DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0270
ward rule (in many languages the first or the last syllable of a word is stressed
throughout), but also by more complex rules such as in Latin or in Cairene Arabic
(on stress in Cairene Arabic cf. Halle & Vergnaud 1987: 6o-63). In some languages,
among them English, stress is not predictable and is therefore phonologically
distinctive. Tones in tonal languages are generally phonologically distinctive.
Whereas stress languages are predominant in modern Europe, probably most modern
languages of the world are tonal languages. Very diverse accentuation types are attested
within the Afroasiatic stock. Most modern Arabic dialects of the Near East have a bound
word accent. The same is habitually assumed for Classical Arabic.^ Cairene Arabic also
has a bound word accent, although the rules for its placement are very complex. Stress
seems to be phonologically distinctive in most African dialects of Arabic, including
certain varieties of Egyptian Arabic, as well as in the Berber languages (cf. Durand 1995,
Khalafallah 1969: 17). It is difficult to discuss the issue of word accent in extinct
Semitic languages such as Akkadian or Biblical Hebrew. In Modern Hebrew, at least,
word accent is distinctive (/bi'ra/ "capital city" — /'bira/ "beer", cf. Podolsky 1991). In
Ga'az (Old Ethiopic) stress does not seem to have been predictable either, at least as far
as can be concluded from the traditional pronunciation of Ga'az recorded by Trumpp
(1874). Chadic languages are typically tonal languages, usually having a binary or
ternary pitch opposition. The same is true for the (non-Afroasiatic) Nubian languages
which are spoken to the immediate south of Egypt. Most Cushitic languages seem to be
tonal as well, but it is not always permissable for all syllables in a word to be tonally
marked independently from the others. So it is possible at least in some cases to reduce
the tonal features present in surface phonology to an underlying stress system in deep
phonology (Rendille as analysed by Pillinger 1988).
6.1.2 Stress in Coptic: internal evidence
It is evident from what has been said above that genetic or areal considerations do not
permit a conclusion as to which kind of accentuation Egyptian or Coptic might have had.
Fortunately, internal evidence of Coptic clearly indicates that exactly one syllable in a
word is marked. To date, all scholars have interpreted this marked syllable as the
stressed syllable (cf. e.g. the reasoning by Magnus 1969: 12), which I believe is correct.
• The short vowels H, O, and (0 can occur at most once in a word, i.e. in the marked
syllable. This is to say that the vowel inventory is larger in marked syllables than in
unmarked syllables. (This does not hold true for borrowings from Greek.)
• Long (i.e. double) vowels only appear in the marked syllable (KIP §§ 5.2.3.2, 5-3.3).
• In Bohairic, aspirate and non-aspirate stops (© vs. T etc.) only contrast in the onset
of the marked syllable (Kg° § 3.3.2). (Again this does not hold true for borrowings
from Greek.)
333 Actually, there is no reliable information as to how words were stressed in Classical
Arabic, cf. Knudsen (1980: 7-10).
270
throughout), but also by more complex rules such as in Latin or in Cairene Arabic
(on stress in Cairene Arabic cf. Halle & Vergnaud 1987: 6o-63). In some languages,
among them English, stress is not predictable and is therefore phonologically
distinctive. Tones in tonal languages are generally phonologically distinctive.
Whereas stress languages are predominant in modern Europe, probably most modern
languages of the world are tonal languages. Very diverse accentuation types are attested
within the Afroasiatic stock. Most modern Arabic dialects of the Near East have a bound
word accent. The same is habitually assumed for Classical Arabic.^ Cairene Arabic also
has a bound word accent, although the rules for its placement are very complex. Stress
seems to be phonologically distinctive in most African dialects of Arabic, including
certain varieties of Egyptian Arabic, as well as in the Berber languages (cf. Durand 1995,
Khalafallah 1969: 17). It is difficult to discuss the issue of word accent in extinct
Semitic languages such as Akkadian or Biblical Hebrew. In Modern Hebrew, at least,
word accent is distinctive (/bi'ra/ "capital city" — /'bira/ "beer", cf. Podolsky 1991). In
Ga'az (Old Ethiopic) stress does not seem to have been predictable either, at least as far
as can be concluded from the traditional pronunciation of Ga'az recorded by Trumpp
(1874). Chadic languages are typically tonal languages, usually having a binary or
ternary pitch opposition. The same is true for the (non-Afroasiatic) Nubian languages
which are spoken to the immediate south of Egypt. Most Cushitic languages seem to be
tonal as well, but it is not always permissable for all syllables in a word to be tonally
marked independently from the others. So it is possible at least in some cases to reduce
the tonal features present in surface phonology to an underlying stress system in deep
phonology (Rendille as analysed by Pillinger 1988).
6.1.2 Stress in Coptic: internal evidence
It is evident from what has been said above that genetic or areal considerations do not
permit a conclusion as to which kind of accentuation Egyptian or Coptic might have had.
Fortunately, internal evidence of Coptic clearly indicates that exactly one syllable in a
word is marked. To date, all scholars have interpreted this marked syllable as the
stressed syllable (cf. e.g. the reasoning by Magnus 1969: 12), which I believe is correct.
• The short vowels H, O, and (0 can occur at most once in a word, i.e. in the marked
syllable. This is to say that the vowel inventory is larger in marked syllables than in
unmarked syllables. (This does not hold true for borrowings from Greek.)
• Long (i.e. double) vowels only appear in the marked syllable (KIP §§ 5.2.3.2, 5-3.3).
• In Bohairic, aspirate and non-aspirate stops (© vs. T etc.) only contrast in the onset
of the marked syllable (Kg° § 3.3.2). (Again this does not hold true for borrowings
from Greek.)
333 Actually, there is no reliable information as to how words were stressed in Classical
Arabic, cf. Knudsen (1980: 7-10).
270