DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0128
At present there are basically two opinions on the Pre-Late Egyptian values of <r> and <>>:
1) The traditional view holds that <r> is a liquid (usually assumed to be /r/) and <>> a
glottal stop 111 (e.g. Vergote 1945: 76, 109-114 and 1973/83: lb, § 26; Edel 1955/64:
I, § i3i; Osing 1997)
2) The more recent view holds that both <r> and <>> are liquids:
<r> = hi, <l> = /l/ (Loret 1945)
<r> = /r/, <>> = DJ or Id (Hodge 1977: 932-984,1991b: 383, and 1992)
<r> = /I/, <i> = HI (ScHENKEL I99O: 34, 36, 44)
<r> = III, <>> = hi ~ /»/ (Kammerzell 1995: XLVII, XLIX)
<r> = Id, <>> = /r/ (Loprieno 1995: 33).
Satzinger (1994a: 202-205) occupies an intermediate position. Accepting that <>>
etymologically corresponds to /r/ or HI, he assumes that in some dialects of Egyptian this
sound value was preserved until a comparatively late period, but that in other dialects
the liquid had already shifted to /?/ by the time of the invention of writing.
In Afroasiatic etymological cognates, <r> seems easier to relate to Semitic HI than to /r/,
whereas for <>> both correspondences seem to be frequent (Rossler 1971: 314, Schneider
1997: 193). On the other hand, <>> is comparatively rare in word anlaut (K§° appendix 1
and see Kammerzell 1998a: 33), which is a typologically well-known characteristic of hi
(word-initial r- in unknown or restricted to loan words e.g. in Ancient Greek, Armenian,
Basque, Mongolian, and Turkish). For this reason, I prefer Schenkel's/ Kammerzell's
solution, although this does not imply a judgement about the exact phonetic realization.
3.H.3 The opposition of It J and /I/
Earlier <r> corresponds to p hi in most Coptic words, but in quite a number of cases it
appears as A HI. Since no phonetic condition for a split development is evident, I suggest
that the grapheme <r> represented two distinct phonemes hj and HI in Earlier Egyptian,
as long as no better explanation is proposed.136 Consider the following minimal pairs (all
these Egyptian words are attested since OK or MK):
<r> = hj
<r>=/l/
<r> "mouth" > sp0, f\&
<rwi> "to go away" > s\0, f\\
<<rq> "to swear" > mpK, f(0\K
<<rq> "to bent" > SCD\K
<hr> "(god) Horus" > ^(Op
<cr> "to ascend" > S>%>X
<hri> "to be content" > ^epi, ^ppe
<hry.t> "fear" > b9,6M
<ptr> "to see" > sn(lX0pe
<w'r> "to run" > ^OiniXuAe
i36 Vycichl (1990: inf.) assumes that the words exhibiting the development <r> > ?v
originate from a "Heliopolitan" dialect. Similarly Loprieno (1995: 3i).
128
1) The traditional view holds that <r> is a liquid (usually assumed to be /r/) and <>> a
glottal stop 111 (e.g. Vergote 1945: 76, 109-114 and 1973/83: lb, § 26; Edel 1955/64:
I, § i3i; Osing 1997)
2) The more recent view holds that both <r> and <>> are liquids:
<r> = hi, <l> = /l/ (Loret 1945)
<r> = /r/, <>> = DJ or Id (Hodge 1977: 932-984,1991b: 383, and 1992)
<r> = /I/, <i> = HI (ScHENKEL I99O: 34, 36, 44)
<r> = III, <>> = hi ~ /»/ (Kammerzell 1995: XLVII, XLIX)
<r> = Id, <>> = /r/ (Loprieno 1995: 33).
Satzinger (1994a: 202-205) occupies an intermediate position. Accepting that <>>
etymologically corresponds to /r/ or HI, he assumes that in some dialects of Egyptian this
sound value was preserved until a comparatively late period, but that in other dialects
the liquid had already shifted to /?/ by the time of the invention of writing.
In Afroasiatic etymological cognates, <r> seems easier to relate to Semitic HI than to /r/,
whereas for <>> both correspondences seem to be frequent (Rossler 1971: 314, Schneider
1997: 193). On the other hand, <>> is comparatively rare in word anlaut (K§° appendix 1
and see Kammerzell 1998a: 33), which is a typologically well-known characteristic of hi
(word-initial r- in unknown or restricted to loan words e.g. in Ancient Greek, Armenian,
Basque, Mongolian, and Turkish). For this reason, I prefer Schenkel's/ Kammerzell's
solution, although this does not imply a judgement about the exact phonetic realization.
3.H.3 The opposition of It J and /I/
Earlier <r> corresponds to p hi in most Coptic words, but in quite a number of cases it
appears as A HI. Since no phonetic condition for a split development is evident, I suggest
that the grapheme <r> represented two distinct phonemes hj and HI in Earlier Egyptian,
as long as no better explanation is proposed.136 Consider the following minimal pairs (all
these Egyptian words are attested since OK or MK):
<r> = hj
<r>=/l/
<r> "mouth" > sp0, f\&
<rwi> "to go away" > s\0, f\\
<<rq> "to swear" > mpK, f(0\K
<<rq> "to bent" > SCD\K
<hr> "(god) Horus" > ^(Op
<cr> "to ascend" > S>%>X
<hri> "to be content" > ^epi, ^ppe
<hry.t> "fear" > b9,6M
<ptr> "to see" > sn(lX0pe
<w'r> "to run" > ^OiniXuAe
i36 Vycichl (1990: inf.) assumes that the words exhibiting the development <r> > ?v
originate from a "Heliopolitan" dialect. Similarly Loprieno (1995: 3i).
128