DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0062
The Sahidic superlinear stroke marks letters which are employed as numerals (e.g. C "3")
and abbreviations of certain religious terms (e.g. TTHX = nN£'ir.W&. "spirit"). This is not its
prototypical function and will be excluded from our further discussion.
In its usual function, the superlinear stroke is found above consonants, particularly those
in consonant clusters. It is unknown to what degree the stroke is predictable. Many
manuscripts seem not to use it consistently. There is nothing in Egyptian etymological
cognates nor in Coptic loans in Arabic which corresponds to the stroke. Let us have a
look at the main opinions that have been expressed to date:
• The traditional opinion holds that the superlinear stroke is equivalent or at least
functionally similar to the letter £. This is still reflected in the modern scholarly
pronunciation at western universities: NC&. "after" is usually spoken [on'sa] ~
[en'sa] (or similarly), Cu)TTl "to choose" is spoken ['so:top] ~ ['so:tep]. The same is
reflected in early grammars such as Tattam (i863: 7) who says: "When the line in
Coptic5° (*) or the horizontal line in Sah. (") occurs over consonants, it generally
expresses the vowel £".
This view results from the observation that in certain environments supralinear
diacritics alternate with € throughout the same text, more frequently throughout
different dialects or diachronic stages of the language. Late Coptic, and thus the
pronunciation which can be heard from modern Copts, is a variety that most
frequently has a vowel where in Sahidic a superlinear stroke is (or may be) written.
• Till (1982) is one of the main proponents of the view that the stroke is a vowel
indicator. He assumes that it serves to express a specific reduced vowel ("Murmel-
vokal") which he transcribes e (in Till 1951 he changes the transcription to j). In his
opinion, a kind of vocalic interpretation is necessary since there are consonantal
sequences such as aNrTRN<\Be "our sins (accusative)" which can only be pronounced
when split up by vocalic elements, and these are what the superlinear strokes
indicate. In Till (1951) he adds another argument to support his view: The Coptic
prefix H (plural article and genitive marker) is assimilated to A when preceding A as
a single consonant, but not when preceding A in certain graphical consonant clusters
where superlinear strokes are likely to appear: e.g. SA-AHC6 "the interests" (for *N-
AHCe), but SN-AA002 "the fights" (on this assimilation and my interpretation U3P
§ 3.i6.i). He states that the failure of assimilation in the latter case can only be due
to an intervening vowel, so both groups were pronounced im-mese and in-'imlooh,
respectively. I argue, however, that it is enough to assume a distinction between a
consonantal and a syllabic sonorant here. These sounds can easily have behaved
differently with respect to assimilation.
• Worrell (1934S1: 11-16, 129) is the first to clearly have expressed the opinion that
50 "Coptic" is used here in the sense of "Bohairic". Tattam is speaking of the djinkim.
51 The first fascicle of his book appeared a few years before 1984, so he antedates
Polotsky (1933).
and abbreviations of certain religious terms (e.g. TTHX = nN£'ir.W&. "spirit"). This is not its
prototypical function and will be excluded from our further discussion.
In its usual function, the superlinear stroke is found above consonants, particularly those
in consonant clusters. It is unknown to what degree the stroke is predictable. Many
manuscripts seem not to use it consistently. There is nothing in Egyptian etymological
cognates nor in Coptic loans in Arabic which corresponds to the stroke. Let us have a
look at the main opinions that have been expressed to date:
• The traditional opinion holds that the superlinear stroke is equivalent or at least
functionally similar to the letter £. This is still reflected in the modern scholarly
pronunciation at western universities: NC&. "after" is usually spoken [on'sa] ~
[en'sa] (or similarly), Cu)TTl "to choose" is spoken ['so:top] ~ ['so:tep]. The same is
reflected in early grammars such as Tattam (i863: 7) who says: "When the line in
Coptic5° (*) or the horizontal line in Sah. (") occurs over consonants, it generally
expresses the vowel £".
This view results from the observation that in certain environments supralinear
diacritics alternate with € throughout the same text, more frequently throughout
different dialects or diachronic stages of the language. Late Coptic, and thus the
pronunciation which can be heard from modern Copts, is a variety that most
frequently has a vowel where in Sahidic a superlinear stroke is (or may be) written.
• Till (1982) is one of the main proponents of the view that the stroke is a vowel
indicator. He assumes that it serves to express a specific reduced vowel ("Murmel-
vokal") which he transcribes e (in Till 1951 he changes the transcription to j). In his
opinion, a kind of vocalic interpretation is necessary since there are consonantal
sequences such as aNrTRN<\Be "our sins (accusative)" which can only be pronounced
when split up by vocalic elements, and these are what the superlinear strokes
indicate. In Till (1951) he adds another argument to support his view: The Coptic
prefix H (plural article and genitive marker) is assimilated to A when preceding A as
a single consonant, but not when preceding A in certain graphical consonant clusters
where superlinear strokes are likely to appear: e.g. SA-AHC6 "the interests" (for *N-
AHCe), but SN-AA002 "the fights" (on this assimilation and my interpretation U3P
§ 3.i6.i). He states that the failure of assimilation in the latter case can only be due
to an intervening vowel, so both groups were pronounced im-mese and in-'imlooh,
respectively. I argue, however, that it is enough to assume a distinction between a
consonantal and a syllabic sonorant here. These sounds can easily have behaved
differently with respect to assimilation.
• Worrell (1934S1: 11-16, 129) is the first to clearly have expressed the opinion that
50 "Coptic" is used here in the sense of "Bohairic". Tattam is speaking of the djinkim.
51 The first fascicle of his book appeared a few years before 1984, so he antedates
Polotsky (1933).