Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:56:50 +0200 From: Michael Hahn To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Ehret and (Palaeo-)Coptic Dear Mr. Dempsey, You are right, I have provisionally accepted the theory that Coptic Η is a long vowel, although I am aware that there is much controversy about Coptic vowel quantity and/or quality. Unfortunately I don't have the works by Peust, Vergote and Loprieno here, but I will soon have a look at them in our university's library. The form *méé|rVw is my own reconstruction according to the rules given in Schenkel's Einführung in die Altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft (1990), with *éé as a stressed (and perhaps long) vowel in an open syllable, "|" indicating the syllable division. As for the second syllable, I felt unable to reconstruct its vowel that is therefore indicated by "V". I hope, that Takŕcs' material will show clear Afroasiatic-Egyptian vowel correspondances, but this seems quite unsure to me, since the differences between Orel-Stolbova 1995, Ehret 1995 and the comparative material published by Takács so far are - both with the words put together and with the sound correspondances - quite big. This suggests that only part of the Afroasiatic-Egyptian are true, while many others are perhaps wrong. At least in my opinion, the only explanation for the great differences between the opinions of the Rösslerian School and the more traditional reconstructions, like those by Takŕcs, is that hundreds of etymologies proposed so far must be wrong. And finally: You don't need to call me a professor, I am just a high school student! Michael Hahn Jakob Kimbell schrieb: > Professor Hahn, > > Your reference to the vowel in ΜΗΡ (Ufer - shore) as > "long" seems to show you have accepted the theory that this vowel was > longer than the vowel in, say, ΜΕΕΡΕ (Mittag) > [ sorry that Hotmail will not deal with Unicode Coptic, so I am using > Greek letters ] , whereas in the most lengthy monograph on Egyptian > phonology (Peust 1999) nearly the opposite is proposed : that > ΕΕ is long, and Η is, at least since Paleocoptic, high > (contrasting with the low Ε ). Please refer to Peust p. 222 > onward. The question of length is connected with the issue of what a > written double vowel actually meant in the Coptic phonological system > -- and this issue has not reached a clear, firm, widely accepted > settlement. As for the form *méé|rVw, I'm curious, did you get that > from Fecht, or Osing or where? > I think a lot more thorough work, or at least a more clear analysis > and review of available evidence needs to be done before we can more > convincingly argue for one or another form of the pan-Coptic > phonological system. Vergote, for example, is in disagreement with > Loprieno, and both of them with Peust. > And certainly all the new cognate evidence being gathered and > published by Takacs should have some connection with Coptic besides > earlier stages of Egyptian. > I am interested in questions about Coptic phonology ( I have had some > occasional correspondence with Schenkel on such matters), but I don't > think this AEL list is very interested even in older Egyptian > phonology, let alone Coptic. > Sorry, I don't have the Ehret book on hand to comment on.... > > --- Jakob Dempsey > Yuan-ze University, Taiwan > > >> From: Michael Hahn >> Reply-To: Ancient Egyptian Language List >> To: Ancient Egyptian Language List >> Subject: AEL Ehret and (Palaeo-)Coptic >> Date: Thu, 05 Apr:51:04 +0200 >> >> >> Dear List Members, >> in Christopher Ehret's work "Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic" >> (Berkeley 1995) I've just read the following: p. 26: "Noun derivation >> from verb by stem-vowel lengthening: Egyptian: #595" Thus, Ehret >> apparently explains the long vowel of Coptic meer "bank", which he >> lists as a reflex of his Proto-Afroasiatic root #595 *-mur- "to >> flow", as due to grammatical vowel lengthening. Now my question is: >> Why does Ehret ignore the Coptic syllable rules by Edgerton et alii, >> according to whom the long vowel is due to the open syllable in the >> Palaeocoptic form *méé|rVw? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Michael hahn >> >> >> ============================================================================== From: "gilbert" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: AEL De Buck Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:50:07 +0800 Hi, I read some answers to the games (back in 1997) and came across a message that you were working on De Buck's "Egyptian Reading book" Being new to reading hieroglyphs, through Glyphdoctor's copurse, I was wondering if any of the answers of De bucks book are available to check if my answers are correct=3F Surely there must be some work done on it=3F Looking forward to your reply=2E Gilbert ============================================================================== From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Ehret and (Palaeo-)Coptic Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:05:27 +0200 >Sprachwissenschaft (1990), with *éé as a >stressed (and perhaps long) vowel in an open syllable, "|" indicating >the syllable division. As for the second syllable, I felt unable to >reconstruct its vowel that is therefore indicated by " **For ease, long vowels are in email usually indicated with a _:_, as that is clearer IMO (plus double vowels in Coptic are a seperate problem on their own! So writing ee is not advisable IMO). At least that has been AEL tradition, as started by Geoff Graham. So: AE *mu:rVw > Coptic me:r or if one wants to indicate stress ('): m{'u:}r{V}w Which exlains better: >>Thus, Ehret >> apparently explains the long vowel of Coptic meer "bank", which he >> lists as a reflex of his Proto-Afroasiatic root #595 *-mur- "to >> flow", as due to grammatical vowel lengthening. **Not sure what he means with "grammatical" - the addition of an ending? If so, then his explanation is not conflicting with the syllable rules explanation? > At least in my opinion, the only explanation for the >great differences between the opinions of the Rösslerian School and the >more traditional reconstructions, like those by Takŕcs, is that hundreds >of etymologies proposed so far must be wrong. **But which ones... I have been told that Takacs' book series has been discontinued, partly because he did not duly take into account criticism. > I am interested in questions about Coptic phonology ( I have had some > occasional correspondence with Schenkel on such matters), but I don't > think this AEL list is very interested even in older Egyptian > phonology, let alone Coptic. **There certainly is interest! :) kind regards, Aayko Eyma ==============================================================================