DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0188
However there are other difficult words involving <>> which do present difficulties for the
syllable structure rules but are not explained by Sethe's account. These are cases in
which the position of <>> is known either because it is still preserved in Coptic (as /j/), or
because it is separated from the stressed vowel by another consonant which is still
preserved in Coptic. These cases are discussed in § 3.14.2.4.
4.9 Consonant clusters and syllable structure in Sahidic Coptic
4.9.1 The development of consonant clusters from Egyptian to Sahidic
Coptic: General remarks
According to the principles of Paleo-Coptic reconstruction, we have to assume that
Earlier Egyptian lacked syllable-internal consonant clusters following the stressed
vowel (US' § 4.3.1). To put it differently: There were no consonant clusters in the offglide
of the stressed syllable nor of any subsequent syllable (including the end of a word), and
there were no consonant clusters in the onset of posttonic syllables.
The generalization has usually been made that Earlier Egyptian did not admit consonant
clusters in the onset or offglide of any syllable. However, aside from systematic
simplicity, there is no clear evidence which excludes the possibility that Egyptian words
began with consonant clusters. Zeidler (1995, notably page 234) discusses evidence from
cuneiform transcriptions indicating that there were word-initial clusters of two
consonants at least at the time of the New Kingdom. He tries to prove that these clusters
are restricted to specific phonetic environments and thus are not original but developed
as sandhi-forms through the loss of vowels in pretonic syllables. Vycichl (1990: 194)
expresses a similar view. I will not discuss these problems further.
The following considerations will be limited to Sahidic Coptic. I only consider
"standard" Sahidic and ignore atypical alternative writings. Furthermore, I do not discuss
Greek loan words.
It is not easy to establish a complete inventory of possible syllable types even for Coptic.
In many cases, it is difficult to decide whether a sonorant forms a syllable nucleus or not
(■SP § 5.10.4). Furthermore, the question is disputed whether graphical consonant clusters
may have been split by an unwritten reduced vowel [a] on the phonetic surface (K5*
§ 2.7.5). Inventories of Sahidic syllable types have been proposed by Kasser (i99if: 211)
and Loprieno (1995: 49). In the following, I discuss the issue which consonant clusters are
possible at the beginning and at the end of Sahidic morphemes (i.e.: of words which are
not morphologically complex from a synchronic point of view). I assume that all of these
morphemes can in principle stand in isolation.
188
syllable structure rules but are not explained by Sethe's account. These are cases in
which the position of <>> is known either because it is still preserved in Coptic (as /j/), or
because it is separated from the stressed vowel by another consonant which is still
preserved in Coptic. These cases are discussed in § 3.14.2.4.
4.9 Consonant clusters and syllable structure in Sahidic Coptic
4.9.1 The development of consonant clusters from Egyptian to Sahidic
Coptic: General remarks
According to the principles of Paleo-Coptic reconstruction, we have to assume that
Earlier Egyptian lacked syllable-internal consonant clusters following the stressed
vowel (US' § 4.3.1). To put it differently: There were no consonant clusters in the offglide
of the stressed syllable nor of any subsequent syllable (including the end of a word), and
there were no consonant clusters in the onset of posttonic syllables.
The generalization has usually been made that Earlier Egyptian did not admit consonant
clusters in the onset or offglide of any syllable. However, aside from systematic
simplicity, there is no clear evidence which excludes the possibility that Egyptian words
began with consonant clusters. Zeidler (1995, notably page 234) discusses evidence from
cuneiform transcriptions indicating that there were word-initial clusters of two
consonants at least at the time of the New Kingdom. He tries to prove that these clusters
are restricted to specific phonetic environments and thus are not original but developed
as sandhi-forms through the loss of vowels in pretonic syllables. Vycichl (1990: 194)
expresses a similar view. I will not discuss these problems further.
The following considerations will be limited to Sahidic Coptic. I only consider
"standard" Sahidic and ignore atypical alternative writings. Furthermore, I do not discuss
Greek loan words.
It is not easy to establish a complete inventory of possible syllable types even for Coptic.
In many cases, it is difficult to decide whether a sonorant forms a syllable nucleus or not
(■SP § 5.10.4). Furthermore, the question is disputed whether graphical consonant clusters
may have been split by an unwritten reduced vowel [a] on the phonetic surface (K5*
§ 2.7.5). Inventories of Sahidic syllable types have been proposed by Kasser (i99if: 211)
and Loprieno (1995: 49). In the following, I discuss the issue which consonant clusters are
possible at the beginning and at the end of Sahidic morphemes (i.e.: of words which are
not morphologically complex from a synchronic point of view). I assume that all of these
morphemes can in principle stand in isolation.
188