Aziz S.

Atiya
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Volume 8
Macmillan Publishing Company
NEW 'lOR/(
Collier Macmillan Canada
TORONTO
.Maxwell Macmillan International
NEW 'IORK OXFORD SINGAPORE SYDNEY
h"
I/lr
112
,'"
Iltr.
, 10
. e/.
la,.
WI!.
,que
lill/!.
s le
:/I!IC
es."
jn,"
)
" ,.
,du
,e et
chi
lI.e."
35-
1m!-

,,,
l.:1111-
'"
lillie
R&ch, F. 8mchslilcke des ernell CJelll/!l1shrie/c.f ll(Jch
de", achmimischCIl PtJpyrus der Strassburger Un;-
vtwtiil$. ulld umdesbibliOlllek, mil bib/ischen
Tuttll lIalll/sellri/l. Stra.<.bourg, 1910.
Saltingcr, H. "Phonologie des koplischcn Verbs
Dialckl):' Fe$lschrifl Elmo, &lei. ed. A.
Wuckelt and K.-J. Seyfried. pp. 343-68. o..nlbcrg.
1979.
Schmidt, C. Ac/a Pal/Ii aIlS der Heidelberger koplj.
schen Pupymslumdscllri/l Nr. f. Leipzig. 1904.
__ Dt!r erste Cfemenshriel it! /llIIwpliscl,cr Vber-
$C1vmg. Textc und Untersuchungen 32. Lcip:r.ig.
1908.
-;:-. "Ein ncues Fragment del" Heidelberger Acta
Pauli." In der /Ju/i,/Cr Aklldemie
der W/ssellsdw/len, PhiluwplJisc!lf1iSlorisdw
Kla,"lc, pp. 216-220. Berlin, 1909.
_. Gesprilche fe.m mil .lduclI fiillgcm Huch der
Auferslelilmg. Tcxte llnd Untersuchungen 43. Leip
zig, 1919.
Shisha.Halcvy, A. "Protalic C1'tco>TR. u Hilhel10 Un-
noticed Coptic Trip'lI1lte ConjugationFonn and
Its Diachronic Connections." Orlen/alia 43 (1974):
369-81.
"Akhmimoid in Shenoule's Idio-
lKL" 89 (1976):157-80.
SinlOn. J. "Note sur Ie des textcs ill
mlmiqucs." Ci"qlluute"uirfl de J'&oIe bib/ique el
lIfChiologiqlle de Jin15afem. MemQrial (Marie
stph) lAgrange, pp. 197-201. Paris. 1940.
Steindorff. G. Die ApokalypK des Elias, eine llllbe-
kamr/e Apolwlypst lwd 8l'l1chstllc der
ApoblJpst. Tcxle und Untersuchungen 17. leip-
zig. 1899.
Thompson. H. 11rc Gospel of St. 101m According 10 the
Earliest Cop/ie Marti/script. London, 1924.
Till, W. C. "Die SteHung des Achmlmischen." Aegyp-
tlU 8 (l927a):249-57.
_. Die acJtmimische Vcrsioll der Heinen
ProphCtCH (Codex RaineriamlS, WiclI). Coptica 4.
Copenhagen, 1927b.
__. Adll11imisdl-kop/ische Grmmllfl/ik. Leipzig,
1928.
Os/erbrief ,/lid PredlCr 11/1 uchmimisclwll
DIlIlek/. Leipzig, 1931.
_. "Coptic mblit::ll Tcxts Published Mler
Va\Chalde's List." Blllle/itr of the folm Ryllllrds Li
brary 42 (1959-1960):220-40.
Vaschalc1e, A. A. "Ce qui a ete public des versions
coptes de la Bible, quahieme groupe, lexles
akhmimiqucs.' Museo" 46 (1933):306-313.
VcrgOlc, J. Grammaire cop/c. Vol. la, /lIIrodl/c/iQIl.
phOlli:tique ct pho/lofogie. morplrologie syti/helllu
tiqlle (stl'llcturc dcs JH2rtie synehro-
nique. Louvain, 1973. Vol. lb./mrodllclioJl, phone.
/iquf! d plronologie. "'QrpllOIogie
(struc/lire df!5 partie diuehro.tiqlte.
ALEPH 27
Louvain. 1'173. Vol. 2a, Morphologic S)'II/oglllotiquc,
syllloxe, partie S)'nchro"iqlle. Louvain. 1983. Vo\.
2b, Morphologic s)'lIfagmoliqllt', partie diachro"ique.
I...oll\'nin. 1983.
WClI;lcndorf. W. Kop/ischts lIulld...fjrttrouch.lX:llrbf!itet
auf Gnmd des Koprischell Halld...(jrterollchs VOII
Wi/)rdm Spiegelberg. Heidelberg, 1977.
Won-ell, W. H. Coptic SOImds. Ann Arbor, Mich.
1934.
PIlTER NAGEl..
ALEPH. NOI onl)' in Coptic but in olher languages
also. aleph (- rJ) is a consonant or a \'el)' sJX.'(:ia[
kind: it is cCl1ainly a laryngt:al occlusive, bUl is il
ret,ll)' unvoiced? For some, it clearly Is (e.g.,
Vergote, 1973, Vol. la, pp. 12-13), whik others hesi
late to plnt:c il eilht:r tlmong the unvoiced 01' among
the voiced sounds, 01' resign themselves to pUlling il
betwecn the two (e.g., Dicth, 1950, I'. 98;
Dubois et al.. 1973. p. 25; Kassel'. 1981a). It is besl
thought of as a stop followed by an abrupt cmission
or sound, a stop sept'lraling two adjacent
\'Owcls, for instance al the beginning of a sylltlble
afler a hiatus (e.g. in "rccnlcr" or in French "13
maine" [la cn]). or as a "glollal stop" replacing a
consonant hurried over in pronunciation (e.g.,
"....oncr" ror "water"; d. thc Arabic hanlZS).
In Coptic. so rar as it is really preserved, it is in
every case a CRYI"TOPIIOSEME (that is, a phonemc not
rendered by any writtcn 1t.-lIer of its own). and it is
no doubt for this reason that its eXislcnce in Ihis
language has long becn ignored or disputed; even
today it is not universally accepted. For this reason.
it occupies a very special place in the Coptic phono-
logical inventory.
II is true thal pharaonic Egyptian, down to ils last
full manifestation prior 10 Coptic (i.e. demotic). p0s-
sessed both thc phoneme aleph - J and the CUlTe
sranding gmphcmc (lhe "Egypti:lIl vullure" of Gar'-
dineI', 1957, p. 27, tl hieroglyph Ilmt, among other
hecurnc :L.> in demotic; cf. du Buurguct,
1976, pp. 3,75). Now this J was, on the onc hand,
almost evcl'ywhen: muled and disappeared (d.
Vergole, 1945, pp. 80-98, and 1973, Vol. lb. Ilfl.
28-33; and 'AY1N); but, on the other hand. the aleph
docs indeed st:em 10 have reappean:d in Coptic as a
phoneme rl and as a prodUCI or the transfOlmalion
of various other cotlSOnants. 11 is appropriatc in this
connection 10 examine above all what can be ob
served in P. Bodmcr VI. the sole witness to DtAUlCT P
(which In ilS orthography and phonology orten looks
like what can be known about a primith'e proto-

,
28 ALEPH
Suhidic. ppS. that became a more evolved pr'Oto-
Sahidic. 'pS, a reconstructed pTotoSahidic, howev-
er, nol situated in its regiun of origin but probably
immigmlll into Ihe Thehan region. whet't' it was suo
pClimposed on II and probably also on some variety
of L; d. Vcrgotc, 1973b, and Kassel', 1982). One can
lher'e see the scribe rendering what seems indeed to
he 1'1 by a quite particular grapheme J., but only
sponulically, for in lhe same or similar cases he also,
through confusion, uses - (normally equivalent to
I?(); or again, as in S properly so called, he practic-
es graphic vocalic gemination; or finally he omics
any graphic proceeding thaI might rcmlcr /'1 amI
presentS an orthogronphy without vocalic gemination,
in the manner of M, for example (where it is admil-
ted that the phonological system has lost its primi-
tive /'1>. Here al"e these unique vestiges of .L
(Kassel", 19R1c, p. 35): ::&.Jo..L.;, (to put) one case, hut
one case; <9Jo..L"'I" (deficient) one case, but
lijJo.Jo.T' two cases, lijJo.T
'
one (being) two
ca"l:S, hut one case; .xO.L';' (to say) three cases,
but .xoo" one case, .xu" one case; also ::&.lJlJ.Lc
(bone) one case, but ::&.66C four cases. However,
apart from these rcla1ively weak and evanescent reo
mains of an ancient usage (and those still more rare,
vaguely similar. but, despite that, very uncertain,
which one may eventually think to discover in ml"e
Old Coptic texts; Kasser, 1980, pp. 258-59), one no
longer lIny specific grapheme for /'1 in the
other Coptic OIAL.ECf"S and 1'Il.OTOlltAI.I'.crs fit present
known.
One noticcs, however, in some of them-espcl:ial-
ly in A, pI.. (= i), lA, LS, 1-6. V5, F5, S, but not in M,
W, V4, F4, n, B and its subdialcets, G-a graphic
vocalic gcminlltion (succession of two identical vow-
el graphemes: cr. GEMINATION. VOCAUC), of which the
first clement is, in phonology, an authentic tonic
vowel, but Ihe second seems manifestly to render a
consonantal phoneme, to define, and itself replace, a
vanished eonson:lIlt such as i, " r, 01" I.
ntis substitute phoneme is consonantal for two
difficult to contest. Firsl, in A, every final
sonant pluced lIfter a consonant becomes a r'ising
voiced consonantal phoneme: thus S oyJo.Jo.s' (holy)
= A oyJo.Jo.Sfl', just as S C11lTfl" (to hear) - A C11lTHfl,
which pl'Oves that in oyJo..u' or the second
vowel grapheme Jo. phonologically renders a conso-
nant, not a vowel. On the other hand, it is known
that if the pronominal suffix of the first-person singu-
lar is :Ilways .;, I after:1 single vowel. it is always'" T
alier a consonallt and, likewise, after a succession of
two identical vowel graphelllcs, of which the first
and tonic element is, in phonology, manifestly a
vowel, but the second clement, although a vowel
grapheme, is nevertheless phonologically clearly a
cunsonant; thus, for example, S KJo.lt.';' T, to leave me,
like (ijOlI" T, to receive me, and not like I, to
reach me. It is true that one linds likewise "T and
not .;" in similar cases in {he dialects that do not
have graphic vocalic gemination and for that reason
arc considered :IS Iraving lost even this substitute /'I
(e.g.. B Xlt.';' T, to leave me, I Tm. 1:12; M KG "'T, ML
27:46); but this shows only that these dialects also
possessed this substitute consonant in an earlier
stage of the language and th'llthey subsequently lost
it, this phenomenon hnving come about hefore the
time at which their orthographic system was fixed.
In a general way, it is admitted (Vergote, 1945,
p. 71, etc.) that this subslitute phoneme is 1'/ e1early
and in all cases, and not now 1'1, now 1'/, as Till
(1955, p. 4b) expre.... it, not without l"t.'Servations
and ambiguity: "'Aleph and 'Ayin arc still present in
Coptic, although no separate letters exisl for them.
Both may have been pronounced alike (probably').
even though' in sUllie drcumstances exercises a
different effect on the neighbouring vowel than 3."
Cet1ainly, /'I is a voiced frietltive, liS are the glides
Iii and Iwl, and like them, in Till's hypothesis, this
fricative, although a consonant in phonology, would
have been rendered by tl vowel gr,lpheme, while /'I,
on the contrary, is an occlusive considered al' un-
voiced (according to Vergole, 1973, Vul. la, pp. 12-
13) and even as belonging to the of the
most unvoiced phonemes; fTOm point of view 1'1
rather than 1'1 would appear to be the more capable
of playing the r'ole of substilute consonant. (Stem
also may have thought this; sec Stem, 1880, pp.
29-30, 54-55.)
In spile of that, it is for various proper 10
sct this solution. First, 'ayin seems to have
dis'Ippearcd from Uite Egyptian before the forma
tion of literalY Coptic and even PRE-COPTIC (Vergote,
1945, pp. 122-23, and 1973, Vol. lb, pp. 31-32: after
the sixth century A.D.). Second, as a consonant re
placing i, " r, or I (or even i or 11'; see below), it is
manifestly 1'/ rather than 1'/ tb:1\ is the betlel" suited
to assume this manifold function: for example, bin
,
becomes in Coptic fha'nl SWQlfl, bad; '!r becomes
(with mcttlthcsis) jkO'f;Jj KQ)Q)'l(j (01" KaxtlS6), to con
dr.i./. becomes Ito'ifl his hand ref.
ibid., p. 35; "TIIC lendency which contributed, in
numerous words, to change proto-Semitic r and I
into Egyptian 3 ... continued to exercise 11 certain
innuence during the historical period"); Imllral be-
comes mll'ra, then Ime'wl HGflrfl, midday; sU, to
soil, qualitative sayfu becollles sa'fll and then Iso'fl
}wel
'"
mo.
I, to
,"d
"'"

e/'l
, Mt,
"w
.rIic...
,...
""
94'.
:arty
Till
:ioll$
in

Iy '),

I J."
Jides
this

, rl.
un-
12-
:- the
wI'!
>able
item
",.
cr to
have

,gote,
after
It l'e-
it is
uited
" birr
ornes
con
f {d.
d, in
md I

It be
if, to
Ir):,'fl
<:00'1', soiled; and w4giwlI/ hecomes wliK"'at, then
Wdwgll, then wlI'ga, and finally jaw,
chcck (Vergote, 1973, Vol. lb, pp. 36-37). In Dielh
(1950, pp. 99-100) some similar modem examples
"'ill be found in .....hich ['] replaces even ocdusives
other than /II. The linal and probably decisive argu-
ment is that the grapheme .1. in P, which seems to
render fl, resemblt'5 lhe demotic 1..> = 3 in a ruther
striking manner (with eventual innuence from J. '"
ij, much more in any case tholn it doc'S the (or,,"),
), :L, "", -,) - demQtic "
The graphic vocalic geminalion allcsting f I in
Coplic only within a word-lhal is, eithe...
within a final syllable where this fI is by
another (:onsonant (d. &aMlH above) Of' at the end of
a penultimatc syllable where this f! is followed hy
another cOl\SOnant beginning the final syllable (ef.
II:--e above). It is true thai some ancient S manu-
scripts present spellings such as to..'. Inn'/ (and nOl
ro./narll, pity) 0 ... H6f1 Im!'1 (and nOl H6 Imerl/,
truth) and so on (d. Polotsky, 1957a, p. 231, and
1957b. pp. 348-49); bot this is always before the
copula 116 (masc.), T<ll (fern.), or It6 (pl.) in such a
way that one may suppose thai the (atonic) copula
was feh as fonning pan of the "word" that it imme-
diately follows and lhat bealli the tonic accent on
the \"Owcl of its last syllable. a vowel lhal is nonnally
and gr.lphically the last letter of the "word"; it is
thus entirely legitimate to put, for example. oyHG6
Til lume'la/, that is tl'\.lC, in parallel wilh O.....,.,T6
IwO't;)/, to sep:U'llle. Vergote (l973. Vol. la. p, 12)
further that A and L "present an rI at the
cnd of CCl1ain monosyllabic whcre it is
mal'ked by the hiatus II-e: &l.lJ palm.tree; Nl.6 to
have pity; A 1),0 to appear (of In Brandl F it
is Irnnsfomled into /j/: B I\Jo.t, lUI, 1I1l.1 01" F roe!,
QlGt" (ef. ibid. Vol. lb. p. 31), Howevc.... even if it
may lind support in etymolugy, this phonological
interpretation of the final ICller of the A and L
lcxemes mentioned Ilbove seems likely to mise nu-
merous questions; or1hogl'llphy, it must be I'emem
bered, expresses above all not the pl'Ofound 01' semi-
profound phonological structure of the word, but its
most superficial stl'\.1cture (cr, Hint7.e, 1980, p. 49).
Thus, one might ask how there can be hi.llus if tht'Sc
lexernes are monosyllabic. Would they be monosyl-
labic in Pre-Coptic and polysyllabic, through their
hiatus, in Coptic? Another question is, why must one
in this case envisage lhe presence of a hiatus if the
final lJ - fI and nOl leI or I.J{? Arc there reasons
based on elymology, and nlUst these reasons be con-
compelling? Finally, with regard to the B
and F parallel fomlS, apparently also monosyllabic
ALEPH 29
(by analogy with other Coptic finals of identical
spelling, and whatever lhe conditions linked with
etymolol!Y), would they not make the hiatus equally
unlikely in A and L. even if the Iinal there is leI 0 ...
lal lind not ffl The solution of this delicate prob-
lem will wilhout doubt still n'quire some supplemen-
tary invcstig:llions (cf. in particular Kasse.... 1981h.
p, 37).
(See also.: Syllabication.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dieth, E. Vademeklfm der PJH:me/ik. Bern, 1950,
Dubois. J.; M. Giacomo; L Guespin; C. Marcellcsi;
J.-8. Marccllcsi; and J.-P, DictiOtrrlai...
/irrguistiqlle, Paris, 1973,
Bourguet. P, duo Grammaire forrc/ion/rdle I!t progres-
regyp/ien Louvain. 1976,
Edgcrton, W. Revit'W of W. C. Till, Koptische Grllm-
mariA: D/alekt'. ' .. Journal of NUlr East-
em 16 (1957):136-37.
Gardiner, A. EgyptiDn Grammar, Beillg atl lmrodllc-
tum to the Study of 3d ed. Oxford,
1957.
Hinl7.e. F. "Zur kopti!IChcn Phonologic." Enclwria 10
(1980):23-91.
Kasse.... R. "Prolcgomenes a un essai de c1assifica-
lion systematique des diak'Clcs et subdialectes
coptes scion les critercs de la phonctique. 11, AI
pllabels Cl systemes phonetiquC5." MllseOIl 93
(1980);237-97.
___ "Usages de la surligne dans Ie P. Bodmer VI,
notes additionnelles." BlIlIetill /0 Societe
d'egyp/ologie, Gerleve 5 (198Ia):23-32,
___. "Voyclh:lI cn fonction consonanlique. con-
sonnes cn fonclion vocalique, et classes de
phonemes e'n coptc," Bulle/in de fa Socibe
d'egyp/ologie, Geueve 5 (198Ib):33-50.
_-,-_. "Syllabation l'apide ou lcnte en copte, 11,
Alcph et 'voyelle d'aleph,''' EnchfJna 11 (198Ic):
39-58.
___. "Le Dialeete protosa"idique de TIlebes."
Ar(;hiv !Ur Pllpyms/orsc!llmg 28 (1982):67-81.
Nagel, P. "Ocr frUhkoptische DiDlekt von Theben."
in KOfllOlogische S/lidiell br dcr DVR, PI', 30-49.
WissenschDftliehe Zehschrift der MartinLulher
Unlvcrsitlil HalleWlttenberg. Sondel'hcft. Hallc-
Wittenberg, 1965,
H. J, Review of W. C. Till, KfJplische Gram-
ma/ik (sai'discher Dilllekf), ' . , OrienWfisti${;he
Li/era/urtJ:i/utlg 52 (1957:1):219-34.
___. "Zu den koptischen literurischen Textcn aus
Balaizah," Orietlwlia 26 (1957b):347-49.
Slem, L Koptische Grammll/ik. Leipzig, 1880.
Till, W. C. "Alles 'Aleph und 'Ajin illl Koptischen."
lei/Khn!/ filr die Klmde des Morglmlulldes
36 (1929):186-96,

30 ALPHABET IN COPTIC, GREEK

__, Kop/ischl! Gramllw/ik (Sai'dischcr IJiulck/), mil
Bibliugruphie, Lesesliickell wrd Wiirlerverzeidmin-en,
Lcip1.ig, 1955,
__. KaJllisehe Dial<!klgwmmalik, mil
und Wiir/erlmch. 2d cd. MUilich, 1961.
Vtrtlott, J. Phr.melique Iris/uriq/Je de l'egyplien, les
Louvain, 1945.
__. Gramlllairt' caple, Vol. I a, III/mdlic/ion, plIO'
m!liqlll! eI phOflOfogie, morphologie syllihemalique
(s/rue/ure des semmrlemes), pur/Ie synchrolliqlle,
and Vol. Ib, Inlrudlle/io,r, pho'Jetique el pllOllologie,
/Ilorplro";;gie sy,r/hemaliqlle (siruclure des
sCl/lamimll.'s), parlie diaclrrolliqllC. Louvain, 1973a,
__, "Le Dialecte copte P (P. Bodmel' VI; Pro
ver'bes), essai d'idelltificalion," ReVljl! d'cgyp/ologie
25 (\973b):50-57,
ROOO1.l'llE KASSER
ALPHABET IN COl-TIC, CREEK. The Greek
alphabet is much in evidem:c in Coptic; in fact,
among the various Coptic alphabets (cr. AU'IIABETS,
<':OI'1"t<':), all have a considerahle majority of Greek
grllphernes, ol'leticrs (d, AU'liAIJIlTS, COI'I'I(;, especial-
ly the synoptic table; K.assel, 1980b, pI. II, pp. 280-
81). This U1:tjority varies from onc di:deettll alphabet
to anoTher. III the following calculalion of lhe per
eentages, lI,I and lil, and 2 and a, have heen consid-
ered, respectively, :IS one ;lfld the stUlle gr..lphell1e,
whether or not provided with a diacritical sign: G
and F9, 100 percent; J, 92 percent; F7, FR, and 1'1, R3
percenl; S etc. (Le., S, K, K7, F4, F5, V4, V5, W, M,
4, L5, and L6, together with their subdialects if
there are any), with il7, A, i (= pL), and i7 ('" p'L),
80 percent; 8 etc. (Le., 84 and /15), 77 pel'cent; P,
71 percent
To this sTrong presence of the Greek alphabet, one
may add that Coplic gmphemes of demotic origin
arc :tssimilaled to thosc of Greek origin, such as (1,1
formed like w with a tail, .. like p reversed and opell
at the IUp, and x like A wilh two horns or 'X resting
on a long horizontnl har' underncath. This assimila-
tion and this predominance tire indeed such that a
superficial ohscrver might ver)' well take an ancient
Coptic manuscript for a conteOlpomry Grcek one,
espcl:ially if it W;lS " cupy without any superlinear
strokes (which rnay occur even in thc dialects in
which tbc usc of such strokes is habitual).
E',vcn if onc recalls thnt Coptic is the fin:11 stage uf
the Egyptian language, which docs not helong to the
same family as Greek, this indispUI(lble supremacy of
the Greek alphabet in Ihe Coptic ought nOI to Occa
sion any undue sU'l'risc. When the first vmieties of
the Coptic alphabel were created in Ihe course of
the third (?) century A.D., Egypt had been wholly
within Ihe Hellenic sphere of intluence for more
thtln half tI millennium, since the conquest of the
eounllY by Alexander the Greal in 332 U,c (Milller,
1969). This ract explains not only the presence of so
many Greek graphemes (most frequently the entire
Greek alphabet) in the Coplic alphabets bUI also the
abundance of various Greek lexemes (words) used in
Cuptic. Sume 1cxemes were used ellceptionally ur
rarely in the texts lhat have survived. because they
eonstituled a vD<.:abultuy uf specialists and were
scarcely cmployed outsidc Iheir specially; othcrs
were used more or less currently (even very CU1Tent
ly) almost everywhere in Coptic litemlun::, because
Ihcy constituted a vocabulary so completely assimi-
lated (mentally) by the mtlss of the autochthonous
Copls Ihat Ihey considered il wholly Coptic as well
(IS wholly Greek (cr. VOCMIUt.ARV, COI'l'O(;IIEEK).
Moreover, can be seen from the texts, the
Gr'Cek glttphemes of Ihc Coptic alphabet wtrt in
principle sufliciellt for transclioing into Coptic those
lellemes which callle from tht Hellenic world. Il is
only rarely that one sometimes tinds in addition, at
the of (I word or rtplacing onc of Ihe two
clements of a double p, n 2 of demotic origin which
seems 10 render normally the Greek rough breath
ing; il is also found oecasion(llly in place of tht
smooth breathing of stnndard Greek orthoglllphy,
which has been variuusly interpreted as a neUlmliz-
inti of Ihe contrast in pronunciaiion bel ween Ihc
rough and smooth breathings in the Greek of con'
temporary Egypl (Bohlig, 1958, p. 111), a "hyper
ur'banism" (VCl'gote, 1973, p. 15), and a "secondary"
or "vulgar" aspiration (Weiss, 1966, p. 204). More
over. in the L6 documents (and a group of S docu
ment., probably deriving from a region of Upper
Egypt where Vi the autochthonous dinlect; cr.
K.'"iS5er, 1980a) there is Ill, also of demotic origin,
where one would expect to find un initial 2, in
Coptu-Greek words c01Tcsponding to Greek words
beginning with 1 or fl. It is not without inlerest to
note fUl1her that several Greek gmphel11ts of tht
Coptic alphabets tIre used esclusively, or nearly so,
for the tHlilscription of Copto-Greek wor'ds (e,g" r,
A., z; cf. Vergote, 1973, p. 10), All these factor'S
combintd produce the result that in an average Cop'
lic page aboul nine gmphemes 001 or len arc of
Gl'cek origin (against une from demotic)-hence the
"Greek" appearance, br'Oadly speaking, of thtst Cop
tic copies,
The creators of these varieties uf Coptic alphabets
were by no means suictly "phonologists" in thc
modern sense of tht term, of course, like their mod