DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0183
The alternative reconstruction leads to different formulations of numerous synchronic
and diachronic phonological rules of Egyptian. To take one simple example, I argue that
word stress falls on the penult or on the antepenult in Paleo-Coptic (monosyllables
disregarded), whereas it is traditionally assumed to fall on the ultima or on the penult of
a word. In many sections of this book rules are therefore presented quite differently from
the way they have been formerly described.
4.8 Additional evidence concerning the revised syllable
structure rules and related matters
4.8.1 Epenthetic 6 in Coptic
Consonant clusters are common in Coptic. We cannot, however, posit these very clusters
already for Paleo-Coptic but must rather assume a strictly limited set of syllable types
for that stage. A more liberal reconstruction would no longer allow us to predict the
choice of the Coptic vowel type from the number of formerly following consonants. For
this reason, scholars were right in suggesting that many Coptic consonant clusters are
secondary and developed through the loss of Paleo-Coptic vowels. For example, a word
like Coptic CCOTn /'sotp/ "to choose" is derived from Paleo-Coptic (*'sa:tVp) (traditional
model) or (*'satpV) (new model) (V = vowel of indetermined quality).
Coptic often has 6-vowels in the neighborhood of sonorants which seem to be largely
predictable (on this issue 63° § 5.8.2). These subphonemic vowels need not be derived
from vowels of the earlier language. On the other hand, it is not a priori impossible to
consider them relics of Paleo-Coptic vowels. If the latter was true, the position of C
would give us a hint as to which reconstruction of Paleo-Coptic should be preferred. Let
us check the evidence:
Egyptian
Coptic
new model
traditional
model
Which theory
is favored?
sdm "to hear"
KuneA
'sadmV
'sa:dVm
traditional
sdm "to hear"
accome
'sadmV
'sardVm
new
sdm-f "to hear him"
!>COTAeH
'sadVmfV
'sadmVf
traditional
tms-f "to bury him"
no.*\ecHM4
'tamVsfV
'tamsVf
new
We can see that the evidence is ambiguous. I suggest that intrusive G's in Coptic are not
inherited from Paleo-Coptic and cannot favor any Paleo-Coptic reconstruction.
224 Beside sTOACH which is the more "regular" form presented by the grammars.
Polotsky (1933: 126-128) cites around 50 examples he found of the TOAGCM-type. Cf.
also the fact that the Greek loan oapi, "flesh" can be written C&pej (Girgis 1967-
1968: 82).
i83
and diachronic phonological rules of Egyptian. To take one simple example, I argue that
word stress falls on the penult or on the antepenult in Paleo-Coptic (monosyllables
disregarded), whereas it is traditionally assumed to fall on the ultima or on the penult of
a word. In many sections of this book rules are therefore presented quite differently from
the way they have been formerly described.
4.8 Additional evidence concerning the revised syllable
structure rules and related matters
4.8.1 Epenthetic 6 in Coptic
Consonant clusters are common in Coptic. We cannot, however, posit these very clusters
already for Paleo-Coptic but must rather assume a strictly limited set of syllable types
for that stage. A more liberal reconstruction would no longer allow us to predict the
choice of the Coptic vowel type from the number of formerly following consonants. For
this reason, scholars were right in suggesting that many Coptic consonant clusters are
secondary and developed through the loss of Paleo-Coptic vowels. For example, a word
like Coptic CCOTn /'sotp/ "to choose" is derived from Paleo-Coptic (*'sa:tVp) (traditional
model) or (*'satpV) (new model) (V = vowel of indetermined quality).
Coptic often has 6-vowels in the neighborhood of sonorants which seem to be largely
predictable (on this issue 63° § 5.8.2). These subphonemic vowels need not be derived
from vowels of the earlier language. On the other hand, it is not a priori impossible to
consider them relics of Paleo-Coptic vowels. If the latter was true, the position of C
would give us a hint as to which reconstruction of Paleo-Coptic should be preferred. Let
us check the evidence:
Egyptian
Coptic
new model
traditional
model
Which theory
is favored?
sdm "to hear"
KuneA
'sadmV
'sa:dVm
traditional
sdm "to hear"
accome
'sadmV
'sardVm
new
sdm-f "to hear him"
!>COTAeH
'sadVmfV
'sadmVf
traditional
tms-f "to bury him"
no.*\ecHM4
'tamVsfV
'tamsVf
new
We can see that the evidence is ambiguous. I suggest that intrusive G's in Coptic are not
inherited from Paleo-Coptic and cannot favor any Paleo-Coptic reconstruction.
224 Beside sTOACH which is the more "regular" form presented by the grammars.
Polotsky (1933: 126-128) cites around 50 examples he found of the TOAGCM-type. Cf.
also the fact that the Greek loan oapi, "flesh" can be written C&pej (Girgis 1967-
1968: 82).
i83