Aziz S. AtiyaEDITOR IN CHIEF

Volume 8

Macmillan Publishing CompanyNEW 'lOR/(

Collier Macmillan CanadaTORONTO

.Maxwell Macmillan InternationalNEW 'IORK· OXFORD· SINGAPORE· SYDNEY

194 $AHTDIC

its disappearance would probably be progrcssivc,wilh a certain pcriod of contcmporaneous usage ofthe protodialcct by the conservativcs and of thc dia­lect by the innovaton; in the same area (seclANGUAGE(S). COPTIc).

It will be instructive here to borrow some compo­nent parts ITom the synoptic table of Vergote in aslightly modified order, adapting and illustratingeach one with an example and choosing in particu­lar thosc components that are useful in the defini.tion of a protodialcct.

The abbreviations and adaptations employed areas follows: for periods, MK - Middle Kingdom, NK'" New Kingdom, pC - Saitic and Greco·Roman (orprolO·Coptic) period, C - Coptic period; for dialects,L .. A2 of Vergote; S ... - S, F, and its subdialccL~,

as wcll a~ M and V, which were still unknown toVet'gote in 1945; L ... within the pC period. pl.(and through P a reconstructed' pS). Without postu­lating or defining any phonological difference be­tween them, two varieties of 11.)1 will henceforth bedistinguished here: the major fonn whose evolutionwa~ 1r;1 :> lsi in L ... is 11.))/; and the minor formthat evolved into Ihl in L . .. is 11.),1.

(MK) IJ :> (NK) IJ :> (pC) Ihl :> (C) /h/; for exam­ple, lJ~r :> zK,O L, S ... , B, A, to be hungry.

(MK) h :> (NK) h :> (pC) Ihl :> (C) /hI; for ellam­pie, hb > tQll'. L, S ... , B, A, thing.

(MK) x) > (NK) Xz :> (pC) 11Il! [A), 11.1 L ..• , (B):> 11.,1 A, 11.1 B, but /hI L, S , .. ; for ellample,!!nw ~" B, P (and a reconstructed ·pS), lOY"A, pL, but 2QyN 1.., S ... , inside part.

XJ • (MK) XJ1 > (NK) XJ1 > XI - (pC) 11Il! [A], 11.1L ... , [B]:> IXll A, 11.1 B but /hI L ... ; forexample, 'n~ WN,!) B, W.L,!) P and a reconstruct­ed 'pS, wNi A (and pL through ~ pl.), but0l1G" L, S ... , to live.

Xl - (MK) XJJ > (NK) XJJ :> (pC) 1r;1 L . .. , [B],but IXJlI [Al, then (pC) lroll•. .. , [B] > (C) /SfL, S.,., B, and (pC) Ixlll [A] > 11.1 A; forexample, ~pr > 'Ol1l6 P and a reconstructed'pS), .owno pL, [etc., and Ir;Opil pB] > 1I,lW116 S,L, lIIOO6 M, II,lWfIl W, V, F, B, but [/x6p:l1 pAl >IQlIW A, to become.

(MK) I > (NK) I > (pC) lsi> (C) Is/; for exam­ple, sp, IQGlIl L, S ... , B, A, to receive.

[See also: Dialect i: Dialect P.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cerny, J, Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge,1976.

Edel, E. "Neues Material zur Herkunft del' auslaulen·den Vokalc -(l und -I im Kopti~chen." Zeitschrillfiir agyplische Sprachl' und Altertwnskutlde, 86(1961): 103-106.

Kassel', R. Papyrus Bodmer VI: livre des Proverhe.~.

CSCQ 194-195. Louvain. 1960,___. "Prolegomcncs a un essai de classification

systematique des dialectes et subdialecles coptcsselon le~ cliteres de la phonctiquc, I, Principes etterminologie," MW'eon 93 (1980a):53-112. "... ,II. Alphabets el systcmcs phoncliques." MU.~eml 93(1980b):237-97, "... , III, Sysleme.~ orthographi·ques ct categories dialectales." MI1Siiol1 94(1981):91-152.

_--,-_. "Orthogt1lphc et phonologic de la varictesubdialectalc lycopolitaine des testes gnOSliquescuptes de Nag Hammadi." Museon 97 (1984):261­312.

_,--_. "A Standard System of Sigla for RefetTing tothe Dialects of Coptic," Journal of Coptic Studies I(1990); 141-151.

u'cau, P. "Fragments de l'Ascension d'Is'I'ie encopte." Museon 59 (l946}:453-57,

Polotsky, H. J. "Zur koptisehen Laullehre I." Zeit­schrif/ fiir agyplische Sprache und Altertumskun(/e67 (1931):74-77.

Vergote, J. Pholletiqlle historique de /'iigyptien, lescml.~mmes. Louvain, 1945.

--7' "Le Dialecte copte P (P. Bodmer VI: Pro·vcrbcs), essai d'identification." Revue d'cgyplolo(;ie25 {I973):50-57.

_-'--' Grammaire caple, Vol. la, In/roduction,phonitique et phonologic, morphologie sylllhbna·tique (structure des sema"li!mes), partie sy"chro·nique, Vol. Ib, httroductio", pholletique 1'1 phono·logie, morphologic synthiimatique (slnlcture dessemanti!mes), partie dia~'hronique, Vol. 20., Morpho.logie syntagmatique, syntaxe, par/ie sym:hronique,Vol. 2b, Morphologic symagmatique, partiediochro>liqlle. Louvain, 1973-1983.

Vycichl, W, Dicticmnaire etymologique de la Imlguecopte. Louvain, 198],

Worrell, W, H. Coptic Sounds. Alln Arbor, Mich.,1934.

RO\)()U'ltH KASSI!R

SAHIDIC. Saltidlc (siglum S) is a major Coplicdialect, carlier known as Upper Egyptian, Theban, orthe soulhern dialect; the teon "Sahidic:' used byAthanasius of QU!f, was adopted by Stern (1880). Intwentieth·century Coplology, S has been the maindialect of study and research-indeed Coptic parexcelltmce, today totally supplanting BOHAtRIC in thisrespect (compare, fOt' instance, its precedence inCrum, 1939, to that of Bohairic in Stern, 1880). This

procC$!i, virtually complete by 1915 (d. Erman.1915. pp. 1801".), lIlay be said to have been initiatedby Steindorffs grnmmar of 1894; yet nOle early state­ments ravoring Sahidic as "older." "richer:' and"purer" (Stem, 1880, p. I; Sethe, in Kahle, 1954, p.202), and "magis rt'gularis atque ad analogiamellacta" (Peyron, 1841, p. ltilt), the earliest observa­tion of its relatively innovating, leveling nature. In·deed, thc repulation of S as "old," or at least"older" than 8ohairic. Is due rather to ilS early doc­umentation and its chronologkal precedence overBohairic, which replaced it as the COptic koine, thanto typological mel.

Stliithe prestige or sahidic Is ccrtainly justified byIts rich litcrnture, both original and trnnslated, scrip·tuml and nonscriptural (homilctic, patristic. monas·ti.:, Gnostic, nlugical, poelic), religious and nonreli·gious (epistolary, documentary, legal, medical).Sahidil: was probably the fll"St Coptil: dialect intowhich the Scriptul'es were translated, apparently inthe third century; by the fourth. the trnnslation wa..~

completed. Almost all original Coptic literature waswritten in Sahidic (sec ANTONY OF EGYPT. SAt"": rACHO­MtLlS. SAINT; SIlEN1JTE. SAtNT). By the ninth century, Shad become the official dialecl of the Coptic church.but as early as the fourth century, perhaps evenearlier, it was a common Pan-Egyptian written liter·ary dialect, spread at least from Heliopolis to ..\swan.In subsequent centuries, it completely replaced theminor dialects (A, L. M) as a colloquial idiom. By thetime of the ARAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT. S was the soleliterary dialect beside northern Bohairic. From theniOlh century onward, S gradually receded beforeBohairic, a process much aecc1cmted from the elev­enth century on.

Sahidie occupies "a position apart From all otherdialects" (Polotsky, 1970, p. 560) in that, first, it is"neutral" (Worrell, 1934, p. 73; Kahle, 1954, p. 241)or, better, most leveled, di:\leClOlogically speaking; itIs the diAlect most difficult to characterize distine·tlvely, a "mean" dialect, the one with the fewestexclusive tmits and the most isoglosses shared withOIhers. Second, it raises (I) the t1iachronic, nonde·seriptiv!: question of its local origin and "properdomain" (the statement by Athanasius of Q~ thatSahidic is "the dialect of Mil;r" is not helpful here)Ilnd (2) the synchronic question of its integration inthe overall dialcclOlogical scheme. Question I iscontroversial: Worrell (1934, pp. 6811".) considered itsinitial range to have been O'lyrhynchus and the low­er valley (his "region IV" or perhaps an area evenmore I1Or1herly); Vergote (1973b, Vol. la, pp. 2f.)and Kasser (19803, pp. 10311".) suggested it spread

SAHIDIC 195

southward from around Saqqara·Memphis (perhapsWOlTell's "region II"); Polotsky (1970, p. 561) con­sidered Thebd as a possible point of origin. Ratherextreme appear Kahle's thesis (1954, pp. 256ff.) ten·tatively identifying its point of origin in Alexandria,and Schcnke's denying Sahidic any oriainal localbasis, considering it to be a Imine type of idiom bornout of eonl:l.ets, interaction, and leveling of localdialects (1981, pp. 349ff.); Vcrgote's conceptionseems to be the most plausible.

In any case, the eharacteri:rotion, still encoun­tered, of Sohidic as "artificial" to a degree is descrip­tively irrelevant. It is true that standard literarySahidic is largely "a gift" of the translation of theBible (and in this sense many lite I'll!")' languages are"artificial") and that Sahidic probably owes its dms·tic expansion to the progressive suppression of dis·tinetive phenomena. What specific traits Sahidic has,it shares most usually with Akhmimie and Subakh­mimic in contrast to Bohairic and Fayyumie. ("Mid­dle Egyptian" really occupies a roughly middle posi·tion between the hYO dialed clusters.) This is, how­ever, r'I() more than an impression and may beproved erroneous by a precise investigation,

Although standard, or "pure:' Sahidic is more of aconstruct, an idealized average, a research poilll dere,nre than linguistic reality, some varieties of thedialect approach 11 more closely than others (seebelow); Sahidic is a Mi5chdiall'lct, an aggregation ofIinguislic habits only imperfectly alld variouslySl:l.ndardUed (d. Mink, 1978, pp. 911£.: his statementthat "die Annahme von Dialektcn ist ... sprachwis­senschaftlieh ein Konstrukt" is especially cogentwhen applied to Sahidic). However, extreme cases of"tainting" (e.g., by Fayyumic, Bohairic, Subakhmi·mic) must be specially treated. The dialect P, docu­mented In the Papyrus Bodmer VI text of Proverbspublished by Kassel' (1960), is held by Vergote(1973a, p. 57) and Kassel' (1980a, pp. 62ff.) to be a"protodialect of sahidic," with non-sahidic [fhebanor Subakhmimlc) traits; according to Nagel (1965),it reprt'senlll early Theban.

I. Standard Sahldlc

I.l Phonology, Morphophonology, lind Ortbo!­raphy. As a rule, S agrees with Bohairie in points ofvocalism, while sharing its eonsonantism with A-L-according to Kasscr, in a way renectina an evolu­tive scale (sec Vergote, 1973b, sec. 60 p. 58, andKassel', 1981, sec. 25, for lists of "isopOOnes").

1.1./. Sahidic has no aspirate phonemes; 9, +, andx are (in native words) monogram graphemes repn:-

NOSoNOItAN'T

AfI"rER OI'1i.NSl'Il.ESS SVLUr.UU:

1NlTI....I.OIl.

Fl""­SoNORANT

(var, 6)

No SONORANT,FlN....L

SONORANT

IIomitlD $(Jcra abbn.-viations.. Thc :wpcrlinear strokeQCCUI"5 above one or more nonvocalic clements, sig­naling thcir syllabic phonological status (nO! theirphonetic value or manner of actualization: seePolOlsky, 1957a, pp. 22Iff., 1971, pp. 227f£.). Procliticpl'OSOdk; relative wcalrncss is fully reflected in thestandard orthogrophy: see 1.3,7.

1.2 Morphology (Sy.t~mlc and Nonsyslcmlc)and Word Fonnallon.

',2,1. It superficial vocalic ~'merger of Ihe fourconveners (G- eire., (l. second present, H6. preterile,6'1'(6)' relative) is characteristic of sahidic; of these,lhe fi~t two are actually homonymous. The relativeand second pelfcct forms arc not homonymous inthe heM standard onhogrophy (0l'IT'~' versus 1l'T-~"

I'espcctively); the second penect may be further eir·cUlllslnntilllly convened (o·1l'T·),·: Polotsky, 1957a,pp. 232ff., 1971, p. 2]2, 1960, sec, 1lobs., e.g., Mt.20:28 and Ecd. 19:15).

1.2.2. The Sahidic fulure tense is the extendcdbipal1itc ttu.CQlTR; the so-called third future (6'16-/lfN6'1') is a mode rather than a tense (cf. Polol-'lky,1950, pp, ]4ff., 1971. pp, 219ft) and has vcry limitr..odconvenibility (unly cire. of the negative base:Polot.sky, 1957a, p. 233, 1971, p. 2]], 1960, pp. 400.401, 1971. pp. 246ff.). Ttll'~' is a special second·peo;l)n singular feminine future fonn.

1.2J. The S conjuncti\'e presuffixal base consistsof a nasal (Jf) and no dental, except for the first·pel'$On singular (1fT~-, KT~-). The conjunctive is in S

a tonjugalion fonn apan, standing midway betweenthe tripartite and bipartitc pattcrns, with ll- (pre­nominally R"Te·) marking the modifier status of anexus of (pro)noun and infinitive; mO'llhologically,this special stalUS is manifested in the pronominalclements, which are (with a single exceplion in the

POSTTONIC

Al-Tt!1l. CWSIID

STRESS SVLUr.BI.F.

•"""'"HOK"<K

(var. H)

"""~

INtTIALSoNORANT

No SoNORANT,INITI ....L

SoNORANT

196 SAHIDIC

PRI;'TONIC

senting a combirnttion of two phonemes. (They mayhave a different standing in the system of CI-eek·origin phonology.)

1.1.2. Sahidic has only one unvoiced laryngeal spi­rolnt (2 Ihf).

1.1 J . .x and 6 represent distinct phonemes (vdo­palatal or palatalu.ed SlOp and alveolar affricate. re­SJX.'Cti\-dy, .x6 and 66, as in XlD, say, and GC.I, reomain).

1.1.4. Sahidic has at least one laryngeal stop pho­neme (lXI - Vergotc's and Kasscr's rf), sym;:hroni.cally suprasegmental: "(proneness to) vocalic redu·plication." Its distribution is complex (see Satzinger,1979), Wilh the allophones "1.ero" (e.g., nonsyllilbic/X! in the final position and pausal junctive: MU,

lnllh) and ~ (syllabic, pl'elOnic !X/: nHO, infOlm).In P, lhe Im)'ngeal SlOP hns Its own spomdic glouph­CIUC (J.).

1./.5. In Sahidic Iher'C Is no pro~res:;ive sibilanlassimilation to 1'101 (cuNij", make live, nourish), bUIprogressive sibilant assimilation to 11.'1 does lakeplace (~)"x6, speak).

1.1.6. Sonorants (fbI, III, Iml, Inl, and Irf) c1os·ing the tone syllable are graphically "reduplicated:'occurring in two neighboring syllables as syllnbicand nonsyllabic (onset): 2'1"10, plow; 2no, old;cR"I't6, report; KIfH(!, be fat; 1"f?CJ, new.

1.1.7. The Sahidic vowel in the unstressed syllable(after PolOlSky, 19]]) is outlined in Tablc I.

J.J .8. Stressed ~ represents the allophone of 101before IhI and /XI <R"U2, be paincd; Tu., ten thou·sand). In similar prelaryngeal environments, 6 rep­resents lal (c661:)e, be left over; 2fI, way).

1.1.9. Orthography (see in exhaustive dctailKa....<;el·, 198Oa). Diagroms: 61, &y. Monograms: 0, t,x, " t. 1'""¥Te, God, is not included among the

TAULI! I.

FIN.... LSONOIlANT

first singular) identical wilh lhe bipartile actor pr~

noun~ (prefix pmnouns)./.2.4. Tl.f(l'ICuTR, the causative or "fulure" con­

junctive, a specific postimperalive, postinlerrogaliveform with a lirsl ~ingular causation or guaranlee5Cme (Pololsky, 1944, pp. Iff., 1971, pp. 1061£.), is alypically Sahldic form. The causalive infinilive is11!ied as a noncausative "lhat" form after st.·vcralprepositions {bot less usually after olhers}.

/.2.5. Sahidic clnploYl' a ...pcc:ific "temporal"clause conjugillioll, lripartile pallern form{JfT6f6'I(1fJ)Cu'I1{} distinct from the second and rei·alive perfect fol'll15.

1.2.6. The negatived conditional conjugation formh:u in Sahidic two variants (alternants). namely6"I:t).lfJffCGTf{ and o,""CVl1l.

1.2.7. It. special prenominal allomorph of all con­\'ertcl1i and some tripartite conjugation bases is char­acterUcd by the ending -ro.

1.2.8. Verbs of Greek origin occur in Sahidic in aUr<Hitem fonn (usually identical with the Greek im­peouive) and are directly incorponued in the conju·gation and generally grammatical fonns withoutthe intermediation of an auxiliary: ),,,"ICT6yt.l,

ll6"nIH6rrol, lOHl)l.0f'61 (imperative/infinith'C)./.2.9. The verb t, give, has in S two impcrali~,

t and 1'1), (Polotsky, 1950, pp. 761£., 1971, pp. 21\ ff.).J.2.IO. Pn:momlnals: Sahidic ha.'i a ternary deter­

minalion catc..-gory-definite, indefinite. and zcm(In), (oy-), fJ-} determinators, expanded by nounlexernes. The lll'oclltic form of the demonstrative ,..,namely 111-, has (wherever dislinct from nm-, the pro­c1itic a.llomol'Ph of n),)) affective and specially desig.native value (Polotsky, 1957a, pp. 2291£., 1971, pp.231lT.).

1.2.1/. Numbers are expl·es....ed a.'i a rule by num­ber words, not letters (e.g.. Acts 23:23).

J.2.12. TIle fil'llt.peI'Son singular suffix-pronoun -I­

has the allomorph~ .),. (lfN.),., Tf-),') and ·T (ali objectof infinitivcs following a consonant 01' IX! or prepo­shions in similar environments). The second,pcrllonsingular feminine suffix·pronoun consiSlS of the all~

morplis -0'/-ro nncl' conjugation bases .fj./-/J-!-TIJ asobject of infinitives. The second-person plural suffix­pronoun consislS of the allomol'phs 'TN- and ·T6Tl'f·.The third·person plurnl suffix·pmnoun is nonsyllabicafter 'ff"Q., TfO-, II(J' (possessive article). A specialobjeclive prolloull·par'adigm is charncterized by thethird'person plural tenn -CfJ/<OY. (Thili paradigmoccurs moslly after allother pr'onoun, e.g., as pro­nominal object of the po$Session verboid oyl'fn,,..)

1.2.13.61"- forms in Sahidie lexical (nongrammati­cal) action noUllS.

$AHIDIC 197

1.3 Syntagmatlcs and Pro.cdy.J.3.1. Focalization patterns: The second ten~e focal·

izes in Sahidic not only adverbial~ bUI also aclor andobject (pl'O)nouns, and may even be aUlorocal, thaIi~, with the verb lexeme or prcdicalive adverb iL'ielfthe infornliltion focus (see POlOlsky. 1944, pp. 5Uf..1971, pp. IS5ff., 1960 !>Cc. 32 01»., \971. pp. 408ff.,as in Lk.. 20:13, Cltu.r oy, "What shall I do?"; Sir.5:4, lfr).()y ....M tu.i", "Whlll has Ilappelled to me?";Acts 12:15, Efe.\Of.fJ, '"Thou an mad"; Pli. 67:28,!J"4R"H.l.y, "Ibi est"). The clefl senlence wilh (pro)-­nominal focus (wdclIe; PoloL,ky, 1962) ha.'i the fonn"{pro)noon·I\OT- (elc.)." with the glo~ marker 11­

tending 10 be invariable, and omissible only after apenonal-pn,llloun focus (Polotsky, 1962, p. 420,1971. p. 421).

1.3.2. Nominal syntagmatics: The nominal expan·sian of a noun syntagm is effected by Jf./JrTfj. regu­hued by the delerminalion of the nuclear noun andlor other expansions thereof, apparendy with no lexi·cal considerations involvc..-d.

I.J.3. ·HN· is limited to coordinaling non-7.ero­delenninalcd nouns: the range of ),y.l is accordinglyeXlended. (Zero-determinale<! nouns are coordinaledby mean.'i of -1:'-.)

J.J.4. After converters, an indefinile or zcro-deter­minated aelOl' noun does not necessarily condition afY>(Tf-/H'ff- allolagm of the bipartilc pallelll (Polotsky,1960, sec. 21 and 35).

JJ.5. Final clauses are expressed hy lhe conjunc­tions .xG, .xOKl.()')C followed by fUlure III or thesecond fulUre (cire. negalive fulUI"C III following.xl>KUC: PoIOL~ky, 1957a, p. 2lJ, 1971, p. 233) andnOI by means of the. conjunctive (whiCh does, how·ever, resume .x6K).),C after an interposition; Lefort,1948). The S cOlljuctive occurs ,Ifter a limited num­Del' of conjunctions (the consecutive ~'6 andHllltwC [H\lIIOTO), both of Greek origin) and docs notusually funclion as a "thut" form or expund imper'­sonal verb predications (Stern, 1880, p. 275, sec.445).

I.J.6. Thc poSSeSSiOll'PI"Cdiealillg oyNT),'I andHRT),« have in Sahidic verboid status-thlll is, par·take of all syntactic properties of vCI'btll pr"Cdictltians(conjugal ion ronns): lhe 11OsseSSIirt/ may be ex­prcliSed pronominally a.~ an object adj."lcent of thepronominal possessor (Acts 3:6, 116T6oylfTJ.I«, "thatwhich I htlve": sce ibid., sec. 316).

J.3.7. PrO!iOtly: Prosodic proclilie weakness is con'sistently reflecled in the standard S orthography (secErmtln, 1915: oylf'/HJf-; )'Hl""-,fR'r1( ... ; 1I6Y';

oyNT'f-: ct-; etc.). The relative converter joins inSahidic in close juncture with the convertc..-d eonju·

198 SAHIDIC

gation form (e.g., Lk. 12:5). Vowel reduplication oc­curs sporadically in monosyllabit;, final.laryngealwords before an enditic (0,,"66 116; Poiolsky, 1957a,p. 231. 1971, p. 232, 1957b. pp. 3481£., 1971, PI'.390ff.).

1.4 Lexicon. As a rule, Sahidic shares lexical iso­glosses at least wilh Akhmimic and/or Lycopolitan(or Subakhmimic), such as &cI)Q)pe, push, protrude.(This, however, may be refuted by further, moresophisticated invesligation.) Lexemes not oecuningin Bohairic seem rdatively more common lhan ex­clusive S + 8 oncs (e.g., lIjlCIHIloGfl, wound; BQ)I<., go;TGJK, throw; :!GIN, approach; I_Nfl, tum; KIDMiij',

sneer; ()yGl(ijT, answer;~ (particle), on the otherhand; XOOY'T'R"liOOy, send). Relatively few conjunc­tions of Greek origin arc found in Sahidic.

2. Varieties of Sahidic

2,1 Classical, or Scriptural, Sahldlc. As a lule,elassical Sahidic conforms to the standard describedabove. However, more-precise scanning is called fOl"in this case, differentiating between the Old andNew Testaments, between various pans thereof, andeven between the v(nious manuscripts. Sahidieboasts more early (fourth or fifth century) manu­script sources than any other dilliect of Coptic, andin this corpus many idiosyncrasies arc observable,which may be subsumed together under the headingof "early Sahidic." The grouping of manuscripts inthis catcgory is helpful: the British LibraryDeuteronomy-Jonah and Psalms (Budge, 1898,1912); the Bodmer Papyri, complemented by Ches­ter Beatly and University of Mississippi fragments(Kasser, 1961, 1962. 1964, 1965) with linguistic in­troductions (note the forms NAEI, Nr).p; HR·, with;the rarity of the preterite relative prefix 6p-, Dt. 4:42;IOtal assimilation of na<;als to sonorants; omission ofnasals, etc.); the Turin Wisdoms (de Lagarde, (883);the Berlin Psalter (Rahlfs, 1901); and recently thePalau Ribes Gospels (Quecke 1972, 1977; note theidiosyncrasies pointed out in the editor's extraordi­nary introductions: HR_, MJo.'!- (negative aorist).TIU'lOY second-person pluml object, variation of 6T6­- 6T6pE', T6'!· - Tf6'!, sporadic omission of adverbi­al If· (TtJyrroy, 0., O)'dlT), even some speciallexemes). Sec in general Kahle's (1954, p. 233) di.~·

cussion of this kind of manuscript; "Old Coptic"similarly presents mainly Sahidic trails (ibid.• PI'.242IT., 252ff.).

2.2 "Gnostic" Sahldlc. One must distinguish herebetween the Gnostic texts with no special dialecto-

logical problem (the PisHs Sophia, Ihe Bruce Codex,some of the Nag Hammadi tractates) and such NagHammadi tractates as exhibil non-Sahidic traits. Theformer group conforms by and lal'f~e to the eady­Sahidic type, with some idiosyncrasies (total nasalassimilation, 6P- relative prefix, 1T'r).pG'l' ror the clas­sic n.pe'!-, ),-future coyalH-, ~6IDC QJ),(IiT6') [PS 178f.,313]). perhaps a more pronounced tendency to n::­sume a converter/conjugation base after a nominalextraposition (PS 31,173, 275f., 320). A profile of theNag Hammadi idiom(s) 01' idiolect(s) will eventuallybe achieved on the basis of a series of monographs(d. Nagel, 1969; Layton, 1973, 1974). The NagHammadi grammatical !'y!'tems, which vary fromone text to another, orten Sel:m inconsistent even inone and the same text. One encounters tractateswritten by a "speaker of some form of dialect AI"(Layton. 1974, p. 379, Codex II). Certain texts (nota­bly in codices 1lI, V. and especially VII, tractates 2,3, and 5) reveal Bohairic or "Middle Egyptian"(morpho-)syntaClic traits, e.g.• open juncture of therelative converter (III, 42.5f.), interrogative pro'nouns berore basic tenses (VII, 103.3f.), Ihe conjunc­tive a "that" form (Vii, 80.13, 99.29f.), the relativecompatible with indefinite determinators (2ClN­6000y, VII, 85. I If.), relative conversion or the fu­ture III (lIl, 114.2f.), and, most striking. a four-termdetermination category with consequences ror theexpansion of the noun syntagm (m-NT6-). Codices IIand V rellect early Sahidic with non-Sahidic traits,mostly Akhmimoid (A, 1-, and, in the case of CodexV, Middle Egyptian as well). Note the following ),­Colol'ing in val),ing ratios: A forms of lexcmes andmorphs (~HJroCT, KII)6, X6K),C6, TllXllN, .xoy); lexicalAkhmimicisms (c.g., ~rrc, fear; Jro),tw, cease [alsoPistis Sophia]; T),IiO, make, create); HH- - RnT'(negative imper.); 1" -1i1- with Greek loan-verbs; 11- ­n6- for the definite artiele before a consonant clus­ter; 116- (possessive anicle second !'ingular feminine),noy-, Troy- (third plural); the perfects ),~),-, ~ <-,6TJro~·. ~)''!-.

2.3 Nonliterary, POlilelasslcal, and Late Sahldlc.These terms, often confused (if only by implication),demand dear definition. On the one hand, there arelate literary texts, especially hagiogrnphical, manyro­logical, and liturgical, but also popular literatureand poetry (Drescher, 1947; Till, 1935-1936; Erman,1897; Junker, 1908; etc.), mostly posterior to theArab conquest. This corpus has to be carefully dis­tinguished from the extremely important one, ofhigh standardization, of postdassical literary Sahidicof the founh, fifth, and sixth centuries (note espe-

cially Pacoomius' wnllng.<> and, above everything,the Iingul~lic usage in ShenUle'~ works, consideredby the present writer at least as llignificant for lhedescription of Sahidic grammar as is the scripturalidiom).

On the other hand, there ill the immense body ofnonliterary SO\.Irces of late documentation, largelyoverlapping the late-S corpus in its grammaticalnorm. This category includes !ellen; (privale, formal,official), documenlS (receipts, contracts (md agret......menlS, demands, tcstamenlS), magical and medicalrecipes and spells (see, e.g., Chassinal, 1921), and 50on. This corpus has had very scanl attention hithel10(see CnJlll, 1926, Vol. I, c!lnp. 10; Knhlc, 1954, chap.8), and grammatical investigatinn of this area is stilla fUIUl'1l goal-perhaps the greatest challenge beforeCO[lliC linguistics lO(l<1y.

The overpowering impression conveyed by lhesclexts, lipan from Ihcir shcer numbcr.l (major collec­lions have been found at 11lebes, al·Ashmiinayn.Wlk!1 Sarjah, Dayr al-Bala'iuh, Armant, and Aphro­dito), is their bewildering variety and degn.'C5 of de·viation from the classical sLandanl; bUI therein liestheir value. The lellers <eighth-eleventh centurieli. inall calalogic collections, e.g., the Brilish Ubrary andthe John Rylands l.1br.uy ones, by Crum; Berlin, bySawnger, Vienna. by KI-all and Till) and documcnta·ry legal tellts (again, in most collections) lire to alarge extent characterized by fonnulas. The poetic(tenth-eleventh centuries), magical (seventh-tenthcenturies; Kropp. 1930-1931; Stegemann, 1934),and liturgical (see Quedc, 1970, pp. 350-89, M 574,a ninlh.century manuscript) all to a lesser or greaterextent ellhibil non·Sahidic characlerislics (Althmi.moid, Fayyumic, Bohairic). Strikhlg are lhe follow­ing traits:

Phonological (if not dialectal) a'ld orthographiC:Vocalic and (to a lesser tlltent) consonantal varia­tion is common; nOle espcchilly the voclilic (G')treatment of syllabic nasals (Mll-, with; 6T()<l, he) andthe fluctuations II - .l., II - II - £1, 0 - co, 6 - k, ~ ­"I, voiced - unvoiced, aspiralcd - unaspinl1ed. Manymagical texts show Fayyomicism (stl'essed .a. for 0, 6for .a., II for G and even £1, and B for "I), althoughsome (e.g., KI'OPP's A and Il) are pure standardSahidic; so on the whole is the Bala'izah collection.Some IC,cts (e.g., Till's MartyrdomS) show a miJtlureof the 5 superlineation and Bohairic DJINKIM. Ob­serve that incomplclc or hesitant standardizationmust on no account be laken for "misspelling" (d.Kahle, 1954. p. 254, n. 5; Kahle'$ Ii$u [chap. 8}constitute an unsurpassed, indeed unparalleled de-

SAHIDIC 199

scnpllon of the phonologie-orthographic usage ofthe Theban nonlilel-ary sources).

MCJt'phological. First·pcrwn singular CI;l;urr.a.-; !i.eC'

ond plural T6TJ46- (Theban); second singular femi­nine 6f'" (convener),.tot- (perfect) (Polotsky, 1960, p.422, nbs. I); 'R"11.a.'I-, rclative aorist, 1'16, future (F);T6..• conjunctive (especially Theban, but also else­where; also 'R"T6'1-); e"I.\- future, oy.a.- future base,Hlf(T)- conditional (all Theban); verb lexerne sporad·ically unreduced before the direct nominal objecl;verb·lexcme morphology-(Theban)~, MOyHC,

Tt.oo .Tllmpllslehre fwd syntax. A future·eventual usc of

1IIl.... ; a final·"subjunelive" use of the conjunctivc(e.g., Mtll1yrdoms 1.8.1, Ryl. 290, 321, also Theb.,Kahle, 1954, pp. 1601f.), also in a "thatH·form role,as direct object (Martyrdoms 1.5.9), even with pastlenses; future final·consecutive use of T.a.r6'lcwTR"

(Ryl. 316, Murtyrdoms 1.5.29, Epiph. 162.26);qll.tn'lf· (also final) and Xtlk.a..a.C acquire lhe value ofconlent-elauscs (d. l"m). The second tense is used asa "that" fonn outside the c1efl sentence (SKU 335 .a.

IlClMCOfi T.utOl" lfTMilJ1"'I, "Our bralher hall told methai you found him." The circumstantial occurs ad­nominally, atlriootive to a definite nucleus (Kropp D20 IItk)6 R".a.OTO(; (ire; ttG'fTll't nOf'qi ClIO.\, "The gnoateagle WOO5e wings are spread"); the drcumstaruialas glo~ in II cleft sentence (Kropp 0 TOK IMl SKt t'R"

IWtOT, "It is you who pour"); the possessive 61W.

Il6 (e.g., Ryl. 325, 341), also nu.oo a.~ an augens of thepossessive article I1Cl't- (KRU 36 Tlbl'THQC~ R"HIN

R"HON). Note SlIch Bohairic·like features as oy.a.

lfT.a.... (Martyrdoms 1.58.1, a generic relativc, an in·delinile IffiH'U"·), 'h.a._TR" (relative/Sl-'Cond per·feel) used all a temporal clause, HIH Jr.'I· (Manyrdoms1.3.7); also 'R"CJ". lfTo'I (ibid. 1.34.3).

2.4 Sahldlc Alloyed wllh Other Dialects (cf.Crurn's S' and 5'). This is, in view of the reservationsand obser'Vlltions made above, to be understood asan ad hoc te,ct·specilic de.<;crip!ive appellation (1010·ucr) T'.ltner than a clear, definable dialectologicalphonornenon. The qualit)' and degree of cornponcmadmixture val)' considerably from one case to anoth·er, lind it is doubtful whether dialeclOlogically mean­ingful classification and gradation are at all feasible.For instance, the Fayyumicisms pcc::uliar to many Smanuscripts in the Morgan collection are neitherpredictable nor uniformly distributed. In "Pseudo­ShenUle," M 604 (Kuhn, 19(0), the F elemenl con­sistli. of sporadic grammatical characteristics -trrtiH',

negative conditional .a.p6COT6f+, .second singular femi·nine possessive article ner-, and lexical'phonological

200 SAHIDIC

Fayyumicisms: CWOT, OyN, what (interl'ogntive). Inthe unpublished parallel source, B. LOr. 12689, thevocalism and generally the phonological shape ofwords is drastically affected.

3. Bibliographical Infonnatlon

3.1 Major, Comprehensive. or Authorltallve BI­ble Editions. Old Testnment: de Lagarde. 1883 (Wis'dom of Solomon. Ecclesiasticus); Gasca. 1885-1904(Old Testament fragments, a basic edition); Maspero,1892-1897 (<I complementary edition of Old Testn·ment fragments); Iludge, 1898 and 1912 (Psalms,Deuteronomy, Jonah); Rahll's, 1901 (Psalms);Thompson, 1908 (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Songof Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus)and 1911 (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith, Esther);Worrell, 1931 (Proverbs); Shiel", 1942 (Ruth,Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, fragments of Genesis,Jeremiah, Bamch); Kas.~er, 1961, 1962, 1964, and1965 (the Bodmer manuscripts: Exodus, Deuter­onomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, L...'lmentations, Epistle ofJeremiah, Baruch). New Testalllent: Horner, 1911­1924 (authoritative critical edition of the New Testa­ment); Balestri in Ciasca and Balestri, 1885-1904,Vol. 3 (Borgia New Testmnent frngment~); Budge,1912 (Acts, Revelation); Thompson, 1932 (ACts, p:lUl­illc Epistles); Kassel', 1962 (Matthew, Romans);Quecke, 1972, 1977, and 1984 (Mark, Luke, John).

3.2 Grammars and Grammatical Monographs.Stern, 1880 (best grammor yet); Steindorlf, 1894,1904 (reprint 1930), and 1921; Till, 1961 (still themost commonly used, for its convenience mtherthan for descriptive mel;t); Plumley, 1948, andWalters, 1972, are rather sketchy. Dialect eompal'll·tive gmmmars: Stern 1880; Till, 1961; Chaine, 1933(very detailed); Steindorff, 1951; Vergote, I973b,Vol. la. Special studies: Ennan, 1897; Levy, 1909;Wilson, 1970; Kickasola, 1975.

3.3 DlctlOOltrles. There is no special Sahidic lexi,can, but the Sahidie eumponent of Crum's Die/io­'lUI)' (also Spiegelherg and Westendorlf's Handwijr­Il!rbllch) is certainly adequate. Wilmet's invaluableConcordance (1957 -1959) covers the Suhidte NewTestament. Many text editions include special glossa·nes.

BIBUOGRAPHY

Balestri, G. Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragtlumlil Cop/a.Sahidiea MW'ei Borgiani. Vol. 3, NovlImTeslumenlwn. Rome, 1904. Sec also Ciasca, A.

Budge, E. A. W. The EarlieSI Known Coplic P~'ld/er.

London, 1898.---::-. Coptic BibUt·u/ Texis in Ihe Dia/eel of Upper

Egyp/. London, 1912.Chaine, M. Elemems de grammaire diulec/ale caple.

Paris, 1933.Chassinat, E. Un Papyrus medical caple. Cairo, 1921.Gasca, A. Sln'rorum Bibliorum Fragmen/a Cop/&­

suhidiea Musei Borgiani lussu d SumplihllS S.COllgrl'gatiollis de Propa!:lnu!u Fide S/udio.Edila. Vols. I and 2. Rome, 1885 and 1889. And[without author or cd.): 5S. BibliorwlI Fragml'll/aCopla-Sahitllt·u Musci Borgimri. Vol. 1-2. Tabulae.Rome, (1904]. Sec also Balestri, G.

Crum, W. E. "The language of the Texts.. ' In TheMOIla.~lery o{ El)iphunius UI Thebes, Part 1. The M·ellI/eological Ma/crial by H. E. Wbr/ock, The U/craryMil/erilli by W. E. Crlllll, pp. 232-56. New York,1926.

--C' A Coptic Viel/mlllry. Oxfurd, 1939.Drescher, J. Three CuP/I<; Lege'lds. Cairo, 1947.Erm,lll, A. Bruchsliicke kopliseher VolkslileYli/lir. Ber-

lin, 1897.___. "Unterschiede '!:wischen den koptischen Dia­

Ickten bei der' WOI1verbindung." S;lvmg.~l!erich/l:

der PrellSsisc!lIm Akadclllie dcr Wissc'rsehafli'll 1(1915):161-72.

[Horner', G. W.] The Cup/ie; Vcrsiv,r vf lire New Tes/a­men/ in the SoU/hem Dia/eel, Glhenvise CalledSahidie and Thebaic. Oxford, 1911-1924.

Junker, H. Koplisehe Poesie des 10. Jahrhlllrderis.Berlin, 1908.

Kahle, P. E. BIlla'hah: Coplie TexlI frolll Deir el·Ba/a'iwh ill U'lpcr Egypl. Oxford and London,1954.

Kasser', R. Papyms Buchner VI: livrc des Proverbes.cseo 194-195. Louwin, 1960.

_-;:-_. Papyrus Bodmer XVI: Exode I-XV,21 ell suM­dique. Cologny!Geneva, 1961.

_-,.,' Popynls Bodmer XVIIJ, Veul/!.ronumc l-X,7 e/1

sahidique. Cologny/Geneva, 1962._:-. Pupyms Budmer XXl1e/ Mi.Hissippi Coplie Co·

dex 11: Uri!mic XL,3-Ul,34, l..tlmen/a/IOIlS, £pilre deJi!rcmie, Bameh 1,I-V,5, C/1 si/hidique. Co[ogny!Geneva, 1964.

_-,.,. Papyrus Bodmer XXJJJ: Esal"e XLVI1-LXVf, ensllhidique. Cologny/Geneva, 1965.

__ . "Prolegomenes a un essai de classificationsyst~matique des dialectcs cl subdialectes wptesselon les erltt:res de la phonctique. I, Principes ettenninologie." Museon 93 (1980a):53-112. "... ,II, Alphabets et systcmcs phonetiques." Museoll 93(1980b):237-97. "... , Ill, Systernes or1hoglllphi.ques et categol'ies diakctaks." Muse-on 94(1981):91~152.

Kickasola, J. N. Sahidle Coplic (fl.) ... .ioN NegationPal/ems: A Morpho.syll/oelie Descriplion of Sell/lillt·­

es aud Ad;mleIS. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1975.

Krupp, A. M. Allsgjlwilhite kop/isehjl Zaumiflexljl.Brussel5, 1930-193 I.

Kuhn. K. H. "s/!Ullo.S/u!Ilollte OIl Christiou Beholliol/f.CSCO 206-207. Loullain, 1960.

Lagarde, P, A, de. Ajlgypliaca. Wtlingen. 1883.Layton, B. "The Text and Onhogr.lphy of the Coptic

1'lyposl:lSis of the Archons." aluellrifl /iir Papyro­logie I/Ild Epigroplllk 11 (1973):173-200.

"The Hypostasis of Ihe Archons 01' the Reali·ty of the Rulers: A Gnostic SIOry of Ihe Creation,Fall, and Ultimate SaIV'oltiun of Man, and the Ori·gin :md Reality of His Enemil'S. Newly EditL-dfrom the Cairo Manuscript with a Preface, En·glish TrallSlation, Notes, and Indexes." 1/o/'VQrdTheological Review 67 (1974);352-425; 69(1976):31-101. P-olrtieularly "Preface," 67(1914):351-94.

Lclort, \... T. "xmu,c dans Ie NT sahidique." Musion61 (1948):65-73.

Levy, A. Die S)"I/iU du koptiscllell Apophtllt:gmataPa/mm Aeg)'p/iorlllll. Berlin, 1909.

Maspcro, G. fraKmelfls de 10 .oersioll Iho!/H:lill/~ dl!rAlleiert Tes/omelll. M~lIIoires de I'lnslitut franllaisd'Arch&l]ogie orienlale 6. Cairo, 1892-1897,

Mink, C, "Allgemeine SproehwisscnKhafl undKoptologie," In Tlll~ FWllre of Cop/ie Sludies, ed.R. MeL. Wilson, pp. 71-IOJ. Leiden, 1978.

Nagd, P, "Dcr frilhkoptische Oialekt von nlehen:'in KOplologisdle S/Ildiell I" der DDR, pp. 30-49.WisseflSehoflliehe uiUehrift der Mortill·Ll/lher·Ul1i"usifiJt Uolle·Wilfenberg, Sonderhe£t. Halle­Willcnbcrg, 1965,

..C.....mmatische Untcl1iuehungcn w Nag H.Codclt II." In Die Araher III der a/1m Weft, cd. F.Ahhehn and R. Sliehl, Vol. 5, Naehlriigc, Doschris/liche Aksu"" Ikrlin, 1%9.

Peyron, V, A, Grllllllllil/icII Lill/Plat! Cop/ae, Turin,1841.

Plumley, J. M. All fmrodllelory Coptic Grammar(SahMlc IJiuleet). London, 1948.

Pololsky, H. J. "Zur koptischen l...allilchl'c II." lei/·sellrif/ fllr iigyplisehc Spruclw IIml AI/tiflwnslwllde69 (1933):125-29. Repl'. in Collected Papers, pp.358-62. Jcr'Usalem, 1911.

--C' E/udcs de ~'YII/llxe eople. Cairo, 1934. Repr', inCollce/cd Papers, pp. 102-207. Jerusalem; 1971.

___. "Modes gl'cc~ en caple?" In Coptic Sit/dies i/1/fOllor of W. B, Cmlll, pp. 13-90. Bo.~ton, 1950.Repr. in Colle(;/ed PI/PUS, pp. 208-225. Jerusalem,1971.

-'-'C,' Review of W, C. Till, Koptisehe Crt/mlllatik(soi'di.~cher OIolekt). Orielltalis/ische Litera/14neitllllg52 (19570):219-34. Repr, in Collected Papers, pp.226-33, Jenlsalem, 1971.

--::-:c "Zu den koptischen litel'3rischen TCJtten ausBalai71\h." Orijlll/alia 26 (1951b):347-49. Repr. inColleeled Popers, pp. 389-91. Jerosalem, 1971.

___, "The Coptic Conjugation System." Orim/olia

SAHIDIC 201

29 (1960):392-422. Repr. in Collected Papers, pp.238-68. JCl'usollelll, 1971.

"Numinal5:llz und Cleft $entence imKoptischen." OriclI/alla 31 (1962):413-30. RL'Pr. inCoIleelCd Popers, pp. 418-35. Jcrusalem, 1911.

"Coptic." In Current Trends ill !..i./guislies,Vol. 6, South West Asia mId North A/ri"a, cd. T, A.SCbt.'Ok, pp. 558-70. The Hague, 1970.

Ouc<:ke, H. Ulltcrsuehungert Zlfm kop/iscl/ell SllIlIdetl­gebet. Louvain. 1970,

___. Das Ma,*If~V(mgelilllll $iJidiseh~ Texl de"lIandschrif/ PPo/all Rib. Itlll.·Nr. 182 mit detl Vori·OllIe" der Handsehrifl AI 569. Barcelona, 1972,

___ DIU l.llkosevaPlgelillm saidisch: TUI der Hand.schrif/ PPaloll Rib. 1I111.-Nr, 181 mit dell Variallttnder J1atldschrift M 569. Barcelona, 1977.

DIU JoIlalll1eSe"angdil411l $iJitlisch; Text derHOl1t1schrift PPo/a" Rib. Illv"Nr, 183 mil den Vari·an/C1 der Hal1dschrif/C1 813 11l1d 814 der CheslerBea/ty Library ulld der Halltlschrifl M 569. Romeand Barcelona, 1984.

Rahll's, A. Die Berliller lJalldschrift des sohidischtl1I'sa/lers. Berlin, 1901.

sat7.ing~r, Ii. "Phonologic des kopti.'o;chen Verbs(sa'idischcr Dialekl)." In Fes/schrifl £. l'def, 11Miin 1979, pp. 343-68. Bamberg, 1979,

Schenke, H.·M. Review of Joseph Vergotc, Gram­maire cople. Oriel1laUstisehe U/trawruitllng 16(1981):345-51.

Shier, L. A. "Old Testament Texto; on Velh.lln:' InWilliam H, Worrell, Coptic TexIs ill Ihe Vlliversilyof Mlchigoll Collectioll, pp. 23-167. Ann Arbor,Mich., 1942.

Stegemann, V. Die koptischclI Zallher/l~xle dtlrSOlllmlllllg Erzhet?Og Raitler ill Wiel1. Heidelberg.1934.

Stcindorif, G. Koptisclle Grllmmallk. Berlin, 1894,--::-. Kop/isclle CrammQ/ik. Berlin, 1904. Repl·.

Berlin, 1930,--::- ' Kllrzer Abri.~s dcr koptischell Grammatik. Ber·

lin, 1921._= .Lellrblwh der kopliselle" Gralllma/ik. Chicago,1951.

Stern, L. KopllscJw Grallllllalik. Leipzig, 1880.ThOlllpson, ~I. 'J111~ Cop/it: (Sahidie) Versioll of Cerloill

Books of the Old Testumem frolll a Papyms ill theOri/ish Museum, London, 1908.

__, A Coptic Palimpsest CO>l/abli>li; Joshua, Judg.es, Rlllh, JI/dilll mId ESlher l>l Ihe SallMie Viall!e/.Oxford, 1911.

_--" Ti,e Coptic Versioll of the Ae/s of the Apostlesallli the Palllille Epistles ill the $ahidie Dialee/.Cambridge, 1932.

Till, W. C. Kop/Ische lIeiligell' WId Mortyrer/egetldell.Rome, 1935-1936,

_--" Koplisehe Grommotik (soi'discher Dio/ekl', mitBibliogrophic, uses/ilekel1lmd Wf'rterven,eiehnissell.Leip7Jg, 1955.

202 SHENUTEAN IDIOM

Koplische Diafek/graltlltlatik, mit uses/llcktmlind Wtirterbllch. 2nd ed. Munich, 1961.

VergOle, J. "lc diale<:tc copte P (Po Bodmer VI:Proverbes), essai d'idcntificalion." Reviled'egyplOJvgie 25 {1973a):50-57.

Crammaire cop/e, Vol. la, Introduction,phonbiqll~ ~t phonologie, morphologie s)'mhema­tiqu~ (stnlcmre des siml:lllfDllesJ, pllr1ie S)'tIchroni.que, Vol. Ib, In/roduction, phOlle/iqlfe e/ phom:rlogie, morphologie S)'II/hema/iqlle (slmc/uTe dessema"/t:mes), partie diachroniqlle. Louv.lin, 1973b.

Walters, C. C. All Elemenlary CoP/it: Grammar of Il,eSohidic IJiaJec/. Oxford, 1972.

Wilmet, M. COrlcordl:ltlcll du Nouveau TeSlamell/ saM­dique, II, Les MolS tUilochtholles. CSCO 173, 183,185. Louvain, 1957-1959.

Wilson, M. R, Coptic Fllltlre Ttmses: SYIltacfica/ Swd·ie~' ill Suhidic. The Hague, 1970.

Worrell, W. H. The Proverbs of S%man in S(/MdicCoptic According tt) Ihe Chicago Manllscrip/. Chica­go, 1931.

Coptic 5oU114£, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1934.

ARIEL SHISHA·HAlEVY

SHENUTEAN IDIOM. "shenutcan Copdc" isthe term applied to the idiom, including the gram­matical norm and stylistic·phrast.'Ological usage, 0b­servable in the corpus of writing by the archiman­drill" Apa Shenute (3J4-451), outstanding amongCoplic literary sources in that it constitutes the sin·gle most extensive homol;enous and authentic testodi lingua for $ahidic and Coptic in general. Thl..corpus provides the linguist with a precious oppor­tunity to achieve a consistent and complete descrip­tion of a grammatical 1iystem. The other eltensivecorpus, that of the Scrip'ures, although somewhatearlier and so enjoying the prestige of a "das...ical"bal de langue, hIlS the disadvantage of being tr,l.nslat·ed from the Greek; its native Coptic constituent ell'"men. can be properly determined only after a com­plete strueturnl description of the gr,lmmaticalsystem of its Vorlage, preci.w knowledge of the quali.ty and degree of its dependence upon this Vorlage,and diacritical-contrastive application of an indepen­dent, llntranslated grnmmatical system such as ttultabstractable from Shenute's works. The desirabilityof such a grammar makes an early analysis of thiscorpus of paramount importance.

Compilation or the Corpus

Although only slightly more than half of all knownor sunniscd Shcnllte sources have been edited to

dille (1982), there Is no great diRiculty about compil.ing most of the elttant corpus: the task of i1iOiatingunatlributed Shenute fragments from the host ofhomiletic and rhctoric-cpistolary ones is largelytechnical. Linguistic (grammatical and stylistic­phnlSCOlogical) data eltractable from the unambigu·ously Shenutcan sourccs in the tlll'ee major editions(Amelincall, 1907-1914; Leipoldt and Crum, 1908­1913: Chassinat. 1911) and the many minor oncs­mostly in catalogic collections (by Crum, Munier.Pleyte-Boeser, Rossi, Wes."Cly, and Zocga) ilnd occa­sionally in spt.'Cial publications (e.g., by Guelin,Lefort. Teza, Young, and the pl'l"$ent writer), as wellas unpuhlished sources-serve :IS probes for locat·ing other sources. Identification on the ba.~is of sty­listic impl'ession alone, although ce11ainly unavoiull·ble a.~ a practical guide, is nOt always adequate,especially when the style is untypically pedestrianl'ather than in the usual powerful, involved vein. Themain unedited collections of Sinuthiana are those inParis and Vienna repositories and in Blitish libraries(Oxford, Cambridge, and Manehcster).

Linguistic Characterization

Shenute's dialect is what is convcntionally con­ceived of as hi&h.~andard Ulera!)' Sahidic, albeitwith distinct Akhmimoid traces (Shisha-Halevy,197601.), which arc probably duc to his nati~ Akmi·mic background and consisl mainly of {morpho}phonologic, morphologic, idiomatic, and lexical fca­tures, with mon: elisivc synt~ctic affinities. (Present­day knowledge of Akhmimic syntax Is notoriouslyinadcqUOlte, because or insuffieient evidence.) Someof Ihe morc striking phenomena in Shenutc's grom­matical usage arc the idiosyncr,l.,ic usc or the con­junctive and of object constructions and the favoringof one of the "mediaton;" or lexeme premodifiers (T:eoY6-, T 1lK6-, ajrn (li).). Note twO (or severol) dis·tinctive nomlnahcntcncc patterns, nall1ely # 0 -neI/" (e.g., Leipoldt, 1908-1913, IV, 23.22, RK),2li~HT

no ClllTR" 61l6'kv~6; All1elincau 1907-1914, I, 228,III),Q<I ne )(00'(. 11I111(1 11(1 can'R" 6fOOY) and ahyperbatie construction with a demonstrative sub­ject (Chassinal, 1911, lSO.3fT., R"~ N6 N.J.rR'n,YCIII),l1, "These are 'the cords which broke"');X6, used adnominally (ibid., I 25.38ff.. PHlf 661kT\(;,

RI'flf 66z4WlIC lf2tK R".u-Jo9C," X6 Mlf".,ooI1 M),C ),M,

'ihere is no raith, there is no hope of goodness thatdoes nOi belong to it").

As regards the use of the second tenses, one findsnumerous distinctive figures and constellations vari­ously combining topicalillltions and foci. Striking Isthe clert sentence with the circumstanlial topic