DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0063
the superlinear stroke does not represent a vowel. He explains its occurrence above
consonant clusters by the assumption that the stroke serves to clarify the syllabic
division of utterances. In his opinion, syllables which have a vocalic nucleus are
sufficiently marked as such by the vowel letters, but syllables with a consonantal
nucleus need a specific notational device for their identification, namely the stroke.
Worrell's hypothesis implies that different stroke positions could produce contrasts
in graphical groups which allow for more than one syllabic division, but he does not
provide a minimal pair.
However, the stroke also appears in cases like CWKtl "to break", CCOTTI "to choose",
■fTO "the portion", or AOKK "to perfect you", where it seems improbable that there
was a second syllable in addition to the syllable containing the vocalic nucleus. For
cases like these, Worrell (1934: i5f.) considers the possibility that even a stop can
constitute a syllable on its own in Coptic, but he also admits that the use of the
stroke might by analogy have been extended to consonant clusters which do not
actually constitute a syllable on their own.
Polotsky (i933) supports Worrells point of view. He argues that graphical variation
of the stroke and €, which had always been an argument in favor of the vocalic inter-
pretation of the stroke, is restricted to specific contexts, where it can be interpreted
as phonetic rather than graphical variation. On the other hand, the existence of con-
texts in which a stroke never alternates with £ shows that a general interpretation of
the stroke as a vowel indicator is implausible. Polotsky remarks that in infinitives of
the type C(I)CC (the second consonant being an obstruent) with or without suffixes
the stroke is never replaced by £ (CCfltTT "to choose", COTiT1! "to choose him",
COTITO'S" "to choose them"), whereas in comparable verbs where the second conso-
nant is a sonorant the stroke and E may alternate unless a vocalic suffix follows:
CCuXJl ~ COften "to break", COMP) ~ COteJUJ "to break him", COMlOff (but not
*COAenCW) "to break them". Therefore £ is evoked by the sonorant rather than being
a general device of the Coptic language to split up consonant clusters.
In Polotsky (1957b: 221-225) he adds another argument. The superlinear stroke is
distinct in character from all alphabetic signs. It is not arranged into a relative order
along with other signs but is superposed to varying numbers of letters. According to
Polotsky, this indicates that the stroke is a prosodical (we would say in modern
terminology: suprasegmental) element rather than indicating a specific phoneme.
He argues that the stroke basically indicates syllables, and whether consonant
clusters were broken up by epenthetic vowels or not, these at least are not what the
stroke serves to express. Polotsky (1957b: 224) cites a contrast involving stroke
length which he found in certain Sahidic manuscripts: AHTpe "witness" - AHT-
(nominal prefix). In his opinion, this reflects a difference in syllabification.
Kasser (1965/66) tries to reconciliate the opinions of both sides and argues that the
superlinear stroke, for which he invents the French term surligne, can alternatively
- especially if it is comparatively long - indicate syllable boundaries, or else -
63
consonant clusters by the assumption that the stroke serves to clarify the syllabic
division of utterances. In his opinion, syllables which have a vocalic nucleus are
sufficiently marked as such by the vowel letters, but syllables with a consonantal
nucleus need a specific notational device for their identification, namely the stroke.
Worrell's hypothesis implies that different stroke positions could produce contrasts
in graphical groups which allow for more than one syllabic division, but he does not
provide a minimal pair.
However, the stroke also appears in cases like CWKtl "to break", CCOTTI "to choose",
■fTO "the portion", or AOKK "to perfect you", where it seems improbable that there
was a second syllable in addition to the syllable containing the vocalic nucleus. For
cases like these, Worrell (1934: i5f.) considers the possibility that even a stop can
constitute a syllable on its own in Coptic, but he also admits that the use of the
stroke might by analogy have been extended to consonant clusters which do not
actually constitute a syllable on their own.
Polotsky (i933) supports Worrells point of view. He argues that graphical variation
of the stroke and €, which had always been an argument in favor of the vocalic inter-
pretation of the stroke, is restricted to specific contexts, where it can be interpreted
as phonetic rather than graphical variation. On the other hand, the existence of con-
texts in which a stroke never alternates with £ shows that a general interpretation of
the stroke as a vowel indicator is implausible. Polotsky remarks that in infinitives of
the type C(I)CC (the second consonant being an obstruent) with or without suffixes
the stroke is never replaced by £ (CCfltTT "to choose", COTiT1! "to choose him",
COTITO'S" "to choose them"), whereas in comparable verbs where the second conso-
nant is a sonorant the stroke and E may alternate unless a vocalic suffix follows:
CCuXJl ~ COften "to break", COMP) ~ COteJUJ "to break him", COMlOff (but not
*COAenCW) "to break them". Therefore £ is evoked by the sonorant rather than being
a general device of the Coptic language to split up consonant clusters.
In Polotsky (1957b: 221-225) he adds another argument. The superlinear stroke is
distinct in character from all alphabetic signs. It is not arranged into a relative order
along with other signs but is superposed to varying numbers of letters. According to
Polotsky, this indicates that the stroke is a prosodical (we would say in modern
terminology: suprasegmental) element rather than indicating a specific phoneme.
He argues that the stroke basically indicates syllables, and whether consonant
clusters were broken up by epenthetic vowels or not, these at least are not what the
stroke serves to express. Polotsky (1957b: 224) cites a contrast involving stroke
length which he found in certain Sahidic manuscripts: AHTpe "witness" - AHT-
(nominal prefix). In his opinion, this reflects a difference in syllabification.
Kasser (1965/66) tries to reconciliate the opinions of both sides and argues that the
superlinear stroke, for which he invents the French term surligne, can alternatively
- especially if it is comparatively long - indicate syllable boundaries, or else -
63