DOI Artikel:
Crum, Walter E.: Progress of Egyptology: christian Egypt
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12583#0090
74
Peogeess of Egyptology.
to the philological commentary with which Mr. Griffith's edition of the two
demotic Seine papyri is provided;36 for in it no occasion is omitted for
indicating relationships or analogies which the study of these and other
demotic texts have suggested between that idiom and the Coptic.
Professor Sethe has proposed37 what are doubtless the true etymologies
for three of the commonest yet hitherto least satisfactorily explained words :
mto from hieroglyphic mtr "be present," eset from s't " ground," and esdpe
by crasis for es-iope.
Professor Eahlfs, a new recruit in Coptic studies, shows33 that the fern,
article t-, like the masc. p-, gave occasional rise to misunderstandings in
words which themselves begin with that letter. He instances t-halassa -
Oakaaaa, from the Pistis Sophia.
M. Loret's edition of part of a Bohairic Scala, previously published by
Kircher (v. last Report, p. 55), is completed by full indices.39
The Berlin Museum has recently acquired a funerary stele of unusual
interest, owing to the length and comparative unconventionality of its
Coptic text (43 11.). This Professor Steindorff has edited,40 pointing out
that the inaccuracy of the language bears out the late date, a.d. 805, at
which it was written. .
Professor Praetorius has before now turned his attention to the relations
between the Semitic and African languages. He now prints11 some
observations on the apparent influence of Coptic upon the Egyptian dialect
of Arabic. He remarks especially upon the elsewhere unusual richness of
vowels in the latter idiom and upon its peculiar tendency to place interroga-
tive particles at the end of the clause. The latter characteristic had
indeed been already noticed by Stern.
As regards the relations between the Egyptian and Semitic vocabularies,
the list published a few years ago by Professor Erman probably enumerates
all the roots which these two groups of languages have in common—so far,
that is, as the evidence from the literatures reveals them. But it was
obvious that the spoken Arabic of modern Egypt might be employing,
besides these, words and expressions borrowed from the native language
which it had by degrees superseded. Professor Labib has collected a
number of these and illustrated them by phrases taken from the actual
dialect of Cairo.42 Of the 155 words which his first instalment contains,
many are obviously not to be found in the Arabic dictionaries, while
several of the Coptic equivalents proposed, consist, not of single roots,
but of compounds (status constructus + noun, root + suffix etc.) and the
lists can hardly therefore be classed beside such collections as Professor
Erman's. It would moreover be impossible to criticize the Arabic part of
Peogeess of Egyptology.
to the philological commentary with which Mr. Griffith's edition of the two
demotic Seine papyri is provided;36 for in it no occasion is omitted for
indicating relationships or analogies which the study of these and other
demotic texts have suggested between that idiom and the Coptic.
Professor Sethe has proposed37 what are doubtless the true etymologies
for three of the commonest yet hitherto least satisfactorily explained words :
mto from hieroglyphic mtr "be present," eset from s't " ground," and esdpe
by crasis for es-iope.
Professor Eahlfs, a new recruit in Coptic studies, shows33 that the fern,
article t-, like the masc. p-, gave occasional rise to misunderstandings in
words which themselves begin with that letter. He instances t-halassa -
Oakaaaa, from the Pistis Sophia.
M. Loret's edition of part of a Bohairic Scala, previously published by
Kircher (v. last Report, p. 55), is completed by full indices.39
The Berlin Museum has recently acquired a funerary stele of unusual
interest, owing to the length and comparative unconventionality of its
Coptic text (43 11.). This Professor Steindorff has edited,40 pointing out
that the inaccuracy of the language bears out the late date, a.d. 805, at
which it was written. .
Professor Praetorius has before now turned his attention to the relations
between the Semitic and African languages. He now prints11 some
observations on the apparent influence of Coptic upon the Egyptian dialect
of Arabic. He remarks especially upon the elsewhere unusual richness of
vowels in the latter idiom and upon its peculiar tendency to place interroga-
tive particles at the end of the clause. The latter characteristic had
indeed been already noticed by Stern.
As regards the relations between the Egyptian and Semitic vocabularies,
the list published a few years ago by Professor Erman probably enumerates
all the roots which these two groups of languages have in common—so far,
that is, as the evidence from the literatures reveals them. But it was
obvious that the spoken Arabic of modern Egypt might be employing,
besides these, words and expressions borrowed from the native language
which it had by degrees superseded. Professor Labib has collected a
number of these and illustrated them by phrases taken from the actual
dialect of Cairo.42 Of the 155 words which his first instalment contains,
many are obviously not to be found in the Arabic dictionaries, while
several of the Coptic equivalents proposed, consist, not of single roots,
but of compounds (status constructus + noun, root + suffix etc.) and the
lists can hardly therefore be classed beside such collections as Professor
Erman's. It would moreover be impossible to criticize the Arabic part of