DOCSLIB.ORG

Doktori Disszertáció

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Doktori Disszertáció Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kar DOKTORI DISSZERTÁCIÓ Egedi Barbara Coptic noun phrases – Kopt főnévi szerkezetek Történelemtudományok Doktori Iskolája A doktori iskola vezetője: Dr. Székely Gábor Egyiptológia Doktori Program A program vezetője: Bács Tamás PhD A doktori bizottság tagjai: Elnök: Adamik Tamás professor emeritus Bírálók: Hasznos Andrea PhD Helmut Satzinger PhD Titkár: Schreiber Gábor PhD Tagok: Kóthay Katalin PhD Bács Tamás PhD Takács Gábor PhD Témavezető: Dr. Luft Ulrich DSc Budapest 2012 Ntamaau to my Mother 2 Table of Contents Preface 5 1 Introduction 7 1.1 What is this thesis about? 7 1.2 Coptic and the relevance of its research 9 1.2.1 The definition of Coptic 9 1.2.2 Vocalization, dialects and the Greek-Egyptian contact 10 1.2.3 Prehistory 16 1.3 The Coptic dialects 17 1.3.1 How many dialects are there and how are they related? 17 1.3.2 Names and sigla, the Kasser-Funk Agreement 19 1.3.3 The major literary dialects, dialectal groups from the south to the north 20 1.3.4 The current state of research 27 1.4 The sources 28 2 The Coptic noun 32 2.1 Terminology 33 2.2 Morphology 34 2.2.1 Gender, number and case 34 2.2.2 The remnant morphological plural – some considerations 38 2.3 On the edge of nominality 40 2.3.1 Is there an adjectival category in Coptic? 40 2.3.2 No verbs in Coptic? Once more on a problem of categorization 45 2.3.3 How nominal are the Copto-Greek verbs? 47 2.4 Determination 56 2.5 Adnominal modification 63 2.5.1 Possessive constructions 65 2.5.2 Attributive constructions 67 2.5.3 Partitive constructions 71 2.5.4 Quantification 72 3 Determination 75 3.1 Where do Coptic determiners come from? 75 3.2 Forms and use of the determiners in Sahidic 78 3.1.1 Articles, demonstratives and possessives 78 3.1.2 Special cases of determination 80 3 3.3 Alternative systems: a dialectal perspective 83 3.3.1 The case of Bohairic 83 3.3.2 The case of Mesokemic 88 3.3.3 The case of early Fayyumic 93 4 Possessive constructions in Coptic 95 4.1 The Sahidic distribution: Pattern A and B 95 4.2 Aspects of obligatory definiteness 112 4.2.1 The construct state phenomenon 112 4.2.2 The direct and indirect genitive constructions of Earlier Egyptian 113 4.2.3 Change and conservation 118 4.3 Possessive constructions in the early Coptic dialects – a comparative study 121 4.3.1 Lycopolitan 123 4.3.2 Akhmimic 126 4.3.3 Bohairic 128 4.3.4 Mesokemic 140 4.3.3 Dialect W 142 4.3.3 Fayyumic 144 5 Attributive constructions – a diachronic perspective 147 5.1. Attribution vs. possession 147 5.2 Reconstruction of the diachronic process: origin and development 148 5.2.1 Motivation 148 5.2.2 Syntactic and semantic preconditions for the n-marked attribution 149 5.2.3 Generalized adnominal modifier-marker 153 5.2.4 Problems with defining the exact time of the grammaticalization 154 5.3 Concluding remarks on the Coptic construction types 155 6 Conclusion 156 List of abbreviations 158 References 159 4 Preface When I was awarded the State Scholarship for PhD studies, I was aiming to summarize and analyze everything that can be known and said about the structure of the Sahidic noun phrase, but my aims gradually changed in the course of time – which can hardly be surprising when one begins to work on such an enterprise as compiling a dissertation. Originally, I was interested in the possessive and attributive constructions in Sahidic, and also started to investigate the diachronic development of their distributional characteristics. My participation at a conference in Leipzig (Linguistic Borrowing into Coptic, Inaugural Conference of the DDGLC project. 26-28 April 2010. Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig), however, pushed me to study the dialectal variation in Coptic. During the subsequent three months I spent in Berlin at the Ägyptologisches Seminar (Freie Universität), I had access to various text editions that are not available in my home country so I was able to collect the required material to start such a new research direction. Even a superficial investigation made it clear to me that a remarkable variation can be observed in the inner structure of noun phrases if one compares the various dialects, and no description or comprehensive studies have been carried out about these phenomena. Parts of the thesis, observations and conclusions that appear at different points of this study, were presented at conferences and published in scholarly journals or edited volumes. While completing the thesis I was working in a research group ( Hungarian Generative Diachronic Syntax ) located at the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and funded by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA grant No. 78074). Although this project is concerned with Old and Middle Hungarian, I profited from this work in many respects: first of all, my research topic in Hungarian linguistics slightly overlaps with that in Egyptology, since I study nominal constructions, determination and their developments in the history of Hungarian. Moreover, the Research Institute for Linguistics did not only provide me with a place to work at, but also with excellent colleagues to work with, who are always ready to listen to my “exotic” Egyptian data and to discuss the problems I am struggling with. I wish to thank especially Vera Hegedűs for all the talks we had on the subject and for her occasional help in English phrasing. The institute supported me financially as well through travel grants I applied for and successfully won. Thereby I could attend the 10th International Congress of 5 Egyptologists (22-29 May 2008, Rhodes, Department of Mediterranean Studies of the University of the Aegean) and I will be able to give a talk at the 10th International Congress of Coptic Studies to be held in Rome this September. In 2010, I could spend three months at the Freie Universität of Berlin, thanks to the support of the Hungarian State Eötvös Fellowship. I owe special thanks to Sebastian Richter, who has organized excellent conferences on the Egyptian language in Leipzig and who also invited me to take part at the above mentioned inaugural conference of the DDGLC project. Similarly, I am indebted to the Ägyptologisches Seminar in Basel for inviting me to give a talk at the Crossroads IV conference. These occasions were essential in my academic curriculum because of the personal acquaintance of many excellent scholars who are concerned with Egyptian from a linguistic point of view and because of the valuable feedbacks I could get at these meetings regarding my work. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Ulrich Luft who introduced me to the Egyptian language and from whom I learnt Coptic for numerous semesters at the University. I am also particularly grateful to Andrea Hasznos, whose MA thesis first directed my attention to the linguistic aspects of the contact between Greek and Coptic, and who never hesitated to help me to obtain rare items of the Coptological literature. Last but not least, I wish to thank my parents for their never-ceasing patience, encouragement, and faith in my work as well as for the support (both material and emotional) without which this thesis would never have been completed. 6 1 Introduction 1.1 What is this thesis about? This thesis is concerned with the noun phrase structure in Coptic with a special concentration on definiteness and possessive constructions as well as on attributive patterns insofar as these latter are related to the possessives in form. The thesis has both a diachronic and a comparative dialectological perspective, and this duality will be present throughout the chapters. The methods, however, will accurately be kept apart: while a diachronic study may compare data from different stages, spanning over centuries or even millennia, to get as close as possible to the understanding of language change, the study of a synchronic grammar must strictly concentrate on the system of oppositions which is in operation in the actual use of the language, without considering where the various patterns come from. The thesis does not aim at being exhaustive in listing all kinds of elements (modifiers, quantifiers, pronouns, etc.) that may come up in a noun phrase. Only those phenomena will be discussed that have relevant features either from a dialectal or from a diachronic perspective. It must be established as well that focus is on the inner constructional properties of the Coptic noun phrase rather than on how it appears in the sentence structure; reference to its behavior in the sentence will be made only if it is necessary for the discussion. The dissertation is organized as follows. The second section of this introductory chapter offers a definition of the Coptic language positioning it in a cultural, historical and diachronic setting. A short presentation of the dialects follows for the readers who are not so familiar with the different Coptic varieties. Chapter two has multiple goals: it aims to provide background information both about the main properties of the Coptic nominal category and the structures that can be built on it and about the linguistic concepts and theoretical assumptions which are required for a good understanding of the rest of the thesis. Chapter three takes some unsteady steps on the shaky grounds of determination. Although both the origin and the synchronic system of the Sahidic determiners are quite well understood, other dialects seem to exhibit alternative systems with multiple definite 7 articles in seemingly overlapping functions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dialectical Variation of the Egyptian-Coptic Language in the Course of Its Four Millennia of Attested History
    Helmut Satzinger Dialectical Variation of the Egyptian-Coptic Language in the Course of Its Four Millennia of Attested History Abstract A language with a long documented history may be expected to show a great deal of dialectal diversity. For Egyptian-Coptic there are particular conditions. Except for the Delta, the country is one-dimensional, a feature that may make the distribution of dialectal differences simpler than in a country with a normal areal extension. Another specific feature is that all Egyptian idioms that precede Coptic are transmitted without the vowels, thereby obscuring all vocalic differences (which play such a great role in Coptic dialect variation). However, recent research has revealed that in the earliest stages of Egyptian language history there was a drastic dialectal gap. The feature best visible is the phonetic value and the etymology of graphemesˁ ayin and ȝ. hen Herodotus said that Egypt is a gift of the Nile, he was speaking of Lower Egypt, of the Delta: this wholeW area, with a north–south extension of ca. 170 km (in a bee-line) and an east–west extension of ca. 260 km, owes its existence to all the soil that the river Nile has brought down from the Sudan in the course of a long time-span. However, most people think that he wanted to say that Egypt (as we intend it), from the Tropic of Cancer to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, would not exist without the waters of the Nile, as there would be nothing but desert. Egypt is bipartite: on the one hand, a small country like others, of triangular shape; on the other, the two long and narrow shores of a river that crosses an endless desert.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology
    UCLA UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology Title Egyptian Among Neighboring African Languages Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2fb8t2pz Journal UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 1(1) Author Cooper, Julien Publication Date 2020-12-19 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California EGYPTIAN AMONG NEIGHBORING AFRICAN LANGUAGES اﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﻘﺪﯾﻤﺔ واﻟﻠﻐﺎت اﻻﻓﺮﯾﻘﯿﺔ اﻟﻤﺠﺎورة Julien Cooper EDITORS JULIE STAUDER-PORCHET ANDRÉAS STAUDER Editor, Language, Text and Writing Editor, Language, Text and Writing Swiss National Science Foundation & École Pratique des Hautes Études, Université de Genève, Switzerland Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, France WILLEKE WENDRICH SOLANGE ASHBY Editor-in-Chief Editor Upper Nile Languages and Culture Associated Researcher UCLA, USA University of California, Los Angeles, USA ANNE AUSTIN MENNAT –ALLAH EL DORRY Editor, Individual and Society Editor, Natural Environment Flora and Fauna University of Missouri-St. Louis, USA Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, Egypt JUAN CARLOS MORENO GARCÍA WOLFRAM GRAJETZKI Editor, Economy Editor, Time and History Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique University College London, UK UMR 8167 (Orient & Méditerranée), Sorbonne Université, France CHRISTINE JOHNSTON RUNE NYORD Editor, Natural Environment, Landscapes and Climate Editor, History of Egyptology Western Washington University, USA Emory University, USA TANJA POMMERENING Editor, Domains of Knowledge Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany Short Citation: Cooper 2020,
    [Show full text]
  • Israel Oriental Studies 20, 2002, 227-264
    Israel Oriental Studies 20, 2002, 227-264 THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION: EGYPTIAN AND THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES Helmut Satzinger The emerging of modern Egyptian grammar The past hundred years have seen a good deal of progress in studies of Egyptian and also in Com- parative Egypto-Semitic Studies. It must be admitted, though, that by the end of the nineteenth century the practical knowledge of Egyptian was already extraordinarily great. The members of the “Berlin school,” Adolf Erman, Georg Steindorff and Kurt Sethe, accomplished the pioneering phase which had begun with François Champollion and continued with Richard Lepsius, Samuel Birch, Heinrich Brugsch and others. At the end of the last century the great lexicographic venture of the Berlin Academy of Sciences was inaugurated (the last of the five main volumes appeared 1931). From 1880 onward, through the twentieth century, various stages and idioms of the Egyptian language were documented in reference grammars and text books. Middle Egyptian: Erman (1894, 21902, 31911, 41928); Gardiner (1927, 21950, 31957); Lefebvre (1940); de Buck (1941, 21944); Westendorf (1962; language of medical texts); Sander-Hansen (1963), and several more textbooks, even in Arabic: Bakir 1954, 21955; Nur el-Din 1998). Old Egyptian: Edel (1955/64). Late Egyptian: Erman (1880, 21933); Korostovtsev (1973); Cerny å & Groll (1978); Neveu (1996); Junge (1996). Demotic: Spiegelberg (1925); Lexa (1940–1951); Bresciani (1969); Johnson (1986, 21991); Simpson (1996). Coptic: Steindorff (1894, 21904; 1951); Mallon (1904, 21907); Till (1928; 1931; 1955, 21961); Chaîne (1933); Jelanskaja (1964); Vergote (1973–1983); Polotsky (1987/1990); Shisha-Halevy (1988b) and other text books; a modern and comprehensive grammar by Bentley Layton is in the press.
    [Show full text]
  • EGYPTIAN and the SEMITIC LANGUAGES Helmut Satzinger
    Israel Oriental Studies 20, 2002, 227-264 THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION: EGYPTIAN AND THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES Helmut Satzinger The emerging of modern Egyptian grammar The past hundred years have seen a good deal of progress in studies of Egyptian and also in Com- parative Egypto-Semitic Studies. It must be admitted, though, that by the end of the nineteenth century the practical knowledge of Egyptian was already extraordinarily great. The members of the “Berlin school,” Adolf Erman, Georg Steindorff and Kurt Sethe, accomplished the pioneering phase which had begun with François Champollion and continued with Richard Lepsius, Samuel Birch, Heinrich Brugsch and others. At the end of the last century the great lexicographic venture of the Berlin Academy of Sciences was inaugurated (the last of the five main volumes appeared 1931). From 1880 onward, through the twentieth century, various stages and idioms of the Egyptian language were documented in reference grammars and text books. Middle Egyptian: Erman (1894, 21902, 31911, 41928); Gardiner (1927, 21950, 31957); Lefebvre (1940); de Buck (1941, 21944); Westendorf (1962; language of medical texts); Sander-Hansen (1963), and several more textbooks, even in Arabic: Bakir 1954, 21955; Nur el-Din 1998). Old Egyptian: Edel (1955/64). Late Egyptian: Erman (1880, 21933); Korostovtsev (1973); Cernyå & Groll (1978); Neveu (1996); Junge (1996). Demotic: Spiegelberg (1925); Lexa (1940–1951); Bresciani (1969); Johnson (1986, 21991); Simpson (1996). Coptic: Steindorff (1894, 21904; 1951); Mallon (1904, 21907); Till (1928; 1931; 1955, 21961); Chaîne (1933); Jelanskaja (1964); Vergote (1973–1983); Polotsky (1987/1990); Shisha-Halevy (1988b) and other text books; a modern and comprehensive grammar by Bentley Layton is in the press.
    [Show full text]
  • Lingua Aegyptia 23
    Sonderdruck aus LINGUA AEGYPTIA JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE STUDIES 23 2015 Widmaier Verlag ∙ Hamburg 2016 LINGUA AEGYPTIA – Journal of Egyptian Language Studies (LingAeg) founded by Friedrich Junge, Frank Kammerzell & Antonio Loprieno EDITORS Heike Behlmer Frank Kammerzell Antonio Loprieno Gerald Moers (Göttingen) (Berlin) (Basel) (Wien) MANAGING EDITOR REVIEW EDITORS Kai Widmaier Eliese-Sophia Lincke Daniel Werning (Hamburg) (Berlin) (Berlin) IN COLLABORATION WITH Tilmann Kunze (Berlin) ADVISORY BOARD James P. Allen, Providence Sebastian Richter, Berlin Thomas Schneider, Vancouver Joris F. Borghouts, Leiden Kim Ryholt, Copenhagen Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Jerusalem Christopher J. Eyre, Liverpool Helmut Satzinger, Wien Deborah Sweeney, Tel Aviv Janet H. Johnson, Chicago Wolfgang Schenkel, Tübingen Pascal Vernus, Paris Richard B. Parkinson, Oxford Jean Winand, Liège LINGUA AEGYPTIA (recommended abbreviation: LingAeg) publishes articles and book reviews on all aspects of Egyptian and Coptic language and literature in the narrower sense: (a) grammar, in cluding graphemics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, lexico graphy; (b) Egyptian language history, including norms, diachrony, dialectology, typology; (c) com para tive linguistics, in- cluding Afroasiatic contacts, loanwords; (d) theory and history of Egyptian literature and literary discourse; (e) history of Egyptological linguistics. We also wel come contri butions on other aspects of Egyptology and neigh- bouring disciplines, in so far as they relate to the journal’s scope. Short articles on grammar and lexicon will be published in the section “Miscella nies”. Authors of articles or reviews will receive electronic off-prints. Periodically, we would also like to put the journal at the colleagues’ disposal for a forum in which an important or neglected topic of Egyptian linguistics is treated at some length: in this case, a scholar who is active in this particular area will be invited to write a conceptual paper, and others will be asked to comment on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialects in Pre-Coptic Egyptian, with a Special Attention to Late Egyptian
    Sonderdruck aus LINGUA AEGYPTIA JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE STUDIES 23 2015 Widmaier Verlag ∙ Hamburg 2016 LINGUA AEGYPTIA – Journal of Egyptian Language Studies (LingAeg) founded by Friedrich Junge, Frank Kammerzell & Antonio Loprieno EDITORS Heike Behlmer Frank Kammerzell Antonio Loprieno Gerald Moers (Göttingen) (Berlin) (Basel) (Wien) MANAGING EDITOR REVIEW EDITORS Kai Widmaier Eliese-Sophia Lincke Daniel Werning (Hamburg) (Berlin) (Berlin) IN COLLABORATION WITH Tilmann Kunze (Berlin) ADVISORY BOARD James P. Allen, Providence Sebastian Richter, Berlin Thomas Schneider, Vancouver Joris F. Borghouts, Leiden Kim Ryholt, Copenhagen Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Jerusalem Christopher J. Eyre, Liverpool Helmut Satzinger, Wien Deborah Sweeney, Tel Aviv Janet H. Johnson, Chicago Wolfgang Schenkel, Tübingen Pascal Vernus, Paris Richard B. Parkinson, Oxford Jean Winand, Liège LINGUA AEGYPTIA (recommended abbreviation: LingAeg) publishes articles and book reviews on all aspects of Egyptian and Coptic language and literature in the narrower sense: (a) grammar, in cluding graphemics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, lexico graphy; (b) Egyptian language history, including norms, diachrony, dialectology, typology; (c) com para tive linguistics, in- cluding Afroasiatic contacts, loanwords; (d) theory and history of Egyptian literature and literary discourse; (e) history of Egyptological linguistics. We also wel come contri butions on other aspects of Egyptology and neigh- bouring disciplines, in so far as they relate to the journal’s scope. Short articles on grammar and lexicon will be published in the section “Miscella nies”. Authors of articles or reviews will receive electronic off-prints. Periodically, we would also like to put the journal at the colleagues’ disposal for a forum in which an important or neglected topic of Egyptian linguistics is treated at some length: in this case, a scholar who is active in this particular area will be invited to write a conceptual paper, and others will be asked to comment on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Lingua Aegyptia 23
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Sonderdruck aus provided by edoc LINGUA AEGYPTIA JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE STUDIES 23 2015 Widmaier Verlag ∙ Hamburg 2016 LINGUA AEGYPTIA – Journal of Egyptian Language Studies (LingAeg) founded by Friedrich Junge, Frank Kammerzell & Antonio Loprieno EDITORS Heike Behlmer Frank Kammerzell Antonio Loprieno Gerald Moers (Göttingen) (Berlin) (Basel) (Wien) MANAGING EDITOR REVIEW EDITORS Kai Widmaier Eliese-Sophia Lincke Daniel Werning (Hamburg) (Berlin) (Berlin) IN COLLABORATION WITH Tilmann Kunze (Berlin) ADVISORY BOARD James P. Allen, Providence Sebastian Richter, Berlin Thomas Schneider, Vancouver Joris F. Borghouts, Leiden Kim Ryholt, Copenhagen Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Jerusalem Christopher J. Eyre, Liverpool Helmut Satzinger, Wien Deborah Sweeney, Tel Aviv Janet H. Johnson, Chicago Wolfgang Schenkel, Tübingen Pascal Vernus, Paris Richard B. Parkinson, Oxford Jean Winand, Liège LINGUA AEGYPTIA (recommended abbreviation: LingAeg) publishes articles and book reviews on all aspects of Egyptian and Coptic language and literature in the narrower sense: (a) grammar, in cluding graphemics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, lexico graphy; (b) Egyptian language history, including norms, diachrony, dialectology, typology; (c) com para tive linguistics, in- cluding Afroasiatic contacts, loanwords; (d) theory and history of Egyptian literature and literary discourse; (e) history of Egyptological linguistics. We also wel come contri butions on other
    [Show full text]
  • Lingua Aegyptia 23
    Sonderdruck aus LINGUA AEGYPTIA JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE STUDIES 23 2015 Widmaier Verlag ∙ Hamburg 2016 LINGUA AEGYPTIA – Journal of Egyptian Language Studies (LingAeg) founded by Friedrich Junge, Frank Kammerzell & Antonio Loprieno EDITORS Heike Behlmer Frank Kammerzell Antonio Loprieno Gerald Moers (Göttingen) (Berlin) (Basel) (Wien) MANAGING EDITOR REVIEW EDITORS Kai Widmaier Eliese-Sophia Lincke Daniel Werning (Hamburg) (Berlin) (Berlin) IN COLLABORATION WITH Tilmann Kunze (Berlin) ADVISORY BOARD James P. Allen, Providence Sebastian Richter, Berlin Thomas Schneider, Vancouver Joris F. Borghouts, Leiden Kim Ryholt, Copenhagen Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Jerusalem Christopher J. Eyre, Liverpool Helmut Satzinger, Wien Deborah Sweeney, Tel Aviv Janet H. Johnson, Chicago Wolfgang Schenkel, Tübingen Pascal Vernus, Paris Richard B. Parkinson, Oxford Jean Winand, Liège LINGUA AEGYPTIA (recommended abbreviation: LingAeg) publishes articles and book reviews on all aspects of Egyptian and Coptic language and literature in the narrower sense: (a) grammar, in cluding graphemics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, lexico graphy; (b) Egyptian language history, including norms, diachrony, dialectology, typology; (c) com para tive linguistics, in- cluding Afroasiatic contacts, loanwords; (d) theory and history of Egyptian literature and literary discourse; (e) history of Egyptological linguistics. We also wel come contri butions on other aspects of Egyptology and neigh- bouring disciplines, in so far as they relate to the journal’s scope. Short articles on grammar and lexicon will be published in the section “Miscella nies”. Authors of articles or reviews will receive electronic off-prints. Periodically, we would also like to put the journal at the colleagues’ disposal for a forum in which an important or neglected topic of Egyptian linguistics is treated at some length: in this case, a scholar who is active in this particular area will be invited to write a conceptual paper, and others will be asked to comment on it.
    [Show full text]
  • AHPG898 Coptic Dialects 4 Credit Points Unit Guide Semester 1, 2012
    AHPG898 Coptic Dialects 4 credit points Unit Guide Semester 1, 2012 Faculty of Arts Department of Ancient History 2 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Convenor Position: Unit Convenor Name: Dr Victor Ghica Email: [email protected] Phone: (02) 9850 8240 Office: W6A 524 Office hours: upon request. Students are strongly encouraged to visit the Coptic Studies page (http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/department_of_ancient_hist ory/coptic_studiesatmq/) and the website of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University (http://mq.edu.au/about_us/faculties_and_departments/faculty_of_arts/department_of_ancient_history/ho me/) to find out about the department, the teaching staff, units and degrees offered. Distance students will be provided with a handbook by the Centre for Open Education. The handbook contains all pertinent information about enrolment, receiving course materials, handing in assignments and general study skills. Distance students should therefore first consult the handbook for questions about these matters. Please note though that the assignments for this language unit will not be mailed in to the Centre for Open Education, but e-mailed directly to your lecturer using the assignments tool on the website (see below p. 4). 1.2 General inquiries Position: Departmental Administrator Name: Ms Raina Kim Email: [email protected] Phone: +61 2 9850 8833 Office: W6A 540 1.3 Welcome Welcome to AHPG898 Coptic Dialects! If you have enrolled in this course, you will have quite a good command of Coptic grammar and the Sahidic dialect. You are able to read stories in Sahidic, to ponder the wisdom of a desert father in the original or to trace the life of a well-known saint or martyr.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Oktober 2013.Indd
    Egypt and Austria IX, 2013 Betliar, Slovakia SLOVAK NATIONAL MUSEUM BETLIAR MUSEUM Programme 21st to 24th October 2013 The Perception of the Orient in Central Europe (1800 – 1918) After the expedition of Napoleon Bonaparte to Egypt in 1798, Europeans increasingly began to encounter Near Eastern countries and to become acquainted with the cultures of the Orient. The conference seeks to examine the perception of the Orient, especially Egypt, in Central Europe during the 19th century up to the First World War and the legacy of Egyptomania and Orientalism up to that time. The lectures should target cultural interactions but topics referring to political, economical and social relationships are welcomed as well. With special reference to the conference venue, attention should be given to travelling and collecting activities of the nobility from the countries of the former Austria-Hungary, that gave rise to libraries, artistic and archaeological collections and common knowledge about the Oriental world. For the organizers: Dr. Jozef Hudec (Aigyptos Foundation) Mag.phil. Ľubica Hudáková (Aigyptos Foundation) Mgr. Eva Lazárová (SNM Betliar) Mgr. Silvia Lörinčíková (SNM Betliar) Egypt and Austria IX (21st – 24th October 2013), Betliar, Slovakia Aigyptos Foundation, Slovakia (http://aigyptos.sk) – Museum Betliar (www.snm.sk) / Contact: [email protected] 1 21st October 2013 (Monday) – Historical library, Betliar manor house 08:30 – 09:15 Registration 09:15 – 09:30 Opening 09.30 – 10.30 Silvia Lörinčíková (SNM Betliar) Opening lecture on the Betliar
    [Show full text]
  • Second Tenses in Egyptian-Coptic and Some Other African Languages
    LingAeg xxx (20xx), xxx-xxx Second Tenses in Egyptian-Coptic and Some Other African Languages Helmut Satzinger, University of Vienna Abstract Egyptian has special verb forms for non-main clauses in two varieties: one for relative clauses, one for complement clauses. More and more, the latter tend to serve one of the focalising constructions, whereas the cleft sentence constructions employ the forms for relative clauses. The cleft sentence is the preferred focalising construction throughout Africa. Many languages have, like Egyptian, special morphological features for complement clauses or relative clauses that often serve for focalising constructions of the cleft sentence type. In this way, Egyptian fits perfectly in the linguistic landscape of Africa, whereas, in this respect, it is here in contrast to Semitic. 1 Focus and Focus Constructions Egyptian has special verb forms for non-main clauses: relative forms for relative clauses, and that forms for complement clauses.1 These two categories seem to be identical in terms of morphology, except for the gender/number markers of the relative forms. We will not consider in this context the clauses of circumstance as they are identical with the continuative clauses in respect to morphology, hence belong to the realm of main sentences. Although there are historical reasons why the that forms are often called emphatic forms, this term makes no sense in respect to their basic function. For in Old and Middle Egyptian, they are freely employed in all ways a noun is used, not only in an emphasising function.2 Not so, however, in Late Egyptian, Demotic and Coptic: in these later variants of the Egyptian language the forms that are derived from the that forms are only found in the adverb-focalising construction.3 As Polotsky – who called them “emphatic” – started his argumentation with the Coptic stage of the language, this “emphatic” use stood in his focus; in preserving the old term, sanctified by its use in the editions of Erman’s grammar of Middle Egyptian, he paid homage to the revered “Berlin school” (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypotheses on Glides and Matres Lectionis in Earlier Egyptian Orthographies
    ViewOriginalveröffentlichung metadata, citation and in: similar Coping papers with Obs at core.ac.ukcurity: James P. Allen, Mark A. Collier, Andréas Stauder (Hg.) The Brown Workshop on Earlier Egybroughtptian toGr youammar by CORE (Wilbour Studies in Egyptology and Assyriology 4) Atlanta 2016, S. 29-44 provided by Propylaeum-DOK Hypotheses on Glides and Matres Lectionis in Earlier Egyptian Orthographies DANIEL A. WERNING WITH THIS CONTRIBUTION, I would like to argue that, in future research on Earlier Egyptian morpho-syntax, we also need to focus on key issues of orthography. That is, we need to research individual orthographic standards of particular scribal “schools,” of particular documents, and we should check, or at least make explicit, our presuppositions on the orthographic system. In this regard, a key issue is the relationship of written and underlying phonological and phonetic forms (e.g., what might be labeled the “Defective Spelling Hypothesis,” the “Frozen Spelling Hypothesis,” the “Pre-Coptic Syllable Structure Rules Hypothesis,” including the “Zweisilbengesetz” and the “Consonantal Auslaut Hypothesis,” the “Three Vowel Qualities Hypothesis,” the “Pre-Coptic Vowel Length Rule Hypothesis,” and so on).1 To exemplify the need for more discussion about these issues, I am going to present and argue for a set of hypotheses on Earlier Egyptian orthographies that—given the reader accepts it—has an impact on the identification of certain morpho-syntactic forms such as, for example, the Subjunctive sḏm(=f), the Posterior sḏm.w/y(=f) (alias Prospective), the Resultative sḏm.kw/sḏm.tỉ/sḏm.w/... (alias Pseudo-participle), the Passive sḏm(.w)(=f), and the relation of the Passive Distributive Participle sḏm.w and the Imperfective Relative Form sḏm.w/y(=f).2 Part I.
    [Show full text]