Coptic Linguistics (2016–2022)
p. 193-211
Texte intégral
Introduction
1The present overview on the achievements in the field of Coptic linguistics and grammatical philology covers a longer period of time than the usual four years due to the pandemic-caused postponement of the congress. The presentation will basically follow the school-grammarian approach to language description by being segmented into the following sections: Writing system, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Lexicon, and Pragmatics, although the latter is admittedly seldom a part of that approach. In addition, contributions will be presented in the wider areas of dialect studies of Coptic, language contact, language choice, and the steadily growing digital humanities approaches to Coptic. As some contributions will fall into several of the above-mentioned categories, and to avoid too much repetition of bibliographical details, I follow the good example of my predecessors and add a Coptic linguistic bibliography at the end that contains only the publications that appear within the given time frame. Let me begin, however, with newly published or re-published more or less complete grammars of Coptic and dialects thereof.
Grammars
2Within the reporting period, two grammars have been published which intend to cover Coptic in its entirety. On the one hand, there is the rather handy booklet of J. Allen,1 which deserves the merit of being the first overview that includes the Mesokemic dialect, even though for the simple reason that it was not yet systematically recognised at the times of earlier attempts of a complete description of Coptic. In its succinctness, it follows partly in the footsteps of W. Till’s Dialektgrammatik,2 yet not all reviewers were necessarily convinced whether it has been successful in that enterprise3. Opposite to earlier complete grammars, it has been styled as a teaching grammar including exercises and annotated reading texts. The other complete grammar of Coptic, P. Buzi’s and A. Soldati’s La lingua copta4 is the first major description of the language in Italian exceeding and replacing T. Orlandi’s Elementi di grammatica copto-saidica5 as well as I. Guidi’s Latin Elementa linguae Copticae.6 In opposition to J. Allen’s approach, it delivers a more detailed overview and is laid out as a descriptive, not a teaching grammar.
3In addition, the two major literary varieties of Coptic have received a teaching grammar each. C.H. Reintges’s introduction to the Saidic dialect has been published in a second edition.7 An introductory grammar to the Bohairic dialect has been published by the reporting author.8 Both may appear rather overwhelming in their descriptive amount compared to J. Allen’s book, but are meant as introduction both to the philologist and the linguist reader as well as serving both classroom and/or self-study learning.
4Grammatical outlines of sub-corpora are to be found also in less immediately accessible places such as J.H.F. Dijkstra & J. van der Vliet’s description of a codex from the Edfu-Esna-find with a number of regional features in its Saidic9 as well as V. Ghica’s list of pre-classic features of early Saidic texts.10 Both are admittedly not full-fledged corpus grammars, but describe mainly deviating features against a perceived literary Saidic “standard.”
Writing system
5Studies on the Coptic writing system gathered here cover topics such as handwriting studies, diacritics, etc. The grammars mentioned in the previous paragraph contain, in one way or the other, some basic descriptions as well; the most elaborate for features less commonly treated in grammars is the one by P. Buzi and A. Soldati.11
6The development of the Coptic writing system has been the subject of two different descriptions.12 In Scribal Repertoires from Old Kingdom to Early Islamic Egypt,13 various studies cover different periods of time and different issues of writing. Similarly, Signes dans les textes. Continuités et ruptures des pratiques scribales en Égypte pharaonique, gréco-romaine et byzantine14 contains detailed studies of various sorts on the topic. In addition, J.-L. Fort delivered the second part of his in-depth study on the use of diacritic signs in the Festschrift for Shisha-Halevy.15
7Finally, I would like to point the readers’ attention already here to E. Love’s studies on Old Coptic to be introduced under the (in this case) incorrect heading “dialects” below.
Phonology
8A description of the phonological system of Coptic plays naturally the basic part in J. Allen’s reconstruction of the phonology of Ancient Egyptian.16 Since both C. Peust and the present author have dwelled at length on the issues of the approach and the results, I dispense with lengthy deliberations here, and refer interested readers simply to these instead.17 Historical developments (de-palatalization) of some Ancient Egyptian consonants have been examined by C. Peust, who concluded that the environmental rule for the change must be sought in position of the phoneme and the quality of the following vowel.18
9A study on the double spelling of vowels within a specific sub-corpus (Shenute’s Canon 6 manuscripts) has been conducted by S. Miyagawa,19 while S. Dahlgren highlighted interesting contact-induced features between the phonological systems of Coptic and Greek in her dissertation and resulting paper.20
Morphology
10Morphology has gained, as always, much more attention. Several papers have dealt with issues of nominal phrases/forms of nouns21 and determiners,22 but the majority of morphology studies was devoted to verbal forms such as future forms with ⲛⲁ/ⲛ– infix,23 prospective and causative forms,24 various studies in the morphology of the conjunctive and the finalis,25 second tenses in Egyptian-Coptic and beyond,26 complex verbal patterns,27 grammatologically underrepresented forms of verbal construct states,28 the development of elements of morphology from lexical to grammatical to zero item29 or noteworthy features of documentary texts such as the determined headless virtual relative clause from Middle Egypt,30 which seldom make it into our grammars as they are principally based on literary varieties. Topics beyond nominal and verbal forms and patterns have also received some attention, including pronominal referents, adverbs or prepositions.31 Finally, some studies examined possible contact-related features or language change.32 Descriptions of all morphological categories are of course given in the grammars as well (see above).
Syntax
11The bulk of studies in Coptic linguistics within the reporting time frame has been devoted to problems of syntax; likewise, not a new development in the field under review when compared to the prior reports of this sort.
12Sentence patterns such as non-verbal predication patterns (with adverbial and nominal predicates as opposed to verbal ones) have been described in their diachronic development in monographic form.33 In addition, diachronic34 as wells as synchronic descriptions35 of nominal predication patterns have been published.
13Attempts to explain the different forms of object marking (direct object inclusion in the verbal morphology versus ⲛ–/ⲙⲙⲟ) have been made, but it seems the final word explaining the choices encountered in text is not yet at hand.36
14Two papers focused on clausal syntax: one by A. Shisha-Halevy on circumstantial37 and one by C.H. Reintges on relative clauses.38 Various clausal structures have been described from a diachronic and a synchronic perspective by the reporting author.39
15Whereas most of the above-mentioned papers are written within a rather descriptive framework, some contributions are aiming at a more linguistic audience applying methods such as “Parameter Theory”40 or generally structuralist approaches.41
16Finally, I would like to point the readers to the contributions of a younger scholar, N. Speransky, whose descriptions of Coptic grammatical issues are certainly also for the benefit of philologists as their results will improve modern textual interpretation.42
Lexicon
17Lexical studies have appeared in lesser quantity than papers in the previous section. H. Satzinger and D. Stefanović published an Egyptian root lexicon including the Coptic remnants of the roots.43 The semantic use of Greek connectors has been examined in in-depth studies44 and several scholars devoted their attention to specific words and expressions.45 Finally, studies of Coptic toponyms and their etymology must be mentioned.46
Pragmatics
18Studies of the pragmatics of dead languages are notoriously difficult since any conclusion beyond (or sometimes even for) the obvious hinge on contextual interpretation of utterances with the context, whether the cultural and/or any other context,47 usually lost to the modern reader. The study of pragmatics of Coptic is more or less in its infancy, perhaps due to the above-mentioned constraints, but it is definitely a research field in need of further exploration. Nevertheless, a number of studies can be introduced here on Coptic pragmatics. Firstly, there is A. Crislip’s survey of emotion words in the writings of Shenute.48 S. Uljas contributed a study to the complex issue of indirect speech in Coptic.49 Finally, J. Cromwell focused on the use of religious expressions and the relationship between Christians and Muslims in Early Islamic Egypt.50 She examines the employment of strokes instead of crosses at the beginning and/or end of documents, Coptic translations of the salām-greeting or the way letters between members of the two religious groups have been formulated.
Dialect studies of Coptic
19Although not really scientific news,51 it is still probably not futile to underscore often enough the most obvious results of E. Love’s research on Old Coptic: Old Coptic is not a Coptic dialect, but the representation of older varieties of Egyptian, be it Demotic or Hieroglyphic (mainly Middle) Egyptian, with the help of the Greek alphabet plus additional letters.52
20Various studies dealt with proper Coptic dialect varieties, which I will present here roughly from north to south. F. Feder gave an updated overview on our knowledge of the Bashmuric dialect,53 whereas I. Miroshnikov presented Old Bohairic features of a text edited by him.54 From the same author’s pen stems also an updated description of Fayyūmic proper (F4 vs. F5),55 and the coming years will certainly witness more studies resulting from his project on Fayyūmic texts.56 The geographical position of Fayyūmic Coptic has been studied by C. Peust, who now locates its centre actually slightly outside the Fayoum itself, i.e., in the Herakleopolite region.57
21C. Peust also devoted a study to the geographical origin of Saidic (in the region of Hermoupolis/al-Ušmūnayn)58 as well as to a preliminary description of a variety of Coptic dialect once labelled “H” by R. Kasser.59 W.-P. Funk examined the variation between the literary dialects of the region of Middle and northern Upper Egypt.60 Related to these dialects is of course also F. Feder’s overview on the (then accessible) data from the western oases.61
22An overview on the various socio- and dialects of Coptic documentary texts has been presented by A. Boud’hors.62 These lects certainly deserve more grammatical attention and would benefit from corpus-based grammars, notwithstanding their heterogenous grammatical nature.
23Finally, the above-mentioned description of Saidic sub-corpora should be listed here as well.63
Language contact
24A whole volume of articles has been devoted to general and specific features of language contact between Coptic and Greek.64 Specifically focusing on the Coptic influence on Greek from Egypt in the realm of phonology are the two studies by S. Dahlgren;65 her second paper uses the evidence of Greek to elucidate Coptic vowel reduction. Different features of contact between Coptic and Arabic are focused upon in the papers of T.S. Richter and A. Boud’hors.66
Linguistic landscape in 1st millennium AD Egypt and language choice
25Several papers in the volume Roman Egypt edited by R.S. Bagnall address the linguistic landscape situation in various historical phases of the 1st millennium.67 Similar descriptions can be found in the conference volume Egypt and Empire edited by E.R. O’Connell.68
26Issues of language choice in Roman and Byzantine Egypt have been examined from the perspective of the literary texts in an article by E. Zakrzewska.69 A monograph in-depth study on the topic has been published by J.-L. Fournet under the title The Rise of Coptic.70 The author examines the topics both from the perspective of documentary as well as literary evidence. It is certainly a milestone achievement as can be seen also by the discussion that sprung up already in the plethora of reviews; a point of criticism, however, being that the author upholds the view of Coptic’s inadequacy for official and legal matters compared with Greek.71 In addition, the publication of the Coptic evidence from the Great oases (4th–5th centuries), especially Kharga, will change the picture, as will the proposed different time span for texts from Western Thebes (6th–7th centuries) by F. Krueger.72 The apparent gap of Coptic documentary texts (although they are of course not all official) is thus narrowed by them and perhaps even almost closed.
Digital humanities approaches to Coptic
27The fastest-growing part of linguistic approaches to Coptic is within Digital Humanities. Although the author of this overview would like to point out that the corpus size available digitally still leaves much to be desired, especially beyond Saidic, the efforts specifically of the Coptic Scriptorium team73 in this matter should be supported as widely as possible (be it by work power, by providing electronic forms of editions or in any other feasible way). Likewise, although on a different standard, the electronic corpus of Coptic documentary texts could and should be broadened using the platform papyri.info.74 The texts there are not linguistically tagged as in the Scriptorium, but simple word searches of Coptic are enabled.
28Various papers published in the reporting time frame have highlighted the advantages of already the small available corpora, such as those of S. Miyagawa.75 Other papers described the issue of character recognition for printed Coptic fonts and how to overcome them76 or describe corpora construction77 or incorporation of Coptic into existing databases.78
Bibliographie
References marked with an asterisk in the following bibliography are listed in full in the general bibliography.
J.P. Allen, Ancient Egyptian Phonology, Cambridge, 2020a.
J.P. Allen, Coptic: A Grammar of Its Six Major Dialects (Languages of the Ancient Near East. Didactica 1), Winona Lake, IN, 2020b.
*M. Almond, “An Introduction and Overview to Greek Adjectives in Coptic,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 165–194.
C. Askeland, Review of “J.P. Allen, Coptic: A Grammar of Its Six Major Dialects (Languages of the Ancient Near East. Didactica 1), Winona Lake, IN, 2020b,” JCoptS 24 (2022), p. 365–367.
*S.H. Aufrère, “Les ϫⲁⲧϥⲉ dans tous leurs états d’après les scalistes coptes. Livre des Degrés (chap. VI) et Scala magna (chap. XV). Chordata (Mammalia, Sauropsida et Amphibia), Arthropoda et Nematoda,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017, p. 3–92.
*R.S. Bagnall, “Zones of Interaction between Greek and Egyptian in Roman Egypt,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 19–26.
*R.S. Bagnall, “The Development of a Christian Literary Culture in Coptic,” in R.S. Bagnall et al. (ed.), Roman Egypt, 2021a, p. 217–224.
*R.S. Bagnall, “The Invention of the Coptic Writing System,” in R.S. Bagnall et al. (ed.), Roman Egypt, 2021, p. 162–168.
*H. Behlmer, “Differentiating Lexical Borrowing According to Semantic Fields and Text Types: A Case Study,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 457–478.
S. Bendjaballah & C.H. Reintges, “Nominal Gender in Coptic Egyptian: Typology and Morphological Analysis,” ZÄS 148 (2021), p. 31–49.
S. Bojowald, Review of “J. Cromwell & E. Grossman (ed.), Scribal Repertoires from Old Kingdom to Early Islamic Egypt (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents), Oxford, 2018a,” Mediterranean Language Review 25 (2018), p. 179–182.
*N. Bosson, “Loanwords in Early Bohairic (B4): Problematics and Main Features,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 399–421.
*A. Boud’hors, “24. Degrés d’arabisation dans l’Égypte du viiie siècle : CPR II 228 revisité,” in J.-L. Fournet & A. Papaconstantinou (ed.), Mélanges Jean Gascou, 2016, p. 71–89 [= P.Gascou 24].
*A. Boud’hors, “Greek Loanwords in Fayyumic Documentary Texts,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017a, p. 423–439.
*A. Boud’hors, “Les particules ⲕⲁⲓⲅⲁⲣ et ⲅⲁⲣ dans les textes documentaires coptes,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017b, p. 93–110.
*A. Boud’hors, “Dialectes et régionalismes : la langue des textes coptes documentaires,” in M. Lafkioui & V. Brugnatelli (ed.), Written Sources About Africa, 2018, p. 19–33.
*A. Boud’hors, “L’apport des signes diacritiques à la codicologie copte,” in N. Carlig et al. (ed.), Signes dans les textes, 2020, p. 283–298.
P. Buzi & A. Soldati, La lingua copta (Lingue antiche del Vicino Oriente e del Mediterraneo), Milan, 2021.
C. Casey, Review of “E. Grossman, P. Dils, T.S. Richter & W. Schenkel (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language (DDGLC Working Papers 1) (LingAeg. Studia monographica 17), Hamburg, 2017,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 19 (2018), p. 43–46.
A. Crislip, “Emotion Words in Coptic: Reflections on the Evidence from Shenoute the Great,” JCSCS 10 (2018), p. 47–57.
S. Cook, Linguistic and Legal Continuity in 6th to 8th Century Coptic Documents: A Comparative Study of Greek and Coptic Legal Formulae in Byzantine and Early Islamic Egypt, unpublished PhD diss., Macquarie University, 2019.
*J. Cromwell, “Religious Expression and Relationship between Christians and Muslims in Coptic Letters from Early Islamic Egypt,” in M. Brand & E. Scheerlinck (ed.), Religious Identifications, 2022a, p. 232–247.
J. Cromwell, Review of “J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic. Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (The Rostovtzeff Lectures), Princeton, 2020,” BASP 59 (2022b), p. 427–432.
*J. Cromwell & E. Grossman (ed.), Scribal Repertoires, 2017a.
*J. Cromwell, “Scribes, Repertoires, and Variation,” in J. Cromwell & E. Grossman (ed.), Scribal Repertoires, 2017b, p. 1–16.
S. Dahlgren, Outcome of Long-term Language Contact: Transfer of Egyptian Phonological Features onto Greek in Graeco-Roman Egypt, unpublished PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2017.
S. Dahlgren, “The System of Coptic Vowel Reduction: Evidence from L2 Greek Usage,” Italian Journal of Linguistics 32 (2017), p. 211–228.
*A. Delattre & N. Vanthieghem, “Les signes paratextuels dans les documents coptes. Une étude de cas : le dossier de Frangé,” in N. Carlig et al. (ed.), Signes dans les textes, 2020, p. 299–308.
*L. Depuydt, “A New Verb Form in Coptic,” in D. Brakke et al. (ed.), From Gnostics to Monastics, 2017, p. 213–244.
*R.A. Díaz Hernández, “Von wn.ỉn und wn zu ⲛⲉ. Ein diachroner Fall der Hintergrundinformation,” in D.A. Werning (ed.), Crossroads V, 2017, p. 67–81.
*J.H.F. Dijkstra & J. van der Vliet, The Coptic Life of Aaron, 2020, p. 24–42.
*P.C. Dilley, “The Inscriptions of Late Antique Egypt (ILAE) Database: Digitizing Textual Culture,” in D. Brakke et al. (ed.), From Gnostics to Monastics, 2017, p. 245–256.
*B. Egedi, “Remarks on Loan Verb Integration into Coptic,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017a, p. 195–206.
*B. Egedi, “Two Kinds of Definiteness in Coptic,” in D.A. Werning (ed.), Crossroads V, 2017b, p. 83–99.
Å. Engsheden, “Creating an Etymology for Coptic ⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟ,” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 29 (2014), p. 31–35.
*Å. Engsheden, “Verbal Semantics and Differential Object Marking in Lycopolitan Coptic,” in I.A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (ed.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 2018, p. 153–182.
Å. Engsheden, Review of “J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic. Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (The Rostovtzeff Lectures), Princeton, 2020,” Opuscula 12 (2020), p. 243–244.
Å. Engsheden, Ancient Place-names in the Governorate of Kafr el-Sheikh (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 293), Leuven, 2021.
*F. Feder, “The Integration of a Coptic Lexicon and Text Corpus into the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae,” in P. Buzi et al. (ed.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion, 2016, p. 1375–1380.
*F. Feder, “The Bashmuric Revolts in the Delta and the ‘Bashmuric Dialect’,” in G. Gabra & H.N. Takla (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism in Northern Egypt, 2017, p. 33–36.
*F. Feder, “Das ‘Zweite Tempus’ (focalizing conversion) in Temporalisfunktion im Demotischen – die unflektierte Relativform als Converb,” in A.I. Blöbaum et al (ed.), Pérégrinations avec Erhart Graefe, 2018, p. 153–159.
F. Feder, “Ancient and Coptic Egypt,” in J. Considine (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Lexicography, Cambridge, 2019, p. 36–50.
*F. Feder, “Coptic Dialects in Egypt’s Western Desert,” in G. Gabra & H.N. Takla (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism in Alexandria, 2020, p. 53–57.
*J.-L. Fort, “Microlectures II. Des ‘surlignes’ supravocaliques à valeur prosodique : le cas du cod. MONB.YR,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017, p. 133–192.
*J.-L. Fournet, “Les documents bilingues gréco-coptes dans l’Égypte byzantine : essai de typologie,” in M. Lafkioui & V. Brugnatelli (ed.), Written Sources about Africa, 2018, p. 59–83.
*J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic, 2020.
*W.-P. Funk, “The Future Conjunctives of Southern Coptic Dialects,” in P. Buzi et al. (ed.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion, 2016, p. 1325–1332.
*W.-P. Funk, “Differential Loan across the Coptic Literary Dialects,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017a, p. 369–397.
*W.-P. Funk, “‘Don’t Stop—Please Go On…’: On Verbs of Phase Specification in Coptic,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017b, p. 193–252.
*W.-P. Funk, “Some Lesser Known Construct Forms of Coptic,” in D. Brakke et al. (ed.), From Gnostics to Monastics, 2017c, p. 257–289.
W.-P. Funk, “Some Lesser Known Prospective and Causative Conjugation Forms in Coptic Dialects and the Problem of Their Ancestry,” JCSCS 9 (2017d), p. 53–66.
*W.-P. Funk, “‘Wohl dir!’ auf koptisch-manichäisch,” in H. Behlmer et al. (ed.), Ägypten und der christliche Orient, 2018, p. 115–120.
*W.-P. Funk, “Le problème de la variation du copte littéraire en Moyenne Égypte,” in A. Boud’hors et al. (ed.), Études coptes XVI, 2020, p. 219–227.
E. Garel, Review of “J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic. Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (The Rostovtzeff Lectures), Princeton, 2020,” JCoptS 22 (2022), p. 376–383.
T. Georgakopoulos, E.-S. Lincke, K. Nikiforidou & A. Piata, “On the Polysemy of Motion Verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic: Why Lexical Constructions are Important,” Studies in Language 44 (2020), p. 27–69.
*T.L. Gertzen, “Paul de Lagarde (1827–1891) and die Ägyptologie/Koptologie in Göttingen,” in J. Arp-Neumann & T.L. Gertzen (ed.), Steininschrift und Bibelwort, 2019, p. 39–44.
V. Ghica, Les Actes de Pierre et des Douze Apôtres (NH VI, 1) (Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi. Section « Textes » 37), Québec-Leuven, 2017, p. 212–260.
E. Grossman, “From Rarum to Rarissimum: An Unexpected Zero Person Marker,” Linguistic Typology 20 (2016), p. 1–23.
E. Grossman, “Did Greek Influence the Coptic Preference for Prefixing? A Quantitative-typological Perspective,” Journal of Language Contact 11 (2018a), p. 1–31.
*E. Grossman, “From Suffix to Prefix to Interposition via Differential Object Marking,” in I.A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (ed.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 2018b, p. 129–151.
E. Grossman, “Language-Specific Transitivities in Contact: The Case of Coptic,” Journal of Language Contact 12 (2019), p. 89–115.
E. Grossman, G. Jacques & A. Antonov, “A Cross-Linguistic Rarity in Synchrony and Diachrony: Adverbial Subordinator Prefixes Exist,” STUF – Language Typology and Universals 71.4 (2018), p. 1–27.
*E. Grossman & S. Polis, “Polysemy Networks in Language Contact: The Borrowing of the Greek-Origin Preposition κατά/ⲕⲁⲧⲁ in Coptic,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 335–367.
E. Grossman & S. Polis, “Swimming Against the Typological Tide or Paddling Along with Language Change? Dispreferred Structures and Diachronic Biases in Affix Ordering,” Journal of Historical Linguistics 8 (2018), p. 388–443.
*E. Grossman & T.S. Richter, “Dialectal Variation and Language Change: The Case of Greek Loan-verb Integration Strategies in Coptic,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 207–236.
*E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017.
I. Guidi, Elementa linguae Copticae. Brevi chrestomathia et indice vocabulorum instructa, Naples, 1924.
B. Haring, Review of “J. Cromwell & E. Grossman (ed.), Scribal Repertoires from Old Kingdom to Early Islamic Egypt (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents), Oxford, 2018a,” BiOr 77 (2020), p. 499–503.
*A. Hasznos, “Syntactic Patterns Used After Verbs of Exhorting,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 237–264.
*T.M. Hickey, “Languages in Roman Egypt,” in R.S. Bagnall et al. (ed.), Roman Egypt, 2021, p. 67–70.
R. Kasser, “Dialect H,” in A.S. Atiya (ed.), Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, New York, 1991, p. 76–79.
*A.L. Khosroyev, “Eine Bemerkung zum ϩⲉⲣⲙⲁ in der Apokalypse des Petrus (78. 18/NHC VII.3/),” in H. Behlmer et al. (ed.), Ägypten und der christliche Orient, 2018, p. 163–169.
F. Krueger, “Two Coptic Homographs and the Missing Link in the Etymology of et-Tôd: ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲧI and ⲧⲟⲩⲱⲧ II Preserving twt(w) ‘Image’ and t(w)t(we) ‘Chapel,’” ZÄS 146 (2019), p. 161–163.
*F. Krueger, Andreas von Hermonthis, 2020 [= O.Lips.Copt. II].
E.-S. Lincke, “The State of the Affairs in Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for Coptic,” in C. Gracia Zamacona & J. Ortiz García (ed.), Handbook of Digital Egyptology: Texts (Monografías del Oriente Antiguo 1), Madrid, 2021, p. 139–164.
E.-S. Lincke, Sahidic Coptic Prepositions in a Typological Perspective, unpublished PhD diss., Humboldt University, 2021.
E.-S. Lincke, K. Bulert & M. Büchler, “Optical Character Recognition for Coptic Fonts: A Multi-source Approach for Scholarly Editions,” in Third International Conference on Digital Access to Textual Cultural Heritage. Conference Proceedings. Brussels, May 8–10, 2019, p. 87–91, https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/3322905#issue-downloads.
E.-S. Lincke & D.A. Werning, “Spatial Prepositions in Egyptian-Coptic: The Long-term Perspective,” in O. el-Aguizy & B. Kasparian (ed.), Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, November 3rd–8th, 2019 (Bibliothèque générale 71), Cairo, 2023, vol. 2, p. 811–822.
A. Lopez, Review of “J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic. Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (The Rostovtzeff Lectures), Princeton, 2020,” Studies in Late Antiquity 6 (2022), p. 553–557.
A. Loprieno, M. Müller & S. Uljas, Non-verbal Predication in Ancient Egyptian (The Mouton Companions to Ancient Egyptian 2), Berlin, 2017.
E.O.D. Love, Code-switching with the Gods: The Bilingual (Old Coptic-Greek) Spells of PGM IV (P. Bibliothèque Nationale Supplément Grec. 574) and Their Linguistic, Religious, and Socio-Cultural Context in Late Roman Egypt (ZÄS. Beiheft 4), Berlin, 2016.
E.O.D. Love, “The ‘PGM III’ Archive. Two Papyri, Two Scribes, Two Scripts, and Two Languages,” ZPE 202 (2017), p. 1–14.
E.O.D. Love, “The Old Coptic of PGM IV: (Re)considerations on Readings, Scripts, and Transmission,” Enchoria 36 (2018–2019a), p. 95–108.
E.O.D. Love, “The Old Coptic of PGM IV: New Parallels for Interscript and Intralingual Transmission,” Enchoria 36 (2018–2019b), p. 109–115.
E.O.D. Love, “The Literary vs The Literal: The Narration of Magical Practices, Texts, and their Practitioners in Setne I and II Compared with the So-called Demotic and Greek Magical Papyri,” in F. Naether (ed.), Cult Practices in Ancient Literatures: Egyptian, Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Narratives in a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Proceedings of a Workshop at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York, May 16–17, 2016 (Institute for the Study of the Ancient World Papers 18), New York, 2020, http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/18-5/.
E.O.D. Love, “The Nature of Old Coptic I: Approaching and Contextualising Old Coptic (§1–4), Old Coptic at Oxyrhynchus (§5),” JCoptS 23 (2021), p. 91–143.
*E.O.D. Love, “Bilingualism and Mono-/Bigraphia at the Nexus of Magical Traditions: From Egyptian-Greek to Coptic-Arabic Magical Texts,” in L. Berkes (ed.), Christians and Muslims, 2022a, p. 169–201.
E.O.D. Love, “The Nature of Old Coptic II: Old Coptic at Tebtunis (§6), Soknopaiou Nesos (§7), and Narmouthis (§8),” JCoptS 24 (2022b), p. 243–281.
* E.O.D. Love, Script Switching in Roman Egypt, 2022c.
A.T. Mihálykó, Review of “J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic. Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (The Rostovtzeff Lectures), Princeton, 2020,” Plekos 24 (2022), p. 9–12, https://plekos.jimdofree.com/2022/01/14/jean-luc-fournet-the-rise-of-coptic-egyptian-versus-greek-in-late-antiquity-2020/.
I. Miroshnikov, “A New Witness to the Paleo-Bohairic Version of the Bible: A Fragmentary Manuscript of the Epistle to the Hebrews in Early Bohairic,” JCoptS 21 (2019), p. 173–208.
I. Miroshnikov, Review of “J.P. Allen, Coptic: A Grammar of Its Six Major Dialects (Languages of the Ancient Near East. Didactica 1), Winona Lake, IN, 2020b,” LingAeg 30 (2022a), p. 307–312.
I. Miroshnikov, “A New Witness to the Fayyūmic Version of First Corinthians (P.MorganLib. 265). Part I: Notes on Codicology, Language, Provenance and Date,” NTS 68 (2022b), p. 89–104.
I. Miroshnikov, “A New Witness to the Fayyūmic Version of First Corinthians (P.MorganLib. 265). Part II: Notes on Its Text-critical Value, with an Edition of the Coptic Text,” NTS 68 (2022c), p. 206–230.
S. Miyagawa, “The ang-Morphs in Coptic and their Grammaticalization in Later Egyptian,” in M.C. Guidotti & G. Rosati (ed.), Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists, Florence, Italy 23–30 August 2015 (Archeopress Egyptology 19), Oxford, 2017a, p. 416–421.
S. Miyagawa, “Koputo Ejiputo-go Saido Hogen ni okeru Boin Taikei to Boinji no Chofuku no Onka: Shiro Shudoincho Atripe no Shenoute ni yoru Dairoku Kanon wo moto ni” [= “Vowel System and Phonetic Value of Duplicated Vowel Letters: Based on the Manuscripts of Canon 6 of Shenoute of Atripe, an Abbot of the White Monastery”], Journal of Kijutsuken: Descriptive Linguistics Study Group 9 (2017b), p. 173–188.
S. Miyagawa, “Koputo-go Saido Hogen no Gengo Shiryo to Bunpo Chushaku: Napoli Kokuritsu Vittorio Emanuele 3-sei Toshokan-zo Besa ni yoru Text no Danpen” [= “Text Corpus and Grammatical Annotation of Sahidic Coptic: Fragments of a Text by Besa Preserved at Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, Naples”], Journal of Kijutsuken: Descriptive Linguistics Study Group 10 (2018), p. 271–320.
S. Miyagawa, “Digital Corpus wo Mochiita Data-Kudo-gata no Kan-Text-sei Kenkyu: Kodai Makki Ejiputo no Futari no Shudoincho no Koputo-go Shokan ni okeru Koputo-go-yaku Seisho kara no Inyo no Tanchi to Bunseki” [= “Data-driven Study of Intertextuality through Digital Corpus: Detection and Analysis of Quotations from Coptic Translation of the Bible in Coptic Letters by Two Late Antique Egyptian Abbots”], Joho Shori Gakkai Kenkyu Hokoku (IPSJ SIG Technical Report) 2021-CH-126 (9), 2021a, p. 1–8.
S. Miyagawa, “Digitization of Coptic Manuscripts and Digital Humanities: Tools and Methods for Coptic Studies,” The International Journal of Levant Studies 2 (2021b), p. 29–61.
S. Miyagawa, “Koputo-Kyofu Atripe no Shenute ni yoru Kodai no Koputo-go-yaku Seisho kara no Inyo” [= “Quotations from Ancient Coptic Translation of the Bible by Shenoute of Atripe, a Coptic Church Father”], Toho Kirisutokyo Sekai Kenkyu 5 (2021c), p. 3–24.
S. Miyagawa, “Digital History of Egypt in the Roman and Byzantine Periods: A Case Study of Shenoute the Archimandrite,” Historical Studies of the Western World 1 (2022a), p. 26–33.
S. Miyagawa, Shenoute, Besa and the Bible: Digital Text Reuse Analysis of Selected Monastic Writings from Egypt, Göttingen, 2022b, http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-9082.
S. Miyagawa & H. Behlmer, “Quotative Index Phrases in Shenoute’s Canon 6: A Case Study of Quotations from the Psalms,” in C. Mecariello & J. Singletary (ed.), Uses and Misuses of Ancient Mediterranean Sources: Erudition, Authority, Manipulation, Tübingen, 2022, p. 101–116.
S. Miyagawa, K. Bulert, M. Büchler, & H. Behlmer, “Optical Character Recognition of Typeset Coptic Text with Neural Networks,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34. Supplement 1 (2019), p. 135–141.
S. Miyagawa & V.W.J. van Gerven Oei, “Building Web Corpus of Old Nubian with Interlinear Glossing as Digital Cultural Heritage for Modern-Day Nubians,” in The 11th Conference of Japanese Association for Digital Humanities, Tokyo, 2021, p. 144–147.
S. Miyagawa, A. Zeldes, M. Büchler, H. Behlmer, & T. Griffitts, “Building Linguistically and Intertextually Tagged Coptic Corpora with Open Source Tools,” in Ch. Suzuki (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Japanese Association for Digital Humanities, Tokyo, 2020, p. 139–141.
J. Moje, Review of “J. Cromwell & E. Grossman (ed.), Scribal Repertoires from Old Kingdom to Early Islamic Egypt (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents), Oxford, 2018a,” Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2018.11.04.
*M. Müller, “Vom Lexikon in die Grammatik. Grammatikalisierungsphänomene im Ägyptisch-Koptischen,” in P. Dils & L. Popko (ed.), Zwischen Philologie und Lexikographie, 2016, p. 56–81.
*M. Müller, “Greek Connectors in Coptic. A Contrastive Overview I: Coordinating Connectors,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017a, p. 265–315.
*M. Müller, “‘Now This, Now the Other.’ Coordination of Temporal Alternative Clauses in Coptic and Beyond,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017b, p. 263–304.
*M. Müller, “Die Anfänge der ‘Jerusalem School’ in Göttingen: Hans Jakob Polotskys (1905–1991) Beitrag zur ägyptologischen Sprachforschung in den Jahren von 1925 bis 1935,” in J. Arp-Neumann & T.L. Gertzen (ed.), Steininschrift und Bibelwort, 2019, p. 73–78.
M. Müller, “Egyptian,” in R. Hasselbach-Andee (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), Hoboken, NJ, 2020, p. 107–128.
M. Müller, Grammatik des Bohairischen (LingAeg. Studia monographica 24), Hamburg, 2021.
M. Müller, Review of “J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic. Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (The Rostovtzeff Lectures), Princeton, 2020,” The Classical Review 71 (2021), p. 208–209.
M. Müller, Review of “J.P. Allen, Ancient Egyptian Phonology, Cambridge, 2020,” JEA 108 (2022), p. 303–309.
*P. Muysken, “Using Scenarios in Language Contact Studies: Linguistic Borrowing into Coptic,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 3–16.
*E. Oréal, “Greek Causal Discourse Markers in Coptic Letters: A Case Study in the Pragmatics of Code-Switching,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 317–333.
T. Orlandi, Elementi di grammatica copto-saidica, Rome, 1983.
*A. Papaconstantinou, “Coptic Develops a Literature and Bids for Official Status,” in R.S. Bagnall et al. (ed.), Roman Egypt, 2021a, p. 268–275.
*A. Papaconstantinou, “The Evolution of Language Use and Gradual Extinction of Coptic as a Spoken and Business/Legal Language,” in R.S. Bagnall et al. (ed.), Roman Egypt, 2021b, p. 327–335.
*A. Papaconstantinou, “Linguistic Change and Religious Conversion,” in R.S. Bagnall et al. (ed.), Roman Egypt, 2021c, p. 335–343.
*A. Papaconstantinou, “Arabic: Language of Empire and Language of Egypt,” in E.R. O’Connell (ed.), Egypt and Empire, 2022, p. 293–309.
*C. Peust, “Zur Lokalisierung des sogenannten fayyumischen Dialekts des Koptischen,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017, p. 305–314.
C. Peust, “Zur Depalatalisierung in ägyptischen Verbalwurzeln,” LingAeg 26 (2018), p. 167–183.
C. Peust, Review of “J.P. Allen, Ancient Egyptian Phonology, Cambridge, 2020,” LingAeg 28 (2020a), p. 333–353.
C. Peust, “Die Urheimat des Sahidischen,” LingAeg 28 (2020b), p. 191–232.
C. Peust, “Notizen zum koptischen Dialekt H,” LingAeg 29 (2021), p. 149–192.
C. Peust, “Die Morphologie der Verben für ‘sitzen’ und ‘stehen’ in den oberägyptischen koptischen Dialekten,” ZÄS 149 (2022a), p. 80–90.
C. Peust, “Zur Sonderentwicklung des Ayin neben Het,” LingAeg 30 (2022b), p. 223–269.
*J.F. Quack, “Ägyptisch, Demotisch, Koptisch? Vom Nachteil des Schubladendenkens in der Lexikographie des Alten Ägypten,” in P. Dils & L. Popko (ed.), Zwischen Philologie und Lexikographie, 2016, p. 112–136.
*J.F. Quack, “How the Coptic Script Came About,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017, p. 27–96.
*C.H. Reintges, “Tense/Aspect and Polarity-Sensitive Complementizer Alternations in Coptic Relative Clause Constructions,” in P. Buzi et al. (ed.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion, 2016, p. 1349–1359.
C.H. Reintges, Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic Dialect). A Learner’s Grammar (Study Books of African Languages 15), Cologne, 20182.
C.H. Reintges, “Coptic Language,” in D.T. Potts et al. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 5 July 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119399919.eahaa00423.
C.H. Reintges & S. Cyrino, “Rethinking Parameter Theory Diachronically: A Macrocomparative Approach to the Analyticization of the Verbal Tense-Aspect Systems of Brazilian Portuguese and Coptic Egyptian,” in L. Eguren, O. Fernandez-Soriano & A. Medikoetxea (ed.), Rethinking Parameters (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax), New York, 2016, p. 329–385.
C.H. Reintges & S. Cyrino, “Analyticization and the Syntax of the Synthetic Residue,” in A.M. Martins & A. Cardoso (ed.), Word Order Change (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 29), Oxford, 2018, p. 179–201.
*T.S. Richter, “Arabische Lehnwörter in koptischen Texten: Ein Überblick,” in P. Dils & L. Popko (ed.), Zwischen Philologie und Lexikographie, 2016a, p. 137–163.
*T.S. Richter, “Coniunctivus multiformis. Conjunctive Morphology in Late Coptic Recipes,” in P. Collombert et al. (ed.), Aere perennius, 2016b, p. 625–662.
T.S. Richter, “‘einen Bau…, der nicht von grossen Sprachanlagen der Nation zeugt’: Die Klassifikation des Ägyptischen in der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Denkströme. Journal der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 16 (2016c), p. 9–35, http://www.denkstroeme.de/heft-16/s_9-35_richter.
*T.S. Richter, “Borrowing into Coptic, the Other Story: Arabic Words in Coptic Texts,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017a, p. 513–533.
*T.S. Richter, “The Pattern ⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ ‘The One Who Hears’ in Coptic Documentary Texts,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017b, p. 315–329.
T.S. Richter, “‘Whatever in the Coptic Language is not Greek, Can Wholly be Considered Ancient Egyptian’: Recent Approaches Towards an Integrated View of the Egyptian-Coptic Lexicon,” JCSCS 9 (2017c), p. 9–32.
*T.S. Richter, “A Scribe, His Bag of Tricks, What It Was For, and Where He Got It. Scribal Registers and Techniques in the Bodl.Mss.Copt.(P) a.2 and 3,” in J. Cromwell & E. Grossman (ed.), Scribal Repertoires, 2017, p. 296–313.
H. Satzinger, “Dialectical Variation of the Egyptian-Coptic Language on the Course of Its Four Millennia of Attested History,” JCSCS 9 (2017a), p. 41–52.
*H. Satzinger, “Second Tenses in Egyptian-Coptic and Some Other African Languages,” in D.A. Werning (ed.), Crossroads V, 2017b, p. 211–229.
*H. Satzinger, “Zero Article, Bare Noun, Absolutive Case,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017c, p. 331–347.
H. Satzinger, Review of “E. Grossman, P. Dils, T.S. Richter & W. Schenkel (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language (DDGLC Working Papers 1) (LingAeg. Studia monographica 17), Hamburg, 2017,” BiOr 75 (2018), p. 543–554.
H. Satzinger & D. Stefanović, Egyptian Root Lexicon (LingAeg. Studia monographica 25), Hamburg, 2021.
*A.Y. Sidarus, “Une introduction arabe médiévale à l’alphabet et à la phonologie coptes,” in P. Buzi et al. (ed.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion, 2016, p. 1361–1374.
A.Y. Sidarus, “The Arabic Model in Coptic Grammar: An Approach to the Copto-Arabic Muqaddimāt of the Middle Ages,” Coptica 17 (2018), p. 11–24.
*A. Shisha-Halevy, “The Circumstantial Conversion in Coptic: Material Towards a Syntactic Profile,” in P. Collombert et al. (ed.), Aere perennius, 2016a, p. 709–739.
*A. Shisha-Halevy, “Noun Predication in Shenoute’s Rhetorical Poetics,” in P. Buzi et al. (ed.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion, 2016b, p. 1333–1338.
*A. Shisha-Halevy, “Musings on Neutralization in Coptic,” in D. Brakke et al. (ed.), From Gnostics to Monastics, 2017a, p. 291–312.
A. Shisha-Halevy, “Reflections on the Historical Study of Egyptian,” JCSCS 9 (2017b), p. 33–39.
*A. Shisha-Halevy, “A Structural-Interferential View of Greek Elements in Shenoute,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017c, p. 441–455.
A. Shisha-Halevy, “Diversion of Juncture, on Shenoutean Anacoluthia, and Other Puzzles of Unexpected Syntax,” JCoptS 18 (2018a), p. 113–179.
A. Shisha-Halevy, “Shenoute’s Rhetorical Discourse: Points for Thought from a Structuralist Approach,” JCSCS 10 (2018b), p. 37–43.
A. Shisha-Halevy, “Shenoute’s Rhetorical Syntax,” JCSCS 12 (2020), p. 9–24.
L. Slaughter, L. Morgado da Costa, S. Miyagawa, M. Büchler, A. Zeldes, H. Lundhaug, & H. Behlmer, “The Making of Coptic Wordnet,” in C. Fellbaum, P. Vossen, E. Rudnicka, M. Maziarz & M. Piasecki (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Global Wordnet Conference, Wrocław, 2019, p. 166–175.
N. Speransky, “Coptic Circumstantial Periphrasis,” LingAeg 27 (2019), p. 165–181.
N. Speransky, “Notes on Coptic Possessive Predication,” ZÄS 147 (2020), p. 188–196.
N. Speransky, Transitivity and Aspect in Sahidic Coptic. Studies in the Morphosyntax of Native and Greek-Origin Verbs (LingAeg. Studia monographica 26), Hamburg, 2022.
H.N. Takla, “The Bohairic Literary Corpus of St. Shenouda: Scope and Language,” JCSCS 10 (2018), p. 69–79.
W.C. Till, Koptische Dialektgrammatik, Munich, 19612.
*S. Torallas Tovar, “A Lexical Note on the Life of Pisentios,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017a, p. 373–380.
*S. Torallas Tovar, “The Reverse Case: Egyptian Borrowing in Greek,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017b, p. 97–113.
*S. Torallas Tovar, “Greek and Egyptian: Did Linguistic Policies Exist in Graeco-Roman Egypt?,” in E.R. O’Connell (ed.), Egypt and Empire, 2022, p. 279–292.
A. Tsakos, Review of “V.W.J. van Gerven Oei, A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 299), Leuven, 2021,” LingAeg 30 (2022), p. 313–316.
S. Uljas, “Verbal Grammaticalisation Clines in Coptic,” ZÄS 146 (2019), p. 82–99.
S. Uljas, “Why Not Say It Straight? On the Pragmatics of Indirect Speech in Coptic,” LingAeg 28 (2020), p. 269–84.
*V.W.J. van Gerven Oei, A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian, 2021.
*E.D. Zakrzewska, “Coptic linguistics 2004–2008: Synthesis and Perspectives,” in P. Buzi et al. (ed.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion, 2016, p. 227–257.
*E.D. Zakrzewska, “Why Did Egyptians Write Coptic? The Rise of Coptic as a Literary Language,” in L. Mahmoud & A. Mansour (ed.), Copts in the Egyptian Society, 2016b, p. 211–219.
*E.D. Zakrzewska, “‘A Bilingual Language Variety’ or ‘the Language of the Pharaohs’? Coptic from the Perspective of Contact Linguistics,” in E. Grossman et al. (ed.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic, 2017a, p. 115–161.
*E.D. Zakrzewska, “The Bohairic Acts of the Martyrs as a Genre of Religious Discourse,” in G. Gabra & H.N. Takla (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism in Northern Egypt, 2017b, p. 223–238.
*E.D. Zakrzewska, Complex Verbs in Bohairic Coptic: Language Contact and Valency, in B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (ed.), Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events: Verb-Verb Constructions at the Syntax-Semantic Interface (Studies in Language Companion Series 180), Amsterdam, 2017c, p. 213–243.
*E.D. Zakrzewska, “Objects and Topics,” in N. Bosson et al. (ed.), Labor Omnia Uicit Improbus, 2017d, p. 381–407.
*E.D. Zakrzewska, “The Alexandria Polyphony: The Voices in the Bohairic Acts of the Martyrs,” in G. Gabra & H.N. Takla (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism in Alexandria, 2020, p. 205–222.
E.D. Zakrzewska, Review of “J.-L. Fournet, The Rise of Coptic. Egyptian versus Greek in Late Antiquity (The Rostovtzeff Lectures), Princeton, 2020,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 141 (2021), p. 316.
E.D. Zakrzewska, Review of “M. Müller, Grammatik des Bohairischen (LingAeg. Studia monographica 24), Hamburg, 2021,” LingAeg 30 (2022), p. 317–320.
Notes de bas de page
1Allen 2020a.
2Till 19612.
3See Askeland 2022; Miroshnikov 2022.
4Buzi & Soldati 2021.
5Orlandi 1983.
6Guidi 1924.
7Reintges 20182.
8Müller 2021.
9Dijkstra & van der Vliet 2020, p. 24–42.
10Ghica 2017, p. 212–260.
11Buzi & Soldati 2021, p. 59–109.
12Bagnall 2021b; Quack 2017.
13See Cromwell & Grossman 2018b; Richter 2018; for reviews of the volume see Bojowald 2018; Moje 2018; Haring 2020.
14See Boud’hors 2020; Delattre & Vanthieghem 2020.
15Fort 2017.
16Allen 2020a.
17See Peust 2020a; Müller 2022.
18Peust 2018.
19Miyagawa 2017b.
20Dahlgren 2017a; Dahlgren 2017b.
21Bendjaballah & Reintges 2021; Funk 2017c.
22Egedi 2017b; Satzinger 2017.
23Depuydt 2017.
24Funk 2017d.
25Funk 2016; Richter 2016b.
26Satzinger 2017b.
27Funk 2017b; Zakrzewska 2017c.
28Funk 2017c.
29Uljas 2019.
30Richter 2017b.
31Grossman 2016; Funk 2017c, p. 283–289; Lincke 2021.
32Grossman 2018a; Grossman & Polis 2017; Grossman & Polis 2018.
33Loprieno, Müller & Uljas 2017.
34Miyagawa 2017.
35Based on a specific corpus, i.e. Shenute, Shisha-Halevy 2016.
36Engsheden 2018; Grossman 2018; 2019.
37Shisha-Halevy 2016.
38Reintges 2016.
39Müller 2016; Müller 2017b.
40Reintges & Cyrino 2016 & 2018.
41Shisha-Halevy 2018a; 2018b; 2020.
42Speransky 2019; 2020; 2022.
43Satzinger & Stefanović 2021.
44Boud’hors 2017b; Grossman & Polis 2017; Müller 2017.
45Aufrère 2017; Engsheden 2014; Funk 2018; Khosroyev 2018; Torallas Tovar 2017a.
46Engsheden 2021.
47Anyone dealing with single letters will have experienced the frustration of the lack of communicative context.
48Crisplip 2018.
49Uljas 2020.
50Cromwell 2022a.
51See e.g., Feder 2020, p. 56–57.
52See Love 2016; 2017; 2018/2019a; 2018/2019b; 2021; 2022a; 2022b; 2022c.
53Feder 2016.
54Miroshnikov 2019, p. 180–190.
55Miroshnikov 2022, p. 93–103.
56In the framework of his project The Neglected Dialects: A Study of the Manuscripts and Literature in Fayyūmic and Bohairic Coptic.
57Peust 2017.
58Peust 2020.
59Peust 2021; see also Kasser 1991.
60Funk 2020.
61Feder 2020. However, the situation is becoming slightly more complex in light of the material from the Kharga oasis from places such as Dūš and ‘Ayn al-Wāqifa, Maks al-Qiblī or Dayr Muṣṭafā al-Kāshif.
62Boud’hors 2018.
63Ghica 2017, p. 212–260; Dijkstra & van der Vliet 2020, p. 24–42.
64Grossman, Dils, Richter & Schenkel 2017.
65Dahlgren 2017a; Dahlgren 2017b.
66Richter 2016a; Boud’hors 2016.
67Hickey 2021; Papaconstantinou 2021a; 2021b; 2021c.
68Torallas Tovar 2022; Papaconstantinou 2022.
69Zakrzewska 2016.
70Fournet 2020.
71Engsheden 2020; Westermayer 2020; Müller 2021; Zakrzewska 2021; Mihálykó 2022; Garel 2022; Cromwell 2022; Lopez 2022.
72Krueger 2020, p. 63–78.
73https://copticscriptorium.org/ (last accessed 31 March 2023).
74https://papyri.info/ (last accessed 31 March 2023).
75Miyagawa 2017b; 2018; 2021a; 2021c; 2022a; 2022b; see also Miyagawa & Behlmer 2022.
76Lincke 2021; Lincke, Bulert & Büchler 2019; Miyagawa, Zeldes, Büchler, Behlmer & Griffitts 2020.
77Dilley 2017; Miyagawa & van Gerven Oei 2021.
78Feder 2016.
Auteur
-
Matthias Müller
Matthias Müller is a senior researcher in the projects MiTAnIm (Fribourg) and Conflict in Coptic Culture (Uppsala-Basel, with Anne Landborg and Sami Uljas). Until recently, he was a senior researcher in the DEChriM project at MF Oslo. In addition, he teaches Ancient Egyptian and Coptic at the University of Basel. His research focuses on Ancient Egyptian and Coptic grammar as well as on editions of Ancient Egyptian and Coptic documentary and literary texts. He is the author of Grammatik des Bohairischen (2021) and the editor (with R. Gautschy et N. Grütter) of Von Elephantine bis Ugarit. Festschrift für Hanna Jenni (2023).
Matthias Müller est chercheur dans le cadre du projet MiTAnIm (Fribourg) et dans le projet Conflict in Coptic Culture (Uppsala-Bâle, avec Anne Landborg et Sami Uljas). Jusqu’à récemment, il était chercheur associé au projet DEChriM à MF Oslo. En outre, il enseigne l’égyptien ancien et le copte à l’université de Bâle. Ses recherches portent sur la grammaire de l’égyptien ancien et du copte, ainsi que sur l’édition de textes documentaires et littéraires égyptiens et coptes. Il est l’auteur de Grammatik des Bohairischen (2021) et l’éditeur (avec R. Gautschy et N. Grütter) de Von Elephantine bis Ugarit. Festschrift für Hanna Jenni (2023).
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
D’Homère à Érasme
La transmission des classiques grecs et latins
Leighton D Reynolds et Nigel G. Wilson Luigi-Alberto Sanchi et Aude Cohen-Skalli (trad.)
2021
Magikon zōon
Animal et magie dans l’Antiquité et au Moyen Âge
Jean-Charles Coulon et Korshi Dosoo (dir.)
2022
Une autre histoire
Histoire, temps et passé dans les Vies et Passions latines (IVe-XIe siècle)
Marie-Céline Isaïa
2023
Voies et voix de la philologie classique
Éditer les textes anciens : comment et pour quel public ?
François Bougard, Dario Mantovani et Luigi-Alberto Sanchi (dir.)
2025
Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Coptic Studies (Brussels, 11–16 July 2022)
Volume I. Plenary Papers
Alain Delattre, Élodie Mazy, Perrine Pilette et al. (dir.)
2025
D’Homère à Érasme
La transmission des classiques grecs et latins
Leighton D Reynolds et Nigel G. Wilson Luigi-Alberto Sanchi et Aude Cohen-Skalli (trad.)
2021
Magikon zōon
Animal et magie dans l’Antiquité et au Moyen Âge
Jean-Charles Coulon et Korshi Dosoo (dir.)
2022
Une autre histoire
Histoire, temps et passé dans les Vies et Passions latines (IVe-XIe siècle)
Marie-Céline Isaïa
2023
Voies et voix de la philologie classique
Éditer les textes anciens : comment et pour quel public ?
François Bougard, Dario Mantovani et Luigi-Alberto Sanchi (dir.)
2025
Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Coptic Studies (Brussels, 11–16 July 2022)
Volume I. Plenary Papers
Alain Delattre, Élodie Mazy, Perrine Pilette et al. (dir.)
2025
