rations.
II 8ytoO¥ t1"'0t Otl'..., flxlf t16T.b.llo.kOHOI II HOTJU.t1CllG1 'R26NTO.
SOURCE: Ltipuldlllnd Crum, 1913, pp. 87-88 (Coptic orthography corretted).
 VOCABULARY OF EGYPTIAN ORIGIN, AUTOCHTHONOUS COPTIC 225

ExHIBIT 2.
It is related with regard to Apa Agathon lhat he (installed himself to) live in a cave, once, in the desen.
",y.xooc 6'ne MU. ,...),~ xe ),~ iR" oyam Koycon 1lf nJU,Ye.

Now there was a great serpent in il. Then the serpenl decided 10 go out (from the cave) to go oft' (and live
eyN06 A6 R"Af'),KCOM R"tt ..r..... 11:0'1 A6 ),'tT0(9.... 6fo11OO<96 6M». 6 _ N),'I.

elsewhe..e). Apa Agathon said to it: "If you go out (to go and live elsewhere), I shall not stay in (Ihe cave)."
n6Xf1 ),ru. >.r>.Ela,)N N)," ,X,e OKCI,l),NHOOIJJ6 OAO" lftN),6Gl )," R"~HT"l'".

Then Ihe serpent remained (there). it did nOI go away. Now there was a sycamore in thaI (place of the) de~en.
I~ A6),'IG/U R1I6'1&GlK ONOOyJf OYHOytG A6 zR n:o.i·6 e'JRH.l.Y

They went out (Ihen) togcther but Apa Agathon made a mark (incised) in the sycamore, he (thll$) divided it
~"'yt1t 610A HR" H6y6f'HY. ""0. ,...),etm Ae),crt R"QyqIIl~ 61'HOY26 ),'IOCNI;I~

between himself (Agathon) and it (Ihe serpent), that the serpent might eat on (one) side of the sycamore,
6XII'I rfiH),'I X6U.J,.C ore ~ IU~ lfc.\ a., ,,~

and the old (hennil) himself cal on another side (of the tree); (this) until they had. finished
R"TO niX".>.O ~ O)'QIH KCo\ nK6Cnlf .,Uff'OYO'Y't

ealing, and returned wilhin their (shelten in Ihe) caves, both of them.
6yOyCJlH R"CCHIK 6toY" ON R"N6ysll& Fl"Il6C1Uy.
SOtJIlCE: Chaine, t96O, p. 69 (Coplic ot1hogl'll.phy corrected).

IeI'm (according 10 Vycichl, 1983; Cerny, 1976;
Vergole, 1945 and 1973; and Wcstendorf, 1977),
three appear to be of Semitic origin (ef. VOCABUlARY
OF SEMmc ORIGIN, AUTOCHTHONOllS COPTIC): MU.
lap3J, abbot (8 ),&U), cf. Aramaic Jabbd (in Greek
513fJa'»; HO)'-'z Imulh/, to salt, d. Hebrew mi!lA~,
Aro.bic mif1J.: 6t)xT IcOt.'6/, 10 diminish, cf. Hebrew
~~b, Arabic ~4.fab. ' ov-t Iwth/, 10-inhabil. from wJ~;
For all lhe rest (apan from three cases, indicated
by a qu~ion mark, where the l:tymology is either
unknown or appears too uncenain), an authenlically
Pharaonic etymology (more , or less ancienl, or de·
mOlic) is known: MI& (b(;b/, cave, from bJbJ etc.;
Mlk ;h6kl to go, from (?); 6rllY (.new/, Ihe compan·
ions. mutually, from ir(y); 61 /II, to go, from i, elc.;
11.0- Ik;l, another, from ky, etc.; .u...l>y Ilb'w/, somc·
thing, from (?); R"H).y Immaw/,
, there, from fI-;m-w:
~ Imo'~/, 10 walk, go, from m.f, elc.; NIH
In1m/, each, every, from fib; 1UHOy' /nanu/. 10 be
good, from 'wnll 'ny; HOyt6/nuh~/, sycamore, from
'Illy; I't06 InGe/, large, £rom (?); 00. lojk/, bread,
from '~. etc.; nlC6 /pi~{. cause to be cooked, bake,
from p.s()'), etc.; I'lQtW IpM/, 10 share, distribule, from
pi; oox6-/pab/, to say, from pJy dd; COSTe /sObt~/,
to prepare, from .spdd, etc.; cto..y /snaw/, lwo. from
.sn.wy; COIl /sbp/, lime, from .sp; C111f /splr/. side, rib,
from spr, CGlTlI 1s6IP/, 10 choose. from SIp; CGlqI....
IsMIl, despise, judge vile, base, elc., from 5lJI, elc.; t
Ill/, to give, make, eIC., from Ii, elc.; TO It6/, part,
share, from Iny.l. CIC.; TllCl1/tM/, to delimit, decide,
from Ii, ClC.; f6e ltica/. cucumber, from Igr, elc.;
OY), lwa/, one, from w'; oyw /w6/, to cease, finish,
from ",3h; ~ Iwbm/, to eat, from wnm; oytt-
/wn/, there is, from wtI, elc.: O'yOOTe /wO'I~/, vege-
table, from w3d.I; 0'y"06IC9 IwO'j;/, time, from wrl;
""'z IfiJlh/, to
impress a marlr:. elC" from .f1JJ, etc.; "'18 /ih~/, to
become, from ~pr, elc.; ...,. IfiJ't/, to CUI, curtail,
diminish, from Fl, etc.; te /M/, way, manner, from
!!' elc.; ~~ {hb'/, (one)self, from ~', etc.; tno
/hllal, old man, from !!f3; toolNe {hbjna/, some.
from IIYll; 2N.u.y /hnb'w/, thing, from I.m",; 200Y
Iho'w/, 10 be bad, from ~w, ctc.; 2O'f /hOf/, serpent,
from ~/, ctc.; ,X,al If0/, to say, from ·~id; .:o.l"o/dja/,
dcscrt, from r/; X06tc IMjs/, lord, from tlW; 6Gl
ICO/, 10 rest, ;;'main, from gr. •
What is presented above is only a modest couple
of examples. The matter b examined more systemal-
ically in ETYMOLOGY.
BIBUOCRAPHY
Cerny, J. Coptic Etymological Dictumary. Cambridge,
1976.
Chaine, M. u. Manu.scril de la version copte en dia-
lute !lllhidiqlle des Apophlhegmala Pf.llmm.
Bibliolheque d'eludes coptes 6. Cairo, 1960,
 226 VOCABUu'RY OF SEMITIC ORlGIN, AUTOCHTHONOUS COPTIC
Leipoldt, J., and W. E. Crum. SimI/IIi! Archimtwdri/(.le
Vita el Opefll Ol/m;a. CSCO 42 and 73. Palis, 1908
and 1913,
Vergote, J. PllOtletiqul! IIisloriqlle de I'egyplietl, les
COtlMlllles. l..ouvain, 1945,
___ CrQmmQire copte, Vol. 1b, 1"lroJllclicJII. pho.
llbiq/le et pllOlIOfogic, l/Iorpho/Ci1;ie sYIIIIII!/IIQt;qjje
(limlctlfre des semotllemes), parlie diachrolliqlle.
Louvain, 1973.
Vycichl, W. OicliollllQire ~tymologiqlle de la fanglle
cople, LouV'olin, 1983.
Westendorf, W. Kopluches lIondU'wterbllclr. btoar.
~;lcI aliI Gnmd des KOPlisclrl!1I Ha"dwiNterlmchs
VOIl Wilhel", Spiel.>elberg. Hddc1berg. 1977.
RODOU'HE KAssER
VOCABULARY OF SEMITIC ORIGIN,
AUTOCHTHONOUS COPTIC. Every country
has relations with its neighbors (commercial rela.
tions, military relations. mainly when it is con-
quered, etc.), and in the course or time its language
adopcs rurcign words. Egypt is no c~ception to this
rule. At a relatively recent epoch of their history, the
autochthonous Egyptians adopted a great number or
Creek words (among them a cenain number or
Creco-Latin origin), and. later on, some Arabic
words (sec VOCAUULAKY, OOI'"f().(;REEK and VOCABULARY,
COP'J"O.ARABIC). But even the Egyptian vocabulary or
the pharaonic period, which later became Coptic
and is consi..lcred autochthonous with regard 10
these Greek and Ambic additions, is not entirely
homogent.:ous. ;~~ a!lenlive etymological studies reo
veal. Sevel'lll COmponents may be distinguished,
sueh as M old Semitic layer th:1I is fur from being
negligible (for :t more recent Semitic component.
sec VOCAlJlJI.ARY, COPTO·AMlJJt).
Semitic loanwords made thdr finn appearance in
EllYfltian in texis uf the Eighteemh and Nineteenth
Dynasties (1554-1305 and 1305-1196 R.c.). Bcing
rorcign ]lCrsonal names and place·names, they arc
wl;lIen in the so·called syllabic ollhogrnphy.
Syllabic onhogl'ilphy was used in Egyptian Illllinly
to distinguish roreign names and words from Egyp.
tian ones. In many cnses, ~In 3 is added 10 the canso·
nants: !!.3 may be read !J.a, !!,i, or !!.u. In other cases. y
and "' are added: lIy is read IIi, dill is read duo In
(mllicuh.r cases, shOll words are used: tJ. land, was
pronounced ta3 in the New Kingdom, and so the
WOI'd is used ror the syllable la. Sill, he, and $)', she,
were probably pronuunced ·slIwa and ·siya (as in
Assyrian), and later, in the New Kingdom, Sll and si.
Thererore, s"' and Jy were used ror the syllable .1'1'
and si. In two cases. syllabic onhogrnphy indicates
consonants without vowels: the group rJ.y \Ya~ pr&-
nounced ·r (at the end or a. syllable); and ·11 (suffix or
the first-person plural) represented final '11. The sys-
tem has been explained by W. F. Albrighl (1934).
L.aler it was strongly a.ltacked hy W. F. Edgenon
(1940). but E. &lei (1949). who adopted an illlenne·
diary position, laid down the rules governing this
system in different periods of the language. Syllabic
onhography is more usef'ul for reading ancielll per·
sonal names and place· names than ror Coptic ety-
mology, as true Egyplian words are rarely wnuen
syllabically. New:nhelcu, it is known that B, S tUH,
who?, derives from ·IlHn, and nol from ·",i.m.
Ill']."', thanks to syllabic wrilings, and that S R.,.
Mes.hir, a month name, dcriveli from ·",.~i.r. 5-ba-d,
staff, is the prototype or 8, 5 ~. and ·b~NH .,
·ba·/the prototype of B, S so" outside, as in B. S
6WA. out (Arabic lnIrra).
It is not ah,;ays easy to assign a definite origin to
Ihe Semitic loanwords in Egyptian and particular·
Iy in Copric: most or them may be compared with
Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic ronus. but .some or
them seem to derive rrom elltinci languages and
dialects:
00110.6 (S mase.), ram: compare Hebrew 'oyif: prob-
able origin prc.Hl,.'brew ·'ayl.a (accusative)
IiOqIT (5 rnase.). vulture, hawk: compare Hebrew
IIU~r, hawk, eagle: Akkadian uaSro, cagle; Ara·
blc na.sr, vulture, "'agle; probably rrom ·"asr.;
(genitive)
CI;I.ur (5 masc,). price; compare Hebrew su'ar,
measure, price; probably from pre·Hebrew
·Sa'r-! (genitive)
X.\trr (S in UH;Ulrr, also "),H.X),TIl. masc.). pitch.
a composed word: {(1m + X.\lrr; COmpare Arabic
zift, pitch; probably from 'vll.i (genitive); He.
brew has ze{~(. pilch, from ancient ·zaft·i (geni-
tive)
Ctf (5), COUfU (A masc.), lcaven; compare Arabic
~'IIJr, re.~t. r'Cmainder; Ctp rrQm '1i14r·l, *stlr-j (gen'
itive); CU6pe rmm ·sIl3r·i, '.{JJ3r·; (genitive)
2Rx (5 masc.), vinegar; compare Hebrew ~16me~,
vinegar. from pre.I·lebrew ·I.llml~'! (genitive)
xoorr (5 rnase, and rcm.), olive, olive tree; com-
pare Hebrew lAyil, Arabic lIlyl, oil, probably
from ·tIly/·i (genitive)
G~T (S fem.), 6oU..lo.2Te (5 rcm.), pot: compare
Hebl'ew kallalJat, cooking pot, cauldron; proba.
bly from ·~afICl~It.i (genitive)
10M (8 masc.), sea, wine'pl"CSS, oil·press, plural
),K),,1Oy: compare Hebrew ya'" (l'enl.), sea. 00..
 VOCABULARY OF SEMITIC ORIGIN, AUTOCHTHONOUS COPTIC
sin (plu!".tl ycmrmlm), and Arabic yamm. sea;
probably from 'yamm·; (genitive); the plural
J.HAIOy derives from yammi, considered ancient
adjective ·yllltlm·ly: 'jammly-li. then 'iammlw-li
(regressive assimilation ·fy-,i:-Iw-,i) (This is the
one case when' it is cer1ain that the Coptic fonn
derives from an ancient [I.e.• pre· Hebrew] geni·
tive.)
U/tOYT (B. S m$C. and fem.). saw; compo Uebrew
maifOr, Arabic m/rdlir, apparently from pre'
Hebrew '",didr-i (genitive)
,Xe4'fo (B). X6l1,o (S fern.). bnn. small village:
compare Aramaic blr·li, village; the ending ~ is
the Aramaic definite ar1icle. still in use in bibli-
cal Aramaic: the Coptic fonn survives in the
place·name SIll/bra, Arabic S'lbrl! (llte correct
foml would be • Si/".a. The modem pronouncia-
t)on S,jbrl! is vulgar; compare O,l/! n. loe.•
Koptos, for Oil/: Qllb!.iy. Copt. for Qib!-Iy. from
Greek Aigypli-m.)
~ (B mase.). rue (RIlla graveolens sive mon-
lima), demotic btwJ. Aramaic /I(ISYlJ-d, ballUJ-d
IUT66Te (L subst.), anny; compare Akkadian
madak/·u (fern.). camp (military): compare also
demotic m/R/
227
BIOLIOCRAPIlV
Alhlight, W. F. The Voc/l/iyllioll 01 the Egyplia" Syl·
labic Of/hography. Aml'liean Oriental Series 5.
Nl'w Haven, Conn., 1934.
Burchardt, M. lJie IlftklllltltmiJischen Frt!lIulwor/e IIl1d
Eigt!lflfamen im Xgyp/ischm. Vols. 1-2. Leipzig.
1909-1910.
Edc:1, E. "Nt."UL'S Material 7.ur Beurteilung der :>ylla.
bischen Or1hographie des Xgyptischen:' JOllmal 01
Near &is/em Stlldies 8 (1949):44-47.
Die Ortsllilltlellli$lell IlUS de/rl Totetl/empel
Ame"ophis 1II. Bonner biblische Bcitrage 25.
Bonn, 1966.
Edgerton. W. F. "Egypcian Phonetic Writing from Its
Invention 10 the Close of the Ninell'cnlh Dynasty."
JOllmal 0{ Ihe American Oriell/Ill Society 60
(1940):473-506.
Muller, M. W. Asiell Imd Ellropll /lach alliigyptisclltm
Oellk",iilem. Leipdg, 1893.
"Sporen der babylonischen Wcltschrift in
Agypten. Milleilullge/l der vorderflSia/ischt!1f Gt!St!I/·
schillt 17, 00. 3 (1912):1-90.
Stricker, B. H. "Trois l1tuc.les de phonelique et de
morphologic eoplt.'S." ACla OrielflaUa 15 (1936-
1937):1-20.
Ward. W. A. "Notes on Egyptian Group Writing."
JOllmllf 01 Near Eastt!m Siudies 16 (1957):198-203.
WERNER VVCICHL