DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0235
Egyptian closer to the Semitic languages (B®° §§ 5.5.7, 6.1.7), but there is no justification
for this from the Egyptian data alone.
At a time subsequent to Paleo-Coptic, vowel length arose in connection with consonantal
losses (03? below). Long vowels are visible in most Coptic dialects where they are
marked by doubling the vowel letter (US' § 5-2.3).
Graphical complications can arise from the fact that glides are frequently written by
digraphs as CI and OV respectively. For example, the combinations /ej/ and /aw/ are
usually written €€( and 003" in Sahidic, so there are superficially double vowels which do
not indicate vowel length. On the other hand, there are reasons to assume that the
sequences /e:j/ and /a:j/ also occurred in the spoken language, but there was no way of
distinguishing them in writing (writings such as *£€£! and *000'ir are used virtually
never^1). We can frequently decide this matter by taking forms from other dialects into
consideration. To take an example, ^OOfT "bad" must be /'haw/ because the Akhmimic
form is 2&7T, but s^OOTf "day" must be /'}id:w/ because the Akhmimic form is gOOTC (1®-
§§5.3.1,5.3.3,5.8.2).
We have no attestations of a vowel quantity opposition from Pre-Coptic times. Since long
vowels were created by consonantal losses which occurred no later than the New
Kingdom, a quantity opposition must have nevertheless existed already at that time.
5. j. 10. a Details
The loss of a consonant can lead to the compensatory lenghthening of a preceding
vowel.a92 This result can only be observed in Coptic. The conditions are as follows:
If a consonant is lost in the sequence 'VCV, the stressed vowel is lengthened:
tirr.t (jV'SarVrtV) "grape" (> jV'raWrtV by metathesis?) > ^\OQ\Z h'h:te/
• itrw ('jatVrwV) "river" > "eiOOp /'JD:r/
• wU.t (WVdtV) "vegetables" > WOOTe /wxta/
• miwl ('mBVwlV) "to think" > sA£eTC /W:wa/
• zn.t-f fzinVtfV) "to pass him" > K&\~X<\ /'sa:tf/
• s'nh fsa'VnhV) "to nourish" > HA&NUJ /'sainf/
• tbw.t ('tabVwtV) "sandal" > s.aTOO?fe /'tD:wa/
• dr.t-f ('darVtfV) "his hand" > sTOOTH /'t3:tf/
291 OOOTT is attested once in AnOOOff "today" in Papyrus Bodmer VI (Kasser 1985: 91).
292 In the traditional view which interprets Coptic double vowels as indicators of a
glottalic consonant rather than of vowel length, these cases are interpreted quite
differently (cf. § 5.2.3.1).
Vycichl (1951: 73, 1957a: 221 and 199a: i97f.) suggests that Coptic vowel doubling
was not necessarily caused directly by the loss of a consonant, but rather that the
consonant could have first been assimilated to a neighboring consonant to produce a
geminate, and afterwards the geminate could have been simplified with compen-
satory vowel doubling.
235
for this from the Egyptian data alone.
At a time subsequent to Paleo-Coptic, vowel length arose in connection with consonantal
losses (03? below). Long vowels are visible in most Coptic dialects where they are
marked by doubling the vowel letter (US' § 5-2.3).
Graphical complications can arise from the fact that glides are frequently written by
digraphs as CI and OV respectively. For example, the combinations /ej/ and /aw/ are
usually written €€( and 003" in Sahidic, so there are superficially double vowels which do
not indicate vowel length. On the other hand, there are reasons to assume that the
sequences /e:j/ and /a:j/ also occurred in the spoken language, but there was no way of
distinguishing them in writing (writings such as *£€£! and *000'ir are used virtually
never^1). We can frequently decide this matter by taking forms from other dialects into
consideration. To take an example, ^OOfT "bad" must be /'haw/ because the Akhmimic
form is 2&7T, but s^OOTf "day" must be /'}id:w/ because the Akhmimic form is gOOTC (1®-
§§5.3.1,5.3.3,5.8.2).
We have no attestations of a vowel quantity opposition from Pre-Coptic times. Since long
vowels were created by consonantal losses which occurred no later than the New
Kingdom, a quantity opposition must have nevertheless existed already at that time.
5. j. 10. a Details
The loss of a consonant can lead to the compensatory lenghthening of a preceding
vowel.a92 This result can only be observed in Coptic. The conditions are as follows:
If a consonant is lost in the sequence 'VCV, the stressed vowel is lengthened:
tirr.t (jV'SarVrtV) "grape" (> jV'raWrtV by metathesis?) > ^\OQ\Z h'h:te/
• itrw ('jatVrwV) "river" > "eiOOp /'JD:r/
• wU.t (WVdtV) "vegetables" > WOOTe /wxta/
• miwl ('mBVwlV) "to think" > sA£eTC /W:wa/
• zn.t-f fzinVtfV) "to pass him" > K&\~X<\ /'sa:tf/
• s'nh fsa'VnhV) "to nourish" > HA&NUJ /'sainf/
• tbw.t ('tabVwtV) "sandal" > s.aTOO?fe /'tD:wa/
• dr.t-f ('darVtfV) "his hand" > sTOOTH /'t3:tf/
291 OOOTT is attested once in AnOOOff "today" in Papyrus Bodmer VI (Kasser 1985: 91).
292 In the traditional view which interprets Coptic double vowels as indicators of a
glottalic consonant rather than of vowel length, these cases are interpreted quite
differently (cf. § 5.2.3.1).
Vycichl (1951: 73, 1957a: 221 and 199a: i97f.) suggests that Coptic vowel doubling
was not necessarily caused directly by the loss of a consonant, but rather that the
consonant could have first been assimilated to a neighboring consonant to produce a
geminate, and afterwards the geminate could have been simplified with compen-
satory vowel doubling.
235