Peust, Carsten: Egyptian phonology: an introduction to the phonology of a dead language (Göttingen, 1999)

s

Si

axi

eksi

aksf

?ksy

eksi

eksi

t-T*4-^'

?iksi

0

o'ir.o

off

3W

ou

?uww

So' (sic!)

Ow

si

?uww

n

ni

by

bi

VI

by

bl

bej

<J.

Pijj

P

po, 2P0, po)

ru

ru:

r6u

ruww

r5

row

3^

ruww

c

CI.K&, CiTA-

syma

samma

samma

smh

samma

samma

LgkAAl

si: ma

T

Tdv'S"

thaff

daw

da'u

d?w

daw

daa (sic!)

<_$b

ta:v

TT

2,e,?re

he

he

he

h-*

he

ha, he

(^L**jj

(?)

<&

*|

ffy

fi

ft!

fy

fi

ftj

J

fijj

X

Xf

chy

xi

ki

ky

ki

kij

J

k'jj

*

*l

ebsi

epsi

apsf

?bsy

ebsi

ebsi

<_f"jj

?ibsi

(0

Gu.&'B-

0

a

0

?aww

to

5'

ss\

(?)

BJ

ujdj, cyer

schey

Jaj

sai

s?y

say

saj

,j-L

Ja:j

4

4M, cj(H)ei

vey

faj

fat

f?y

fay

faj

^

fa:j

3

£»j,2)ei

hachi

xaj

hei

x?y

xay

haj

^

xa:j

2

2,opj, 2d)pei

hori

hori

h6n

hwry

hori

hori

tj^j*

ho:ri

A

2S&N2S.ld>.

gensa

jema

dyandya g?ngh

ganga

jama

&

(?)

e

ei>^

syma

Jima

sima

sym?

slma

slma

U_i*jj

?itTi:ma

t

Ti,fei

*y

di

dl

dy

dl

dlj, dl,
di

J

ti:

2.7.4

The digraphs €1 and 07T

In Hellenistic Greek, the letter combination El can be used as a mere graphic variety of 1
I'll, and ou serves to express /u/. This use has been adopted into Coptic where 61 can
express a single phonetic segment /i/ or /j/47, and OV can express /u/ or /w/.
It is difficult to give exact rules for the use of digraphs. Coptic manuscripts show much
variation in this respect, and there has been little research on the topic so far (but cf.

46 One or more following letters irrecognizable due to a printing error.

47 The assumption that in most Coptic dialects £1 can be used as a digraph with the
same sound value as I has been asserted by almost all scholars. To the best of my
knowledge, the single exception is Kasser (1997: 6) who suggests that €1 always
renders a kind of diphthong (in Kasser's transcription hi/, /ej/ or hjl) as opposed to I
denoting HI or /j/. If this assumption is true, some phenomena which are considered
graphical here would have to be reinterpreted as phonological. It would become
necessary, for example, to assume sound changes such as /j/ > hjl (or similarly) in
word-initial position for Sahidic. Certain graphical phenomena would perhaps
become somewhat hard to explain, such as the writing sdd instead of "normal" s&l£l
"I came" (see Quecke 1984a: 45). While traditionally it would be held that /a'ji/ was
somewhat imprecisely rendered as /a'i/, Kasser would have to argue that /ai/ varies
with something like /aiei/. Another question which could be posed would be how to
explain the writing ££l which at present is interpreted as /ej/, hjl. But further
discussions of Kasser's proposal are necessary.

60