(CE:A74a-A76a)

DIALECT G (OR BASHMURIC OR MANSURIC). To judge by a

rather curious orthographical-phonological system more or less
adequately attested by a group of small, late nonliterary Coptic texts
of the eighth century, of which the principal ones have been
published by Krall (1887 [extracts]; 1892) and, most completely, by
Crum (1939), there must have existed, probably in Lower Egypt, an
idiom of Coptic conventionally called dialect G, occasionally called
Bashmuric (Kasser, 1975, esp. pp. 406-407) or even Mansuric
(Schüssler, 1969, p.154). According to orthographical criteria, G
should be included in the BOHAIRIC dialectal group (Kasser, 1981,
pp. 102-103, 121-122), itself a subdivision of the northern (dialects
and vehicular language)—southern (vehicular language) Coptic
dialect major group (see DIALECTS, GROUPING AND MAJOR
GROUPS OF; and Kasser, 1982, p. 51). Although it is difficult to
locate this dialect geographically with any precision, several features
would support assignment of it to the eastern Delta.
The most striking characteristic of the G texts is of an alphabetic
nature (see ALPHABETS, COPTIC): the letters used in them are all
of Greek origin. Thus, the alphabet of G does not include s> f>
q> h> j> [ and ] (which does not mean the absence in G of
all the phonemes normally used in other dialects by these graphemes
of demotic origin, as will be seen). This alphabetic idiosyncrasy is
glaringly evident, to the point of overshadowing other,
nonalphabetic characteristics and with the consequence that the
current view of the language of these texts is that it is, for all
practical purposes, more or less pure Bohairic, even if a Bohairic
disguised by a graphemic system different from that of Bohairic
proper. This view has delayed the definition of G, although its main
texts had been edited for over a century.
To compile the phonological inventory of G, it would be
simplest to compare it with that of Bohairic, B, the idiom to which it
is closest. If one studies mainly the manuscript K 1785 of the
Austrian National Library in Vienna, one may have the impression
that G lacks several phonemes occurring in the B system.
First, consider the phoneme series expressed in Coptic by letters of
Greek origin, which may therefore be taken to match phonemes
existing in Greek itself. After an unstressed vowel and before a
stressed one, G replaces Bohairic b by p: thus, epol, out(ward),
but niben, every. Unfortunately, no lexeme beginning with b in B
is attested in the G documents; elsewhere, however, G has b, which
seems to have a /v/ rather than a / / value (see below). Before the
stress-carrying vowel and in word-initial position, G appears to
replace Bohairic d /d/ by t /t/ fairly regularly (e.g., tianom/>
dianom», sharing). B aspirates k /k/, p /p/, and t /t/ into , /kh/, v
/ph/, and y /th/, respectively, in certain well-defined conditions
(Stern, 1880, pp. 16-26; Mallon, 1907, pp. 17-18; Worrell, 1934, pp.
18-23; Till, 1961, p. 7), but G does not (see below, on the phonemes
/f/, /x/, / /, and also / h/ of B). This can be stated in spite of the
occurrence in G of ,w etc., not kw etc., for “put”, since this
exceptional instance of what might, at first sight, be taken for the
aspiration /kh/ of /k/ remains entirely isolated in G; and this , of G
can be explained differently, on diachronic grounds: one may
assume that the value of this , is not /kh/ as in B but /x/ as
invariably elsewhere in G, for S etc. kw and B ,w stem from
Egyptian , although for this lexeme alone, old Ii has
exceptionally evolved into /k/ or /kh/, whereas normally h became
/x/ > Coptic /h/, in a few cases similarly /x/, in most part /ç/ > / /.
On the other hand, Bohairic t /t/ corresponds to d /d/ in G when
preceded by a stress-carrying vowel and followed by an unstressed
one (e.g., noudi, God; codem, hear; teknidec, tecn…thj artisan).
Since v in G not only renders the Greek f in Greco-Coptic words
but also corresponds to Bohairic f /f/ in the autochthonous Coptic
vocabulary (e.g., etzov, [up]on him), one may assume that v in G
was throughout and did not maintain the /ph/ value in the Greco-
Coptic vocabulary. Similarly, since , in G not only renders Greek c
in Greco-Coptic but corresponds also to Bohairic q /x/ in the
autochthonous vocabulary (e.g., ,en-, in), it is a safe assumption
that , in G had the value /x/ throughout and did not maintain the
value /kh/ in Greco-Coptic—and that even in the apparently
exceptional case of G ,w, put (see above).
Turning now to the series of Coptic phonemes rendered by
graphemes of demotic origin, one observes the following: Bohairic
s / / corresponds to cz / / in G (e.g., cza-, until), Bohairic f /f/
to v /f/ in G (see above), and Bohairic q /x/ to , /x/ in G (see
above); h /h/ in B does not correspond to any G graphemes, which
may give reason to assume that this phoneme has completely
disappeared (leaving, however, some traces in neighboring
vocalism; see below). Bohairic j / / corresponds to tz in G (e.g.,
tzom, power); Bohairic j / h/ also corresponds to tz in G (e.g.,
tzi-, take), from which one could conclude that G (probably) does
not have the aspiration so typical of Bohairic (see above). Finally, G
does not use the grapheme ] /ti/, expressing this combination of
phonemes simply by ti (as is the case in all OLD COPTIC
alphabets and in the Coptic DIALECT H as well as in the Fayyumic
subdialects F8 and F9). The foregoing gives some basic ideas of G
consonantism; one should add that G replaces word-initial Bohairic
ou /w/ by b /v/ (e.g., boutz, wish).
As for the vocalism (to give here but the most essential), G
seems to treat what is in B rendered by o /o/ and w /o/ as a single
phoneme, expressed by o /o/ (e.g., codem, hear) except in the
following special cases: In closed syllable, after disappeared h /h/
this vowel is w /o/ in G (e.g., wb, thing); after b /v/ (replacing ou
/w/ in B), this vowel is ou /u/ (see boucz, wish, above); and before
ou /w/, this vowel is w /o/ (e.g., twouei, tomorrow). In open
syllable, after disappeared h /h/, this vowel is w /o/ (e.g., w, face,
person); and after cz / /, this vowel is ou /u/ (e.g., czoupi,
become, but czorp, first).
The G texts are too short and too unhomogenous o make
possible a detailed and exhaustive observaion on the
morphosyntactic level. However, one lay observe a negative
imperative (or vetative) men-, most often followed by the negator
particle an, in a combination that is quite unusual elsewhere in Cop-
ic (combining with the vetative mn-, normal in A and P, this
negator particle that is not compatible with it, with some exceptions,
very rare in S, less rare but not frequent in B, some indicated in
Crum, 1939a, p. l0b, under an, sec. d; others, particularly B,
indicated in Shisha-Halevy, 1981, pp. 324, 333 n. 51). Thus
men,av epbol an, Release him not; mencztori etzoei
nen (?) yenn/cou, Take not surety of me for (?) Tinnis;
mencodem encov an, Hearken not unto him;
men,antevcamk an natcztori epevw, Suffer not that
he quit (?) thee without undertaking himself; menpaeicnaou
teknidec taeiborpou nak men,a peywou
tevtawou an, No, these two craftsmen that I have sent thee,
suffer not evil to befall them.
Little is known of the G verbal prefixes, an ignorance due to the
scarcity of texts in this dialect, all nonliterary, as well as too rare and
too short. Given below will be the third-person singular masculine
form and then the corresponding prenominal form (nom. = before
nominal subject), if attested, the former in brackets, reconstructed
where possible according to an associated form:
Bipartite pattern. Present I [v-], nom. zero (neg. [v-] … an,
nom. zero … an); circumstantial of present I [ev-]; present II
[ev-].
Tripartite pattern. Perfect I av- neg. [mev-?]; relative
perfect I etav-; perfect II [tav-?]. Futurum energicum (or third
future) eve-. Imperative a- (anaou, see), neg. (vetative) men-
... (an), see above. Causative imperative, nom. mare- (?).
Conjunctive, 1st singular ta-, 2nd masc. [nk-] (or tek-), 3rd
masc. [nv-] (or tev-), and so on (a morphological duality not
unknown in B; see Shisha-Halevy, 1981, p. 324), nom. te- (?) (or
ente-); combined with cza-, until (limitative) czantev-, nom.
Cza(n)te-; combined with ,a-, let, allow, suffer, ,antev-
(see above); combined with eczou-, if, a kind of conditional,
eczoutev-. Conditional [avczan-].
 It is hoped that one day the caprice of discovery may yield a
literary G text, one more extensive than the small documents on
which observations of the orthographical-phonological account of
this dialect have perforce been based. Finally, as an illustration, the
initial greeting in the text of Vienna K 1785 is presented here: ,en
pran enpnoudi enczorp nwb niben tic,aei tier
acpazecye enpamaeinoudi enco#n$ ettai/out kata
cmont niben nem pek/ei t/rv eicztzen koutzi
cza niczt(i) (In God’s name. Before all things I write and I greet
my God-loving brother, in all ways honored, and all thy house, from
small to great).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford, 1939a.
_____. “Coptic Documents in Greek Script.” Proceedings of the
British Academy 25 (1939b):249-71.
Kasser, R. “L’Idiome de Bachmour.” Bulletin de l’Institut français
d’archéologie orientale 75 (1975):401-427.
_____. “Prolégomènes à un essai de classification systématique des
dialectes et subdialectes coptes selon les critères de la
phonétique, III, Systèmes orthographiques et catégories
dialectales.” Muséon 94 (1981):91-152.
_____. Le Grand-Groupe dialectal copte de HauteEgypte.” Bulletin
de la Société d’égyptologie, Genèive 7 (1982):47-72.
Krall, J. “Aus einer koptischen Klosterbibliothek.” Mittheilungen
aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 1 (1887):62-
72, and 2-3 (1887):43-73.
_____. “Koptische Briefe.” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der
Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 5 (1892):21—58.
Mallon, A. Grammaire copte, avec bibliographie, chrestomathie et
vocabulaire, 2nd ed. Beirut, 1907.
Schüssler, K. Epistularum Catholicarum Versio Sahidica. Münster,
1969.
Shisha-Halevy, A. “Bohairic-Late-Egyptian Diaglosses.” Studies
Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky, ed. D. W. Young, pp. 314-
38. East Gloucester, Mass., 1981.
Stern, L. Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig, 1880.
Till, W. C. Koptische Dialektgrammatik, mit Lesestücken and
Wörterbuch. 2nd ed. Munich, 1961.
Worrell, W. H. Coptic Sounds. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1934.

RODOLPHE KASSER
ARIEL SHISHA-HALEVY