DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0127
3.ii Liquids
3.H.1 Overview
I assume that Earlier Egyptian had three liquid phonemes - whose exact phonetic nature
is difficult to determine - rendered by two graphemes. Most instances of the phoneme
written as <>> merged with 1)1 after the Middle Kingdom (Kg" §3.14.2.1), and it thus lost
its liquid character. The remaining two phonemes were retained as hi and /l/ until
Coptic, but hi often developed into hi in the Fayyumic dialect of Coptic under still
unknown conditions. Furthermore, in a minority of words <>> was not palatalized but
preserved as hi or hi in Coptic.
For the slight possibility that Late Egyptian additionally had velarized hwl and /lw/ ES*
§ 5.6.4.3.
The principal developments of Egyptian liquids can be summarized as follows:
liquid
no.
Old and Middle
Egyptian
Late Egyptian
Demotic
Coptic (other
than Fayyumic)
1)
<3> = /r,/
-
-
_
■)
<r> = ItJ
<r> = M
<r> = hi
P = /r/
3)
<r>=/l/
<r> ~ <nr> ~ <n> = HI
<r> ~ <1» = m
\ = N
3.li.a The liquid character of <i>
Since the sound written <l> had already merged with <j> by the New Kingdom and was
completely lost in Coptic in most positions (BS° §3.14.2.1), early Egyptologists had a
hard time interpreting it. Based on pure guesswork, it was provisionally assigned the
sound value 111 (cf. Steindorff 1892: 725^, Czermak 1931/34: 104-108). An unspecific
transliteration symbol <>> was invented which is somewhat reminiscent of <5>, the Semi-
tistic transliteration symbol for the glottal stop /?/. Subsequently, a few etymological
connections with Semitic languages were found which seemed to support this interpreta-
tion (cf. Osing 1997); however, contradicting etymologies can also be found (US' below).
An etymological relationship between <>> and Semitic hi was already suspected by Erman
(1892: 123, i26f.). However, even if accepted, this fact alone would not prove that <>> still
had the value hi in historical Egyptian. When Egyptian transcriptions of Semitic names
from a time as early as the Middle Kingdom were discovered, better founded insights into
the value of <3> became possible. It can be clearly seen here that both <r> and <>> can
render both Semitic hi and HI alike (e.g. >w"slmm "Jerusalem", Sethe 1926: 53), whereas
<>> never corresponds to a Semitic glottal stop. This shows clearly that <>>, like <r>, was
indeed some kind of liquid at least by the time of the Middle Kingdom. It took, however,
several decades until the first scholars actually pronounced this evident conclusion (first
Loret 1945 still with weak arguments; more convincingly Hodge 1966: 48-47).
127
3.H.1 Overview
I assume that Earlier Egyptian had three liquid phonemes - whose exact phonetic nature
is difficult to determine - rendered by two graphemes. Most instances of the phoneme
written as <>> merged with 1)1 after the Middle Kingdom (Kg" §3.14.2.1), and it thus lost
its liquid character. The remaining two phonemes were retained as hi and /l/ until
Coptic, but hi often developed into hi in the Fayyumic dialect of Coptic under still
unknown conditions. Furthermore, in a minority of words <>> was not palatalized but
preserved as hi or hi in Coptic.
For the slight possibility that Late Egyptian additionally had velarized hwl and /lw/ ES*
§ 5.6.4.3.
The principal developments of Egyptian liquids can be summarized as follows:
liquid
no.
Old and Middle
Egyptian
Late Egyptian
Demotic
Coptic (other
than Fayyumic)
1)
<3> = /r,/
-
-
_
■)
<r> = ItJ
<r> = M
<r> = hi
P = /r/
3)
<r>=/l/
<r> ~ <nr> ~ <n> = HI
<r> ~ <1» = m
\ = N
3.li.a The liquid character of <i>
Since the sound written <l> had already merged with <j> by the New Kingdom and was
completely lost in Coptic in most positions (BS° §3.14.2.1), early Egyptologists had a
hard time interpreting it. Based on pure guesswork, it was provisionally assigned the
sound value 111 (cf. Steindorff 1892: 725^, Czermak 1931/34: 104-108). An unspecific
transliteration symbol <>> was invented which is somewhat reminiscent of <5>, the Semi-
tistic transliteration symbol for the glottal stop /?/. Subsequently, a few etymological
connections with Semitic languages were found which seemed to support this interpreta-
tion (cf. Osing 1997); however, contradicting etymologies can also be found (US' below).
An etymological relationship between <>> and Semitic hi was already suspected by Erman
(1892: 123, i26f.). However, even if accepted, this fact alone would not prove that <>> still
had the value hi in historical Egyptian. When Egyptian transcriptions of Semitic names
from a time as early as the Middle Kingdom were discovered, better founded insights into
the value of <3> became possible. It can be clearly seen here that both <r> and <>> can
render both Semitic hi and HI alike (e.g. >w"slmm "Jerusalem", Sethe 1926: 53), whereas
<>> never corresponds to a Semitic glottal stop. This shows clearly that <>>, like <r>, was
indeed some kind of liquid at least by the time of the Middle Kingdom. It took, however,
several decades until the first scholars actually pronounced this evident conclusion (first
Loret 1945 still with weak arguments; more convincingly Hodge 1966: 48-47).
127