DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0187
Both reconstructions of Paleo-Coptic are comparatively straightforward and explain most
of the available evidence, though not all. A more elaborate theory of syllable structure
rules which reduces the number of exceptions would be welcome. However it is not
enough to simply loosen the restrictions which scholars have rightly imposed upon
themselves to limit the arbitrariness of Paleo-Coptic reconstruction.
4.8.7 <>> to be skipped in applying the syllable structure rules?
Sethe (1899-1902: I, § 34 and 1928: 196) cites cases where he assumes that the presence
of <>> is irrelevant for the development of the stressed vowel in Coptic if it is the third
consonant counted from the end in a word. These are words in which he assumes that the
stressed vowel preceded <>> (and thus preceded three consonants) but ended up as a high
vowel (traditionally = long vowel) instead of an expected low (short) vowel. An example
is
• did! "head" > s-b&®2.
which according to Sethe is to be reconstructed as ('daidVi) whereas the Coptic form has
to be derived from (Tda:dV>). He explains this as a loss of <>> prior to the time at which the
syllable structure rules became valid (i.e. prior to Paleo-Coptic). If this is true, this
would be a serious exception to the syllable structure rules. Sethe's theory is adopted by
Osing (1976a: note 48 on p. 368f., note 112 on p. 458, and note 114 on p. 460) and - for a
few lexical items only - by Vehgote (1978/88: lb, § 28d) and Vycichl (1983: 221, 334).
Whereas in Sethe's wording the early loss affects <3> at the end of a syllable, we would
assume in the framework of the alternative reconstruction that <h is lost in intervocalic
position and a vowel contraction results: ('daiVdiV) > ('dad>V) > ACDA.
There is, however, actually no evidence for Sethe's rule. Since <>> is no longer present in
these words in Coptic, it is not evident whether the stressed vowel originally preceded or
followed it. The only way of deciding this question is to consult the syllable structure
rules. In a word like d>d> > £(!)£ the syllable structure rules predict that the stressed
vowel was followed by two consonants. This means that the stressed vowel should have
followed <>> instead of preceded it. I therefore propose the Paleo-Coptic reconstruction
(dfVy'adSV). There is in fact no need to assume an irregular sound development.22?
As Sethe already admits, there are examples in which <>> as the third consonant counted
from the end in a word is indeed relevant for the syllable structure rules. E.g.:
• mlwt ('miSVwtV) "to think" > s<*AeeV£ /'me:wa/
• wld-t (waSVdtV) "vegetables" > WOOTe /'w3:ts/
227 The question is relevant here as to whether an initial pretonic (d[V]J-) would
necessarily have formed a cluster (d>-) to have evoked a prosthetic vowel in Coptic
(*€£C0£). At our present state of knowledge, this is not necessarily so. For
discussion B3§* § 4.9.4.
187
of the available evidence, though not all. A more elaborate theory of syllable structure
rules which reduces the number of exceptions would be welcome. However it is not
enough to simply loosen the restrictions which scholars have rightly imposed upon
themselves to limit the arbitrariness of Paleo-Coptic reconstruction.
4.8.7 <>> to be skipped in applying the syllable structure rules?
Sethe (1899-1902: I, § 34 and 1928: 196) cites cases where he assumes that the presence
of <>> is irrelevant for the development of the stressed vowel in Coptic if it is the third
consonant counted from the end in a word. These are words in which he assumes that the
stressed vowel preceded <>> (and thus preceded three consonants) but ended up as a high
vowel (traditionally = long vowel) instead of an expected low (short) vowel. An example
is
• did! "head" > s-b&®2.
which according to Sethe is to be reconstructed as ('daidVi) whereas the Coptic form has
to be derived from (Tda:dV>). He explains this as a loss of <>> prior to the time at which the
syllable structure rules became valid (i.e. prior to Paleo-Coptic). If this is true, this
would be a serious exception to the syllable structure rules. Sethe's theory is adopted by
Osing (1976a: note 48 on p. 368f., note 112 on p. 458, and note 114 on p. 460) and - for a
few lexical items only - by Vehgote (1978/88: lb, § 28d) and Vycichl (1983: 221, 334).
Whereas in Sethe's wording the early loss affects <3> at the end of a syllable, we would
assume in the framework of the alternative reconstruction that <h is lost in intervocalic
position and a vowel contraction results: ('daiVdiV) > ('dad>V) > ACDA.
There is, however, actually no evidence for Sethe's rule. Since <>> is no longer present in
these words in Coptic, it is not evident whether the stressed vowel originally preceded or
followed it. The only way of deciding this question is to consult the syllable structure
rules. In a word like d>d> > £(!)£ the syllable structure rules predict that the stressed
vowel was followed by two consonants. This means that the stressed vowel should have
followed <>> instead of preceded it. I therefore propose the Paleo-Coptic reconstruction
(dfVy'adSV). There is in fact no need to assume an irregular sound development.22?
As Sethe already admits, there are examples in which <>> as the third consonant counted
from the end in a word is indeed relevant for the syllable structure rules. E.g.:
• mlwt ('miSVwtV) "to think" > s<*AeeV£ /'me:wa/
• wld-t (waSVdtV) "vegetables" > WOOTe /'w3:ts/
227 The question is relevant here as to whether an initial pretonic (d[V]J-) would
necessarily have formed a cluster (d>-) to have evoked a prosthetic vowel in Coptic
(*€£C0£). At our present state of knowledge, this is not necessarily so. For
discussion B3§* § 4.9.4.
187