‫ﻣﻨﻰ ﺻﺎوي‬‫)ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ أﺳﻴﻮط( و ﺳﻮ ﻣﻴﺎﺟﺎوا )اﻟﻤﻌﻬﺪ اﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻴﺎﺑﺎﻧﻴﺔ واﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺎت(‬‫‪コプト語から‬‬‫‪古代エジプト語の姿を考える‬‬‫‪モナ・サーウィー‬‬‫‪宮川 創‬‬‫‪アシュート大学‬‬‫‪国立国語研究所‬‬

Introduction
Main provenances of Coptic medical texts Corpus
Provenance

Map of Egypt, based on ©Google maps

Number oftexts

Thebes

8Sohag5

Asyut

2Red Sea

1

Al-Faiyūm

4Saqqara22

Coptic Medical Sources(O.Crum 487 ro/vo © British Museum)

権利関係のため、表示できません。

P.Mich.inv. 593 © 2021, Regents of the Universityof Michigan©2022 Regents of the University of Michigan© Chassinat 1921, pl. XIII

P.Louvre AF12530 ro © Musee du Louvre, Departement des Antiquites egyptiennes

Cod.Med.Copt., pag. 241-244 © Malato
1957: 178(© Quibell et al 1909: Pl. XIV)

3

Medical Texts by Material and Century

4Monasteries Medical Texts
ProvenanceMonastery provenance

Number ofTexts

Monastery of Phoibammon
ThebesMonastery of Epiphanius
Deir el-Bachit Monastery

6Monastery of saint Elias
ProvenanceMaterials

Red SeaParchment

SaqqaraDipinti, Parchment

Sohag

Parchment, Papyri

ThebesPapyri, Ostraca

AssiutDipinti, Papyri

Al-Faiyūm

Paper, Papyri

Sohag

The White Monastery

3Wadi SargaThe Monastery of Apa Thomas

1SaqqaraThe monastery of Apa Jeremias

2Red Sea

The Monastery of St. Antony

15Medical Specialties and Nosology
Specialties

Number ofrecipes

Neurology9

Dermatology

57

Ophthalmology

60+Gynaecology

16

Gastroenterology

24

Otolaryngology

5Urology

2

Orthopedics

76Medical Recipes Structure● Introductory formula•••ⲉⲧⲃⲉ + organ + ⲉϥ/ⲧ/ⲩ ϯⲕⲕⲁⲥⲉⲧⲃⲉ ϩ︤ⲛⲛⲁⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲧⲓⲧⲕⲁⲥⲉⲧⲃⲉ + Disease● Corpus
Ingredients: Animal-plant-mineral sources
Instructions for preparation: Grind, boil, cook

● Conclusion•••ⲭⲣⲱϥ-ⲛⲁ-ⲗⲟϥ-ⲛⲁ-ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ
7

List of Coptic medical texts in this study (Sawy 2022)
BKU III 396: Papyrus, Berlin, Pap.-coll. inv.22164, 5.5 x 13 cm, 4th-5th cent.
P.TT157-470: Papyrus fragment, TT157, Fj. 470, 10.8 x 8.2 cm, 4th-5th cent. CE.
P.Mich. MS 136 p. 2-14: Parchment codex, Ann Arbor, Michigan MS 136, 4.125 x 4.875 cm, 5th-6thcent. CE.
P.Mich. 593b: Codex remains, University of Michigan, inv. 593b, 7 x 11 cm, 5th-6th cent. CE,unknown provenance.
P.Mich. 593a: Papyrus, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, inv. 593a, 7.25 x 9 cm, 5th-6th cent.
P.Carlsberg 500: Parchment leaves, Copenhagen Egyptological Institute inv. 500, each page
measures approximately 9-9.50 x 8-8.50 cm.
P.Sarga 20: Papyrus, London, BL?, 6.5 x 8.5 cm, 6th or 7th cent. CE.
P.Ryl.Copt. 109:Papyrus fragment, Manchester, John Rylands Library Copt. 109, 5 x 10 cm, 6th-7thcent. CE.
SBKopt. I 006: Papyrus, Vienna, ÖNB, Pap.-coll. inv. K 5595, 28 x 8.5 cm, 7th cent. CE, provenanceis unknown.
P.KölnÄgypt. 12: Papyrus, Köln, Pap.-Coll. inv. 5948, 9 x 8.8 cm, 7th cent. CE. From Al-Faiyūm.
P.YCtBR inv. 3353: Papyrus fragment, New Haven, Beinecke Library P.YCtBR 3553, measures 6.7 x
13.8 cm, is dated to the 7th–8th cent.
SBKopt. I 003: Papyrus, Vienna, ÖNB, Pap.-Smlg. inv. K 5504, 17 x 7.5 cm, is dated to the 6th–7thcent. CE. The provenance is unknown.
BKU I 27: Ostracon, Berlin Pap.-coll., inv. P4984, 5.5 x 10.5 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE. The provenance isThebes.
BKU I 28: Ostracon, Berlin, coll., inv. P 880, 6,5 x 5 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE. Bought in Thebes in 1859
O.Crum 487: (figure 1), Ostracon, London, EEF 151, 7.3 x 8.4 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE. Originating in
Deir al-Bahari
O.Mon.Epiph. 574: Ostracon, inv. no. 12,180.79, measurements unknown, 7th-8th cent. CE.
O.Mon.Epiph. 575: Ostracon, Cairo formerly Eg. Mus., inv. no. 44674.130, measurements unknown,
7th-8th cent. CE., it was found at the Monastery of Epiphanius in West Thebes
O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 49: Ostracon, London, BM inv. 27422, 7th-8th cent. CE, 21.90 x 14.80 cm. It was
found among the stacks of sherds at the Monastery of Epiphanius in West Thebes.
IFAO 13315: Ostracon, Cairo, inv. no. 13315, dated to 7th-8th cent. CE. From the Monastery of Elias,
West Thebes.
O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 37: Ostracon, London, BM inv. 50216, 10.50 x 13.50 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE.
IFAO 13315: Ostracon, Cairo, inv. no. 13315, dated to 7th-8th cent. CE. From the Monastery of Elias,
West Thebes.
O.Brit.Mus.Copt. II 37: Ostracon, London, BM inv. 50216, 10.50 x 13.50 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE.
Originating in Deir al-Bahari
SBKopt. II 1043: Papyrus, Berlin, Pap.-coll. inv. 3262, 9.5 x 8 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE. Originating in AlFaiyūm,
BKU III 329A: Papyrus, Berlin Pap.-coll. inv. 22061, 19 x 16 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE. Its provenance isunknown,

BKU 393: Papyrus, Berlin Pap.-coll. inv. 22190, measures 14.5 x 16.5 cm, 7th-8th cent. CE. Its provenance isunknown
SBKopt. I 004: Paper, inv. nos. K5506, 16 x 12 cm, dated to 8th cent. CE., the provenance is unknown.
O Bachit 1170+1172: Ostraca, 11,8 x 9,3 cm, unknown date, discovered at Deir el-Bachit (Dra’ Abu elNaga).
Cod.Med.Copt., p. 214-215: Parchment leaf, Paris BN 132,5, fol. 1, 15 x 12 cm, 9th-10th cent. CE. It was
discovered at the White Monastery (Deir el-Abiad),
CAT. NO. 137 (98:Ms4): Parchment leaf, 12.4 x 11.5 cm, 9th-10th cent. CE. Originating at the Monastery ofSt. Antony at the Red sea
P.Louvre AF 12530: Papyrus strips; Paris, Louvre AF 12530, 90 x 9 cm; 9th–10th cent. CE. Supposedlyoriginating in Sohag.
Cod.Med.Copt., p. 241-244: Two parchment leaves, Napoli BN IB.14.06-07, 30.5 x 23 cm, 9th–10th cent. CE,from Akhmim.
Ch: Papyrus, Cairo, IFAO, a single roll of 248 x 27 cm, 9th-10th cent. CE. Discovered in Naga al-Meshaikh(45 km south of Sohag),
SBKopt. I 001: Thick double parchment leaves folded vertically. The single sheet measures 11.51-12 x 12cm. Its provenance is unknown, and it was brought to Walter Till by Professor L. Th. Lefort. It dates backs to
the 10th cent. CE and is well preserved.
SBKopt. I 005: Paper, unknown measurements, 10th-11th cent. CE, unknown provenance.
SBKopt. I 002: Paper section, unknown measurements, 10th-11th cent. CE, unknown provenance.
P.Ryl.Copt.108 Ro: Parchment fragment, Manchester, John Rylands Library; 6.5 x 8.5 cm, 10th-11th cent. CE.
Its provenance is the White Monastery (Deir el-Abiad),
P.Ryl.Copt. 107: Parchment fragment, Manchester John Rylands Library, 9 x 4½ cm. Its provenance is theWhite Monastery
BKU I 26: Paper, remains of a manuscript in a book, inv. no. P 8116/7, 28 x 29 cm; 14 x 18 cm. Its
provenance is Al-Faiyūm and dates back to 11th cent. CE.
P.Ryl.Copt. 104: Paper, Manchester John Rylands Library, 19 x 14 cm, 11th cent. CE. Unknown provenance.
P.Ryl.Copt. 106: Paper, Manchester John Rylands, 25 x 17 cm, 11th cent. CE, unknown provenance.
BKU I 25: Parchment leaf, Berlin, Pap.-coll. inv. 8109, 18 x 11 cm, unknown date.
P.Sarga 21: A dipinto on the plastered wall of the Monastery of Apa Thomas where the infirmary of themonastery was located. Taking from Deir el-Gandala near Asyut, it dates back to between the 5th and 7th cent.
CE.
I.Saqqara 103: A dipinto in black ink on the plastered wall of room 700 D of Monastery of Apa Jeremias
Saqqara, which dates back to the 7th cent. CE.

Coptic dialects● Lower Egyptian (almost no vowel letter doubling)○ Bohairic● Upper Egyptian (frequent vowel letter doubling)○ Fayumic○ Oxyrhynchite○ Sahidic⇒

The most documented dialect, and the koine of Coptic until about the 11th century○ Lykopolitan○ Akhmimic● Other minor dialects: V Dialect, H Dialect, Proto-Theban (P) Dialect, etc.
● Old Coptic (from ca. Ptolemaic period), its grammar is Demotic, but written in aGreek script supplemented with some characters of Demotic

Coptic alphabet and vowel phonology● The Coptic alphabet is a writing system consisting of Greek letters plus 6-8 otherletters derived from the Demotic script● Uncial script● All the vowel letters are from Greek○ In Greek, there’s no systematic vowel letter doubling● Vowel letters ⲓ / ⲉⲓ, ⲏ, ⲉ, ⲁ, ⲟ, ⲱ, and ⲟⲩ can appear in a stressed syllable● Vowel letters ⲏ, ⲱ, and ⲟ can appear only in a stressed syllable● In an unstressed syllable, only ⲓ/ⲉⲓ, ⲉ, ⲁ, and ⲟⲩ can appear● In a stressed syllable vowel letter doubling ⲁⲁ, ⲉⲉ, ⲟⲟ, ⲱⲱ, ⲟⲩⲟⲩ, and ⲉⲓⲉⲓ can appear

Research question● Two theories on the phonetic value of vowel letters and Coptic phonology
Layton、Depuydt、Loprieno、Knudsen・・・ⲓ / ⲉⲓⲟⲩ
(ⲓ/ⲉⲓ)
(ⲟⲩ)

ⲏⲉ

ⲉⲟ

Peust、Allen、Greenberg・・・・ⲓ / ⲉⲓⲉⲓⲉⲓⲏⲏⲱ(ⲁ)
Vowel letter doubling: ⲱⲱ = [oːʔ]ⲏⲉⲉ[ɛ]ⲱⲱⲱⲉ

[e]Long vowelⲁⲟⲩⲟⲩⲟⲩⲉⲟⲁ

[o]
ⲟⲟ
[ɔ]

ⲁⲁbut in Reintges (2004:25): ⲏ = [ɛ], ⲉ = [e], ⲱ= [ɔ], ⲟ = [ⲟ], ⲉⲉ = [eʔe]Layton (2011), Depuydt (1993), Loprieno (1994), Knudsen (1961)... “ⲉ/ⲏquantity theory” or “ⲁⲁ glottal stop theory”● ⲏ is a long vowel against its short equivalent ⲉ● ⲱ is a long vowel against its short equivalent ⲟ● ⲏ /eː/ vs. ⲉ /e/, ⲱ /oː/ vs. ⲟ /o/● Vowel letter doubling: the vowel + glottal stop● ⲙⲁⲁⲩ /maʔw/ “mother”

Peust (1991), Allen (2020), Greenberg (1962)...
“ⲉ/ⲏ quality theory” / “ⲁⲁ long vowel theory”● ⲏ is a short vowel closer than ⲉ● ⲱ is a short vowel closer than ⲟ● ⲏ /e/ vs. ⲉ /ɛ/, ⲱ /o/ vs. ⲟ /ɔ/● Vowel letter doubling: lengthening the vowel● ⲙⲁⲁⲩ /maːw/ “mother”

For the history of “quality” vs.
“quantity” theories, see Peust(1991: 202–211)

Historical perspectives
Vowel letter doubling corresponds to ayin (c)or aleph (3 ) many times in Pre-Coptic
Egyptian● Pre-Coptic Egyptian𔂑𓅡𓎆𓎆𓎆𓌡mcb3 ⇒ Sahidic Coptic ⲙⲁⲁⲃ <maab> “30”● Pre-Coptic Egyptian 𓃂𓀀 wcb ⇒ Sahidic Coptic ⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ <ouêêb> “priest”● Pre-Demotic Egyptian 𔆒𓂧𓌪 šcd ⇒ Demotic šcṱ ⇒ Sahidic Coptic ϣⲱⲱⲧ<š ôôt> “cut” (C$ erný 1976:254)● Hebrew ‫< ֵשֵׁﬠר‬š ê‘êr> / Aramaic ‫< ֵשֳׁﬠָרא‬š ê‘ă rā ’> ⇒ Demotic šcr ⇒ CopticSahidic ϣⲁⲁⲣ <š aar> “price” (C$ erny 1976: 250)

Proto-Theban (P) dialect● Traces of ‘ayin and ’aleph are visible in Proto-Theban (P) dialect● ⲳ for a glottal stop and ⲵ for voiced pharyngeal fricative● These signs correspond to vowel letter doubling in Upper Egyptian dialects (Allen2013:12)○ Paleo-Theban ⳋⲟⲳⲡ‘existent’○ Akhmimic ⳉⲟⲟⲡ○ Fayumic ϣⲁⲁⲡ
○ Lykopolitan ϣⲟⲟⲡ
○ Sahidic ϣⲟⲟⲡ○ Bohairic ϣⲟⲡ○ Oxyrhynchite ϣⲁⲡBodmerLab https://bodmerlab.unige.ch/fr/constellations/papyri

Counterexamples against “glottal stop theory”● Proto-Theban ⳋⲟⲳⲡ corresponds to Pre-Coptic 𔄶𔅒 ḫ pr which has neither glottal stop nor voiced pharyngeal
fricative● There are words that have pairs in masculine/feminine or singular/plural with an unaccountable glottal stop
○Without vowel letter doubling：ⲥⲟⲛ “brother” vs. ⲥⲱⲛⲉ “sister”○With vowel letter doubline：ϣⲏⲣⲉ “son/boy” vs. ϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ “daughter/girl”● ⇒If the “glottal stop theory” is correct, the glottal stop insertion occurs in “son”-”daughter” pair but notin “brother”-”sister” pair
● In Pre-Coptic Egyptian no glottal stop equivalent sound in 𓌢𓀀sn “brother”, 𓌢𓏏𓁐sn.t “sister”, 𓈙𓂋𓇋𓀔š r(j)“boy”, 𓈙𓂋𓇋𓀔𓏏 š r(j).t “girl”● When a word ending in a strong vowel comes before a copula, the vowel is sometimes duplicated, but theglottal stop theory cannot explain why the glottal stop sound is here
●Metathesis & complementary lengthening? ⇒ ϣⲉⲉⲣⲉ ʃɛ:rə < ʃɛʔrə < ʃɛrəʔ(?)

Complementary lengthening● Probably “complementary lengthening” (CL) happened somewhere before Coptic
in Egyptian history, glottal stop / voiced pharyngeal fricative disappeared andinstead the vowel before it was lengthened● Compensatory lengthening is attested in various languages● CL in Ancient Greek after disappearance of nasal○

ἄγ-ο-ντι /agonti/ → ἄγοντσι /agontsi/→ Attic ἄγουσι /agu:si/ “they lead”● CL in Indo-Iranian after disappearance of stop
○Sanskrit：स"त /sapta/ → Hindi सात /sāt/「7」● CL in Maltese after disappearance of voiced pharyngeal fricative○jagħmel [ˈjaʕ.mɛl] → [ˈjaː.mɛl] “he does”

Evidence from Old Nubian, which uses Coptic alphabet● Old Nubian: language written in Medieval Nubian Kingdoms during 8th to 15thcenturies○ Nilo-Saharan > East Sudanic >>> Nubian > Nile Nubian○ Written in the Coptic alphabet plus three Meroitic letters○ Nobiin, the modern descendant of Old Nubian has distinction between long and short vowels● It is plausible that vowel letter doubling signifies long vowels in Old Nubian● Old Nubian ⲧⲉⲉⲗ- ⇒ Nobiin equivalent têl “tomb”● Old Nubian ⳟⲟⲟⲅ- ⇒ Nobiin equivalent nôg “house”

Findings in Medical Corpus

Evidence for ⲱ vs. ⲟ supports quality hypothesis● P. Ryl. Copt. 106. ⲁⲗϩⲱⲙⲙⲉ● Ch 41 ⲭⲱϩⲉⲗ←‫ﻛﺤﻞ‬← ‫اﻟﺤـّﻤﻰ‬/alḥ umma/ “fever”/kuḥ il/ [koḥ el] “kohel”● ⲱ corresponds to Arabic short close vowel /u/ ⇒ ⲱ is not long

Evidence for ⲏ vs. ⲉ supports quality hypothesis● P.Mich. MS 136, ll. 10–20 ⲁⲛⲛⲓⲕⲣⲏⲥ ← ‫ اﻟِﻨْﻘـِﺮس‬/anniqris/● ⲏ corresponds to Arabic short close vowel /i/ ⇒ⲏ is not long

4 more attenstations of this kind of examples in our corpus

Vowel letter doubling in medical corpus●ⲁⲥⲥⲱⲱⲇ, “a remedy to be introduced into the nose” ←Arabic ‫ اﻟﺴﻌﻮط‬/assaʕuːṭ/(also see Chassinat 1921: 229, already mentioned by Greenburg 1963)● We could not problem more strong evidence about vowel letter doubling● Ch 219 ϣⲁϥⲣ̄ϣⲁⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲗⲱⲧⲉ：ⲗⲱⲧⲉ is probably a variant spelling of ⲗⲱⲱⲧⲉ “hard,callus of skin, be wounded” (Crum 1939: 145b)● Plural of ϭⲗⲱⲧ “kidney”：Cod.Med.Copt., p. 243, recipe no. 28 ⲛⲉϭⲗⲟⲟⲧⲉ “thekidneys”

Conclusions● Greek and Arabic loan words in 43 Coptic medical texts were examined toinvestigate the problems of Coptic phonology: the distinction between ⲏ vs. ⲉ andⲱ vs. ⲟ, and vowel letter doubling● Old Nubian, Ancient Egyptian historical linguistics, and internal structuralist
linguistic studies of Coptic indicate that the ⲏ vs. ⲉ and ⲱ vs. ⲟ oppositions are notin length but in degree of mouth aperture and that the vowel letter doubling ismore likely to be a long vowel● In this survey of the new medical literature, we were able to show evidence thatthe distinction between ⲏ vs. ⲉ and ⲱ vs. ⲟ is not length but aperture, but notenough evidence to show that vowel letter duplication is a long vowel, at least
around 8th centuryReferences
Allen, James P. (2020). Ancient Egyptian Phonology. Cambridge University Press.
Allen, James P. (2013). The Ancient Egyptian language: An historical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Browne, Gerald M. (1996). Old Nubian Dictionary. Leuven: Peeters.
Browne, Gerald M. (2002). Old Nubian Grammar Vol. 330. München: Lincom Europa.
Kammerzell, Frank. (2000). Egyptian possessive constructions: A diachronic typological perspective. Sprachtypologie Und Universalienforschung: STUF 53. 97–108.
Knudsen, Ebbe E. (1961). Saidic Coptic vowel phonemes. Acta Orientalia 26, 29 - 42.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1962). The interpretation of the Coptic vowel system. Journal of African Languages 1, 22 - 29.
Crum, Walter Ewing. (1939). A Coptic dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Depuydt, Leo. (1993). On Coptic sounds. Orientalia (neue). 63 (3), 38-375.
Layton, Bentley. (2011) . A Coptic grammar with chrestomathy and glossary: Sahidic dialect. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Loprieno, Antonio. (1997). Egyptian and Coptic phonology. In: Alan S. Kaye (ed.) Phonologies of Asia and Africa (including the Caucasus), Vol. 1. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenrauns. 431 - 460.
Peust, Carsten. (1991). Egyptian phonology: Introduction to the phonology of a dead language. Göttingen: Peust und Gutschmidt.

!‫ﺷﻜﺮا‬Thank you!
ϣⲉⲡϩⲙⲟⲧ!

Acknowledgements:● JSPS Kakenhi Grand-in-Aid (C)21K00537 “Studies of Coptic Vowels in
Historical Phonology of Egyptian
Language” (PI: So Miyagawa)● NINJAL

Contact:So Miyagawa[ so-miyagawa@ninjal.ac.jp ]Mona Sawy[ mona.sawy@stud.uni-goettingen.de ]