Bohairic

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 or Greek text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.]

(CE:A53b-A60a)

BOHAIRIC, a major dialect of Coptic, called “MEMPHITIC,” “the northern dialect,” or “dialect of Lower Egypt” in earlier terminology, and simply “Coptic” in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century treatises, Bohairic being the first Coptic dialect with which Western scholarship became acquainted. “Bohairic” (B) was first used by Stern (1880, p. xii).

Originally the northern local dialect of the western Delta (Buhaira) and Wadi al-Natrun, Bohairic spread dramatically (beginning after, and as an indirect result of, the ARAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT) eastward and southward. In the eighth and ninth centuries it broke the monopoly of Sahidic as a Pan-Coptic idiom and by the eleventh century had largely completed the process of becoming virtually the sole dialect of Coptic. Bohairic became the official ecclesiastical language, and the classical Bohairic version of the Scriptures, the official text. Bohairic, which survives only as a liturgical language, was the dialect that saw Coptic out as the living idiom of Egypt. The old controversial question of its prehistory—whether it was never a literary language before the Arab conquest (Stern, 1880, p. 1; Lefort, 1931) or was, on the contrary, an old literary dialect (Worrell’s opinion) has not yet been settled. What survives in the way of Bohairic documentation consists, on the one hand, of manuscripts later than the ninth century with scriptural, homiletic, hermeneutic, hagiographical, and liturgical texts and, on the other, a much smaller collection of fourth- and fifth-century fragments, all biblical (see sec. 5 on the varieties of Bohairic).

Bohairic shares isoglosses with most other dialects of Coptic, mainly with Fayyumic, Middle Egyptian (MESOKEMIC), Sahidic, and, more subtly, certain Nag Hammadi varieties of Sahidic (especially some tractates in Codex VII), DIALECT G and DIALECT P. The persistent, somewhat biased impression of Bohairic as an innovating dialect is refuted by careful internal and contrastive examination, which shows it to be rather of a conservative nature (cf. Shisha-Halevy, 1981). Not only its grammatical minutiae but even some major issues are still obscure and in need of rigorous and methodologically careful investigation. Far from being “sufficiently well known” (Kahle, 1954, p. 232), it has, following Steindorff’s Grammatik of 1894, been superseded by Sahidic as far as research and tuition are concerned. (For Stern, 1880, it was still the primary illustration dialect.) Since the 1890s “Coptic” par excellence has been Sahidic, and Bohairic has been suffering grave scholarly neglect (cf. Erman, 1915, p. 161). This article will attempt to provide a brief typological profile of Bohairic grammar. While details of phonology and nonsystemic morphology are relatively well known, its système de valeur and syntax still hold quite a few mysteries for the linguist. The account given here is predominantly synchronic and noncontrastive.

1. Phonology, Morphophonology, and Graphemics

1.1. Probably the most striking feature of Bohairic is the nonpertinent, allophonic status of consonant aspiration in words of native Egyptian stock. The aspirated allophone ([...], [...]. [...]) occurs “combinatorily” before, and in contact with, a sonorant (any of /b/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /r/, /w/, and /j/) in initial clusters and elsewhere ([...], crown; [...],  immortal; [...], the beloved) or “spontaneously” as the onset of a stressed syllable (indeed, “stress” is a feature equivalent to “sonority,” and thus the “spontaneousness” is relative and only a manner of speaking). [...], the allophone of [...] before sonorants ([...], bed), nonetheless constitutes a phoneme ([...], quince, [...], dish).

1.2. The B phonemic inventory features the opposition /x/ /h/, graphemically [...]: [...] ([...], lower part: [...], upper part).

1.3. The open final unstressed (posttonic) vowel in B is /i/ ([...], man; [...], think, thought). Table 1 displays the facts in the case of closed unstressed syllables (cf. Polotsky, 1933).

Table 1. Closed Unstressed Syllables in Bohairic [See PDF version of this article for Table 1.] 

1.4. Nonfinal historical laryngeals (primary and secondary, evolved from r or t) are not realized in Bohairic: [...], in existence; [...], finger; [...], remain over; [...], [...] (second fem. sing.) Finally, one finds i: second fem. sing. [...], thou too; [...], stand thee up; masc. [...], one.

1.5. Palatal sibilant assimilation is the rule: [...], make live, nourish; [...], despise.

1.6. Long diphthongs lengthened from short vowels occur with w and j: [...], bread; [...], honor.

1.7. The syllabicity of vowels and nasal sonorants is indicated by means of a superposed point ([...]; see DJINKIM). In classical usage (manuscripts prior to the fourteenth century), this applies to any vowel constituting by itself a syllable ([...], he went out; [...], bring [imp.]) and to M and N constituting a radical or a grammatical element and preceding another ([...], rest; [...], he; [...], for God). This syllabicity is canceled in certain combinatory circumstances (cf. Polotsky, 1949). In later Bohairic, one finds the djinkim on other consonants ([...] smell; [...], you are coming).

1.8. Numbers are usually symbolized by letters and not written out (Dt. 34:8, [...], for thirty days; Mk. 6:40, [...], by hundreds and by fifties).

1.9. The phoneme /i/ is usually expressed by an iota, even when initial ([...], come, go; [...], thirst).

1.10. Proclitically weak elements are not always marked as such (Erman, 1915): [...], [...], [...].

2. Morphology and Word Formation

2.1. There is superficial (structurally resolvable) coincidence of the perfect base with the second present/future converter, both [...] (opposed to the circumstantial [...]). a-vocalism characterizes the preterite converter [...] and the negative aorist [...].

2.2. The relative converter [...] is common to the bipartite and all tripartite conjugation forms ([...], relative perfect).

2.3 The relative and second perfect converters coincide, as [...], with systemic consequences.

2.4. The relative converter [...] has no prenominal allomorph, thus differing from the other three converters before the bipartite pattern. ere is an alternant (variant?) of the circumstantial before the existential [...]. The converters and some bases have a [...] allomorph before the short second plural suffix [...], [...],  [...], [...] etc.

2.5. The base of the conjuctive is [...], prenominally as well as presuffixally. In the first singular the base-plus-actor is [...]; in the third plural it is [...], which is opposed to [...], the sole representative in Bohairic of a syntagm (the Sahidic conjunctive) in which [...] marks as modifier a nexus of “actor plus verb.”

2.6. The so-called third future is largely convertible in Bohairic (Stern, 1880, sec. 418—19; Andersson, 1904, pp. 62ff.).

2.7. In one variety of Bohairic (see 5.3) there occurs a special negative-conditional base, [...] (discussed by Cerny, 1963, and Kasser, 1963). [...] occurs only in the affirmative form of the conditional clause-tripartite conjugation form. The negatived base coincides with the second present ([...]), a coincidence that is diachronically significant but synchronically probably superficial.

2.8. The negative jussive (causative imperative) base is in Bohairic [...]; its connection with the negative imperative characteristic [...] is thus severed.

2.9. The negative aorist base is [...], showing diachronic affinities with the second tense.

2.10. [...] is the second singular feminine form of the future.

2.11. The first singular and third plural actor suffix pronouns are syllabic with the causative infinitive ([...], [...]) and negative third future ([...], [...]; cf. Polotsky, 1960, sec. 49).

2.12. Verb Lexeme/Stative Peculiarities. Historical 3ae infirmae -i infinitives (Stern’s class III) usually have no -t= in the pronominal state ([...], bring; [...], give birth to; [...], find; [...], exalt). On the other hand, the imperative form marked by a often has -t = ([...], do; [...], bring). Verbs of Greek origin have in Bohairic the Greek infinitive form ([...], -ecye) and are integrated in the Coptic conjugation by means of the auxiliary [...] ([...], bear [...], embrace, greet). The stative of the causative lexeme class ends in -t ([...], [...], being created).

2.13. The imperative of “give” has three allomorphs: [...], [...], [...] (Polotsky, 1950, pp. 78ff.; 1971, 213ff.).

2.14. A verb-nominalization form in [...] is grammaticalized as [...] (Stern, 1880, sec. 470— 72; Mk. 14:55, [...], to kill him).

2.15. The definite determinator pronoun {[...]} has only one form (with no special precluster allomorph). 

2.16. Bohairic has a plural infix -u- ([...], oaths; [...], fetters).

2.17. The first plural object suffix is usually (postconsonantally) [...] (rarely [...]).

2.18. Postadjunctive Greek-origin adverbial modifiers may be marked by [...] ([...]).

3. Syntagmatics, Paradigmatics (Role Relationship), and Prosody

3.1. Focalization Patterns. The second tense focalizes adverbs only, not actor or object (pro)nouns (except for [...], How are you?, cf. Polotsky, 1960, p. 409). Interrogative pronouns may be construed with an unmarked (basic tense) topic, especially the first perfect (Gn. 27:33, [...], Who then hunted game for me?), but enter more usually the nominal cleft sentence pattern. In the latter case, the topic constituent is either the invariable [...] (Polotsky, 1962, pp. 419f. [=CP 424]), which differs from the “substantivized” relative [...] (the relative expanding a demonstrative and indefinite pronouns as well as proper names; cf. Polotsky, 1962, sec. 9; Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 321f.): Mt. 3:14, [...], It is I who need to be baptized; Mt. 9:5, [...], What is it that is easy to say? Mt. 2:22 [...], It is Archelaos that is king; Mk. 8:37, [...], This is what a man will give in exchange for his soul.

3.2 Extraposition. Bohairic is strikingly topic-marking, favoring a front (topicalizing) extraposition as topic of a nominal sentence (Gn. 24:65, [...], Who is this man yonder?) and in other constructions (Shisha-Halevy, 1981, p. 321). The rear extraposition of a noun lexeme to an “interlocutive” (first-second person) pronoun is marked in Bohairic by [...] (e.g., Acts 10:41, Jas. 4:12).

3.3 Nominal Syntagmatics. The Bohairic system of determinator nuclear pronouns (“articles”) is quaternary: definite-deictic ({[...]}), definite nondeictic ({[...]}), indefinite ({[...]}), generic, nonindividualizing ([...]). Of these, the first two are interrelated in a complicated, still partly obscure set of factors, some external (cotextual), others internal (i.e., selection of {[...]} by a special lexeme paradigm in a construction {[...]} [...] expressing inalienable possession, opposed to {[...]} [...], which expresses noninherent “appurtenance”). Elucidating this issue is probably the most urgent single task to be undertaken by students of this dialect. [...] is also used to add further lexemes to the determinator-plus-lexeme basic unit: [...], as in Mt. 23:17, 19, [...], the stupid and blind; Acta Martyrum 1.21 .2f., [...] (nom. predicate) “pitiful and merciful.”

3.4. The predication of possession is effected in Bohairic by a paradigm of adverbial-predicate patterns predicating [...] (Lk. 3:11), and not only by a verboid ([...], [...], as in Gn. 16:1; cf. Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 31 7f.). The pronominal possessum never occurs as object of the verboid, but as the subject of the adverbial predication (Dt. 4:38).

3.5. The pronominal subject of affirmative bimembral nominal sentences is sometimes zeroed when it is anaphoric to a determinator or an extraposed topic (Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 328f.; I Cor. 5:18, [...]). The most common instance of this is the distinctively Bohairic possessive [...] (Lk. 6:30, 16:12).

3.6. [...], the grammatically operative causative infinitive of [...], is in Bohairic subject to the Stern-Jernstedt Rule and thus incompatible with the mediate ([...]) direct-object construction in the bipartite pattern (Stern, 1880, p. 292; e.g., Mt. 5:32; De Vis, 1922—1929, 1.14.6).

3.7. The bipartite pattern predicating an adverb favors the intermediation of a copular stative (Gn. 26:24, [...], I am with you).

3.8. Gender. The cataphoric gender in “impersonal” predications is as a rule the feminine. On the other hand, the pronominal subject of the predicate (“to the debit/obligation of. . .”) is (at least as a variant) the masculine: Gal. 5:3, [...], he is obliged to observe the whole Law.

3.9. Tempuslehre Idiosyncrasies. The so-called third future is in Bohairic a true tense, not a mode, in paradigm with the present based imminent future marked by [...]. The conjunctive has often a subjunctival or “that”-form value (Stern, 1880, sec. 442), such as expanding the cataphoric feminine in “impersonal” predications (Mt. 5:29, [...], It is good for you that one of your members perish.. .). The second relative perfect form serves not only its topicalizing ad-nominal function but also as a temporal-protatic “temporalis” topic before a main clause (constituting a “topic-comment” nexus on a macrosyntactic level of analysis; Jn. 11:28, [...], Having said this, she went away). The temporal clause is thus not expressed by a specific clause-tripartite conjugation base. (Incidentally, the second perfect in Bohairic cannot be further converted by the circumstantial converter.) The final and conditional clause paradigms include in Bohairic the conjunctive (after Greek final conjunctions of [...], respectively, I Cor. 12:25, Mt. 6: 14ff.). The postimperative paradigm lacks in Bohairic a specific marked apodotic form ([...] in other dialects, especlally Sahidic) and features, typically, imperative and jussive forms (Mt. 9:6; Lk. 7:7) beside the nonspecific conjunctive (Acts 6:3) and [...] plus future tense (Mt. 7:7; Prv. 4:6). The “ethical dative” is regular after [...] in the nondurative conjugation ([...]).

3.10. Prosody and Juncture. Elements of relatively weak stress in the utterance (native Egyptian enclitic particles, augentia, [...], the “backgrounding” tie) tend to a sentence-posterior, “trailing” position (Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 319f.; e.g., Mt. 23:4, 26:44; Jn. 5:30, Lk. 16:2).

The relative converter [...], when expanding the formal demonstrative antecedent [...] or [...], may be separated from the converted conjugation-form by at least two adjacent paradigms (“slots”), the first (pro)nominal and the second adverbial (Shisha-Haley, 1981, p. 318; e.g. Dt. 2:25, [...], they who shall tremble if they hear your name; Col. 3:7, [...], those in which you too used to walk); this indicates that the converter/conjugation-form seam is juncturally open to a degree.

3.11. The functional range of the coordinating [...] is considerably extended in Bohairic, entailing reduced functions for [...]. ([...] is preferred as a coordinator of noun syntagms.)

4. Lexicon: Idiomatics

4.1. The Bohairic lexeme inventory, idiosyncratic to a considerable extent, has never been properly researched in respect of either its internal or its contrastive structure. In the unstructured lexicon peculiar to Bohairic, occasionally in common with Fayyumic (e.g., [...], be wroth; [...], send; [...], cease; [...], foot; [...], side; [...], pour; [...], up), one notes cases of 1:1 correspondence with Sahidic [...], breast; [...], left side; [...], gather), 2:1 ([...], children; [...], unto), 1:2 ([...], cease, have done), and so on.

4.2. Although no overall statistics are available on the Greek-origin component of the Bohairic lexicon (cf. Kasser, 1966, and Bauer, 1975), one impressionistically notes the higher frequency in Bohairic of the use of Greek loanwords as well as their broader semantic spectrum and their number in absolute terms, which is larger in comparison with Sahidic usage. Some loans (e.g., [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...]) are exclusive to Bohairic and show to what extent it imported ready-made Greek phrases; others (e.g., [...], [...], [...], [...]) do occur elsewhere, but are much more common in Bohairic.

4.3. Phraseology and idiomatics are again virgin fields of study. Peculiarly B are, for instance, [...] ([...]), what for, to what purpose?; [...], [...], together with; and [...], not small, for S [...], [...], [...] (Acts 12:18, 15:2, etc.).

5. Varieties of Bohairic

5.1. Without taking a stand on their relative status and relative chronology, one can point out the following main subdivisions, or Gattungen, that B texts fall into, from the grammatical point of view. Given the current state of knowledge, one can do no more; as more evidence comes in (e.g., following the publication and evaluation of the “Old Bohairic” Twelve Prophets, unbiased consideration of Nitrian sources) and as the general dialectological picture becomes clearer (as it surely will, following the publication and study of “Middle Egyptian” evidence), one may be able to integrate these types of Bohairic in a coherent system.

5.2. “Classical” scriptural Bohairic conventionally serves as a point de repère for judging other types and is usually used for “Bohairic proper.” Although it is by no means homogenous (being often variously blended with Nitrian; see 5.4), it nevertheless represents an optimal testo di lingua, especially in “good” consistent manuscripts (such as Vat. copto 1 and Bibl. Nat. copte 1).

5.3. A group (again, not monolithic) of fourth-and fifth-century biblical texts—extremely early documentation in comparison with the bulk of Bohairic scriptural sources—differs sharply from the classical idiom in linguistic usage. The largest single document of this kind published to date is Papyrus Bodmer III, containing the Gospel of John (Kasser, 1958, and 1966, pp. 66ff; cf. DIALECTS); another extensive manuscript containing the Twelve Prophets in the Vaticana was studied by H. Quecke. In Bodmer III one finds, among others, the following idiosyncrasies: [...], there; [...], two (for the classical [...], [...]); [...], and; the negative conditional [...] the preterite relative converter [...] (known also in Gnostic Sahidic, Subakhmimic, and Middle Egyptian); absence of the djinkim; flottement of [...], [...], [...]. Under the same heading, one may also include some shorter biblical texts of approximately the same early dating, including passages from James (with the djinkim; Quecke, 1974) and a biblical anthology (Husselman, 1947). On some “Bohairic” elements in Old Coptic, see Kahle (1954, pp. 243f.).

5.4. Nitrian Bohairic is attested mainly in hagiographical, homiletic, and hermeneutical texts from the Nitrian Monastery of Macarius, where they are generally supposed to have been transposed from a Sahidic Vorlage in the ninth century, but is also found “seeping through” into classical sources. This idiom has not yet been redeemed from neglect due to the bias of “secondhandedness” and “tainting,” and Nitrian grammar has not had the attention it deserves. Phonologically, one observes here [...] fluctuating with [...] (e.g., in [...], down) and [...] with [...] (in [...], fool; [...], camel). Typically there are [...], tree; [...], form; [...], stand up; and [...], small. Sporadically, combinatory aspiration is absent. As regards morphology, one finds [...] for the second present converter; [...] is found as a variant of prenominal [...]; in certain classes the presuffixal allomorph of the verb lexeme is extended to the prenominal state, leveling simplification into two—absolute and preobject—allomorphs (see Polotsky, 1930, p. 875 [=CP 344]): [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...]; typical are the conjugation bases [...]and [...] (first sing. [...], [...]); [...] occurs for the second plural after [...]. One encounters the “freezing” of the possessive suffix in [...], [...] (Polotsky, 1934, p. 61 [=CP 366)]; Greek loan verbs occur alsQ without ep-. Syntactically, one finds the relative to be compatible with indefinite determination ([...], Balestri and Hyvernat, 1907—1950, 2.206.23; [...], Homélies 1.101.4) and the circumstantial expanding definite nouns ([...], [...], Balestri and Hyvernat, 1907—1950, 2.184.22f.). As in Sahidic, the second tense may have a nonadverbial focus (Polotsky, 1944, pp. 22, n. 1, and 31; 1971, pp. 126, 135). The negator [...] is compatible with independently negative elements: [...] (Balestri and Hyvernat, 1907—1950, 1.9.8), [...] (ibid. 216.3). The regulation of [...] versus [...] adnominal expansion appears to be disrupted or changed. [...] occurs (as a backgrounding of macrosyntactic subject) after verb forms other than the imperfect (Hyvernat, 1886—1887, 135.13f., [...]; 146.6f., [...], cir-cumstantial; 150.13, [...]). Although many of these traits are attributable to the influence of Sahidic, this is by no means true of all.

5.5. Liturgical Bohairic has never been especially considered from the grammatical point of view. The djinkim occurs over most consonants, including surds; phonetic spellings are very common. [...] is often zeroed. Some of the syntactic characteristics of Nitrian Bohairic are in evidence; the word order is occasionally remarkable; “agrammatical” constructions (such as [...] + fut. I in a final clause, [...] in the durative conjugation) occur. Nominal sentences with zeroed tie are common; the conjunctive occurs in initial position.

5.6. Nonliterary Bohairic is still a complete mystery. The sixth-eighth-century inscriptions of Kellia in Wadi al-Natrun belong here only in a sense (they include tombstone and other personal religious texts); they are interesting (and as yet unresearched) from the linguistic point of view. One finds here sporadic variation of [...], [...], [...] the conjunctive [...]; the spelling [...]; sporadic absence of nasal-labial assimilation ([...]) and of combinatory aspiration ([...]). Proper names are expanded by [...] ([...]). On the whole, the language conforms with the classical rather than the Nitrian standard of Bohairic.

5.7. Kahle’s “semi-Bohairic” Bala’izah no. 19, a fourth-century papyrus text with passages from Philippians, shows some Fayyumic and Sahidic affinities.

6. Selected Bibliographical Information

6.1 Major or Comprehensive Text Editions. Biblical, hermeneutic: Tattam (1836, 1852 [Prophets]), de Lagarde (1867, 1886 [Pentateuch, New Testament Catena]), Burmester and Devaud (1925, 1930 [Psalms, Proverbs]), Porcher (1924 [Job]), Horner (1898—1905 [New Testament]). Patristic, hagiographical, homiletic: Hyvernat (1886—1887), Balestri and Hyvernat (1907—1950), de Vis (1922—1929).

6.2 Grammatical Discussion. Andersson (1904) contains, beside blatant errors, a few notable observations. Mallon (1956) is the. only modern special grammar (cf. Polotsky, 1959, his major treatise concerning Bohairic, as well as 1930, 1934, 1944, 1950) with extensive bibliography, chrestomathy, and glossary; it leaves much to be desired. While Peyron’s venerable grammar (1841) is still of value, Stern (1880) is still by far the best treatment of Bohairic (as of Sahidic) grammar; the Schwarze (1850) grammar is skeletal, but contains numerous important grammatical observations. Note also Schwarze’s unwieldy work of 1843, and the early grammars by Tuki and by Scholtz and Woide (both 1778). Chaine (1933), a detailed and extensive contrastive-dialectological grammar, has many merits and makes quite a few pioneering statements. Till (1931) is superficial and almost useless (cf. Polotsky, 1934). Finally, Erman’s famous, yet unfollowed, contrastive study of juncture (1915) aims at reviving interest in Bohairic, and Shisha-Halevy (1981) dwells on some conservative characteristics of this dialect.

6.3 General Dialectological Discussion. Kahle (1954) is still the prime source of information (esp. pp. 231ff., 248ff.). Worrell (1934, esp. chaps. 1—2) treats Bohairic phonology and the general status of the dialect. Vergote (1973, Vol. lb) discusses B phonology as a component in a panoramic presentation. Bohairic features in all of Kasser’s important dialectological studies (see esp. 1981, pp. 92ff.).

6.4 Lexicology. Only Peyron and Tattam (both 1835) cater specially to B. The priceless information in Crum’s Dictionary (1939) must yet be resolved for the individual dialects. G. Bauer’s concordance (1975) of the invariable Greek elements in the Bohairic New Testament is a welcome tool of research, which, one hopes, is to be extended to the rest of the Greek, as well as the indigenous, lexicon.

ARIEL SHISHA-HALEVY

Description

Rating
Entry Title	Bohairic
Publication	The Coptic encyclopedia, volume 8
Entry Reference	CE:A53b-A60a
Creator	Shisha-Halevy, Ariel
Contributors	Atiya, Aziz Suryal, 1898-1988 (editor-in-chief)
Subject	Coptic language Coptic language - Bohairic dialect Coptic literature Phonology Morphology Orthography and spelling Grammar Arab Conquest of Egypt Wādī al-Naṭrūn (Egypt) Memphis (Extinct city) Coptic language - Sahidic dialect Coptic language - Fayyumic dialect Manuscripts Hagiography Liturgies Nag Hammadi library Numbers, Natural Lexicography Idioms Phraseology Greek language
Description	[Editorial note: [...] indicates use of Coptic or Greek text. Original script is available for viewing in the PDF format of this article.] (CE:A53b-A60a) BOHAIRIC, a major dialect of Coptic, called “MEMPHITIC,” “the northern dialect,” or “dialect of Lower Egypt” in earlier terminology, and simply “Coptic” in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century treatises, Bohairic being the first Coptic dialect with which Western scholarship became acquainted. “Bohairic” (B) was first used by Stern (1880, p. xii). Originally the northern local dialect of the western Delta (Buhaira) and Wadi al-Natrun, Bohairic spread dramatically (beginning after, and as an indirect result of, the ARAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT) eastward and southward. In the eighth and ninth centuries it broke the monopoly of Sahidic as a Pan-Coptic idiom and by the eleventh century had largely completed the process of becoming virtually the sole dialect of Coptic. Bohairic became the official ecclesiastical language, and the classical Bohairic version of the Scriptures, the official text. Bohairic, which survives only as a liturgical language, was the dialect that saw Coptic out as the living idiom of Egypt. The old controversial question of its prehistory—whether it was never a literary language before the Arab conquest (Stern, 1880, p. 1; Lefort, 1931) or was, on the contrary, an old literary dialect (Worrell’s opinion) has not yet been settled. What survives in the way of Bohairic documentation consists, on the one hand, of manuscripts later than the ninth century with scriptural, homiletic, hermeneutic, hagiographical, and liturgical texts and, on the other, a much smaller collection of fourth- and fifth-century fragments, all biblical (see sec. 5 on the varieties of Bohairic). Bohairic shares isoglosses with most other dialects of Coptic, mainly with Fayyumic, Middle Egyptian (MESOKEMIC), Sahidic, and, more subtly, certain Nag Hammadi varieties of Sahidic (especially some tractates in Codex VII), DIALECT G and DIALECT P. The persistent, somewhat biased impression of Bohairic as an innovating dialect is refuted by careful internal and contrastive examination, which shows it to be rather of a conservative nature (cf. Shisha-Halevy, 1981). Not only its grammatical minutiae but even some major issues are still obscure and in need of rigorous and methodologically careful investigation. Far from being “sufficiently well known” (Kahle, 1954, p. 232), it has, following Steindorff’s Grammatik of 1894, been superseded by Sahidic as far as research and tuition are concerned. (For Stern, 1880, it was still the primary illustration dialect.) Since the 1890s “Coptic” par excellence has been Sahidic, and Bohairic has been suffering grave scholarly neglect (cf. Erman, 1915, p. 161). This article will attempt to provide a brief typological profile of Bohairic grammar. While details of phonology and nonsystemic morphology are relatively well known, its système de valeur and syntax still hold quite a few mysteries for the linguist. The account given here is predominantly synchronic and noncontrastive. 1. Phonology, Morphophonology, and Graphemics 1.1. Probably the most striking feature of Bohairic is the nonpertinent, allophonic status of consonant aspiration in words of native Egyptian stock. The aspirated allophone ([...], [...]. [...]) occurs “combinatorily” before, and in contact with, a sonorant (any of /b/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /r/, /w/, and /j/) in initial clusters and elsewhere ([...], crown; [...], immortal; [...], the beloved) or “spontaneously” as the onset of a stressed syllable (indeed, “stress” is a feature equivalent to “sonority,” and thus the “spontaneousness” is relative and only a manner of speaking). [...], the allophone of [...] before sonorants ([...], bed), nonetheless constitutes a phoneme ([...], quince, [...], dish). 1.2. The B phonemic inventory features the opposition /x/ /h/, graphemically [...]: [...] ([...], lower part: [...], upper part). 1.3. The open final unstressed (posttonic) vowel in B is /i/ ([...], man; [...], think, thought). Table 1 displays the facts in the case of closed unstressed syllables (cf. Polotsky, 1933). Table 1. Closed Unstressed Syllables in Bohairic [See PDF version of this article for Table 1.] 1.4. Nonfinal historical laryngeals (primary and secondary, evolved from r or t) are not realized in Bohairic: [...], in existence; [...], finger; [...], remain over; [...], [...] (second fem. sing.) Finally, one finds i: second fem. sing. [...], thou too; [...], stand thee up; masc. [...], one. 1.5. Palatal sibilant assimilation is the rule: [...], make live, nourish; [...], despise. 1.6. Long diphthongs lengthened from short vowels occur with w and j: [...], bread; [...], honor. 1.7. The syllabicity of vowels and nasal sonorants is indicated by means of a superposed point ([...]; see DJINKIM). In classical usage (manuscripts prior to the fourteenth century), this applies to any vowel constituting by itself a syllable ([...], he went out; [...], bring [imp.]) and to M and N constituting a radical or a grammatical element and preceding another ([...], rest; [...], he; [...], for God). This syllabicity is canceled in certain combinatory circumstances (cf. Polotsky, 1949). In later Bohairic, one finds the djinkim on other consonants ([...] smell; [...], you are coming). 1.8. Numbers are usually symbolized by letters and not written out (Dt. 34:8, [...], for thirty days; Mk. 6:40, [...], by hundreds and by fifties). 1.9. The phoneme /i/ is usually expressed by an iota, even when initial ([...], come, go; [...], thirst). 1.10. Proclitically weak elements are not always marked as such (Erman, 1915): [...], [...], [...]. 2. Morphology and Word Formation 2.1. There is superficial (structurally resolvable) coincidence of the perfect base with the second present/future converter, both [...] (opposed to the circumstantial [...]). a-vocalism characterizes the preterite converter [...] and the negative aorist [...]. 2.2. The relative converter [...] is common to the bipartite and all tripartite conjugation forms ([...], relative perfect). 2.3 The relative and second perfect converters coincide, as [...], with systemic consequences. 2.4. The relative converter [...] has no prenominal allomorph, thus differing from the other three converters before the bipartite pattern. ere is an alternant (variant?) of the circumstantial before the existential [...]. The converters and some bases have a [...] allomorph before the short second plural suffix [...], [...], [...], [...] etc. 2.5. The base of the conjuctive is [...], prenominally as well as presuffixally. In the first singular the base-plus-actor is [...]; in the third plural it is [...], which is opposed to [...], the sole representative in Bohairic of a syntagm (the Sahidic conjunctive) in which [...] marks as modifier a nexus of “actor plus verb.” 2.6. The so-called third future is largely convertible in Bohairic (Stern, 1880, sec. 418—19; Andersson, 1904, pp. 62ff.). 2.7. In one variety of Bohairic (see 5.3) there occurs a special negative-conditional base, [...] (discussed by Cerny, 1963, and Kasser, 1963). [...] occurs only in the affirmative form of the conditional clause-tripartite conjugation form. The negatived base coincides with the second present ([...]), a coincidence that is diachronically significant but synchronically probably superficial. 2.8. The negative jussive (causative imperative) base is in Bohairic [...]; its connection with the negative imperative characteristic [...] is thus severed. 2.9. The negative aorist base is [...], showing diachronic affinities with the second tense. 2.10. [...] is the second singular feminine form of the future. 2.11. The first singular and third plural actor suffix pronouns are syllabic with the causative infinitive ([...], [...]) and negative third future ([...], [...]; cf. Polotsky, 1960, sec. 49). 2.12. Verb Lexeme/Stative Peculiarities. Historical 3ae infirmae -i infinitives (Stern’s class III) usually have no -t= in the pronominal state ([...], bring; [...], give birth to; [...], find; [...], exalt). On the other hand, the imperative form marked by a often has -t = ([...], do; [...], bring). Verbs of Greek origin have in Bohairic the Greek infinitive form ([...], -ecye) and are integrated in the Coptic conjugation by means of the auxiliary [...] ([...], bear [...], embrace, greet). The stative of the causative lexeme class ends in -t ([...], [...], being created). 2.13. The imperative of “give” has three allomorphs: [...], [...], [...] (Polotsky, 1950, pp. 78ff.; 1971, 213ff.). 2.14. A verb-nominalization form in [...] is grammaticalized as [...] (Stern, 1880, sec. 470— 72; Mk. 14:55, [...], to kill him). 2.15. The definite determinator pronoun {[...]} has only one form (with no special precluster allomorph). 2.16. Bohairic has a plural infix -u- ([...], oaths; [...], fetters). 2.17. The first plural object suffix is usually (postconsonantally) [...] (rarely [...]). 2.18. Postadjunctive Greek-origin adverbial modifiers may be marked by [...] ([...]). 3. Syntagmatics, Paradigmatics (Role Relationship), and Prosody 3.1. Focalization Patterns. The second tense focalizes adverbs only, not actor or object (pro)nouns (except for [...], How are you?, cf. Polotsky, 1960, p. 409). Interrogative pronouns may be construed with an unmarked (basic tense) topic, especially the first perfect (Gn. 27:33, [...], Who then hunted game for me?), but enter more usually the nominal cleft sentence pattern. In the latter case, the topic constituent is either the invariable [...] (Polotsky, 1962, pp. 419f. [=CP 424]), which differs from the “substantivized” relative [...] (the relative expanding a demonstrative and indefinite pronouns as well as proper names; cf. Polotsky, 1962, sec. 9; Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 321f.): Mt. 3:14, [...], It is I who need to be baptized; Mt. 9:5, [...], What is it that is easy to say? Mt. 2:22 [...], It is Archelaos that is king; Mk. 8:37, [...], This is what a man will give in exchange for his soul. 3.2 Extraposition. Bohairic is strikingly topic-marking, favoring a front (topicalizing) extraposition as topic of a nominal sentence (Gn. 24:65, [...], Who is this man yonder?) and in other constructions (Shisha-Halevy, 1981, p. 321). The rear extraposition of a noun lexeme to an “interlocutive” (first-second person) pronoun is marked in Bohairic by [...] (e.g., Acts 10:41, Jas. 4:12). 3.3 Nominal Syntagmatics. The Bohairic system of determinator nuclear pronouns (“articles”) is quaternary: definite-deictic ({[...]}), definite nondeictic ({[...]}), indefinite ({[...]}), generic, nonindividualizing ([...]). Of these, the first two are interrelated in a complicated, still partly obscure set of factors, some external (cotextual), others internal (i.e., selection of {[...]} by a special lexeme paradigm in a construction {[...]} [...] expressing inalienable possession, opposed to {[...]} [...], which expresses noninherent “appurtenance”). Elucidating this issue is probably the most urgent single task to be undertaken by students of this dialect. [...] is also used to add further lexemes to the determinator-plus-lexeme basic unit: [...], as in Mt. 23:17, 19, [...], the stupid and blind; Acta Martyrum 1.21 .2f., [...] (nom. predicate) “pitiful and merciful.” 3.4. The predication of possession is effected in Bohairic by a paradigm of adverbial-predicate patterns predicating [...] (Lk. 3:11), and not only by a verboid ([...], [...], as in Gn. 16:1; cf. Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 31 7f.). The pronominal possessum never occurs as object of the verboid, but as the subject of the adverbial predication (Dt. 4:38). 3.5. The pronominal subject of affirmative bimembral nominal sentences is sometimes zeroed when it is anaphoric to a determinator or an extraposed topic (Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 328f.; I Cor. 5:18, [...]). The most common instance of this is the distinctively Bohairic possessive [...] (Lk. 6:30, 16:12). 3.6. [...], the grammatically operative causative infinitive of [...], is in Bohairic subject to the Stern-Jernstedt Rule and thus incompatible with the mediate ([...]) direct-object construction in the bipartite pattern (Stern, 1880, p. 292; e.g., Mt. 5:32; De Vis, 1922—1929, 1.14.6). 3.7. The bipartite pattern predicating an adverb favors the intermediation of a copular stative (Gn. 26:24, [...], I am with you). 3.8. Gender. The cataphoric gender in “impersonal” predications is as a rule the feminine. On the other hand, the pronominal subject of the predicate (“to the debit/obligation of. . .”) is (at least as a variant) the masculine: Gal. 5:3, [...], he is obliged to observe the whole Law. 3.9. Tempuslehre Idiosyncrasies. The so-called third future is in Bohairic a true tense, not a mode, in paradigm with the present based imminent future marked by [...]. The conjunctive has often a subjunctival or “that”-form value (Stern, 1880, sec. 442), such as expanding the cataphoric feminine in “impersonal” predications (Mt. 5:29, [...], It is good for you that one of your members perish.. .). The second relative perfect form serves not only its topicalizing ad-nominal function but also as a temporal-protatic “temporalis” topic before a main clause (constituting a “topic-comment” nexus on a macrosyntactic level of analysis; Jn. 11:28, [...], Having said this, she went away). The temporal clause is thus not expressed by a specific clause-tripartite conjugation base. (Incidentally, the second perfect in Bohairic cannot be further converted by the circumstantial converter.) The final and conditional clause paradigms include in Bohairic the conjunctive (after Greek final conjunctions of [...], respectively, I Cor. 12:25, Mt. 6: 14ff.). The postimperative paradigm lacks in Bohairic a specific marked apodotic form ([...] in other dialects, especlally Sahidic) and features, typically, imperative and jussive forms (Mt. 9:6; Lk. 7:7) beside the nonspecific conjunctive (Acts 6:3) and [...] plus future tense (Mt. 7:7; Prv. 4:6). The “ethical dative” is regular after [...] in the nondurative conjugation ([...]). 3.10. Prosody and Juncture. Elements of relatively weak stress in the utterance (native Egyptian enclitic particles, augentia, [...], the “backgrounding” tie) tend to a sentence-posterior, “trailing” position (Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 319f.; e.g., Mt. 23:4, 26:44; Jn. 5:30, Lk. 16:2). The relative converter [...], when expanding the formal demonstrative antecedent [...] or [...], may be separated from the converted conjugation-form by at least two adjacent paradigms (“slots”), the first (pro)nominal and the second adverbial (Shisha-Haley, 1981, p. 318; e.g. Dt. 2:25, [...], they who shall tremble if they hear your name; Col. 3:7, [...], those in which you too used to walk); this indicates that the converter/conjugation-form seam is juncturally open to a degree. 3.11. The functional range of the coordinating [...] is considerably extended in Bohairic, entailing reduced functions for [...]. ([...] is preferred as a coordinator of noun syntagms.) 4. Lexicon: Idiomatics 4.1. The Bohairic lexeme inventory, idiosyncratic to a considerable extent, has never been properly researched in respect of either its internal or its contrastive structure. In the unstructured lexicon peculiar to Bohairic, occasionally in common with Fayyumic (e.g., [...], be wroth; [...], send; [...], cease; [...], foot; [...], side; [...], pour; [...], up), one notes cases of 1:1 correspondence with Sahidic [...], breast; [...], left side; [...], gather), 2:1 ([...], children; [...], unto), 1:2 ([...], cease, have done), and so on. 4.2. Although no overall statistics are available on the Greek-origin component of the Bohairic lexicon (cf. Kasser, 1966, and Bauer, 1975), one impressionistically notes the higher frequency in Bohairic of the use of Greek loanwords as well as their broader semantic spectrum and their number in absolute terms, which is larger in comparison with Sahidic usage. Some loans (e.g., [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...]) are exclusive to Bohairic and show to what extent it imported ready-made Greek phrases; others (e.g., [...], [...], [...], [...]) do occur elsewhere, but are much more common in Bohairic. 4.3. Phraseology and idiomatics are again virgin fields of study. Peculiarly B are, for instance, [...] ([...]), what for, to what purpose?; [...], [...], together with; and [...], not small, for S [...], [...], [...] (Acts 12:18, 15:2, etc.). 5. Varieties of Bohairic 5.1. Without taking a stand on their relative status and relative chronology, one can point out the following main subdivisions, or Gattungen, that B texts fall into, from the grammatical point of view. Given the current state of knowledge, one can do no more; as more evidence comes in (e.g., following the publication and evaluation of the “Old Bohairic” Twelve Prophets, unbiased consideration of Nitrian sources) and as the general dialectological picture becomes clearer (as it surely will, following the publication and study of “Middle Egyptian” evidence), one may be able to integrate these types of Bohairic in a coherent system. 5.2. “Classical” scriptural Bohairic conventionally serves as a point de repère for judging other types and is usually used for “Bohairic proper.” Although it is by no means homogenous (being often variously blended with Nitrian; see 5.4), it nevertheless represents an optimal testo di lingua, especially in “good” consistent manuscripts (such as Vat. copto 1 and Bibl. Nat. copte 1). 5.3. A group (again, not monolithic) of fourth-and fifth-century biblical texts—extremely early documentation in comparison with the bulk of Bohairic scriptural sources—differs sharply from the classical idiom in linguistic usage. The largest single document of this kind published to date is Papyrus Bodmer III, containing the Gospel of John (Kasser, 1958, and 1966, pp. 66ff; cf. DIALECTS); another extensive manuscript containing the Twelve Prophets in the Vaticana was studied by H. Quecke. In Bodmer III one finds, among others, the following idiosyncrasies: [...], there; [...], two (for the classical [...], [...]); [...], and; the negative conditional [...] the preterite relative converter [...] (known also in Gnostic Sahidic, Subakhmimic, and Middle Egyptian); absence of the djinkim; flottement of [...], [...], [...]. Under the same heading, one may also include some shorter biblical texts of approximately the same early dating, including passages from James (with the djinkim; Quecke, 1974) and a biblical anthology (Husselman, 1947). On some “Bohairic” elements in Old Coptic, see Kahle (1954, pp. 243f.). 5.4. Nitrian Bohairic is attested mainly in hagiographical, homiletic, and hermeneutical texts from the Nitrian Monastery of Macarius, where they are generally supposed to have been transposed from a Sahidic Vorlage in the ninth century, but is also found “seeping through” into classical sources. This idiom has not yet been redeemed from neglect due to the bias of “secondhandedness” and “tainting,” and Nitrian grammar has not had the attention it deserves. Phonologically, one observes here [...] fluctuating with [...] (e.g., in [...], down) and [...] with [...] (in [...], fool; [...], camel). Typically there are [...], tree; [...], form; [...], stand up; and [...], small. Sporadically, combinatory aspiration is absent. As regards morphology, one finds [...] for the second present converter; [...] is found as a variant of prenominal [...]; in certain classes the presuffixal allomorph of the verb lexeme is extended to the prenominal state, leveling simplification into two—absolute and preobject—allomorphs (see Polotsky, 1930, p. 875 [=CP 344]): [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...]; typical are the conjugation bases [...]and [...] (first sing. [...], [...]); [...] occurs for the second plural after [...]. One encounters the “freezing” of the possessive suffix in [...], [...] (Polotsky, 1934, p. 61 [=CP 366)]; Greek loan verbs occur alsQ without ep-. Syntactically, one finds the relative to be compatible with indefinite determination ([...], Balestri and Hyvernat, 1907—1950, 2.206.23; [...], Homélies 1.101.4) and the circumstantial expanding definite nouns ([...], [...], Balestri and Hyvernat, 1907—1950, 2.184.22f.). As in Sahidic, the second tense may have a nonadverbial focus (Polotsky, 1944, pp. 22, n. 1, and 31; 1971, pp. 126, 135). The negator [...] is compatible with independently negative elements: [...] (Balestri and Hyvernat, 1907—1950, 1.9.8), [...] (ibid. 216.3). The regulation of [...] versus [...] adnominal expansion appears to be disrupted or changed. [...] occurs (as a backgrounding of macrosyntactic subject) after verb forms other than the imperfect (Hyvernat, 1886—1887, 135.13f., [...]; 146.6f., [...], cir-cumstantial; 150.13, [...]). Although many of these traits are attributable to the influence of Sahidic, this is by no means true of all. 5.5. Liturgical Bohairic has never been especially considered from the grammatical point of view. The djinkim occurs over most consonants, including surds; phonetic spellings are very common. [...] is often zeroed. Some of the syntactic characteristics of Nitrian Bohairic are in evidence; the word order is occasionally remarkable; “agrammatical” constructions (such as [...] + fut. I in a final clause, [...] in the durative conjugation) occur. Nominal sentences with zeroed tie are common; the conjunctive occurs in initial position. 5.6. Nonliterary Bohairic is still a complete mystery. The sixth-eighth-century inscriptions of Kellia in Wadi al-Natrun belong here only in a sense (they include tombstone and other personal religious texts); they are interesting (and as yet unresearched) from the linguistic point of view. One finds here sporadic variation of [...], [...], [...] the conjunctive [...]; the spelling [...]; sporadic absence of nasal-labial assimilation ([...]) and of combinatory aspiration ([...]). Proper names are expanded by [...] ([...]). On the whole, the language conforms with the classical rather than the Nitrian standard of Bohairic. 5.7. Kahle’s “semi-Bohairic” Bala’izah no. 19, a fourth-century papyrus text with passages from Philippians, shows some Fayyumic and Sahidic affinities. 6. Selected Bibliographical Information 6.1 Major or Comprehensive Text Editions. Biblical, hermeneutic: Tattam (1836, 1852 [Prophets]), de Lagarde (1867, 1886 [Pentateuch, New Testament Catena]), Burmester and Devaud (1925, 1930 [Psalms, Proverbs]), Porcher (1924 [Job]), Horner (1898—1905 [New Testament]). Patristic, hagiographical, homiletic: Hyvernat (1886—1887), Balestri and Hyvernat (1907—1950), de Vis (1922—1929). 6.2 Grammatical Discussion. Andersson (1904) contains, beside blatant errors, a few notable observations. Mallon (1956) is the. only modern special grammar (cf. Polotsky, 1959, his major treatise concerning Bohairic, as well as 1930, 1934, 1944, 1950) with extensive bibliography, chrestomathy, and glossary; it leaves much to be desired. While Peyron’s venerable grammar (1841) is still of value, Stern (1880) is still by far the best treatment of Bohairic (as of Sahidic) grammar; the Schwarze (1850) grammar is skeletal, but contains numerous important grammatical observations. Note also Schwarze’s unwieldy work of 1843, and the early grammars by Tuki and by Scholtz and Woide (both 1778). Chaine (1933), a detailed and extensive contrastive-dialectological grammar, has many merits and makes quite a few pioneering statements. Till (1931) is superficial and almost useless (cf. Polotsky, 1934). Finally, Erman’s famous, yet unfollowed, contrastive study of juncture (1915) aims at reviving interest in Bohairic, and Shisha-Halevy (1981) dwells on some conservative characteristics of this dialect. 6.3 General Dialectological Discussion. Kahle (1954) is still the prime source of information (esp. pp. 231ff., 248ff.). Worrell (1934, esp. chaps. 1—2) treats Bohairic phonology and the general status of the dialect. Vergote (1973, Vol. lb) discusses B phonology as a component in a panoramic presentation. Bohairic features in all of Kasser’s important dialectological studies (see esp. 1981, pp. 92ff.). 6.4 Lexicology. Only Peyron and Tattam (both 1835) cater specially to B. The priceless information in Crum’s Dictionary (1939) must yet be resolved for the individual dialects. G. Bauer’s concordance (1975) of the invariable Greek elements in the Bohairic New Testament is a welcome tool of research, which, one hopes, is to be extended to the rest of the Greek, as well as the indigenous, lexicon. ARIEL SHISHA-HALEVY
Bibliography	BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersson, E. Ausgewädhlte Bemerkungen über den bohairischen Dialekt im Pentateuch koptisch. Uppsala, 1904. Balestri, G., and H. Hyvernat. Acta Martyrum, I. CSCO 43, 44. Paris, 1907, 1908. Acta Martyrum, II [Text]. CSCO 86. Paris, 1924. See also Hyvernat, 1950. Bauer, G. Konkordanz der nichlflektierten griechischen Wörter im bohairischen Neuen Testament. Wiesbaden, 1975. Burmester, O. H. E. and E. Dévaud. Psalterii Versio Memphitica e Recognitione Pauli de Lagarde. Louvain, 1925. _____ Les Proverbes de Salomon (Ch. 1, v. 1-14, v. 26, Ch. 24, v. 24-v. 29 et v. 50-v. 77 et Ch. 29, v. 28-v. 38), texte bohaï rique du Cod. 8 de la Rylands Library, Manchester, du Cod. 53 et 98 de la Bibliothèque Vaticane et du Cod. 1051 da Musée Copte au Caire, avec les variantes de 24 autres manuscrits et index des mots coptes et des mots grecs. Vienne, 1930. Cerny, J. “The Bohairic Verbal Prefix annef-” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 90 (1963):13-16. Chaîne, M. Eléments de grammaire dialectale copte. Paris 1933. Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford, 1939. Erman, A. “Unterschiede zwischen den koptischen Dialekten bei der Wortverbindung.” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1 (1915): 161-72. Horner, G. W. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic. London, 1898-1905. Husselman, E. M. “A Bohairic School Text on Papyrus.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6 (1947):129- 51. Hyvernat, H. Les Actes des martyrs de l’Egypte. Paris, 1886-1887. _____ Acta Martyrum, II [Translation], Additis Indicibus Totius Opens. CSCO 125. Louvain, 1950. Kahle, P. E. Bala’izah: Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt. London, 1954. Kasser, R. Papyrus Bodmer III: Evangile de Jean et Genèse I-IV,2 en bohaï rique. CSCO 177-178. Louvain, 1958. _____ “A propos des différentes formes du conditionnel copte.” Muséon 76 (1963):267-70. _____ L’Evangile selon Saint Jean et les versions coptes de la Bible. Neuchâtel, 1966. _____ “Prolégomènes á un essai de classification systématique des dialectes et subdialectes coptes selon les critières de la phonétique, I, Principes et terminologie.” Muséon 93 (1980a):53-112. II, Alphabets et systèmes phonétiques.” Muséon 93 (1980b):237-97. “..., III, Systèmes orthographiques et catégories dialectales.” Muséon 94 (1981):91-152. Lagarde, P. A. de. Der Pentateuch koptisch. Leipzig, 1867. _____ Catenae in Evangelia Aegyptiacae Quae Supersunt. Göttingen, 1886. Lefort, L. T. “Littérature bohaïrique.” Muséon 44 (1931):1 15-35. Mallon, A. Grammaire copte, bibliographie, chrestomathie et vocabulaire, 4th ed. rev. M. Malinine. Beirut, 1956. Peyron, V. A. Lexicon Linguae Copticae. Turin, 1835; repr., 1896. _____ Grammatica Linguae Copticae. Turin, 1841. _____ Lexicon Copticum. Berlin, 1896. Polotsky, H. J. Review of H. de Vis, Homélies coptes de la Vaticane. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 33 (1930):871-81. _____ “Zur koptischen Lautlehre II.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache and Altertumskunde 69 (1933):125-29. _____ Review of W. C. Till, Koptische Dialektgrammatik, mit Lesestücken and Wörterbuch. Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeiger 196 (1934):58-67. _____ Etudes de syntaxe copte. Cairo, 1944. _____ “Une question d’orthographe bohaïrique.” Bulletin de la Sociétè d’archèologie copte 12 (1949):25-35. _____ “Modes grecs en copte?” In Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum, pp. 73-90. Boston, 1950. _____ “Zur Neugestaltung der koptischen Grammatik.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 45 (1959):453-60. _____ “The Coptic Conjugation System.” Orientalia 29 (1960):392-422. _____ “Nominalsatz und Cleft Sentence im Koptischen.” Orientalia 31 (1962):413-30. _____ Collected Papers. Jerusalem, 1971. Porcher, E. “Le Livre de Job, version copte publiée et traduite.” Patrologia Orientalis 18 (1924):209-239. Quecke, H. “Ein altes bohairisches Fragment des Jakobusbriefes (P. Heid. kopt. 452).” Orientalia 43 (1974):382-92. Scholtz, C. and Charles Godfrey Woide. Grammatica Aegyptiaca Utriusque Dialecti. Oxford, 1778. Schwartze, M. G. Das alte Ägypten, oder Sprache, Geschichte, Religion and Verfassung des alten Agypten nach den altägyptischen Originalschriften und den Mittheilungen der nicht-ägyptischen alten Schriftsteller. Leipzig, 1843. Schwartze, M. G. Koptische Grammatik..., herausgegeben nach des Verfassers Tode von Dr. H. Steinthal. Berlin, 1850. Shisha-Halevy, A. “Bohairic-Late-Egyptian Diaglosses.” In Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky, ed. D. W. Young, pp. 3 14-38. East Gloucester, Mass., 1981. Stern, L. Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1880. Tattam, H. Lexicon Aegyptiaco-Latinum, ex Veteribus Linguae Aegyptiacae Monumentis, et ex Operibus La Crozii, Woidii, et Alioram, Summo Studio Congestum, cum Indice Vocum Latinarum. Oxford, 1835. _____ Duodecim Prophetarum Minorum Libros in Lingua Aegyptiaca Vulgo Coptica seu Memphitica ex Manuscripto Parisiensi Descriptos et cum Manuscripto Johannis Lee... Collatos Latine Edidit. Oxford, 1836. _____ Prophetae Majores, in Dialecto Linguae Aegyptiacae Memphitica seu Coptica, Edidit cum Versione Latina. Oxford, 1852. Till, W. C. Koptische Dialektgrammatik, mit Lesestücken and Wörterbuch. Munich, 1931; 2nd ed., 1961. Tuki, R. Rudimenta Linguae Coptae sive Aegyptiacae. Rome, 1778. Vergote, J. Grammaire copte, Vol. la, Introduction, phonétique et phonologie, morphologie synthématique (structure des séimantèmes), partie synchronique, and Vol. 1b, Introduction, phonétique et phonologie, morphologic synthématique (structure des sémantèmes), partic diachronique. Louvain, 1973. Vis, H. de. Homélics coptes de la Vaticane. Copenhagen, 1922-1929. Worrell, W. H. Coptic Sounds. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1934.
Original Publisher	Macmillan
Digital Publisher	Claremont Graduate University. School of Religion
Date	1991
Language	eng
Source	The Coptic encyclopedia, volume 8, (CE:A53b-A60a). 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	cce01962.pdf

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Bohairic

Bohairic

Description

Tags

Comments