Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Coptic language
View on Wikipedia| Coptic | |
|---|---|
| ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ (Bohairic Dialect)
ⲧⲙⲉⲧⲗⲉⲙⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲓ (Fayyumic Dialect) ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ (Akhmimic Dialect) ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ (Sahidic Dialect) | |
| Native to | Egypt |
| Ethnicity | Copts |
| Era | |
Afro-Asiatic
| |
Early forms | |
| Dialects |
|
| Coptic alphabet | |
| Language codes | |
| ISO 639-2 | cop |
| ISO 639-3 | cop |
cop | |
| Glottolog | copt1239 |
| This article is part of a series on |
| Life in Egypt |
|---|
| Culture |
| Society |
| Politics |
| Economy |
|
Egypt portal |
| Part of a series on the |
| Copts |
|---|
| Culture |
| Regions |
| Denominations |
|
|
Coptic (Bohairic Coptic: ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ, romanized: Timetremənkʰēmi) is a dormant Afroasiatic language.[3][4] It is a group of closely related Egyptian dialects,[2] representing the most recent developments of the Egyptian language,[2][5] and historically spoken by the Copts, starting from the third century AD in Roman Egypt.[1] Coptic was supplanted by Arabic as the primary spoken language of Egypt following the Arab conquest of Egypt and was slowly replaced over the centuries.
Coptic has no modern-day native speakers, and no fluent speakers apart from a number of priests,[6] although it remains in daily use as the liturgical language of the Coptic Orthodox Church and of the Coptic Catholic Church.[5] It is written with the Coptic alphabet, a modified form of the Greek alphabet with seven additional letters borrowed from the Demotic Egyptian script.[5]
The major Coptic dialects are Sahidic, Bohairic, Akhmimic, Fayyumic, Lycopolitan (Asyutic), and Oxyrhynchite. Sahidic Coptic was spoken between the cities of Asyut and Oxyrhynchus[7] and flourished as a literary language across Egypt in the period c. 325 – c. 800 AD.[5] The Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi library are primarily written in the Sahidic dialect. However, some texts also contain elements of the Subakhmimic (Lycopolitan) dialect, which was also used in Upper Egypt.[8] Bohairic, the dialect of Lower Egypt, gained prominence in the 9th century and is the dialect used by the Coptic Church liturgically.[2]
Name
[edit]In Coptic the language is called ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ (timetremǹkhēmi) "Egyptian" or ϯⲁⲥⲡⲓ ⲛ̀ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ (tiaspi ǹremǹkhēmi) "the Egyptian language". Coptic also possessed the term ⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ (gyptios) "Egyptian", derived from Greek Αἰγύπτιος (Aigúptios). This was borrowed into Arabic as قبْط (qibṭ/qubṭ), and from there into the languages of Europe, giving rise to words like French copte, whence the English Copt.
Geographic distribution
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (April 2024) |
Coptic is spoken liturgically in the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Catholic Church (along with Modern Standard Arabic). The language is spoken only in Egypt and historically has had little influence outside of the territory, except for monasteries located in Nubia (which straddles modern Egypt and Sudan). Coptic's most noticeable linguistic influence has been on the various dialects of Egyptian Arabic, which is characterised by a Coptic substratum in lexical, morphological, syntactical, and phonological features.[9]
Influence on other languages
[edit]In addition to influencing the grammar, vocabulary and syntax of Egyptian Arabic, Coptic has lent to both Arabic and Modern Hebrew such words as:[citation needed]
- timsāḥ (Arabic: تمساح; Hebrew: תמסח), "crocodile"; emsah (ⲉⲙⲥⲁϩ);[citation needed] this subsequently entered Turkish as timsah. Coptic ⲉⲙⲥⲁϩ is grammatically masculine and hence would have taken the form pemsah (Sahidic: ⲡⲉⲙⲥⲁϩ; Bohairic: ⲡⲓⲉⲙⲥⲁϩ) with the definite articular prefix. Hence it is unclear why the word should have entered Arabic with an initial t, which would have required the word to be grammatically feminine (i.e. Sahidic: *ⲧⲉⲙⲥⲁϩ; Bohairic: *ϯⲉⲙⲥⲁϩ).[citation needed]
- ṭūbah, Arabic: طوبة, "brick";[citation needed] Sahidic: ⲧⲱⲱⲃⲉ, tōōbe; Bohairic ⲧⲱⲃⲓ, tōbi; this subsequently entered Catalan and Spanish (via Andalusian Arabic) as tova and adobe respectively, the latter of which was borrowed by American English.[citation needed]
- wāḥah, Arabic: واحة, "oasis"; Sahidic: ⲟⲩⲁϩⲉ, ouahe; Bohairic: ⲟⲩⲉϩⲓ, ouehi; this subsequently entered Turkish as vaha[citation needed]
A few words of Coptic origin are found in the Greek language; some of the words were later lent to various European languages — such as barge, from Coptic baare (ⲃⲁⲁⲣⲉ, "small boat").[citation needed]
However, most words of Egyptian origin that entered into Greek and subsequently into other European languages came directly from Ancient Egyptian, often Demotic. An example is the Greek oasis (ὄασις), which comes directly from Egyptian wḥꜣt or Demotic wḥj. However, Coptic reborrowed some words of Ancient Egyptian origin into its lexicon, via Greek.[citation needed]
Many place names in modern Egypt are Arabic adaptations of their former Coptic names:
| Coptic name | Modern name | |
|---|---|---|
| ⲥⲓⲱⲟⲩⲧ (səjōwt) | أسيوط (ʾasyūṭ) | Asyut |
| ⲫⲓⲟⲙ (phəyom) | الفيوم (al-fayyūm) | Faiyum |
| ϯⲙⲉⲛϩⲱⲣ (təmənhōr) | دمنهور (damanhūr) | Damanhur |
| ⲥⲟⲩⲁⲛ (swan) | أسوان (ʾaswān) | Aswan |
| ⲙⲉⲛϥ (mənf) | منف (manf) | Memphis |
The Coptic name ⲡⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, papnoute (from Egyptian pꜣy-pꜣ-nṯr), means "belonging to God" or "he of God".[10][11][12] It was adapted into Arabic as Babnouda, which remains a common name among Egyptian Copts to this day. It was also borrowed into Greek as the name Παφνούτιος (Paphnutius). That, in turn, is the source of the Russian name Пафнутий (Pafnuty), perhaps best known in the name of the mathematician Pafnuty Chebyshev.
History
[edit]
The Egyptian language may have the longest documented history of any language, from Old Egyptian, which appeared just before 3200 BC,[13] to its final phases as Coptic in the Middle Ages. Coptic belongs to the Later Egyptian phase, which started to be written in the New Kingdom of Egypt. Later Egyptian represented colloquial speech of the later periods. It had analytic features like definite and indefinite articles and periphrastic verb conjugation. Coptic, therefore, is a reference to both the most recent stage of Egyptian after Demotic and the new writing system that was adapted from the Greek alphabet.
Pre-Islamic period
[edit]The earliest attempts to write the Egyptian language using the Greek alphabet are Greek transcriptions of Egyptian proper names, most of which date to the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Scholars frequently refer to this phase as Pre-Coptic. However, it is clear that by the Late Period of ancient Egypt, demotic scribes regularly employed a more phonetic orthography, a testament to the increasing cultural contact between Egyptians and Greeks even before Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt.
After Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt and the subsequent Greek administration of the Ptolemaic Kingdom led to the widespread hellenization and Greek-Coptic bilingualism more so in Northern Egypt and especially in the Nile Delta. This led to the entrance of many Greek loanwords into Coptic, particularly in words relating to technical, legal, commercial, and technological topics.[14]
Coptic itself, or Old Coptic, takes root in the first century. The transition from the older Egyptian scripts to the newly adapted Coptic alphabet was in part due to the decline of the traditional role played by the priestly class of ancient Egyptian religion, who, unlike most ordinary Egyptians, were literate in the temple scriptoria. Old Coptic is represented mostly by non-Christian texts such as Egyptian pagan prayers and magical and astrological papyri. Many of them served as glosses to original hieratic and demotic equivalents. The glosses may have been aimed at non-Egyptian speakers.
Under late Roman rule, Diocletian persecuted many Egyptian converts to the new Christian religion, which forced new converts to flee to the Egyptian deserts. In time, the growth of these communities generated the need to write Christian Greek instructions in the Egyptian language. The early Fathers of the Coptic Church, such as Anthony the Great, Pachomius the Great, Macarius of Egypt and Athanasius of Alexandria, who otherwise usually wrote in Greek, addressed some of their works to the Egyptian monks in Egyptian. The Egyptian language, now written in the Coptic alphabet, flourished in the second and third centuries. However, it was not until Shenoute that Coptic became a fully standardised literary language based on the Sahidic dialect. Shenouda's native Egyptian tongue and knowledge of Greek and rhetoric gave him the necessary tools to elevate Coptic, in content and style, to a literary height nearly equal to the position of the Egyptian language in ancient Egypt.
Islamic period
[edit]
The Muslim conquest of Egypt by Arabs came with the spread of Islam in the seventh century. At the turn of the eighth century, Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan decreed[15] that Arabic replace Koine Greek as the sole administrative language. Literary Coptic gradually declined, and within a few hundred years, Egyptian bishop Severus ibn al-Muqaffa found it necessary to write his History of the Patriarchs in Arabic. However, ecclesiastically the language retained an important position, and many hagiographic texts were also composed during this period. Until the 10th century, Coptic remained the spoken language of the native population outside the capital.
The Coptic language massively declined under the hands of Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, as part of his campaigns of religious persecution.[16][17][18] Emile Maher Ishaq, a noted Coptologist, writes in the Coptic Encyclopedia that Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah issued strict orders completely prohibiting the use of Coptic anywhere whether in schools, public streets, and even within family homes. Those who did not comply were liable to have their tongues removed. Oral traditions of the Coptic Church tell of removed tongues left on the street or in a public square to intimidate and warn against speaking Coptic.[18][19]
As a written language, Coptic is thought to have completely given way to Arabic around the 13th century,[20] though it seems to have survived as a spoken language until the 17th century[2] and in some localities even longer. The language may have survived in isolated pockets in Upper Egypt as late as the 19th century.[21] In the village of Pi-Solsel (Az-Zayniyyah, El Zenya or Al Zeniya north of Luxor), passive speakers over 50 years old were recorded as late as the 1930s, and traces of traditional vernacular Coptic were reported to exist in other places such as Abydos and Dendera.[22]
From the medieval period, there is one known example of tarsh-printed Coptic. The fragmentary amulet A.Ch. 12.145, now in the Austrian National Library, contains a frame of Coptic text around an Arabic main text.[23]
Modern revitalisation attempts
[edit]In the early 20th century, some Copts tried to revive the Coptic language, but they were unsuccessful.[24]
In the second half of the 20th century, Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria started a national Church-sponsored movement to revive Coptic. Several works of grammar were published, including a more comprehensive dictionary than had been formerly available. The scholarly findings of the field of Egyptology and the inauguration of the Institute of Coptic Studies further contributed to the renaissance. Efforts at language revitalisation continue to be undertaken, and have attracted the interest of Copts and linguists in and outside of Egypt.[citation needed][25][26]
Writing system
[edit]
Coptic uses a writing system almost wholly derived from the Greek alphabet, with the addition of a number of letters that have their origins in Demotic Egyptian. This is comparable to the Latin-based Icelandic alphabet, which includes the runic letter thorn.[28] There is some variation in the number and forms of these signs depending on the dialect. Some of the letters in the Coptic alphabet that are of Greek origin were normally reserved for Greek words. Old Coptic texts used several graphemes that were not retained in the literary Coptic orthography of later centuries.
In Sahidic, syllable boundaries may have been marked by a supralinear stroke ⟨◌̄⟩, or the stroke may have tied letters together in one word, since Coptic texts did not otherwise indicate word divisions. Some scribal traditions use a diaeresis over the letters ⲓ and ⲩ at the beginning of a word or to mark a diphthong. Bohairic uses a superposed point or small stroke known as ϫⲓⲛⲕⲓⲙ (jinkim, "movement"). When jinkim is placed over a vowel it is pronounced independently, and when it is placed over a consonant a short ⲉ precedes it.[29]
Literature
[edit]The oldest Coptic writings date to the pre-Christian era (Old Coptic), though Coptic literature consists mostly of texts written by prominent saints of the Coptic Church such as Anthony the Great, Pachomius the Great, and Shenoute. Shenoute helped fully standardise the Coptic language through his many sermons, treatises and homilies, which formed the basis of early Coptic literature.
Vocabulary
[edit]The core lexicon of Coptic is Egyptian, most closely related to the preceding Demotic phase of the language. Up to 40% of the vocabulary of literary Coptic is drawn from Greek, but borrowings are not always fully adapted to the Coptic phonological system and may have semantic differences as well. There are instances of Coptic texts having passages that are almost entirely composed from Greek lexical roots. However, that is likely because the majority of Coptic religious texts are direct translations of Greek works.
What invariably attracts the attention of the reader of a Coptic text, especially if it is written in the Sa'idic dialect, is the very liberal use which is made of Greek loan words, of which so few, indeed, are to be found in the Ancient Egyptian language. There Greek loan words occur everywhere in Coptic literature, be it Biblical, liturgical, theological, or non-literary, i.e. legal documents and personal letters. Though nouns and verbs predominate, the Greek loan words may come from any other part of speech except pronouns'[30]
The Greek loanwords in Coptic retain their original male or female gender, but Greek neuter nouns are treated as masculine in Coptic. The Greek nouns are usually inflected in the singular and in the nominative case though occasionally.[31]
Words or concepts for which no adequate Egyptian translation existed were taken directly from Greek to avoid altering the meaning of the religious message. In addition, other Egyptian words that would have adequately translated the Greek equivalents were not used as they were perceived as having overt pagan associations. Old Coptic texts use many such words, phrases and epithets; for example, the word ⲧⲃⲁⲓⲧⲱⲩ '(Who is) in (His) Mountain', is an epithet of Anubis.[32] There are also traces of some archaic grammatical features, such as residues of the Demotic relative clause, lack of an indefinite article and possessive use of suffixes.
Thus, the transition from the old traditions to the new Christian religion also contributed to the adoption of Greek words into the Coptic religious lexicon. It is safe to assume that the everyday speech of the native population retained, to a greater extent, its indigenous Egyptian character, which is sometimes reflected in Coptic nonecclesiastical documents such as letters and contracts.
Phonology
[edit]Coptic provides the clearest indication of Later Egyptian phonology from its writing system, which fully indicates vowel sounds and occasionally stress patterns. The phonological system of Later Egyptian is also better known than that of the Classical phase of the language because of a greater number of sources indicating Egyptian sounds, including cuneiform letters containing transcriptions of Egyptian words and phrases, and Egyptian renderings of Northwest Semitic names. Coptic sounds, in addition, are known from a variety of Coptic-Arabic papyri in which Arabic letters were used to transcribe Coptic and vice versa. They date to the medieval Islamic period, when Coptic was still spoken.[33]
Vowels
[edit]There are some differences of opinion among Coptic language scholars on the correct phonetic interpretation of the writing system of Coptic. Differences centre on how to interpret the pairs of letters ⲉ/ⲏ and ⲟ/ⲱ. In the Attic dialect of Ancient Greek in the 5th century BC, the first member of each pair is a short closed vowel /e, o/, and the second member is a long open vowel /ɛː, ɔː/. In some interpretations of Coptic phonology,[34] it is assumed that the length difference is primary, with ⲉ/ⲏ /e, eː/ and ⲟ/ⲱ is /o, oː/. Other scholars[35] argue for a different analysis in which ⲉ/ⲏ and ⲟ/ⲱ are interpreted as /e, ɛ/ and /o, ɔ/.
These two charts show the two theories of Coptic vowel phonology:
Dialects vary in their realisation. The difference between [o] and [u] seems to be allophonic. Evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that these are distinct vowels, and if they are, the difference has a very low functional load. For dialects that use orthographic ⟨ⲉⲓ⟩ for a single vowel, there appears to be no phonetic difference from ⟨ⲓ⟩.
Double orthographic vowels are presumed here to be long, but there is considerable debate as to whether these double vowels represent long vowels or glottal stops.[36]
| Front | Back | |
|---|---|---|
| Close | ⲉⲓ /i/ | ⲟⲩ /u/ |
| Close-mid | ⲏ /e/ | ⲱ /o/ |
| Open-mid | ⲉ /ɛ/ | ⲟ /ɔ/ |
| Open | ⲁ /a/ | |
| Front | Back | |
|---|---|---|
| Close | ⲉⲓ /i/ | ⲟⲩ /u/ |
| Close-mid | ⲏ /e/ ⲏⲏ /eː/ | ⲱ /o/ ⲱⲱ /oː/ |
| Open-mid | ⲉ /ɛ/ ⲉⲉ /ɛː/ | ⲟ /ɔ/ ⲟⲟ /ɔː/ |
| Open | ⲁ /a/ ⲁⲁ /aː/ | |
There is no length distinction in final stressed position, but only those vowels that occur long appear there: ⟨(ⲉ)ⲓ, ⲉ, ⲁ, ⲟ~ⲱ, ⲟⲩ⟩.
In Sahidic, the letter ⲉ was used for short /e/ before back fricatives, and also for unstressed schwa /ə/. It's possible there was also a distinction between short /ɛ/ and /a/, but if so the functional load was extremely low.
Bohairic did not have long vowels. /i/ was only written ⟨ⲓ⟩. As above, it's possible that /u/ and /o/ were distinct vowels rather than just allophones.
In Late Coptic (that is, Late Bohairic), the vowels were reduced to those found in Egyptian Arabic, /a, i, u/.[dubious – discuss] ⟨ⲱ, ⲟ⟩ became /u/, ⟨ⲉ⟩ became /æ/, and ⟨ⲏ⟩ became either /ɪ/ or /æ/. It is difficult to explain ⟨ⲏ⟩. However, it generally became /æ/ in stressed monosyllables, /ɪ/ in unstressed monosyllables, and in polysyllables, /æ/ when followed by /i/, and /ɪ/ when not.
There were no doubled orthographic vowels in Mesokemic. Some representative correspondences with Sahidic are:
| Sahidic stressed vowels | ⲁ | ⲁⲁ, ⲉⲉ | ⲏ | ⲟ | ⲱ | ⲱⲱ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mesokemic equivalent | ⲉ | ⲏ | ⲏ | ⲁ | ⲟ | ⲱ |
It is not clear if these correspondences reflect distinct pronunciations in Mesokemic, or if they are an imitation of the long Greek vowels ⟨η, ω⟩.
Consonants
[edit]As with the vowels, there are differences of opinion over the correct interpretation of the Coptic consonant letters, particularly with regard to the letters ϫ and ϭ. ϫ is transcribed as ⟨j⟩ in many older Coptic sources and ϭ as ⟨ɡ⟩[34] or ⟨č⟩. Lambdin (1983) notes that the current conventional pronunciations are different from the probable ancient pronunciations: Sahidic ϫ was probably pronounced [tʲ] and ϭ was probably pronounced [kʲ]. Reintges (2004, p. 22) suggests that ϫ was pronounced [tʃ].
Beside being found in Greek loanwords, the letters ⟨φ, θ, χ⟩ were used in native words for a sequence of /p, t, k/ plus /h/, as in ⲑⲉ = ⲧ-ϩⲉ "the-way" (f.sg.) and ⲫⲟϥ = ⲡ-ϩⲟϥ "the-snake" (m.sg). The letters did not have this use in Bohairic, which used them for single sounds.
| Labial | Alveolar | Palatal | Velar | Glottal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasal | m ⟨ⲙ⟩ | n ⟨ⲛ⟩ | ||||||
| Obstruent | aspirate[a] | pʰ ⟨ⲫ⟩ | tʰ ⟨ⲑ⟩ | t͡ʃʰ ⟨ϭ⟩[b] | kʰ ⟨ⲭ⟩ | |||
| tenuis | p ⟨ⲡ⟩ | t ⟨ⲧ⟩ | t͡ʃ ⟨ϫ⟩ | kʲ ⟨ϭ⟩[b] | k ⟨ⲕ⟩ | |||
| fricative | f ⟨ϥ⟩ | s ⟨ⲥ⟩ | ʃ ⟨ϣ⟩ | xʲ ⟨ⳋ ⳃ⟩[c] | x ⟨ϧ ⳉ⟩[d] | h ⟨ϩ⟩ | ||
| Approximant | v ⟨ⲃ⟩[e] | r ⟨ⲣ⟩ | l ⟨ⲗ⟩ | j ⟨ⲉⲓ⟩ | w ⟨ⲟⲩ⟩ | |||
- ^ The aspirate series is present only in Bohairic.
- ^ a b The letter ϭ has two values: In Bohairic it represents /t͡ʃʰ/, the aspirated counterpart to ϫ /t͡ʃ/. In the other dialects it represents /kʲ/, the palatalized counterpart to ⲕ /k/.
- ^ /xʲ/ is present only in the minor Coptic dialects P and I,[further explanation needed] where it is written ⟨ⳋ⟩ and ⟨ⳃ⟩ respectively.[37]
- ^ /x/ is written ⟨ϧ⟩ in Bohairic and Dialect P, and ⟨ⳉ⟩ in Akhmimic and Dialect I.
- ^ Coptic ⲃ is alternatively interpreted as a voiced bilabial fricative [β].[38] Like the other voiced consonants, it belongs to the class of sonorants and may occupy the syllable nucleus (cf. Sahidic: ⲧⲃ̄ⲧ /tv̩t/ "fish").
It is possible that Coptic has a glottal stop, [ʔ], though there is no definitive evidence. Supporters of this theory have posited that the glottal stop was represented with ⲁ word-initially, with ⲓ word-finally in monosyllabic words in northern dialects, and ⲉ in monosyllabic words in Akhmimic and Assiutic. In Sahidic, it has been postulated that it represented the second of a doubled vowel.[39]
In Late Coptic (ca. 14th century), Bohairic sounds that did not occur in Egyptian Arabic were lost. A possible shift from a tenuis-aspirate distinction to voiced-tenuis is only attested from the alveolars, the only place that Arabic has such a contrast.
| Original pronunciation |
Late pronunciation |
|---|---|
| β | w (final [b]) |
| p | b |
| pʰ | b ~ f |
| t | d |
| tʰ | d |
| t͡ʃ | ɟ[note 1] |
| t͡ʃʰ | ʃ |
| k | k |
| kʰ | k |
Earlier phases of Egyptian may have contrasted voiceless and voiced bilabial plosives, but the distinction seems to have been lost. Late Egyptian, Demotic and Coptic all interchangeably use their respective graphemes to indicate either sound; for example, Coptic for 'iron' appears alternately as ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲡⲉ, ⲃⲉⲛⲓⲡⲉ and ⲃⲓⲛⲓⲃⲉ. That probably reflects dialect variation. Both letters were interchanged with ⲫ and ϥ to indicate /f/, and ⲃ was also used in many texts to indicate the bilabial approximant /w/. Coptologists believe that Coptic ⲃ was articulated as a voiced bilabial fricative [β]. In the present-day Coptic Church services, this letter is realised as /v/, but it is almost certainly a result of the pronunciation reforms instituted in the 19th century.
Whereas Old Egyptian contrasts /s/ and /z/, the two sounds appear to be in free variation in Coptic, as they were since the Middle Egyptian period. However, they are contrasted only in Greek loans; for example, native Coptic ⲁⲛⲍⲏⲃ (anzēb) and ⲁⲛⲥⲏⲃⲉ (ansēbə) 'school' are homophonous. Other consonants that sometimes appear to be either in free variation or to have different distributions across dialects are [t] and [d], [ɾ] and [l] (especially in the Fayyumic dialect, a feature of earlier Egyptian) and [k] and [ɡ], with the voiceless stop consonants being more common in Coptic words and the voiced ones in Greek borrowings. Apart from the liquid consonants, this pattern may indicate a sound change in Later Egyptian, leading to a neutralisation of voiced alveolar and velar plosives. When the voiced plosives are realised, it is usually the result of consonant voicing in proximity to /n/.
A few early manuscripts have a letter ⳋ or ⳃ ç where Sahidic and Bohairic have ϣ š. and Akhmimic has ⳉ x. This sound seems to have been lost early on.
Grammar
[edit]Coptic is primarily a fusional (inflectional) language, though some scholars, such as Loprieno (1995), have suggested it has agglutinative or even polysynthetic tendencies. Its morphology relies heavily on prefixation and clitics, but these forms frequently encode multiple grammatical functions.[40] Its standard word order is subject–verb–object, though it can shift to verb–subject–object with the appropriate preposition before the subject. Number, gender, tense, and mood are marked by prefixes and clitics, which evolved from Late Egyptian. While earlier stages of Egyptian used suffixation for verb conjugation, Coptic largely replaced these with periphrastic constructions and prefix-based inflection, though vestiges of suffix inflection survive in certain verbs and possessive structures. For example, the Middle Egyptian form *satāpafa ('he chooses', written stp.f in hieroglyphs) corresponds to the Coptic (Sahidic) f.sotp (ϥⲥⲱⲧⲡ̅, 'he chooses'), where the prefix "f-" encodes multiple grammatical functions simultaneously, characteristic of fusional morphology rather than agglutination.[40]
Nouns
[edit]All Coptic nouns carry grammatical gender, either masculine or feminine, usually marked through a definite article as in the Romance languages, though Coptic articles are prefixes rather than separate words. Masculine nouns are marked with the article /pə, peː/ and feminine nouns with the article /tə, teː/[41] in the Sahidic dialect and /pi, əp/ and /ti, ət/ in the Bohairic dialect.
- Bohairic: ⲡⲓⲣⲱⲙⲓ /pəˈɾomə/ – 'the man' / ϯϫⲓϫ /təˈt͡ʃit͡ʃ/ – 'the hand'
- Sahidic: ⲡⲉⲣⲱⲙⲉ /pəˈɾomə/ – 'the man' / ⲧⲉϫⲓϫ /təˈt͡ʃit͡ʃ/ – 'the hand'
The definite and indefinite articles also indicate number; however, only definite articles mark gender. Coptic has a number of broken plurals, a vestige of Older Egyptian, but in the majority of cases, the article marks number. Generally, nouns inflected for plurality end in /wə/, but there are some irregularities. The dual was another feature of earlier Egyptian that survives in Coptic in only few words, such as ⲥⲛⲁⲩ (snau) 'two'.
Words of Greek origin keep their original grammatical gender, except for neuter nouns, which become masculine in Coptic.
Possession of definite nouns is expressed with a series of possessive articles which are prefixed to the noun. These articles agree with the person, number, and gender of the possessor and the number and gender of the possessed noun. The forms of the possessive article vary according to dialect.
| Person/Number/Gender | Dialect | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possessor | Possessed | Bohairic | Fayyumic | Oxyrhynchite | Sahidic | Lycopolitan | Akhmimic |
| 1SG | M | ⲡⲁ- | |||||
| F | ⲧⲁ- | ||||||
| PL | ⲛⲁ- | ||||||
| 2SG.M | M | ⲡⲉⲕ- | |||||
| F | ⲧⲉⲕ- | ||||||
| PL | ⲛⲉⲕ- | ||||||
| 2SG.F | M | ⲡⲉ- | ⲡⲟⲩ- | ⲡⲉ- | |||
| F | ⲧⲉ- | ⲧⲟⲩ- | ⲧⲉ- | ||||
| PL | ⲛⲉ- | ⲛⲟⲩ- | ⲛⲉ- | ||||
| 3SG.M | M | ⲡⲉϥ- | |||||
| F | ⲧⲉϥ- | ||||||
| PL | ⲛⲉϥ- | ||||||
| 3SG.F | M | ⲡⲉⲥ- | |||||
| F | ⲧⲉⲥ- | ||||||
| PL | ⲛⲉⲥ- | ||||||
| 1PL | M | ⲡⲉⲛ- | |||||
| F | ⲧⲉⲛ- | ||||||
| PL | ⲛⲉⲛ- | ||||||
| 2PL | M | ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛ- | ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄- | ||||
| F | ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛ- | ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄- | |||||
| PL | ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛ- | ⲛⲉⲧⲛ̄- | |||||
| 3PL | M | ⲡⲟⲩ- | ⲡⲉⲩ- | ⲡⲟⲩ- | |||
| F | ⲧⲟⲩ- | ⲧⲉⲩ- | ⲧⲟⲩ- | ||||
| PL | ⲛⲟⲩ- | ⲛⲉⲩ- | ⲛⲟⲩ- | ||||
| Translation | Dialect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bohairic | Fayyumic | Oxyrhynchite | Sahidic | Lycopolitan | Akhmimic | |
| "my brother" | ⲡⲁ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲁ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲁ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲁ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ||
| "my sister" | ⲧⲁ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲁ-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲁ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | |||
| "my siblings" | ⲛⲁ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲁ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||||
| "your (SG.M) brother" | ⲡⲉⲕ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲕ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲉⲕ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲕ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ||
| "your (SG.M) sister" | ⲧⲉⲕ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉⲕ-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲉⲕ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | |||
| "your (SG.M) siblings" | ⲛⲉⲕ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉⲕ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||||
| "your (SG.F) brother" | ⲡⲉ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲟⲩ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ||
| "your (SG.F) sister" | ⲧⲉ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉ-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲟⲩ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | ⲧⲉ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | ||
| "your (SG.F) siblings" | ⲛⲉ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ⲛⲟⲩ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ⲛⲉ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||
| "his brother" | ⲡⲉϥ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉϥ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲉϥ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉϥ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ||
| "his sister" | ⲧⲉϥ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉϥ-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲉϥ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | |||
| "his siblings" | ⲛⲉϥ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉϥ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||||
| "her brother" | ⲡⲉⲥ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲥ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲉⲥ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲥ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ||
| "her sister" | ⲧⲉⲥ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉⲥ-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲉⲥ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | |||
| "her siblings" | ⲛⲉⲥ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉⲥ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||||
| "our brother" | ⲡⲉⲛ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲛ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲉⲛ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲛ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ||
| "our sister" | ⲧⲉⲛ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉⲛ-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲉⲛ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | |||
| "our siblings" | ⲛⲉⲛ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉⲛ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||||
| "your (PL) brother" | ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄-ⲥⲁⲛ | |
| "your (PL) sister" | ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | |||
| "your (PL) siblings" | ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉⲧⲛ̄-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||||
| "their brother" | ⲡⲟⲩ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲉⲩ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ⲡⲉⲩ-ⲥⲟⲛ | ⲡⲟⲩ-ⲥⲁⲛ | ||
| "their sister" | ⲧⲟⲩ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉⲩ-ⲥⲱⲛⲓ | ⲧⲉⲩ-ⲥⲟⲛⲉ | ⲧⲉⲩ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | ⲧⲟⲩ-ⲥⲱⲛⲉ | |
| "their siblings" | ⲛⲟⲩ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉⲩ-ⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ | ⲛⲉⲩ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ⲛⲟⲩ-ⲥⲛⲏⲩ | ||
Pronouns
[edit]Coptic pronouns are of two kinds, dependent and independent. Independent pronouns are used when the pronoun is acting as the subject of a sentence, as the object of a verb, or with a preposition. Dependent pronouns are a series of prefixes and suffixes that can attach to verbs and other nouns. Coptic verbs can therefore be said to inflect for the person, number and gender of the subject and the object: a pronominal prefix marks the subject, and a pronominal suffix marks the object, e.g. "I I'have'it the ball." When (as in this case) the subject is a pronoun, it normally is not also expressed independently, unless for emphasis.
As in other Afroasiatic languages, gender of pronouns differ only in the second and third person singular.
| Independent | Proclitic | As suffix | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stressed | Unstressed | |||||
| 1st person |
singular | ⲁⲛⲟⲕ anok |
ⲁⲛ̀ⲕ- anək- |
ϯ- ti- |
⸗ⲓ =i | |
| plural | ⲁⲛⲟⲛ anon |
ⲁⲛ- an- |
ⲧⲉⲛ- ten- |
⸗ⲛ =n | ||
| 2nd person |
singular | masc. | ⲛ̀ⲑⲟⲕ əntʰok |
ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲕ- əntek- |
ⲕ̀- ək- |
⸗ⲕ =k |
| fem. | ⲛ̀ⲑⲟ əntʰo |
ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ- ənte- |
ⲧⲉ- ⲧⲣ- te-, tr- |
⸗ ⸗ⲉ ⸗ⲣ ⸗ⲣⲉ ⸗ⲧⲉ =∅, =e, =r(e), =te | ||
| plural | ⲛ̀ⲑⲱⲧⲉⲛ əntʰōten |
ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲛ- ənten- |
ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛ- teten- |
⸗ⲧⲉⲛ ⸗ⲧⲉⲧⲉⲛ =ten, =teten | ||
| 3rd person |
singular | masc. | ⲛ̀ⲑⲟϥ əntʰof |
ϥ̀- əf- |
⸗ϥ =f | |
| fem. | ⲛ̀ⲑⲟⲥ əntʰos |
ⲥ̀- əs- |
⸗ⲥ =s | |||
| plural | ⲛ̀ⲑⲱⲟⲩ əntʰōou |
ⲥⲉ- se- |
⸗ⲟⲩ =ou | |||
Adjectives
[edit]Most Coptic adjectives are actually nouns that have the attributive particle n to make them adjectival. In all stages of Egyptian, this morpheme is also used to express the genitive; for example, the Bohairic word for 'Egyptian', ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ /remənkʰeːmə/, is a combination of the nominal prefix ⲣⲉⲙ- rem- (the reduced form of ⲣⲱⲙⲓ rōmi 'man'), followed by the genitive morpheme ⲛ̀ ən ('of') and finally the word for Egypt, ⲭⲏⲙⲓ kʰēmi.
Verbs
[edit]Verbal grade system
[edit]Coptic, like Ancient Egyptian and Semitic languages, has root-and-pattern or templatic morphology, and the basic meaning of a verb is contained in a root and various derived forms of root are obtained by varying the vowel pattern. For example, the root for 'build' is kt. It has four derived forms:
- ⲕⲟⲧ kɔt (the absolute state grade)
- ⲕⲉⲧ- ket- (the nominal state grade)
- ⲕⲟⲧ⸗ kot= (the pronominal state grade)
- ⲕⲉⲧ kɛt (the stative grade)
(The nominal state grade is also called the construct state in some grammars of Coptic.)
The absolute, nominal, and pronominal state grades are used in different syntactic contexts. The absolute state grade of a transitive verb is used before a direct object with the accusative preposition /ən, əm/, and the nominal state grade is used before a direct object with no case-marking. The pronominal state grade is used before a pronominal direct object enclitic. In addition, many verbs also have a neutral state grade, used to express a state resulting from the action of the verb. Compare the following forms:[42]
ⲁⲓϫⲓⲙⲓ
Aijimi
a-i-jimi
PFV-1SG-find.ABS
ⲙ̀ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ
əmpaiōt
əm-p-a-iōt
PREP-DEF:MASC:SG-1SG-father
'I found my father.'
ⲁⲓϫⲉⲙ
Aijem
a-i-jem
PFV-1SG-find.NOM
ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ
paiōt
p-a-iōt
DEF:MASC:SG-1SG-father
'I found my father.'
ⲁⲓϭⲉⲛⲧϥ
Aijəntf
a-i-jənt=f
PFV-1SG-find.PRONOM=3MSG
'I found him.'
For most transitive verbs, both absolute and nominal state grade verbs are available for non-pronominal objects. However, there is one important restriction, known as Jernstedt's rule (or the Stern-Jernstedt rule) (Jernstedt 1927): present-tense sentences cannot be used in the nominal state grade. Thus sentences in the present tense always show a pattern like the first example above (absolute state), never the second pattern (nominal state).
In general, the four grades of Coptic verb are not predictable from the root, and are listed in the lexicon for each verb. The following chart shows some typical patterns of correspondence:
| Gloss | Absolute state | Nominal state | Pronominal state | Neutral state | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spread | ⲡⲱⲣϣ̀ | poːrəʃ | ⲡⲣ̀ϣ | pərʃ | ⲡⲱⲣϣ | poːrʃ | ⲡⲟⲣϣ̀ | poʔrəʃ |
| Dig | ϣⲓⲕⲉ | ʃiːkə | ϣⲉⲕⲧ | ʃekt | ϣⲁⲕⲧ | ʃakt | ϣⲟⲕⲉ | ʃoʔkə |
| Comfort | ⲥⲟⲗⲥⲗ̀ | solsəl | ⲥⲗ̀ⲥⲗ̀ | səlsəl | ⲥⲗ̀ⲥⲱⲗ | səlsoːl | ⲥⲗ̀ⲥⲱⲗ | səlsoːl |
| Roll | ⲥⲕⲟⲣⲕⲣ̀ | skorkər | ⲥⲕⲣ̀ⲕⲣ̀ | skərkər | ⲥⲕⲣ̀ⲕⲱⲣ | skərkoːr | ⲥⲕⲣ̀ⲕⲱⲣ | skərkoːr |
| Build | ⲕⲱⲧ | koːt | ⲕⲉⲧ | ket | ⲕⲟⲧ | kot | ⲕⲏⲧ | keːt |
It is hazardous to make firm generalisations about the relationships between these grade forms, but the nominal state is usually shorter than the corresponding absolute and neutral forms. Absolute and neutral state forms are usually bisyllabic or contain a long vowel; the corresponding nominal state forms are monosyllabic or have short vowels.
Tense/aspect/mood inflection
[edit]Coptic has a very large number of distinct tense-aspect-mood categories, expressed by particles which are either before the verb or before the subject. The future /na/ is a preverbal particle and follows the subject:[43]
Ⲡⲉϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ
Pecoeis
pe-joeis
DEF:MASC:SG-lord
ⲛⲁⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ
nakrine
na-krine
FUT-judge
ⲛ̀ⲛⲉⲗⲁⲟⲥ
ənnelaos
ən-ne-laos
PREP-DEF:PL-people
'The lord will judge the nations.'
In contrast, the perfective /a/ is a pre-subject particle:
Ⲁ
A
a
PFV
ⲧⲉϥⲥⲱⲛⲉ
tefsōne
te-f-sōne
DEF:F:SG-3MSG-sister
ⲇⲉ
de
de
PART
ⲟⲗ
ol
ol
carry.ABS
ⲛ̀ⲛⲉϥⲕⲏⲥ
ənnefkēs
ən-ne-f-kēs
PREP-DEF:PL-3MSG-bone
'His sister carried his bones.'
There is some variation in the labels for the tense/aspect/mood categories. The chart below shows the labels from Reintges (2004), Lambdin (1983), Plumley (1948). (Where they agree, only one label is shown.) Each form lists the morphology found with a nonpronominal subject (Marked with an underscore in Coptic) and a third person singular masculine pronominal subject ('he'):
| Tense name | Nominal subject | 3rd M. Sg. Pronominal subject | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reintges | Lambdin | Plumley | ||||
| First Present | Present I | _ | NP | ϥ- | f- | |
| Second Present Circumstantial |
ⲉⲣⲉ _ | ere NP | ⲉϥ- | ef- | ||
| Relative of First Present | ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉ _ | etere NP | ⲉⲧϥ̀- | etəf- | ||
| Preterite Present | Imperfect | Imperfect | ⲛⲉⲣⲉ _ | nere NP | ⲛⲉϥ- | nef- |
| Preterite Past | ⲛⲉⲁ _ | nea NP | ⲛⲉⲁϥ- | neaf- | ||
| Future I | _ ⲛⲁ- | NP na- | ϥⲛⲁ- | fna- | ||
| Future II | ⲉⲣⲉ _ ⲛⲁ- | ere NP na- | ⲉϥⲛⲁ- | efna- | ||
| Future III | ⲉⲣⲉ _ | ere NP | ⲉϥⲉ- | efe- | ||
| Negative Future III | Negative Future II | ⲛ̀ⲛⲉ _ | ənne NP | ⲛ̀ⲛⲉϥ- | ənnef- | |
| Imperfect of Future | Future Imperfect | ⲛⲉⲣⲉ _ ⲛⲁ- | nere NP na- | ⲛⲉϥⲛⲁ- | nefna- | |
| Perfect I | ⲁ _ | a NP | ⲁϥ- | af- | ||
| Negative Perfect I | ⲙ̀ⲡⲉ _ | əmpe NP | ⲙ̀ⲡⲉϥ- | əmpef- | ||
| Perfect II | ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ _ | ənta NP | ⲛ̀ⲧⲉϥ- | əntaf- | ||
| Habitual | ϣⲁⲣⲉ _ | ʃare NP | ϣⲁϥ- | ʃaf- | ||
| Habitual I | ⲉϣⲁⲣⲉ _ | eʃare NP | ⲉϣⲁϥ- | eʃaf- | ||
| Negative Habitual | ⲙⲉⲣⲉ _ | mere NP | ⲙⲉϥ- | mef- | ||
| Jussive | Injunctive | Optative | ⲙⲁⲣⲉ _ | mare NP | ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥ- | maref- |
| Conditional | ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛ _ | erʃan NP | ⲉϥϣⲁⲛ- | efʃan- | ||
| Conjunctive | ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ _ | ənte NP | ⲛϥ̀- | nəf- | ||
| Inferential | Future Conjunctive of Result | Future I | ⲧⲁⲣⲉ _ | tare NP | ⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ- | taref- |
| Temporal | ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲣⲉ _ | əntere NP | ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥ- | ənteref- | ||
| Terminative | "Until" | "Unfulfilled action | ϣⲁⲛⲧⲉ _ | ʃante NP | ϣⲁⲛⲧϥ̀- | ʃantəf- |
| "Not yet" | "Unfulfilled action | ⲙ̀ⲡⲁⲧⲉ _ | əmpate NP | ⲙ̀ⲡⲁⲧϥ̀- | əmpatəf- | |
An approximate range of use for most of the tense/aspect/mood categories is shown in the following table:
| Tense name (Lambdin) | Approximate range of use |
|---|---|
| Present I | Present time in narrative (predicate focus) |
| Relative of Present I | Non-subject relative clause in present tense |
| Circumstantial | Background clauses; relative clauses with indefinite heads |
| Imperfect | Action in progress in the past |
| Future I | Simple future tense (predicate focus) |
| Future II | Simple future tense (adverbial focus) |
| Future III | Future tense conveyed as necessary, inevitable, or obligatory |
| Perfect I | Primary narrative tense (predicate focus) |
| Negative Perfect I | Negative of Perfect I |
| Perfect II | Primary narrative tense (adverbial focus); relative clause form of Perfect I |
| Habitual | Characteristic or habitual action |
| Negative Habitual | Negative of Habitual |
| Injunctive | Imperative for first and third persons ('let me', 'let him', etc.) |
| Conditional | Protasis (if-clause) of a conditional (if-then) statement |
| Conjunctive | Event shares the TAM of a preceding initial verb |
| Future Conjunctive of Result | Used in clauses that express a resultant action |
| Temporal | Past action in a subordinate temporal clause ("when NP V-ed, ...") |
Second tenses
[edit]An unusual feature of Coptic is the extensive use of a set of "second tenses", which are required in certain syntactic contexts. "Second tenses" are also called "relative tenses" in some work.[44]
Prepositions
[edit]Coptic has prepositions, rather than postpositions:
ϩⲓ
hi
hi
on
ⲡ̀ϫⲟⲓ
pjoi
p-joi
DEF:M:SG-ship
'on the ship'
Pronominal objects of prepositions are indicated with enclitic pronouns:
ⲉⲣⲟⲕ
erok
on-2MSG
'to you'
ⲛⲁⲛ
nan
for-1PL
'for us'
Many prepositions have different forms before the enclitic pronouns.[45] Compare:
ⲉ̀ⲡ̀ϫⲟⲓ
e-p-joi
to-DEF:SG:M-ship
'to the ship'
ⲉⲣⲟϥ
erof
on-3MSG
'to him'
Syntax
[edit]Sentential syntax
[edit]Coptic typically shows subject–verb–object (SVO) word order, as in the following examples:[46][42]
ⲁ
A
a
PFV
ⲧⲉϭⲁⲙⲁⲩⲗⲉ
tecamaule
te-camaule
DEF:F:SG-camel
ⲙⲓⲥⲉ
mise
mise
deliver.ABS
ⲛ̀ⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ
ənoušēre
ən-ou-šēre
PREP-INDEF:SG-girl
ⲛ̀ϣⲓⲙⲉ
ənšime
ən-šime
link-woman
'The she-camel delivered a daughter.'
ⲡⲉϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ
Pejoeis
pe-joeis
DEF:M:SG-lord
ⲛⲁⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ
nakrine
na-krine
FUT-judge
ⲛ̀ⲛⲉⲗⲁⲟⲥ
ənnelaos
ən-ne-laos
PREP-DEF:PL-people
'The Lord will judge the people.'
ⲁⲓϭⲓⲛⲉ
Aicine
a-i-cine
PFV-1sg-find.ABS
ⲙ̀ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ
əmpaeiōt
əm-p-a-eiōt
PREP-DEF:MASC:SG-1SG-father
'I found my father.'
The verbs in these sentences are in the absolute state grade,[47] which requires that its direct object be introduced with the preposition /ən, əm/. This preposition functions like accusative case.
There is also an alternative nominal state grade of the verb in which the direct object of the verb follows with no preposition:
Ⲁⲓϭⲉⲛ
Aicen
a-i-cen
PFV-1SG-find.NOM
ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ
paeiōt
p-a-eiōt
DEF:M:SG-1SG-father
'I found my father.'
Dialects
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (April 2025) |



There is little written evidence of dialectal differences in the pre-Coptic phases of the Egyptian language due to the centralised nature of the political and cultural institutions of ancient Egyptian society. However, literary Old and Middle (Classical) Egyptian represent the spoken dialect of Lower Egypt around the city of Memphis, the capital of Egypt in the Old Kingdom. Later Egyptian is more representative of the dialects spoken in Upper Egypt, especially around the area of Thebes as it became the cultural and religious center of the New Kingdom.
Coptic more obviously displays a number of regional dialects that were in use from the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in northern Egypt, south into Nubia, and in the western oases. However, while many of these dialects reflect actual regional linguistic (namely phonological and some lexical) variation, they mostly reflect localized orthographic traditions with very little grammatical differences.
Lower Egyptian dialects
[edit]Bohairic
[edit]
The Bohairic (also known as Memphitic)[citation needed] dialect originated in the western Nile Delta. The earliest Bohairic manuscripts date to the 4th century, but most texts come from the 9th century and later; this may be due to poor preservation conditions for texts in the humid regions of northern Egypt. It shows several conservative features in lexicon and phonology not found in other dialects. Bohairic is the dialect used as the liturgical language of the modern Coptic Orthodox Church, replacing Sahidic some time in the eleventh century. In contemporary liturgical use, there are two traditions of pronunciation, arising from successive reforms in the 19th and 20th centuries (see Coptic pronunciation reform). Modern revitalisation efforts are based on this dialect.
Bashmuric (also known as Mansurian, Dialect G, and Bashmurian) was a sub-dialect of Bohairic most likely spoken in Eastern Delta. Its main characteristic is using solely Greek letters to represent Coptic phonemes.
Upper Egyptian dialects
[edit]Sahidic
[edit]
Sahidic (also known as Thebaic or Theban) is the dialect in which most known Coptic texts are written, and was the leading dialect in the pre-Islamic period. Where it was spoken is a matter of debate; it name which comes from an Arabic term Aṣ-ṣa'id meaning Upper [Southern] Egypt would imply it was spoken there, but Sahidic's features seem to suggest it was spoken in the north. It is also possible that Sahidic was the urban dialect spoken in the major urban centers of Thebes and Memphis differentiating it from the other rural dialects.[14] Around 300 it began to be written in literary form, including translations of major portions of the Bible (see Coptic versions of the Bible). By the 6th century, a standardised spelling had been attained throughout Egypt. Almost all native authors wrote in this dialect of Coptic. Sahidic was, beginning in the 9th century, challenged by Bohairic, but is attested as late as the 14th.
While texts in other Coptic dialects are primarily translations of Greek literary and religious texts, Sahidic is the only dialect with a considerable body of original literature and non-literary texts. Because Sahidic shares most of its features with other dialects of Coptic with few peculiarities specific to itself, and has an extensive corpus of known texts, it is generally the dialect studied by learners of Coptic, particularly by scholars outside of the Coptic Church.
Proto-Theban
[edit]Proto-Theban is a dialect of Coptic only attested in a single source, as such information on it is limited but; Proto-Theban closely resembles what reconstructed Proto-Sahidic dialect would have looked like. The variant of the Coptic script used in its singular attestation is also distinct as it contains 10 letters from the Demotic Script which is significantly higher than other dialects.[51]
Fayyumic
[edit]Fayyumic (also known as Crocodilopolic; in older works it is often called Bashmuric) was spoken primarily in the Faiyum west of the Nile Valley. It is attested from the 3rd to the 10th centuries. It is most notable for writing ⲗ (which corresponds to /l/), where other dialects generally use ⲣ /r/ (probably corresponding to a flap [ɾ]). In earlier stages of Egyptian, the liquids were not distinguished in writing until the New Kingdom, when Late Egyptian became the administrative language. Late Egyptian orthography utilised a grapheme that combined the graphemes for /r/ and /n/ in order to express /l/. Demotic for its part indicated /l/ using a diacritic variety of /r/.
South Fayyumic
[edit]South Fayyumic (also called Dialect V) was spoken around modern towns of Beni Suef and Bush and is distinguished from central Fayyumic by not having lambdacism.
Ashmuninic
[edit]Ashmuninic (also known as Hermopolic or Dialect H) was spoken around the city of Shmun and shares South Fayyumic features like vowel gemination and absence of lambdacism.[citation needed]
Oxyrhynchite
[edit]Oxyrhynchite (also known as Mesokemic or, confusingly, Middle Egyptian) is the dialect of Oxyrhynchus and surrounding areas. It shows similarities with Fayyumic and is attested in manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries.
Lycopolitan
[edit]Lycopolitan (also known as Subakhmimic and Assiutic) is a dialect closely related to Akhmimic in terms of when and where it was attested, but manuscripts written in Lycopolitan tend to be from the area of Asyut. The main differences between the two dialects seem to be graphic in nature. The Lycopolitan variety was used extensively for translations of Gnostic and Manichaean works, including the texts of the Nag Hammadi library.
Akhmimic
[edit]Akhmimic (also called Chemmic or Panopolic) was the dialect of the area around the town of Akhmim (Ancient Greek: Πανὸς πόλις, romanized: Panopolis). It flourished during the fourth and fifth centuries, after which no writings are attested. Akhmimic is phonologically the most archaic of the Coptic dialects. One characteristic feature is the retention of the phoneme /x/, which is realised as /ʃ/ in most other dialects.
Aswanic
[edit]Aswanic (also known as Syenic) was the dialect of the area around the town of Aswan. It is very close to Akhmimic, and sometimes considered a sub-dialect, although, what makes it different is that "ϩ" is written before pronouns, for example in normal Coptic it is said Afso, which means drank, but in the Aswanic dialect it is said Hafso. It also has a distinctive way of writing; so the letter "ⲃ" is written instead of the letter "ϥ".
Sample text
[edit]Coptic: ⲥⲟⲩⲙⲟⲥⲉ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲩϣⲏϣ ⲉ ⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲩ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥⲩⲛⲏ. ⲟⲩⲛ ϭⲟⲙ ⲙⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϣϣⲉ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲣ-ⲙⲛⲧⲙⲁⲓⲥⲟⲛ.[52][self-published source]
Bohairic Coptic: Ⲉ̀ⲫ̀ⲟⲩⲁⲓ ⲥⲉⲙⲓⲥⲓ ⲣⲉⲙϩⲉⲩ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲉⲧϣⲱϣ ⲉ̀ ⲁⲝⲓⲁ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥⲩⲛⲏ. Ⲛ̀ⲑⲱⲟⲩ ⲥⲉⲉⲣϩ̀ⲙⲟⲧ ⲅⲛⲱⲙⲏ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲥⲩⲛⲏⲇⲏⲥⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙ̀ⲡⲉⲛⲑⲣⲉⲩⲁⲣϣⲏⲧ ⲙ̀ⲙⲉⲧⲣⲱⲙⲓ ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛ̀ⲑⲱⲟⲩ ⲙ̀ⲫ̀ⲣⲏϯ ⲛ̀ⲥ̀ⲛⲏⲟⲩ.[52]
Bohairic Coptic Transliteration: Ephouai semisi remheu nem etshōsh e axia nem dikaiosunē. Enthōou se’erehmot gnōmē nem sunēdēsis ouoh empenthreuarshēt em’metrōmi hina enthōou emephrēti enesnēou.[52]
English: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.[52]
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b Richter 2009, p. 404.
- ^ a b c d e f Allen 2020, p. 1.
- ^ "Coptic language | Egyptian, Christianity & Alphabet | Britannica", britannica.com, 21 September 2024
- ^ Endangered languages: The full list, 15 April 2011, retrieved 12 October 2024
- ^ a b c d Layton 2007, p. 1.
- ^ "Coptic". Ethnologue. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
- ^ Blasco Torres, Ana Isabel (2017). Representing Foreign Sounds: Greek Transcriptions of Egyptian Anthroponyms from 800 BC to 800 AD. University of Salamanca. p. 613. doi:10.14201/gredos.135722 (inactive 6 July 2025). Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
...four main dialects were spoken in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Bohairic in the Delta, Fayumic in the Fayum, Sahidic between approximately Oxyrhynchus and Lykopolis and Akhmimic between Panopolis and Elephantine.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link) - ^ Pearson 1989.
- ^ "Coptic Language History". www.axistranslations.com. Archived from the original on 2016-03-27. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
- ^ "pAy, pA(n)y". Projet Rosette. Archived from the original on 2017-10-10. Retrieved 2017-10-09.
- ^ "nTr". Projet Rosette. Archived from the original on 2017-10-10. Retrieved 2017-10-09.
- ^ "ⲗⲁϩⲙϥ [lahmf], ⲗⲁϩⲙⲉϥ [lahmef]". Coptic Dictionary Online. Georgetown University. Archived from the original on 2017-10-10. Retrieved 2017-10-09.
- ^ Allen 2010, p. 1–2.
- ^ a b Lambdin 1983, pp. vii–viii.
- ^ "Collections Online | British Museum". www.britishmuseum.org. Archived from the original on 2024-03-02. Retrieved 2025-01-22.
- ^ Guirguis, Fatin Morris (2010). "The Vision of Theophilus: Resistance Through Orality Among the Persecuted Copts".
- ^ Swanson, Mark N. (2010). The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt (641-1517). American Univ in Cairo Press. ISBN 978-977-416-093-6. Archived from the original on 2024-05-26. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
- ^ a b Naiem, Girgis (12 February 2018). Egypt's Identities in Conflict: The Political and Religious Landscape of Copts and Muslims. McFarland. pp. 71–72. ISBN 978-1-4766-7120-8.
- ^ Emile Maher Ishaq. "Coptic language, Spoken". The Coptic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. pp. 604a – 607a.
- ^ Rubenson, Samuel (December 31, 1996). "The Transition from Coptic to Arabic". Égypte/Monde arabe (27–28): 77–92. doi:10.4000/ema.1920. Archived from the original on September 2, 2021. Retrieved June 20, 2019 – via journals.openedition.org.
- ^ James Edward Quibell, "When did Coptic become extinct?" in Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 39 (1901), p. 87.
- ^ Werner Vycichl, Pi-Solsel, ein Dorf mit koptischer Überlieferung in: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo, (MDAIK) vol. 6, 1936, pp. 169–175 (in German).
- ^ Schaefer (2006), p. 50.
- ^ Miyokawa, Hiroko (2016). "Pharaonism and the Revival of the Coptic Language among Early Twentieth-Century Coptic Christians". Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan. 58 (2): 184–195. doi:10.5356/jorient.58.2_184. Archived from the original on 2021-07-11. Retrieved 2021-06-30.
- ^ "Preserving the Coptic Language". New Lines Magazine. 2022-10-06. Archived from the original on 2025-10-30. Retrieved 2025-10-30.
- ^ "Coptic: Ancient language still spoken today". EgyptToday. Archived from the original on 2025-10-30. Retrieved 2025-10-30.
- ^ "Dialect P (or Proto-Theban)". Claremont Colleges Digital Library. Macmillan – via Claremont Graduate University, School of Religion.
- ^ "The Coptic Alphabet" (PDF). www.suscopts.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2006-05-13.
- ^ "Coptic Lesson 5:The Rule of the JINKIM" (PDF). Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States. Archived from the original (PDF) on Jun 21, 2022.
- ^ Girgis, WA (1963–64). Greek loan words in Coptic. Bulletin de la Société d'archéologie copte 17:63–73.
- ^ Lambdin 1983, p. 9.
- ^ Gignac 1991, p. 174.
- ^ Sijpesteijn, Petra; Lennart Sundelin (2004). Papyrology and the History of Early Islamic Egypt. Leiden, Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-13886-5.
- ^ a b Plumley 1948.
- ^ Greenberg 1990.
- ^ Dahlgren, Sonja (May 2022). "The system of Coptic vowel reduction: Evidence from L2 Greek usage". Italian Journal of Linguistics. 32 (1): 211–228. doi:10.26346/1120-2726-155.
- ^ Funk, Wolf-Peter (1987). "Die Zeugen des koptischen Literaturdialekts I7". Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. 114 (1–2): 129. doi:10.1524/zaes.1987.114.12.117. S2CID 192659355.
- ^ Takács, Gábor (2015). "Questions of Egyptian Historical Phonology and Afro-Asiatic". Bibliotheca Orientalis. 72 (5–6): 565–585. doi:10.2143/BIOR.72.5.3139332. p. 569:
Firstly, as is well-known, Coptic ⲃ had the value [v] or less probably [β].
- ^ Depuydt, Leo (1993). "On Coptic Sounds". Orientalia. 62 (4): 338–375. ISSN 0030-5367. JSTOR 43077997.
- ^ a b Zeldes & Abrams 2018.
- ^ Lambdin 1983, p. 2.
- ^ a b Lambdin 1983, p. 39.
- ^ Reintges 2010, p. 210.
- ^ Reintges 2004.
- ^ Lambdin 1983, pp. 30–31.
- ^ Reintges 2010, p. 211.
- ^ Reintges 2010, p. 208.
- ^ The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8 by Aziz Suryal Atiya
- ^ Coptic: A Grammar of Its Six Major Dialects by James Peter Allen
- ^ The Rise of Coptic: Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity by Jean-Luc Fournet
- ^ "Dialect P (or Proto-Theban)".
- ^ a b c d Ager, Simon. "Coptic language and alphabet". www.omniglot.com. Retrieved 2025-02-17. Translation and transliteration provided by William Murray.
Works cited
[edit]- Allen, James P. (2010). Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-48635-4.
- Allen, James P. (2020). Coptic: A Grammar of Its Six Major Dialects. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-1-64602-064-5.
- Gignac, Francis Thomas (1991). "Old Coptic". In Aziz Suryal Atiya (ed.). The Coptic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York and Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Company and Collier Macmillan Canada. pp. 169–188.
- Greenberg, Joseph H. (1990) [1962]. "The interpretation of the Coptic vowel system". In Denning, K.; Kemmer, S. (eds.). On Language: Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. pp. 428–38.
- Jernstedt, Peter V (1927). "Das koptische Präsens und die Anknüpfungsarten des näheren Objekts". Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS. 2: 69–74.
- Lambdin, Thomas Oden (1983). Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Macon: Mercer University Press.
- Layton, Bentley (2007). Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic with Exercises & Vocabularies. Peeters Publishers. ISBN 978-90-429-1810-8.
- Loprieno, Antonio (1995). Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-44384-5.
- Pearson, Birger A. (1989). "Review of The Nag Hammadi Library". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 57 (1): 178–181.
- Plumley, John Martin (1948). Introductory Coptic Grammar. London: Home & Van Thal.
- Reintges, Chris H. (2004). Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic dialect): a learner's grammar. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. ISBN 978-3-89645-570-3.
- Reintges, Chris H. (2010). "Coordination, converbs, and clause-chaining in Coptic Egyptian typology". In Bril, Isabelle (ed.). Clause linking and clause hierarchy. Studies in Language Companion Series. Vol. 128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 978-90-272-0588-9.
- Richter, Tonio Sebastian (2009). "Greek, Coptic and the 'language of the Hijra': the rise and decline of the Coptic language in late antique and medieval Egypt" (PDF). Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. Cambridge University Press.
- Schaefer, K. R. (2006). Enigmatic Charms: Medieval Arabic Block Printed Amulets in American and European Libraries and Museums. Leiden: E. J. Brill. doi:10.1163/9789047408529. ISBN 978-90-474-0852-9.
- Zeldes, Amir; Abrams, Mitchell (2018). "The Coptic Universal Dependency Treebank" (PDF). Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2018). Association for Computational Linguistics: 171–179. Retrieved February 17, 2025.
Further reading
[edit]General studies
[edit]- Abel, Carl (1855). "On the Coptic Language". Transactions of the Philological Society (5).
- Emmel, Stephen. 1992. "Languages (Coptic)". In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 4 of 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. 180–188.
- Gessman, A. M. (1976). "The Birth of the Coptic Script". University of South Florida Language Quarterly 14. 2–3.
- Kasser, Radolphe. 1991. "Dialects". In The Coptic Encyclopedia, edited by Aziz Suryal Atiya. Vol. 8 of 8 vols. New York and Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Company and Collier Macmillan Canada. 87–96.
- Wolfgang Kosack. Lehrbuch des Koptischen.Teil I:Koptische Grammatik.Teil II:Koptische Lesestücke, Graz 1974.
- Polotsky, Hans Jakob. 1971. "Coptic". In Afroasiatic: A Survey, edited by Carleton Taylor Hodge. (Jana Linguarum: Series Practica; 163). 's Gravenhage and Paris: Mouton. 67–79.
Grammars and grammatical studies
[edit]- Chaîne, Marius. 1933. Éléments de grammaire dialectale copte: bohairique, sahidique, achmimique, fayoumique. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
- Eberle, Andrea, & Regine Schulz. 2004. Koptisch – Ein Leitfaden durch das Saïdische. LINCOM Languages of the World/Materials 07. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
- Layton, Bentley. 2000. A Coptic Grammar (Sahidic Dialect): With a Chrestomathy and Glossary. (Porta linguarum orientalium; N.S., 20). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
- Mallon, Alexis. 1956. Grammaire copte: bibliographie, chrestomathie et vocabulaire. 4th edition. Beyrouth.
- Mattar, Nabil. 1990. A Study in Bohairic Coptic. Pasadena: Hope Publishing House.
- Polotsky, Hans Jakob. 1987. Grundlagen des koptischen Satzbaus. American Studies in Papyrology 28. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press.
- Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. 1988. Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy: a course for academic and private study. Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 30. Leuven: Peeters.
- Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. 1986. Coptic Grammatical Categories: Structural Studies in the Syntax of Shenoutean Sahidic. Analecta Orientalia 53. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ISBN 88-7653-255-2.
- Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. 2007. Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 160. Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA: Peeters. ISBN 978-90-429-1875-7.
- Tattam, Henry, A compendious grammar of the Egyptian language as contained in the Coptic, Sahidic, and Bashmuric Dialects (London 1863)
- Till, Walter C. 1994. Koptische Dialektgrammatik. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
- Vergote, Jozef. 1973–1983. Grammaire copte. Leuven: Peeters.
- Younan, Sameh. 2005. So, you want to learn Coptic? A guide to Bohairic Grammar. Sydney: St.Mary, St.Bakhomious and St.Shenouda Coptic Orthodox Church.
Dictionaries
[edit]- Černý, Jaroslav. 1976. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Crum, Walter Ewing. 1939. [1]A Coptic Dictionary]. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted by Sandpiper Books Ltd, London & Powells Books, Chicago, 2000.
- Wolfgang Kosack: Koptisches Handlexikon des Bohairischen. Koptisch – Deutsch – Arabisch. Verlag Christoph Brunner, Basel 2013, ISBN 978-3-9524018-9-7.
- Vycichl, Werner. 1983. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven: Éditions Peeters.
- Westendorf, Wolfhart. 1965/1977. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Phonology
[edit]- Allen, James P. (2020). "Coptic". Ancient Egyptian Phonology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–22. doi:10.1017/9781108751827.003. ISBN 978-1-108-48555-5.
- Depuydt, Leo. 1993. "On Coptic Sounds", Orientalia 62 (new series): 338–75.
- Grossman, Eitan and Martin Haspelmath. 2015. "The Leipzig-Jerusalem Transliteration of Coptic", Egyptian-Coptic Linguistics in Typological Perspective, eds., Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio Sebastian Richter. Berlin/Munich/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 145–56.
- Isḥāḳ, Emile Māher. 1975. "The phonetics and phonology of the Boḥairic dialect of Coptic and the Survival of Coptic Word in the Colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt and of Coptic Grammatical Constructions in Colloquial Egyptian Arabic". University of Oxford. 32-671.
- Loprieno, Antonio. 1997. "Egyptian and Coptic Phonology", Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including the Caucasus), vol. 1, ed., Alan S. Kaye. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 431–60.
- Peust, Carsten (1999). Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language. Peust & Gutschmidt. ISBN 3-933043-02-6 – via Heidelberg University Library.
Bibliographies
[edit]- Kammerer, Winifred (compiler), A Coptic Bibliography, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950. (Reprint New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969)
- Wolfgang Kosack: Der koptische Heiligenkalender. Deutsch – Koptisch – Arabisch nach den besten Quellen neu bearbeitet und vollständig herausgegeben mit Index Sanctorum koptischer Heiliger, Index der Namen auf Koptisch, Koptische Patriarchenliste, Geografische Liste. Christoph Brunner, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-9524018-4-2.
- Wolfgang Kosack: Schenute von Atripe De judicio finale. Papyruskodex 63000.IV im Museo Egizio di Torino. Einleitung, Textbearbeitung und Übersetzung herausgegeben von Wolfgang Kosack. Christoph Brunner, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-9524018-5-9.
- Wolfgang Kosack: Basilios "De archangelo Michael": sahidice Pseudo – Euhodios "De resurrectione": sahidice Pseudo – Euhodios "De dormitione Mariae virginis": sahidice & bohairice : < Papyruskodex Turin, Mus. Egizio Cat. 63000 XI. > nebst Varianten und Fragmente. In Parallelzeilen ediert, kommentiert und übersetzt von Wolfgang Kosack. Christoph Brunner, Berlin 2014. ISBN 978-3-906206-02-8.
- Wolfgang Kosack: Novum Testamentum Coptice. Neues Testament, Bohairisch, ediert von Wolfgang Kosack. Novum Testamentum, Bohairice, curavit Wolfgang Kosack. / Wolfgang Kosack. neue Ausgabe, Christoph Brunner, Basel 2014. ISBN 978-3-906206-04-2.
External links
[edit]- By Alin Suciu, a blog on Coptic literature and manuscripts
- France-copte.net By Mikhail David, French coptic site.
- Copticsounds – a resource for the study of Coptic phonology
- ⲡⲓⲥⲁϧⲟ Archived 2021-03-08 at the Wayback Machine: Coptic language internet links Archived 2021-03-07 at the Wayback Machine and bibliography Archived 2021-03-08 at the Wayback Machine
- Coptica.ch Online library of Coptic texts at University of Geneva (site text in French)
- New Athena Unicode font; includes the new Coptic range
- Online Coptic tutorial
- A comprehensive Coptic language resource (Remenkimi) (Internet Archive)
- Coptic block in the Unicode 4.1 standard
- Heike Behlmer, Selected Bibliography on the Coptic Language
- Coptic texts and manuscripts at Leiden University Library
- Ifao N Copte – A professional Coptic font for researchers.
- a set of Coptic fonts
- GNU FreeFont—FreeSerif face includes a Coptic range.
Coptic language
View on GrokipediaName
Etymology and terminology
The designation "Coptic" derives from the ancient Greek adjective Aigyptios (Αἰγύπτιος), meaning "Egyptian" or "of Egypt," which was adapted into Coptic as gyptios (ⲅⲩⲡⲧⲓⲟⲥ). This borrowing reflects the linguistic continuity claimed by speakers of the language, who identified with the pre-Christian Egyptian populace amid Hellenistic and Roman rule. The Greek form evolved through Coptic pronunciation into Arabic qibṭ (قبط), first attested in early Islamic texts referring to the indigenous Christian population following the conquest of Egypt between 639 and 642 CE.[6][7][8] In Byzantine sources from the 4th to 7th centuries CE, Aigyptios denoted native Egyptians broadly, encompassing those using late forms of the Egyptian vernacular, distinct from Greek-speaking elites. Post-conquest, the term shifted semantically in Arabic usage to specify Christians who retained the language as a marker of ethnic and religious identity, excluding Muslim converts adopting Arabic. This distinction arose empirically from the language's association with Christian liturgy and texts, as opposed to earlier Demotic Egyptian used in non-Christian administrative and temple contexts up to the 5th century CE.[9][2] Earliest Coptic inscriptions and manuscripts, dating to the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE, employ the Greek-derived alphabet for Egyptian words but do not explicitly label the tongue "Coptic"; instead, they imply it as the vernacular of gyptios speakers through contextual self-reference to Egyptian origins. The modern English term "Coptic," entering via Late Latin Coptus by the 17th century, conventionally applies to this final evolutionary stage of Egyptian, emphasizing its Christian-era documentation over prior hieroglyphic, hieratic, or Demotic phases.[9]Geographic distribution
Historical regions of use
The Coptic language was employed across the Nile Valley in Egypt during antiquity and the medieval period, with its primary regions of use spanning from the Delta in Lower Egypt to Aswan in Upper Egypt, reflecting the linear geography of settlement and agricultural viability along the river.[10] Archaeological evidence, including papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions, indicates concentrations in urban and monastic sites, where administrative, literary, and religious texts were produced from the 3rd to the 14th centuries CE.[10] In Upper Egypt, the Sahidic dialect correlated strongly with regions south of Cairo, including Thebes, Elephantine, and areas around Asyut and Luxor, as shown by non-literary ostraca from Thebes dating to the 6th century CE and earlier works attributed to figures like Pachomius (c. 300 CE) and Shenoute (c. 400 CE).[2][11] Monastic centers in Upper Sa'id—the southern third of the Nile Valley from Qena to Aswan—yielded significant manuscript evidence, such as the Nag Hammadi codices in Sahidic Coptic discovered at Jabal al-Tarif near Nag Hammadi (4th century CE) and texts from Deir el-Bala'izah near Asyut (6th–8th centuries CE), including Sahidic administrative and monastic documents.[12][13] Bodmer papyri, originating from sites near Dishna in Upper Egypt (3rd–4th centuries CE), further attest to Sahidic and archaic variants in this zone, often linked to Pachomian monastic libraries.[14] Lower Egypt featured the Bohairic dialect in the Delta, Wadi Natrun, and Alexandria, with evidence from 9th-century texts and New Testament translations preserved in Wadi Natrun monasteries, indicating a shift toward supra-regional use post-7th century.[2] Intermediate areas like the Fayyum basin produced Fayyumic texts (4th–11th centuries CE), bridging Upper and Lower Egyptian varieties along the valley's one-dimensional axis, where gradual phonetic shifts (e.g., vowel qualities and palatalization patterns) aligned with north-south gradients.[2][11] These distributions arose from localized speech communities rather than widespread migration, as substantiated by dialect-specific papyri finds adhering to regional boundaries.[11]Modern liturgical and community usage
The Bohairic dialect of Coptic serves as the standard liturgical language in the Coptic Orthodox Church, employed universally in divine liturgies, hymns, and scriptural readings across Egypt and global dioceses.[2][15] This usage persists as of 2025, with services conducted primarily in Bohairic despite the integration of Arabic explanations for accessibility.[16] Clergy receive training to read and chant texts accurately, but conversational proficiency remains uncommon even among priests, who rely on memorized liturgical formulas rather than fluent discourse.[17] Among the laity, participation involves ritual responses learned by rote, with limited comprehension of the language's grammar or vocabulary beyond ecclesiastical contexts.[18] In Egyptian Coptic communities, daily communication occurs exclusively in Arabic, confining Coptic to formal worship and occasional inscriptions, underscoring its role as a sacred rather than vernacular medium.[19] Diaspora populations in the United States, Australia, and Europe maintain marginal vernacular efforts through church-sponsored heritage classes and family instruction, focused on basic reading and cultural preservation amid Arabic or English dominance.[20] These initiatives, reported in 2023 analyses, involve small-scale programs emphasizing liturgical familiarity over spoken revival, with no large-scale fluency outcomes documented.[20] Church education modules, such as introductory Bohairic lessons, support this persistence, training deacons and youth for service roles without evidence of widespread community adoption.[21]Historical development
Origins in ancient Egyptian
The Coptic language constitutes the final developmental stage of the ancient Egyptian language, which traces its origins to the Old Egyptian period around 2686–2181 BCE, characterized by hieroglyphic inscriptions. This continuity spans successive phases—Old Egyptian, Middle Egyptian (c. 2055–1650 BCE), Late Egyptian (c. 1550–700 BCE), and Demotic (c. 650 BCE–400 CE)—with Coptic emerging as the vernacular form by the 2nd century CE. Comparative philology demonstrates lexical and grammatical correspondences, such as the persistence of triliteral roots and nominal constructions, linking hieroglyphic Egyptian directly to Coptic without interruption.[2][22] The transition from Demotic, the cursive script of Late Egyptian grammar, to Coptic involved primarily orthographic innovation rather than radical structural overhaul, as evidenced by early "Old Coptic" texts from the 1st–2nd centuries BCE that transcribe Egyptian phonetics using Greek letters supplemented by demotic signs. These bilingual Greco-Egyptian inscriptions, such as those from Ptolemaic temples, preserve parallel renderings that affirm the spoken language's endogenous evolution, driven by internal drift in vernacular usage diverging from formal Demotic. Phonological shifts, including the explicit representation of vowels absent in prior unwritten systems, reflect gradual sound changes like the weakening of gutturals and emergence of diphthongs, reconstructible through Coptic attestations matching Late Egyptian patterns.[23][24][25] Causal mechanisms for this evolution emphasize autonomous linguistic processes over external impositions prior to widespread Hellenization; while Greek contact introduced loanwords, the core lexicon—comprising over 80% native terms in basic domains—remains distinctly Egyptian, unsupported by claims of substrate influences lacking empirical cognates. Hieroglyphic-to-Coptic mappings, such as the verb nfr ("good") evolving to Coptic nobe, prioritize diachronic evidence within the Egyptian family, sidelining broader Afroasiatic subfamily hypotheses that rely on sparse, contested reconstructions without robust phonetic or morphological parallels.[10][26]Emergence and spread in Christian Egypt
The Coptic language developed its written form in the 3rd century CE, aligning with the growth of Christianity in Egypt, where it functioned as the everyday speech adapted for religious documentation through the addition of Greek-derived vowels to the Demotic script.[1] This period saw the production of initial Christian texts, including Bible translations, with the earliest surviving manuscript—a Proto-Sahidic rendering of Proverbs—dating to the late 3rd century and evidencing the language's adaptation for scriptural purposes.[27] Monasticism significantly propelled Coptic's codification and dissemination, as exemplified by Pachomius the Great, who established the first cenobitic communities around 320 CE in Upper Egypt and advocated reading the Bible in Coptic among his monks.[16] These monasteries, numbering up to nine major sites by Pachomius's death in 348 CE, utilized Sahidic Coptic for rules, instructions, and lives of saints, thereby standardizing the dialect in religious contexts and extending the language's reach among rural Egyptian Christians.[28] Hagiographies, documenting martyrs and ascetics, proliferated in this environment, forming a core of Coptic literature that reinforced communal identity and doctrinal transmission from the 4th century onward. Under Roman and Byzantine administration, Coptic dialects diversified regionally—Sahidic in the south, emerging as the literary standard by the 4th century due to its use in pan-Egyptian religious works, while others like Fayyumic and Bohairic appeared in localized texts.[29] [30] Papyrological finds from sites like Oxyrhynchus illustrate bilingual practices, with Greek dominating urban and official documents but Coptic prevailing in rural correspondence and monastic records, underscoring the language's vernacular dominance outside elite Hellenistic circles.[31] This textual boom persisted through the 7th century, with Sahidic Bible versions and hagiographic cycles providing empirical attestation of Coptic's integral role in Egyptian Christian practice.[32]Decline following Arab conquest
The Arab conquest of Egypt, completed in 641 CE under Amr ibn al-As, initiated a process of linguistic replacement wherein Arabic supplanted Coptic as the dominant spoken language through state-enforced administrative policies rather than organic cultural exchange.[33] The conquerors established Arabic as the sole language for governance and taxation records by the late 8th century, systematically excluding Coptic from official domains and compelling urban elites and administrators to adopt it for socioeconomic advancement.[34] This unidirectional imposition lacked reciprocal tolerance, as Arabic-speaking rulers did not accommodate Coptic in public spheres, fostering rapid urban Arabization while rural areas retained Coptic longer due to isolation from centralized mandates.[35] A key mechanism was the poll tax (jizya) regime introduced in 641 CE, which imposed heavier fiscal burdens on non-Muslims and granted exemptions to converts, incentivizing mass conversions among Copts to evade economic penalties—particularly affecting lower-income groups where the relative tax burden exceeded 20-30% of income in early periods.[36][33] Conversions were further propelled by elite incentives, including access to administrative posts reserved for Muslims by the 9th century under Abbasid rule, eroding Coptic's utility in trade, law, and bureaucracy.[37] Empirical evidence from tax registers and conversion records indicates that Coptic population shares declined sharply from over 90% in the 7th century to around 10-20% by the 14th century, correlating with intensified tax enforcement and linguistic shifts.[38] By the 10th-12th centuries, spoken Coptic had retreated to rural enclaves and monastic contexts, as urban centers fully transitioned to Arabic; this is evidenced by the 10th-century bishop Severus ibn al-Muqaffa's observation that Coptic Christians had largely forgotten their ancestral tongue, prompting him to author theological works in Arabic—the first such major Coptic text in the new language.[39] Manuscript evidence corroborates this, with Coptic documentary papyri peaking in the 8th century before plummeting, while Arabic administrative texts surged, signaling comprehensive replacement in practical use.[40] Unlike Aramaic's persistence in decentralized Mesopotamian polities, where local autonomy buffered against uniform enforcement, Egypt's tightly controlled Nile-based administration amplified Arabic's dominance, rendering Coptic obsolete for secular communication.[34][35]Recent revitalization initiatives
In recent years, grassroots initiatives by Coptic churches and diaspora communities have sought to promote Coptic language learning among youth through heritage-focused programs, emphasizing immersion in cultural and linguistic roots without significant state support from Egypt's government. For example, the Coptic Orthodox Church's LOGOS Youth Forum, held annually in Egypt, gathered over 200 young participants from 44 countries in July-August 2025 to explore Coptic heritage, including exposure to liturgical language elements, though formal language instruction remains supplementary to broader identity-building activities.[41] [42] Similar diaspora efforts in the US, such as service trips organized by groups like Coptic Orphans, target young adults aged 18-23 for short-term immersion in Egypt starting in 2025, aiming to foster familiarity with Coptic texts but constrained by their volunteer-based, non-institutional nature and lack of mandatory curriculum.[43] These programs, driven by community organizations rather than national policy, reflect motivations tied to preserving ethnic identity amid Egypt's Arab-Muslim majority, yet empirical participation remains low, with no large-scale enrollment data indicating widespread adoption.[20] Scholarly and technological advancements have supplemented these efforts with digital resources designed to enhance accessibility for learners. Online platforms like the Coptic Dictionary Online, providing searchable lexicons across dialects with English, French, and German translations, have enabled self-directed study since their recent expansions.[44] Mobile applications, such as the Naqlun Coptic Dictionary released in updated form in 2024, offer over 50,000 definitions and integrate Coptic keyboards for practical use, while apps for Coptic Bibles and prayer books facilitate reading practice.[45] [46] These tools, often developed by monastic or academic collaborators, have lowered barriers to entry for diaspora users, but community reports and linguistic analyses indicate that they primarily support liturgical comprehension rather than conversational proficiency, with usage skewed toward reference rather than daily application.[47] Critiques of these revitalization drives highlight their limited empirical outcomes, attributing stagnation to the absence of sovereign institutional mechanisms comparable to those that enabled Hebrew's 20th-century revival through state-mandated education and national policy in Israel.[20] In Egypt, where Copts constitute a minority without political autonomy, efforts remain ideologically motivated by cultural preservation against Arabization pressures, yet surveys and observer accounts reveal negligible spoken fluency, with Coptic confined to ecclesiastical contexts and no documented communities achieving native-level revival.[48] This contrasts with successful cases requiring coercive immersion and territorial control, underscoring causal barriers like demographic marginalization and the entrenched dominance of Arabic in public life.[49]Writing system
Development of the alphabet
The Coptic alphabet emerged in the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE through the adaptation of the 24-letter Greek uncial script, augmented by 6 to 7 supplementary graphemes borrowed from Demotic Egyptian to denote phonemes lacking Greek equivalents, including sounds like the emphatic fricatives and affricates preserved from earlier Egyptian stages.[50][51] This hybrid system marked a departure from prior Egyptian writing traditions—hieroglyphic, hieratic, and Demotic—which operated as abjad-like or logographic scripts with limited or inconsistent vocalic notation, often requiring reader inference for pronunciation.[2] The script's invention addressed the need for a complete phonetic representation of Late Egyptian vernacular, leveraging the Greek alphabet's inherent vowel letters to enable unambiguous transcription of spoken forms that Demotic renderings obscured.[2] In practical terms, this facilitated broader accessibility to written religious materials amid Egypt's Christianization, as familiarity with Greek orthography from Hellenistic administration allowed Egyptian speakers to adopt the system without total reinvention, though the Demotic additions ensured fidelity to indigenous phonology.[51] Initial evidence of the script appears in Old Coptic magical papyri from the 2nd to 4th centuries CE, which employ proto-alphabetic forms with variable Demotic integrations for ritual incantations.[52] By the late 3rd century, standardized versions surface in biblical fragments and early Christian manuscripts, reflecting swift refinement and dissemination tied to scriptural translation efforts in monastic and ecclesiastical settings.[2] This rapid evolution underscores the script's utility in codifying oral traditions for communal use, distinct from elite Greek literacy.[51]Script variations across dialects
Orthographic variations in the Coptic script across dialects stem from adaptations to regional phonological differences, as observed in manuscript evidence. The Sahidic dialect maintains a conservative approach, prominently featuring Demotic-derived signs—such as those for emphatic consonants like ϫ (d͡ʒ), ϭ (g), and ϩ (h)—to distinguish sounds without Greek equivalents.[53] This integration preserves etymological ties to earlier Egyptian stages, evident in 4th- to 6th-century codices from Upper Egypt, including Theban inscriptions and papyri that employ fuller sets of these suppletive characters.[1] Bohairic orthography, dominant in Lower Egypt, exhibits simplification in majuscule forms, correlating with phonological mergers such as vowel reductions and loss of distinctions between certain diphthongs and monophthongs.[54] Later Bohairic manuscripts, from the 9th century onward, often omit nuanced Demotic usages where sound shifts rendered them redundant, resulting in streamlined spellings and more uniform Greek-derived letter shapes.[55] The Fayyumic dialect displays intermediate orthographic traits, blending Sahidic conservatism with Bohairic tendencies; its lambdacism—systematic substitution of ⲗ (lambda) for ⲣ (rho) in words reflecting a lateral pronunciation of /r/—marks a key phonological-orthographic divergence, consistent across Fayyumic texts from the 3rd to 9th centuries CE.[56] Comparative paleographic studies of dated codices confirm these patterns without relying on diffusion models, attributing variations to local sound evolutions preserved in script.[57]Phonology
Vowel system
The Coptic vowel system, as attested in orthographic conventions and adaptations of Greek loanwords, features a core inventory of seven phonemes in Sahidic, the dialect with the richest documentation: /a/, /e/, /ɛ/, /i/, /o/, /u/, and /y/. These are represented by the Greek-derived letters ⲁ (alpha for /a/), ⲉ (epsilon for /e/), ⲏ (eta for /ɛ/), ⲓ (iota for /i/), ⲟ (omicron for /o/), ⲟⲩ (digraph for /u/), and ⲩ (upsilon for /y/, a front rounded vowel).[58][59] Orthographic double letters, such as ⲁⲁ or ⲉⲉ in Sahidic, signal quantitative distinctions like vowel length rather than new phonemes, distinguishing stressed long vowels from short counterparts in closed syllables.[60] Adaptations of Greek loanwords provide direct evidence for these contrasts, as Coptic scribes mapped known Greek vowel qualities to specific letters without ambiguity in bilingual contexts. For example, Greek short /e/ (epsilon) consistently renders as Coptic ⲉ, while long /eː/ (eta) corresponds to ⲏ, preserving qualitative differences; similarly, Greek /o/ (omicron) aligns with ⲟ, and /ɔː/ (omega) with ⲱ, often interpreted as a back rounded /ɔ/ or lengthened /o/.[61] This pattern holds across non-native vocabulary, where over 5,000 Greek lemmata demonstrate faithful rendering of diphthongs and monophthongs, corroborating the system's capacity for seven distinct qualities over mere length-based speculation.[62] Dialectal variation introduces reductions, particularly in Bohairic, where the elaborate Sahidic distinctions erode, eliminating double-vowel notations for clusters and merging quantitative oppositions into qualitative ones—such as the loss of length contrasts, with ⲏ and ⲉ converging toward /i/ in some positions.[63] Fayyumic and other dialects show partial mergers, like /y/ shifting to /u/, but Sahidic's fuller inventory, evidenced by manuscript consistency from the 3rd to 11th centuries CE, remains the baseline for reconstruction, prioritizing graphemic-phonemic alignment over unverified external comparisons.[64]Consonant system
The Coptic consonant inventory typically includes 17 to 20 phonemes, featuring voiceless stops (/p/, /t/, /k/, /ʔ/), fricatives (/f/, /s/, /ʃ/, /x/, /ħ/, /ʕ/, /h/), nasals (/m/, /n/), liquids (/l/, /r/), and approximants (/w/, /j/), with voiced stops (/b/, /d/, /g/) largely restricted to Greek loanwords and fricative realizations (/β/, /z/) appearing in native terms derived from earlier Egyptian stops.[65] This system retains emphatic consonants from ancient Egyptian, such as the glottal stop /ʔ/ (often unwritten but reconstructed from orthographic and comparative evidence) and pharyngeals /ħ/ (ⲉⲓⲣⲉ) and /ʕ/ (ⲟⲩⲉⲓ), which distinguish Coptic from neighboring languages like Greek.[65] Losses include the phonemic distinction of voiced stops in core vocabulary, where Egyptian /b d g/ evolved into fricatives or merged with voiceless counterparts, and uvular fricatives, which merged into /ʃ/ or /h/ across dialects.[65] Dialectal variations affect fricatives and aspiration: Sahidic preserves the velar fricative /x/ (often via ϩ or ⲭ), while Bohairic tends to simplify it toward /h/ or merges it with sibilants, and uses Greek aspirates (φ, θ, χ) for aspirated stops like /pʰ tʰ kʰ/ in some reconstructions, though these were lost by late Byzantine times.[65] Ejective or emphatic stops, such as /t'/ (ϯ), retain an Egyptian contrast with plain /t/ (τ), evident in acoustic distinctions preserved in liturgical traditions.[65] Historical evidence from L2 Greek texts by Coptic speakers, drawn from over 50,000 papyri and inscriptions spanning Ptolemaic to Byzantine periods, confirms these features through systematic errors: voiceless stops (/p t k/) substituted for Greek voiced (/b d g/) and aspirated (/ph th kh/) ones, reflecting Coptic's predominant voiceless unaspirated stops and absence of phonemic voicing in native stops; bilabial fricatives aligned closely with Greek /β/ due to shared status; and liquids /l/ and /r/ confused, especially in Fayyumic-influenced documents, indicating a possible single liquid phoneme in some dialects.[66][67] These substrate effects underscore causal retention of Egyptian consonantal emphases and simplifications, verifiable via orthographic mismatches rather than later liturgical reforms.[66]| Manner/Place | Bilabial | Alveolar | Postalveolar | Palatal | Velar | Glottal/Pharyngeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stops | p | t, t' | k | ʔ | ||
| Fricatives | β, f? | s, z | ʃ | x | h, ħ, ʕ | |
| Nasals | m | n | ||||
| Liquids | r, l | |||||
| Approximants | w | j |
Grammar
Nouns and nominal morphology
Coptic nouns exhibit minimal stem-internal inflection, reflecting a shift from the synthetic morphology of earlier Egyptian stages toward analytic structures reliant on particles and articles for grammatical distinctions. Gender and number are primarily encoded via prefixed articles rather than suffixes on the noun itself, with definiteness obligatorily marked in most referential contexts. This system preserves Afroasiatic traits like binary gender while introducing innovations absent in Old or Middle Egyptian, such as the grammaticalization of demonstratives into articles around the Ptolemaic period.[68][69] The gender system is binary, distinguishing masculine from feminine, with assignment determined semantically for animate nouns (e.g., male humans or animals as masculine, females as feminine) and by lexical convention or etymological inheritance for inanimates. Masculine and feminine are not morphologically realized on most noun stems, which remain invariant; instead, agreement appears in the definite article prefixes: p-(pe- before vowels) for masculine singular, t-(te- before vowels) for feminine singular, and n-(ne- or ni- before vowels) for plural, which is gender-neutral. This three-cell paradigm (masculine singular, feminine singular, common plural) aligns with semantic contrasts, including an underspecified value for non-sexed entities, though exceptions exist in loanwords or compounds where gender may influence stem form.[69][70][69] Definiteness, a category emerging fully in Late Egyptian and standardized in Coptic, requires the article for specific or known referents, distinguishing it from indefinite forms (e.g., zero-marked or suffixed with -i in some dialects). The articles, unstressed variants of demonstratives like pē "this (masc.)", fuse directly to the noun stem, as in Sahidic p-rōme "the man" (masculine) or t-šēre "the door" (feminine, from Egyptian sṯr). Plural definiteness uses n- across genders, e.g., n-šēr "the doors", with no gender distinction in this form. Empirical attestation in 4th-7th century papyri and biblical manuscripts confirms the articles' productivity, though dialectal variations occur, such as Bohairic's additional pi-/ ti- forms influenced by Greek.[68][71] Number marking on the noun stem is optional and suffix-based for plurals in native Egyptian-derived nouns, often -u, -w, -ōou, or -hūe (e.g., feminine nouns ending in -e form ...hūe, as ape "head" to aphūe), while many remain unchanged, relying on the plural article. Greek borrowings typically adopt zero plural or Coptic suffixes like -ōou, avoiding broken (internal vowel-shifting) plurals common in Semitic relatives. Reduplication for plural, a holdover from earlier Egyptian, is rare in Coptic, appearing sporadically in expressive or archaic contexts. No dual number survives morphologically.[72][69] Coptic lacks nominative-accusative case endings, a loss completed by the Demotic stage; instead, nominal relations are expressed prepositionally (e.g., n- for genitive "of") or via syntactic position, with preverbal subjects and postverbal objects as defaults in verbal clauses. This analytic encoding aligns with Coptic's overall typological profile, emphasizing prefixes and particles over fusional suffixes.[65][69]Pronouns and agreement
Coptic distinguishes between independent personal pronouns, which function as free-standing subjects in nominal sentences or emphatic elements, and suffixed (clitic) pronouns that attach to verbs, nouns, prepositions, or other hosts as objects or possessives.[22][72] Independent forms, preserved from earlier Egyptian stages, include anok 'I', ntōk (masculine singular) or ntōsh (feminine singular) 'you', netm (masculine) or nets (feminine) 'he/she/it', with plural extensions like tenou 'we' or neten 'you (plural)'. Suffixed pronouns, by contrast, are bound morphemes exhibiting phonological fusion with their hosts, such as -i (1sg), -k (2sg masculine), -sh (2sg feminine), -f (3sg masculine), or -s (3sg feminine), and cannot occur in isolation.[22][72] The pronominal paradigm encodes distinctions in person, number, and gender, with gender marked binary-wise (masculine versus feminine) primarily in second- and third-person singular forms, while first-person and plurals lack gender specification.[65] Agreement manifests through these pronouns aligning in gender and number with their antecedents, as seen in possessive suffixes on nouns (e.g., p-shērē n-sōn 'her son', where -s agrees with feminine possessor) or in verbal complexes where suffixes corefer with subjects or objects.[69] This clitic attachment underscores their dependent status, often triggering morphophonological adjustments like vowel harmony or assimilation in host-final consonants.[22] In relative clauses, particularly converbal types prevalent in Sahidic, resumptive suffixed pronouns obligatorily corefer with the relativized antecedent, especially for subjects or non-adjacent positions, ensuring syntactic linkage without gap resolution (e.g., p-rōme et-etbe n-s 'the man who baptized her', with -s resuming feminine object).[73][74] Such resumptives reflect a strategy inherited from Late Egyptian, prioritizing explicit anaphora over movement-derived structures.[75] Dialectal innovations include Bohairic's systematic use of the invariant clitic ⸗ou for third-person singular objects in place of dialectally variable independent forms like Sahidic se, simplifying object pronominalization across genders.[76] Corpus-based analyses of Bohairic manuscripts, such as New Testament versions from the 14th–19th centuries, document mergers in pronominal vowel qualities due to dialect-specific phonological reductions, blurring certain second-person distinctions compared to Sahidic's fuller oppositions.[77]Adjectives and derivation
In Coptic, adjectives generally follow the noun they modify, a syntactic feature inherited from earlier stages of Egyptian, and must agree with the head noun in gender and number where applicable, though many adjectives lack inherent gender marking and adopt it contextually.[78][69] Native Coptic adjectives number only a few dozen, with the majority borrowed from Greek, which retain their original forms but integrate into Coptic agreement patterns when used attributively.[79][80] Coptic lacks dedicated morphological forms for comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives; these are expressed periphrastically, often through constructions involving particles like ef- ("than") for comparatives or contextual inference for superlatives, without altering the adjective stem itself.[81][82] Derivational processes for adjectives are limited, primarily involving prefixes applied to verbal or nominal bases to form descriptive forms, such as the negative prefix mpē- (or variants like tm- in some dialects) to negate qualities, yielding forms like mpēnkhōt ("not small") from a base denoting size.[83] These derivations exhibit low productivity compared to the templatic systems in Semitic languages, relying instead on analytic compounding or participle-like extensions from roots, as evidenced by lexical analyses of Sahidic and Bohairic corpora where adjective formation favors inheritance over innovation.[84][81]Verbs and tense-aspect-mood
Coptic verbs are morphologically graded into distinct categories that primarily encode aspectual distinctions rather than tense or mood directly on the stem itself. The active grade typically expresses eventive actions in perfective or durative aspects, while the stative grade conveys resultant states following completed actions, inheriting this opposition from earlier Egyptian verbal systems.[85] Passive grades derive from active stems via morphological alternations, such as vowel changes or affixation, to indicate undergone events.[86] Tense-aspect-mood (TAM) categories are realized through independent conjugation bases—preverbal particles or auxiliaries—that precede the verb stem, combined with person-number agreement suffixes or prefixes. Perfective aspect, often associated with past tense, employs suffix-conjugation (e.g., -s for 1sg in Sahidic), focusing on bounded events, whereas durative or imperfective aspect uses prefix-conjugation (e.g., t- for 2sg) to denote ongoing or habitual actions. [87] Mood distinctions, such as indicative versus subjunctive, arise via specific bases like the optative particle ire- in subordinate clauses.[88] Future tense is predominantly periphrastic, employing constructions with the existential verb "to be" (e.g., na- or eire- + infinitive in Sahidic) to express prospective aspect, though synthetic futures occur with prefixes like n- on eventive stems. Dialectal variations affect TAM expression, with Sahidic exhibiting a richer array of moods—including prospective and habitual forms—supported by its prevalence in early narrative texts from the 3rd to 7th centuries CE, compared to Bohairic's streamlined system in later liturgical usage. [89] Sahidic's optative and second tenses, which relativize aspect, allow nuanced embedding in complex clauses, a feature less elaborated in Fayyumic or Bohairic.[90]Prepositions and syntax
Coptic syntax features a predominant verb-subject-object (VSO) word order, with auxiliaries often preceding the verb in conjugated forms, allowing for adverbial or emphatic shifts such as placing objects initially with resumptive pronouns.[72][91] This structure supports analytic tendencies, where prepositional phrases mark adjuncts and oblique arguments, as in a.3.swtm- 'he heard' followed by dative or locative prepositions rather than case inflections.[72] Prepositions function as proclitics prefixed to nouns or pronouns, encoding relational roles like direction, location, possession, and agency in place of synthetic case endings. The preposition e- denotes 'to, for, toward' in dative or purposive contexts, exemplified by e p.rwme 'to the man' or ero.f 'to him', and extends to agentive uses in passives.[72][91] Complementary forms include n- for genitive or ablative ('of, from'), H- for accompaniment ('with'), and ϩn- for instrument or association, enabling precise adverbial modification without altering noun morphology.[91] Negation relies on invariant particles integrated into the analytic framework: ou- negates indicative present and future forms (e.g., ou-nau 'I do not go'), while tm- prefixes infinitives or conjunctives for prospective or conditional denial (e.g., tm-ϩe 'not to take').[72][91] Additional strategies like n-...an target non-verbal predicates or durative tenses. Clause subordination employs particles such as eT- for relative clauses (eT pe 'which is') and xe for complements or purpose (xe pe 'that he'), facilitating embedding without heavy subordination via finite verbs.[91] These features underscore Coptic's shift to analytic syntax from ancient Egyptian's synthetic system, where affixes and stem modifications handled relations; Coptic prioritizes particles and prepositional adjuncts for tense-aspect-mood and nominal dependencies, as evidenced in periphrastic constructions and rigid yet particle-governed word order.[23][92] This evolution reflects phonological erosion and grammaticalization of earlier elements into functional heads.Vocabulary
Inherited Egyptian roots
The basic lexicon of Coptic demonstrates substantial continuity with earlier Egyptian stages, with 85% of sampled basic vocabulary lexemes (from a list of 199 out of 233) exhibiting pre-Coptic Egyptian cognates, reflecting a retention rate of 0.76 per millennium over approximately 3,000 years from Old Egyptian to Coptic.[93] This high degree of inheritance is evident in core semantic domains such as kinship, body parts, and motion verbs, where etymological connections can be traced empirically from Pyramid Texts (ca. 2400–2300 BCE) through Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian, and Demotic phases into Coptic texts from the 3rd–12th centuries CE.[94] Scholarly etymological work, such as Jaroslav Černý's dictionary, establishes derivations for roughly two-thirds of the known Coptic lexicon from ancient Egyptian roots, underscoring minimal wholesale replacement in fundamental terms despite phonological and morphological evolution.[95] Semantic stability predominates in these inherited items, with shifts rare and often contextually motivated rather than systematic. For example, Old Egyptian rmṯ ("person, man"), attested in Pyramid Texts as a basic term for humanity, persists with little alteration in form or meaning as Coptic ⲣⲱⲙⲉ (rōme), used similarly for "man" or "human being" in Sahidic and Bohairic dialects.[93] Kinship and agricultural terms show parallel preservation; Egyptian mwt ("mother") evolves into Coptic ⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ (moute), retaining its relational sense across stages, while field-related vocabulary like Late Egyptian sḫt ("field") continues as Coptic ϣⲁϧⲉ (šahe), linked to agrarian contexts without significant broadening or narrowing.[94] Occasional shifts occur, as in Old Egyptian rx ("to know"), which narrows in Coptic to ϣⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ (šanouf, "to be able" or "can"), reflecting a modal extension rather than loss.[93] Such patterns affirm causal continuity in lexical evolution driven by internal linguistic drift rather than external replacement, with Demotic intermediaries bridging phonetic changes (e.g., loss of intervocalic consonants) while preserving semantic cores. Verification against corpora like the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae confirms these links for over 48% of Coptic basics directly attested in Old Egyptian.[93]| Ancient Egyptian Form | Coptic Form | Meaning | Stage of Attestation |
|---|---|---|---|
| rmṯ | ⲣⲱⲙⲉ (rōme) | person/man | Old Egyptian to Coptic |
| Sr-t | ϣⲁ (ša) | nose | Old Egyptian to Coptic |
| Dd | ⲉⲓⲱⲧⲉ (eiōte/čô) | to say | Old Egyptian to Coptic |
| mwt | ⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ (moute) | mother | Old to Late Egyptian to Coptic |
Borrowings from Greek and other languages
The Coptic lexicon features an estimated 5,000 Greek loanwords, comprising a substantial portion of its vocabulary and evidencing prolonged Hellenistic and Byzantine cultural dominance in Egypt from the Ptolemaic era onward.[96][97] These borrowings span lexical categories including nouns, verbs, adjectives, and even grammatical elements like conjunctions, with integration varying by degree—some retain Greek gender and morphology while adapting to Coptic syntax.[96] Corpora analyses, such as those from the Database and Dictionary of Greek Loanwords in Coptic, reveal domain-specific concentrations: theological terms dominate religious texts (e.g., ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ pistis 'faith' from Greek πίστις), while administrative and legal documents incorporate fiscal and bureaucratic vocabulary (e.g., ⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ taxis 'order' or 'tax' from Greek τάξις).[98] This pattern underscores Greek's role as the prestige language of administration and early Christianity in Egypt until the 7th century CE.[99] Examples of nativized Greek loans illustrate cultural transmission: ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ekklēsia 'church' (from Greek ἐκκλησία), ubiquitous in ecclesiastical contexts; ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ monakhos 'monk' (from Greek μοναχός), reflecting monastic traditions; and ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ apostolos 'apostle' (from Greek ἀπόστολος), central to scriptural translation.[100] In Bohairic dialect, used in modern liturgy, Greek elements can constitute up to 23% of liturgical phrasing, often in fixed formulas resistant to full Coptic substitution.[101] Quantitative studies of Sahidic texts estimate over 900 such loans, with higher densities in bilingual papyri from the 3rd–6th centuries CE.[100] Borrowings from other languages are far less extensive, primarily post-dating the Arab conquest of 641 CE. Arabic loans number around 500, confined largely to later documentary and scientific texts rather than core literature, such as terms for governance or agriculture adapted into Coptic administrative records from the 8th–10th centuries.[102] Semitic influences remain marginal, with isolated pre-Christian loans possibly from Hebrew or Aramaic (e.g., via Jewish communities), but lacking the systematic integration seen in Greek; these do not exceed a few dozen attested forms across corpora.[103] Overall, non-Greek foreign elements highlight episodic contacts rather than pervasive linguistic shift, preserving Coptic's Egyptian substrate amid external pressures.[104]Dialects
Classification and scholarly debates
Coptic dialects are conventionally classified into six major varieties—Akhmimic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, Lycopolitan, Mesokemic (or Oxyrhynchite), and Sahidic—attested primarily in texts from the 4th to 12th centuries CE, though some scholars expand this to eight by including subtypes such as the dialect of Papyrus Bodmer VI (P) and Manichaean Subakhmimic (L4).[105][106] These varieties form a dialect continuum shaped by Egypt's linear geography along the Nile, with gradual rather than sharp boundaries, complicating discrete taxonomic divisions.[106] Classification relies on phonological and morphological criteria, with phonology featuring distinct reflexes of ancient Egyptian consonants and vowels—for instance, Akhmimic's retention of *k for *q (e.g., *nak vs. Sahidic *noq) and Fayyumic's lambdacism (l for r, e.g., *len vs. Sahidic *ran), alongside vowel inventory variations such as á/ó in Bohairic and Sahidic versus é/á in Fayyumic, Mesokemic, Lycopolitan, and Akhmimic.[106] Morphology provides additional markers, including diamorphemic differences like the negative aorist operator ⲙ in Akhmimic versus ⲙⲡ in others, and allomorphic variations in prepositions (e.g., r- as ⲣ in one group versus ⲉⲣⲉ in another).[105] Isogloss mapping, often using around 27 morphological traits, groups dialects into subsets such as Akhmimic, Lycopolitan (L6), L4, and P versus Bohairic, Fayyumic, Mesokemic, and Sahidic, though phonological alignments frequently diverge from these morphological bundles.[105] Scholarly debates center on the independence of certain varieties, particularly Lycopolitan (also termed Subakhmimic), which exhibits traits transitional between Akhmimic and Sahidic—such as shared temporalis clause forms—leading some to classify it as a subdialect rather than fully autonomous, while others affirm its distinct status based on unique phonological and morphological features.[105][106] Akhmimic's conservative phonology supports its recognition as independent, but broader challenges include the absence of consensus on "dialect" definitions under modern sociolinguistics, empirical limitations from geographically biased corpora and phonologically opaque scripts, and critiques of overprioritizing literary prestige dialects (e.g., Sahidic in early texts) over vernacular evidence, which obscures true spoken continua.[107][105] These factors yield no unified taxonomy, with classifications varying by emphasis on written normalization versus inferred oral variation.[107]Bohairic dialect
The Bohairic dialect originated in the western Nile Delta region of Lower Egypt and is attested in texts from the 8th or 9th century CE.[18][108] It achieved standardization as the official liturgical language of the Coptic Orthodox Church by the 11th century CE, establishing its role in ecclesiastical practices across Egypt.[18][15] Medieval Bohairic manuscripts, including liturgical and religious works, have been preserved from the Cairo area, reflecting the dialect's centrality following the relocation of the Coptic patriarchate to Fustat (later Cairo) after the 7th-century Arab conquest.[15] These texts demonstrate Bohairic's adaptation for church rites, with consistent orthographic conventions that supported its widespread adoption.[108] Bohairic phonology features simplifications such as reduced vowel distinctions, with late forms limiting qualities primarily to /a/, /i/, and /u/, aiding rhythmic recitation in liturgy.[63] Morphologically, it preserves Coptic nominal and verbal paradigms but exhibits traits like specific pronominal forms and auxiliary developments tailored to its Delta substrate.[76] In contemporary contexts, Bohairic retains exclusive use in Coptic Orthodox liturgy, with 21st-century revival initiatives favoring it for instruction due to its uniform orthography and pronunciation standards, as evidenced in digital corpora and pedagogical tools developed since 2020.[109][110] This accessibility stems from centuries of liturgical refinement, enabling efficient transmission in church-based language programs.Sahidic dialect
The Sahidic dialect, spoken primarily in Upper Egypt from Asyut southward, served as the dominant literary form of Coptic from approximately the 4th to the 10th century AD. Its origins are linked to the Theban region, with early attestation in texts from sites like Thebes, reflecting Upper Egyptian vernacular traits such as a relatively preserved inventory of consonants distinguishing sounds like /x/ and /h/, and a vowel system including diphthongs that echo Late Egyptian phonology.[111][112] Sahidic's conservative grammatical and phonological features, including retention of dual number in pronouns and fuller morphological oppositions, position it as a preferred basis for reconstructing earlier Coptic stages among linguists. By the 4th century, it had standardized for biblical translations, with complete versions of the New Testament and significant Old Testament portions produced between the 4th and 7th centuries, facilitating scriptural dissemination in southern monastic centers.[2][113] Following the Arab conquest of Egypt in 641 AD, Sahidic's vernacular use waned amid Arabic dominance, though literary production persisted until the 11th century before Bohairic supplanted it in church contexts. Its enduring scholarly value stems from corpora like the Nag Hammadi codices, unearthed in 1945, which comprise over a dozen tractates in Sahidic, illuminating 2nd- to 4th-century Gnostic texts otherwise lost.[111][114]Fayyumic and other minor dialects
The Fayyumic dialect, attested mainly in the Faiyum oasis of Middle Egypt, exhibits phonological and morphological features transitional between southern dialects like Sahidic and northern ones like Bohairic, including lambdacism (realization of /r/ as /l/ in certain positions) and retention of bilabial fricatives. Its verbal system shows unique conjugational patterns, such as optative forms distinct from Sahidic equivalents.[56] The surviving corpus comprises around 50-60 texts, primarily 5th-6th century CE papyri and ostraca with biblical fragments (e.g., portions of First Corinthians) and documentary materials, divided into Early Fayyumic (F4, pre-5th century) and Classical Fayyumic (F5).[115] Oxyrhynchite (also Mesokemic), from the Oxyrhynchus area in northern Middle Egypt, shares phonological affinities with Fayyumic, such as merged vowels and specific nominal inflections, but features idiosyncratic verb paradigms, including rare stative forms.[56] Lycopolitan (from Asyut in southern Middle Egypt) is known from sparse 4th-century Christian texts, like Pachomian monastic writings, with distinctive adverbial constructions and /h/-retention absent in Sahidic.[106] Both dialects' evidence is limited to literary manuscripts, with few inscriptions, totaling under 100 documents each. Southern minor variants include Akhmimic, centered around Akhmim (Panopolis) and extending toward Aswan, characterized by archaizing phonology (e.g., preserved glottal stops) and conservative morphology in pronouns and nouns.[10] Its corpus features about 20-30 items, such as 5th-6th century papyri with Gospel translations and hagiographic fragments. Aswanic traces, potentially a peripheral Akhmimic offshoot, appear in isolated 6th-century Nubian-border inscriptions and papyri, but remain poorly documented with fewer than 10 verified texts. The fragmentary nature of these dialects' attestations—dominated by codices over everyday epigraphy—has prompted scholarly caution regarding their role as robust spoken vernaculars, positing them possibly as scribal or transitional idiolects rather than dominant regional standards.[11]Literature
Canonical religious texts
The Coptic language facilitated the translation of Christian scriptures into the vernacular Egyptian tongue, enabling broader dissemination among native speakers following the Christianization of Egypt in the third and fourth centuries CE. The Sahidic dialect, prevalent in Upper Egypt, yielded the earliest substantial Bible versions, with New Testament manuscripts, including Gospels and Pauline epistles, datable to the fourth century through paleographic analysis and codicological features such as papyrus codex construction and ink composition.[1][116] These Sahidic translations derived independently from Greek Vorlagen, reflecting textual traditions akin to early Alexandrian witnesses, and preserved doctrinal emphases on Christology and soteriology amid regional monastic communities.[117] Bohairic versions, emerging later in Lower Egypt from the eighth century onward but with roots in earlier Memphitic forms, became the liturgical standard for the Coptic Orthodox Church, incorporating revisions that aligned with Byzantine textual influences while retaining Egyptian syntactic structures.[116][118] Comprehensiveness varied by dialect and book; for instance, Sahidic attests fuller Old Testament coverage, including prophetic texts, whereas Bohairic historical books show fragmentary survival, underscoring selective preservation tied to liturgical use rather than exhaustive scriptural reproduction.[119] Beyond scriptural translations, canonical religious literature in Coptic encompasses patristic works that articulated orthodox theology. Shenoute of Atripe (c. 348–465 CE), abbot of the White Monastery, authored extensive homilies, sermons, and canons in Sahidic, totaling over nine volumes in reconstructed corpora, which expounded biblical exegesis, ascetic discipline, and anti-heretical polemics, thereby embedding Greco-Roman Christian doctrine in indigenous linguistic forms.[120] These texts, empirically dated via manuscript colophons and archaeological context to the fifth century, exemplify Coptic's role in doctrinal continuity, countering heterodox influences through vernacular accessibility.[121] The Nag Hammadi codices, unearthed in 1945 near Upper Egypt, comprise thirteen leather-bound volumes with fifty-two tractates in Sahidic Coptic, radiocarbon and paleographically assignable to the fourth century CE, though reflecting second- to third-century compositions.[122] Primarily Gnostic in orientation—featuring texts like the Gospel of Thomas and Apocryphon of John—they diverge from orthodox canons by prioritizing esoteric knowledge (gnosis) over historical incarnation, yet their Coptic preservation highlights the language's utility in circulating diverse theological currents before Athanasian consolidation.[123] Their non-inclusion in canonical lists stems from episcopal criteria favoring apostolic provenance and ecclesial harmony, as evidenced by fourth-century synodal decisions, rather than linguistic medium.[124]Secular and administrative writings
Secular Coptic writings include legal contracts, leases, debt acknowledgments, and manumission deeds, primarily from the Theban region such as Djeme, dating from the late 7th to mid-9th centuries CE.[125] [126] These documents demonstrate vernacular Coptic syntax in practical use, with formulae adapted from earlier Greek Byzantine legal traditions for recording property transfers and personal obligations.[127] Personal letters from the 7th and 8th centuries further reveal everyday language, incorporating formal structures influenced by emerging Arabic administrative practices.[128] Coptic magical and medical texts, preserved on papyri and codices, feature recipes for healing and protective spells that integrate ancient Egyptian elements—like remedies against scorpions and demons—with Christian invocations to saints and prayers.[129] [130] A 4th-century bilingual Greek-Coptic codex exemplifies early such traditions, containing over a dozen formulae for ailments ranging from digestive issues to insomnia, blending ritual magic with therapeutic instructions.[130] Later examples persist into the medieval period, highlighting syncretic continuity in non-theological healing practices. Bilingualism in Coptic documents from the 8th and 9th centuries manifests through Arabic loanwords and hybrid formulae, evidencing the encroachment of Arabic amid administrative shifts; approximately 26 early Islamic-era bilingual Arabic-Coptic or Arabic-Greek texts survive from 640–700 CE, while pure Coptic legal writings decline sharply post-9th century, with sporadic 10th-century instances reflecting vernacular persistence in private spheres before broader Arabic dominance.[131] [132]Sample texts
Representative excerpts with translations
The Lord's Prayer in the Sahidic dialect, drawn from the Coptic New Testament translation of Matthew 6:9-13, exemplifies typical verbal conjugations and nominal constructions, such as the optative forms in mare- prefixes for imperatives. The text is: ⲦⲀⲒ ϬⲈ ⲦⲈ ⲐⲈ ⲚⲦⲰⲦⲚ ⲈⲦⲈⲦⲚⲀϢⲖⲎⲖ ⲘⲘⲞⲤ. ϪⲈ ⲠⲈⲚⲈⲒⲰⲦ ⲈⲦϨⲚ ⲘⲠⲎⲨⲈ ⲘⲀⲢⲈⲠⲈⲔⲢⲀⲚ ⲞⲨⲞⲠ. ⲦⲈⲔⲘⲚⲦⲢⲢⲞ ⲘⲀⲢⲈⲤⲈⲒ ⲠⲈⲔⲞⲨⲰϢ ⲘⲀⲢⲈϤϢⲰⲠⲈ. ⲚⲐⲈ ⲈⲦⲈϤ ϨⲚ ⲦⲠⲈ ⲘⲀⲢⲈϤϢⲰⲠⲈ ⲞⲚ ϨⲒϪⲘ ⲠⲔⲀϨ. ⲠⲈⲚⲞⲈⲒⲔ ⲈⲦⲚⲎⲨ ⲦⲀⲀϤ ⲚⲀⲚ ⲘⲠⲞⲞⲨ. ⲔⲰ ⲚⲀⲚ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ ⲚⲚⲈⲦⲈⲢⲞⲚ. ⲚⲐⲈ ϨⲰⲀⲚ ⲞⲚ ⲈⲦⲈⲚⲔⲰ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ ⲚⲚⲈⲦⲈⲞⲨⲚⲦⲀⲚ ⲈⲢⲞⲞⲨ. ⲚⲄⲦⲘϪⲒⲦⲚ ⲈϨⲞⲨⲚ ⲈⲠⲈⲒⲢⲀⲤⲘⲞⲤ. ⲀⲖⲖⲀ ⲚⲄⲚⲀϨⲘⲈⲚ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ ϨⲒⲦⲘ ⲠⲠⲞⲚⲎⲢⲞⲤ.[133] Literal translation: Thus therefore pray ye: Our Father who [art] in the heavens, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done as in heaven [so] also upon earth. Our daily bread give us today. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.[133] In the Bohairic dialect, the liturgical standard used in Coptic Orthodox services, the same prayer appears with dialectal variations in vowels and suppletive forms, such as ϫⲉ for quotative particles: Ϧⲉⲛ ⲫ̀ⲣⲁⲛ ⲙ̀ⲫ̀ⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡ̀ϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ Ⲡⲓⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲟⲩⲱⲧ Ⲁⲙⲏⲛ. Ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲧϧⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲫⲏⲟⲩⲓ: ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥⲧⲟⲩⲃⲟ ⲛ̀ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ: ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲥⲓ ⲛ̀ϫⲉ ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲉⲧⲟⲩⲣⲟ: ⲡⲉⲧⲉϩⲛⲁⲕ ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥϣⲱⲡⲓ Ⲙ̀ⲫⲣⲏϯ ϧⲉⲛ ⲧ̀ⲫⲉ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲓϫⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲕⲁϩⲓ: ⲡⲉⲛⲱⲓⲕ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ ⲣⲁⲥϯ ⲙⲏⲓϥ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲙ̀ⲫⲟⲟⲩ: Ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲭⲁ ⲛⲏⲉⲧⲉⲣⲟⲛ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ: ⲙ̀ⲫⲣⲏϯ ϩⲱⲛ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉⲛⲭⲱ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̀ⲛⲏⲉⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲛ ⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ: Ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙ̀ⲡⲉⲣⲉⲛⲧⲉⲛ ⲉϧⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ̀ⲡⲓⲣⲁⲥⲙⲟⲥ: ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛⲁϩⲙⲉⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲁ ⲡⲓⲡⲉⲧϩⲱⲟⲩ: Ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡⲭ̅ⲥ̅ Ⲓⲏ̅ⲥ̅ Ⲡⲉⲛⲟ̅ⲥ̅.[134] Literal translation: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, one God. Amen. Our Father who [art] in the heavens: hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as [it is] in heaven. Our supersubstantial bread give us this day; and forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. In Christ Jesus our Lord.[134] These digitized versions from academic biblical repositories facilitate modern study of dialectal differences, such as Sahidic's plene spelling versus Bohairic's more conservative orthography.[133][134]Legacy and influence
Continuity with ancient Egyptian
Coptic constitutes the final phase of the ancient Egyptian language, evolving continuously from its earliest attested forms around 3000 BCE through Old, Middle, Late Egyptian, and Demotic stages into the Coptic dialects by the 3rd century CE. This descent is affirmed in scholarly consensus, with Coptic retaining the Afro-Asiatic typological features of its ancestor, including tri- and biconsonantal root structures and similar inflectional morphology. Phonological evidence underscores this lineage, particularly in sound correspondences like the ancient Egyptian glottal stop (often transcribed as ʿ or 3, derived from Proto-Afroasiatic *ʔ) which manifests in Coptic as a glottal ʔ influencing vocalism, as seen in derivations such as Late Egyptian *jꜣt > Coptic iote "tree," where the initial glottal element conditions vowel anteriority. Lexical continuity is robust, with several hundred documented cognate roots forming the core vocabulary, exemplified by *rmṯ "person" > Coptic ⲣⲱⲙⲓ rōmi and *snb "healthy" > Coptic ⲥⲱⲛⲓ sōni, comprising the majority of non-loan basic terms despite Greek adoptions in technical domains.[135][10] The orthographic shift to a modified Greek alphabet incorporating Demotic-derived signs for non-Greek phonemes around the 1st-2nd centuries CE enabled explicit vowel notation, addressing limitations of prior consonantal scripts like hieroglyphs and Demotic, but did not interrupt linguistic continuity; rather, it paralleled earlier cursive simplifications from hieroglyphs to hieratic. Assertions of Coptic as a novel language requiring substantial foreign substrate—such as Semitic—to explain innovations overlook the internal predictability of changes like spirantization and vowel shifts, for which no demographic or typological disruption evidence exists, unlike cases of substrate replacement elsewhere.[136][137]Impact on Christianity and scholarship
The Coptic language served as a primary vehicle for early Christian monasticism in Egypt, with figures like Apa Shenoute elevating it to a literary medium in the fifth century to articulate theological and ascetic teachings.[1] This development enabled the expression of anti-Chalcedonian doctrines, fostering resistance to Byzantine imperial theology imposed in Greek and reinforcing Egyptian Christian identity amid ecclesiastical divisions following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE.[138] By the fourth through seventh centuries, Coptic facilitated Bible translations and original compositions, embedding Christianity deeply within native linguistic traditions and countering Hellenization.[139] Continued liturgical use in the Coptic Orthodox Church has sustained the language's role in worship, preserving pharaonic-era cultural elements and thwarting complete assimilation after the Arab conquests of the seventh century.[48] This persistence, despite Arabic dominance, maintained communal resilience, as evidenced by ongoing services incorporating Coptic texts alongside Arabic and other vernaculars, with estimates of 10-40% Coptic usage in many parishes.[140] Such practices have linked modern Coptic identity to ancient roots, resisting full cultural erasure through ritual continuity.[141] In scholarship, knowledge of Coptic proved instrumental to Jean-François Champollion's 1822 decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs, leveraging its phonetic continuity with ancient Egyptian to interpret the Rosetta Stone's demotic and hieroglyphic scripts alongside Greek.[142] This breakthrough unlocked Egyptological research, establishing Coptic as a key to reconstructing earlier stages of the Egyptian language family. Post-2020 digital initiatives, including the Coptic Scriptorium's corpora expansions reaching over 1,175,000 searchable tokens by 2024, have enhanced accessibility for linguistic analysis and textual studies.[143] These resources support interdisciplinary efforts in papyrology and theology, facilitating machine-readable editions of manuscripts.[144]References
- https://wikisource.org/wiki/%CF%A6%E2%B2%89%E2%B2%9B_%60%E2%B2%AB%E2%B2%A3%E2%B2%81%E2%B2%9B_%60%E2%B2%99%60%E2%B2%AA%E2%B2%93%E2%B2%B1%E2%B2%A7