DOI Artikel:
Albright, William Foxwell: The principles of Egyptian phonological development
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12747#0078
68 W. F. ALBRIGHT. [5]
§61) also from *eymîn. Like êmnt6 is cntg «two (fem.)n for *éantey<ç*éintey (Ar.
ilnalâni, mod. tinteyn, Assyr. sittâ <C*sintay, etc.). The masculine form shows vocalic
transposition, almostas common as consonantal in Egyptian : cnA_y <C*écinw<ç^*écinwe
<Z*&nwey. Another numéral shows the same transposition, and is, moreover, a good
example of the préservation of î, as also in the infinitive of verbs tertiœ infirma;, piMe,
for *rimet, corresponding to Sem. stlat, lîdat, inf. of verbs primé tvaiv : ^it ccHine»
for *pîst <C *pîéed <C *pîsei < /*V ( i JS L, 3 h, 92).
So far as I know, the change of û to e, and of û to e is wholly new. It also took
place after the Amarna period, as évident from the pronunciation mute (Amarna
mua) then prevailing for Goptic hg struthn, from *mefe<C*mu?et, which may come
from a Semitic *burat (cf. Ar. baraah te excellence, merit, perfections; sidq ce truth 15,
and sa&$ rc true ^, show precisely similar developments). The corresjponding change
in the long vowels is illustrated by thhkg «finger», for *têbe (by vocalic compen-
sation, explained by Spiegelberg) <C*d^ha <C*dûba<*sui' (Assyr. silbu<C*sub'u,
Ar. usba[i, etc., Heb. esbd) and Boh. mhi <Zmue<Cmûfet.
The preceding list of illustrations could be considerably increased, even with our
limited material, but it will surely suffice, and a more elaborate list will be given in
a monograph to appear soon. It is clear that ail our familiar nominal formations in
Semitic are found also in Egyptian, including the nomma loci and instrument with
prefixed m, and the nisbe forms in y, w, and ty (cf. Assyr. resté, masculine nisbe, from
fem. ending, *tayyu). For example, qatl is represented by ccdm, cAcyq and pue,
but the regular équivalent, from a strong stem, is ccut(6)m ; qâtil appears in NoyrM ;
qatàl in anok; qatîl in oynam; qitl in ^it; qutl in thhb6. The équivalents in the
strong stem may be grouped as lollows (only including cases with known examples) :
ccdt(6)m = qatl, qâta(i, u)l ctam = qatîl
chtm =qutl,qûlal — qâtil ctim == qatil-
citm =qitl,qîtal cotm -
ctom == qatàl, qitâl c\tm =qitl-
ctcdm = qatal- ctm = qutl-
While this is not the place to go into a full account of the grammatical and ety-
mological parallels between Egyptian and the other Semitic languages, a little may
be said. The grammatical results which have accroed from the work of Erman, Sethe,
Steindorff, Spiegelberg, and especially now of Lacau, have shown the complète
grammatical identity of Egyptian with the sister tongues. Yet it lias been possible for
the writer to make many contributions in détail, especially in the morphology of the
(I) Gopt. sasef slands for *sàhef <c*sàfeh <z.sab'; the a is preserved, as usually, under the protection of a
neighbouring' laryngeal, as in Ilebrew.
§61) also from *eymîn. Like êmnt6 is cntg «two (fem.)n for *éantey<ç*éintey (Ar.
ilnalâni, mod. tinteyn, Assyr. sittâ <C*sintay, etc.). The masculine form shows vocalic
transposition, almostas common as consonantal in Egyptian : cnA_y <C*écinw<ç^*écinwe
<Z*&nwey. Another numéral shows the same transposition, and is, moreover, a good
example of the préservation of î, as also in the infinitive of verbs tertiœ infirma;, piMe,
for *rimet, corresponding to Sem. stlat, lîdat, inf. of verbs primé tvaiv : ^it ccHine»
for *pîst <C *pîéed <C *pîsei < /*V ( i JS L, 3 h, 92).
So far as I know, the change of û to e, and of û to e is wholly new. It also took
place after the Amarna period, as évident from the pronunciation mute (Amarna
mua) then prevailing for Goptic hg struthn, from *mefe<C*mu?et, which may come
from a Semitic *burat (cf. Ar. baraah te excellence, merit, perfections; sidq ce truth 15,
and sa&$ rc true ^, show precisely similar developments). The corresjponding change
in the long vowels is illustrated by thhkg «finger», for *têbe (by vocalic compen-
sation, explained by Spiegelberg) <C*d^ha <C*dûba<*sui' (Assyr. silbu<C*sub'u,
Ar. usba[i, etc., Heb. esbd) and Boh. mhi <Zmue<Cmûfet.
The preceding list of illustrations could be considerably increased, even with our
limited material, but it will surely suffice, and a more elaborate list will be given in
a monograph to appear soon. It is clear that ail our familiar nominal formations in
Semitic are found also in Egyptian, including the nomma loci and instrument with
prefixed m, and the nisbe forms in y, w, and ty (cf. Assyr. resté, masculine nisbe, from
fem. ending, *tayyu). For example, qatl is represented by ccdm, cAcyq and pue,
but the regular équivalent, from a strong stem, is ccut(6)m ; qâtil appears in NoyrM ;
qatàl in anok; qatîl in oynam; qitl in ^it; qutl in thhb6. The équivalents in the
strong stem may be grouped as lollows (only including cases with known examples) :
ccdt(6)m = qatl, qâta(i, u)l ctam = qatîl
chtm =qutl,qûlal — qâtil ctim == qatil-
citm =qitl,qîtal cotm -
ctom == qatàl, qitâl c\tm =qitl-
ctcdm = qatal- ctm = qutl-
While this is not the place to go into a full account of the grammatical and ety-
mological parallels between Egyptian and the other Semitic languages, a little may
be said. The grammatical results which have accroed from the work of Erman, Sethe,
Steindorff, Spiegelberg, and especially now of Lacau, have shown the complète
grammatical identity of Egyptian with the sister tongues. Yet it lias been possible for
the writer to make many contributions in détail, especially in the morphology of the
(I) Gopt. sasef slands for *sàhef <c*sàfeh <z.sab'; the a is preserved, as usually, under the protection of a
neighbouring' laryngeal, as in Ilebrew.