Aziz S. AtiyaEDITOR IN CHIEF

Volume 8

Macmillan Publishing CompanyNEW 'lOR/(

Collier Macmillan CanadaTORONTO

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

186 PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OF EGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ON THE

only in Copto-Greek words (d, VOCAUULARY, corro,GRIlliK), in which, however, they have p,'obably losttheil' original (Greek) voicing: thus, as clements ofCoptic. 11./ - lsI (18), Igf .. /k/ (10). and /d/ ; /1/(19).

Coptic has 6 trieu/iva: lsI (18), I~ (25). trI (26)./hI (27), 1,>1 (34). and I~I (35).

According 10 Ihe tmditional COptic gmmmar, Cop­tic has only a single ufTricalc, /~/ (28). However, OIA,

La" H (and pcrhups even ,.. :l/1d Ihe sllb(lltllcct.'l ofthe Fayyumic dialc<:tal group, e,l[ccpt F7) may alsohave I¢I ljt.1 being pronounced nearly like (is), andIV nearly like [I,>n,

Coptic has five SlOps: /kI (10) (and Icl (29), whichis a palatalized /k/ corresponding approllimatcly to(kiD: Ipl (16); /1/ (19); .md rt (31) (see AI..EPIt: CRYP·TOPHONHME: .md GEMINATION. VOCALIC). Fur the aspi·rated :Jffl'iCllte and stops in 8 etc, (/l:.h/, Ikh/. Iph/,Ith/), s(:e above.

HI.8UOGRAI'HY

Chatne. M. EMllle.lls de gramJlluire dialec/ale cuplc.Paris, 1933.

Dubois, J.; M. Giacomo; L Gucspin; C. Mrll'Ccllesi;J.-B. Marcelksi; :md J.-I'. Move!. DiCliOllIwirc deIi'lguis/iq,'c. Paris, 1973.

Kasser, R, "VoyeUes en fonction consonantiqlle,consonnes en fonction vocali<lue. et classes dephonemes en copte:' Bulle/iPl de la Sodittd·tgyplologi~. Getlel'e 5 (1981 ):33-50.

Mallon. A. Grmmtlllire COpll!. allec bibliograplrie.chresromarhie el VQCllblilairf!. 2nd ed. Beil,",l, 1907.

Stcindolif, G. ultrbuch der kOplischcll Grllmlllalik.Chicago, 1951.

Stem, L. Koptischc Grllmmlllik, LciJTi.ig. 1880.Till. W, C. Koptische Grammatik (slli'disclrer Dialek/),

mil Bibliograplrie. Lesatiicken lind Wonerveruich·tliS5ePl. Lcip;>Jg, 1955.

--0 Koplisclre Dia/~k/gramma/ik, mil Lesaliick~"

I/Ild \'Iurlerollch. 2nd cd. Munich. 1961.Vergote, J, PhQ,,~./itl"e 1Iislorique de /'tJgyptien, la

COllSOIJIIC.~. Louvain, 1945._-.,._. Gf//lllmaire cop/e. Vol. la, 1,,/rodIlCliotl, pho­

'1~liq"e e/ pllDtloJogie. morphologie sy/llIl~",a/iqlle

(stnlcrure des sematr/tmes). parlie $yrIchroniqu~.

Louvain. 1973.Worrell. W. H, Coptic SOl/lids, Ann Arbor. Mich.•

1934.

ROOOtJ'IHl KASSER

PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OFEGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ONTHE. 11w: main source for the Greek languagc inEgypt is the mass of nonliteml)' p.'1pyri, ostrnca, and

in!\Cl'iptlons lTom the Ptulemaic, Roman, and By.>.ml'tine pcriods, 11 tutal of almost fifty thousnnd docu­mCllts. An analysis of the 0l1hographic variations inthese doculllents indicates that the pronunciation ofthe Greek koine spoken and wrillcn within thc con­fines of Greco-Roman Egypt refleels to a large extenta transitional stage between that of the cla"''licalGrcck dialects and Ihat of modem Greek. But thereis also extensive evidence of bilingual intclferencein its phonology by Coptic.

As rcg.'l.rds consonants, there is WIllC cvidencefrom as far back as the e.'1l'1y Roman period for thedlift of thc classical vtlict:d stops Ib/. Ig!. and Id/.represented by (j, Y. and 6, to mcalives. as in mod·em Greek. But then: is abundant evidence frolll doc·uments of lhe same period and place that thesesounds were stilt stop.~, for')' :md Ii intel'Ch:mge vcryfrcquently. and 13 ocea~ionnlly, with the symbols forIhe corn:sponding voiceless stops x. t. and "'. re·spectively. Similal'ly, K. ii, and ~. the symbols for theaspirated stops f';:J1f,/th/. and Iph/. also interchangefrequently in lhe same documents with x. t. and'11'. ThL~ confusion, found eMtcnsively only in Eg)'Ptand paralleled in the spelling of Gr<:t:k lo:mworcls inCoptic. has no s(ltisf:Jctory explanation in IC1111.~ ofGrcek phonoloa,y, for although oolh the voiced andaspirated stops have shifted to fricativC5 in modernGn:ck. they have never mel'gOO with those of anoth·er order but have remained distinct to the present<by.

In Coptic. howevcr, there was no phonemic dis­tinction between voiccd and voiceless stops in anydialect, But the sound l'epr'c~cnted by II occun; as adistinct phoneme. pronounced during the Grcco­Roman period a~ a voieL-d bilabial fricative (11];hence. the symbols for Ihe labial stops are not 50

frequently confused. Similarly, the unconditional in­terchange of aspiratcd and voiceless stops is cau.-;edby bilingual interference. In Coptic. aspiT'lued stopswen: phonemic only in the nOltAIJUC dialect, whereIhe opposition OCCUlTed only in accented syllablesand the aspiratcs were lost in late Bywntine timL'S.

In addition. the voicL-d bilabial fricalive qualityp<lStubtcd for Gn~k {j especially when it interchang.es with 01' Iwl or v Iyl coincides with that of CoptkII. and the fricativc quality of intclVOCalic Greek y inconm:ction with rounded back vowels llIay repre­sent the 11lbiuvclal' fl;cativc quality of the Coptic oyIw/.

There is also widcspn-ad confusion of A and p.Although in Gn,<:k the phonetic quality of these Iiq.uids variL-d considerably, nowhere outside Egypc wasthere an identification of lhe two sounds. In IheFAYYUMIC dialeci of Coptic. howc\'Cr, from which

PHONOLOGY OF THE GREEK OF EGYPT, INFLUENCE OF COPTIC ON THE 187

area most of the documents showing Ihis inter­change come, there may have been only one liquidphoneme /II, for most wortls spelled with r in otherdialects show), in Fayyumlc, lIlthough r is retainedin many words.

The final nalla] is frequently dropped in pr'Ol1uncia­tion. a tendency that hall continued in spoken Greekto the present day. In addition, medial nasals arefrequently lost, especially after Slops. This is also theresult of bilingual interference, for in Coptic a voice·I=> Slop had a voiced allophone following a nasal.This fact, combined with the underdiffen::ntiation orvoked and voiceless Slops, made )17', T, 8, and 1'6, forexample, simply orthographic variants of the samesound It/.

Initial aspimtion is frequenlly dropped. This l'epre­sents a phonelic lendency within Greek itself, inwhich aspiration was generally lost during the peri·od or lhe koine. Aspiral.ion was also losl ill sollieCoptic dialects in Byzantine times.

In vowels, the classical long diphthongs wen:: reo

duced to simple vowels by the end of the first centu­ry S.c. The short diphlhongs In ., became identified....ith simple vowels, f~ with , in /il already in thethird ccntury B.c., a~ with f in IfI in the secondcenlury 1lC.. and <l< (and Il1o) with II in Iyl by the firstcentury A.U.

The short diphthong 011 had hecome a simple vow·el/ul before the heginning of the Ptolemaic period,In lhe Roman lind Byzantine period:;, it inter­changed ocea.~ionally with Col and 0, hodl represent·ing lo/. Since this interchange was rare elsewhere inGreek but was paralleled in Greek loanwords inCoptic. it may rest on bilingual interference. In Cop­tie. or is a rena of II) and Hand I'l, and it has beenproposed that co after or represented the samesound; but a phonemic opposition betwccn 101 andluI seems well cstablishL-d.

By lhe second centuIY Li.e. the ShOI' diphthongs all

(Ind IV were showing evidence of lhe reduction ofthcir second elemenl to n consonantal sound (w],which closed to a bilabial fricative (Ill in By/..3ntinetimes. TIlis corf(:spon~ to the known historical de·velopment of these diphthongs from originallau eulto lav fYl or Ia! 01 in modem Greek. Parallel onho­graphic variations in Coptic suggest that Greek auand tv may have been identified with Coptic ),yand6'(, both arising frequently from contraction from),O'y and coy, which also represented a vocalic plusa consonantal element.

The simple vowels for the moM pal1 preservedtheir classical Greek pronuncilltion, but itacism wasnlore advanced because of the nature of the Copticvowel system. in which then: were only three front

vowel phonemes con-csponding 10 the four Greekfront vowels. In addition, 11 seems to have beenhivalent. since throughout the Roman and Byzantinepcriod~ it was confused sometimes with thc IiIsound represented rnimarily by t and f:~. and some­times with the IfI sound represented by f and ai, aswell as frequently with v. In Coptic, II occurred onlyin accented syllables and was bivalent. In all dialectsit represented an allophone of /il before or afterSOlllllltS. In Bohairic, it also represented an allo­phone or lac/.

The simple vowel represented by 1.1 W3.'i particular·Iy utlstable. In the koine where the diphthong 0lI

camc 10 represent luI. 1.1 apparently represented theAllic value Iy/. until it finally me'ied with IiI aboutthe ninth century A.D. The inten:hange or the sym·boIs for Iyl and Iii possihly indicates theullrounding of the jyl and its merger with /iI illEgypt during Oytl\llline times. But the constant con·fusion of v with other vowel symbols, especially 11,suggests underdiffcrentiation of phonemes throughbilingual interference, since Coptic had no Iy/sound. There ~ parallel inten:hanges of y with tand II in Greek loanwords in Coptic.

There is also a rrequent interchange of a with f

and 0, mainly in unaccented syllables but occasion­ally in accented syllables as well. This is also theresult of bilingual intetference. ror in no dialect ofCoptic were lhere more than twO phonemes con-e'sponding to the thl'ee Greek phonemes repl'cscntedby a, f, and o.

Finally. all quantitative distinction has been lost.This in tum reflects a changc in the nature of theGreek accent from pitch to stress, which came aboutIn Egypt, as generally throughout the koine, throughthe transfer by nonnative Greck-speakers or theirown accentual patterns to their Greek.

The possibility of the influence of Coptic on thephonology or the Greek of Egypt has long been rec­ognized but usually not invoked to exp1t\in morethan isolaled phenomena in documents clearly ema·nating from the Egyptian element of the population.Ilut the evidence or bilingual interference in thenonliterary papyri, ostraca. and inscriptiorui. espe­cially from the Roman and B)'7.antine periods, i$ 5Q

elltensive that Coptic innuencc must have fairly per'meated the Greek language in Egypt.

D1tIUOGRAPIIY

C7.er'mak, W. Dill Lolile der ugyplisclrCIl Sprtlche: EirlCplwllclischc UtlIerslIl:lrl-lllg. Schriften der Al'beil~'

gemeinschafl der Agyptologen und Arrikanisten inWien 2. 3. Vienna, 1931-1934.

188 PRE-COPTIC

Gignac. F. T. "Bilingualism in Greco-Roman Egyp!."In AClrs dll Xr Congres itrttmarional deJ !inguis/rs.PI'. 677-82. Buchareu, 1970:1.

"The Language 0( Ihe Non·ute ....lI'y GreekP:1pyri." American SII/dies itl Papyr%gy 7(1970b); 139-52.

__~. A Grammar of the Grerk Papyn' of the Romallami By<'amiflc Periods. Vol. I. Phurwlogy, Vol. 2,Morphology. Tcsli e documenti per 10 sludiodel1'untichilA 55. Milan, 1976-1981.

Kahle. P. E. 8ala'jzah: Coptic TexIs from DeiI' eI­Ba/a'fza/I in Upper Egypt, Vol. I. Oxford and Lon·don, 1954.

Kassel'. R. "Prolegomcnes a un essai de c1assifica·lion systemalique des dialec:les el wbdialcctesCopies scion les crileres de 101 phonetiquc, I,Principes ct lenninologie." M'l.seon 93 (198Oa):53­112. "... , n. Alphabets et sYSlemes phonetiques."MIIShJ/I 93 (I98Ob):237-97. "... , III. SYSlcmcsor1hogrnphiqucs el categories diaiCCIaIes." Mluion94 (198Ia):91-152.

__ . "VoyeUes en fooelion consonantique. con·sonnes en ronction voealique. et c1assL'S dephonemes en eopte." Bullelin de fa Soc/iIicNgyfllOlogie. Geneve 5 (198Ib):33-50.

-77' "Syllahation Tilpide 01,1 lente en copte. I, lesglides IiI et Iwl avec leurs COITesponclunls voeali·ques 'Ii/' et '/u/, (et phonemes appalics ana·logues)." Enc/wria II (1982):23~37.

Knudsen, E. E. "$aidic Coptic Vowel Phollelncs."Acla Oriell/alia 26 (1961):29-42.

umbdin. T. O. "The Bivalcnce of Coptic Ela andRelated Problems in the Vocalization of Egyptian,"Journul of NrQr Easttrn Studies 17 (1958):177-93.

Mayscr. E. Gramma/iJc du grirchischtn Pap)"1 QIIS fluPtoftmiirrui/. mit EinschlrlS,s du gltichu.itigenOstraka und der ill i(gyplell vrr(as.sten JII5Chriftell,Vol. I. Lam· lIt1d Worlfehrr. L..cip'Lig. 1906. 2nd cd.or Pt. I. EI"fei/ulIl; ulld Lautlehre. rev. ~Ian.~

Schmoll. Berlin. 1970.SmieS1.ek. A. Some l/ypothtses COllcemillC II,,~ Prehis·

lOry oflhe Coplic Vowels. Mcmoircs de la Commis·sion oricntaliste de l'Acadl!mie polonaise des sci·cnces. Krnk6w, 1936.

Vergote, J. "Hel problecm van de Koine volgens delantste historisch.philologischc bevindingen." Phil·oJogisd/c Smdle" 4 (1932-1933):28-32; 5 (1933­1934):81-105; 6 (1934-1935):81-107.

Pho/lilique Itistorique de l'igyptien. fes oon·SOtmes. Louvain. 1945.

"U!:s Dialcclcs dans Ie domainc ~ien."

ChrolllquC d'Egyplr 36 (1961):237-5\.Grammaut coplr. Vol. la, I",rod'lctiall,

phcmetiqllr rl phOllologir. morphologie synlhtma­tiql/c (struclurr des stmQtltemesJ. parrir syIlchro­niqut. Vol. Ib,. _., purrir diachrcmiqur. Vol.la, . , . , IIlOrphoiogic syulagmuliqur, $yll/ru:r. parlie

5)'1IChrouiqllt, Vol. 2b, ... , mCNpllOIagit synlagma­tiqut, parlie diachrolliqur. Louvain. 1973-1983.

Worrell. W. H. C011/ic Sounds. Ann Arbor. Micho,1934.

FRANCIS TIlO~tAS GIGNAC. S.J.

PRE·COIJTIC. This general terlll indicales dill'er·cOl stages of seripl or'scripl rorms lhal to a greatcror lesser extent prepared or influenced the crclliionof the Coptic scrip!. Since the usc or the Greekalphabet is CSSClltial to the defillition of Coptic, it isobvious that one must go back to the fu"St more 01'

less regular contacts belween Greeks and EgyptiaOli-such as Ihe foundation of the Creek colony ofNaucratis in the T....'Cnly-Sixth Dynasty {se\'enth­sixth century a.e)-to sean:h for the \-ery begin·nings of Egyplian wriucn with Greek lellcn. Indeed,Ihe lransliterntions or Egyptian proper names inGreek tcxlS (CREEK TRANSCklI'11QNS) are the firstsceds or Pre·Coplic. But an occasional rendition or aGreek namc in hieroglyphs can :llso be encountered,such :IS JrkskJr.~ for Alexiclt:s (Ouacgebeur, 1976, pp.SO-51; cf. de Meulellaere, 1966, PI'. 42-43). In thcsame period (Twenty·sixth Dynasty, sixth and sev­enlh centulies D.C.) demotic script came into generaluse in the administl-ation. Demotic scribes regularlyemployc..-d phonetic, instcad of etymological. Or1hog­raphics. l1lis phenomenon and its effcct on phoneticor1hogrnphics in hieroglyphic merit Inore detailcdS1udy (Ouaegel.>eur. 1980. pp. 68-69). Somc authorseven think that phonetic and, in p3r1icular, alphabel'ic spellings in hieroglyphic tcxlS from late pharaonictimes onward are to be explained 3:'i tendencies 10­

ward simplification caused by the udvanUlges recog­nized in the simple Greek script system (e.g.•Brunner. 1965. p_ 767). But we must not ovedookIhat in this period Aramaic tel-ts too are known inEgypt. All eumple is the notation of the word IIII'(god) by means of Ihe uniliter;.I1 siglls II + I (com·pare 110'('1'0) on lhe Naueratis Stelll (I. 5; Ncctanebo1; cf. Uchlhelm 1980, p. 87. for bibliog....lphy).

From the late fatnth and carly third cemmics B.C"

when after the conqucst of Alexander the GI'ealmany Greeks scllied in Egypl, one finds an enol"mous number or Egyptian proper names imcgralL-dinto Greek texIS. On the other hand, many GreekM1throponyms, such as those or Llxmymous pricstsand priestesses. were rendered alphabetically in de·motic documents (Clarysse et at. 1982). In bolhkinds or translitel1ltion a measure or systematizalionoccurs with local characteristics.