DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0034
of rendering the spoken language into a graphical code. Differences similar to those
known from the Coptic dialects can already be observed in Greek transcriptions of
Egyptian words from somewhat earlier date (Quaegebeur 1974: 418-420).
It is difficult to assign the Coptic "dialects" to specific geographical areas. This is
partly due to the fact that most Coptic texts are of unknown geographical origin. But even
where the origin is certain, it appears that texts belonging to one dialect can be found in
different parts of Egypt. A summary of the major attempts at localising the Coptic
dialects is given by Kasser (1991c).
Some scholars such as Mink (1972: 187), Kasser (1978: 7if.), and Brunsch (1978: 69)
have mentioned the possibility that a graphic divergence between Coptic dialects does
not necessarily render a difference in pronunciation. Hintze (1980) presents a pan-dialec-
tal phonological analysis of Coptic which makes use of an abstract underlying phonolog-
ical representation. He demonstrates for several words that it is possible to derive the
surface structures of different dialects from a single underlying representation
("systematische phonematische Representation", Hintze 1980: 75) if distinct sets of
transformation rules specific to each dialect are assumed.16 These underlying representa-
tions are often strikingly similar to historically preceding stages of the Egyptian
language.1?
Impressed by Hintze's account, Loprieno (1982) suggests that what are conventionally
called Coptic dialects do not actually indicate any linguistic variation but rather mere
various orthographic traditions for rendering a uniform language. Loprieno deserves the
merit of having renounced a simplistic identification of graphemics and phonemics which
many scholars have been applying too easily. Loprieno's account can, however, only
explain graphic differences among the Coptic dialects. In addition to these, the Coptic
dialects also provide clear examples of lexical peculiarities. Lexical variety among the
Coptic dialects has not yet been researched systematically; I have collected some
examples in appendix 10. Differences on the levels of morphology and syntax are scarcer,
but do likewise exist.1"
We can thus conclude that the differences between the Coptic "dialects" may be of
merely graphical nature to a large part, but at least to a certain degree they witness
actual linguistic variation which cannot be interpreted as diaehronic and is likely to
have a geographical background.
16 Hintze's essay deals with three dialects. The rules are listed in Hintze (1980: 55-
57), illustrations of how they operate follow on the subsequent pages.
17 This phenomenon is discussed by Hintze (1980: 67^)
18 For morphological differences see Till (1961). Note that most, but not all of these
differences can be reduced to mere graphic differences. For dialectal differences in
syntax and morphosyntax see Polotsky (i960: 401, no. 20) and Shisha-Halevy (1981).
34
known from the Coptic dialects can already be observed in Greek transcriptions of
Egyptian words from somewhat earlier date (Quaegebeur 1974: 418-420).
It is difficult to assign the Coptic "dialects" to specific geographical areas. This is
partly due to the fact that most Coptic texts are of unknown geographical origin. But even
where the origin is certain, it appears that texts belonging to one dialect can be found in
different parts of Egypt. A summary of the major attempts at localising the Coptic
dialects is given by Kasser (1991c).
Some scholars such as Mink (1972: 187), Kasser (1978: 7if.), and Brunsch (1978: 69)
have mentioned the possibility that a graphic divergence between Coptic dialects does
not necessarily render a difference in pronunciation. Hintze (1980) presents a pan-dialec-
tal phonological analysis of Coptic which makes use of an abstract underlying phonolog-
ical representation. He demonstrates for several words that it is possible to derive the
surface structures of different dialects from a single underlying representation
("systematische phonematische Representation", Hintze 1980: 75) if distinct sets of
transformation rules specific to each dialect are assumed.16 These underlying representa-
tions are often strikingly similar to historically preceding stages of the Egyptian
language.1?
Impressed by Hintze's account, Loprieno (1982) suggests that what are conventionally
called Coptic dialects do not actually indicate any linguistic variation but rather mere
various orthographic traditions for rendering a uniform language. Loprieno deserves the
merit of having renounced a simplistic identification of graphemics and phonemics which
many scholars have been applying too easily. Loprieno's account can, however, only
explain graphic differences among the Coptic dialects. In addition to these, the Coptic
dialects also provide clear examples of lexical peculiarities. Lexical variety among the
Coptic dialects has not yet been researched systematically; I have collected some
examples in appendix 10. Differences on the levels of morphology and syntax are scarcer,
but do likewise exist.1"
We can thus conclude that the differences between the Coptic "dialects" may be of
merely graphical nature to a large part, but at least to a certain degree they witness
actual linguistic variation which cannot be interpreted as diaehronic and is likely to
have a geographical background.
16 Hintze's essay deals with three dialects. The rules are listed in Hintze (1980: 55-
57), illustrations of how they operate follow on the subsequent pages.
17 This phenomenon is discussed by Hintze (1980: 67^)
18 For morphological differences see Till (1961). Note that most, but not all of these
differences can be reduced to mere graphic differences. For dialectal differences in
syntax and morphosyntax see Polotsky (i960: 401, no. 20) and Shisha-Halevy (1981).
34