DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0202
The Coptic vowels CO and H were higher in articulation than 0 and 6. This is based on
several pieces of evidence:
• the fact that CO and OV are historically closely related, as are H and (6)1 (B3T § 5.5.7)
• the fact that in the Late Coptic pronunciation, H is rendered by both i- and a-sounds
and € by a-sounds only
• the evidence from Greek transcriptions of Egyptian or Coptic words (KIT § 5.2.2.4)
• the evidence from Coptic transcriptions of Arabic.
5.2.2.3 Evidence in favor of the qualitative distinction
Let us now look at the evidence showing that the Coptic vowel letters generally ex-
pressed qualitative rather than quantitative distinctions. Before outlining the discussion
in the literature, I will summarize the basic arguments for the "quality hypothesis" first:
• The traditional view was based on the values the corresponding signs had in
Classical Greek. However, it is doubtful that the quantitative distinction between e,
o on the one hand and T], <o on the other was still present at the time when the Coptic
alphabet was created. Secondly, even in Classical Greek, which definitely had a
quantity opposition, the vowel graphemes primarily expressed vowel quality rather
than vowel quantity (ISP § 5.1).
• In Bohairic, partly also in Sahidic, 6 and O appear before (etymological) laryngeal
and pharyngeal consonants where H and CO are expected from a morphological and
etymological point of view (ISP § 5.6.6.2). It is difficult to understand why vowels
should have been shortened in this phonetic environment, whereas a lowering of high
vowels before back fricatives is a natural phenomenon.
• On the other hand, the diphthongs OCHT, 0(e)! and 6.(6)1 frequently appear as COOT, (01
and HI in Bohairic (ISP §§5.6.6.2 f.). Here as well it is implausible to assume a
change in vowel quantity. Instead, a qualitative change of vowels before glides is
far more natural.
• The fact that H frequently seems to express an unstressed reduced vowel [a] before
sonorants in Fayyumic (ISP § 5.10.2) supports the view that H does not denote a long
vowel.
• In medieval texts which transcribe Arabic words in Coptic letters, no significant
correlation between short and long vowels of Arabic and the presumed short and long
Coptic graphemes 6/0 and H/CO can be observed, although Arabic (both classical and
dialectal) has distinctive vowel length. For example, H is commonly used to
transcribe Arabic HI and /i:/ alike, whereas 6 renders Arabic /a/ as well as /a:/.
• Evidence from a manuscript writing Coptic in Arabic letters (Galtier 1906) points to
the same direction.
• The traditional pronunciation of Late Coptic does not indicate any quantitative
difference of 6, O vs. H, CO either.
several pieces of evidence:
• the fact that CO and OV are historically closely related, as are H and (6)1 (B3T § 5.5.7)
• the fact that in the Late Coptic pronunciation, H is rendered by both i- and a-sounds
and € by a-sounds only
• the evidence from Greek transcriptions of Egyptian or Coptic words (KIT § 5.2.2.4)
• the evidence from Coptic transcriptions of Arabic.
5.2.2.3 Evidence in favor of the qualitative distinction
Let us now look at the evidence showing that the Coptic vowel letters generally ex-
pressed qualitative rather than quantitative distinctions. Before outlining the discussion
in the literature, I will summarize the basic arguments for the "quality hypothesis" first:
• The traditional view was based on the values the corresponding signs had in
Classical Greek. However, it is doubtful that the quantitative distinction between e,
o on the one hand and T], <o on the other was still present at the time when the Coptic
alphabet was created. Secondly, even in Classical Greek, which definitely had a
quantity opposition, the vowel graphemes primarily expressed vowel quality rather
than vowel quantity (ISP § 5.1).
• In Bohairic, partly also in Sahidic, 6 and O appear before (etymological) laryngeal
and pharyngeal consonants where H and CO are expected from a morphological and
etymological point of view (ISP § 5.6.6.2). It is difficult to understand why vowels
should have been shortened in this phonetic environment, whereas a lowering of high
vowels before back fricatives is a natural phenomenon.
• On the other hand, the diphthongs OCHT, 0(e)! and 6.(6)1 frequently appear as COOT, (01
and HI in Bohairic (ISP §§5.6.6.2 f.). Here as well it is implausible to assume a
change in vowel quantity. Instead, a qualitative change of vowels before glides is
far more natural.
• The fact that H frequently seems to express an unstressed reduced vowel [a] before
sonorants in Fayyumic (ISP § 5.10.2) supports the view that H does not denote a long
vowel.
• In medieval texts which transcribe Arabic words in Coptic letters, no significant
correlation between short and long vowels of Arabic and the presumed short and long
Coptic graphemes 6/0 and H/CO can be observed, although Arabic (both classical and
dialectal) has distinctive vowel length. For example, H is commonly used to
transcribe Arabic HI and /i:/ alike, whereas 6 renders Arabic /a/ as well as /a:/.
• Evidence from a manuscript writing Coptic in Arabic letters (Galtier 1906) points to
the same direction.
• The traditional pronunciation of Late Coptic does not indicate any quantitative
difference of 6, O vs. H, CO either.