Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

In this video I discuss a small but important update to my historical pronunciation of Old Bohairic(OB).

The key takeaway is that in Bohairic ϫ and ϭ are both voiceless, and that ϭ is simply the aspirated version of ϫ and nothing more, contrasted just as ⲡ/ⲫ ⲧ/ⲑ ⲕ/ⲭ.

In a later stage of Bohairic (during Antiquity? during the Middle Ages? I can't say at this time) the voiceless unaspirated ⲡ ⲧ ϫ ⲕ became voiced, allowing the aspirates to lose their aspiration.

What should you do? If you want a linguistically coherent convention, then if you pronounce ϫ to be like English "jump" (a voiced postalveolar affricate [d͡ʒ] ) then you have to make ⲡ = [b], ⲧ = [d], ⲕ = [g].

You can hear the voiced version of these consonants here, a review of the Coptic alphabet by someone who uses an Old Bohairic pronunciation that is less ancient: https://youtu.be/gox9QhwmPkY

See also the attached PDF for what helped clarify this all for me.

For now, I will use the voiceless/aspirate contrast.


Coptic Lessons Index

Topics covered in this lesson:

• Pronunciation Update

• Greek words in Coptic


Files

Coptic Lesson 6

This video was made for my Patreon supporters. See all the lessons here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/coptic-lessons-72862098 • Pronunciation Update • Greek words in Coptic

Comments

Anonymous

Thanks for these lessons. It’s such an interesting language to learn about! It looks like there was some metathesis between the lambda and eta in “ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲕⲗⲏⲧⲟⲛ” and “παράκηλτον.” Is that a quirk of transmission between the languages or just a typo?

Anonymous

Reposting my comment from Youtube: It’s easier to understand when you look at correspondence sets. What’s going on is that the non-Bohairic dialects merge the aspirated consonants into the unaspirated consonants. Bohairic preserves the aspiration distinction but merges the palatals into the postalveolars. So Bohairic has 4 places of articulation for stops while the other dialects have 5. The Egyptian consonants involved are: non-fronted ḏ = */t͡ʃ/ non-fronted ṯ = */t͡ʃʰ/ palatalized g, q = */c/ palatalized k = */cʰ/ Non-Bohairic dialects: */c/ and */cʰ/ merge into /c/, written ϭ */t͡ʃ/ and */t͡ʃʰ/ merge into /t͡ʃ/, written ϫ Bohairic (before a stressed vowel): */c/ and */t͡ʃ/ merge into /t͡ʃ/, written ϫ */cʰ/ and */t͡ʃʰ/ merge into /t͡ʃʰ/, written ϭ These are the possible correspondences before a stressed vowel: ḏ > ABFLS ϫ; ex. ḏꜣḏꜣ > */t͡ʃot͡ʃ/ > BFLS ϫⲱϫ /t͡ʃot͡ʃ/ ṯ > AFLS ϫ : B ϭ ex. ṯz.t > */t͡ʃʰisə/ > ALS ϫⲓⲥⲉ /t͡ʃisə/ : F ϫⲓⲥⲓ /t͡ʃisi/ : B ϭⲓⲥⲓ /t͡ʃʰisi/ g, q > AFLS ϭ : B ϫ ex. gbj > */cov/ > AFLS ϭⲱⲃ /cov/ : B ϫⲱⲃ /t͡ʃov/ k > ABFLS ϭ ex. kꜣm.w > */cʰom/ > AFLS ϭⲱⲙ /com/ : B ϭⲱⲙ /t͡ʃʰom/ So ϫ is always /t͡ʃ/ while ϭ is /c/ in the non-Bohairic dialects and /t͡ʃʰ/ in Bohairic. And we can be sure that ϫ is /t͡ʃ/ because, among other things, it’s used as a digraph for ⲧ+ϣ.

LukeRanieri

Thanks so much for reposting this, Miles! It's very helpful to me and will be to others who see it here. Could you show me the attestations of ϫ for ⲧ+ϣ? I'm particularly curious how ancient they are. If they are in the 4cAD that would make me quite comfortable maintaining /t͡ʃ/ for ϫ.

Anonymous

No problem, I’m happy to help! I also sent you some stuff over DM. wrt the use of ϫ for ⲧ+ϣ, Peust mentions it here under section 3.9.8: https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/peust1999/0125/scroll And as for the 4th century, there are two Bohairic codices from this time: P. Bodmer III and Pap. Vat. Copt. 9. If you look at folio 80v of P. Bodmer III you can see ϫⲫⲟϥ at the beginning of the third to last line: https://bodmerlab.unige.ch/fr/constellations/papyri/mirador/1072205288?page=149. ϫⲫⲟ is the t-causative of ϣⲱⲡⲉ, being equivalent to ⲧϣⲫⲟ.