DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0049
2.6.3 Thej-signs
Three signs pose special problems to the transcription, namely p <i>, lip <y>, and /( <i> (on
<i> US' § 2.6.4).
2.6.3.x Distribution
In Old Egyptian H is not yet in use. pp looks like a mere sequence of two single p's. It is,
however, frequently found as an alternative writing of P under conditions which are not
yet clear.
In Middle Egyptian all three signs indicated are in current use and variation among them
becomes rare. It can be roughly stated that at this time P is not restricted in distribution,
whereas pp can appear at a morpheme boundary only, and 'H is even more restricted in
that it is used only morpheme-finally.
In Late Egyptian, all three signs fall into a group of graphemes which are employed in a
very inconsistent manner (besides p, pj, and H, this also affects especially <>>, <w>, and
<t>). It seems that the corresponding sounds had been lost in the spoken language in many
positions, so these former phonograms were no longer correlated to a feature in the
contemporary pronunciation (B3P § 3.14.2).
a.6.3. a Function
The sign p can be represented in Coptic as (6)1 1)1, or dropped altogether. Three assump-
tions about its sound value have been advanced:
1) p was originally 1)1 but it was lost by the time of Coptic in many enviroments. This is
the view e.g. of Dyroff (1910), Vycichl (1940: 84-88), Kammerzeu. (1992: note 39 on
p. i68f. and 1995: XLIV and XLVI), and Loprieno (1995: 33).
2) P originally had two sound values, namely 1)1 and 111. This ambiguity was by and
large preserved until the Coptic period, where /?/ is not expressed in writing at all.
This view is favored by Sethe (1899-1902: I, §§ 88, 100-102, logf.). Sethe assumes
that while p is a phonogram of ambiguous value, its graphical alternants pP and f
are clear indicators of 1)1 as opposed to /?/. Sethe's view is adopted e.g. by Edel
(1955/64: I, §i37) and Gardiner (1957: §20).
Sethe made this proposal because exact conditions for the preservation and the loss
of <j> cannot always be specified. On this problem D3P § 3.14.2.2.
3) Albright (1946b: 319) and Hodge (1991b: 383) express the view that the original
sound value of P is /?/, which implies that Coptic 1)1 is a later development.
In my opinion assumption 1) is the most plausible. As shown in § 3.14.2, p fails to leave
traces in Coptic primarily in the same environments in which <w> is also lost in Coptic.
The most plausible conclusion is that both p and <w> originally represented glides which
were subsequently lost in largely parallel developments. I also argue in § 3.4 that we
have no indications that glottal stops were spoken in Coptic nor in Egyptian.
49
Three signs pose special problems to the transcription, namely p <i>, lip <y>, and /( <i> (on
<i> US' § 2.6.4).
2.6.3.x Distribution
In Old Egyptian H is not yet in use. pp looks like a mere sequence of two single p's. It is,
however, frequently found as an alternative writing of P under conditions which are not
yet clear.
In Middle Egyptian all three signs indicated are in current use and variation among them
becomes rare. It can be roughly stated that at this time P is not restricted in distribution,
whereas pp can appear at a morpheme boundary only, and 'H is even more restricted in
that it is used only morpheme-finally.
In Late Egyptian, all three signs fall into a group of graphemes which are employed in a
very inconsistent manner (besides p, pj, and H, this also affects especially <>>, <w>, and
<t>). It seems that the corresponding sounds had been lost in the spoken language in many
positions, so these former phonograms were no longer correlated to a feature in the
contemporary pronunciation (B3P § 3.14.2).
a.6.3. a Function
The sign p can be represented in Coptic as (6)1 1)1, or dropped altogether. Three assump-
tions about its sound value have been advanced:
1) p was originally 1)1 but it was lost by the time of Coptic in many enviroments. This is
the view e.g. of Dyroff (1910), Vycichl (1940: 84-88), Kammerzeu. (1992: note 39 on
p. i68f. and 1995: XLIV and XLVI), and Loprieno (1995: 33).
2) P originally had two sound values, namely 1)1 and 111. This ambiguity was by and
large preserved until the Coptic period, where /?/ is not expressed in writing at all.
This view is favored by Sethe (1899-1902: I, §§ 88, 100-102, logf.). Sethe assumes
that while p is a phonogram of ambiguous value, its graphical alternants pP and f
are clear indicators of 1)1 as opposed to /?/. Sethe's view is adopted e.g. by Edel
(1955/64: I, §i37) and Gardiner (1957: §20).
Sethe made this proposal because exact conditions for the preservation and the loss
of <j> cannot always be specified. On this problem D3P § 3.14.2.2.
3) Albright (1946b: 319) and Hodge (1991b: 383) express the view that the original
sound value of P is /?/, which implies that Coptic 1)1 is a later development.
In my opinion assumption 1) is the most plausible. As shown in § 3.14.2, p fails to leave
traces in Coptic primarily in the same environments in which <w> is also lost in Coptic.
The most plausible conclusion is that both p and <w> originally represented glides which
were subsequently lost in largely parallel developments. I also argue in § 3.4 that we
have no indications that glottal stops were spoken in Coptic nor in Egyptian.
49