DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0203
• The recently discovered Mesokemic dialect of Coptic writes 0 in most words which
have ft) in the other dialects, and H in some of the words which commonly have 6.
Had these cases of interdialectal variation O ~ ft) and € ~ H been known earlier,
scholars would probably not have come to presuppose that these graphemes give
straightforward information about vowel quantity. a'4
$.2.2.3 Previous treatments of the issue
Most of the arguments summarized in the preceding section have already been expressed
in the literature:
• Charles Kuentz was the first scholar to argue that Coptic €, O vs. H, ft) are distin-
guished by vowel quality rather than by quantity. He did this at a lecture delivered
in Paris from which only a short abstract was published (Kuentz 1984). The only ar-
gument presented there is the fact that, according to Kuentz, vowel length was writ-
ten by vowel doubling (on this 03? 5.2.3.2), so the single vowel signs cannot likewise
have expressed vowel quantity. As is noted in the publication (Kuentz 1934: 6),
Kuentz' lecture was accepted favorably by the famous linguist Emile Benveniste.
• Shortly thereafter, Werner Vycichl (apud Worrell 1937: 4f. and Worrell & Vycichl
1942: 314) argues that 6, O and H, ft) are distinguished by quality rather than by quan-
tity. It is not known whether or not he was aware of Kuentz's proposal. Vycichl ad-
duces two of the arguments which I have listed above: the evidence from morpholog-
ical alternations and the Late Coptic pronunciation tradition. However in his later
works, Vycichl returns to the traditional view (e.g. Vycichl 1990: 72-106), although
he still admits that under certain conditions vowel quality could be the crucial
factor for selecting the writing 6, O vs. H, ft) (e.g. Vycichl 1954 and 1990: 239f.).
• Knuosen (1962: 36) accepts Vycichl's reasoning but adopts an intermediate
standpoint: "In the Bohairic dialect the distinction between long and short vowels
was probably not a distinction of quantity only but also of quality."
• Greenberg (1962) cites Kuentz' theory and discusses the issue in more detail. He
adduces the morphological alternations in Bohairic and the use of H for hi in
Fayyumic. Greenberg also discusses three documents which transcribe Arabic words
in Coptic letters (an Arabic text written in Coptic letters published by Casanova
1901 and Sobhy 1926; two Coptic texts containing a large number of Arabic loan
words published by Stern 1885 and Chassinat 1921) as well as a Coptic text written
in Arabic letters (Galtier 1906) and the liturgical pronunciation of Late Coptic.
Greenberg finds that this evidence clearly supports Kuentz' hypothesis. I wish to add
that Greenberg's conclusions are further confirmed by similar documents which he
234 Now, they either assume that Mesokemic shows a secondary development ("[...] la
tendence, propre a ce dialecte, a abreger tous les 0", Vergote 1961: 245), or that
vowel quantity is not identical to the corresponding Greek vowel quantity at least in
this dialect ("DaB O in M [=Mesokemic] einen Langvokal darstellt, unterliegt
keinem Zweifel", Mink 1995: 60).
203
have ft) in the other dialects, and H in some of the words which commonly have 6.
Had these cases of interdialectal variation O ~ ft) and € ~ H been known earlier,
scholars would probably not have come to presuppose that these graphemes give
straightforward information about vowel quantity. a'4
$.2.2.3 Previous treatments of the issue
Most of the arguments summarized in the preceding section have already been expressed
in the literature:
• Charles Kuentz was the first scholar to argue that Coptic €, O vs. H, ft) are distin-
guished by vowel quality rather than by quantity. He did this at a lecture delivered
in Paris from which only a short abstract was published (Kuentz 1984). The only ar-
gument presented there is the fact that, according to Kuentz, vowel length was writ-
ten by vowel doubling (on this 03? 5.2.3.2), so the single vowel signs cannot likewise
have expressed vowel quantity. As is noted in the publication (Kuentz 1934: 6),
Kuentz' lecture was accepted favorably by the famous linguist Emile Benveniste.
• Shortly thereafter, Werner Vycichl (apud Worrell 1937: 4f. and Worrell & Vycichl
1942: 314) argues that 6, O and H, ft) are distinguished by quality rather than by quan-
tity. It is not known whether or not he was aware of Kuentz's proposal. Vycichl ad-
duces two of the arguments which I have listed above: the evidence from morpholog-
ical alternations and the Late Coptic pronunciation tradition. However in his later
works, Vycichl returns to the traditional view (e.g. Vycichl 1990: 72-106), although
he still admits that under certain conditions vowel quality could be the crucial
factor for selecting the writing 6, O vs. H, ft) (e.g. Vycichl 1954 and 1990: 239f.).
• Knuosen (1962: 36) accepts Vycichl's reasoning but adopts an intermediate
standpoint: "In the Bohairic dialect the distinction between long and short vowels
was probably not a distinction of quantity only but also of quality."
• Greenberg (1962) cites Kuentz' theory and discusses the issue in more detail. He
adduces the morphological alternations in Bohairic and the use of H for hi in
Fayyumic. Greenberg also discusses three documents which transcribe Arabic words
in Coptic letters (an Arabic text written in Coptic letters published by Casanova
1901 and Sobhy 1926; two Coptic texts containing a large number of Arabic loan
words published by Stern 1885 and Chassinat 1921) as well as a Coptic text written
in Arabic letters (Galtier 1906) and the liturgical pronunciation of Late Coptic.
Greenberg finds that this evidence clearly supports Kuentz' hypothesis. I wish to add
that Greenberg's conclusions are further confirmed by similar documents which he
234 Now, they either assume that Mesokemic shows a secondary development ("[...] la
tendence, propre a ce dialecte, a abreger tous les 0", Vergote 1961: 245), or that
vowel quantity is not identical to the corresponding Greek vowel quantity at least in
this dialect ("DaB O in M [=Mesokemic] einen Langvokal darstellt, unterliegt
keinem Zweifel", Mink 1995: 60).
203