Home

Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia

Dialect H (or Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic)

Reference URL

Add tags

Comment

Rate

To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website

Dialect H (or Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic)

View Description

View PDF & Text

Download

small (250x250 max)

medium (500x500 max)

Large

Extra Large

large ( > 500x500)

Full Resolution

PDF
Text

search this item

Text Search...

              [Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic or Greek text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.]

(CE:A76a-A79b)

DIALECT H (OR HERMOPOLITAN OR ASHMUNINIC). Among the manuscripts of the famous Pierpont Morgan collection in New York is a papyrus, M 636, of the ninth (or eighth-ninth) century, which contains mainly what are called hermeneiai (Quecke, 1970, pp. 97-100). A hermeneia is a liturgical text consisting of a mosaic of biblical quotations, chiefly from the Psalms, selected in relation to one word thought to be central and of prime importance, and so grouped. Drescher (1958- 1960, p. 63) wrote:

The Encyclopaedias in their articles ‘Concordance’ all have it that the first Biblical Concordance was made in the 13th century.... [F or the Psalms the Copt had rudimentary Concordances before this. Coptic liturgical manuscripts from Upper Egypt show that the principle of verbal concordance was much followed in the liturgical use of the Psalms. The Pierpont Morgan manuscript M. 574 (895 AD.) is entitled ‘The Book of the Holy Hermeniae.’ These Hermeniae are for the most part mere collections of versicles from the Psalms. Each Hermenia is based on a key-word—‘king,’ ‘rise,’ ‘light,’ ‘house,’ ‘eye,’ ‘just,’ etc.—and all the versicles in the Hermenia must contain this key-word. Common words have two or three Hermeniae. The word [...] (bless, praise) has three, the first with 22 versicles, as well as Incipit and Explicit, the second with 46, the third with 13—in all, some 86 versicles, each containing the word [...]. After the Hermeniae of this kind there follow in the manuscript what are called, ‘The Little Hermeniae of the Church’ but these seem rather to be for the most part short, continuous passages from the Psalms and they need not detain us.

Quecke (1978, p. 215) said:

Although unfortunately we know very little about the Coptic “Hermeneiae,” this designation still seems to be best suited as a brief and relatively clear indication of the kind of texts in question... The Copts collected quotations from the Psalter for particular purposes in the liturgy, with the same key-word occurring in each instance. And in any event there are instances where the description “Hermeneia” is connected with these quotations from the Psalter. So far we hardly have any reliable knowledge about the occasions when these Psalm quotations were used in the liturgy and about how they were used.

Papyrus M 636 is written in three different hands, one of which, hand a, is distributed in several sections and uses (regularly or almost so) a completely original spelling system. If it is accepted that this orthographical system is an adequate witness to the existence of a corresponding phonological system, one is led to think of the language of these sections of M 636 as a special Coptic dialect or subdialect, probably a METADIALECT, since it clearly gives the impression of being a much-evolved and, indeed, bastard and degenerate form of the Coptic language. These symptoms of degeneration, combined with a certain negligence in the use of the orthographic system, have encouraged Coptic experts previously concerned with this text to regard its language as a FAYYUMIC of a very special and highly peripheral type, or again, as an odd mixture, intermediate between F and S: thus, in Crum (1939), of the thirty-four words of M 636, hand a, that are quoted, twenty-three are classified under F, six under S, and five under S. The language to which M 636, hand a, testifies is today conveniently called dialect H; it is also termed Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic, since the ancient Hermopolis is the al-Ashmunayn of modern Egypt, and according to Kahle (1954), in idiolectal S documents, most of the orthographic characteristics similar to those in H are mainly found in the region of Hermopolis. Apart from the Morgan manuscript, some other texts (quite as late) show a language close to that of H, although never as coherently and as regularly. Thus, phonological and other descriptions of H will be based, above all, on an examination of the orthography of M 636, hand a (cf. Kasser, 1966; 1975-1976; 1981, pp. 104-112).

In listing the phonology of H, it will be appropriate to compare it as far as possible with that of dialect V (or South Fayyumic), a type of Fayyumic without lambdacism (particularly as its V5 variety has, like H generally, the graphic vowel gemination that testifies to the presence of /’/ ALEPH as a CRYPTOPHONEME). Recourse will be had to F, S, or, where necessary, other Coptic idioms when such a word is not attested in V or when this additional reference seems to be of some use.

The order followed will be that of the series of phonemes of the alphabet most generally used in Coptic, that of S etc., which is also that of F5, V5, and almost all L, and which (except for aleph, which is graphically rendered by vowel gemination) is identical to the alphabet of M etc., which is also that of W, V4, and F4 (cf. ALPHABETS, COPTIC). Any Coptic alphabet, as is well known, conventionally begins with those phonemes that are rendered by Coptic letters of Greek origin; it continues with phonemes rendered by Coptic graphemes of demotic origin. Aleph or the cryptophoneme /’/, which was rendered by graphic vowel gemination, will be tackled at the very end.

[...]/a/: H greatly favors this phoneme (where it has the maximum presence among the Coptic dialects and subdialects, 35 percent; Kasser, 1966, p. 115); see below regarding tonic e/e/ and atonic [...] in V etc.

[...]: H does not seem to have this phoneme (which is usual in V and in the great majority of the (‘optic dialects and subdialects); the [...] of H is equivalent to /v/ rather than [...], since it also systematicallv replaces [...]/f/ of V etc.; see below regarding [...]/f/. 

[...]/g/ (appears only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H does not have this g/g/ of V etc., and it replaces it by k/k/, for instance, H [...], V [...], for.

[...]/d/ (appears only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H does not have this [...]/d/ of V etc., and it replaces it by [...]/t/, for example, [...], righteous; [...] (in one instance only) V [...], justice.

Tonic [...]/e/ (except the [...] of the combination of graphemes [...] for /i/ or /j/; see below under [...]): H always has [...] where, according to the rules of V adopted to the system of H, one ought to find tonic [...] /e/ (in fact, only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary; see Till, 1948- 1949, pp. 18-20), for example, [...], [...], relationship, race, kind. As regards (tonic) vowel [...]/e/ in V etc., it will be seen again that on this point H does not have exactly the same vocalization as V, F etc.; in H, there is [...]/a/ also when it is so in V etc. while o/o/ in S (for example, H, V, F etc. [...], occasion; H, V, F [...], to destroy), when it is [...]/a/ in S etc. in opposition to [...]/e/ (or [...]/e/ before [...]/j/) in V etc. (especially for various reasons in relation to its position; Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a, pp. 24-25; Kasser, 1982, pp. 61-62), for example, [...], [...], the negative particle; H [...], V [...], place; H [...], V [...], suffering; H [...], W [...], sign; H [...], V [...], (place) there; H [...], V [...], pity; H [...], V [...], the future auxiliary; [...], V [...], with; H [...], V [...], holy; H [...], V [...], use; H [...], W, V [...], F (V) [...], to talk; H [...], F [...], shade; H [...], F [...], slave; H [...], V [...], upper part or lower part.

Atonic [...]: When V etc. has atonic [...], H also has [...] as a general rule but continues to retain [...] in the following restricted area: in the initial syllable consisting of [...] followed by a consonant or consisting of /w/ followed by [...], followed by a consonant. In the first of these instances, if the “close liaison” phenomenon is produced (Polotsky, 1949, pp. 29-30), particularly by the attachment of the definite article (not of the possessive article!) before the word, what would otherwise be initial e is so no longer and returns to the ordinary category, being vocalized [...] as elsewhere; thus [...] in [...], in thy presence, but [...] in [...], in presence of the Lord. It will also be noticed that H, even more than F5, finds it difficult to sustain the weight of two consecutive consonants within the one syllable and so separates them by inserting between them an atonic [...] (sometimes corresponding to atonic [...] in F5, not in V), except before [...], where in H the inserted vowel is then [...]; it thus divides the “heavy” syllable into two “lighter” syllables. Examples, which are particularly numerous, include H [...], V [...], angel; H [...], F [...], poor; H [...], V [...], promise; H [...], V [...], earth; H [...], W [...], sheep; H [...], V [...], other, also; H [...], F [...], fig; H [...], V [...], F [...], [...], there is no; H [...], V, F [...], more seldom F [...], with; [...], [...], witness; H [...], V [...], F5 [...], to save; H poss. articles (masc. sing. etc.) sing. 2.m. [...], 3m. [...], 3.f. [...], plur. 1. [...], 3. [...], etc., and V etc., respectively, [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], etc.; H [...], V [...], to say; H [...], F [...], sleep; H [...], V [...], F [...], man of; H [...], V [...], maker of; H [...], V [...], flesh; H [...], F [...], hear; H [...], V [...], righteous; H [...], F [...], joy; [...], F [...], similar; H (except in the third personal pronoun) [...], V [...], all; H [...], F [...], to preach; H [...], [...], to humiliate; H [...], V [...], revelation; H [...], F [...], foot; H [...], V [...], F5 [...], forgetting; H [...], V [...], life; H [...], F5 [...], betrothed; H [...], F [...], three; H [...], V [...], FS [...], first; [...], F [...], lamp; H [...], V [...], F[...], in; H [...], V [...], S [...], to guard; H [...], V [...], F [...], on; H [...], V [...], that; [...], V4 [...], F5 [...], in order that; H [...], F [...], arm; H [...], F [...], to hunt. On the other hand, [...] is in the relative particle (not preceded by the article as an antecedent) H [...] (but [...]), V [...] (pet-); H [...], V [...], because of; H [...], V [...], if; [...] (but [...]), V [...], F ([...])[...] face, presence; H [...], V [...], to sleep; [...], V [...], F [...], there is. On the almost total disappearance in H of the preposition “toward, for” etc., which is [...] in V (pronominal forms H sing. 1. [...], 2.m. [...], 3.m. [...], etc.; cf. V etc. [...], [...], [...], etc., and F [...], [...], [...], etc.), see below.

[...]/z/ (appears only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H does not have this [...]/z/ of V etc. and replaces it by c/s/, for example, H [...] (one instance only), S [...], to make music (with the kithara, etc.).

[...]: As has been seen above regarding tonic [...]/e/ or atonic [...], H greatly favors [...] (tonic or atonic). Here it has the maximum presence among the Coptic dialects and subdialects, 34 percent (Kasser, 1966, p. 115). H even tends to substitute [...] for [...] as a final atonic vowel; see below regarding i (or ei) for /i/ vowel or /j/ consonant.

[...] (or [...]) for /i/ vowel or /j/ consonant (except as regards the alternative [...] or [...], a problem too complex to go into here): H behaves very like V etc.; in particular, it has [...] as a final atonic vowel. In H, however, there exists a strong tendency toward the formation of a metadialect, which shows itself in the frequent replacement of final atonic [...] by a final atonic [...]. These [...] amount to 33 percent of all the atonic final letters, and among them may be noted a whole series of words with, in H, the final letter either always in [...] or in [...] more frequently than in [...] (these last cases are shown below in parentheses): [...], pap; [...], to know; [...], to carry; ([...], to do); [...], to hang, suspend; [...], Egypt; [...], to give birth; [...], genitive preposition; [...], to move; [...], to bend; ([...], man); [...], joy; [...], sufficiency; [...], field; [...], woman; [...], to look for; [...], word; [...], poor; [...], incense, perfume; [...], trouble; [...], book; ([...], enemy;) [[...], to find (twenty-three words, against thirty-nine words where the atonic ending is either always [...] or [...] more frequently than [...], these latter cases being six in number). Finally, the final atonic vowel disappears completely after /w/; see below under [...]/w/.

[...]/ks/ (occurs only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H sometimes keeps this letter, which, however, it tends to replace by [...], [...], or [...], as in H [...], B [...], glory; H [...], V [...], authority; H [...], V [...], flesh.

o/o/ (except for the o in the combination of graphemes [...] for /u/ or /w/; see below under [...]): H has [...] everywhere when, according to the rules of V adapted to the H system, one should find o/o/ (therefore, in fact, always in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): for example, H [...], V [...], angel; [...], [...], just.

[...]/y/ (occurs only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary; [...] after [...], [...] , or [...] is a special case of [...]/u/ or /w/, with loss of o, on which see below): H regularly replaces this [...]/y/ by [...]/e/: for example, [...], F [...], power; H [...], [...], wood.

o[...] (or [...] after [...], [...], or [...]; see above) for /u/ vowel or /w/ consonant: H uses it without any special peculiarity, apart from the frequent disappearance of the final atonic vowel after [...]: for example, H [...], V [...], F5 [...], others; H [...], V, F [...], thought; H [...], V, F [...], heavens; H [...], V, F [...], roads; [...], V, F [...], works.

[...]/ps/ (occurs only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H sometimes keeps this letter, which, however, it tends to replace by [...]/p(p)s/ (which could have ended up as [...]> [...]): for example, H [...] ([...] is clearly rarer), V [...], soul.

[...]/f/: H always replaces [...]/f/ by [...]/v/.

[...]/: See [...](?).

[...](?): While generally H has [...] and [...] where V also has them, there are certain cases that may give the impression that while in H [...] is the equivalent of [...], [...] has the value of some allophone of [...] (difficult to define) rather than /c/. One may here compare in H [...], to stumble, with [rap, obstacle, and [...], strong, with [...], to make strong. See also the surprising H [...], give birth, and [...], to insult, not to speak of [...], hand, where this time there can be no question of the assimilation of the final consonant to the initial consonant (cf. H [...], sparrow).

[...]/ti/: H everywhere writes [...]i/ti/ where V has [...]/ti/.

/’/ or aleph: It will be noted that H generally has graphic vowel gemination testifying to the presence of aleph /’/ as a cryptophoneme (even if this /’/ tends to disappear there as it also does in other Coptic idioms).

Several observations could still be made regarding the morphosyntactic and other idiosyncrasies of H, as can be noted in manuscript M 636, hand [...]. These idiosyncrasies have at yet been little studied to date. It must be mentioned above all that H systematically omits both the preposition [...], toward, in relation to, or for, and the numerous prepositions or particles [...], all of them as initial [...] (and [...]) and [...]. In relation to classical Coptic, the sentence in H from then on appears to be completely disarticulate and dismembered; for example, the infinitive absolute of a verb can no longer be distinguished from its prenominal infinitive. Other conditions might emerge through the falling away of the initial consonant of the “accusative” preposition in its pronominal form, which henceforth appears to be felt more or less as a secondary pronominal suffix, as in [...], my Savior, and [...], Thou wilt save me, alongside [...], Thou hast saved me.

In conclusion, there will be presented here the verbal prefixes attested to date in H. Except for special cases (conjunctive), the form cited here is only the third-person masculine singular, and its corresponding prenominal form (nom. = before nominal subject). The entire paradigm is not attested in all conjugations.

Unless specifically mentioned, the form is affirmative; neg. = negative. Every basic tense (abbreviated hereafter to “basic”) is followed (if attested) by its satellites, after “And”: circ. = circumstantial, rel. = relative, II = second tense; ant. = with pronominal antecedent. Forms between brackets ... .] are re-constituted from very similar forms; zero = no verhal prefix.

Bipartite Pattern
 
Neg. zero particle...[...]

Present (basic) [...], nom. zero. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [[...]?].

Future (basic) [...], nom. zero...[...]. And II [[...]], nom. [...]...[...].

Tripartite Pattern

Tenses with special negation (if not II).

Perfect (basic) [...], nom. [...], neg. [[...]], nom. [...]. And cir. (e)ab- (?), nom. [[...](?)]; rel. [...], nom. [[...]]; neg. with zero … [...].

Expectative (or completive) (basic = neg.) [...], nom. [...].

Consuetudinal (or aorist) (basic) [...], nom. [...]; neg. [...], nom. [[...]]; rel. neg. [[...]], [ant. [...]], nom. [[...]], [ant. [...]].

Futurum energicum (or third future) (basic) [[...]], ([...] with [...], in order that, antecedent), nom. [[...]] neg. [...], nom. [[...]].

Causative imperative (basic) [...], nom. [...]; neg. [[...]], nom. [[...]].

Tenses with neg. [[...]].

Conjunctive (basic) (sing. 1.; 2.m./f.; 3.m.; plur. 2.3.) [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], nom. [...]. And with [...] toward (= limitative), [...], nom. [...].

Temporal (basic) [...], nom. [...].

Conditional (basic) [...], nom. [...].

RODOLPHE KASSER

Description

Rating
Entry Title	Dialect H (or Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic)
Publication	The Coptic encyclopedia, volume 8
Entry Reference	CE:A76a-A79b
Creator	Kasser, Rodolophe
Contributors	Atiya, Aziz Suryal, 1898-1988 (editor-in-chief)
Subject	Coptic language Coptic language - Dialects Greek language Manuscripts Papyri Orthography and spelling Morphology Phonology Grammar Idioms
Description	[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic or Greek text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.] (CE:A76a-A79b) DIALECT H (OR HERMOPOLITAN OR ASHMUNINIC). Among the manuscripts of the famous Pierpont Morgan collection in New York is a papyrus, M 636, of the ninth (or eighth-ninth) century, which contains mainly what are called hermeneiai (Quecke, 1970, pp. 97-100). A hermeneia is a liturgical text consisting of a mosaic of biblical quotations, chiefly from the Psalms, selected in relation to one word thought to be central and of prime importance, and so grouped. Drescher (1958- 1960, p. 63) wrote: The Encyclopaedias in their articles ‘Concordance’ all have it that the first Biblical Concordance was made in the 13th century.... [F or the Psalms the Copt had rudimentary Concordances before this. Coptic liturgical manuscripts from Upper Egypt show that the principle of verbal concordance was much followed in the liturgical use of the Psalms. The Pierpont Morgan manuscript M. 574 (895 AD.) is entitled ‘The Book of the Holy Hermeniae.’ These Hermeniae are for the most part mere collections of versicles from the Psalms. Each Hermenia is based on a key-word—‘king,’ ‘rise,’ ‘light,’ ‘house,’ ‘eye,’ ‘just,’ etc.—and all the versicles in the Hermenia must contain this key-word. Common words have two or three Hermeniae. The word [...] (bless, praise) has three, the first with 22 versicles, as well as Incipit and Explicit, the second with 46, the third with 13—in all, some 86 versicles, each containing the word [...]. After the Hermeniae of this kind there follow in the manuscript what are called, ‘The Little Hermeniae of the Church’ but these seem rather to be for the most part short, continuous passages from the Psalms and they need not detain us. Quecke (1978, p. 215) said: Although unfortunately we know very little about the Coptic “Hermeneiae,” this designation still seems to be best suited as a brief and relatively clear indication of the kind of texts in question... The Copts collected quotations from the Psalter for particular purposes in the liturgy, with the same key-word occurring in each instance. And in any event there are instances where the description “Hermeneia” is connected with these quotations from the Psalter. So far we hardly have any reliable knowledge about the occasions when these Psalm quotations were used in the liturgy and about how they were used. Papyrus M 636 is written in three different hands, one of which, hand a, is distributed in several sections and uses (regularly or almost so) a completely original spelling system. If it is accepted that this orthographical system is an adequate witness to the existence of a corresponding phonological system, one is led to think of the language of these sections of M 636 as a special Coptic dialect or subdialect, probably a METADIALECT, since it clearly gives the impression of being a much-evolved and, indeed, bastard and degenerate form of the Coptic language. These symptoms of degeneration, combined with a certain negligence in the use of the orthographic system, have encouraged Coptic experts previously concerned with this text to regard its language as a FAYYUMIC of a very special and highly peripheral type, or again, as an odd mixture, intermediate between F and S: thus, in Crum (1939), of the thirty-four words of M 636, hand a, that are quoted, twenty-three are classified under F, six under S, and five under S. The language to which M 636, hand a, testifies is today conveniently called dialect H; it is also termed Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic, since the ancient Hermopolis is the al-Ashmunayn of modern Egypt, and according to Kahle (1954), in idiolectal S documents, most of the orthographic characteristics similar to those in H are mainly found in the region of Hermopolis. Apart from the Morgan manuscript, some other texts (quite as late) show a language close to that of H, although never as coherently and as regularly. Thus, phonological and other descriptions of H will be based, above all, on an examination of the orthography of M 636, hand a (cf. Kasser, 1966; 1975-1976; 1981, pp. 104-112). In listing the phonology of H, it will be appropriate to compare it as far as possible with that of dialect V (or South Fayyumic), a type of Fayyumic without lambdacism (particularly as its V5 variety has, like H generally, the graphic vowel gemination that testifies to the presence of /’/ ALEPH as a CRYPTOPHONEME). Recourse will be had to F, S, or, where necessary, other Coptic idioms when such a word is not attested in V or when this additional reference seems to be of some use. The order followed will be that of the series of phonemes of the alphabet most generally used in Coptic, that of S etc., which is also that of F5, V5, and almost all L, and which (except for aleph, which is graphically rendered by vowel gemination) is identical to the alphabet of M etc., which is also that of W, V4, and F4 (cf. ALPHABETS, COPTIC). Any Coptic alphabet, as is well known, conventionally begins with those phonemes that are rendered by Coptic letters of Greek origin; it continues with phonemes rendered by Coptic graphemes of demotic origin. Aleph or the cryptophoneme /’/, which was rendered by graphic vowel gemination, will be tackled at the very end. [...]/a/: H greatly favors this phoneme (where it has the maximum presence among the Coptic dialects and subdialects, 35 percent; Kasser, 1966, p. 115); see below regarding tonic e/e/ and atonic [...] in V etc. [...]: H does not seem to have this phoneme (which is usual in V and in the great majority of the (‘optic dialects and subdialects); the [...] of H is equivalent to /v/ rather than [...], since it also systematicallv replaces [...]/f/ of V etc.; see below regarding [...]/f/. [...]/g/ (appears only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H does not have this g/g/ of V etc., and it replaces it by k/k/, for instance, H [...], V [...], for. [...]/d/ (appears only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H does not have this [...]/d/ of V etc., and it replaces it by [...]/t/, for example, [...], righteous; [...] (in one instance only) V [...], justice. Tonic [...]/e/ (except the [...] of the combination of graphemes [...] for /i/ or /j/; see below under [...]): H always has [...] where, according to the rules of V adopted to the system of H, one ought to find tonic [...] /e/ (in fact, only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary; see Till, 1948- 1949, pp. 18-20), for example, [...], [...], relationship, race, kind. As regards (tonic) vowel [...]/e/ in V etc., it will be seen again that on this point H does not have exactly the same vocalization as V, F etc.; in H, there is [...]/a/ also when it is so in V etc. while o/o/ in S (for example, H, V, F etc. [...], occasion; H, V, F [...], to destroy), when it is [...]/a/ in S etc. in opposition to [...]/e/ (or [...]/e/ before [...]/j/) in V etc. (especially for various reasons in relation to its position; Vergote, 1973-1983, Vol. 1a, pp. 24-25; Kasser, 1982, pp. 61-62), for example, [...], [...], the negative particle; H [...], V [...], place; H [...], V [...], suffering; H [...], W [...], sign; H [...], V [...], (place) there; H [...], V [...], pity; H [...], V [...], the future auxiliary; [...], V [...], with; H [...], V [...], holy; H [...], V [...], use; H [...], W, V [...], F (V) [...], to talk; H [...], F [...], shade; H [...], F [...], slave; H [...], V [...], upper part or lower part. Atonic [...]: When V etc. has atonic [...], H also has [...] as a general rule but continues to retain [...] in the following restricted area: in the initial syllable consisting of [...] followed by a consonant or consisting of /w/ followed by [...], followed by a consonant. In the first of these instances, if the “close liaison” phenomenon is produced (Polotsky, 1949, pp. 29-30), particularly by the attachment of the definite article (not of the possessive article!) before the word, what would otherwise be initial e is so no longer and returns to the ordinary category, being vocalized [...] as elsewhere; thus [...] in [...], in thy presence, but [...] in [...], in presence of the Lord. It will also be noticed that H, even more than F5, finds it difficult to sustain the weight of two consecutive consonants within the one syllable and so separates them by inserting between them an atonic [...] (sometimes corresponding to atonic [...] in F5, not in V), except before [...], where in H the inserted vowel is then [...]; it thus divides the “heavy” syllable into two “lighter” syllables. Examples, which are particularly numerous, include H [...], V [...], angel; H [...], F [...], poor; H [...], V [...], promise; H [...], V [...], earth; H [...], W [...], sheep; H [...], V [...], other, also; H [...], F [...], fig; H [...], V [...], F [...], [...], there is no; H [...], V, F [...], more seldom F [...], with; [...], [...], witness; H [...], V [...], F5 [...], to save; H poss. articles (masc. sing. etc.) sing. 2.m. [...], 3m. [...], 3.f. [...], plur. 1. [...], 3. [...], etc., and V etc., respectively, [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], etc.; H [...], V [...], to say; H [...], F [...], sleep; H [...], V [...], F [...], man of; H [...], V [...], maker of; H [...], V [...], flesh; H [...], F [...], hear; H [...], V [...], righteous; H [...], F [...], joy; [...], F [...], similar; H (except in the third personal pronoun) [...], V [...], all; H [...], F [...], to preach; H [...], [...], to humiliate; H [...], V [...], revelation; H [...], F [...], foot; H [...], V [...], F5 [...], forgetting; H [...], V [...], life; H [...], F5 [...], betrothed; H [...], F [...], three; H [...], V [...], FS [...], first; [...], F [...], lamp; H [...], V [...], F[...], in; H [...], V [...], S [...], to guard; H [...], V [...], F [...], on; H [...], V [...], that; [...], V4 [...], F5 [...], in order that; H [...], F [...], arm; H [...], F [...], to hunt. On the other hand, [...] is in the relative particle (not preceded by the article as an antecedent) H [...] (but [...]), V [...] (pet-); H [...], V [...], because of; H [...], V [...], if; [...] (but [...]), V [...], F ([...])[...] face, presence; H [...], V [...], to sleep; [...], V [...], F [...], there is. On the almost total disappearance in H of the preposition “toward, for” etc., which is [...] in V (pronominal forms H sing. 1. [...], 2.m. [...], 3.m. [...], etc.; cf. V etc. [...], [...], [...], etc., and F [...], [...], [...], etc.), see below. [...]/z/ (appears only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H does not have this [...]/z/ of V etc. and replaces it by c/s/, for example, H [...] (one instance only), S [...], to make music (with the kithara, etc.). [...]: As has been seen above regarding tonic [...]/e/ or atonic [...], H greatly favors [...] (tonic or atonic). Here it has the maximum presence among the Coptic dialects and subdialects, 34 percent (Kasser, 1966, p. 115). H even tends to substitute [...] for [...] as a final atonic vowel; see below regarding i (or ei) for /i/ vowel or /j/ consonant. [...] (or [...]) for /i/ vowel or /j/ consonant (except as regards the alternative [...] or [...], a problem too complex to go into here): H behaves very like V etc.; in particular, it has [...] as a final atonic vowel. In H, however, there exists a strong tendency toward the formation of a metadialect, which shows itself in the frequent replacement of final atonic [...] by a final atonic [...]. These [...] amount to 33 percent of all the atonic final letters, and among them may be noted a whole series of words with, in H, the final letter either always in [...] or in [...] more frequently than in [...] (these last cases are shown below in parentheses): [...], pap; [...], to know; [...], to carry; ([...], to do); [...], to hang, suspend; [...], Egypt; [...], to give birth; [...], genitive preposition; [...], to move; [...], to bend; ([...], man); [...], joy; [...], sufficiency; [...], field; [...], woman; [...], to look for; [...], word; [...], poor; [...], incense, perfume; [...], trouble; [...], book; ([...], enemy;) [[...], to find (twenty-three words, against thirty-nine words where the atonic ending is either always [...] or [...] more frequently than [...], these latter cases being six in number). Finally, the final atonic vowel disappears completely after /w/; see below under [...]/w/. [...]/ks/ (occurs only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H sometimes keeps this letter, which, however, it tends to replace by [...], [...], or [...], as in H [...], B [...], glory; H [...], V [...], authority; H [...], V [...], flesh. o/o/ (except for the o in the combination of graphemes [...] for /u/ or /w/; see below under [...]): H has [...] everywhere when, according to the rules of V adapted to the H system, one should find o/o/ (therefore, in fact, always in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): for example, H [...], V [...], angel; [...], [...], just. [...]/y/ (occurs only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary; [...] after [...], [...] , or [...] is a special case of [...]/u/ or /w/, with loss of o, on which see below): H regularly replaces this [...]/y/ by [...]/e/: for example, [...], F [...], power; H [...], [...], wood. o[...] (or [...] after [...], [...], or [...]; see above) for /u/ vowel or /w/ consonant: H uses it without any special peculiarity, apart from the frequent disappearance of the final atonic vowel after [...]: for example, H [...], V [...], F5 [...], others; H [...], V, F [...], thought; H [...], V, F [...], heavens; H [...], V, F [...], roads; [...], V, F [...], works. [...]/ps/ (occurs only in the Copto-Greek vocabulary): H sometimes keeps this letter, which, however, it tends to replace by [...]/p(p)s/ (which could have ended up as [...]> [...]): for example, H [...] ([...] is clearly rarer), V [...], soul. [...]/f/: H always replaces [...]/f/ by [...]/v/. [...]/: See [...](?). [...](?): While generally H has [...] and [...] where V also has them, there are certain cases that may give the impression that while in H [...] is the equivalent of [...], [...] has the value of some allophone of [...] (difficult to define) rather than /c/. One may here compare in H [...], to stumble, with [rap, obstacle, and [...], strong, with [...], to make strong. See also the surprising H [...], give birth, and [...], to insult, not to speak of [...], hand, where this time there can be no question of the assimilation of the final consonant to the initial consonant (cf. H [...], sparrow). [...]/ti/: H everywhere writes [...]i/ti/ where V has [...]/ti/. /’/ or aleph: It will be noted that H generally has graphic vowel gemination testifying to the presence of aleph /’/ as a cryptophoneme (even if this /’/ tends to disappear there as it also does in other Coptic idioms). Several observations could still be made regarding the morphosyntactic and other idiosyncrasies of H, as can be noted in manuscript M 636, hand [...]. These idiosyncrasies have at yet been little studied to date. It must be mentioned above all that H systematically omits both the preposition [...], toward, in relation to, or for, and the numerous prepositions or particles [...], all of them as initial [...] (and [...]) and [...]. In relation to classical Coptic, the sentence in H from then on appears to be completely disarticulate and dismembered; for example, the infinitive absolute of a verb can no longer be distinguished from its prenominal infinitive. Other conditions might emerge through the falling away of the initial consonant of the “accusative” preposition in its pronominal form, which henceforth appears to be felt more or less as a secondary pronominal suffix, as in [...], my Savior, and [...], Thou wilt save me, alongside [...], Thou hast saved me. In conclusion, there will be presented here the verbal prefixes attested to date in H. Except for special cases (conjunctive), the form cited here is only the third-person masculine singular, and its corresponding prenominal form (nom. = before nominal subject). The entire paradigm is not attested in all conjugations. Unless specifically mentioned, the form is affirmative; neg. = negative. Every basic tense (abbreviated hereafter to “basic”) is followed (if attested) by its satellites, after “And”: circ. = circumstantial, rel. = relative, II = second tense; ant. = with pronominal antecedent. Forms between brackets ... .] are re-constituted from very similar forms; zero = no verhal prefix. Bipartite Pattern Neg. zero particle...[...] Present (basic) [...], nom. zero. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [[...]?]. Future (basic) [...], nom. zero...[...]. And II [[...]], nom. [...]...[...]. Tripartite Pattern Tenses with special negation (if not II). Perfect (basic) [...], nom. [...], neg. [[...]], nom. [...]. And cir. (e)ab- (?), nom. [[...](?)]; rel. [...], nom. [[...]]; neg. with zero … [...]. Expectative (or completive) (basic = neg.) [...], nom. [...]. Consuetudinal (or aorist) (basic) [...], nom. [...]; neg. [...], nom. [[...]]; rel. neg. [[...]], [ant. [...]], nom. [[...]], [ant. [...]]. Futurum energicum (or third future) (basic) [[...]], ([...] with [...], in order that, antecedent), nom. [[...]] neg. [...], nom. [[...]]. Causative imperative (basic) [...], nom. [...]; neg. [[...]], nom. [[...]]. Tenses with neg. [[...]]. Conjunctive (basic) (sing. 1.; 2.m./f.; 3.m.; plur. 2.3.) [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], nom. [...]. And with [...] toward (= limitative), [...], nom. [...]. Temporal (basic) [...], nom. [...]. Conditional (basic) [...], nom. [...]. RODOLPHE KASSER
Bibliography	BIBLIOGRAPHY Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford, 1939. Drescher, J. “The Earliest Biblical Concordances.” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 15 (1958-1960):63-67 Kahle, P. E. Bala’izah: Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt. Oxford and London, 1954. Kasser, R. “Dialectes, sous-dialectes et ‘dialecticules’ dans l’Egypte copte.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache and Altertamskande 92 (1966):106-115. ______ “A propos de quelques caractéristiques orthographiques du vocabulaire grec utilis�� dans les dialectes H et N.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 6-7 (1975-1976):285-94. ______. ��Prolégomènes à un essai de classification systématique des dialectes et subdialectes coptes selon les critères de la phonétique, III, Systèmes orthographiques et catégories dialectales.” Muséon 94 (1981):91-152. Polotsky, H. J. “Une Question d’orthographe bohaïrique.” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 12 (1949):25-35. Quecke, H. Untersuchungen zum koptischen Stundengebet. Louvain, 1970. Koptische ‘Hermeneiai’: Fragmente in Florenz.” Orientalia 47 (1978):215-19. _____ “Zwei Blätter aus koptischen Hermeneia-Typika in der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (P. Vindob. K 9725 und 9734).” In Festschrift zum 100-Jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.), pp. 194-206. Vienna, 1983. Till, W. C. “Betrachtungen zum Wortakzent im Koptischen.” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 13 (1948-1949):13-32. Vergote, J. Grammaire copte, Vol. la, Introduction, phoniétique et phonologie, morphologie synthématique (structure des sémantièmes), partie synchronique, Vol. 1b, Introduction, phonétique et phonologie, morphologie synthématique (structure des sémantèmes), partie diachronique, Vol. 2a, Morphologie syntagmatique, syntaxe, partie synchronique, Vol. 2b, Morphologie syntagmatique, partie diachronique. Louvain, 1973-1983.
Original Publisher	Macmillan
Digital Publisher	Claremont Graduate University. School of Religion
Date	1991
Language	eng
Collection	Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia - http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/col/cce
Rights	Copyright 1991 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Type	Text
Format	application/pdf
Object File Name	cce01923.pdf

Dialect H (or Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic)

Description

Tags

Comments