DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0050
At least as can be judged from Coptic, there seems to have been no phonetic difference
between P,PP, and H. The sounds rendered by all three signs are equally preserved as 1)1
or lost by the same conditions in Coptic. It is possible that these signs never expressed a
phonetic distinction but instead their functional difference basically was to indicate
morphological boundaries or other features. It is also possible that they did originally
express a phonetic distinction which was lost later.
Schenkel (1994b: ±3 and 1997a: 3o) suggests that, unlike P and pp which are always
consonants, U represents a morpheme- or wordfinal posttonic vowel HI at least in many
cases. Note, however, that some words which are quite regularly written with " 'i still
have consonantal /j/ in Coptic (e.g. Late Egyptian d'l "here" > T&l /'taj/, r-hr'i "up" >
62P&I /gh'raj/).
a.6.3.3 Transcription
In the 19th century, scholars distinguished all three signs in transcription (e.g. Brugsch &
Erman 1889: P = i, PP = y, II = 'i). (The symbol i is a compromise between i and ' both of
which were considered possible sound values at that time.) When examining Old
Egyptian texts, Steindorff (1892: 718-716) came to the conclusion that ^>p and H were not
originally used but secondary developments of the Egyptian script. Since Egyptological
transcription has always attempted to render the most ancient shape of words rather than
their synchronic reality, this insight led scholars to give up a consistent differentiation of
these signs (for details US' 2.6.2), even though Steindorff himself proposed to keep the
symbols y and i for transcribing later stages of Egyptian (Steindorff 1892: 729). A
modern exception is Schenkel who in a recent paper (Schenkel 1994b) reintroduces the
symbol 1 for n as opposed to y for PP.
I have attempted to distinguish between i, y, and 'i in the transcription within this study.
If this distinction is not possible for various reasons (e.g. for some polyconsonantal signs
it is unclear which specific j-variety is to be read), I use./ as an unspecified symbol.
2.6.4 Defective writing
Even when a word is rendered primarily by phonograms, consonants which we assume to
have been spoken in this word at the given time may fail to be written. This phenomenon
is known as "defective writing" and was first described by Erman (1891). Modern Egypto-
logy assumes defective writings very frequently.
There are basically three reasons to assume defective writing:
1) A word or morpheme appears in varying writing forms both with and without a
certain consonant, frequently even within a single text. For example, the pronominal
suffix 1st pers. sg. masc. can be a) written logographically, b) written phonetically
as I, or c) left completely unwritten in Egyptian. It is generally assumed that it was
pronounced as i in all cases. This seems to be confirmed by Coptic where this suffix
5"
between P,PP, and H. The sounds rendered by all three signs are equally preserved as 1)1
or lost by the same conditions in Coptic. It is possible that these signs never expressed a
phonetic distinction but instead their functional difference basically was to indicate
morphological boundaries or other features. It is also possible that they did originally
express a phonetic distinction which was lost later.
Schenkel (1994b: ±3 and 1997a: 3o) suggests that, unlike P and pp which are always
consonants, U represents a morpheme- or wordfinal posttonic vowel HI at least in many
cases. Note, however, that some words which are quite regularly written with " 'i still
have consonantal /j/ in Coptic (e.g. Late Egyptian d'l "here" > T&l /'taj/, r-hr'i "up" >
62P&I /gh'raj/).
a.6.3.3 Transcription
In the 19th century, scholars distinguished all three signs in transcription (e.g. Brugsch &
Erman 1889: P = i, PP = y, II = 'i). (The symbol i is a compromise between i and ' both of
which were considered possible sound values at that time.) When examining Old
Egyptian texts, Steindorff (1892: 718-716) came to the conclusion that ^>p and H were not
originally used but secondary developments of the Egyptian script. Since Egyptological
transcription has always attempted to render the most ancient shape of words rather than
their synchronic reality, this insight led scholars to give up a consistent differentiation of
these signs (for details US' 2.6.2), even though Steindorff himself proposed to keep the
symbols y and i for transcribing later stages of Egyptian (Steindorff 1892: 729). A
modern exception is Schenkel who in a recent paper (Schenkel 1994b) reintroduces the
symbol 1 for n as opposed to y for PP.
I have attempted to distinguish between i, y, and 'i in the transcription within this study.
If this distinction is not possible for various reasons (e.g. for some polyconsonantal signs
it is unclear which specific j-variety is to be read), I use./ as an unspecified symbol.
2.6.4 Defective writing
Even when a word is rendered primarily by phonograms, consonants which we assume to
have been spoken in this word at the given time may fail to be written. This phenomenon
is known as "defective writing" and was first described by Erman (1891). Modern Egypto-
logy assumes defective writings very frequently.
There are basically three reasons to assume defective writing:
1) A word or morpheme appears in varying writing forms both with and without a
certain consonant, frequently even within a single text. For example, the pronominal
suffix 1st pers. sg. masc. can be a) written logographically, b) written phonetically
as I, or c) left completely unwritten in Egyptian. It is generally assumed that it was
pronounced as i in all cases. This seems to be confirmed by Coptic where this suffix
5"