Aziz S. AtiyaEDITOR IN CHIEF

Volume 8

Macmillan Publishing CompanyNEW 'lOR/(

Collier Macmillan CanadaTORONTO

.Maxwell Macmillan InternationalNEW 'IORK· OXFORD· SINGAPORE· SYDNEY

(BOhlig. A., and H. J. Polotskyj. KcpllullJia: &suIfalftc (Udcrung 1-10). StWtg:U1, 1940.

Bourguel. P. duo Gwmmai,c IOllctioulleU/! el progresosive de /'Cgyplicn "'mtOliqlle. Louvnin, 1976.

Cerny, J.; P. E. K:lhlc; "nd R. Parker. "The OldCoptic Horoscot'le." lOt/nllJl of Egyptiall Arc/me%·IIY 43 (1957):86-100.

-,;;-_ "Coalescence or Verbs with Prepositions inCoptic." leitsellril' lilr ug>'plisellc Sproche ul/dAltef/tullJkllllde 97 (1971 ):44-46.

Crum, W. E. A. Coplic Victumury. O"rord, 1939.Funk, W.·P. "Die Morphologk- der Peneklkonjug:i'

lion im NH·subaehmimischen Dialekt." uilsehrillliir ilgyplisehe Sll'ucltc tmd A.fuf/tllIlsklfl/de III{1984):IIO-30.

Kasser. R. Pupyms Bodmer VI: Livre des Provemes.CSCO 194-195. Lollvuin, 1960.

-,,-. "Popyrus Londiniensis 98 (The Old CopticHoroscope) and I'apyrus Bodmer VI." )ollnlllf ofEgyptillll Archaeology 49 (1963):157-60.

--c "ProlCgomcncs t\ un essai de c1tlssificmionsystematique des diak'<:lcs et subdialeetes copiesscion Ics crit~res de la poonetique, II, Alphalx.1s CIS)'Slemcs phonctiques." Afllsro" 93 (1980):237-97.

___ "Usages de la surlignc dans Ie P. IJodmer VI,notes addilionnellcs." Bulletin de la Socitttd'tgyplologie, Gel/eve 5 (198Ia):23-32.

___ "Voydlcs en ronclion t;onsonanliquc, con­sonnes en ront;liOll vocalique, CI classes depholl/::mes en copte." BlIlIelill de 11/ SOcieTed'egy/lw/ugie, Ce,,~ve 5 (1981 b):33-50.

"Lc Dinlcctc pl'Olosa'idique de Thebes."A.rchiv {iir Papyruslur$(.·/IIIt1J: 28 (1982):67-81.

--,__ "Le pariait I copte ~. ct .t.:~. el Ie I:mgage del'ttrangcrc (Prov. 6,24-26 et 7,15-16)." IIcgyplUs64 (19&4):229-36.

___ "Gemination de voyelles dans Ie P. lJodmerVI:' In Acts of 111f~ Secorrd hllemalimra/ Co"gress 01Coptic Sludies, Rome 22-26 Septem~r /980, cd. T.Orlandi and F. Wis.'iC, pp. 89-120. Rome. 1985.

Kasser, R.; M. Malinine; H.·C. Put."(;h; G. Oui~pcl; J.landee; W. Vyciehl; and R. McL Wilson. r'(lCIIlWS

TripurlilllS, Vol. I, PI":; f, De Supemis, CodexlImg {. XXVI'-f. ur (p. 51-104), Vol. 2, Pllr~ II,De Crealiolle Humitli.~, Pars 11/, De GCl1cn'btuTribllS, Codex lwrg I. Ur-J-XX' (p. 104-140). Bern,1973-1975.

Malininc, M.; ~I.-e. Pucch; and G. Ouispcl. EVllIIge·/ill/II Veri/alis, Codex lImg'. vllr-xvr (p. 16-32', '.XJJr-XXlr (p. 37-4J). Zurich, 1956.

fl.Winine, M.; H.-e. Put.'Ch; G. Ouispcl; W. C. Till; R.McL Wilson. EVlJllgelium Verita/is (Stlppfeme,,·tum', Codex lllng f. xvlr-xvllr (p. 33-36j. Zurich,1961.

Mlliinine, M.; H.·C. Pueeh; G. Ouispcl; W. C. Till; R.MeL. Wilson; and J. t.'1ndee. Dc Rl!)'u"ecliOlle(EpisllIlu 1/11 RhcgiIlWII), Codex IImg I. XXJI'-f. xxV"(p. 43-50). Zurich, 1963.

D1ALECfS 87

Nagel, P. "Dcr rriihkoplische Dialekt ~'On n,chen."In Kopf%gisclle S/Ildictl ill der IJDR, pp. 30-49.Wiss~msella/tfiche Zeilseh,ift der Murtil/·ulllre,­UlliversiliJl Hlllle·Wittellberg, Sonder·heft. Halle·Wittenberg, 1965.

Osing, J. Dcr ~pillilf:YPI/M'lIe I'IIPYrl45 8.M. 10808.Wicsbaden, 1976.

Pl.'an;on, B. A., and S. Giverscn. Nag Hummadi C{J{!i·ccs IX alll/ X. Nag Hammadi Siudies 15. l..eiden,1981.

Polotsky, H. J. "Zur koplischen WUllehre I." leit·selrril' Iii' ilgyplisehe Sproehe tllld A.llemmukl/Ilde67 (1931):74-77.

,,-,:-c Malliehilischc Hml/i!ietl. Stuttgan, 1934.Schmidl, C. Aeta Pauli QIIS de' Hcidelbergur

koplischell Hultdsellri!1 N, I. lcip"lig, 1905.-,,-C. "Ein neues Fr.lgment dcr Hcidelberllcr Acl"

Pauli." In SilZJmgsherichle der 8crli,lcr Ahulcmicder WiSSCIl.~clUI{lerJ, Philu)·uphisch.Hi.~loriscJrc

Kla~Ie, pp. 216-20. Berlin, 1909."I1lOnmssen, I:", and L Painchaud. Le rroit~ lrirarti

(Nil 1.5), lule i!lubli, ilJ/roJui/ el eOlllllllmle IHlr E.71101J1asstm; lrallllil par L Paillella/ld eI E.'T1wma.uell. Bibliotheque cople de Nag Harnmadi,SoOClion "Iellles:' 19. Ou~bcc, 1989.

Thompson, H. The Gospel 01 SI. 101m Accordil/g to IheEnrliest Coptic Mamlscripl. London, 1924.

Vergote, J. Phol/~tiqlle his/orii/lle de f'tgyp/ien, les,·OIlSOlllleS. Louvain, 1945.

Vycichl, W. Dic/iOll/wire 1!/)'lIIologique de fa lallguecople. Louvnin. 1983.

RODOU'IlU KAS.<:P.R

DIALECTS. Thc gt:ogrdphical chal1'clcristics orlhehabitable area or Egypt favored Ihe S4lbdivision of itslangUl1ge. One may note first or all 1",0 linguisticentilies, "languages" rather than "dialeclS:' or verywide scope and more Ihan local-indeed, morc thanrcgional-char.lCter. TIle Iirsl or these correspondsto the Nile Delta lind the second 10 the Nile Vulleynbove the Delta. These are in tUI11 (probably in theDelta, ce'1ainly in the valley) subdivided into smallerlinguistic units (see especially, although wilh pal1i"l·Iy divergent opinions. Kahle, 1954, pp. 193-278;Ka,,-';('r, 1982; Krause, 1979; wylon, 1976; Vergote,1973, pp. 53-59; WOITCIl, 1934, pp. 63~82; and mA·u:crs. GROUPING -'NO MAJOR GROUPS Of' and GFDCIW'HY.

DIAU'L""L).It appears vel')' likely tll:ll 80HAIRlC (8) was Ihe

indigenous language common 10 Ihe whole or theNile Delta. [t Is called n "vehicular." or supmrocnr,language because it perm[tted the inlUlbitants or Ihedifferent regions or thi.~ De!t:l (where each spoke hislocal dialect) to unden;tand one another. (These 10'

88 DIALECfS

TAUI.c L Charoclerisl;C wemes ill tire PrincipIII Coplic /)iQleCI~' wrd SlIbdialeCIS

"lANGUAGE" "WlTIIOlTT" "ANI)"

A "'1'C ". ,."pL (espc) ". .....L <spc ". ,""M "'" a(d).· auO

V [cspiJ ". ,".F [cspl) ". ,".

(aha)

F56 lespi] Ill· nub

F1 (~pi) a(ie)l· "'"(aull)

H {Aspi) ". aUll

p Iflspc] (ll- auO

S flspc at· :luO874l [aspl] al· ou6hc

8 :ispi at· 006halh·

The followinl may ~ ob.icrvcd wilh rtgard to L: a.Hi lAo 1.5, UJ, bur:ilia (""'f'«ially) Mum .... ill... LA, Q"dh.. Or ou4/1", etc. 1.6;~ulf·l.A i~ ~Il/"f' LS. 1.6: kD lA, l.5 is It.Oc U:",tie LA is miuie/.J, 1.6: mb!if/flIA is ",dei" LS, LIJ, with S: ..uk VI,LS ill ""hi l.6.w;lh lPLJ: >lji LA ill ji 1..5, nci L6;";'1 fA is pter /..5. lAo' pel·/A is pt!tll· /..5. UJ: ref· LA. LS. LIi, bu! also rome(·IA, "tI"'C'· LIi. ""tlf- fA(r,lre) wilh;1 (rare) erc., and everywhere "lief., eiC. 1'; sJlme LA is s(,lm U. 1..6: ouD.I,e 1.4, l.6 is 0,,0:111 W; {mil L4 is ix>(IIjh LS.«"J,,1l 1.6; ~je 1.4, LS is sltt/e L6; shii /A is sited 1.5,1.6; 16me L4 is IMl>le (WI, Ui: i"se /A, l.S is I"s,' Ui, with pI-

With l'eganlto 101: fJ/' befOIl: eenain word~ (e.g.. sill!"), and a lillIe more frequently Mill ileil· bef'OIl: other wonls (the eMe or illll.!tor iltil"i" is no! yet attested); ptthilf· or MHllclirllC$ ptltl.af·; ...:t. but also (fairly rare) "it, etc.

With rqard 10 V: I'll/If-, also ptmaf·, moll: rardy [pelth../·] v, but also ptw.IJ/. (rarely ptlhIJf·) W; _limes ,"ij abo V4(idiolectal?): lIit (n,":ly nil) V is tlji W; p,flp V4, W.Yuiap V5; fairly often Jhiifalso in V4 (idiolectal?);~, alone atle51ed. butpoorly, should be jip"tI V4, W. ;i>o..1tI V5.

With regard to F: Il"J F4. fS, but alw ,<.,metilllcs M... FS; ptll/ilf· FS, prlaf· F4, (FSJ; mieiFS i.s m;'i f4; Ilif F5 is "o!f F4; piel F5 Is pi;F4;loll FS, loll ~'40' shimp FS is shflp F4: j.WJI>le ~'S would he [jO"'~l N.

With regard tn n: lilia, but alw somcllnR'lI au,),

With reprd 10 II; [kim;! II is klmt H!; rt-ni //is .d.nt H!: sMpi 11 is slNipt HI; Jhfliill is sllIijt HI ([iJrn.l ur [;M.llilJ H is;Jr.~ /I!; ;D$i Hwould be [j<lstJ II!.

With rrg,ard to /': o'~ (.;) three ~, M'~ three: ~, l*/I/.I (_;) one case.

With regan!tu 8: /Jlh· B befon: the (autochthonous) voiced consonants (b, l. m, n. r) and befon: the glides (i and (u)u with thephonological Vllluc or a consonant, rot' example, at the beginning of the word ;in, falher. and "uAsh, wish): bUI even in thesecases G alWl1YS has al·; tb61 B Is epiJl G; tIC"'''''''' 85 is elt"'''''' B4, fl74; plllll B is pdi G: pht 81s pJ G; sOlem 8 is sIN/"m G; 111M or1I16h B (lwO dilTer~m elymologi~": d. VyclchJ, 1983, p. 226); mm6f 8 is pet'haps mllt,)p/{ G (idiulcf;tlll(?); probably to' bepronounced ol/nOIl; ",,651. 8 is bim$l G (probably 10 be pnlllOlltlCed ..00$11); 0.. 611 B5 is (lUcihe 84. B?4 (lind Illso G llpjXlrently);hJb B is iJb G: jhl 84. B5 is If 874. TIle majority OrlM other specific fonns of G (probably without phonological conscquencn)will be ruund In DIAUCT Il

acf;ompanied ror some time in the 111eban region byDIALECT P, Ii PROTODlAWCT that oflen looks like whatCfln be known about the logical predecessor of S, atentatively reconstructed ·pS, proto-Sahidic), an au­tochthonous language dominating (then tendinggradually to stine) the multiple local and regionaldialeclS of this habitablc zone, relatively na/TOW but

cal idioms vel)' probably existed Ihere, l\!i elsewhere,even if the pauchy of discoveries uf texts in the soilof the Delta, which is tOQ damp, prcvenls dctectionof th..-sc dialects; one among them could be them~erious DtAlECT c.) On the ocher hand, it is cer'tain thai the vehicular language of the whole Y.1J1eyof lhe Egyptian Nile above Ihe Delta was SAIUDIC (S,

•DIALEcrs 89

TABLE I. (cQIl/f,med)

"WIlA'I7" I'IIIST "TO. "OlfT(W"RD}" RELATIVEPERFECT. FlJlI." ETC, PF.RFF.CT.

SING.3.MASC. SING,).MASC.

A ,~ of- ,- ,"'I Claropclar-

pL Ib;J of- ,- ,"'I (Clar.}

[pelaf.]

L ..h ,f- ,- ..hal e(n)Ulf.

pc(n)laf.

M csh har· "- ebal cillaf·J'lCthnf.

V "h (h)af· "- ehal cl(eh}3f. CIC.

pcl(eh)af· elC., ,,- ,- ,"'I entaf·penta!-

'56 ish ,f- "- d"" Clltaf·

pcnlaf-F7 l:sh nf- "- eb..'\1 clllar-

pcntnf.

H [a~hJ abo (z.cro] b" la\)-

pCnlan.p '< ,f- ,- ,1>61 clar·

",oaF-S ish ,f- ""'1 (e)ntaf-

penlaf·874! ash ,f- ,- ,1>61 Clar·

(~) elar-

8 ash (If· "- eb61 Claroph~ emf-

e~tcnding for nearly 6vc hundred mil~.

Moving Upslrc:1I11 (rolll immediately above theDelta (the land of the Bolmil'ic dialectal group),among the various local dinlecl~ of the valley lhalhave left sufficient traces in extant le",ts, lhis 11l1icle""ill follow the chain that runs from classical B (10

lhe north) 10 A (the so-called AKHMlMlC dialect,which is frequently eonsidcrcd the ancient local dia­lect of Thebes and thus the mOSt southerly of theknown Coptic diak-<:ts). The 61"lit to eall for mentionwill be the various subdialccts of FAYYUMIC. Chiefamong thO!\e with lambdacism arc Fl, a kind of"north Fayyumlc" pl"e.~ntlng interesting consonan·lal similarities with the Bo!lairic subdialcct D74, akind of "south Oohairie," a transition between thedialects of lower Middle Egypt and 84 (cf. Kasscr,

1981, p. 92), and 85, called "cia."-'iical Dohairie," stillfurther to the north; F5, Fayyumic of c1a.'iSical Iype,abundantly attested but relatively late; and F4, ofmore ancient allest<ltion, with some sitnilmitics withV. Chief among the fOlms without lambdacislll lweV, also called "south FaY)'lIIuic"; and, at lhe extremesouthem limit of the "Fayyumic" group and almostin the M£SC)KF.J041C dialectal group, the idiom W (or"Cryplo-Mesokemic with South Fayyumic phonolo­gy"). With Mcsokemie, or Middle Egyptian (M), 10­Cllled immediately to the south of W. one is nolonger in the Fayyumic dialectal gmup, Mt:sokemicbeing an independent group.

Should one thcn locate on the south of M (be·tween M and L) the strange l)Io\.1.£CT H (also knownas Hennopolitan or Ashmullinic)? In troth, it is rath-

TAtJLfJ l. Chfirclcleri~licLl!xeml!.< i'l Ihl! Pri'lcipal COfll;C lJilllecl~ ami SlIbi!iulecls (collliIllU:d)

CIRCUM· "MAKE, "PlACE, "EGYPT" "GUlI../J" "LOVE"STANTlAL Do" LEAVE" ""PRESENT, I!rc. "EGYPl'lAN"

SING.3.MA~C.

A d· eire kutl kCmc krM me(e)iemmkemc

pL d· [eire) [k6] [kernel knif [m]eie[rmnkCme]

L cr- eire k6(e) kCmc krM meiermnkeme rnacie

" cr- eire k6 kCme knif m~ie

rmnkCmeV cr- hi k' [kerni] [kl'afJ mfi

rmn[kCmi]F cr- iii k6 kemi kiM m~i

lemnkCmiFS6 cr- ili kO kCmi [klan] [m~i)

lemnkcmiF7 ef· (e)ili k6 kemi [k"D m~i

[lemn]kCmiII eb· iri k6 [k~mi] krab [mCi (?)]

rCm[kcmi]cr- (e)il-e k6 k~me kr6f meei

rmnkemeS cr· eire k, kerne krof m'

rmnkCmc874! ,f- lri ko kfmi h6f mei

remnk~mi

B d· id kho kh6mi khrM meircmnkh~mi

90 DIALECTS

er diflicull to locate exaclly, despitc thc hypothctiealname assigned to it; one must recall thaI some of ilsChfll1lCler'islics caused it to be cunsidered fonnerlyas a kind of Fayyumic, cel1ainly very barbaric and,in any case, wilhout lambdacism; however, many ofits features :llso bling il close 10 S, in addition to itsvcry cvolvcd if not decadent Slroctures (sce MEITAD1A­LECT), II is also vel)' likely thaI the regional dialectth:11 became thc classical S, Ihe vehiclll"r languageof Ine whole valley of Ihe Egyptian Nile above theDelta, originatcd bctwcen M and L.

However lhat may be, accol'ding to the most com­mon opinion of C~ptolugislS,one then finds, furtherto the nor1h of M, in the region of AsyU! and up­stream, the different varietics uf LYCOPOUTAN. ur

Subakhmimic, "Suhakhmimic" is a rather deceptivename and h:ls been :llmost complelely abandoned: ilstcmmcd from Ihc belief, held for some lime at thebeginning of the twentieth centul)' and soon re­vealed 10 be unlenable, that L was a kind of subJia­lecl of Akhmimic, A, which it CCl1ainly is not, in anyof ils varielies. The varieties of L arc L4, attested bythe Mflllichaenn IcxtS; LS, found "bove all in animportant Johanninc manusclipt, published byThompson (1924); and 1.6, known frum the pub­lished non·Sahidic Gnostic texts and from the Hei·delberg rn'lOuscript of the Aet:l P:luli, published bySchmidt (1904, 1909). (With reg<ll"d 10 Ihesc Lyeo·politan or, better, LYCO·D10SPOUTAN varieties, includ­ing mhLlJCT I, or pruto·Lyeo·(Dios)polltan, pL, see

DIALEcrs 91

TA8l..E I. (contillued)

''TllUTIl'' ETc. "THEIlE" "SIGN" "PITY" "SIN"mo 'NO 'NO

''THE T1turn" "THAT" "PITILESS"

miD mmo me(e)ine "'"tmie eimmo almie

pC mie mm6 (meei]ne (nae) [nabi]

Imie etmmo at[nae)

C mCe mlnell ml:clne mi, nabitmce etmmeu nl:kin aUlae ruibc

" mO< mm' mcein nO< nabe

tml:e etmmc a(ei)tneeV mci mmeu mein nei nflbi

tlllci etmmeu aUlei

timci

F mc(e)i mmeu meln neei mibi

tmc(c)i etmmeu alneeitimc(e)i

'56 mcei mmeu [m~inl neei n{,bi

(meei ctmmeu atneci

timeei

F7 mei mmeu [mein) nei nabitmei etmmeu a(ie)tnci

timei

H mCei ""'~ macin mi nabi

tm&:i etemaou atna

t~lIl&::i

p m~i mmau m~cin "'"tmb etmmau atn:ie

S m' mmau macin mi n6bc

,m' etmmau alna

8741 m~i mm' m~ini ruii nObi

tm~i etemma atnai

lirtl~i

B mei mmau meini nai nObi

thlllCi clcmmau alhnai

limC:i

K:wer, 1984; Funk, 1985; and PROTOt>lAlECT,)Slill further 10 the south, probably around

Akhmlm and perhaps even as f.:tr as Thebes (if notAswan), seems to be the domain of Akhmimic,v.'hich was perhaps outflanked on the south (atThebes and ....<jth P?) by somc variety or 1" whichtet1ded to function as a semivehicular, or supmlocal,language (see DIAl.ECT, Uol\ltGaANT); of this function Lwas to be dispossessed by the most vigorous and

active vehicular language of lhe whole Egyptian NileVaHey to the soulh of thc Delta-S.

II would be ledious 10 describe arresh here allthe5e dialeclS and subdialcclS, eaeh of which is treal­ed, separately or in groups, in one 01' other of Ihespecial linguistic articles of this encyclopedia.. Here,however, is a list of the sigla of IhCS(: idioms, inalphabetical order and with mention or the article inwhich it is presented,

TABlE I. CharacteriSlic Lexemes in the Principal Coptic DialeelS and SuhdialeclS (COlltillued)

"Ev~v" "O~~' "To HIM" "GREAT," "l)IAT Is" "THIS" "THlS .. "(GENITIVe (DATIVE UkCE" (PkOl'£PTIC

PREP.) PREP.. PARTICLE)SING..l.MASC.)

A "1m mc- "" "'" nci pei pc'.pL Inlm] me' "" mic nci pei pel-

L /lIm ntc· nef "'" "J' pe(c)i pc(c)i-

M n1111 IltC' "Of "'" nci! pei pei·V n'bi nH .- pCinte- M) nJC pel'F nfbi nte' "if nil} nje pCl pel-

F56 nibi m~ nth nil} "J' pel pel-

F1 nimi"'~ "" mij "J' pel pei-

H "1m ,;;. "Ab naj"....

pM !'ti-J'p "lb ntc- "or "Ak nk(e) pAl pi-

S "1m ntc· "or "Oc nei p:'li pei-

B741 n'ben m~ "or nishti nje pal pal'

• niben"'~ "or nishti * pMi po'.

92 DIALECTS

A8

.5

874

B74!F

F4

F5

F56

F1

GH

HI

iL

lA

See AKlIMIMIC,

Equals 85 in agn:cment with 84: secBOHAIRIC.

Bohahic subdiaJect; sec examples below andKasser, 1981. p. 92.Clnssical Bohairic, in contl'llSl. to [J4 In therare eascs of disagreement betwL"Cn lJ4 and85; see BOHAIRIC.

A kind of south Bohairic: see examples belowand Kasser, 1981. pp. 93-94.

Sec below.

Equals FS in agreement with F4; seefAYVUMIC.

FaY)'\lI11ic subdialcct. presented with F.

Classical Fayyumic, in contrast to F4 in casesof dislIgreement between F4 and F5; seeFAYYUMIC,

A variety of FS vel)' often replacing <t by I;presented with F.A kind of somewhat archaic "northFayyumic"; pre5C:nted with F.Sec DIAlECT G.

see DiALECf H.

See below.

See pL.Equals IA in agreement with L5 and U; seeLVCOPOUTAN and LVC().DIOSPOUTAN.

Variety of L in the Manichaean texis;presentcd with L

LS Variety of Lin lhe l.ondon papynlS of John,CIC.; fll'esented with L.

U Variety of L in the non·Sahidic GnOSlie ICMlSand the Heidelbcrx ACla Pauli; prl:$CnIL-dwith -ן

M $(,"C MESOKFJd!C.

P Sec OtALF.CT P.

pL Sec DIALECT t.S Sec SAIIlOlC.

V A kind of "south Fayyumic"; presented withF.

W A kind of "crypto-Mesokemic wilh SouthFayyumic phonology"; pre5C:ntoo with F.

To allow readers who are not Coplologists 10 sam­ple in somc way the "music," lhe sounds, or IheCoptic language (truly an aUlhentic foon of the au·tochthonous Egyptian languagc) in its different dia·lectal varieties, it has seemed useful to presem inTable I a list of some phonologically rather charac­teristic lCMcmes. These specimens iIlustrnle Ihe mostslriking char,lctcristlcs of the dialecIs and subdill'leets. To make them more readily accessible, theCoplic is transliterolted here, following the systemchosen for the encyclopedia as a whole, but with thefollowing remarks and adaptatloTUi.

The tonic accent of each word that h;u one is

DIALECTS 93

TABU! I. Chllfllcteri3"/i" Uxemes irr Ihe Principal COptic Dia/eclS arid Subdialects (colliinued)

COI'UU. POSSESSIVE "HE SAys" "MAN" "NflME" "VOICE" "BROTHER"

SING. AlnICI.f~ "I-lis" "THE MAN"

M=. (SING.~tAsc.ISING. "nlE MAN OF"3.M'\'<;c'), ''THEIR'' "J\lAKEit Qt'"

(SlNC.MASC.jPIJ.),'" pf. pajCf romc ..n ,ml "n

po". promc

~- ref-

pI. '" pf- pajcJ rome [ren) [smf] [san)

pon- prome

[nn-J ref-

/. pd- pajl:f r6me "n sml "npon- proffie

m,- ref-

" '" pcf- pcjl:f rom, "n om'1""- pr6me

~- ref-V pcf- pcjCf rOmi "n ,m' ...

1""- p(i)r6rni

~- ref-, pc per· pci'! IOmi "n ,m' "n1""-

p(i)IOmilem- lef·

'" ",b- pcj(iJ IOmi "n sm!

"',,- p(i)IOmilem- lef-

F? pcf- [pcjet) 16mi IOn smt ...peu- p(i)IOmi

[Iem-] lcr-

iI p;;b- pejab rOmi ron smf [san]

"',,- p(~)rOmi

rem- reb-I' pf- pajM romn rin sml!(':' ) "'n

po"-proffiC

,m- nncf-

S pef- pcjaf romn ,in smt ~6n

"',,- prumc

~- ref·874! I~ ",f- pcjaf rOmi ron sUlA "'n

po,,- p(i)rOmirem- ref-,

'" ",f- pcjaf rOmi ro" smt "'npo"- phrOmi

pirOmirem- ref-

TAUU! I, ChoracterisJjc I~e.mrs in lhe. Principal Coptic Dio/a's ond SlIbdiolecl$ (colltimled)

"HIOAIl, "WRITI!." "PuRIFY" "Dll;TUIUJ. "JOY" "WIU."!=EN" STIR" "THE Wtu."

A SOtmc Sl.lei tbbol.l6 tol, ~"M ouill,lc

POl.lo!.lc

p" SOtmc [sl.lei] tb[OO\l6] [t61,] (ounM) [ou~eJ

[pou&;eJ

L sOtm(e) shei tuuM tbh oumif ouosh(e)pouosh(c)

M sOlm shel touM '6h ollnM ouesh(pooesh (?))

V SOtm shei "bI>; (t6h] ~"M ouOshp(i)ouOsh

F SOtem shl:i "bI>; toh oon;if ouOshP{i)oubsh

F56 .o.m shei 'ybb; (tOh] oon:ib ouOshP{i)ouOsh

F7 """m [shei] tybba (bh ounaf oUOsh

P(i)ooOsh

/I sCllCm (shail [tt:bba(?)J (toh] oumib ouoshp{t)ouOsh

P sOlm sl,lui lbb6 t6h ounM 01.161;

poUOl;

S sCltm sMi ,blx> t6h oun6f ouOshpou6sh

8741 SOtem shtai 10ub6 10h oun6f ouc>sh

p(i)ouOsh

• .o.om sJ:I3i ,=Ix> th61, ~"61 ou6shphoot.hpi0u6sh

94 DIALECfS

noted by an aeute accent plnced above the vowelcunecl'Tlcd. , b in F56 and especially H is prubablyto be pronounced rather [v] (it is probably the snmcin G), 1111 and 00 in P {when lhis vowel duplicationindicatcs simply "one" vowel, but accentuated [secKassel', 1985], and not the tunic vowel followed byfI (see AU!P\IJ) are rendered respectively by t:{':')and 0(':') and not by te or 60 as everywhere else. Inthe autochthonous Coplic vocabulary of P, II. is renodered by k and 01. by k (the Jim po6Iilbly to bepronounced a little more to the back of the throat,somewhat like q qoph. the 5econd rather to lhe frontor the throat: but it remains most probable that Ihe kin the autochthonouS" voctlbulary P has the value of cin the other dialect:;, and thc kor the autochthonousP (like the k or Copto-Greek p) thnt of k elsewhere. K.

10 P is rendered by k(e). ~ in pL :\OJ ~ in Parerendered by <; (pronounced like the ch in Gennanich, or nearly like the initial h in English humun,and thus to be distinguished from ql sh, Germanseh). .1. in P Is rendered by , (which one must be·ware of conrWling with the apo!ltrophe ' whichSCIVCS to disdnguish s'h c:: £mm sh I,l), Finally, onecannot render Ihe polyvalent 6 of the various Copticidioms unifunnly by c, for lhough c filS ror A, L, M,and 5, 6 in W, V, F4, F5, and H has probably thevalue of I (10 be dislinguished in pronunciation,without one's knowing exactly how, from j X), and 6

in 85 and 84 has the value of jh. (P, F7, and 874 donot have any G,)

Only the Ihil1een principal Coptic idioms and(sub)dinleclS are presented in the lable, sollle sup-

TABLE l. (CQI1/imI/JII)

"L1vf," "BECOME" "USE, "SAYING." "SI!.U~' "WORK, "IN"

'"" VAWF.'· WORD" THINe"

"Be"

A On~ ~Opc shcu sheje h6uoo • hOb ~n-

""""pL imh ,"ope (sheuJ sheje [hOo.) [hOb) hn~

.;6(o)p

L O(ll)nh shOpe shcu "'je hOo. hOb hn~

(Ooh) ,hOOp sheje

" onh ,hOp" shtu "'je hO. hOb hn~

,,",p

V Ooh lihOpi ,he" seji h6£1l). hOb hn~

sM(a)p (sheji(?)), Ooh shOpi ,h'" sheji "'". hOb hn~

sha(a)p

'56 1m'" shOpi "'''' shl:ji "'". hOb hn~

",,",p

Ooh shOpi (sh61] shl:ji ho. hOb hin-

sMp

H onah shopi shaou shaji [hOo. ) hOb hen·

",,",pp o'~ ,Ope shau shaje (hO+) hOb hn~

l;6'p

S onh shOpe ,Mu shaje hM. h<\b hn~

"","p

B74./ Onh shOpi ,Mu saji hO. hOb hen-

,hOp

B onh sMpi shli.u saji h•• hOb hen·

,hOp

plemenlary Iillijuislic furms appearing ill additioll inthe footnotes to the lilble. Thus, fA, IS, and 1..6 arennled in relntion 10 one another (L4 + L5 + L6 =L); tv is noted in rebtiu" to V (- V4 + V5); F4 ,lIld1"5 are noted in I'elatlon to each other; Hi is notcd inrelation to H; B4 and B74 (and even G when itsfonns are auested, in a few cases only) llre noted inrelation to one another IlIld 10 B, which is almostalways identical with JJ5 (JJ4 + JJ5 - JJ). An excla­mation mark indicale5 "metonhogrnphy"; thus, H!and 874! arc, respectively, Hand 874 inmetol1hogmphy. Melonhogrnphy is the Ilew onho­graphic and phonological syslem lowdrd which IlU­merous copyists wriling II dialect or subdiale<:1 arestrongly tending; Ihu.~, in H! the final atonic vowel ist rather than i; in B74! ~ will be rcplacl..'<! by h and

DIALECTS 9S

the aspiration typielll of Bohairic, still vigorous III

874 lIS in 84 rind 85 (kh for k, ph for p, th for I, incel1ain well-defined conditions), will disappcllr (ihfor j in B4 and B5 is already abandoned in B74).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Funk, W.-P. "How Closely Related Are the Subakh­mimic Dialect.~." leitschrifl fllr ligyplisch/J Spracll/JWId AlIt.rlulIIskulldt. 1II (1984):110-30.

Kahle, P. E. &la'itJlh: Coptic TexiS from Deir d·Bala'il/lh in Upper Egypt. Oxford and London,1954.

Kas.scr, R. "Proll:gomilncs 1.\ UII essni de c1assifica·lion 5ysl~malique des dialccll's CI subdiall'CIClicoptes selon les crileres de In phonelique, III,

96 DlALECfS

TABU: I. ChClTClclerislic J..uemes in the Principal Coptic Dialects and Sllbdi(l!ects (colltinued)

'7HAT. ..,...... "SAy" ''WRJTrEN "BEGET. "ExALT'''8ECAUSE" RECf.JVE" DocuMENT, ACQUIRE" '.0

800le" "ExALT£D.HIGH"

A i' jl jOu j6u(ou)me '"pO jlse

j..'\sc:pL ji: jl j6 j6me [tl;p61 jist

ji\si

L j< jl j6 j6me ipO jlsc

jasi

"',M j, jl jO j6me jp; j'"

"'"V " jl j6 jb(O)me jpa jlsipsi

F j< jl j6 j66me jp; jlsi

jasi

F56 j< jl j6 (jOome) jp; jisi

[jasiJ

F7 i' jhl jO U6ma] jpa jisi

jl\siH i' jl ;0 WOmi]) Ipa Ulsil

'psip j< jl j6 (jOoma] '<pO jisc

"'"S j< jl j6 jOOme jpO jist:

"'"874/ j< jl ;0 j6m jpO jisi

piB j< jhl j6 jOm jpM jhisi

jh6si

"PoWER, "VIOl£NCI!, "HAND"STRENGTlI" INIQUITY"

A cl\m cans elj

pL [cam] [cans] elj

L cllm cans dj

M cam cans cij

V }lI1II ua]ns JijF I'm laos Iij

F5' I'm )tms Iij

F7 jim i" jljh

H I'm janes ."l'l

P kOm gko(":)ns klj

S cOm ,.~ clj

8741 , j6m j6ns jlj

B j6m j6ns jij

DlALECfS, GROUPiNG AND MAJOR GROUPS OF 97

Syst\lmes ol1hogrJphiques el categoriesdialcctalcs:' MIISCOII 94 {I981 ):91-152.

__ . "Lc Gr,lIId·Groupc dialectal copte de Haute­Egypte." BIII/tlin de 10 Soci~l~ d'igyplologie,Gtn~ve 7 (1982):47-72.

"Ol1hographe et phonologic de la varictcsubdialectale Iycopolitaine des tcxtCS gnostiquescopies de Nag Hammadi." MIIMon 97 (19S4):261­312.

-c:::co "G(:mirnalion de voyclll'S d3ns Ie P. BodmerVI." In AclJ of Ihe Second Intemalionol COPlgre.s.s ofCoptic SllIditJ, Rome, 11-26 Stplember 19M. ed.T. Orlandi and F. Wissc, pp. 89-120. Rome, 1985.

Krause, M. "Koptische Spral:he." l.uikon dtr Agyplo­fOlie] (1919):731-37.

layton. B. "CQptic Ulnguage.'· In Inlerprtler'J Dictio­nary of tile Bible, Suppl. vol. pp. 174-79. Nashville,Tenn., 1976.

Schmidt, C. ACII.I Pallii ailS dtr lIeidelbergerknplischell Popyrllshandschri/l Hr. I. Leipzig. 1904.

-c:-~ "En nl"UC$ Fragmenl del' Heidelberger ActaPauli." In 5illAmpberich/e del' Berlintr Akademitder WissclSchaften, Philo:rophisch.Hi.slorischeKlas.se, pp. 216-20. Berlin, 1909.

lbompson, H. The Gospel of 51. Joh" According 10 IheEttrlie$l Coptic MOIIllscript. LDndon, 1924.

VcliO!c, J. Grammaire copte, la, llItrodllClion. pho­nCliqlle tl phollologit, ltlorpJlO/ogie synthemaliqfle(SlnlcllIrt dts silllalilelllc.~), partie synchrolliqlle.louvain, 1973.

Vycichl, W. DicliotlllOire ilymologu,1I1! dc /0 longuecoP/e. Louvain, 1983.

Worrell, W. H. Coptic $ollfld$. Ann Arbor, Mich.,1934.

ROOOU'lIF.. KASSER

DIALECTS, GROUPING AND MAJORGROUPS OF, The di.'iCovcry of nlllllY Copticmanu.'iCripL~ in the laller hnlr of the twentieth centu·ry hllS led to a multiplication in thc idcnlification(sometimes disputed) nf Coptic idioms, dialects, andsubdialects, an idcntification based mainly on pho·nology, the Illost convenient and generally used cri­terion (~ee D1AU,el'. IMM1GItANT). The mO~1 likelyworking hypothesis that has been agreed upon islhal tht phonology of these idioms can be deler·mined by analYbls or theil' differtnt ol1hographic sys­lenlS; in practice, thi~ is thc only vi.:lble approach,sinct Coptic is a dead language. The increase in thenumber of known idioms is quite obvious: Stem(1880) has only three "dialccts:' S, B, and F; Crum(1939) has five, S, B, F, A2 (. L), and A; Kahle (1954)has six, S, 8, f', M, 142 (. L), and A; Kassel' (1964) has

seven or eight, 5, (G?), 8, F, M, A2 (. L), A, and P;

Kasser (1966), has nine, S, G, B, "', M, Al (. L}, A,and P; and Ka.sscr (1973) reaches fifteen. of which,however, live are practically abandoned in Kasser(1981): 5, G, (D}, B, (K" F, H, (N), M, L, i, A, P, (C),

(E).This multiplicity has led to revision of the very

concept of "dialect" and "subdialecl" (which shouldbe rigorously distinguished from an IDtOLECT) so asto eliminate certain idioR15 that are possible but toopoorly or too doubtfully alttsted and (despiteChatne, 1934, pp. 2-3, :lnd Kasser, 1974) to clarifydialeclic filiations (Vel'lOle, 1973b; Kolsser, 1919; thisconcept should nOl be under.>lood in too literal away). Above all, the: multiplicity has led to a classifi­cation of the different idioms inlo fu.milies or groupsof dialects (K.asser, 1981, pp. 112-18) and then intomajor groups, to avoid complicating in lhe extremethe view of the phonetic and phonological facts ofCoptic Egypt and to allow its more convenient inte­gration into an analysis (synchronic and diachronic)of the Egyptian language as a whole:. (On the termi·IlOlogy here employed, see Il)tOl.ECT, f'IlOTODIA1..ECI'.METADIA1.ECT. and MF.SOOtALECT.)

Although presented lhrough the medium of anoth­er lenninology, such groups of dialects were distin·guishcd by Stenl (1880) when he contemplated lheexistence of two dearly distinct dialects, the LowerEgyptian and the Upper Egyptian, which elsewherehc prdcrred to call Bohairic and Sahidic, respective·Iy, and when he dt.:fincd F as "the third dialeCl, onlya variant of Sahidic" and "of less importance." Inthe same way, Stelndorlf (1951) presented twogroups of dialects: Upper Egyptian (S, A, L, F) andLDwcr Egyptian (0, and Ba.~hmuric, a dialect practi·cally unknown).

The gmuping of "dialc<:ts" set out below is quitcsimilar to that of Kassel' (1981) but with some signif.icant diffcrences, the most important of which is thenew valuation of Sand 0: they are no longer consid­cred as "dialccts" (as are, e.g., A, L. and M) but as"Coptic languages," that is, "vehicular," or supra'local, evcn supraregional common languages, whichpermitted the inhabitantll of numerous Egyptian reogions, where each spoke his own local dialcct, \0communicate easily and to undcrstand one another.So 5 ill rccognized as the common speech of thewhole valley of the Egyptian Nile above the Delta,and 8 (more hypothctically but nevertheless ratherlikely) is cOllliidcred the language of the whole NileDella. Coptic (supralocal etc.) languages (in touchwith many local and regional dialects, which influ·ence and neutralize them appreciably) cannot be