(CE:A82a-A87b) DIALECT P (OR PROTO-THEBAN). The siglum for this dialect, P, comes from a Coptic biblical book of Proverbs in the form of a late-third-century parchment codex, P. Bodmer VI, the only existing document written in the dialect (Kasser, 1960). Its orthography exhibits phonological characteristics that allow one to consider it a PROTODIALECT. In brief though more precise terms, one could think of it as a proto-Theban that often resembles what can be known about a hypothetical proto-Sahidic, tentatively reconstructed (possibly a proto-Sahidic immigrant in the Theban region; cf. DIALECT, IMMIGRANT). Alphabet of P Even if it is of secondary importance to the study of dialects, it is worthwhile to examine the rather original alphabet used in P, which looks like the Old Coptic alphabets (see ALPHABETS, OLD COPTIC) and is incontestably the richest among the various Coptic alphabetic systems (many of the Coptic dialects and subdialects having their own varieties of the Coptic alphabet; see ALPHABETS, COPTIC and Kasser, 1980, pp. 280—81). Its thirty- five graphemes include three kinds of signs: (1) all twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet, as in all Coptic dialects except H; (2) a ligature of Greek origin, /c /, in autochthonous Coptic words such as P n = S n[i,the proleptic particle, and P = S [e, therefore; this interesting grapheme perhaps possesses the same phonological value in the Copto-Greek vocabulary, where it how- ever may be also /kai/, /kaj/, or possibly even /ke/ or /k / (apparently the case also in various Greek and Coptic documentary texts where it occasionally appears, always optionally); and (3) no less than ten graphemes that originated in demotic. (In contrast, Bohairic has but seven demotic characters and Sahidic only six.) The simplest way to describe the alphabet of P is to compare it with the alphabet of Sahidic (S). Many graphemes of demotic origin that belong properly to P obviously represent phonemes that S also possesses but expresses by other combined or single characters. For instance, /k/ in S is k, whereas for P it is , a grapheme observed in two Old Coptic texts (Kasser, 1980, p. 259). However, /c/ in S is [, while in P /c/ is k, for, as with virtually all Old Coptic texts, P refrains from using [ (Kasser, 1980, p. 258). Further, the two following signs of P no longer appear in P. Bodmer VI, except vestigially, being progressively forced out of usage by newer graphemic usages, in particular those of S. First, in a primitive state of evolution, P writes the sonant / / as -‘ like some Old Coptic texts (Kasser, 1963). Then it starts to write it as n, as in classical S later on. Also, in its primitive mode P appears to render graphically the tonic vowel as geminate (Kasser, 1985) and writes the voiceless laryngeal occlusive, aleph /’/, as . It probably derives from a combination of both similar demotic signs for 3 and i (du Bourguet, 1976, p. 3). Next, adopting the newer graphemic usages that will be those of S etc., P no longer geminates stressed vowels as such, but rather the tonic vowel is geminated when followed by aleph. For instance, for /tapr /, meaning “mouth,” the primitive P has taproo, while the logically secondary P and S have tapro; for / ’f/, meaning “to say it,” the primitive P has jo f, whereas the secondary P and S have joof. Other graphemes peculiar to P, however, constitute the written form of phonemes no longer in more evolved Coptic (S and most Coptic dialects). Therefore, in its usage of q /x/, P comes into line with B etc., so P and B are graphemically opposed to A and where /x/ is |, but P, B, A, and (and the small subdialects J with |, and B7 and G with ,) are phonologically opposed to all the rest of the Coptic languages, dialects, and subdialects, where /x/ disappeared previously and no longer exists at all. But above all, in still using /ç/ (a sign found inverted in many Old Coptic texts; Kasser, 1980, pp. 258—60), P is phonologically opposed to all Coptic dialects and subdialects (except = pL, also a protodialect, where however /ç/ is ). As for , the graphemic combination j is still seen in the final position after the tonic vowel: mouj , mix; nouj , sprinkle; pwj , beat flat. This combination j could render a palatalized affricate / 2/ or / / corresponding to /tç/ as / / corresponds to /t /, rather than / ç/. In those three lexemes, the other Coptic dialects have, as the case arises (see below), -j[ in S and sometimes A; -jk in S; -jt in S, L, and sometimes A and B; -j| in A; -jq in B; or simply -j in S. This forms a range of possible phonemic combinations so open and diverse that the interpretation of P -j is scarcely made any easier. Phonological and Morphological Peculiarities As far as dialectology is concerned, the alphabet is d decisive indicator only insofar as its graphemes are able to reveal the nature of its phonemes. Thus, it is the phonology of P that enables one to see it as a type of protodialect often identical with a reconstructed proto-Sahidic. On this subject, it should be noted that nothing in the consonant system of P is incompatible with that of S (which is common, moreover, to many Coptic dialects, namely, those most neutralized in this respect, basically L, M, W, and V). A comparison of the consonant system of P with that of S is given below. As regards vocalization, it is undoubtedly advisable assign a preeminent importance to stressed vowels, which manifest most of the characteristics that allow one to distinguish between Coptic dialects or subdialects. One discovers that the vocabulary of P agrees thus in 97 percent of the cases with that of S. Nearly half of the remaining cases (P nak, large; rin, name; ou@, one (masc.); oua@, rush; a m=, quench; qrau, voice; and eban, wrath; cf. B mbon, in Vycichl, 1983, p. 108b) can eventually be explained by etymology and the archaic state of the language rather than by the influence of other Coptic dialects, particularly from the south, such as L or A. (It will also be noted that the stressed-vowel agreement of P with A and L, when they are completely in accord, or with any special variety of L is only between 59 percent and 63 percent.) In the remaining 1.5 percent of cases, the orthography of P, while distant from that of S, coincides with some other Coptic dialect (from Lower or Middle Egypt as well as Upper Egypt and thus having no particularly marked affinity with L or A). In class i, P always writes the stressed / / before final /j/ (first person singular pronoun suffix or any other element). Thus, P nmm/@, with me, corresponds to nmm/ei in L5 and L6; nem/@ in L4, F5, F56, and B; nemeei in A; neme@ in M and F4; and nmma@ in S. n/@, to me, in P, L4, W, V, F5, F56, F4, (F7), and B corresponds to n/ei in L5, L6, and F7; ne@ in M, F4, and F46; neei in A; and na@ in S. Also /j/ (not always final): for example, a@/(/)@te in P; a@e@ and a(e)ieu(te), etc., in A; a@eute in A and L4; aeieu in L6; a@eei in M; a@e@ in F, a@a@ in S and B all mean “to grow.” as/(e)ite in P; aseeite in A; ase@(te) in A and L4; aseei(te) in L6; aseei in L5; ase@ in M, V, and F; and ase@ in S and B all mean “to multiply.” m/ein in P; m/@n in W and F; m/@ni in B; me(e)ine in A; me@ne in L4; meein in M; and maein in L5, L6, and S all mean “sign.” c/ein in P; c/@n in F; c/@ni in B; ce(e)ine in A; ce@ne in L4; and ceein in M caein in L6 and S all mean “doctor, physician.” ouj/(e)ite in P; oujeei in A, L6, and L5; ouje@(te) in A and L4; oujeei(te) in L6; ouje@ in M and F; ouja@ in S and B all mean “to be healed, saved.” hr/@ in P, A, L, M, W, V, and B; hl/@ in F; and hra@ in S all mean “upper part.” qr/@ in P and B; |r/@ in A; hr/@ in L, M, W, and V; hl/@ F; and hra@ in S all mean “lower part.” In this category alone, one finds that P reaffirms its originality. If one summarizes its points of contact with other Coptic dialects in the previous narrow category, one finds that its most pronounced affinities are with B, then with F, then with L, then with A and M, with S definitely coming last. Some interesting observations can be made with unstressed vowels. -e is generally the unstressed vowel in P, as it is in S, but sometimes it is -a where the corresponding Egyptian word has a final ‘ayin: for example, P m/sa, S m//se, crowd; P masta, S maaje, ear; P t/ba, S t//be, finger; and P kooma†, S [oome†, twisted, crooked, perverse, vicious. On the one hand, it would be permissible to consider this differentiated vocalization as an archaism typical of P when compared to the more neutralized S. On the other hand, one finds that the dialectal regions of Egypt where this phenomenon is manifest are precisely Lower Middle Egypt and Lower Egypt. In fact, F (except for F7) and V. W having -i as the normal unstressed final vowel, have -e (F7 even has -a, like P) in the ‘ayin position mentioned earlier, and B loses every final vowel in place of its normal -i (thus, F7 m/sa, F5 m//se, W m/se, B m/s, crowd; F7 meja, F5 meeje, V meje, B masj, ear; F5 t//be, B t/b, finger; but, e.g., F7, F lwmi, W, V. B rwmi, man; cf. Polotsky, 1931; Vergote, 1945, p. 88). But one must not forget that the categories where P moves farthest away from S to approach B and especially F (or perhaps other dialects) remain quite restricted (tonic vowels above, 1.5 percent of the P vocabulary; atonic above, 1 percent), so that the result could hardly call in question the striking affinity that P and S have almost everywhere else (97 percent) as well as certain disagreements between the two in unstressed pretonic vowels (thus, P. L, A emnte, S amnte, hell; P. L, A emahte, S amahte, seize; plur. P ehw(w)r, L, A ehwr, S ahwwr, treasures; P ehom, L, A eham, S ahom, sigh; P, L, A a-, S e-, toward; P. L, A an/he, S eneh, eternity) or the fact that P, like L5 and L6, writes /n / rather than final / / after /w/, but in this position only, while A and L4 do not recognize this limitation (cf. P cooune, L, A caune, S cooun, to know). Nor, finally, does the situation change much from the fact that P, as opposed to S (and therefore coming close to A, L, and other dialects), readily replaces a potential aleph after the final stressed vowel with /j/ or / / (similiglide, Kasser, 1981b, p. 35), while the S orthography will refrain from indicating it. For example, meei of P; me(e)ie of A; me@e of L4; maeie of L5 and L6; m/@e of M; m/@ of W, V, F, and B; me@ of B; and me of S all mean “to love.” m/@ of P and B; mie of A; m/e of L; mee of M; me@ of W, V, B, F4, and F7; meei of F5 and F56; and me of S all mean truth, justice. nae of P, A, and L; nee of M; ne@ of W; neei of F5 and F56; na@ of B; and na of S all mean “pity.” cae of P; ca(e)ie of A and L; ce@ of F; ca@(e) of B; and ca of S all mean “beauty.” Ouee(i) of P; oue@e of A and L4; ouaeie of L6; ou/@e of M; ou//@ of F5; ou/@ of F7; oue@ of B; and oue of S all mean “to be distant, far-reaching.” Hee(i) of P; he(e)ie of A; he@e of L4; haeie of L5 and L6; h/@e of M; h/@ of V, F4, and (B); h//@ of F5; he@ of B; and he of S all mean “to fall.” P’s stressed vowels demonstrate, if not a complete identity with S, then at least a relationship close enough to consider it a regional dialectal variety very like a kind of “proto-Sahidic” (a reconstructed *pS cf. below). More precisely, it would be a that could have become a typical, local or regional variety of S, distinguished from classic S by only a few differences, but belonging, without doubt, to the Sahidic dialectal group (P is nearly as close to S as L4 is to L5 and L6, or F4 to F5, F7, F8, and F9 and conversely). Perhaps P was an immigrant variety of some sort of *pS from Thebes (cf. in some way the former hypothesis that P would be a Theban protodialect, Nagel, 1965; Kasser, 1982; on this, cf. especially P he-, on; ecte, behold, here is; rin, name; abal, outside; bw , to throw). More precisely, it would not be an indication that S was principally of Theban origin, but native to a place further north (between L and M). S, as a common language spreading (many centuries before Coptic times) southward (also northward) and through the whole valley of the Egyptian Nile above the Delta, would be implanted first of all, very early on, in some great urban centers, following the course of that river (Kasser, 1982). P (as a variety of *pS) could only be “Theban” by means of immigration (cf. DIALECT, IMMIGRANT). The close relationship of P and S is confirmed in the consonants, where the evidence of the protodialectal character is clear (cf. PROTODIALECT). In fact, the phonemes still present in P and absent in S follow exactly the well-known line of phonological evolution from pharaonic Egyptian to Coptic (Vergote, 1945, pp. 122ff.). Thus, P still has /ç/ (from predominant x3) written , and /x/ (from x2, related to a minority x3) written q. These two phonemes are also present in dialect i, the only other Coptic protodialect known at present; this has an impoverished alphabet (/ç/ ; /x/ |, as in A). The development of P as a protodialect near to a kind of *pS becoming S is as follows: /ç/ > s / /, and q /x/ > h /h/. For example, P orp, first, in S is sorp (A |arp, L sarp, etc.); and P qmqal, servant, is S hmhal (A |m|el, L hmhel). As far as the vowels are concerned, the verbal prefixes of P also have points in common with those of S, but even more with L (especially L4). This should not be too much of a surprise, since they are all directly or indirectly pretonic unstressed vowels, and it is specifically in the pretonic unstressed vowels that P is often closer to L, and sometimes A, than it is to S (perhaps an early characteristic neutralized later in S or the influence of native Thebes dialect on immigrant *pS in accordance with the hypothesis offered above). With the consonants, however, P sometimes exhibits original solutions approximating also to A or L (as the case arises) when disagreeing with S. (As regards the morphological peculiarities of P, see especially the conjugation system below.) Conjugation System Except in special instances (conjunctive, etc.), 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 or no particle. 1. Bipartite Pattern. Neg. zero... a or a (sic) (n... an S, (n) ... en L, zero... en A). 1.1. Present (basic) f- (= S, L, A), nom. zero (= S, L, A). And circ. ef- (= 5, L, A), nom. ere- (= S, L, (A), e- A); rel. et- (= S, L, A) or [etef-] (= (L5), etf- S, L, A, nom. [etere-] (= S, L4, (L5), L6, (A), ete- L5, (L6), A); pret. nef- (= S, L, naf- (L6), A), nom. [nere-] (= S, L, na(re)- A); pret. rel. etenef- (= S, L, enef- S, L, enaf- A), nom. [etenere-] (= S, L, enere- S, L); II ef- (= S, L, af- A), nom. e(re)- (ere- S, L, a(re)- A). 1.2. Future (basic) with -na-: fna- (= S, (L4), L5, L6, A), nom. zero... na- (= S, L, A). And circ. efna- (= S, (L4), LS, L6, A), nom. [ere-... na-] (= S, L6, e-... na- L5, A); rel. etna- (= S, L, A) or etefna- (= (L5), (L6), etfna- S, (L4), L5, L6, (A), nom. etere- … na- (= S, L4, L6, (A), ete-... na- L5, A); II efna- (= S, L, afna- A), nom. ere-... na- (= S, L, a(re)-... na- A). 1 .3. Future (basic) with -a-: fa- (only Prv. 19:25) (L4). And rel. (?)etefa- (only Prv. 6:29) (etfa- L4). 2. Tripartite Pattern. 2.1 Tenses with special negations (if not II). Indepedent (sentence) conjugations. 2.1.1. Perfect (basic) af- (= S, L, A, but twice sing. 1. hi- P = Prv. 7:15—16 [see Kasser, 1984], cf. ahi- etc. L6 sometimes), nom. a- (= S, L, A, except L6 Acta Pauli from Heidelberg, ha- [but af-, like P, S, L4, L5, A] (aha- rarely L6); neg. mpf- (= S, L, A, mpf- (L4), (L5), (16), nom. [mpe-] (= S, L, A, npe (A)). And circ. [eaf-] (S, L, A), nom. [ea-] (= S, L, A, except L6 Acta Pauli from Heidelberg, eha-); neg. [empf-] (= S, L, empef- (L4), (L6)), nom. [empe-] (= S, L). Rel. etah- (= A, (e)ntah- L; cf. Funk, 1984) or [etaf-] (= L4, A, entaf- S, (L6), ntaf- (S), L5, L6, (ete(h)af- L6)) nom. eta- (= L4, (L6), A, enta- S, (L6), nta- (S), L5, (L6), (ntaha-, eta(h)a-, entaa- L6)), neg. [etempf-] (= S, L, [A], etempef- (L6)), nom. [etempe-] (= S, L, A). II [etaf-] (= (A), ntaf- S, L, naf- A, (eaf- L6), also ere(nt)af- with a causal sense L6 Tractatus Tripartitus; cf. P era - Prv. 6:3), nom. [eta-] (nta- S, L, na- A); neg. zero ... a (etc.) 2.1.2 Completive (basic) (affirmative substitute [afouw ef-] (= S, L, A); neg. (= expectative) mpatf- (= S, L, [A]), mpatef- (S), (L4)), nom. [mpate-] (= S, L, A). And circ. empatf- (= S, L, A, empatef- (S), (L)), nom. empate- (= S, L, A). 2.1.3. Consuetudinal (or aorist) arf- (saf- S, L, saref- (L5), (L6), |aref- A), nom. are- (sare- S, L, |are- A); neg. maf- (= L, A, mef S), nom. mare- (= L, A, mare- S, ma- A). And circ. e arf- (esaf- S, L, [esaref-] (L5), (L6), e|aref- A), nom. [e are-] (esare- S, L, e|are- A); neg. [emaf-] (= L, A, emef- S), nom. [emare-] (= L, [A], emere- S). Rel. et ar- (without parallels elsewhere in Coptic) or ete arf- (e(te)saf- S, L, (etsaf- L6 once), et|aref A), nom. [ete are-] (e(te)sare- S, L, et|are- A); neg. etemaf- (= L, A, etemef- S), nom. [etemare-] (= L, [A], etemere- S). Pret. [ne arf-] (nesaf- S, L4, (L6), nesaref- (L6), [ne|aref-] A), nom. ne are (nesare- S, [L], [ne|are- ] A). II [e arf-] (esaf- S, L, [e|aref-] or a|aref- A), nom. e are- (esare- S, L, e|are- or a|are- A). 2.1.4. Futurum energicum (or third future) efa- (probably so, not second future) (= L, efe- S, afa- A), nom. era-... a- (ere- ... zero S, L, a-... (a-) A); neg. nf- (= (L6), nef- L, A, nnef-- S), nom. ne- (= L, A, nne- S). etefa-: see 1.3. 2.1.5. Imperative: infinitive unaccompanied (= S, L, A) or else preceded by ma- (= S, L, A, always causative verbs) or by e- (= L6, A, a- S, L4, L5); neg. mn- (= A, L4, (L6), mpr- S, (L4), LS, L6, (A), mpwr- (L4), (A?), mpwr a- (L6), (A)). 2.1.6. Causative Imperative marf- (maref- S, L, A), nom. mate- (mare- S, L, A); neg. [mntf-] (= A, mntref- L6, mprtref- S, L5, mpwr atref- L6, mpr#tf$- A), nom. mnte- (= A, mntre- L6, mprtre- S, L5, L6, mpwrte- L4, L6, mprte- A). 2.2 Tenses with neg. tm-. Subordinate (clause) conjugations. 2.2.1. Conjunctive (sing. 1., 2. mase., [fem.], 3. masc., fem.; plur. 1., 2., 3., nom.) nta- (= S, L, ta- S, L, A), - - or - (ng- S, (L4), (L6), nk- L, k- (L4), (L5), A), -f- or f- (nf- S, L, f- (L4), (L5), A, (ntf- A once)), c- (twice) (nc- S, L, c- A), ntn- (= S, L, tn- (L4), A), ntetn- (= S, L, tetn- (L4), (L5), A), nce- (= S, L, ce- A, (cou- A once)), nom. nte- (= S, L, te- A). 2.2.2. Future Conjunctive ntarf- (tarf- S, L, A), nom. [ntare-] (tare- S, L, A). 2.2.3. Temporal ntarf- (nteref- S, ntaref- L, (A), taref- A), nom. [ntare-] (= L, A, ntere S, tare- A). 2.2.4. Limitative (or conjunctive with sa-, until) santf- (= S, (L4), (L6), santef- L4, (L6), satf- A), nom. sante- (= S, L, (A once), sate- A) 2.2.5. Conditional efsa- (= (L4), L5, (L6), (A once), efsan- S, L4, L6, afsa- A), nom. esa- (= (L4), (A), ersa- (L4), (L5), ersan- S, eresa- L5, (L6), eresan- L6, asa- A, esante- L4). Characteristic Lexemes Lexicographically, P, on the one hand, displays various notable isolated orthographical peculiarities (apart from those that occur more systematically and have been already shown above) and, on the other, has some rare or otherwise unknown lexemes: a or a negative particle, cf. an S, B, en A, L, M, W, V, F. bell (masc.) eyes, a plural not attested elsewhere in Coptic and corresponding to the singular bal P, S, B, bel A, L, M, W, V. F; bahoue (masc.) eyelids, a plural not attested elsewhere in Coptic, corresponding to the singular bouhe S, bwhe (S), A, bouhi B. etbe: See ntbe. youre-, more than, with no parallels elsewhere in Coptic (Prv. 9:3, kre…sswn ... ½, nane-... youre- P, nane-... nhouo- a- A, nanou-... ehoue- S, fcotp … ehote- B). kbir, left; cf. [bir A, [bour L, hbour S, M, F. masta, ear; cf. meste L5, L4 (except the Manichaean Homilies, and more rarely, the Manichaean Psalms and Kephalaia, meje), mesje L6, masj B, maaje S, meje M, V, me(e)je F; me /l, to cure, without parallels elsewhere in Coptic (Prv. 12:18, „©sqai, tl[o A, tal[o S, B; cf. Bedja mehel, to treat medically, Vycichl, 1983, p. 132a); mohe, to walk, go, cf. ma(a)he A, L, moose S, mosi B, mase M, W (sic), masi V. maasi F; mouj , to mix, cf. mouj[ A, S, L6, also moujt S, A, (L6), L4, B, mojk S (cf. Hebrew mazag and the demotic mdg, container, wine-bowl, krat»r (?), Vycichl, 1983, p. 133b). nib, all; cf. nibi W, V, F, niben B, nimi F7, nim A, S, L, M (demotic nb, Vycichl, 1983, p. 142b); n proleptic particle, cf. n[i S, A, L6, (M) etc., n[/ M, ((n)[e A), nji L4, (L6), W, ji L5 (Thompson, 1924), nje (L6), (M), V, F, B; nktook or ktok, premature(ly), with no parallels elsewhere in Coptic (Prv. 10:6, ¥wroj, nsarahe A, S, mpate tho] swpi B; Prv. 11:30, ¥wroj, hn oumntsar ahe S, hn etc.... A, mpate tho] swpi B, cf. demotic gtg, sudden(ly); Vycichl, 1983, p. 168a); naro, to see, very probably a back formation from naro=, which is a contraction for naro= (cf. Cerny, 1971); ntbe- in ntbe pa@ , so that is why, but elsewhere etbe- (even etbe pa@, Prv. 7:15), cf. etbe- S, A, L, M, W, V, F, eybe- B (demotic r db3 etc., Vycichl, 1983, p. 47b); nouj , to sprinkle, cf. nouj| A, noujk, nouj[, nouj S, noujq B (cf. demotic nd etc., Vycichl, 1983, p. 152b). pwj , to smother; cf. pwj| A, pwj[, pwjk, pwjt S, pwj S (or Sf) (cf. demotic nd , Vycichl, 1983, p. 168a). The archaic rmef- (masc.), rmec- (fem.), rmeu- (p1.), rmet- (indefinite), and not (never) ref-, the agent prefix common to all the Coptic dialects (lef- F); such archaic forms only appear occasionally elsewhere or at least are always in a minority: rm(m)ef- A, rwm(e)ef-, rmmef-, rwmet- L6 (Tractatus Tripartitus). t po etc., to beget, bring forth, acquire; cf. t|po A, jpo L, S, jpa M, (W), (V), F, jvo B. w q (rarely ww q or w(w-q), life; cf. wn| A, wnh S, L4, W, V, F, w(w)nh L6, L5 (except wwh in the unpublished Gospel of John manuscript from Dublin; cf. Kasser, 1981a), wnh M, wnq B. qi/ etc., road; cf. hi/ S, L, M, V, F. hia, something; cf. hli B, hlei A, L6 (very rarely), hi M, W (always “someone”); P uses also laau(e); helak, keep, the sole parallel for which in Coptic is hel/[ L4 (neither P nor L4 uses the lexeme hareh S, M, er/h A, ar/h L5, L6, areh W, V, B, aleh F); hin/m, sleep, cf. hin/b S, A, L, M, V, F, hinim B; h/r† in the expression efh/r arof a, unawares (Prv. 6:15 ™xap…nhj, |n ouc|ne A, hn ouscne S, qen ouexapina B; Prv. 13:23 reads rather ceh/t#f$; cf. Kasser, 1973-1975, Vol. 2, p. 324b), should be connected with S hwr to guard against, take heed (Crum, 1939, p. 697b); hcime, woman, cf. (c)hime S, A, L, M, chimi V, F, B; hw(w)tm, wither, fade, expire, be quenched, extinguished (should be connected with hw[b, he[m, etc. S (ibid., p. 744b); Prv. 10:7 and 13:9 sbennÚnai, bwk A, jena S, [eno B; hw[b, * hw[m could at a stretch have been confused with hwtp (ibid., p. 724b), in the sense of “be extinguished” like a star setting; P uses hwtp only in the sense of “to be reconciled,” Prv. 6:35 and l5:28a); connected with houo is the expression corresponding to nh(ou)oeit a- or h(ou)oeit a-, more than, which corresponds to nhouo a- A, ehoue- S, ehote- B; the P form seems close to nhouaeicte e-, ehouaeicte- M, ehoua@ct(e)- V, F, ehoua@cte e- F56, ehouacte- F7 (cf. exceptional ehouoeicte- S, Crum, 1939, p. 736a). BIBLIOGRAPHY Allberry, C. R. C. A Manichaean Psalmbook. Stuttgart, 1938. Attridge, H. W., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex), Introduction, Texts, Translations, Indices. Nag Hammadi Studies 22. Leiden, 1985. Böhlig, A. Kephalaia: Zweite Hälfte (Lieferung 11 12). Stuttgart, 1966. [Böhlig, A., and H. J. Polotsky]. Kephalaia: Erste Hälfte (Lieferung 1-10). Stuttgart, 1940. Bourguet, P. du. Grammaire fonctionnelle et progressive de l’égyptien démotique. Louvain, 1976. Cerny, J.; P. E. Kahle; and R. Parker. “The Old Coptic Horoscope.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 43 (1957):86-100. ______“Coalescence of Verbs with Prepositions in Coptic.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 97 (1971):44-46. Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford, 1939. Funk, W.-P. “Die Morphologie der Perfektkonjugation im NH- subachmimischen Dialekt.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 111 (1984):110-30. Kasser, R. Papyrus Bodmer VI: Livre des Proverbes. CSCO 194- 195. Louvain, 1960. ______. “Papyrus Londiniensis 98 (The Old Coptic Horoscope) and Papyrus Bodmer VI.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 49 (1963):157-60. ______. “Prolégomènes à un essai de classification systématique des dialectes et subdialectes coptes selon les critères de la phonétique, II, Alphabets et systèmes phonétiques.” Muséon 93 (1980):237-97. ______. “Usages de la surligne dans le P. Bodmer VI, notes additionnelles.” Bulletin de la Société d’égyptologie, Genève 5 (1981a):23-32. ______. “Voyelles en fonction consonantique, consonnes en fonction vocalique, et classes de phonèmes en copte.” Bulletin de la Société d’égyptologie, Genève 5 (198lb):33-50. ______. “Le Dialecte protosaïdique de Thèbes.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 28 (1982):67-81. ______. “Le parfait I copte a- et aha- et le langage de l’étrangére (Prov. 6,24—26 et 7,15—16).” Aegyptus 64 (1984):229-36. ______. “Gémination de voyelles dans le P. Bodmer VI.” In Acts of the Second International Congress of Coptic Studies, Rome 22- 26 September 1980, ed. T. Orlandi and F. Wisse, pp. 89-120. Rome, 1985. Kasser, R.; M. Malinine; H-C. Puech; G. Quispel; J. Kasser, R., W Vycichl; and R. McL. Wilson. Tractatus Tripartius, Vol. 1, Pars I, De Supernis, Codex Jung f. XXVIr—f. LIIv (p. 51-104), Vol. 2, Pars II, De Creatione Hominis, Pars III, De Generibus Tribus, Codex Jung f. LIIv—LXXv (p. 104-140). Bern, 1973-75. Malinine, M.; H.-C. Puech; and G. Quispel. Evangelium Veritatis, Codex Jung f. VIIIv-XVIv (p. 16—32), f. XIXr-XXIIr (p. 37-43). Zurich, 1956. Malinine, M.; H.-C. Puech; G. Quispel; W. C. Till; R. McL. Wilson. Evangelium Veritatis (Supplementum), Codex Jung f. XVIIr- XVIIIv (p. 33-36). Zurich, 1961 Malinine, M.; H.-C. Puech; G. Quispel; W. C. Till; R. McL. Wilson; and J. Zandee. De Resurrectione (Epistula ad Rheginum), Codex Jung f. XXIIr-XXVv (p. 43-50). Zurich, 1963. Nagel, P. “Der frühkoptische Dialekt von Theben.” In Koptologische Studien in der DDR, pp. 30-49. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Sonderheft. Halle-Wittenberg, 1965. Osing, J. Der spätägyptische Papyrus B.M. 10808. Wiesbaden, 1976. Pearson, B. A., and S. Giversen. Nag Hammadi Codices lX and X. Nag Hammadi Studies 15. Leiden, 1981. Polotsky, H. J. “Zur koptischen Lautlehre I.” Zeitschrift für ägyptisehe Sprache und Altertumskunde 67 (1931):74-77. ______. Manichäische Homilien. Stuttgart, 1934. Schmidt, C. Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Handschrift Nr 1. Leipzig, 1905. ______. “Ein neues Fragment der Heidelberger Acta Pauli.” In Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, pp. 216-20. Berlin, 1909. Thomassen, E., and L. Painchaud. Le Traité triparti (NH 1.5), texte établi, introduit et commenté par E. Thomassen; traduit par L. Painchaud et E. Thomassen. Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, section “textes,” 19. Québec, 1989. Thompson, H. The Gospel of St. John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript. London, 1924. Vergote, J. Phonétique historique de l’égyptien, les consonnes. Louvain, 1945. Vycichl, W. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Louvain, 1983. RODOLPHE KASSER