Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/836

Rh 798 HIEROGLYPHICS 2C, or under the Q in both dialects. The exceptions are as follows, in order of frequency : 1, (J&quot; Sahidic, K Memphitic ; 2, K Sahidic, Memphitic ; 3, K in both dialects ; 4, X Sahidic, 6~ Memphitic. The graphic origin of the Coptic (T^is doubtful. It is incorrect in our judgment to derive it, as hitherto, from the demotic *, coming from 9 - &amp;gt; hieratic of ^=^ : the suffix of the second person K has been rendered as far as the latest periods, almost coniemporary with the Coptic, by this demotic sign ; consequently we ought to find it in Coptic under the form 6~^if this letter came from that sign ; on the contrary, K is used for this pronoun. Ot may have come from the demotic form of ffl, through the hieratic. DENTALS. The exact appreciation of the Egyptian dentals is hard. It seems certain that the three homophones g, &amp;lt;=&amp;gt;, jj , answer to a t, and that | j A, are represented in Coptic by the special articulation iL 2C. The sign ^^=&amp;gt; seems to have the character of an intermediate shade of sound. In the Greek and Roman names, r, 6, and 5 are transcribed by all the signs without distinction (the Roman being tran scribed through Greek forms). In the Semitic transcriptions D and 13 are rendered by S^=&amp;gt; ( &amp;lt;a, | , and more rarely c=^ ; 1 is tran scribed by c^si with a marked preference ; t and V answer exclusively to | and its homophones (including a later sign). The Coptic offers two certain types, T~, becoming -0 Memphitic, and 2C ; the trace of a third variety seems also preserved in the syllabic &quot; r [&quot;. We are thus led to distinguish three consonants t, t, and t . The three signs =&amp;gt; , ^ , ,t, conduct themselves as perfect homophones. The Greek and Roman names shew them to be used for T, 6, 5 ; but the hierogrammats when they sought a .more scrupulous transcription of used the group ^ , th (cf. D CD, pli), which shews that originally the Egyptian t did not lend itself to the aspirated sound. The Leyden MS. with Greek transcriptions thus places Oav in correspondence to an Egyptian word, written a t m ^. AAWW Talicin, in which the first is a mater lectionis,&quot; of no value in pronunciation. In Semitic words g ) , ^ , | , served to transcribe regularly fl and 13, sometimes also 1, b more rarely. We observe no preference for transcriptions of 12 ; this letter, which is not frequently found, corresponds even to c^s, (, in the name of Potiphar. We may conclude that the special sound of the L3 had no existence in old Egyptian. The Coptic derived forms have but one type T&quot; for g &amp;gt; and its homophones ; the Memphitic aspiration changes it to -0-; following the rules of affinity we find some cases of jrivation with 2C. We pass at once to the third dental, t, of which the differential characteristics are more marked ; perhaps the intermediate consonant may be more easily defined afterwards. The two signs, ) , A which we transcribe t , interchange in many Egyptian words; they are both varied with the very common eyllabic ft^y, t a (which became an alphabetic sign though retaining its vowel, like our q} ; they act in exactly the same manner in the transcriptions and in the Coptic derived words. The hierogrammats employed them, but very rarely, to transcribe the Greek r and 5, and the Greeks felt some difficulty in transcribing this articulation ; thus we find t rendered by T and 5, or by &amp;lt;r; thus Sq-n-t alio is rendered by Sensaos, and Har-ant -atef by Arontotes and Arendotes. Jn the cartouche of Cambyses the Persian articulation z, j of Rawlinson, &amp;gt;-^., is found; it is transcribed by (l , t , but not con- Jp* stantly ; variants shew a simple t, S=&amp;gt;. Therefore there was not a perfect identity between the Egyptian t and the Persian z. The Hebrews had two sibilants more or less shading off into cerebrals, t and V ; they are constantly transcribed by |, f, and its homophones, and not by t; but we do not remark a preference in favour of this or that sign for either of the two Semitic letters, and this confusion shews that there was but an approximative correspondence. The Coptic derived forms from the ancient t are classed according to two rules : they are written either (1) with 2C in the two dialects, or (2) with 2C Sahidic, corresponding to (&amp;gt; Memphitic, the dialect of Upper Egypt shewing a higher exactness. The exceptions shew us 1, T&quot; Sahidic, Memphitic ; 2 ? (5 Sahidic, 2C Mtmphitic ; 3, JX) i 4, the palatals; i.e., all the letters which shew a kind of affinity with this dental, of which we cannot now fix the pronunciation beyond saying that it approached the sibilants and the cerebrals. The Copts preserved it in 2C, which comes from the hieroglyphic |, through the hieratic I , I , becoming in demotic f&amp;gt;y^~ this was developed and made regular by the Copts. The Copts cannot now give precise information as to the pronunciation of 2C ; in the last century, an attempt was made to indicate it by ,&amp;lt;y . Dr. Brugsch proposes for the ancient letter z, and Dr. Birch j ; it seems to us that the conven tional t is more suitable to the Egyptian variants of the articulation, which constantly make it approach t-ra, t. In the eyes of the ancient Egyptians the letter ^s^, t, was a near neighbour of |, t ; it could even be considered as a homophone if we had only the evidence of the variants ; for variants between ^ and c^23 are numerous, and found in the earliest texts. The variants between ^&amp;gt;, and g ), &amp;lt;o , | , arc rare enough, and belong above all to the late periods. But the Semitic transcriptions indicate the principle of a distinction. Far from using it to render T and V, g-a is connected with T with a very marked preference. From the Nineteenth Dynasty, when the system of these transcriptions appears to have been made regular, on account of the many relmions established with the neighbouring nations by conquests and emigra tions (into Egypt), this preference became so constant that it led Dr. Brugsch to transcribe ^^^ by a d. The exceptions to this rule place the ^^-&amp;gt; beside t3 and D, rather than the cerebrals. In Coptic the derivatives o( ^^^, t, do not act like those of ancient words usually written with t. We find the derivatives of c^^ regularly under the dentals T, 0, ^~, -.ometimes also under X, but in very small number. The verb tu, &quot;to give,&quot; ordinarily written , becomes in Coptic ^j&quot;. This sign, which the earlier Copts pronounced di, was considered a simple ligature for T&quot; and t. But Dr. Brugsch has remarked that T | resembles the demotic *r, cor responding to * n | &quot;to give,&quot; too much for the likeness to be due to chance ; there was here a recollection of the softened sound peculiar to ^s^ f and the Copts took the ^| from demotic with their other special letters. Evidently these two groups of documents may induce us to mark the c^s as a special letter, but this letter could not be a d. In fact, the Copts excluded ^ from their native words, and the hiero grammats indicated that the ^^^ was not a true d: when they would transcribe more exactly the Latin &amp;lt;7, which they found in foreign names, they employed a double letter, nt. We notice this in che of Darius for the Persian d, and for the Q ^, nt(a)Lili(u)s, forDaoicus, inserted in the cartouche f Trajan. This wholly artificial ortho graphy aids us to appreciate a peculiarity of the Egyptian dentals, that after the nasal the pronunciation softened in the direction of d. This explains many Greek transcriptions which shew the. 8, as Z/Sej-SeTTjs, which represents Nes-bi-n-tet. 1 The d being out of the question we select t as near the point of view of the Egyptian variants of the cartouche Latin d in the surname variants where c=^&amp;gt; replaces 1. LIQUIDS. The three signs v, __^, and / exactly answer to m ; the transcriptions are uniform, always /j, Greek and Semitic. The Coptic derived forms are almost always JJL, some rare excep tions presenting ft, &, IT. One must be very careful in Coptic not to confound a radical AA with that which comes from ft by assimila tion before a labial, as in the Sahidic particle ,UL ( coming f. om &quot;in,&quot; before the article JT. It is also to be remarked i Cf. the Gnostic word Sabitat, which docs not differ from the other but by the absence of the flexion n, and retains the t.