Helmut Satzinger:

Dialectical Variation of the Egyptian-Coptic Language

in the Course of its Four Millennia of Attested History

Ninth Annual Coptic Studies Symposium Coptic Heritage and Egyptology Continuities and Particularities

Toronto, April 2, 2016

Egypt:

ideal situation for dialect studies —

the land is

one-dimensional

(apart from the

Delta).

Egypt:

ideal situation for dialect studies —

the land is

one-dimensional

(apart from the

Delta).

Delta, E—W ca. 260 km; N—S ca. 170 km (in a bee-line) Area ca. 22,000 km2 (ca. 55 % of Switzerland) Nile-Valley, N—S (Cairo to Aswân) ca. 870 km on the road (ca. 650 km in a bee line) Cf. Paris—Marseille, 775 km (road)

French dialects between Paris and Marseille

French dialects between Paris and Marseille

Main Coptic Dialects

From the Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. viii (author: Rodolphe Kasser)

From the Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. viii (author: Rodolphe Kasser)

From the Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. viii (author: Rodolphe Kasser)

Grouped Features

B F M S L A Egn. Meaning

á / ó dialects versus é / á dialects

son san san son san san *san brother ran len ren ran ren ren *rin name

An additional shift (Southern Egypt only): LA óˀ for áˀ

totf taatf tatf tootf tootf tootf *čártǝf > *ṭáˀtǝf

his hand

ro la ra ro ro ro *raˀ mouth

LA: ū [u:] for BFS ō when < *ōˀ < *āˀ, but otherwise ō [o:]

M: ō [o] for BFS ō when < * ōˀ < *āˀ, but otherwise o [ɔ:] khō kō kō kō kū kū *ḫāˀǝˁ >

*kāˁ to put

kōt kōt kot kōt kōt kōt *ḳāṭ to build

North-Southcontinuum— palatal(innovation)vs.velar(traditional)

B F M S L A Egyptian é [ʃ] $ [x] ḫ1 x > ʃ

ϭ [ch] / ϫ

[c] ϭ [ç] ⲕ ḳ, k, g

TheNorthandtheRest— aspirated(traditional)vs.non-aspirated(innovation)

ⲫ [ph], ⲑ [th], ϭ [ch], ⲭ [kh]

ⲡ [b], ⲧ [d],

ϫ [c], ϭ [ç], ⲕ [g]

p, t, č, ḱ k

ḱ [ç] < k,

č [c] ~ ḏ = č

InnovativeCentre— velar(traditional)vs.lenitioned(innovation)

; [x] à $ ẖ, ḫ2 x

All in all: not a big deal — in a language as old as Egyptian one would expect much more dialectal variation. We can determine the date of most of the differenciations. In fact, the latest is only of the 2nd cent. A.D. (lenition of [x]). The oldest is perhaps of 1400 B.C. (aˀ > oˀ). There must have been phases of the Egyptian history when dialect differences waned, or eventually disappeared — the New Kingdom? The Saite period? The expansion of the son / ran vocalism of the Delta to Upper Egypt — hence the birth of the Sahidic dialect — may have taken place in the Saite period.

Satz

inge

r 199

0: "

On

the

Preh

isto

ry o

f the

Cop

tic D

iale

cts."

Act

s of t

he T

hird

Inte

rnat

iona

l Con

gres

s of

Cop

tic S

tudi

es, W

arsz

awa/

War

saw

199

0, 4

13–4

16.

Satz

inge

r 199

0: "

On

the

Preh

isto

ry o

f the

Cop

tic D

iale

cts."

Act

s of t

he T

hird

Inte

rnat

iona

l Con

gres

s of

Cop

tic S

tudi

es, W

arsz

awa/

War

saw

199

0, 4

13–4

16.

But the dialectal differences must have been considerable in the New Kingdom — ‘As for your utterances, there is no translator who could understand them. They are like the conversation of a Delta man with a Man from Elephantine!’

Pap. Anastasi I 28, 6 (19th dynasty)

We must assume that remarkable dialectal differences existed in the Egyptian-speaking area from the 4th to the 2nd millennium. To be sure: we can only observe features of historical phonology, and as that: of consonants. An exemplary feature is the phonetics of grapheme ȝ

(Egyptian Vulture ) and grapheme ˁ (arm with hand

), of course including all other signs that contain these values. Whereas the traditional opinion is that they render the glottal stop and the Ayin sound of Arabic, respectively, there is evidence of a complexe situation.

The evidence for ˁ being originally a dental stop (1)

In the lexicon of the OK, Egn. ˁ is incompatible with dentals/alveolars, in particular with d and z. There are no roots with *ˁd(...), *ˁCd, *dˁ(...), *dCˁ, *Cˁd, *Cdˁ; *ˁz(...), *ˁCz, *zˁ(...), *zCˁ, *Cˁz, *Czˁ. This proves that ˁ was – originally – a dental/alveolar itself. Otto Rössler 1971. Das Ägyptische als semitische Sprache. In: Franz Altheim und Ruth Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer. Erster Band. 263–326.

This proves that Egn. ˁ was – originally – not a laryngeal itself.

Roots that show that ˁ is compatible with ḫ:

ˁḫi “to burn; to evaporate”; ˁḫ “brazier”; ˁḫi “to raise up; to rise

up”; ˁḫm “to quench; to extinguish”; ˁḫm “to fly”; ˁbḫn “frog”;

ˁnḫ “sandal strap”; ˁnḫ “to live; to be alive”; ˁnḫ “garland;

bouquet”; ˁnḫ “door leaf”; ˁtḫ “to sieve; to press”; ˁtḫ

“brewer”; nˁḫ “bundle” (unit of measure); ḫˁi “to appear (in

glory); to be shining”; ḫˁr “to rage”; sḫˁr “to enrage”; ḫȝˁ “to

throw, put, leave”; ḫfˁ “to grasp,” ḫfˁ “fist; grasp.”

A horror for every Semitist:

Roots that show that ˁ is compatible with ḥ:

ˁḥ “palace”; ˁḥȝ “to fight”; ˁḥˁ “to stand”; ḥˁi “to rejoice; to

be happy”; ḥˁw “fleet; cargo boat”; ḥˁb “to play”; ḥˁpj “the

Nile; flood”; ˁbḥ “to fill (a jug) to the brim”, etc.; ˁnḥb.t

“pied kingfisher”; jˁḥ “moon”; bˁḥ “flood; inundation”; sˁḥ

“rank; dignity”; ḳˁḥ “to bend down”; ḥȝˁy “turmoil”; ḥwˁ “to

be short”; ḥnˁ “with”; wḥˁ “to loosen; to explain”; ḏḥˁ

“leather; (leather) lacings”; ḥˁw “flesh; limbs; body; self”,

etc.

A horror for every Semitist:

Intriguing evidence: the root doublets

There are pairs of roots, whose meaning is similar or alike,

that have ˁ and d, respectively, as one of their radicals, like

“hand”: ˁj : dj

“here”: ˁȝ : dj (< *dȝ ?)

“to squirt”: *ˁȝ : *dȝ

“to push”: *ˁb : *db Cf. J. Zeidler 1992. [Review of] Petráček, Karel: Altägyptisch und Hamitosemitisch.

Bemerkungen zu den Vergleichenden Studien. Lingua Aegyptia 2, 189–222, notably 206–10; W.

Schenkel 1993, ‘Zu den Verschluß- und Reibelauten im Ägyptischen und (Hamito)Semi-tischen.

Ein Versuch zur Synthese der Lehrmeinungen’, Lingua Aegyptia 3, 137-149, notably 140;

H. Satzinger, ‘Egyptian ‘Ayin in Variation with d’, Lingua Aegyptia 6 (1999), 141–151.

Ambivalent root √ab ~ √db ‘to push’ ˁb ‘horn’ (ϩⲱⲡ) db ‘horn’ (ⲧⲁⲡ) ˁbb ‘to knock’ (on door) dbdb ‘to knock’ (of the heart) ˁbb ‘to harvest’ (with fork) dbb ‘to engorge’ ˁbb.t ‘spear’ dbdb ‘to attack; to sting; to dismember’ ˁb ‘enemy; victim’

√ḥ-ˁb ~ √ḥ-db: ḥˁb, hapax, synonym of ṯwn, ‘to gore; to attack’ (CT)

ḥdb ‘to overthrow’

ḥˁby, term for enemies ḥdby.t ‘a heap of overthrown enemies’ Root *ˁb ~ *db ‘to push, beat’, stem with prefix *l- (> ȝ ~ n),

‘to push/beat to an effect’: ȝˁb ‘oppression’ ndb ‘to injure’

Etymology (1)

Etymology (2)

The evidence for ȝ (1) There are words that have l or r in Late Egn., and/or Demotic, and/or Coptic, in the place of an ȝ of Old and/or Middle Egn. ḥȝ, LEgn. ḥl “would that!” ḥȝg, LEgn. ḥlg “to be glad”, dem. ḥlk “sweet”, Copt. ϩⲗⲟϭ “to become sweet” (cf. Arab. √ḥlw “sweet”) ẖpȝ, dem. ẖlpy, Copt. ϩⲗⲡⲉ “navel“ (cf. Sem. √ḥabl “rope” [Calice #762]) ḳȝnt (Pyr), ḳȝȝt (MK), ḳ(ȝ)rt (NK), demotic ḳlȝt, Copt. ⲕⲗⲗⲉ “bolt” (cf. Sem. √klˀ “to restrain, enclose” [Calice #872] ?)!!!

Satzinger 1994. "Das ägyptische «Aleph»-Phonem." In: Zwischen den beiden Ewigkeiten. Festschrift Gertrud Thausing (Hg. M. Bietak et alii). Wien 1994, 191–205.

znš, z(ȝ)š "to open"!ḥfn, ḥnf, ḥfȝ "to twist" !gnf, gȝf “to rebuff, repell”!fgn, fgȝ “to defecate” nsb, ȝsb “to burn”!Nḳdḳd, var. ȝḳdḳd, name of a god!ˁwn “to rob, to deceive,” ˁwȝj “to rob, to harvest” Etc…..

The evidence for ȝ (2)

There are words with ȝ that have spelling variants or doublets with n in their stead (Satzinger 1994)

nẖ, nš, ȝš “to vomit” nˁˁ “to become smooth,” ȝˁˁ “to plaster” ȝhw “pain; injury,” nhw “loss; lack” mȝȝ “to see”: subjunctive mȝn·f besides mȝ·f!nwr, ȝwr “to tremble”!ȝˁb, ndb “damage, wound”

(also ˁ ~ d) wjn, wjȝ “to reject”

The evidence for ȝ (3)

ȝ in variation with r (Pyramid Texts!)

ḥḳr, var. ḥḳȝ ‘hunger' (Copt. ϩⲕⲟ < ḥaḳár: r in syllable-final position)

ḏȝt·k for ḏrt·k “your hand" (ḏártak, Copt. ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ: r in syllable-final position); ḏȝwt “hand(full)", originally “hands” (ḏárw-t): r in syllable-final position; but the singular form, absolute state, is always ḏrt (ḏār-t, Copt. ⲧⲱⲣⲉ): r is between two vowels.

ḏrjw, var. ḏȝjw, “has been hindered”

dȝp (Pyr) for drp (MR) “to endow” (cf. Arab. ṭalaf- “present”)

grḥ, var. gȝḥ, “to squeeze”

Etc.

The evidence for ȝ (4)

In the Earlier Transcription System, Old & Middle Kingdom, for rendering Canaanite personal names and geographical terms, the ȝ graphemes are systematically used for Canaanite l and r.

The idiom of the inventors of the hieroglyphic script is progressive:

/ȝ/ had for them the value [ˀ], or similar, rather than [l], or similar. /ˁ/ had for them the value [ˁ], or similar, rather than [l], or similar.

Cum grano salis ………

Chronology of early sound changes

3500 BC – Naqâda civilisation takes hold of Delta; Naqâda language supersedes Delta language.

Language undergoes considerable phonetic changes in the South (?)

*d > ˁ, *l > ˀ (spelt ȝ); the North (?) is conservative.

The hieroglyphic script conforms to the progressive idiom.

2500 BC – Though Pyramid Texts seem to be in the conservative idiom, the progressive idiom becomes standard

2200 BC – Transcription system for Asiatic names — based on conservative idiom

1300 BC – Theban vernacular (?) becoming base of new language standard (Late Egyptian); many words of the conservative idiom surfacing, replacing older words.

Sound changes that seem to affect both idioms:

3300–2700 velars ḳ, k, g, ẖ are palatalised: ḏ (č), ṯ (č), ḏ (č), š.

2200 ḏ, ṯ are depalatalised and become alveolars, d (ṭ), t.

2200–2000 syllable-closing t, r are lenitioned and become ˀ (spelt ı ).

nṯr > ntˀ / ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ sn.t > snˀ / ⲥⲱⲛⲉ

1700–1500 ? ȝ (progressive realisation as ˀ) becomes silent.

wȝḥ > *wḥ / ⲟⲩⲱϩ