Dialects in Coptic Egypt; in Pharaonic Egypt; in the prehistory: the theory of bilingualism (Otto Rössler's observations).

1. Helmut Satzinger:
Dialectical Variation of the
Egyptian-Coptic Language
in the Course of its Four Millennia of Attested
History
Ninth Annual Coptic Studies Symposium
Coptic Heritage and Egyptology
Continuities and Particularities
Toronto, April 2, 2016

2. Egypt:
ideal situation
for dialect
studies —
the land is
one-
dimensional
(apart from the
Delta).

3. Egypt:
ideal situation
for dialect
studies —
the land is
one-
dimensional
(apart from the
Delta).

4. Delta,
E—W ca. 260 km;
N—S ca. 170 km
(in a bee-line)
Area ca. 22,000 km2
(ca. 55 % of Switzerland)
Nile-Valley,
N—S (Cairo to Aswân)
ca. 870 km on the road
(ca. 650 km in a bee line)
Cf. Paris—Marseille, 775 km
(road)

5. French dialects
between Paris and Marseille

6. French dialects
between Paris and Marseille
Main Coptic Dialects

7. From the Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. viii
(author: Rodolphe Kasser)

8. From the Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. viii
(author: Rodolphe Kasser)

9. From the Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. viii
(author: Rodolphe Kasser)

11. Grouped Features
B F M S L A Egn. Meaning
á / ó dialects versus é / á dialects
son san san son san san *san brother
ran len ren ran ren ren *rin name
An additional shift (Southern Egypt only): LA óˀ for áˀ
totf taatf tatf tootf tootf tootf *č̣ártǝf >
*ṭáˀtǝf
his hand
ro la ra ro ro ro *raˀ mouth
LA: ū [u:] for BFS ō when < *ōˀ < *āˀ, but otherwise ō [o:]
M: ō [o] for BFS ō when < * ōˀ < *āˀ, but otherwise o [ɔ:]
khō kō kō kō kū kū *ḫā́ ˀǝˁ >
*kā́ ˁ
to put
kōt kōt kot kōt kōt kōt *ḳā́ ṭ to build

12. North-South continuum —
palatal (innovation) vs. velar (traditional)
B F M S L A Egyptian
é [ʃ] $ [x] ḫ1 x > ʃ
ϭ [ch] / ϫ
[c]
ϭ [ç] ⲕ ḳ, k, g
The North and the Rest —
aspirated (traditional) vs. non-aspirated (innovation)
ⲫ [ph],
ⲑ [th],
ϭ [ch],
ⲭ [kh]
ⲡ [b̥ ],
ⲧ [d̥ ],
ϫ [c̥ ], ϭ [ç],
ⲕ [g̊ ]
p,
t,
č, ḱ
k
ḱ [ç] < k,
č [c] ~
ḏ = č̣
Innovative Centre —
velar (traditional) vs. lenitioned (innovation)
; [x] à $ ẖ, ḫ2 x

13. All in all: not a big deal — in a language as old as Egyptian
one would expect much more dialectal variation.
We can determine the date of most of the differenciations.
In fact, the latest is only of the 2nd cent. A.D. (lenition of [x]).
The oldest is perhaps of 1400 B.C. (aˀ > oˀ).
There must have been phases of the Egyptian history when dialect
differences waned, or eventually disappeared —
the New Kingdom? The Saite period?
The expansion of the son / ran vocalism of the Delta to Upper Egypt
— hence the birth of the Sahidic dialect — may have taken place in the
Saite period.

14. Satzinger1990:"OnthePrehistoryoftheCopticDialects."ActsoftheThirdInternationalCongressof
CopticStudies,Warszawa/Warsaw1990,413–416.

15. Satzinger1990:"OnthePrehistoryoftheCopticDialects."ActsoftheThirdInternationalCongressof
CopticStudies,Warszawa/Warsaw1990,413–416.

16. But the dialectal differences must have been
considerable in the New Kingdom —
‘As for your utterances, there is no translator
who could understand them. They are like the
conversation of a Delta man with a Man from
Elephantine!’
Pap. Anastasi I 28, 6 (19th dynasty)

17. We must assume that remarkable dialectal differences
existed in the Egyptian-speaking area from the 4th to the
2nd millennium. To be sure: we can only observe features
of historical phonology, and as that: of consonants.
An exemplary feature is the phonetics of grapheme ȝ
(Egyptian Vulture ) and grapheme ˁ (arm with hand
), of course including all other signs that contain
these values.
Whereas the traditional opinion is that they render the
glottal stop and the Ayin sound of Arabic, respectively,
there is evidence of a complexe situation.

18. The evidence for ˁ
being originally a dental stop (1)
In the lexicon of the OK, Egn. ˁ is incompatible
with dentals/alveolars, in particular with d and z.
There are no roots with *ˁd(...), *ˁCd, *dˁ(...),
*dCˁ, *Cˁd, *Cdˁ; *ˁz(...), *ˁCz, *zˁ(...), *zCˁ, *Cˁz,
*Czˁ.
This proves that ˁ was – originally – a dental/
alveolar itself.
Otto Rössler 1971. Das Ägyptische als semitische Sprache. In: Franz Altheim und Ruth
Stiehl, Christentum am Roten Meer. Erster Band. 263–326.

19. This proves that Egn. ˁ was – originally –
not a laryngeal itself.

20. Roots that show that ˁ is compatible with ḫ:
ˁḫi “to burn; to evaporate”; ˁḫ “brazier”; ˁḫi “to raise up; to rise
up”; ˁḫm “to quench; to extinguish”; ˁḫm “to fly”; ˁbḫn “frog”;
ˁnḫ “sandal strap”; ˁnḫ “to live; to be alive”; ˁnḫ “garland;
bouquet”; ˁnḫ “door leaf”; ˁtḫ “to sieve; to press”; ˁtḫ
“brewer”; nˁḫ “bundle” (unit of measure); ḫˁi “to appear (in
glory); to be shining”; ḫˁr “to rage”; sḫˁr “to enrage”; ḫȝˁ “to
throw, put, leave”; ḫfˁ “to grasp,” ḫfˁ “fist; grasp.”
A horror for every Semitist:

21. Roots that show that ˁ is compatible with ḥ:
ˁḥ “palace”; ˁḥȝ “to fight”; ˁḥˁ “to stand”; ḥˁi “to rejoice; to
be happy”; ḥˁw “fleet; cargo boat”; ḥˁb “to play”; ḥˁpj “the
Nile; flood”; ˁbḥ “to fill (a jug) to the brim”, etc.; ˁnḥb.t
“pied kingfisher”; jˁḥ “moon”; bˁḥ “flood; inundation”; sˁḥ
“rank; dignity”; ḳˁḥ “to bend down”; ḥȝˁy “turmoil”; ḥwˁ “to
be short”; ḥnˁ “with”; wḥˁ “to loosen; to explain”; ḏḥˁ
“leather; (leather) lacings”; ḥˁw “flesh; limbs; body; self”,
etc.
A horror for every Semitist:

22. Intriguing evidence: the root doublets
There are pairs of roots, whose meaning is similar or alike,
that have ˁ and d, respectively, as one of their radicals, like
“hand”: ˁj : dj
“here”: ˁȝ : dj (< *dȝ ?)
“to squirt”: *ˁȝ : *dȝ
“to push”: *ˁb : *db
Cf. J. Zeidler 1992. [Review of] Petráček, Karel: Altägyptisch und Hamitosemitisch.
Bemerkungen zu den Vergleichenden Studien. Lingua Aegyptia 2, 189–222, notably 206–10; W.
Schenkel 1993, ‘Zu den Verschluß- und Reibelauten im Ägyptischen und (Hamito)Semi-tischen.
Ein Versuch zur Synthese der Lehrmeinungen’, Lingua Aegyptia 3, 137-149, notably 140;
H. Satzinger, ‘Egyptian ‘Ayin in Variation with d’, Lingua Aegyptia 6 (1999), 141–151.

23. Ambivalent root √ab ~ √db ‘to push’
ˁb ‘horn’ (ϩⲱⲡ) db ‘horn’ (ⲧⲁⲡ)
ˁbb ‘to knock’ (on door) dbdb ‘to knock’ (of the heart)
ˁbb ‘to harvest’ (with fork) dbb ‘to engorge’
ˁbb.t ‘spear’ dbdb ‘to attack; to sting; to dismember’
ˁb ‘enemy; victim’
√ḥ-ˁb ~ √ḥ-db:
ḥˁb, hapax, synonym of ṯwn, ‘to gore; to attack’ (CT)
ḥdb ‘to overthrow’
ḥˁby, term for enemies ḥdby.t ‘a heap of overthrown enemies’
Root *ˁb ~ *db ‘to push, beat’, stem with prefix *l- (> ȝ ~ n),
‘to push/beat to an effect’:
ȝˁb ‘oppression’ ndb ‘to injure’

24. Etymology (1)

25. Etymology (2)

26. The evidence for ȝ (1)
There are words that have l or r in Late Egn., and/or Demotic, and/or
Coptic, in the place of an ȝ of Old and/or Middle Egn.
ḥȝ, LEgn. ḥl “would that!”
ḥȝg, LEgn. ḥlg “to be glad”, dem. ḥlk “sweet”,
Copt. ϩⲗⲟϭ “to become sweet”
(cf. Arab. √ḥlw “sweet”)
ẖpȝ, dem. ẖlpy, Copt. ϩⲗ̄ⲡⲉ “navel“ (cf. Sem. √ḥabl “rope” [Calice #762])
ḳȝnt (Pyr), ḳȝȝt (MK), ḳ(ȝ)rt (NK), demotic ḳlȝt, Copt. ⲕⲗ̄ⲗⲉ “bolt”
(cf. Sem. √klˀ “to restrain, enclose” [Calice #872] ?)!
!
!
Satzinger 1994. "Das ägyptische «Aleph»-Phonem." In: Zwischen den beiden Ewigkeiten.
Festschrift Gertrud Thausing (Hg. M. Bietak et alii). Wien 1994, 191–205.

27. znš, z(ȝ)š "to open"!
ḥfn, ḥnf, ḥfȝ "to twist" !
gnf, gȝf “to rebuff, repell”!
fgn, fgȝ “to defecate”
nsb, ȝsb “to burn”!
Nḳdḳd, var. ȝḳdḳd, name of a
god!
ˁwn “to rob, to deceive,”
ˁwȝj “to rob, to harvest”
Etc…..
The evidence for ȝ (2)
There are words with ȝ that have spelling variants or
doublets with n in their stead (Satzinger 1994)
nẖ, nš, ȝš “to vomit”
nˁˁ “to become smooth,” ȝˁˁ “to
plaster”
ȝhw “pain; injury,” nhw “loss; lack”
mȝȝ “to see”: subjunctive mȝn·f
besides mȝ·f!
nwr, ȝwr “to tremble”!
ȝˁb, ndb “damage, wound”
(also ˁ ~ d)
wjn, wjȝ “to reject”

28. The evidence for ȝ (3)
ȝ in variation with r (Pyramid Texts!)
ḥḳr, var. ḥḳȝ ‘hunger' (Copt. ϩⲕⲟ < ḥaḳár: r in syllable-final position)
ḏȝt·k for ḏrt·k “your hand" (ḏártak, Copt. ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ̄: r in syllable-final
position); ḏȝwt “hand(full)", originally “hands” (ḏárw-t): r in syllable-
final position; but the singular form, absolute state, is always ḏrt (ḏā́r-t,
Copt. ⲧⲱⲣⲉ): r is between two vowels.
ḏrjw, var. ḏȝjw, “has been hindered”
dȝp (Pyr) for drp (MR) “to endow” (cf. Arab. ṭalaf- “present”)
grḥ, var. gȝḥ, “to squeeze”
Etc.

29. The evidence for ȝ (4)
In the Earlier Transcription System, Old & Middle
Kingdom, for rendering Canaanite personal names
and geographical terms, the ȝ graphemes are
systematically used for Canaanite l and r.

31. The idiom of the inventors of the hieroglyphic script
is progressive:
/ȝ/ had for them the value [ˀ], or similar,
rather than [l], or similar.
/ˁ/ had for them the value [ˁ], or similar,
rather than [l], or similar.

38. Cum grano salis ………
Chronology of early sound changes
3500 BC – Naqâda civilisation takes hold of Delta; Naqâda language
supersedes Delta language.
Language undergoes considerable phonetic changes in the South (?)
*d > ˁ, *l > ˀ (spelt ȝ); the North (?) is conservative.
The hieroglyphic script conforms to the progressive idiom.
2500 BC – Though Pyramid Texts seem to be in the conservative
idiom, the progressive idiom becomes standard
2200 BC – Transcription system for Asiatic names — based on
conservative idiom
1300 BC – Theban vernacular (?) becoming base of new language
standard (Late Egyptian); many words of the conservative idiom
surfacing, replacing older words.

39. Sound changes that seem to affect both idioms:
3300–2700 velars ḳ, k, g, ẖ are palatalised: ḏ (č̣), ṯ (č), ḏ (č̣), š.
2200 ḏ, ṯ are depalatalised and become alveolars, d (ṭ), t.
2200–2000 syllable-closing t, r are lenitioned and become ˀ (spelt ı͐ ).
nṯr > ntˀ / ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ sn.t > snˀ / ⲥⲱⲛⲉ
1700–1500 ? ȝ (progressive realisation as ˀ) becomes silent.
wȝḥ > *wḥ / ⲟⲩⲱϩ