DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0060
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
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