Peust, Carsten: Egyptian phonology: an introduction to the phonology of a dead language (Göttingen, 1999)

did not take into account (e.g. Farag 1976, Crum 1902); on the other hand, there is
not a single document which consistently correlates Arabic long and short vowels
with the presumably corresponding Coptic letters. Greenberg (1962: 28f.) comments
on his results as follows:

"The evidence presented here has not been intended merely as a citation of
everything which favours the present thesis, while contrary indications are
ignored. Almost nothing can be found to support the standard theory. No
arguments were originally advanced in its favour. It was simply taken for
granted. A conventional transcription of the Greek alphabet appeared to be
confirmed by Sethe's theory regarding the Coptic vowel system for a period
nearly a millenium earlier than the earliest written Coptic records. This
theory itself is far from certain as regards the length of the vowels in open
syllables. In fact the existing traditional assumption of the length of [e] and
[0] in Coptic probably played an important role in drawing this conclusion
about the earlier period."

• Magnus (1969: 33-40) accepts Vycichl's standpoint and concludes that the distinc-
tion of £, O vs. H, CO is one of quality. In addition to Vycichl's arguments he adduces
1) the medieval transcriptions of Arabic words into Coptic (independently of
Greenberg) and 2) the fact that Greek had no vowel quantity opposition any longer
at the time when the Coptic alphabet was formed.

• Kammerzell (1998b: 159-162) accepts Greenberg's and Magnus's standpoint. While
he adopts their interpretation of O as hi and of CO as /o/, he does not view the opposi-
tion £ vs. H as a low-high distinction (hi - hi) but rather as a front-back distinction
(le/ — til) because many instances of H are derived from original hi (Kg5 § 5.5) and
the sound change /u/ > lei seems to be somewhat unnatural. While I admit the
possibility that the shift /u/ > hi proceeded over an intermediate stage /i/, the fact
that H is indeed the high counterpart of G in Coptic is evidenced by conditioned
phonetic alternations such as those discussed in § 5.6.2 and §§ 5.6.6.2 f.

Most Coptologists have not yet accepted these arguments. Till (1955: § 50) indeed con-
siders the new theory "wahrscheinlich" but keeps the traditional transcription symbols e,
B, o, and 0. Vergote (1973/83: la, § 33f.) cites Kuentz'/ Greenberg's account but does not
make a clear decision on it. Schenkei. (1983a: 194^) accepts the interpretation of the
distinction E, 0 vs. H, CO as one of vowel quality, however in Schenkei, (199a: 70) he
questions it again. Steindorff (1951: 29) and Loprieno (1995: 46) stick to the traditional
interpretation and do not mention the alternative ideas. Hintze (1980: note 50 on page
53) dismisses Greenberg's arguments laconically as "ganz abwegig".

204