Fayyumic

View Description

View PDF & Text

Download

small (250x250 max)

medium (500x500 max)

large ( > 500x500)

Full Resolution

PDF
Text

Text Search...

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

(CE:A124b-A131a)

FAYYUMIC. The name “Fayyumic dialect” (F) is usually given to a typical variety of the Coptic language belonging with M, W, and V to the middle Coptic major group (see DIALECTS, GROUPING AND MAJOR GROUPS OF and MESOKEMIC). Contrary to many others, this dialectal variety appears to be located geographically with some certainty, in the region of the ancient oasis of the Fayyum (hence its name; cf. GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL). This terminology was inaugurated by Stern (1880), but only became established in the course of the first decades of the twentieth century. Before Stern, this idiom was readily described as BASHMURIC when it appeared in a “pure” state, while the preference was to designate it “Middle Egyptian” when its forms were less typical and could be considered the hybrid result of contamination by some neighboring dialect, above all SAHIDIC (S) (this is particularly frequent within F5, the chief subdialect of F, four-fifths of the whole). It was then supposed that Bashmuric was more especially the language of the central and western part of the Fayyum, while to Middle Egyptian was attributed perhaps the eastern fringe of the Fayyum and still more probably the portion of the Nile Valley to the east of the Fayyum (also to the northeast and southeast). After Stern, the term “Bashmuric” rapidly fell into disuse, but “Middle Egyptian” (designating from that time the whole of F) maintained itself for some time longer, until the beginning of the twentieth century; then it gave way to the present terminology.

The study of Fayyumic is unfortunately seriously complicated by the fact that its texts are published in the most widely dispersed places. In addition, as will be seen later and as was already remarked at the dawn of this century (Asmus, 1904), central F itself is manifold and multiform, just as much as the editions mentioned above, at least if one takes into account some of its secondary characteristics, so that modern research distinguishes in it several subdialects (which, if need be, may be subdivided in turn). There can be no question of entering into all these details here, and this article will confine itself to presenting the chief varieties of F: these are F4 (of limited attestation and the oldest, fourth-sixth [seventh?] century; principal texts published in Crum and Kenyon, 1900; Gaselee, 1909; some F46 fragments, among others, in Stern, 1885, pp. 30, 34, 35, 39, and F8, p. 42); and F5, habitually considered by the grammarians as Fayyumic par excellence (e.g., Till, 1930), a variety very widely attested (four-fifths of all F = F4 + F5) but the documents of which are relatively late (sixth-eighth [ninth?] century; editions are very scattered and numerous; only some appear in the bibliography below; for F56, see Müller, 1962). Anyone who wishes information on the subdivisions of F4 and F5 (F46; and FSS, F56, F58, respectively) or on the minuscule and very marginal F8 and F9, which will be mentioned only exceptionally below, will find some rudiments on the subject in Kasser (1981, pp. 101-102) and, above all, in Diebner and Kasser (1989).

It is appropriate to distinguish from “central” F (= F4 + F5) the following entities (which some persist in indiscriminately calling “Fayyumic”): the sub-dialect F7 (sometimes called “ancient Fayyumic,” as in Crum, 1939, p. vi, n. 3), which is clearly peripheral in relation to central F (edition of its sole witness, Diebner and Kasser, 1989) and, if not specifically protodialectal as a whole, at least somewhat archaic in a few of its peculiarities. Dialect V, or Fayyumic without lambdacism (sometimes also called “South Fayyumic”), is still more remote from F because it does not show lambdacism, the chief characteristic of F (important text published in Lefort, 1952, pp. 32-34; the longest witness of V, P. Mich. Inv. 3520, is still unpublished). Dialect W (or “crypto-Mesokemic with South Fayyumic phonology”) is without lambdacism, like V, andpresents close morphosyntactic affinities with M (edition of its only text, Husselman, 1962). Finally, DIALECT H (or Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic; its sole witness, P. Morgan M 636, is unpublished) is an entity more outside than inside the Fayyumic dialectal group, being at once a MESODIALECT (between V and S?) and a METADIALECT (a manifestation of the Coptic language typically evolved to the extreme). This advice will not appear useless to one who notes that several authors, still following Crum (1939), continue to describe indiscriminately as “Fayyumic” a vocabulary that it would be preferable to classify under the rubrics F7, V, W and H.

As for M (MESOKEMIC, or Middle Egyptian), the vocabulary of which was also formerly confused with that of F etc., but which saw its dialectal originality and identity recognized by Kahle (1954, pp. 220-27), no one today thinks any longer of making it Fayyumic (after the lexicographical publications of Kasser, 1964 and 1966, and, above all, the meticulous dialectal studies of Quecke in Orlandi, 1974, pp. 87-108, and Schenke, 1978 and 1981).

1. Phonology

In Fayyumic, as in other dialects of the Coptic language (a dead language and hence known today only from the texts), the majority of the characteristics perceptible appear at the level of phonology, which is expressed through orthography.

1.1 Consonants (Not Including Glides). The stock of the consonants in Fayyumic is that of the majority of the Coptic idioms (S with L and M; see ALPHABETS, COPTIC, Synoptic Table). In its autochthonous vocabulary, F thus does not have the /ç/ of P and i; the /x/ of P, i, A, and B; or the aspirated occlusives /kh/, /ph/, and /th/, and the aspirated affricate /[...]h/, all typical of B. It will be noted that some subdivisions of F (F56 in a majority of cases, F46 everywhere, as in H) replace [...] /f/ by a [...], which probably has the value of /v/ rather than /[...]/ (see several examples further on). Furthermore, F (with V but not M; no example in W) assimilates /s/ to /[...]/ before /[...]/, as in F, V [...], field, but M [...] (and S etc.); F, V [...] bitter (cf. B [...]) but M (and S etc.) [...] bitterness. F (contrary to V, W, M, with L4, L5, B) assimilates /s/ to /[...]/ before /[...]/, as in F [...], to speak (cf. S [...], A, L6, [...]), but V, W [...], M (and L4 L5) [...] (B [...]).

F as well as V, W, M, and H (and almost all the other Coptic idioms; see ALPHABETS, COPTIC) have in their alphabet at once [...] and [...] (B, B7 [...]); however, F7 has only [...] everywhere, even sometimes writing [...] where the rest of Fayyumic etc. writes [...] (for example, F, V, W, M, H [...], large, but F7 [...]; F, V, M [...], hand, but F7 [...] [and sometimes also [...] in V, it is true; then one will note the surprising [...]]; see Diebner and Kasser, 1989). However, the truly typical characteristic of F is its lambdacism: while in the autochthonous vocabulary of all the other Coptic idioms (including V, W, and H) the proportion of use of [...] /l/ and [...] /r/ is /l/ 30 percent and /r/ 70 percent, in F (with F7) it is /l/ 80 percent and /r/ 20 percent. This means that many words written with r in S, M, W, V etc. are written with [...] in F4, F5, F7, (and F8, F9) alone, as in S [...], M [...], W, V [...], man, but F4, F5, F7, [...] and F8 [...]; (cf. F9 [...], troubled, from F5 [...], M [...], S etc. [...], to trouble).

As regards the presence or absence of ALEPH (presence marked by vocalic gemination in the orthography; see GEMINATION, VOCALIC), F and the subdialects of its group are profoundly divided: F5, F56, F58, F46, with V5, H (and i, L etc., A, P, S) have aleph; F4, F55, F7, with V4, W(?) (and M, B etc., G) do not have it (see various examples further on).

1.2 Glides. The glides are the least consonantal of the consonants. Fayyumic has /j/ and /w/, as do all the Coptic dialects. In any position /j/ is written [...] in F (cf. Kasser, 1983a), as in [...], father; [...], way, road; [...], bread; [...], some; [...], to honor; [...], being. However, /w/ is always written [...] at the beginning, as in [...], to eat; but elsewhere orthographic procedures diverge, and now [...] will be written, now [...] (see Diebner and Kasser, 1989): F [...], glory; F [...] (more often than [...]), to produce; F [...], to know; F4, F5, F56 (more rarely F46, F5 [...]) [...], there; F [...], mother; F4 [[...], hands; F [...], each other; F [...], to think; F [...], brothers; F [...], kings.

1.3. Tonic Vowels (Not Including Sonants). As a general rule, when the tonic vowels are long, the orthography of F is no different from that of the other Coptic dialects (e.g., [...], man; [...], to rest; [...], to move; [...], being; an exception is F, F7, V, M [...], sun, but S, L, B [...] and A [...]). On the contrary, F is more clearly distinct in the orthography of the short tonic vowels, as outlined below.

Class o. Short normal when not final, e.g., [...], brother F, with F7, V, W, M (and L, A, but [...] S, B); before /’/ not final (in the dialect or subdialect that preserves it), e.g., [...] being F5, F56, F46, with V5 and H (without /‘/ [...] F4, with F7, V4, W, and M; but [...] L, S, [...] A, and without /’/ [...] B); [...], holy F5, F56 (without /’/ [...] F4, with F7 and V, M; but [...], H and L5, L6, S, [...] L4, A and without /’/ [...] B); before final /h/, e.g., [...], pain F with F7, V, and M (but [...] H and [...] L, A, S, B); before (potential) final /’/, e.g., [...], place F, with F7, V, W, and M (but [...], place of F, F7, [V], W, M; [...] H and L, A, S, B) before /(’)/ or or /’j/ [...], to rise (of a star), festival F5 ([...], M, without /’/ but with /j/ [...] F7, V, W; but [...] L, [...] A, [...]B, [...] S). As a final (esp. causative verbs), e.g., [...], destroy F with F7, V, W, and M, H (but [...] L, A, [...] S, B).

Class i. Short normal, e.g., het, silver F with F7, V, and M (and L, A, but hat S, B); before pronominal suffix /j/ (first-person sing.), e.g., n/@, to me F4(?), F5, F56, V, W(?) (with P, B, and n/(e)i L), but ne@ F46 with M (and A, and na@ H and S); all the other persons of this preposition with its suffixes, except the second- and third-person plural, being vocalized, however, in / / F5, /e/ F4, V, W, M, L, A, /a/ H, S, B: thus F5 (and F56) n/@, n/k, n/, n/f (n/b F56), n/c, n/n, n/ten, n/ou, F4 n/@, nek, ne, nef, nec, nen, neten, neu, F46 similarly (but very incomplete) ne@, nek, [...], neb, nec, [...], V, W(?) n/@ (M ne@), V, W, M nek, n/ (M alone), nef, nec, nen, n/ten, V, M neu (W nau), H na@, nak, [...], nab, nac, nan, [...], naou; likewise, F5 nem/=, with, F4 neme=, etc.; before /j/ followed by another consonant, most often /n/, e.g., m/@n, sign F, W, cf. m/ein P. m/@ni B (but meein M, me@ne L4, m (e)ine A, and maein H, L5, L6, S; a case apart is hl/@, upper part (or also “lower” except in A, P, B) F, F7, hr/@ V. W, M, L, A, P, B, hra@ H and S; before /h/, e.g., nehci F (with B, and nehce L, A, S; cf. n/hcc#i$ and #n/$hcci F7).

Class e. Short normal (including final), e.g., [...], daughter F5, [...] (or [...]?) F7, cf. [...] M (but [...] L5, L6, A, S, [...] L4, [...] B); [...], witness F, V, W, M (and [...] H, but [...] L, A, S, [...] B); before /h/, e.g., [...], full F5, F4, F46, F7, V4 (with B, and sometimes S), but [...] F56 (with H and M, L, A, S); [...], eternity F, F7, V, W (with M, S, B, but [...] H and [...] L, A, P).

1.4 Tonic Sonants. The sonants (/[...]/, /[...]/, /[...]/, /[...]/, /[...]/) are the least vocalic of the vowels. At the beginning, F has no tonic sonant, and it is replaced by its phonematic substitute, the corresponding sonorant (/[...]/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /r/), preceded by [...]; it is the same in V, partly also in F7; the case is not attested in W; this sonant is, however, characteristic of M (thus, F, V [...], to carry it; F7 [...] or [...], H [...], M [...]). Elsewhere it will be found that F5 (like F7 and H, B but differing from V, W, M and of course from L, A, S) has no tonic sonant. F4 shows a single case of [...], to serve (without inverse cases clearly belonging to F4), which leads one to think that on this point F4 occupies a position intermediate between F5 (without this sonant) and V, W (which have now the sonant, and now its substitute; thus, V [...]], hell; W [...] or [...], serve; W [...], new; V [...], to find; V [...] or [...] obscurity; W [...], grumble, murmur).

1.5 Atonic Vowels (Not Including Sonants). These vowels are evidently always short. In several categories of the atonic vowels, significant differences appear between F and F7 and between F and V, W, without mentioning H and M and the other Coptic idioms.

The case of the initial atonic vowel does not call for any particular commentary: e.g., F, F7, V; [...], child; F5 [...], hell, F7 [...] (i by assimilation?), V [...], H [...], M [...]; F, F7, V, W, M [...] lower part, ground, H [...] (always in close liaison [...]).

More instructive and interesting are certain cases of the vocalization of the atonic syllable when its vowel is neither initial nor final (this vocalization may occur by means of a sonant in place of a corresponding voiced sonorant preceded by a vowel, graphically most often e; see below); it may be remarked here that several of the atonic “syllables” in question are in fact “subsyllables” (i.e., syllables only in bradysyllabication; see SYLLABICATION).

One will notice below only the cases that manifest differences between F, F7, V, W, and M (manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew and of Acts, here always making use of the sonant; M of the Pauline letters has for its part some e followed by the sonorant; see Kasser, 1987; with regard to the characteristics of H, see DIALECT H).

After an open tonic syllable, in a closed atonic syllable with a sonorant as the final, F vocalizes with [...], F7 probably also (except for some cases where it uses [...]), except when this syllable follows tonic [...] and ends in [...] or [...] (F7 then vocalizes in o, e.g., [...], to hear, and [...], to kill). V, W, M make use of the sonant (e.g., V, W [...], M [...], M [...]; likewise, V [...], to go astray; it will be noted that F56 also sometimes uses [...], e.g., [...] and, likewise, [...], to summon).

After a closed tonic syllable, in a closed atonic syllable with a sonorant as the initial only, F, F7, V, and W vocalize in [...], while M has the sonant (thus, e.g., F, V, W [...], to kill him, and likewise, F7 [...], yoke).

After a closed tonic syllable, in a closed atonic syllable with a sonorant as the final, F and F7 vocalize in [...], while M, W(?), and V have the sonant (thus, e.g., F5 [...], to grumble, murmur, W [...] or [...], M [...]; F5 [...], to trouble, H [...], V, M [...], except for a M starter in Acts 9:22).

Before a tonic syllable, in a closed syllable with a sonorant as the final, F vocalizes in [...], except between [...] and [...], where F5 vocalizes in [...] (F4 is lacking); F7 vocalizes rather in [...] (it also has several [...]), except before [...] (but not specially after [...]), where it generally writes [...]; W and M (most often), and probably also V, have the sonant (thus, e.g., F5 [...], blind, W, M [...]; F [...], free, M [...] (sic); F5 [...], rich, F7 [...] or [...], V [...]; F5 [...], cattle, F7 [...] (sic), M plural [...]; F5 [...], clothing, F7 [...], M [...]).

Generally speaking, the final atonic vowel is [...] in F as it is in F7, V, W, and H (and finally in B), while it is [...] in M (as in L, A, S). This rule however knows a significant systematic exception in Fayyumic, with or without lambdacism. When this final corresponds to an ancient Egyptian ‘ (‘AYIN), we find final [...] in F, V, W (and semievolved and logically secondary F7), final [...] in F7 (primitive), as in DIALECT P; B then omits any vowel. It may, however, happen that we find, above all in F5 (where this is among others the chief characteristic of the subdialect F58), more rarely in more evolved F7 and evolved F4, V, forms of this category which have levelled their atonic final in i (thus e.g. from m [...] F5 [...], crowd, F4, F7, (semievolved) W [...], F7 [...] (like P [...]), and finally B [...]; from [...] F5 [...], ear, F4, V [...], F7 (primitive) [...] (compare P [...]), finally B [...]).

1.6 Atonic Sonants. In an initial position, if they are systematically absent from F5, the atonic sonants appear in F4 as in F7, and in V, W as in M (and in S, L, A, even B). But if, in the area of Middle Egypt, they appear immutable in V, W, they may still be replaced by their substitute, the corresponding sonorant preceded by a vowel ([...] everywhere except in F7, which prefers here [...]), when the phenomenon of “close liaison” (Polotsky, 1949, pp. 29-30) is produced. This takes place in F4 (as in F7, M, also in a certain fashion in H) only when the word, beginning with the sonant is preceded by the definite article ([...] etc.), which is so closely linked with what follows that the sonant is no longer considered as an initial, and the corresponding sonorant preceded by [...] (etc.) is substituted for it (in B the possibilities for “close liaison” are much more numerous). One will then have F4, F7, M [...], in his presence (and immutable, F5 [...], on the one hand, V [W probably the same] [...], on the other); in close liaison one finds, in contrast, F4, F5, M [...], in presence of, F7 [...]… ([...]) (and immutable, F5 [...], on one hand, V [...]… [...], on the other; and similarly W [...], the tomb, John 11:38, according to what the manuscript itself shows).

As regards the atonic sonants within a word or as finals, see what was said above with reference to the atonic vowels in these positions: such sonants are systematically lacking in F4, as in F5 and F7 (and also in H and B), but they appear regularly in M, very often in W also, and in V finally more frequently than their substitute ([...] followed by the corresponding sonorant).

2. The Conjugation System

Except in special cases (conjunctive, etc.), the form cited here is the third-person singular masculine only, as well as its corresponding prenominal form (nom. = before nominal subject). The complete paradigm is not attested in all conjugations. Only the most specific form(s) for each dialect (F, V, W, H) or subdialect (F4, F46, F5, F56, F7) are given here.

Except where specially mentioned, the form is affirmative (neg. = negative). Every basic tense (hereafter abbreviated “basic”) is followed (if attested) by its satellites, after “And”: circ. = circumstantial, rel. = relative, pret. = preterite, II = second tense; ant. = with pronominal antecedent. Forms between brackets [...] are reconstructed from very near forms; zero = no verbal prefix. Except where specially mentioned, F56 (not F46) is included in F5; F4 and F5 together are F.

2.1 BIpartite Pattern. Neg. [...]... [...] F, F46, F7, V, W, zero particle ...[...] H.

2.1.1. Present (basic) [...] F, F7, V, W, [...] [F46] H, nom. zero. And circ. [...] (neg. [...]... [...] etc.) F, F7, V, W, [...] F46, H, nom. [...] F, F46, F7, [...] [V], W, [...] H; rel. [...] F5, [F56], F7, [...] F4, (F7), [V], W, nom. [...] F, [...] F7, V, [...] W; pret. (= imperfect) [...] F, F7, [V], W, [[...] F46], nom. [...] F, [...] V, W; II [...] F, F7, V, W, [[...]], nom. [...] F, F7; [...] [V], W.

2.1.2. Future (basic) [...] F, F7, V, W [[...] F46], [...] H, nom. zero... [...] F, F46, F7, V, W, zero... [...] H. And circ. [...] (neg. [...]... [...] etc.) F, [F7, V], W, nom. [...]...[...] F, rel. [...] (neg. [...]... [...] etc.) F, [...] [F4], F7, [V, W], nom. [...]... [...] F, [...]... [...] F7, [V], (W), [...]... [...] (W); pret. [...] F4, nom. [...]... [...] W; II [...] F, [F7], V, (W), nom. [[...]... [...] F, F7], [...]... [...] V, [W], [...]... [...] H.

2.2 Tripartite Pattern.

2.2.1. Tenses with special negations (if not II):

2.2.1.1. Perfect (basic) ).[...] F, F7, V, [...] F46, H, [...] (V), W, nom. [...] F, F46, F7, V, [...] (V), [W]; neg. [...] F, F7, V, [...] F46, [[...] H], nom. [...] F, [F46], F7, [V], W [[...] H]. And circ. [...] F, F7, [(V)], [...] [F46] H, [...] [(V]), W, nom. [...] F, [F46, F7, (V)], [[...] (V), W]; neg. [...] F, [F7, V, W], nom. [[...] F, F7, V, W]; rel. [...] (ant. [...]) F5, F7, (V), [...] F46, [...] (ant.[...]) H, [...] F4, (F7), (V), [...] W; nom. [...] (ant. [...]) F5, [...] F7, [V], [...] (ant. [...]) H, [...] F4, [(V)], [...] W; neg. [...] F5, F7, nom. [[...] F5, F7]; II [...] F5, [[...] F4? [...] F4?], [...] F5, [V?], [...] H ([...] F7?), [...] W; nom. [...] F5, ([...] F4?), [...] F4, (V?), [[...] H], ([...] F7?), [[...] W]; neg. with [...]... [...] F, F46, F7, V, W, zero... [...] H.

2.2.1.2. Expectative (or completive) (basic = neg.) [...] F5, V, [W], [...] H, [[...] F7], nom. [...] F5, [V, W]. [...] H, pa F7.

2.2.1.3. Consuetudinal or aorist (basic) [...] F, F7, V, [W], [...] F46, H, nom. [...] F, [F46], F7, [...] V, W, [...] H; neg. [...] (F4), [F5], F7, V, W, [...] (F4), (F7?), [[...] F46], [...] H, nom. [...] (F4), F5, [F46, F7], [...] [V], W, [[...] H]. And circ. [...] [F], F7, [V, W], [nom. [...] etc.]; rel. [...] F, ([...] F5? V?), [...] (F5), F7, [[...]] (ant. [...]) H, [[...] F], [([...] F5? V?)], [...] (F5), F7, [[...] V?, [...] H]; neg. [...] F5, F7, ([ant. [...]]), [nom. [...], etc.]; pret. [[...] F5], nom. [...] F5; II [[...] F5, nom. [...] F5].

2.2.1.4. Futurum energicum or third future (basic) efe- F, F7, [V], W, ebe- F46, [eb/-] (j//b/- with j/, in order that, ant.) H, nom. ele- F, [F46], F7, [[...] V, W, [...] H]; neg. [...] F, (F7), V, [W], [...] F7, [...] H, nom. [...] F, (F7), [V], (W?).

2.2.1.5. Causative imperative (basic) [...] F, F7, [[...] F46], [...] V, W, [...] H, nom. [...] F, [F46, F7], [...] V, W, [...] H; neg. [...] F5, [...] or [...] F7], [[...] F46], [...] V, [W?], [([...] F7)], [[...] H], nom. [...] F5, [[...] F4], [...] or [...] F7, [...] V, [W?], [[...] H].

2.2.2. Tenses with neg. stem [...] or [...] V, W, [...] or [...] F7:

2.2.2.1. Future conjunctive (basic) [[...]] or [...] F5, [[...] F4], nom. [...] [or [...]] F5, [[...] F4].

2.2.2.2. Conjunctive (basic) (sing. 1., 2. masc., 3. masc., fem., p1. 1., 2., 3.) [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...] F, F7, V, W, [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...] F46, [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], ([...]?), [...] H, nom. [...] F, F7, V, W, [...] F46, [[...] H]. And with [...], toward (= limitative) [...] F, [F7], V, [W], [...] H, nom. [...] F, F7, [V, W], [...] H.

2.2.2.3. Temporal (basic) [...] F5, [F7?], [...] [V?] W, [...] H, [...] F4, [...] (F5?), [[...] (W)], nom. [...] F5, [F7?], [...] [V?], W, [...] H, [...] F4, [...] F5 [...] W

2.2.2.4. Conditional (basic) [...] [F4, (F5) with neg., F7, [V. W] with neg.], [...] F4, [(F56)], (F7), (V), [W], [...] (F7), (V), [...] F5, [...] H, nom. [...] [F4, (F5) with neg.], F7, [(V) with neg.], W with neg., [...] [F4], (F56), [...] V, [...] W, [...] (F7), [...] F5, [...] H.

3. Vocabulary

The lexical stock of F4, F5, F7, V, and W (not to speak of H) presents a certain number of units not found elsewhere in Coptic (or only in a single idiom, or only in two, etc.). They cannot all be presented here (cf. Crum, 1939, and Westendorf, 1977), and only some examples will be listed.

F5, F46, F7 [...], and, to be compared with B4, B74, G [...] (and B [...]), etc., L6 [...], L4 [...], [...] (Kasser 1983b). F7 [...] (pl. [...]) viper, serpent, cf. [...] B (the other Coptic dialects prefer [...], a word that F7 also knows).

[...], servant, once in F5, a word current in B (which does not have [...], a word current, with [...], in F5); [...] is absent from the other Coptic dialects. F7 [...], bare, repulse, cf. S [...], [...] = etc.

F [...], except, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic. Note F5, S [...], branch (?), Isaiah 34:4.

F5 [...], roaring, clamor, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic (Epistle of Jeremiah 31).

F [...], something, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic, but may be compared with B [...], to bite, a mouthful; on the other hand, one can only make the same comparison for F, F7, V [...], something (cf. lapt once or twice in F7) if one supposes [...] derived graphically from [...], an explanation that remains doubtful ([...] confused with the ancient [...]; see ALPHABETS, COPTIC).

F5 [...], F4, V [...], new, has its only correspondent in [...], which appears once only in S (Kahle, 1954, p. 701, 11), if the etymology sometimes suggested (e.g., Cerny 1976, p. 79) from S, B [...], island is set aside (Vycichl, 1983, pp. 108-109). The parallel with M [...] (Husselman, 1965, p. 85) remains very doubtful. F5 [...], winnowing fan, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic (Is. 30:24). F [...], vengeance, appears also in B, but not elsewhere.

F7 [...], honeycomb, cf. B [...] (a rare word). W [...], nothing, cf. M [...]. [...], [...], against, slow. F7 [...], strike with amazement, cf. S [...] etc.

F7 [...], awaken, unknown elsewhere in Coptic (Sg. 2:7 and 8:5). F7 [...], chiseled, cf. B [...] with the same significance (in truth, rather remote from those of S etc. [...] etc., draw, heap up, etc.). F7 [...], dream(er) (Eccl. 5:2), is probably to be resolved into [...], cf. F5 [...], S [...], dream, [...] cf. S etc. [...] etc. B [...], Crum, 1939, p. 263b,3; 268a,15). Vulgar F5 [...], avenger, F46 [...], cf. S [...].

F5 [...], sprinkle (?), unknown elsewhere in Coptic F5 [...], to fear, cf. S [...]. F7 [...], tool, utensil, weapon, etc., Eccl. 9:18, cf. S [...], B [...] etc., is a rare word.

F5 [...], impulse, force (?), cf. M [...], A [...] (Kasser, 1979). F7 [...] to aid, V [...], cf. M [...]. W [...], haste, cf. M [...].

F5 [...] in [...] etc., against, cf. M and S [...] etc., alongside [...] etc. in S and other Coptic idioms (including F7).

[...], curl (of hair), cf. S [...]. V5 [...], price, cf. S [...]. F5, F7 [...], thicket, copse, cf. eventually S also? (Crum, 1939, 595a). F7 [...], whisper, whistle (?), Eccl. 2:15-16, is probably found nowhere else in Coptic and could be onomatopoeia.

F5 [...], here, behold, cf. M [...] and perhaps also F [...], F5 etc. [...], darkness, cf. B [...] etc. F4, F7 [...]], descendants, children, Lam. 4:10, V [...]], 1 Jn. 3:7, 18, cf. B [...]]. F5 [...], deceive, cf. S [...].

F7 [...], shield, buckler, cf. S [...] F5 [...], base, without value, cf. S [...], e.g., 2 Cor. 13:5-6.

F5 [...], purple, F7 [...], appears nowhere else in Coptic. F5 [[...], pitcher, H [...], cf. S [...] etc. F5, V4 [...], foot, F p1. [...], F7 [...], cf. B [...], p1 [...].

One may finally recall here various lexical or morphological peculiarities that make W (as distinct from V) very close to M: the first perfect prefix (nom., etc.) W, M [...] (rare in V) in opposition to V, F [...], etc.; W, M [...], nothing; only M [...], to do that, or W [...] in opposition to V, F, where there is a choice between [...] and [...]; [...], to go, so almost always in W, M, while V, like F, writes simply [...] (without the “dative” preposition); in W and M the Copto-Greek verbs are not preceded by the auxiliary [...], etc., and do not have the Greek final [...], which sets them against those of V or above all F, where one may observe rather the contrary.

4. Grammar

The Fayyumic subdialects are either too poorly attested or attested in too irregular a fashion (this is especially the case with F5) for one to be able to establish with any ease or precision the syntax characteristic of each of them or even what might be more modestly and vaguely considered the “Fayyumic syntax” in general. At least, investigations in this area have not as yet been sufficiently advanced for a status quaestionis to be given here (what can be found in Till, 1930 and 1961, remains very elementary and not distinctive).

RODOLPHE KASSER

Description

Rating
Entry Title	Fayyumic
Publication	The Coptic encyclopedia, volume 8
Entry Reference	CE:A124b-A131a
Creator	Kasser, Rodolophe
Contributors	Atiya, Aziz Suryal, 1898-1988 (editor-in-chief)
Subject	Coptic language - Fayyumic dialect Coptic language Coptic language--Dialects Coptic literature Grammar Morphology Phonology Orthography and spelling Oases Coptic language - Bohairic dialect Coptic language - Sahidic dialect Manuscripts Fayyūm (Egypt) Lexicography
Description	[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.] (CE:A124b-A131a) FAYYUMIC. The name “Fayyumic dialect” (F) is usually given to a typical variety of the Coptic language belonging with M, W, and V to the middle Coptic major group (see DIALECTS, GROUPING AND MAJOR GROUPS OF and MESOKEMIC). Contrary to many others, this dialectal variety appears to be located geographically with some certainty, in the region of the ancient oasis of the Fayyum (hence its name; cf. GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL). This terminology was inaugurated by Stern (1880), but only became established in the course of the first decades of the twentieth century. Before Stern, this idiom was readily described as BASHMURIC when it appeared in a “pure” state, while the preference was to designate it “Middle Egyptian” when its forms were less typical and could be considered the hybrid result of contamination by some neighboring dialect, above all SAHIDIC (S) (this is particularly frequent within F5, the chief subdialect of F, four-fifths of the whole). It was then supposed that Bashmuric was more especially the language of the central and western part of the Fayyum, while to Middle Egyptian was attributed perhaps the eastern fringe of the Fayyum and still more probably the portion of the Nile Valley to the east of the Fayyum (also to the northeast and southeast). After Stern, the term “Bashmuric” rapidly fell into disuse, but “Middle Egyptian” (designating from that time the whole of F) maintained itself for some time longer, until the beginning of the twentieth century; then it gave way to the present terminology. The study of Fayyumic is unfortunately seriously complicated by the fact that its texts are published in the most widely dispersed places. In addition, as will be seen later and as was already remarked at the dawn of this century (Asmus, 1904), central F itself is manifold and multiform, just as much as the editions mentioned above, at least if one takes into account some of its secondary characteristics, so that modern research distinguishes in it several subdialects (which, if need be, may be subdivided in turn). There can be no question of entering into all these details here, and this article will confine itself to presenting the chief varieties of F: these are F4 (of limited attestation and the oldest, fourth-sixth [seventh?] century; principal texts published in Crum and Kenyon, 1900; Gaselee, 1909; some F46 fragments, among others, in Stern, 1885, pp. 30, 34, 35, 39, and F8, p. 42); and F5, habitually considered by the grammarians as Fayyumic par excellence (e.g., Till, 1930), a variety very widely attested (four-fifths of all F = F4 + F5) but the documents of which are relatively late (sixth-eighth [ninth?] century; editions are very scattered and numerous; only some appear in the bibliography below; for F56, see Müller, 1962). Anyone who wishes information on the subdivisions of F4 and F5 (F46; and FSS, F56, F58, respectively) or on the minuscule and very marginal F8 and F9, which will be mentioned only exceptionally below, will find some rudiments on the subject in Kasser (1981, pp. 101-102) and, above all, in Diebner and Kasser (1989). It is appropriate to distinguish from “central” F (= F4 + F5) the following entities (which some persist in indiscriminately calling “Fayyumic”): the sub-dialect F7 (sometimes called “ancient Fayyumic,” as in Crum, 1939, p. vi, n. 3), which is clearly peripheral in relation to central F (edition of its sole witness, Diebner and Kasser, 1989) and, if not specifically protodialectal as a whole, at least somewhat archaic in a few of its peculiarities. Dialect V, or Fayyumic without lambdacism (sometimes also called “South Fayyumic”), is still more remote from F because it does not show lambdacism, the chief characteristic of F (important text published in Lefort, 1952, pp. 32-34; the longest witness of V, P. Mich. Inv. 3520, is still unpublished). Dialect W (or “crypto-Mesokemic with South Fayyumic phonology”) is without lambdacism, like V, andpresents close morphosyntactic affinities with M (edition of its only text, Husselman, 1962). Finally, DIALECT H (or Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic; its sole witness, P. Morgan M 636, is unpublished) is an entity more outside than inside the Fayyumic dialectal group, being at once a MESODIALECT (between V and S?) and a METADIALECT (a manifestation of the Coptic language typically evolved to the extreme). This advice will not appear useless to one who notes that several authors, still following Crum (1939), continue to describe indiscriminately as “Fayyumic” a vocabulary that it would be preferable to classify under the rubrics F7, V, W and H. As for M (MESOKEMIC, or Middle Egyptian), the vocabulary of which was also formerly confused with that of F etc., but which saw its dialectal originality and identity recognized by Kahle (1954, pp. 220-27), no one today thinks any longer of making it Fayyumic (after the lexicographical publications of Kasser, 1964 and 1966, and, above all, the meticulous dialectal studies of Quecke in Orlandi, 1974, pp. 87-108, and Schenke, 1978 and 1981). 1. Phonology In Fayyumic, as in other dialects of the Coptic language (a dead language and hence known today only from the texts), the majority of the characteristics perceptible appear at the level of phonology, which is expressed through orthography. 1.1 Consonants (Not Including Glides). The stock of the consonants in Fayyumic is that of the majority of the Coptic idioms (S with L and M; see ALPHABETS, COPTIC, Synoptic Table). In its autochthonous vocabulary, F thus does not have the /ç/ of P and i; the /x/ of P, i, A, and B; or the aspirated occlusives /kh/, /ph/, and /th/, and the aspirated affricate /[...]h/, all typical of B. It will be noted that some subdivisions of F (F56 in a majority of cases, F46 everywhere, as in H) replace [...] /f/ by a [...], which probably has the value of /v/ rather than /[...]/ (see several examples further on). Furthermore, F (with V but not M; no example in W) assimilates /s/ to /[...]/ before /[...]/, as in F, V [...], field, but M [...] (and S etc.); F, V [...] bitter (cf. B [...]) but M (and S etc.) [...] bitterness. F (contrary to V, W, M, with L4, L5, B) assimilates /s/ to /[...]/ before /[...]/, as in F [...], to speak (cf. S [...], A, L6, [...]), but V, W [...], M (and L4 L5) [...] (B [...]). F as well as V, W, M, and H (and almost all the other Coptic idioms; see ALPHABETS, COPTIC) have in their alphabet at once [...] and [...] (B, B7 [...]); however, F7 has only [...] everywhere, even sometimes writing [...] where the rest of Fayyumic etc. writes [...] (for example, F, V, W, M, H [...], large, but F7 [...]; F, V, M [...], hand, but F7 [...] [and sometimes also [...] in V, it is true; then one will note the surprising [...]]; see Diebner and Kasser, 1989). However, the truly typical characteristic of F is its lambdacism: while in the autochthonous vocabulary of all the other Coptic idioms (including V, W, and H) the proportion of use of [...] /l/ and [...] /r/ is /l/ 30 percent and /r/ 70 percent, in F (with F7) it is /l/ 80 percent and /r/ 20 percent. This means that many words written with r in S, M, W, V etc. are written with [...] in F4, F5, F7, (and F8, F9) alone, as in S [...], M [...], W, V [...], man, but F4, F5, F7, [...] and F8 [...]; (cf. F9 [...], troubled, from F5 [...], M [...], S etc. [...], to trouble). As regards the presence or absence of ALEPH (presence marked by vocalic gemination in the orthography; see GEMINATION, VOCALIC), F and the subdialects of its group are profoundly divided: F5, F56, F58, F46, with V5, H (and i, L etc., A, P, S) have aleph; F4, F55, F7, with V4, W(?) (and M, B etc., G) do not have it (see various examples further on). 1.2 Glides. The glides are the least consonantal of the consonants. Fayyumic has /j/ and /w/, as do all the Coptic dialects. In any position /j/ is written [...] in F (cf. Kasser, 1983a), as in [...], father; [...], way, road; [...], bread; [...], some; [...], to honor; [...], being. However, /w/ is always written [...] at the beginning, as in [...], to eat; but elsewhere orthographic procedures diverge, and now [...] will be written, now [...] (see Diebner and Kasser, 1989): F [...], glory; F [...] (more often than [...]), to produce; F [...], to know; F4, F5, F56 (more rarely F46, F5 [...]) [...], there; F [...], mother; F4 [[...], hands; F [...], each other; F [...], to think; F [...], brothers; F [...], kings. 1.3. Tonic Vowels (Not Including Sonants). As a general rule, when the tonic vowels are long, the orthography of F is no different from that of the other Coptic dialects (e.g., [...], man; [...], to rest; [...], to move; [...], being; an exception is F, F7, V, M [...], sun, but S, L, B [...] and A [...]). On the contrary, F is more clearly distinct in the orthography of the short tonic vowels, as outlined below. Class o. Short normal when not final, e.g., [...], brother F, with F7, V, W, M (and L, A, but [...] S, B); before /’/ not final (in the dialect or subdialect that preserves it), e.g., [...] being F5, F56, F46, with V5 and H (without /‘/ [...] F4, with F7, V4, W, and M; but [...] L, S, [...] A, and without /’/ [...] B); [...], holy F5, F56 (without /’/ [...] F4, with F7 and V, M; but [...], H and L5, L6, S, [...] L4, A and without /’/ [...] B); before final /h/, e.g., [...], pain F with F7, V, and M (but [...] H and [...] L, A, S, B); before (potential) final /’/, e.g., [...], place F, with F7, V, W, and M (but [...], place of F, F7, [V], W, M; [...] H and L, A, S, B) before /(’)/ or or /’j/ [...], to rise (of a star), festival F5 ([...], M, without /’/ but with /j/ [...] F7, V, W; but [...] L, [...] A, [...]B, [...] S). As a final (esp. causative verbs), e.g., [...], destroy F with F7, V, W, and M, H (but [...] L, A, [...] S, B). Class i. Short normal, e.g., het, silver F with F7, V, and M (and L, A, but hat S, B); before pronominal suffix /j/ (first-person sing.), e.g., n/@, to me F4(?), F5, F56, V, W(?) (with P, B, and n/(e)i L), but ne@ F46 with M (and A, and na@ H and S); all the other persons of this preposition with its suffixes, except the second- and third-person plural, being vocalized, however, in / / F5, /e/ F4, V, W, M, L, A, /a/ H, S, B: thus F5 (and F56) n/@, n/k, n/, n/f (n/b F56), n/c, n/n, n/ten, n/ou, F4 n/@, nek, ne, nef, nec, nen, neten, neu, F46 similarly (but very incomplete) ne@, nek, [...], neb, nec, [...], V, W(?) n/@ (M ne@), V, W, M nek, n/ (M alone), nef, nec, nen, n/ten, V, M neu (W nau), H na@, nak, [...], nab, nac, nan, [...], naou; likewise, F5 nem/=, with, F4 neme=, etc.; before /j/ followed by another consonant, most often /n/, e.g., m/@n, sign F, W, cf. m/ein P. m/@ni B (but meein M, me@ne L4, m (e)ine A, and maein H, L5, L6, S; a case apart is hl/@, upper part (or also “lower” except in A, P, B) F, F7, hr/@ V. W, M, L, A, P, B, hra@ H and S; before /h/, e.g., nehci F (with B, and nehce L, A, S; cf. n/hcc#i$ and #n/$hcci F7). Class e. Short normal (including final), e.g., [...], daughter F5, [...] (or [...]?) F7, cf. [...] M (but [...] L5, L6, A, S, [...] L4, [...] B); [...], witness F, V, W, M (and [...] H, but [...] L, A, S, [...] B); before /h/, e.g., [...], full F5, F4, F46, F7, V4 (with B, and sometimes S), but [...] F56 (with H and M, L, A, S); [...], eternity F, F7, V, W (with M, S, B, but [...] H and [...] L, A, P). 1.4 Tonic Sonants. The sonants (/[...]/, /[...]/, /[...]/, /[...]/, /[...]/) are the least vocalic of the vowels. At the beginning, F has no tonic sonant, and it is replaced by its phonematic substitute, the corresponding sonorant (/[...]/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /r/), preceded by [...]; it is the same in V, partly also in F7; the case is not attested in W; this sonant is, however, characteristic of M (thus, F, V [...], to carry it; F7 [...] or [...], H [...], M [...]). Elsewhere it will be found that F5 (like F7 and H, B but differing from V, W, M and of course from L, A, S) has no tonic sonant. F4 shows a single case of [...], to serve (without inverse cases clearly belonging to F4), which leads one to think that on this point F4 occupies a position intermediate between F5 (without this sonant) and V, W (which have now the sonant, and now its substitute; thus, V [...]], hell; W [...] or [...], serve; W [...], new; V [...], to find; V [...] or [...] obscurity; W [...], grumble, murmur). 1.5 Atonic Vowels (Not Including Sonants). These vowels are evidently always short. In several categories of the atonic vowels, significant differences appear between F and F7 and between F and V, W, without mentioning H and M and the other Coptic idioms. The case of the initial atonic vowel does not call for any particular commentary: e.g., F, F7, V; [...], child; F5 [...], hell, F7 [...] (i by assimilation?), V [...], H [...], M [...]; F, F7, V, W, M [...] lower part, ground, H [...] (always in close liaison [...]). More instructive and interesting are certain cases of the vocalization of the atonic syllable when its vowel is neither initial nor final (this vocalization may occur by means of a sonant in place of a corresponding voiced sonorant preceded by a vowel, graphically most often e; see below); it may be remarked here that several of the atonic “syllables” in question are in fact “subsyllables” (i.e., syllables only in bradysyllabication; see SYLLABICATION). One will notice below only the cases that manifest differences between F, F7, V, W, and M (manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew and of Acts, here always making use of the sonant; M of the Pauline letters has for its part some e followed by the sonorant; see Kasser, 1987; with regard to the characteristics of H, see DIALECT H). After an open tonic syllable, in a closed atonic syllable with a sonorant as the final, F vocalizes with [...], F7 probably also (except for some cases where it uses [...]), except when this syllable follows tonic [...] and ends in [...] or [...] (F7 then vocalizes in o, e.g., [...], to hear, and [...], to kill). V, W, M make use of the sonant (e.g., V, W [...], M [...], M [...]; likewise, V [...], to go astray; it will be noted that F56 also sometimes uses [...], e.g., [...] and, likewise, [...], to summon). After a closed tonic syllable, in a closed atonic syllable with a sonorant as the initial only, F, F7, V, and W vocalize in [...], while M has the sonant (thus, e.g., F, V, W [...], to kill him, and likewise, F7 [...], yoke). After a closed tonic syllable, in a closed atonic syllable with a sonorant as the final, F and F7 vocalize in [...], while M, W(?), and V have the sonant (thus, e.g., F5 [...], to grumble, murmur, W [...] or [...], M [...]; F5 [...], to trouble, H [...], V, M [...], except for a M starter in Acts 9:22). Before a tonic syllable, in a closed syllable with a sonorant as the final, F vocalizes in [...], except between [...] and [...], where F5 vocalizes in [...] (F4 is lacking); F7 vocalizes rather in [...] (it also has several [...]), except before [...] (but not specially after [...]), where it generally writes [...]; W and M (most often), and probably also V, have the sonant (thus, e.g., F5 [...], blind, W, M [...]; F [...], free, M [...] (sic); F5 [...], rich, F7 [...] or [...], V [...]; F5 [...], cattle, F7 [...] (sic), M plural [...]; F5 [...], clothing, F7 [...], M [...]). Generally speaking, the final atonic vowel is [...] in F as it is in F7, V, W, and H (and finally in B), while it is [...] in M (as in L, A, S). This rule however knows a significant systematic exception in Fayyumic, with or without lambdacism. When this final corresponds to an ancient Egyptian ‘ (‘AYIN), we find final [...] in F, V, W (and semievolved and logically secondary F7), final [...] in F7 (primitive), as in DIALECT P; B then omits any vowel. It may, however, happen that we find, above all in F5 (where this is among others the chief characteristic of the subdialect F58), more rarely in more evolved F7 and evolved F4, V, forms of this category which have levelled their atonic final in i (thus e.g. from m [...] F5 [...], crowd, F4, F7, (semievolved) W [...], F7 [...] (like P [...]), and finally B [...]; from [...] F5 [...], ear, F4, V [...], F7 (primitive) [...] (compare P [...]), finally B [...]). 1.6 Atonic Sonants. In an initial position, if they are systematically absent from F5, the atonic sonants appear in F4 as in F7, and in V, W as in M (and in S, L, A, even B). But if, in the area of Middle Egypt, they appear immutable in V, W, they may still be replaced by their substitute, the corresponding sonorant preceded by a vowel ([...] everywhere except in F7, which prefers here [...]), when the phenomenon of “close liaison” (Polotsky, 1949, pp. 29-30) is produced. This takes place in F4 (as in F7, M, also in a certain fashion in H) only when the word, beginning with the sonant is preceded by the definite article ([...] etc.), which is so closely linked with what follows that the sonant is no longer considered as an initial, and the corresponding sonorant preceded by [...] (etc.) is substituted for it (in B the possibilities for “close liaison” are much more numerous). One will then have F4, F7, M [...], in his presence (and immutable, F5 [...], on the one hand, V [W probably the same] [...], on the other); in close liaison one finds, in contrast, F4, F5, M [...], in presence of, F7 [...]… ([...]) (and immutable, F5 [...], on one hand, V [...]… [...], on the other; and similarly W [...], the tomb, John 11:38, according to what the manuscript itself shows). As regards the atonic sonants within a word or as finals, see what was said above with reference to the atonic vowels in these positions: such sonants are systematically lacking in F4, as in F5 and F7 (and also in H and B), but they appear regularly in M, very often in W also, and in V finally more frequently than their substitute ([...] followed by the corresponding sonorant). 2. The Conjugation System Except in special cases (conjunctive, etc.), the form cited here is the third-person singular masculine only, as well as its corresponding prenominal form (nom. = before nominal subject). The complete paradigm is not attested in all conjugations. Only the most specific form(s) for each dialect (F, V, W, H) or subdialect (F4, F46, F5, F56, F7) are given here. Except where specially mentioned, the form is affirmative (neg. = negative). Every basic tense (hereafter abbreviated “basic”) is followed (if attested) by its satellites, after “And”: circ. = circumstantial, rel. = relative, pret. = preterite, II = second tense; ant. = with pronominal antecedent. Forms between brackets [...] are reconstructed from very near forms; zero = no verbal prefix. Except where specially mentioned, F56 (not F46) is included in F5; F4 and F5 together are F. 2.1 BIpartite Pattern. Neg. [...]... [...] F, F46, F7, V, W, zero particle ...[...] H. 2.1.1. Present (basic) [...] F, F7, V, W, [...] [F46] H, nom. zero. And circ. [...] (neg. [...]... [...] etc.) F, F7, V, W, [...] F46, H, nom. [...] F, F46, F7, [...] [V], W, [...] H; rel. [...] F5, [F56], F7, [...] F4, (F7), [V], W, nom. [...] F, [...] F7, V, [...] W; pret. (= imperfect) [...] F, F7, [V], W, [[...] F46], nom. [...] F, [...] V, W; II [...] F, F7, V, W, [[...]], nom. [...] F, F7; [...] [V], W. 2.1.2. Future (basic) [...] F, F7, V, W [[...] F46], [...] H, nom. zero... [...] F, F46, F7, V, W, zero... [...] H. And circ. [...] (neg. [...]... [...] etc.) F, [F7, V], W, nom. [...]...[...] F, rel. [...] (neg. [...]... [...] etc.) F, [...] [F4], F7, [V, W], nom. [...]... [...] F, [...]... [...] F7, [V], (W), [...]... [...] (W); pret. [...] F4, nom. [...]... [...] W; II [...] F, [F7], V, (W), nom. [[...]... [...] F, F7], [...]... [...] V, [W], [...]... [...] H. 2.2 Tripartite Pattern. 2.2.1. Tenses with special negations (if not II): 2.2.1.1. Perfect (basic) ).[...] F, F7, V, [...] F46, H, [...] (V), W, nom. [...] F, F46, F7, V, [...] (V), [W]; neg. [...] F, F7, V, [...] F46, [[...] H], nom. [...] F, [F46], F7, [V], W [[...] H]. And circ. [...] F, F7, [(V)], [...] [F46] H, [...] [(V]), W, nom. [...] F, [F46, F7, (V)], [[...] (V), W]; neg. [...] F, [F7, V, W], nom. [[...] F, F7, V, W]; rel. [...] (ant. [...]) F5, F7, (V), [...] F46, [...] (ant.[...]) H, [...] F4, (F7), (V), [...] W; nom. [...] (ant. [...]) F5, [...] F7, [V], [...] (ant. [...]) H, [...] F4, [(V)], [...] W; neg. [...] F5, F7, nom. [[...] F5, F7]; II [...] F5, [[...] F4? [...] F4?], [...] F5, [V?], [...] H ([...] F7?), [...] W; nom. [...] F5, ([...] F4?), [...] F4, (V?), [[...] H], ([...] F7?), [[...] W]; neg. with [...]... [...] F, F46, F7, V, W, zero... [...] H. 2.2.1.2. Expectative (or completive) (basic = neg.) [...] F5, V, [W], [...] H, [[...] F7], nom. [...] F5, [V, W]. [...] H, pa F7. 2.2.1.3. Consuetudinal or aorist (basic) [...] F, F7, V, [W], [...] F46, H, nom. [...] F, [F46], F7, [...] V, W, [...] H; neg. [...] (F4), [F5], F7, V, W, [...] (F4), (F7?), [[...] F46], [...] H, nom. [...] (F4), F5, [F46, F7], [...] [V], W, [[...] H]. And circ. [...] [F], F7, [V, W], [nom. [...] etc.]; rel. [...] F, ([...] F5? V?), [...] (F5), F7, [[...]] (ant. [...]) H, [[...] F], [([...] F5? V?)], [...] (F5), F7, [[...] V?, [...] H]; neg. [...] F5, F7, ([ant. [...]]), [nom. [...], etc.]; pret. [[...] F5], nom. [...] F5; II [[...] F5, nom. [...] F5]. 2.2.1.4. Futurum energicum or third future (basic) efe- F, F7, [V], W, ebe- F46, [eb/-] (j//b/- with j/, in order that, ant.) H, nom. ele- F, [F46], F7, [[...] V, W, [...] H]; neg. [...] F, (F7), V, [W], [...] F7, [...] H, nom. [...] F, (F7), [V], (W?). 2.2.1.5. Causative imperative (basic) [...] F, F7, [[...] F46], [...] V, W, [...] H, nom. [...] F, [F46, F7], [...] V, W, [...] H; neg. [...] F5, [...] or [...] F7], [[...] F46], [...] V, [W?], [([...] F7)], [[...] H], nom. [...] F5, [[...] F4], [...] or [...] F7, [...] V, [W?], [[...] H]. 2.2.2. Tenses with neg. stem [...] or [...] V, W, [...] or [...] F7: 2.2.2.1. Future conjunctive (basic) [[...]] or [...] F5, [[...] F4], nom. [...] [or [...]] F5, [[...] F4]. 2.2.2.2. Conjunctive (basic) (sing. 1., 2. masc., 3. masc., fem., p1. 1., 2., 3.) [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...] F, F7, V, W, [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...] F46, [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], ([...]?), [...] H, nom. [...] F, F7, V, W, [...] F46, [[...] H]. And with [...], toward (= limitative) [...] F, [F7], V, [W], [...] H, nom. [...] F, F7, [V, W], [...] H. 2.2.2.3. Temporal (basic) [...] F5, [F7?], [...] [V?] W, [...] H, [...] F4, [...] (F5?), [[...] (W)], nom. [...] F5, [F7?], [...] [V?], W, [...] H, [...] F4, [...] F5 [...] W 2.2.2.4. Conditional (basic) [...] [F4, (F5) with neg., F7, [V. W] with neg.], [...] F4, [(F56)], (F7), (V), [W], [...] (F7), (V), [...] F5, [...] H, nom. [...] [F4, (F5) with neg.], F7, [(V) with neg.], W with neg., [...] [F4], (F56), [...] V, [...] W, [...] (F7), [...] F5, [...] H. 3. Vocabulary The lexical stock of F4, F5, F7, V, and W (not to speak of H) presents a certain number of units not found elsewhere in Coptic (or only in a single idiom, or only in two, etc.). They cannot all be presented here (cf. Crum, 1939, and Westendorf, 1977), and only some examples will be listed. F5, F46, F7 [...], and, to be compared with B4, B74, G [...] (and B [...]), etc., L6 [...], L4 [...], [...] (Kasser 1983b). F7 [...] (pl. [...]) viper, serpent, cf. [...] B (the other Coptic dialects prefer [...], a word that F7 also knows). [...], servant, once in F5, a word current in B (which does not have [...], a word current, with [...], in F5); [...] is absent from the other Coptic dialects. F7 [...], bare, repulse, cf. S [...], [...] = etc. F [...], except, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic. Note F5, S [...], branch (?), Isaiah 34:4. F5 [...], roaring, clamor, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic (Epistle of Jeremiah 31). F [...], something, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic, but may be compared with B [...], to bite, a mouthful; on the other hand, one can only make the same comparison for F, F7, V [...], something (cf. lapt once or twice in F7) if one supposes [...] derived graphically from [...], an explanation that remains doubtful ([...] confused with the ancient [...]; see ALPHABETS, COPTIC). F5 [...], F4, V [...], new, has its only correspondent in [...], which appears once only in S (Kahle, 1954, p. 701, 11), if the etymology sometimes suggested (e.g., Cerny 1976, p. 79) from S, B [...], island is set aside (Vycichl, 1983, pp. 108-109). The parallel with M [...] (Husselman, 1965, p. 85) remains very doubtful. F5 [...], winnowing fan, is lacking elsewhere in Coptic (Is. 30:24). F [...], vengeance, appears also in B, but not elsewhere. F7 [...], honeycomb, cf. B [...] (a rare word). W [...], nothing, cf. M [...]. [...], [...], against, slow. F7 [...], strike with amazement, cf. S [...] etc. F7 [...], awaken, unknown elsewhere in Coptic (Sg. 2:7 and 8:5). F7 [...], chiseled, cf. B [...] with the same significance (in truth, rather remote from those of S etc. [...] etc., draw, heap up, etc.). F7 [...], dream(er) (Eccl. 5:2), is probably to be resolved into [...], cf. F5 [...], S [...], dream, [...] cf. S etc. [...] etc. B [...], Crum, 1939, p. 263b,3; 268a,15). Vulgar F5 [...], avenger, F46 [...], cf. S [...]. F5 [...], sprinkle (?), unknown elsewhere in Coptic F5 [...], to fear, cf. S [...]. F7 [...], tool, utensil, weapon, etc., Eccl. 9:18, cf. S [...], B [...] etc., is a rare word. F5 [...], impulse, force (?), cf. M [...], A [...] (Kasser, 1979). F7 [...] to aid, V [...], cf. M [...]. W [...], haste, cf. M [...]. F5 [...] in [...] etc., against, cf. M and S [...] etc., alongside [...] etc. in S and other Coptic idioms (including F7). [...], curl (of hair), cf. S [...]. V5 [...], price, cf. S [...]. F5, F7 [...], thicket, copse, cf. eventually S also? (Crum, 1939, 595a). F7 [...], whisper, whistle (?), Eccl. 2:15-16, is probably found nowhere else in Coptic and could be onomatopoeia. F5 [...], here, behold, cf. M [...] and perhaps also F [...], F5 etc. [...], darkness, cf. B [...] etc. F4, F7 [...]], descendants, children, Lam. 4:10, V [...]], 1 Jn. 3:7, 18, cf. B [...]]. F5 [...], deceive, cf. S [...]. F7 [...], shield, buckler, cf. S [...] F5 [...], base, without value, cf. S [...], e.g., 2 Cor. 13:5-6. F5 [...], purple, F7 [...], appears nowhere else in Coptic. F5 [[...], pitcher, H [...], cf. S [...] etc. F5, V4 [...], foot, F p1. [...], F7 [...], cf. B [...], p1 [...]. One may finally recall here various lexical or morphological peculiarities that make W (as distinct from V) very close to M: the first perfect prefix (nom., etc.) W, M [...] (rare in V) in opposition to V, F [...], etc.; W, M [...], nothing; only M [...], to do that, or W [...] in opposition to V, F, where there is a choice between [...] and [...]; [...], to go, so almost always in W, M, while V, like F, writes simply [...] (without the “dative” preposition); in W and M the Copto-Greek verbs are not preceded by the auxiliary [...], etc., and do not have the Greek final [...], which sets them against those of V or above all F, where one may observe rather the contrary. 4. Grammar The Fayyumic subdialects are either too poorly attested or attested in too irregular a fashion (this is especially the case with F5) for one to be able to establish with any ease or precision the syntax characteristic of each of them or even what might be more modestly and vaguely considered the “Fayyumic syntax” in general. At least, investigations in this area have not as yet been sufficiently advanced for a status quaestionis to be given here (what can be found in Till, 1930 and 1961, remains very elementary and not distinctive). RODOLPHE KASSER
Bibliography	BIBLIOGRAPHY Asmus, H. Über Fragmente in Mittelägyptischen Dialekte. Göttingen, 1904. Bouriant, U. “Fragments bachmouriques.” Mémoires de l’Institut d’Egypte 2 (1889):567-604. Cerny, J. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge, 1976. Chassinat, E. “Fragments de manuscrits coptes en dialecte fayoumique.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 2 (1902): 171-206. Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford, 1939. Crum, W. E., and F. G. Kenyon. “Two Chapters of Saint John in Greek and Middle Egyptian.” Journal of Theological Studies 1 (1900):415-33. Diebner, B. J.; R. Kasser; A. M. Kropp; C. Voigt; and E. Lucchesi. Hamburger Papyrus Bil. 1. Die alttestamentlichen Texte des Papyrus bilinguis I der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg. Canticum Canticorum (coptice), Lamentationes Ieremiae (coptice), Ecclesiastes (graece et coptice). Cahiers d’orientalisme 18. Geneva, 1989. Elanskaya, A. I. “Rukopis’ no. 53 koptskoi novoi serii (zaklyuchitel’nye glavy Evangeliya ot Marka na faiyumskom dialekte).” In Koptskie rukopisi Gosudarstvennoi Publicnoi Bibliotelki imeni M. E. Saltykova-Scedrina, Palestinskii sbornik 20, no. 83 (1969):96-120. Engelbreth, W. F. Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi Testamenti qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris Asservantur, cum Reliquis Versionibus Aegyptiis Contulit, Latine Vertit nec non Criticis et Philologicis Adnotationibus Illustravit. Copenhagen, 1811. Erichsen, W. Faijumische Fragmente der Reden des Agathonicus Bischofs von Tarsus. Copenhagen, 1932. Gaselee, S. “Two Fayoumic Fragments of the Acts.” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1909):514-17. Husselman, E. M. The Gospel of John in Fayumic Coptic (P. Mich. inv. 3521). Ann Arbor, Mich., 1962. _____ “The Martyrdoms of Cyriacus and Julitta in Coptic.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 4 (1965):79-86. Kahle, P. E. Bala’izah: Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt. Oxford and London, 1954. Kasser, R. Compléments au dictionnaire copte de Crum. Cairo, 1964. ______. “Compléments morphologiques au dictionnaire de Crum, le vocabulaire caractéristique des quatre nouveaux dialectes coptes: P, M, H et G.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 64 (1966):19-66. ______. “Un lexème copte oublié, tk/n akhmimique (Nahum 3, 19).” Bulletin de la Société d’égyptologie, Genève 1 (1979):23-25. ______. “Prolégomènes à un essai de classification systématique des dialectes et subdialectes coptes selon les critéres de la phonétique, III, Systèmes orthographiques et catégories dialectales.” Muséon 94 (1981):91-152. ______. “ei ou i pour /i/ ou /j/ dans les dialectes coptes.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 20 (1983a):123-26. ______. “Les Conjonctions coptes dérivées de la racine de ouwh ‘mettre,’ ‘ajouter.”’ Göttinger Miszellen 69 (1983b):43-44. ______. “Subdialectes en mésokémique?” Miscel’lània Papirologica Ramon Roca-Puig en el seu vuitantè aniversari, ed. S. Janeras, pp. 159-70. Barcelona, 1987. Lefort, L. T. Les Pères apostoliques en copte. CSCO 135-136. Louvain, 1952. Müller, C. D. G. Die Bücher der Einsetzung der Erzengel Michael und Gabriel. CSCO 225-226. Louvain, 1962. Orlandi, T. Papiri della Università degli Studi di Milano (P. Mil. Copti), Vol. 5, Lettere di San Paolo in Copto ossirinchita, edizione, commento e indici di T. Orlandi, contributo linguistico di H. Quecke. Milan, 1974. Polotsky, H. J. “Une Question d’orthographe bohaïrique.” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 12 (1949):25-35. Quatremère, E. Recherches critiques et historiques sur la langue et la littérature de l’Egypte. Paris, 1808. Schenke, H.-M. “On the Middle Egyptian Dialect of the Coptic Language.” Enchoria 8 (Sonderband) (1978):43(89)-(104)58. ______. Das Matthäus-Evangelium in mittelägyptischen Dialect des Koptischen (Codex Scheide). Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 127. Berlin, 1981. Simon, J. “Note sur le dossier des textes fayoumiques.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 37 (1939):205-211. Stern, L. Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1880. ______. “Faijumische Papyri im Ägyptischen Museum zu Berlin.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 23 (1885):23-44. Till, W. C. Koptische Chrestomathie für den fayumischen Dialekt, mit grammatischer Skizze und Anmerkungen. Vienna, 1930. ______. Koptische Dialektgrammatik, mit Lesestücken und Wörterbuch. 2nd ed. Munich, 1961. Vycichl, W. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Louvain, 1983. Wessely, K. “Em Sprachdenkmal des mittelägyptischen (baschmurischen) Dialekts.” Sitzungsberichte der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 158 (1908):1-46. Westendorf, W. Koptisches Handwörterbuch, bearbeitet auf Grund des Koptischen Handwörterbuchs von Wilhelm Spiegelberg. Heidelberg, 1977. Worrell, W. H. Coptic Sounds. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1934. ______. “Fayumic Fragments of the Epistles.” Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte 6 (1940):127-39.
Original Publisher	Macmillan
Digital Publisher	Claremont Graduate University. School of Religion
Date	1991
Language	eng
Source	The Coptic encyclopedia, volume 8, (CE:A124b-A131a). Originally published in print by Macmillan, reproduced with permission.
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	cce01930.pdf

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Fayyumic

Fayyumic

Description

Tags

Comments