DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0155
3.1^.3.6 Possible cases of an irregular preservation of <t>
As we saw, t was usually lost in Coptic when it was the last consonant in a word. This loss
is already evidenced by Egyptian transcriptions into cuneiform of the New Kingdom. In
Egyptian texts from the same time, word-final <t> is not strictly omitted in all of these
cases. Rather <t> may be freely written or omitted at the end of almost any word and has
thus ceazed to be a reliable phonogram at that time. However, new graphical means
developed to clearly express t that was still spoken (group writing, K§° §5.4.2). Ward
(1985: 333-335) ci'es a few nouns in which Late Egyptian shows "unambiguous" writings
of this type for word-final -t in native words in which this sound probably should have
disappeared. If his interpretation is correct, this would indicate that these words had
irregularly preserved -t.
There is evidence for this phenomenon from later periods only in the names of two god-
desses, if the Greek transcriptions can be trusted: mw.t > Greek Mouf), also preserved in
the Coptic place name JieTe-WST (Vtcichl 1983: 165), and n.t > Greek Nt]i9. It must be
taken into consideration that the Egyptian writings of both goddesses are somewhat diffi-
cult to interpret, so perhaps -t was not actually the last consonant in these words.
If -t was indeed irregularly preserved here, this might be the result of an archaizing
"book-pronunciation" of these divine names; they would then be comparable to the mots
savants of the Romance languages.
3.14.3.7 Possible cases of an irregular loss or preservation of <r>
The word hrw "day" > «>OOtf /li3:w/, be200W /a'hDw/, "gOOtfe /ha:w9/ presents difficul-
ties. In the Egyptian form, r may have either preceded the stressed vowel (h[V]'rawV) or
followed it ('har[V]wV). Sethe (1899-1902: I, §§ 160a and 239) chooses the first solution
which agrees with the quality of the Coptic stressed vowel according to the syllable
structure rules. This might also explain why Bohairic has a prosthetic G-. However, both
the quantity of the Coptic stressed vowels3 and the loss of <r> can only be explained
by the second solution which was preferred by Lacau (1902: 201-206) and all subsequent
scholars (e.g. Fecht i960: 177; Vycichl 1983: 3i7f.).
There are two more expressions in which -r- is lost irregularly:
• ih r-k "what is to you?; why do you (...)?" (since NK) > b&2)0-K /a'xak/, but s&2PO-K
/ah'rok/ with regular preservation of -r-.
• Ar-/"so says he" > loAH /'haf/ (Osing 1976a: note 496 on p. 583f.)
It is difficult to assume that the reason for this loss is the neighborhood of 2/ 3 as Fecht
(i960: 29) argues. As Vycichl (1983: 23) rightly remarks, there are a large number of
Coptic words in which p is preserved in contact with 2/ £>.
193 The vowel must be long as is evidenced by the epenthetic final -£ in Akhmimic,
§5-8.2.
155
As we saw, t was usually lost in Coptic when it was the last consonant in a word. This loss
is already evidenced by Egyptian transcriptions into cuneiform of the New Kingdom. In
Egyptian texts from the same time, word-final <t> is not strictly omitted in all of these
cases. Rather <t> may be freely written or omitted at the end of almost any word and has
thus ceazed to be a reliable phonogram at that time. However, new graphical means
developed to clearly express t that was still spoken (group writing, K§° §5.4.2). Ward
(1985: 333-335) ci'es a few nouns in which Late Egyptian shows "unambiguous" writings
of this type for word-final -t in native words in which this sound probably should have
disappeared. If his interpretation is correct, this would indicate that these words had
irregularly preserved -t.
There is evidence for this phenomenon from later periods only in the names of two god-
desses, if the Greek transcriptions can be trusted: mw.t > Greek Mouf), also preserved in
the Coptic place name JieTe-WST (Vtcichl 1983: 165), and n.t > Greek Nt]i9. It must be
taken into consideration that the Egyptian writings of both goddesses are somewhat diffi-
cult to interpret, so perhaps -t was not actually the last consonant in these words.
If -t was indeed irregularly preserved here, this might be the result of an archaizing
"book-pronunciation" of these divine names; they would then be comparable to the mots
savants of the Romance languages.
3.14.3.7 Possible cases of an irregular loss or preservation of <r>
The word hrw "day" > «>OOtf /li3:w/, be200W /a'hDw/, "gOOtfe /ha:w9/ presents difficul-
ties. In the Egyptian form, r may have either preceded the stressed vowel (h[V]'rawV) or
followed it ('har[V]wV). Sethe (1899-1902: I, §§ 160a and 239) chooses the first solution
which agrees with the quality of the Coptic stressed vowel according to the syllable
structure rules. This might also explain why Bohairic has a prosthetic G-. However, both
the quantity of the Coptic stressed vowels3 and the loss of <r> can only be explained
by the second solution which was preferred by Lacau (1902: 201-206) and all subsequent
scholars (e.g. Fecht i960: 177; Vycichl 1983: 3i7f.).
There are two more expressions in which -r- is lost irregularly:
• ih r-k "what is to you?; why do you (...)?" (since NK) > b&2)0-K /a'xak/, but s&2PO-K
/ah'rok/ with regular preservation of -r-.
• Ar-/"so says he" > loAH /'haf/ (Osing 1976a: note 496 on p. 583f.)
It is difficult to assume that the reason for this loss is the neighborhood of 2/ 3 as Fecht
(i960: 29) argues. As Vycichl (1983: 23) rightly remarks, there are a large number of
Coptic words in which p is preserved in contact with 2/ £>.
193 The vowel must be long as is evidenced by the epenthetic final -£ in Akhmimic,
§5-8.2.
155