DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0186
"Luxor" > (flne /'opg/ (Albright 1946a: 9). ap-pali is clearly easier to reconcile with my
reconstruction ('iaptV) than with the traditional ('ia:pVt). Several more examples of this
kind appear in cuneiform transcriptions from the 1st millennium bc; some of them were
collected by Edel (1980: 46) who suspects "graphisch uberflussige Silben".
4.8.6 Single words not matching the syllable structure rules
Although most words do conform to the syllable structure rules, some do not: Their Coptic
reflex has a high stressed vowel although the number of consonants that followed in
Earlier Egyptian is odd (e.g. rc "sun" > s,bpH), or there is a low stressed vowel with two
following consonants (w>.t "way" > KTifOei, kOTOI). There have been four ways of coping
with words like these:
• Sturm (1934: 49-58) rejects the syllable structure rules altogether.
• Sethe (1899-1901: I, passim) assumes additional consonants for the original form of
these words, mostly in word-final position, which by accident were never expressed
in Egyptian writing. The phenomenon of defective writing (03° § 2.6.4) encouraged
him to do so. This has been by far the favorite way of coping with the problem (cf.
e.g. Edel 1955/64: § io6f.); quite a number of lexical entries in Egyptian dictionar-
ies and grammars contain such virtual consonants which are actually never written
in the original sources.
• Much more rarely, Sethe (1899-1901: I, §344) supposes that an intervocalic
consonant was geminated (long). In his opinion, a long consonant was written once
but was counted double in terms of syllable structure. This method is adopted e.g. by
Vycichl (1957b) and Schenkel (1990: 55).
• Although in principle sticking to the traditional rules which allow only syllables of
the type -CVC in word-final position, Schenkel (1983a: 197-201 and 1990: 77)
admits new syllable types (word-final -CV:C, -CVCC) for Paleo-Coptic where they
seem unavoidable. This approach is accepted by Loprieno (1994: i3o and 1995: 36f.)
who additionally accepts word-final -CV.
A complete rejection of the syllable structure rules (Sturm) is unacceptable since this
does not explain why the correlation of Coptic vowel type and Egyptian consonantism
holds true for the majority of cases. We would also lose the elegant explanation of Coptic
apophony which is provided by both the traditional and the alternative syllable structure
rules.
The other approaches are not much better. As argued in § 4.8.1, a free use of additional
syllable types would make any Paleo-Coptic reconstruction impossible.
Most words which are left unexplained within the traditional system will likewise be
exceptions in the alternative system proposed in this book. In principle, all means which
have been sought to remedy the exceptions in the older system also work in the new one,
but they nevertheless remain problematic.
186
reconstruction ('iaptV) than with the traditional ('ia:pVt). Several more examples of this
kind appear in cuneiform transcriptions from the 1st millennium bc; some of them were
collected by Edel (1980: 46) who suspects "graphisch uberflussige Silben".
4.8.6 Single words not matching the syllable structure rules
Although most words do conform to the syllable structure rules, some do not: Their Coptic
reflex has a high stressed vowel although the number of consonants that followed in
Earlier Egyptian is odd (e.g. rc "sun" > s,bpH), or there is a low stressed vowel with two
following consonants (w>.t "way" > KTifOei, kOTOI). There have been four ways of coping
with words like these:
• Sturm (1934: 49-58) rejects the syllable structure rules altogether.
• Sethe (1899-1901: I, passim) assumes additional consonants for the original form of
these words, mostly in word-final position, which by accident were never expressed
in Egyptian writing. The phenomenon of defective writing (03° § 2.6.4) encouraged
him to do so. This has been by far the favorite way of coping with the problem (cf.
e.g. Edel 1955/64: § io6f.); quite a number of lexical entries in Egyptian dictionar-
ies and grammars contain such virtual consonants which are actually never written
in the original sources.
• Much more rarely, Sethe (1899-1901: I, §344) supposes that an intervocalic
consonant was geminated (long). In his opinion, a long consonant was written once
but was counted double in terms of syllable structure. This method is adopted e.g. by
Vycichl (1957b) and Schenkel (1990: 55).
• Although in principle sticking to the traditional rules which allow only syllables of
the type -CVC in word-final position, Schenkel (1983a: 197-201 and 1990: 77)
admits new syllable types (word-final -CV:C, -CVCC) for Paleo-Coptic where they
seem unavoidable. This approach is accepted by Loprieno (1994: i3o and 1995: 36f.)
who additionally accepts word-final -CV.
A complete rejection of the syllable structure rules (Sturm) is unacceptable since this
does not explain why the correlation of Coptic vowel type and Egyptian consonantism
holds true for the majority of cases. We would also lose the elegant explanation of Coptic
apophony which is provided by both the traditional and the alternative syllable structure
rules.
The other approaches are not much better. As argued in § 4.8.1, a free use of additional
syllable types would make any Paleo-Coptic reconstruction impossible.
Most words which are left unexplained within the traditional system will likewise be
exceptions in the alternative system proposed in this book. In principle, all means which
have been sought to remedy the exceptions in the older system also work in the new one,
but they nevertheless remain problematic.
186