DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0107
3.7
Velar plosives
3.7.i
Overview
There are four elementary graphemes in Egyptian to render velar plosives. They
correspond to two letters for velars as well as two letters for palatals in Coptic. The
functional correlation between the hieroglyphic and the Coptic graphemes is weak. In
particular, any hieroglyphic grapheme can appear both as a velar and as a palatal in
Coptic. The following is an overview of the correspondences, accompanied by tentative
sound values for Late Egyptian:
velar no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
hieroglyphic grapheme
«^=7
t,
©
6 ~©
S~!X
conventional transliteration
of the hieroglyphic grapheme
<k»
<q»
<g>
<g>
<g>~<q>
Late Egyptian sound value
/kh/
/w
IKW/
/kj
IKVI
M
Bohairic Coptic (before a
stressed vowel)
e/ch/
X/kh/
A/c/
K/k/
A/c/
K/k/
?
Sahidic Coptic
e/ki/
K/k/
e/ki/
K/k/
e/ki/
K/k/
?
General remarks on the opposition <k> — <g> — <q>
It is evident from Bohairic that <k> denotes an aspirate as opposed to both <g> and <q>. It is
far more difficult to define the distinction between the sounds noted by <g> and <q>. When
transcription symbols for ® and k. had to be selected, scholars chose <g> and <q>
because they were easy to reproduce typographically and were also used for transcribing
Semitic languages, although no clear evidence on the actual sound values of these
Egyptian signs was available (cf. Steindorff 1892: 719). The phonetic interpretations
thus assigned arbitrarily to both graphemes were confirmed much later by Rossler (1971:
3o4-3o6). Based on etymological considerations, he assumes that <d> and <i> are the
palatalized correlates of <q> and <g> respectively, which would suggest that <q> is a
voiceless (according to Rossler: emphatic) and <g> a voiced velar. Rossler's view was
accepted by subsequent scholars such as Schenkel (1990: 51) and Schneider (1995: 193).
Egyptian-Semitic mutual transcriptions are, on the other hand, too variable to clarify the
question (cf. Hoch 1994: 428f.).
I hesitate to make a decision on the phonological distinction between <q> and <g> and
therefore render them by the unspecific symbols fkj and IkJ respectively.
General remarks on the opposition K/X — A/e
There is no indication that any of the above mentioned sounds was a palatal in earlier
times. It is noteworthy that practically all velars in Semitic loan words which entered
Late Egyptian appear as palatals in Coptic (US' appendix 5 and below, for possible
exceptions see discussion on velar no. 6 below). This shows that palatalization applied
107
Velar plosives
3.7.i
Overview
There are four elementary graphemes in Egyptian to render velar plosives. They
correspond to two letters for velars as well as two letters for palatals in Coptic. The
functional correlation between the hieroglyphic and the Coptic graphemes is weak. In
particular, any hieroglyphic grapheme can appear both as a velar and as a palatal in
Coptic. The following is an overview of the correspondences, accompanied by tentative
sound values for Late Egyptian:
velar no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
hieroglyphic grapheme
«^=7
t,
©
6 ~©
S~!X
conventional transliteration
of the hieroglyphic grapheme
<k»
<q»
<g>
<g>
<g>~<q>
Late Egyptian sound value
/kh/
/w
IKW/
/kj
IKVI
M
Bohairic Coptic (before a
stressed vowel)
e/ch/
X/kh/
A/c/
K/k/
A/c/
K/k/
?
Sahidic Coptic
e/ki/
K/k/
e/ki/
K/k/
e/ki/
K/k/
?
General remarks on the opposition <k> — <g> — <q>
It is evident from Bohairic that <k> denotes an aspirate as opposed to both <g> and <q>. It is
far more difficult to define the distinction between the sounds noted by <g> and <q>. When
transcription symbols for ® and k. had to be selected, scholars chose <g> and <q>
because they were easy to reproduce typographically and were also used for transcribing
Semitic languages, although no clear evidence on the actual sound values of these
Egyptian signs was available (cf. Steindorff 1892: 719). The phonetic interpretations
thus assigned arbitrarily to both graphemes were confirmed much later by Rossler (1971:
3o4-3o6). Based on etymological considerations, he assumes that <d> and <i> are the
palatalized correlates of <q> and <g> respectively, which would suggest that <q> is a
voiceless (according to Rossler: emphatic) and <g> a voiced velar. Rossler's view was
accepted by subsequent scholars such as Schenkel (1990: 51) and Schneider (1995: 193).
Egyptian-Semitic mutual transcriptions are, on the other hand, too variable to clarify the
question (cf. Hoch 1994: 428f.).
I hesitate to make a decision on the phonological distinction between <q> and <g> and
therefore render them by the unspecific symbols fkj and IkJ respectively.
General remarks on the opposition K/X — A/e
There is no indication that any of the above mentioned sounds was a palatal in earlier
times. It is noteworthy that practically all velars in Semitic loan words which entered
Late Egyptian appear as palatals in Coptic (US' appendix 5 and below, for possible
exceptions see discussion on velar no. 6 below). This shows that palatalization applied
107