Mesokemic (or Middle Egyptian)

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:A162a-A164b)

MESOKEMIC (OR MIDDLE EGYPTIAN). The Mesokemic or Middle Egyptian dialect, siglum M (also called Oxyrhynchite), belongs to the Coptic dialects of Middle Egypt. It is one of the relatively minor Coptic idioms and probably flourished only briefly in the early period of the Coptic language (fourth and fifth centuries), but nevertheless developed in this period into a highly standardized written dialect.

Both according to its theoretical system and according to the probable geography of the Coptic dialects (see GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL), M lies between FAYYUMIC (siglum F) and LYCOPOLITAN (siglum L). Its homeland may have been the region of Oxyrhynchus.

It is to the abiding credit of P. E. Kahle that on the basis of a very few small fragments he was the first to postulate M as an independent dialect (1954). Since then, three larger manuscripts written in this dialect have come to light. These three primary witnesses for this dialect are P. Mil. Copti 1, a fragmentary papyrus codex containing the whole Corpus Paulinum (Pauline Epistles), and Codex Scheide and Codex Glazier, two small parchment codices preserved complete, the first containing the Gospel of Matthew with the so-called Great Doxology, the second containing the first half of Acts (1:1-15:3). Another parchment codex containing the Psalms has since been excavated in Egypt.

1. Characteristics

In comparison with other dialects, M in its general outward form comes closest to Fayyumic, not to Fayyumic’s central variety, F (characterized by its lambdacism), but to varieties like V (defined as Fayyumic without lambdacism) or even better W (said to be a kind of crypto-Mesokemic with a rather Fayyumic phonology, although without lambdacism; see below).

Indeed, the phonology of M shows its most important affinities with that of W and V. Its consonants are those of every Coptic dialect, except P, i, A, and B. (Like F, V, W, L, S etc., dialect M does not have the /x/ of P, i, A, and B, or the /ç/ of P and i.) And like F4, V4, W, B etc., M does not show the graphic vocalic gemination meaning phonologically /‘/ (see ALEPH and GEMINATION, VOCALIC).

The stressed vowels of M are most frequently those of Fayyumic, as in [...], brother M, W, V, F etc. with A, L (not [...] S, B); [...], pain M, [W], V, F etc. (not [...] S, A, L, B); [...], destroy M, W, V, F etc. (not [...] S, B, teko A, L); [...], name M, W, V with A, L, [...] F etc. (not [...] S, B). The unstressed final vowel is [...] (as in S, A, L), not [...] (as in W, V, F etc., B), as in [...], to do M, L, A, S (compare with [...] W, V, B, [...] F etc.). Also characteristic of M are some endings with (graphic) vocalic gemination of [...] (difficult to interpret phonemically, e.g., [...], truth M; compare this with [...] W, V, F4, (B), [...] F5, [...] B, [...] L, [...] A, [...] S) or endings in [...] (e.g., [...], temple M; compare this with [...] W, [...] F5, [...] B, [...] L6, [...] A, [...] L5, [...] L4, S).

Mesokemic agrees with SAHIDIC in its full integration of the Greek verb and with BOHAIRIC in that the M system of the supralinear point is very closely connected with the older Bohairic system concerning the placing of the DJINKIM. There are two main characteristics peculiar to M. First, the letter omicron is used in the stressed syllable, where all other Coptic dialects have omega, as in the infinitive [...], to choose. This omicron does not, however, represent a short o sound, as was at first uncritically assumed, but, as H. Quecke was the first to recognize, a (long and) open o sound. The second characteristic is the perfect in [...], together with all the satellites (perfect I [...]; circumstantial [...]; relative [...]; perfect II [...]; preterite [...]). This form produces the most important morphological peculiarity of the M conjugation system, the complete differentiation between circumstantial first present ([...]), present II ([...]), and perfect I ([...]).

Another point to be emphasized in regard to the conjugation system is that the peculiar morphology carries with it the existence of a circumstantial of present and future II, but not of perfect II. Of the individual tenses, the affirmative simple conditional is the most striking. It has the same form as the present II, but its syntax shows that it belongs to the verbal sentence (tripartite pattern). The “energetic” future ([...], negative [...]) can also be used in either form with a relative converter ([...], negative [...]), while combination with the circumstantial converter is documented only for the negative form. M has only four subordinate clause conjugations; the fifth, the temporal, is missing. Instead, the dialect makes use of the subordinate temporal function of the relative converter, which the latter may have in past tenses. Among individual forms in the paradigms, the form of the third-person plural in present and future relative clauses ([...] or [...]) is especially typical for M.

2. The Conjugation System

Except in special instances (e.g., conjunctive), the form cited here is only the third-person masculine singular and the 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, pret. = preterite, rel. = relative, II = second tense. Forms between brackets [...] are reconstituted from very similar forms; zero = no verbal prefix.

2.1 Bipartite Pattern. Neg. [...]. . . [...].

2.1.1. Present (basic) [...], nom. zero. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...] or [...], nom [...] (for the third-person plural the standard form here is [...], although [...] may also be found; nom. only once appears [...], Acts 7:48); pret. [...]. . . ([...]), nom. [...]. . . ([...]); pret. circ. [...], nom. [...] (introduces the protasis of an irreal clause); pret. rel. [...], nom. [...] (there also appears once a form with the [...] converter: third-person plural [...], Mt. 26:35); II [...], nom. [...]; II circ. [...], nom. [...].

2.1.2. Future (basic) [...], nom. zero. . . [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...]. .. [...]; rel. [...] or [...], nom. [...]. . . [...] (for the third person plural the standard form here is [...], although [...] may also be found occasionally); pret. [...]... ([...]), nom. [...]. . . [...]. . . ([...]); pret. rel. [...] (Acts 12:6), nom. [[...]. . . [...]] (in Acts 12:6 that relative has also a temporal [accessory] function); II [...], nom. [...]. . . [...]; II circ. [[...]], nom. [[...]. . . [...]] (for [. . .] first-person plural eanne-, Acts 4:12).

2.2 Tripartite Pattern.

2.2.1 Tenses with special negations (if not II). Independent (sentence) conjugations.

2.2.1.1. Perfect (basic) [...], nom. [...] (occasionally, especially in the Glazier codex, also written without [...]); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...] (once appears also the third-person plural form [...], Acts 2:22); neg. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...] or [...], nom. [...] or [...] (but [...], participial prefix, may be used in the cases where the pronominal suffix of the third person, singular or plural, is identical with the antecedent; once appears, moreover, the relative perfect also in the S form [third-person plural] [...], Acts 5:9); neg. [...], nom. [...]; pret. [...] ([...]), nom. [...] ([...]); neg. [...], nom. NC [...]; II [...], nom. [...] (but in the P. Mil. Copti 1 [...], nom. [...], Col. 1:16, 1. Thes. 2:3, cf. Heb. 7:14); neg. [...]. . . [...], nom. [...]. . . [...]

2.2.1.2. Completive (basic) (affirmative substitute [...], nom. [...] . . [...]); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; pret. [...] (Acts 8:16), nom. [...].

2.2.1.3. Aorist (basic) [...], nom. [...] (the enlarged form [converted or not] [...] may also be found); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; neg. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...], nom. [...]; neg. [...], nom. [...]; pret. [...] ([...]), nom. [...]. . . ([...]); II [...] nom. [...] (twice however appears also a form with [...]-converter, third-person plural [...], Heb. 6:16, and nom. [...], Mt. 6:32); neg. [...]... en, nom. [...].

2.2.1.4. Futurum energicum (or third future) (basic) [...], nom. [...]. . . ([...]) (in the present state of knowledge of M texts, the coalescence of the futurum energicum with [...] to [...], nom. [...]. . . ([...]) is typical for a variety of M represented, for example, by the P. Mil. Copti 1; further [...] in Matthew 3:12, instead of normal [...], is possibly not a spelling mistake, but may be the short form of the futurum energicum [apodotic [...]]; the standard spelling of the Scheide codex is [...] for the third-person plural, in spite of 5 [...], and the same spelling appears in the P. Mil. Copti 1; in the Glazier codex one finds only [...]; in the case of a nominal subject, the form with the element [...] between the nominal subject and the infinitive appears only in the Scheide codex and as a less-used form (three times with [...], seven times without [...]); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. neg. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...], nom. [...]. . . ([...]); neg. [...], nom. [...].

2.2.1.5. Imperative, e.g., [...], see; or infinitive; neg. [...] + infinitive; [...] + [...]-causative; [...] + [...], go.

2.2.1.6. Causative imperative [...], nom. [...], absolute [...]; neg. [...], nom. [...].

2.2.2 Tenses with neg. [...]. Subordinate (clause) conjugations.

2.2.2.1. Conjunctive (singular 1., 2. in., [f.], 3. in., f., plural 1., 2., 3.) [...], [...], [[...]], [...], [...], [...], [...] (P. Mil. Copti 1 chiefly [...]), [...], nom. [...].

2.2.2.2. Future conjunctive [...], nom. [...].

2.2.2.3. Temporal, elsewhere normal, appears only sporadically and seems to be a foreign body in M: [...], Acts 10:10; [...], Matthew 11:7. Its function is covered by the relative form(s) of the first perfect [...] or [...], nom. [...] or [...]; the form with the converter [...] appears only as a secondary form (in that function) and only in the Glazier codex.

2.2.2.4. Limitative [...], nom. [...].

2.2.2.5. First conditional [...], nom. [...] (neg. always second conditional).

2.2.2.6. Second conditional ). [...], nom. [...].

2.2.2.7. Causative infinitive [...], nom. [...] (neg. [...], etc., only once appears a form withOut [...], [...], Acts 4:18).

3. Vocabulary

Other characteristics of the dialect include the combination [...], that is, the use of the word [...], God, from the neighboring (Fayyumic) dialect to reproduce the M word noute by a contraction; the form [...] for the particle that introduces the subsequent noun identifying the pronominal subject of a conjugation; the indefinite pronouns [...], anyone, and [...], anything; the perfect participial prefix [...]; the modal verb [...], to be able; the interjection [...], [...], and (in combination) [...], lo, see; the form of the compound preposition [...], [...] with its wide range of application; the rich use of the noun [...] in itself and for the formation of the preposition [...], beyond, and of the adverb [...], over; the substantival infinitive [...] as a constituent of the prepositional expression [...], [...], before; the compound verbs [...], answer, as [...], cry out, and [...], recline (or sit) at table; the form and syntax of the verb form [...], touch, which appears as an active infinitive (to which the object is linked by [...]) and for which there is no evidence in the present (bipartite pattern); the qualitative forms [...] and [...] (from [...], receive, or [...], hide); the use of the noun [...], companion (the singular of the familiar plural [...]), to express reciprocal relationships (“one another”); the omission of the final [...] in the verb [...], see, and the adverb [...], there.

4. Syntax

The syntax of M also has some special features. The most characteristic is a type of sentence in which the relative particle [...] appears to take the position of the copula in a nominal sentence, such as [...], “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God,” Matthew 16:16. In reality, however, this is the special form of an abbreviated cleft sentence.

HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE

Description

Rating
Entry Title	Mesokemic (or Middle Egyptian)
Publication	The Coptic encyclopedia, volume 8
Entry Reference	Mesokemic (or Middle Egyptian)
Creator	Schenke, Hans-Martin
Contributors	Atiya, Aziz Suryal, 1898-1988 (editor-in-chief)
Subject	Coptic language Coptic language - Dialects Coptic language - Bohairic dialect Coptic language - Fayyumic dialect Coptic language - Sahidic dialect Fayyūm (Egypt) Codex Parchment Phonology Morphology Grammar Orthography and spelling Vocabulary
Description	[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.] (CE:A162a-A164b) MESOKEMIC (OR MIDDLE EGYPTIAN). The Mesokemic or Middle Egyptian dialect, siglum M (also called Oxyrhynchite), belongs to the Coptic dialects of Middle Egypt. It is one of the relatively minor Coptic idioms and probably flourished only briefly in the early period of the Coptic language (fourth and fifth centuries), but nevertheless developed in this period into a highly standardized written dialect. Both according to its theoretical system and according to the probable geography of the Coptic dialects (see GEOGRAPHY, DIALECTAL), M lies between FAYYUMIC (siglum F) and LYCOPOLITAN (siglum L). Its homeland may have been the region of Oxyrhynchus. It is to the abiding credit of P. E. Kahle that on the basis of a very few small fragments he was the first to postulate M as an independent dialect (1954). Since then, three larger manuscripts written in this dialect have come to light. These three primary witnesses for this dialect are P. Mil. Copti 1, a fragmentary papyrus codex containing the whole Corpus Paulinum (Pauline Epistles), and Codex Scheide and Codex Glazier, two small parchment codices preserved complete, the first containing the Gospel of Matthew with the so-called Great Doxology, the second containing the first half of Acts (1:1-15:3). Another parchment codex containing the Psalms has since been excavated in Egypt. 1. Characteristics In comparison with other dialects, M in its general outward form comes closest to Fayyumic, not to Fayyumic’s central variety, F (characterized by its lambdacism), but to varieties like V (defined as Fayyumic without lambdacism) or even better W (said to be a kind of crypto-Mesokemic with a rather Fayyumic phonology, although without lambdacism; see below). Indeed, the phonology of M shows its most important affinities with that of W and V. Its consonants are those of every Coptic dialect, except P, i, A, and B. (Like F, V, W, L, S etc., dialect M does not have the /x/ of P, i, A, and B, or the /ç/ of P and i.) And like F4, V4, W, B etc., M does not show the graphic vocalic gemination meaning phonologically /‘/ (see ALEPH and GEMINATION, VOCALIC). The stressed vowels of M are most frequently those of Fayyumic, as in [...], brother M, W, V, F etc. with A, L (not [...] S, B); [...], pain M, [W], V, F etc. (not [...] S, A, L, B); [...], destroy M, W, V, F etc. (not [...] S, B, teko A, L); [...], name M, W, V with A, L, [...] F etc. (not [...] S, B). The unstressed final vowel is [...] (as in S, A, L), not [...] (as in W, V, F etc., B), as in [...], to do M, L, A, S (compare with [...] W, V, B, [...] F etc.). Also characteristic of M are some endings with (graphic) vocalic gemination of [...] (difficult to interpret phonemically, e.g., [...], truth M; compare this with [...] W, V, F4, (B), [...] F5, [...] B, [...] L, [...] A, [...] S) or endings in [...] (e.g., [...], temple M; compare this with [...] W, [...] F5, [...] B, [...] L6, [...] A, [...] L5, [...] L4, S). Mesokemic agrees with SAHIDIC in its full integration of the Greek verb and with BOHAIRIC in that the M system of the supralinear point is very closely connected with the older Bohairic system concerning the placing of the DJINKIM. There are two main characteristics peculiar to M. First, the letter omicron is used in the stressed syllable, where all other Coptic dialects have omega, as in the infinitive [...], to choose. This omicron does not, however, represent a short o sound, as was at first uncritically assumed, but, as H. Quecke was the first to recognize, a (long and) open o sound. The second characteristic is the perfect in [...], together with all the satellites (perfect I [...]; circumstantial [...]; relative [...]; perfect II [...]; preterite [...]). This form produces the most important morphological peculiarity of the M conjugation system, the complete differentiation between circumstantial first present ([...]), present II ([...]), and perfect I ([...]). Another point to be emphasized in regard to the conjugation system is that the peculiar morphology carries with it the existence of a circumstantial of present and future II, but not of perfect II. Of the individual tenses, the affirmative simple conditional is the most striking. It has the same form as the present II, but its syntax shows that it belongs to the verbal sentence (tripartite pattern). The “energetic” future ([...], negative [...]) can also be used in either form with a relative converter ([...], negative [...]), while combination with the circumstantial converter is documented only for the negative form. M has only four subordinate clause conjugations; the fifth, the temporal, is missing. Instead, the dialect makes use of the subordinate temporal function of the relative converter, which the latter may have in past tenses. Among individual forms in the paradigms, the form of the third-person plural in present and future relative clauses ([...] or [...]) is especially typical for M. 2. The Conjugation System Except in special instances (e.g., conjunctive), the form cited here is only the third-person masculine singular and the 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, pret. = preterite, rel. = relative, II = second tense. Forms between brackets [...] are reconstituted from very similar forms; zero = no verbal prefix. 2.1 Bipartite Pattern. Neg. [...]. . . [...]. 2.1.1. Present (basic) [...], nom. zero. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...] or [...], nom [...] (for the third-person plural the standard form here is [...], although [...] may also be found; nom. only once appears [...], Acts 7:48); pret. [...]. . . ([...]), nom. [...]. . . ([...]); pret. circ. [...], nom. [...] (introduces the protasis of an irreal clause); pret. rel. [...], nom. [...] (there also appears once a form with the [...] converter: third-person plural [...], Mt. 26:35); II [...], nom. [...]; II circ. [...], nom. [...]. 2.1.2. Future (basic) [...], nom. zero. . . [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...]. .. [...]; rel. [...] or [...], nom. [...]. . . [...] (for the third person plural the standard form here is [...], although [...] may also be found occasionally); pret. [...]... ([...]), nom. [...]. . . [...]. . . ([...]); pret. rel. [...] (Acts 12:6), nom. [[...]. . . [...]] (in Acts 12:6 that relative has also a temporal [accessory] function); II [...], nom. [...]. . . [...]; II circ. [[...]], nom. [[...]. . . [...]] (for [. . .] first-person plural eanne-, Acts 4:12). 2.2 Tripartite Pattern. 2.2.1 Tenses with special negations (if not II). Independent (sentence) conjugations. 2.2.1.1. Perfect (basic) [...], nom. [...] (occasionally, especially in the Glazier codex, also written without [...]); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...] (once appears also the third-person plural form [...], Acts 2:22); neg. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...] or [...], nom. [...] or [...] (but [...], participial prefix, may be used in the cases where the pronominal suffix of the third person, singular or plural, is identical with the antecedent; once appears, moreover, the relative perfect also in the S form [third-person plural] [...], Acts 5:9); neg. [...], nom. [...]; pret. [...] ([...]), nom. [...] ([...]); neg. [...], nom. NC [...]; II [...], nom. [...] (but in the P. Mil. Copti 1 [...], nom. [...], Col. 1:16, 1. Thes. 2:3, cf. Heb. 7:14); neg. [...]. . . [...], nom. [...]. . . [...] 2.2.1.2. Completive (basic) (affirmative substitute [...], nom. [...] . . [...]); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; pret. [...] (Acts 8:16), nom. [...]. 2.2.1.3. Aorist (basic) [...], nom. [...] (the enlarged form [converted or not] [...] may also be found); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. [...], nom. [...]; neg. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...], nom. [...]; neg. [...], nom. [...]; pret. [...] ([...]), nom. [...]. . . ([...]); II [...] nom. [...] (twice however appears also a form with [...]-converter, third-person plural [...], Heb. 6:16, and nom. [...], Mt. 6:32); neg. [...]... en, nom. [...]. 2.2.1.4. Futurum energicum (or third future) (basic) [...], nom. [...]. . . ([...]) (in the present state of knowledge of M texts, the coalescence of the futurum energicum with [...] to [...], nom. [...]. . . ([...]) is typical for a variety of M represented, for example, by the P. Mil. Copti 1; further [...] in Matthew 3:12, instead of normal [...], is possibly not a spelling mistake, but may be the short form of the futurum energicum [apodotic [...]]; the standard spelling of the Scheide codex is [...] for the third-person plural, in spite of 5 [...], and the same spelling appears in the P. Mil. Copti 1; in the Glazier codex one finds only [...]; in the case of a nominal subject, the form with the element [...] between the nominal subject and the infinitive appears only in the Scheide codex and as a less-used form (three times with [...], seven times without [...]); neg. [...], nom. [...]. And circ. neg. [...], nom. [...]; rel. [...], nom. [...]. . . ([...]); neg. [...], nom. [...]. 2.2.1.5. Imperative, e.g., [...], see; or infinitive; neg. [...] + infinitive; [...] + [...]-causative; [...] + [...], go. 2.2.1.6. Causative imperative [...], nom. [...], absolute [...]; neg. [...], nom. [...]. 2.2.2 Tenses with neg. [...]. Subordinate (clause) conjugations. 2.2.2.1. Conjunctive (singular 1., 2. in., [f.], 3. in., f., plural 1., 2., 3.) [...], [...], [[...]], [...], [...], [...], [...] (P. Mil. Copti 1 chiefly [...]), [...], nom. [...]. 2.2.2.2. Future conjunctive [...], nom. [...]. 2.2.2.3. Temporal, elsewhere normal, appears only sporadically and seems to be a foreign body in M: [...], Acts 10:10; [...], Matthew 11:7. Its function is covered by the relative form(s) of the first perfect [...] or [...], nom. [...] or [...]; the form with the converter [...] appears only as a secondary form (in that function) and only in the Glazier codex. 2.2.2.4. Limitative [...], nom. [...]. 2.2.2.5. First conditional [...], nom. [...] (neg. always second conditional). 2.2.2.6. Second conditional ). [...], nom. [...]. 2.2.2.7. Causative infinitive [...], nom. [...] (neg. [...], etc., only once appears a form withOut [...], [...], Acts 4:18). 3. Vocabulary Other characteristics of the dialect include the combination [...], that is, the use of the word [...], God, from the neighboring (Fayyumic) dialect to reproduce the M word noute by a contraction; the form [...] for the particle that introduces the subsequent noun identifying the pronominal subject of a conjugation; the indefinite pronouns [...], anyone, and [...], anything; the perfect participial prefix [...]; the modal verb [...], to be able; the interjection [...], [...], and (in combination) [...], lo, see; the form of the compound preposition [...], [...] with its wide range of application; the rich use of the noun [...] in itself and for the formation of the preposition [...], beyond, and of the adverb [...], over; the substantival infinitive [...] as a constituent of the prepositional expression [...], [...], before; the compound verbs [...], answer, as [...], cry out, and [...], recline (or sit) at table; the form and syntax of the verb form [...], touch, which appears as an active infinitive (to which the object is linked by [...]) and for which there is no evidence in the present (bipartite pattern); the qualitative forms [...] and [...] (from [...], receive, or [...], hide); the use of the noun [...], companion (the singular of the familiar plural [...]), to express reciprocal relationships (“one another”); the omission of the final [...] in the verb [...], see, and the adverb [...], there. 4. Syntax The syntax of M also has some special features. The most characteristic is a type of sentence in which the relative particle [...] appears to take the position of the copula in a nominal sentence, such as [...], “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God,” Matthew 16:16. In reality, however, this is the special form of an abbreviated cleft sentence. HANS-MARTIN SCHENKE
Bibliography	BIBLIOGRAPHY Barns, J. W. B., and R. Kasser. “Le Manuscrit moyen-égyptien B. M. Or. 9035.” Muséon 84 (1971):395-401. Funk, W. P. “Beiträge des mittelägyptischen Dialekts zum koptischen Konjugationssystem.” In Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky, ed. D. W. Young, pp. 177-210. East Gloucester, Mass., 1981. Husselman, E. M. “The Martyrdom 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. 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. Osing, J. Der spätägyptische Papyrus B.M. 10808. Wiesbaden, 1976. Schenke, H.-M. “On the Middle Egyptian Dialect of the Coptic Language.” Enchoria 8 (1978):43(89)-(104)58. ______. Das Mattädus-Evangelium im mittelägyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Scheide). Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 127. Berlin, 1981.
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	cce01948.pdf

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia Mesokemic (or Middle Egyptian)

Mesokemic (or Middle Egyptian)

Description

Tags

Comments