MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 63Journal of Coptic Studies 3 (2001) 63–79

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC:THE COPTIC MUQADDIMAT

B Y A D E L Y . S I D A R U S

It is a well known fact that the Copts of the thirteenth century, the se-venth of the Hegira, became fully integrated into Arabic culture and ge-nerated in that century and the following a large literary productionwhich began the golden age of Coptic Arabic literature.1 In the frame ofthis intellectual Renaissance, one of the fields that especially deservedtheir attention was naturally the study of Coptic, their national and reli-gious language that was in the process of disappearing from current in-tercourse, at least in Cairo and the whole Delta.2

The work of lexicography, now more systematic and showing newapproaches (Sidarus 1978; 1994), continued a former activity related tothe translation movement of the immediate centuries before and couldrely upon a national tradition many millennia old (Sidarus 1990a;1990b; 2001). For the grammar of Coptic, on the contrary, the task wascompletely new, for no indigenous models could serve as a point of refe-rence. Only the vigorous Arabic linguistic tradition could help for thispurpose, as it has done for the description of many Islamic and non-Is-lamic languages, Semitic as well as non-Semitic.3 Thus one can assertthat among the native grammars which arose in the Middle Ages de-pendent on Arabic linguistics, Coptic grammar deserves special atten-tion because it incorporates three characteristics: (1) it is written entirelyin Arabic; (2) it had no former models at all; and (3) it describes a non-

NOTE: Improved and much enlarged English version of the first part of Sidarus 1978a.The second part, on the lexicographical work influenced by Arab tradition, was alreadyincorporated in Sidarus 1978, esp. pp. 129–131 and 136–137. I am indebted to my col-league Dr. Sandi Michele de Oliveira for revising the language of my text. Deliveredoriginally in 1993, I had but the opportunity to indicate new relevant references. So far asI know, apart from Sidarus 2000 and in press, no relevant studies on the subject appearedin the meanwhile.

1 GCAL 2:344–444 (§§ 112–134); Sidarus 1993.2 Other considerations for this linguistic interest are sketched out in Sidarus 1978:

125–126.3 I know no comprehensive study of this very legacy. See however the corresponding

chapters in the first volume of History of the Language Sciences / Geschichte der Sprach-wissenschaften / Histoire des Sciences du Langage, edited by S. Auroux et al. (Berlin andNew York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000).

64 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

Semitic language.4 In addition, Coptic-Arabic philological studies as awhole played a decisive role in the emergence of Ethiopian linguistic lite-rature (Moreno 1949: 13–14, 61–62; Cohen 1963).

In Arabic, a Coptic grammar is called muqaddima, i.e. “preface”,“introduction”. In Coptic titles or headings we occasionally find pro-

oimion, froimion or variants. This designation is commonly ex-plained by the fact that such treatises were employed to introduce aCoptic-Arabic vocabulary, or sullam (“ladder”, “scala”). Of the sevenextant such treatises, however, only two actually operated as such;5 theothers constitute independent works, three of them with their own booktitles. In my opinion, and without ignoring the very fact that muqaddimain Arabic literature designates a certain number of grammatical treatises,the term must have established itself historically with the first of theseCoptic grammars: al-Muqaddima al-samannudiyya, written by the mid-dle of the thirteenth century. Being a true “preface” to the BohairicScala ecclesiastica of YuÌanna al-Sammannudi, it was responsible foralmost all other Coptic grammars.

In fact, we are told in the prologues to the philological works of al-.iqa Ibn al-Duhayri and al-Mu}taman Abu IsÌaq Ibn al-{Assal (apudMallon 1906: 130; 1907: 221 fine to 222) — and the internal analysis ofthe works in question corroborates the statement — that the pioneer writ-ing of the bishop of Samannud was renewed, deepened and improved byIbn Katib QayÒar, al-Wajih al-Qalyubi and Ibn al-Duhayri, successively.The assertion, however, could likewise apply to the Bohairic grammarsof al-As{ad Abu l-Faraj Ibn al-{Assal and Abu +akir Ibn al-Rahib, stillwritten in the middle of the thirteenth century, and the Sahidic “preface”of Athanasius of QuÒ, which followed the Sahidic adaptation of Saman-nudi's Muqaddima in the second half of the fourteenth century.

We should note that the literary transmission took account in someway of this continuous chain of more or less homogenous attempts toachieve an accurate description of the Coptic language. Approximatelyone third of the hundred and more Coptic-Arabic philological manu-scripts held in Egyptian and European libraries transmits to us a kind of

4 Coptic as the last form of Old Egyptian belongs to the large Hamito-Semitic linguis-tic family (nowadays called “Afro-Asiatic”); its actual morphological structure, however,offers, from the synchronic point of view, many aspects of “agglutination” that remove itat a distance from the Semitic group (see below).

5 Although al-Wajih al-Qalyubi seems to suggest the case was generalized (apudMallon 1906: 127; Lantschoot 1948: 76–77).

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 65

corpus grammaticarum that generally introduces the vocabularies of al-Mu}taman Ibn al-{Assal and Abu l-Barakat Ibn Kabar (Sidarus 1978:129–134; 1990a: 349–350). Occasionally entitled al-Muqaddimat al-*ams (“the five prefaces”), this corpus includes the first five grammarsmentioned above, in the order presented, with the exception of the workof al-As{ad Ibn al-{Assal (the half-brother of the former) whose placealternates between the third and second position.6

The Muqaddima samannudiyya

Doing pioneer work in the subject, Bishop John of Samannud (floruit1240–1260)7 limits himself in his Muqaddima to giving a survey of themorpho-syntactic elements that enter into the construction of the Copticword: articles, prefixes and connecting-particles for the noun; prefixesor pre-formatives for the verb; pronominal suffixes for prepositions andother similar particles. In these circumstances, as one would expect, thetreatment of the suffixed pronominal pronouns, called al-Ìuruf al-/amaniya (“the eight particles/elements”), appear as Ariadne’s threadthroughout the whole treatise. As Dulaurier (1849: 736–739) perspica-ciously emphasized, Coptic presents itself, in many aspects, as an “ag-glutinating” language, which entirely justifies this “external”, less ana-lytic but nonetheless more didactic, description of the idiom.8

That is the core of Samannudi's grammatical writing. A second part,ill-assorted and not very learned, lists other items considered as peculiarto the Coptic language: orthographic, morphological, syntactic and evenlexical.9 Obviously the author seems to have been unable to classify allthis material in standard grammatical categories.

6 The age and the real value of this corpus of Bohairic muqaddimat still need a specialinquiry. As stated with more details in Sidarus 1977: 27b, the existence of this collection,which has never been noticed, must be taken into consideration for the edition of any ofthe writings included.

7 GCAL 2:371–375 (§ 119). The author must have lived many years after 1257, for heis mentioned as a living person in the work of Abu IsÌaq ibn al-{Assal (apud Mallon 1907:218 fine; erroneous translation on p. 225), in spite of the opposite affirmation of Mallon(1906: 118), which originated from the misunderstanding of a somewhat obscure formularelated to the same personality in Ibn al-{Assal’s text. In any case, this particular text can-not be dated much earlier than 1263–64 (Sidarus 1975: 65; 1978: 130). For new manu-script evidence, see (besides the appendix below) Sidarus 2001: 289–290 (T16–T18).

8 Dulaurier illustrates the fact admirably by adducing (p. 737) the extreme example ofèmetreverpet#oou (ti-met-ref-er-pet-hoou): “the quality or state of the one whodoes evil”, hence: “the wickedness, malice, iniquity”.

9 Here the section on homonymous words commented on by Sidarus (1978: 136–137;2000: 325b) holds a prominent place. The whole part reveals some recasting and later ad-ditions, as well as some divergences between the original Bohairic version and the Sahidicadaptation.

66 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

In point of fact, the bishop of Samannud did not really intend todraw up a real grammar. He simply intended to give the reader of hisscala, in the form of a “concise introduction (muqaddima) to the partsof Coptic speech”, the basic rudiments that permit the making of “thefeminine out of the masculine, the plural out of the singular, the pastout of the future, the first or second person out of the third, accordingto the context”.10 In fact, his Sullam kana}isi (“Ecclesiastical Vocabu-lary”) contains the words or lexical units in the form they take in thefirst passage of the compiled corpus (biblical and liturgical texts),avoiding as a rule the repetition of analogous forms (Sidarus 1978:127–128).

That is the way the first Coptic grammar in Arabic appears: just a“foreword” or an “introduction” to a glossary of given texts, thus open-ing the way — as stressed above — to the name muqaddima for all theliterary productions that belong to the same genre.

Unfortunately there is no critical edition of this pioneering work,although this is an absolute priority from all points of view (Sidarus1977: 7 n. 37). The number of manuscripts of course is very large(about fifty), but the oldest could constitute a good base for this un-dertaking. The general remarks of Graf (GCAL 2:372–374, § 119.1)are rather poor and incorrect, as is his information about text editionsand manuscript witnesses. The original Bohairic version seems tohave had two or three editions (Hebbelynck & Lantschoot 1937: 552,ad ms. 761). It is the second, longer version that has been edited (ac-cording to a single manuscript): Kircher 1643: 2r–20r (unsound edi-tion and translation); Lantschoot 1948: 4–63 (so far the best; posthu-mous publication of the work of Tommaso Obicini; see appendix);Dulaurier 1849 (first part only). Prof. G. Godron, University ofMontpellier III, has announced the complete publication of theMontpellier manuscript, from which Dulaurier gave his scholarly par-tial edition. The Sahidic adaptation was merely transcribed from a(good) Paris manuscript by Munier (1930: 45–54a sic). A mixed ver-sion describing both dialects is to be found in Paris copte 43, fols.57v–69v.11 For new manuscript finds, for this Samannudian writing asfor all others, see the appendix below.

10 I quote here the foreword, which is wanting in many manuscripts. It can be found inDulaurier 1849: 361 or Mallon 1906: 120–121. See also the comments of Abu IsÌaq Ibnal-{Assal apud Mallon 1907: 219–220.

11 According to the new foliation of the codex (Sidarus 1997).

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 67

The Immediate Continuers of Samannudi's Work

Only later will Samannudi's followers try to compose real grammars,though always starting from “the” Muqaddima.

Ibn Katib QayÒar, the great specialist in biblical studies of his time(d. ca. 1263–65),12 in his TabÒira (“The Enlightenment”),13 takes up thematter of this “preface”, amplifies it substantially and articulates it inthe form of a continuous linguistic discourse, wherein the various ele-ments of morphology (al-alfa al-mufrada = “the single words”) aremasterfully integrated. The style reminds one of the text of the wellknown Arabic double grammar of Ibn al-Îajib (d. 1249) — al-+afiya(“The Healing”) and al-Kafiya (“The Sufficient”), on morphology andsyntax, respectively — which enjoyed a great success in Egypt, as soonas it appeared in the first half of the thirteenth century (EI 3:781–782).

The author deals successively with the noun (including pronouns andarticles), the verb and the Ìarf (particles, prepositions, conjunctions, ad-verbs), following in this manner the classical division known to the Arabgrammarians, which will reign henceforth in the Coptic muqaddimat.The great novelty in the TabÒira is the section on syntax (al-jumla al-kalamiyya al-murakkaba = “the constructed word-whole”): verbal, no-minal and “qualificative”14 sentences. Such a clear separation betweenthe treatment of morphology and that of syntax will remain the distinc-tive feature of this muqaddima.

A great shortcoming, however, lies in its excessive dependence onArabic idiomatic structure. One gets the impression of dealing ratherwith a manual of Arabic-Coptic translation. It is the total reverse of thetentative grammar of his predecessor, a tendency that two of his succes-sors shall soon moderate.

The outlook that prompted al-Wajih al-Qalyubi (d. after 1271) tocarry on the work of establishing a good Coptic grammar with his

12 GCAL 2:379–386 (§ 122). As to the date of his death and the authorship of the im-pressive Commentary of the Apocalypse, it is now ascertained that Graf’s hesitations areno longer justified: the celebrated theological summa of al-Mu}taman Abu IsÌaq ibn al-{Assal and the included list of authors (mentioned as dead) is to be dated not before, butafter 1260 (Akker 1972: 20–22; Samir 1984; Abullif 1997: 182–184). It should be notedthat the exegetical writings of our author are full of lexical and grammatical glosses thatdeserve special attention in studying his philological work.

13 Passable text edition in Kircher 1643: 20v–37v. In addition to the new witnesseslisted in the appendix, there is the manuscript in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, or. oct. 194,fols. 55r–66r (18th cent.; see Bauer 1972: 16–19) and another manuscript in the U.S.A.reported by Sidarus 1977: 28a.

14 That is the Coptic relative sentence that substitutes true adjectives: jumla na{tiyya.

68 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

Kifaya (“The Sufficiency”) shows great scientific insight.15 It is ap-proximately in the following words that the great translator and Biblecommentator explains his purpose16: To be able to translate correctly,one must respect the spirit of each language, taking care not to deal withone according to the structures or rules of the other. This warning isparticularly directed at the Copts of his time, for whom — the authoravows — the use of Arabic is predominant: they should then laboriouslyassimilate the grammar rules and the idiomatic constructions of Coptic.His own muqaddima preserves the threefold division of the TabÒira, aswell as something of the logical-philosophical style that characterizes it.

Al-.iqa Ibn al-Duhayri, who is sometimes identified with Christo-dulus, bishop of Damietta (GCAL 2:378; Sidarus 1975: 184), will like-wise find that the Kifaya, just as the TabÒira, is still too dependent onthe Muqaddima samannudiyya, which is after all quite rudimentary:both grammars are incomplete and contain, besides, defects and mis-takes. He will therefore try to remedy their deficiencies, without omit-ting to explain or discuss the points of view of their authors. Composedno doubt after 1266–67,17 his untitled work is divided into the traditionalthree parts, distributed unequally in ten chapters — which deal succes-sively with the noun (8 chapters), the verb and the various Coptic parti-cles — in addition to an appendix about certain assertions of Ibn KatibQayÒar.18 It is the first time that we meet with such a formal divisioninto chapters. The next time it will happen will be one century later withthe last of the grammars (see below). Table 1 offers a listing of the chap-ters according to the thorough description of the Vatican manuscriptscopt. 70 and 71 (item no. 5 in both) made by Hebbelynck and Lant-schoot (1937: 526–529, 532–534).

Other Bohairic Grammars of the Thirteenth Century

Although no literary source or historical evidence asserts it directly, itis obvious that the untitled grammar of al-As{ad Abu l-Faraj Ibn al-

15 GCAL 2:375 (§120). The prologue, once published by Mallon 1906: 127–128, isnow edited in Lantschoot 1948: 76–79, together with the first chapter on the articles.Compare the title with the above-mentioned grammar of Ibn al-Îajib.

16 Apud Mallon 1906: 127; Lantschoot 1948: 76–77. Full translation with commen-tary in Sidarus (in press).

17 In so far as the author uses the eulogy for dead people by mentioning Ibn KatibQayÒar in the prologue (apud Mallon 1906: 130).

18 GCAL 2:378–379 (§121). The foreword is published by Mallon (1906: 130). Addto the new witnesses listed in the appendix the manuscript Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, or. qu.518, pp. 1–50 (19th cent.); see Sidarus 1975: 78 n. 46, where the data adduced weremeanwhile personally checked.

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 69

{Assal (d. before 1265)19 arose in the wake of al-Muqaddima al-saman-nudiyya. Not only did Mallon (1906: 122) appreciate this dependence,but the integration of that muqaddima in the five standard grammars ofthe Bohairic tradition, as shown above, was already a genuine testimonyto that acceptance. In any case, the bishop of Samannud seems to haveincorporated in a second edition (?) of his own writing a passage of Ibnal-{Assal.20 This leads us to suppose that al-As{ad Ibn al-{Assal wrote hismuqaddima shortly after YuÌanna al-Samannudi and before, at the latestsimultaneously with, Ibn Katib QayÒar.

In addition, almost all witnesses of the Sahidic version of Saman-nudi's muqaddima give directly after it a large portion of Ibn al-{Assal’stext, meant apparently as a complement dealing more extensively withsyntax. As stated by Hebbelynck and Lantschoot (1937: 550–551, adms. 752), neither Mallon nor Munier had recognized this very fact in theParis manuscript, Bibliothèque nationale, copte 44, fols. 27r–30v (ed.Munier 1930: 54b–61a). But this is also the case of two more out of thethree other witnesses of the Samannudian grammar. So it is worth stat-ing that Ibn al-{Assal’s text, together with the latter, was the only Bohai-ric grammar to be recast in a Sahidic adaptation.21

19 And not necessarily before 1260, for the same reasons pointed out in n. 12 aboutIbn Katib QayÒar’s death. New information about one precise point in the author’s life isto be found in Samir 1978.

20 Mallon 1906: 123, to be corrected by Hebbelynck & Lantschoot 1937: 552 fine (adms. 761).

21 General information about the grammar in GCAL 2:404–405 (§126.2); to be con-sulted with caution. To the manuscripts listed here in the appendix add Munich, Bayeri-sche Staatsbibliothek, copt. 15, fols. 4v–8r (1813 A.D.). The second part is now edited inLantschoot 1948: 65–75. For the Sahidic text, see Sidarus 2001: 290–291 (T19).

TABLE 1

CONTENTS OF IBN AL-DUHAYRI'S MUQADDIMA (CA. 1270)

 1. The definite/indefinite masculine/feminine �c*« w� …dJM�«Ë W�dF*« ≠ ∏Ò�R*«Ë dÒY

 2. The dual and plural lL'«Ë WOM���« ≠ ≤

 3. The subject and predicate (in the nominal sentence) d)«Ë √b�*« ≠ ≥

 4. The verbal sentence ‰uFH*«Ë q UH�« vK WKL�A*« WKL'« ≠ ¥

 5. The vocative M�« ≠ µÒ¡«b

 6. The genitive and the relative noun/adjective M�« ≠ ∂ÒV�

 7. The phonetic assimilation œô« ≠ ∑Ò

ÂU�

 8. The verbal noun —bB*« ≠ ∏

 9. The verb qFH�« ≠ π

10. The particles ·d(« ≠ ±∞

70 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

A grammar that is held in contempt by some is that of Abu +akir Ibnal-Rahib, which he composed in 1263–64 along with his Scala rimata(Sidarus 1975: 63–83; 1978: 129–131). Though its traditional part indeedis somewhat confused and seems not to offer new issues, this muqaddimaopens with an exposition quite unique in its genre: it deals with the syntaxof those Coptic prefixes and particles that are formed by only one letter ofthe alphabet (Sidarus 1975: 73). Moreover, the grammar is followed bytwo absolutely original appendices. The first offers a kind of didactic re-capitulation of the grammatical rules; the second, paradigmatical tables.Since they sometimes appear alone in philological manuscripts, they havecome to be known in manuscript catalogues and standard works as “twolittle anonymous prefaces” (Sidarus 1975: 74–76).

Characteristic of Ibn al-Rahib’s working method is the wealth ofexamples quoted from original sources to explain or illustrate the gram-matical rules. The only grammarian that could compete with Ibn al-Rahib on this ground is no doubt Athanasius of QuÒ, to whom we willcome presently. However, whereas the Bible text constitutes the main, ifnot exclusive source in the muqaddima of the latter (Bauer 1972: 67–68,343), in Ibn al-Rahib the corpus of text material is much wider and, inaddition, the textual references are always meticulously indicatedthrough a sophisticated system of sigla (Sidarus 1975: 70–71; 1978:131).

The Coptic Grammar of Athanasius of QuÒ

In spite of all these attempts carried out on Bohairic Coptic approxi-mately between the fifth and the eighth decades of the thirteenth cen-tury, it was not until the second half of the following century, with theQiladat al-taÌrir fi {ilm at-tafsir (“The Necklace of Composition in theScience of Interpretation”) of Bishop Athanasius of QuÒ, in UpperEgypt, that there arose the most complete, most pertinent and best struc-tured grammar of the Coptic language, both Sahidic and Bohairic.

Since in many studies and reference works we find a great confusionabout the date of this grammatical work and its author,22 it must bestressed here that both are to be put in the last decades of the fourteenthcentury. If Graf (GCAL 2:445, §135) and the editor of al-Qilada (Bauer1972) still hesitate between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,Sidarus (1977: 23a–25b) adduced sufficient proofs in support of the laterdate. And the posterior publication of the Scrolls of Bishop Timotheos

22 For example CoptEncyc 1:303b–304a, where the old date in the eleventh century isstill mentioned. For earlier examples, see Sidarus 1977: 23 n. 4.

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 71

of Faras (Nubia), where we find the very Bishop Athanasius involved inhis consecration and subsequent entronment in 1371–72, allows no moredoubts about the matter.23

One need not wonder that almost a century after the work on theCoptic language of Lower Egypt, the study of Sahidic emerged in UpperEgypt. This corresponds to a general shift of the intellectual, not tospeak of the social, activity of the Coptic community. Illustrations ofsuch transformations are likewise apparent in the spheres of Coptic lan-guage and Arabo-Coptic literature. A certain revival of Coptic is foundfirst in thirteenth-century Bohairic, then in fourteenth-century Sahidic.24

On the other hand, Arabo-Coptic literature, which reaches its apogee inthe thirteenth century in Lower and Middle Egypt, knew some promi-nent figures of Upper Egypt in the preceding century and continued tosurvive there in the following centuries (GCAL 2:445–475 passim;4:115–145). Under the Mamluks, the ∑a{id of Egypt, with QuÒ itself asthe new capital of the Nile Valley (Garcin 1976; EI 5:514–516), cameto be almost the exclusive homeland of the Copts,25 until the thresholdof modern times with Mehmet Aly.

In her edition of al-Qilada,26 Bauer (1972: 61–70) gives a detailedanalysis of its contents, with constant reference to the correspondingtopic treatment of other “prefaces”. The listing of the chapters in whichthe work is divided is given in table 2.27 A simple comparison with table1 will show the great improvement undergone after the last grammaticalwork on Bohairic in the previous century.

The chapters on alphabet and phonology which end the grammar mustbe singled out, since this field of language description had not been dealtwith before by Athanasius’ predecessors. The fact that both versions of

23 Plumley 1975: 15–16, 24–25, 32–33, 36–37 and pls. 13, 14, 23. See also Coquin1977: 145–146; Sidarus 2001: 293–294.

24 We could not dwell here on this chapter of the history of Coptic language and lite-rature, which is totally ignored in the standard reference works. Some further remarks,especially on the interest in Greek matters, in Sidarus 2001: 293–294.

25 See for example the indications of a fifteenth-century Moslem chronicler quoted byGarcin 1976: 507–511.

26 Important corrections, additions and critical remarks on this edition, the author andsome topics on Coptic Arabic linguistic literature in general are to be found in Sidarus1977. See also Browne 1983 for further text corrections and interpretations. Still a furthercopy of the Bohairic Qilada not used in Bauer’s edition is London, British Library, Or.441 (1813 A.D.), pp. 135–177.

27 Nowhere in Bauer’s book, including the table of contents, do we find this simplelisting. Hence the indication of the pages. I give rather a free translation of the headingsin order to give account of the real contents of the chapters. There is no chapter numera-tion in the original nor in Ibn al-Duhayri's muqaddima.

72 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

TABLE 2

CONTENTS OF ATHANASIUS' QILADA (SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY)

Part I: The Noun

 1. The masculine (definite) noun 247

 2. The feminine 248

 3. The plural 248

 4. Difference of gender between Coptic and

Arabic 249

 5. Construction with the possessive particles 250

 6. The indefinite noun: article and utterance

of the possessive 253

 7. The (personal) proper name and its rela-

tive noun/adjective 254

 8. Toponymical names and ... 256

 9. The vocative 257

10. The vocative apocope 258

11. The (detached) personal pronoun 260

12. The demonstrative 260

13. The genitive construction 260

14. Broken plurals 262

15. Compound nouns (Bohairic only) 262

Part II: The Verb

16. The verbal noun 263

17. The perfect I 264

18. The present II 265

19. The circumstantial 267

20. The future I 267

21. The imperative 268

22. The prohibitive and the negation with Nne 269

23. The negation with Mpe 270

24. The objective complement/cognate accu-

sative 272

25. The attributes to former construction 272

26. The construction of the prepositional ob-

ject 273

27. Stressing of subject and object 276

28. Vowel softening in the verb 278

29. The apocope of the imperative 279

30. The double imperative 280

�c*« ¡UL�_« ≠ ±Ò…d±µ≤

�R*« ¡UL�_« ≠ ≤ÒW�±µ≥

¡UL�_« lL� ≠ ≥±µ¥

UC�√ ¡UL�_« w� ≠ ¥Î±µ¥

K�F*« ¡UL�_« ≠ µÒW�UC*« W±µ∂

…dJM�« ¡UL�_« ≠ ∂±∂±

Âö _« ¡UL�_« ≠ ∑±∂¥

Êb*« ¡UL�√ ≠ ∏±∂µ

M�« ≠ πÒ¡«b±∂∑

rO�d��« ≠ ±∞±∂∏

…dLC*« ¡UL�_« ≠ ±±±∑±

…—U�ù« ¡UL�√ ≠ ±≤±∑≤

W�UC*« ¡UL�_« ≠ ±≥±∑≤

�c*« ¡UL�_« dO�J� ≠ ±¥Ò�R*«Ë …dÒW�±∑¥

�d*« ¡UL�_« ≠ ±µÒW±∑µ

qFH�« r�« ≠ ±∂±∑∂

w{U*« qFH�« ≠ ±∑±∑∑

Ÿ—UC*« qFH�« ≠ ±∏±∏∞

‰U(« qF� ≠ ±π±∏≤

qN*« qF� ≠ ≤∞±∏≤

d�_« qF� ≠ ≤±±∏≥

M�« ≠ ≤≤Òö� wN±∏∂

M�« ≠ ≤≥ÒrK� wH±∏∏

—œUB*« ≠ ≤¥±π±

l�«u��« ≠ ≤µ±π≤

bF��« ≠ ≤∂Ò

‰uFH*«Ë q UHK� u�Ë ‰UF�_« w� ͱπ≤

‰uFH*«Ë q UH�« r�« —UN�≈ ≠ ≤∑±π∑

‰UF�_« dOGB� ≠ ≤∏≤∞∞

t�e� u�Ë d�_« qF� dOGB� ≠ ≤π≤∞±

d�_« o�«u� ≠ ≥∞≤∞≤

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 73

31. The apocope of the prohibitive 280

32. The passive voice 281

33. The passive voice indicating the object

(Bohairic only) 282

Part III: The Particles

34. Inception particles 283

35. Negative particles 284

36. Exceptive particles 284

37. Copulative particles 285

38. Interrogative particles 285

39. Comparative particles 286

40. Conjunction and other particles 286

41. Adverbs and nouns of time – weekdays

and time terminology 287

42. Adverbs of nouns of place – cardinal

points 288

43. The number 289

Appendix (Phonology and Alphabet)

44. The gemination (Sahidic only) 301

45. Assimilation, dissimilation, monophthon-

gation 292

46. Phonetic alterations of b, g, x (Bohairic

only) 293

(47. Varia concerning the pronouns) 296

48. Articulation points of the letters (Sahidic

only) 302

49. The “mysteries” of the letters: symbolic

and phonetic classification 298

M�« qF� dOGB� ≠ ≥±Òt�e� u�Ë wN≤∞≥

r�� r� U� qF� ≠ ≥≤Ò

t�uFH�ôË tK U� ≤∞µ

ÆÆÆ U� qF� w� ‰uFH*« r�« —UN�≈ ≠ ≥≥≤∞∂

¡«b��ô« ·Ëd� ≠ ≥¥≤∞∑

M�« ·Ëd� ≠ ≥µÒM�«Ë wHÒwN≤∞π

¡UM���ô« ·Ëd� ≠ ≥∂≤∞π

nDF�« ·Ëd� ≠ ≥∑≤±∞

ÂUNH��ô« ·Ëd� ≠ ≥∏≤±±

��« ·Ëd� ≠ ≥πÒtOA≤±≤

A�« ·Ëd� ≠ ¥∞Ò»«u'«Ë ◊d≤±≤

E�« ≠ ¥±Ò·Ëd≤±¥

WMJ�_« ·Ëd� ≠ ¥≤≤±∑

œbF�« ≠ ¥≥≤±π

��« ≠ ¥¥Òb�bA≤≤µ

œô« ≠ ¥µÒ

ÂU�≤≤∂

� ·Ëd� ≠ ¥∂Ô

UNH�dB� W�dF� v�≈ ÃU�"≤≤∏

©U�dO�Ë #«dLC� ¨#«—U�≈ ¡UL�√ ≠ ¥∑®≤≥µ

·Ëd(« ×U$� ≠ ¥∏≤≥π

·Ëd(« —«d�√ ≠ ¥π≤¥∞

his grammar differ much in this kind of appendix — apart from otherconsiderations — would suggest a spurious or added text. Nonetheless,whoever the author is, he seems at this point to depend on a short,anonymous writing on the subject, datable to the thirteenth century.Placed at the head of different Bohairic scala codices, and mostly intro-ducing the “corpus grammaticarum” we spoke about above, this treatisedeals exclusively with the Coptic alphabet and its phonetics: name andpronunciation of the letters; their numeric values and phonetic classi-fication; gemination; assimilation and dissimilation etc. (Sidarus 1977:27).

74 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

Bishop Athanasius did redact a large “commentary” (,arÌ) on hisSahidic grammar, the long fragments of which preserved in the manu-script Borgia copt. 133 constituted the main source for the curiousCoptic grammar by Tuki (1778). This was definitively demonstratedninety years ago by Petersen (1913), but in a Ph.D. dissertation that hasremained completely unknown up to now.28 It contains an edition, trans-lation and analysis of excerpts of the surviving fragments (about onesixth of the total), on the basis of a copy made by H. Hyvernat when hestudied the Vatican manuscripts. In fact, the 133 extant isolated leavesfrom the fourteenth century must represent no less than one third of theentire original codex. In this considerable +arÌ, the original text (al-faÒÒ) is quoted literally, passage by passage, before it is commentedupon and developed by way of supplementary examples or paradig-matical tables, altogether with new grammatical rules and considera-tions.

* * *

This general survey of the medieval Coptic grammars in Arabic natur-ally prompts the following pertinent question: How far was the use ofArabic terminology as such adequate for the description of Coptic lan-guage?

The thorough linguistic analysis of the Coptic muqaddimat as well asthe systematic and historical study of their linguistic terminology havenot yet been done. This task was begun by Bauer (1972: 71–150), whocompleted a critical analysis of the technical terms of Athanasius ofQuÒ, the last of all the Coptic philologists of the Middle Ages. As forother grammarians, we must wait for critical editions. Then a compari-son with the Arabic grammatical writings current in thirteenth-centuryEgypt should be made, and not a comparison with only the classicaltexts.

Nonetheless, the results of Bauer’s limited study, which are largelycorroborated by the reading of Athanasius’ forerunners, shows in gen-eral that the Coptic grammarians of the Middle Ages succeeded in theirundertaking.29 Though not without necessary adjustments, such as se-

28 We reached the same conclusion after having consulted the Vatican manuscript,whose importance had been recognized earlier in any case (Sidarus 1977: 28b). We planto offer more details about this valuable work of Athanasius of QuÒ and Petersen’s partialedition soon.

29 See now Sidarus 2000. Although the modern national grammars could claim to bedescended from the grammatical work of the Middle Ages and actually could be invokedfor this very conclusion, they belong to quite different historical and literary cycles.

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 75

mantic extensions or restrictions, derivations or compositions, analogiesand neologisms,30 the Arabic grammatical categories became, under theirpens, suitable for describing the last stage of the ancient language ofEgypt.

Appendix:

Bibliographical Note and New Manuscript Witnesses

An annotated essential bibliography is to be found in Sidarus 1990.Many of the titles listed below in the list of references are reported there.Some further titles deserve comment, as follows.

1. GCAL: The presentation of the different philological writings invol. 2 is founded basically upon Mallon’s pioneering work (1906–7; seeSidarus 1990: 84). It offers a substantial updating of manuscript hold-ings; however, with some inaccuracies and lacunas.

2. Yassa 1947: A general survey likewise based upon Mallon’s work.New manucript witnesses from Coptic monasteries in Egypt are reportedin a table on p. 68 and are reproduced with some comments in Sidarus1977: 33b–34b (“Anhang”). Further notes and corrections registeredbelow.

3. Hebbelynck & Lantschoot 1937–47: Because of the accurate anddetailed descriptions of the texts preserved in the manuscripts cata-logued, some of which are both old and good, and in view of the factthat almost all the philological treatises are still unedited or without acritical edition, this manuscript catalogue, together with Mallon’s inven-tory (1910; see Sidarus 1990: 84–85) holds an important place in thestudy of Coptic-Arabic philological writings.

4. Lantschoot 1948: The author publishes the old Latin and Italiantranslations made by Obicini (d. 1632) of the entire Bohairic grammar ofal-Samannudi and the first parts only of the writings of al-As{ad Ibn al-{Assal, Ibn al-Duhayri and Ibn Kabar, besides the original text of Vati-can copt. 71 (1318 A.D.), the same manuscript edited by Kircher (1643),occasionally collated with that of Vat. copt. 70 (1684 A.D.).

Regarding the manuscripts from Coptic monasteries referred to initem 2 above, the data concerning Abu Maqar and Dayr al-Suryaniwere meanwhile checked: by myself for the latter, by Zanetti (1986: 66)

30 One must be cautious with many terms considered neologisms by Bauer. Not onlyhas she consulted too few Arabic sources, but most of the later, sometimes more currenttexts are still unedited. As a matter of fact, some of the alleged neologisms could befound today in circulating Arabic grammars.

76 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

for the former; they are recorded in table 3. For the material in Dayral-MuÌarraq, see now the summary description of Pirone 1989: 320–321. Some of the information about the monasteries of Wadi {Araba, onthe Red Sea, could be given rather precisely by means of consultation ofthe existing handwritten checklists of the libraries, which offer a rathergeneric description of the codices. As stated in Sidarus 1977: 34b,they were made by Marcus Simaika. I am indebted to M. René-GeorgesCoquin (Paris) for sending me photocopies of the relevant pages.

So, the sixteen (!) codices of philologica in St. Antony have the gen-eral sequential numbers 1389–1403 and 1405, corresponding to nos. 1–15 and 17 of the section Mutanawwi{at (“varia”). They are all but onefrom the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries; no. 11 (= no. 1399) datesfrom 1318 A.D., but transmits no grammars. As for the Monastery ofSt. Paul, it is the seven codices munawwa{a 1–7 (= nos. 759–765) thatcontain philological miscellanies. According to the checklist (p. 77),the first three manuscripts show exactly the same organization. Conse-quently, no. 3 (= no. 761) begins also with the corpus of the five gram-mars referred to above. Important seems to be no. 4 (= no. 762), whichtransmits separately the whole work of al-Samannudi, both grammar andvocabulary, and is dated 1332 A.D. The other manuscripts are from theseventeenth–nineteenth centuries.

In table 3 are listed new manuscript witnesses not included in GCAL31

or in our monographic studies on Ibn al-Rahib and Athanasius of QuÒ.32

31 On the manuscripts of Munich recorded there and in the present study, see Sidarus1975: 80–83.

32 Where no indication of folios was possible, we indicate the position of the itemwithin the manuscript (primo, secundo, etc.).

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 77

TABLE 3NEW MANUSCRIPT WITNESSES

GRAMMARS EG DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DM1 DM2 BL1 BL2

Al-Samannudi 20 1o 3o 5o 1o 3o 1o 1–14 95–126Ibn Katib Q. 17 1o 1o 2o 1o 2o 6–10Al-Qalyubi 15 2o 4o 4o 11–15Ibn al-Duhayri 15 4o 5o 5o 21–33Ibn al-{Assal 15 3o 3o 3o 1–5Ibn al-Rahib 04 BL2: 38–59 + 127–8 + 15–20

LEGEND:

EG = Generic account of the number of witnesses recorded in Yassa/Sidarus.33

DS1 = Wadi al-Na†run, Dayr al-Suryani no. 667 (13th/14th cent.?).DS2 = Idem no. 668 (1587 A.D.?). Fragmentary.DS3 = Idem no. 669 (1784 A.D.).DS4 = Idem no. 671 (1936 A.D.).DM1 = Wadi al-Na†run, Dayr Abu Maqar no. 429 (17th cent.).DM2 = Idem no. 430 (1852 A.D.).BL1 = London, British Library, Or. 8775 (1768 A.D.).34

BL2 = Idem, Or. 8780 (1798 A.D.).

References

Abullif, Wadi. 1997. Studio su al-Mu}taman Ibn al-{Assal. Studia OrientaliaChristiana: Monografiae 5. Cairo and Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.(In Arabic: Dirasa {an…).

Akker (1972) = Bu†rus as-Sadamanti, Introduction sur l’herméneutique, edited,introduced and translated by Piet van den Akker. Recherches, n.s., B: Orientchrétien 1. Beirut: Dar al-Machreq.

Bauer, Gertrud. 1972. Athanasius von QuÒ, Qiladat at-taÌrir fi {ilm at-tafsir:Eine koptische Grammatik in arabischer Sprache aus dem 13./14. Jahrhun-dert. IslamU 17. Freiburg im Breisgau: Kl. Schwarz.

Browne, G.M. 1983. “Notes on Athanasius of QuÒ.” Orientalia 52:268–270.Cohen, M. 1963. “Lexiques éthiopiens.” Comptes-rendus du GLECS 9 (1960–

1963) 99–101.Coquin, R.-G. 1977. “À propos des rouleaux coptes-arabes de l’évêque Timo-

thée.” BO 34:142–147.

33 See §2 above. The account leaves out the manuscripts of DS and DM, recordedseparately, and takes into consideration the correction just stated about St. Paul. There isno information about the dialect treated in the texts. It is supposed that all are related toBohairic, with the exception, maybe, of those preserved in the manuscripts of the MuÌar-raq Monastery, in Upper Egypt (no indication about the language is to be found in thesummary description of Pirone 1989: 320–321).

34 For this manuscript and the next, see Layton 1987 (nos. 254, 255); they were, how-ever, checked by myself. There is also Or. 8781 (Layton no. 245), an artificial conglomer-ate of fragments of different liturgical (4) and philological (11) codices, which still de-serves a special study.

78 ADEL Y. SIDARUS

Dulaurier, Edouard. 1849. “Grammaire copte-arabe de Séménoudi.” In: Cata-logue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements1:718–739. Paris.

Garcin, Jean-Claude. 1976. Un centre musulman de Haute-Égypte: QuÒ. Textesarabes et études islamiques 6. Cairo: IFAO.

Hebbelynck, Adolf, and Arnold van Lantschoot. 1937–47. Codices Coptici Vati-cani Barberiani Borgiani Rossiani. 2 vols. Vatican City: Biblioteca Aposto-lica Vaticana.

Kircher, Athanasius. 1643. Lingua Aegyptiaca restituta: Opus tripartitum.Rome: apud Ludovicum Grignanum.

Lantschoot, Arnold van. 1948. Un précurseur d’Athanase Kircher: ThomasObicini et la scala Vat. copte 71. Bibliothèque du Muséon 22. Leuven:Institut Orientaliste.

Layton, Bentley. 1987. Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the BritishLibrary Acquired since the Year 1906. London: The British Library.

Mallon, Alexis. 1906–7. “Une école de savants égyptiens [coptes] au MoyenÂge.” MUSJ 1:109–131, 2:213–264.

———. 1910. “Catalogue des scalae coptes de la Bibliothèque nationale [deParis].” MUSJ 4:57–90.

Moreno, M.M. 1949. “Struttura e terminologia del Sawasew.” Rassegna diStudi Etiopici 8:12–62.

Munier, Henri. 1930. La scala copte 44 de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris.Bibliothèque d’études coptes 2. Cairo: IFAO.

Petersen, Theodore Christian. 1913. An Unknown Copto-Arabic Grammar byAthanasius, Bishop of Kûs, or the Source of Tukhi’s Rudimenta LinguaeCoptae sive Aegyptiacae. Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America,Faculty of Letters, Washington, DC.

Pirone, B. 1987. “I manoscritti di Dair al-Muharraq.” Colectanea 20:295–321.Plumley, J. Martin. 1975. The Scrolls of Bishop Timotheos: Two Documents

from Medieval Nubia. Texts from Excavations/First Memoirs. London:Egypt Exploration Society.

Samir, Samir Khalil. 1978. “Al-As{ad Ibn al-{Assal copiste de Jean Damascèneà Damas en 1230.” OCP 44:190–194.

———. 1985. “Date de la composition de la Somme théologique d’al-Mu}taman b. al-{Assal.” OCP 50:94–106.

Sidarus, Adel Y. 1975. Ibn ar-Rahibs Leben und Werk: Ein koptisch-arabischerEncyklopädist des 7./13. Jahrhunderts. IslamU 36. Freiburg im Breisgau: Kl.Schwarz.

———. 1977. “Athanasius von QuÒ und die arabisch-koptische Sprachwissen-schaft des Mittelalters.” BO 34:22–35.

———. 1978. “Coptic Lexicography in the Middle Ages: The Coptic ArabicScalae.” In: ICCoptS 1 125–142.

MEDIEVAL COPTIC GRAMMARS IN ARABIC 79

———. 1978a. “La philologie copte arabe au Moyen Âge.” In: La significationdu Bas Moyen Âge dans l’histoire et la culture du monde musulman (Actesdu 8e congrès de l’Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants), 267–281. Aix-en-Provence: Edisud.

———. 1990. “Bibliographical Introduction to Medieval Coptic Linguistics.”BSAC 29:83–85.

———. 1990a. “Les lexiques onomasiologiques gréco-copto-arabes du MoyenÂge et leurs origines anciennes.” In: Lingua restituta orientalis: FestschriftJulius Aßfalg, edited by R. Schulz and M. Görg, 348–359. Ägypten undAltes Testament 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

———. 1990b. “Onomastica aegyptiaca: La tradition des lexiques thématiquesen Égypte à travers les âges et les langues.” Histoire Epistémologie Langage12.1:7–19. Paris. [Improved English version in: BSAC 39 (2000) 11–22.]

———. 1993. “Essai sur l’âge d’or de la littérature copte arabe.” In: ICCoptS 52:443–462.

———. 1994. “La lexicographie copte médiévale.” Le Monde Copte 24:51–58.———. 1997. “Un recueil original de philologie gréco-copto-arabe. La scala

copte 43 de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France.” In: Scribes et manuscritsdu Moyen Orient: Actes des Journées de codicologie et de paléographie desmanuscrits du Moyen-Orient (Paris, juin 1994), edited by F. Déroche andF. Richard, 293–326. Études et recherches 1. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationalede France.

———. 2000. “L’influence de l’arabe sur la linguistique copte.” In: History ofthe Language Sciences / Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften / Histoire dessciences du langage, edited by S. Auroux et al., 1:321a–325b (chap. 47).Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

———. 2001. “La tradition sahidique de philologie gréco-copto-arabe. (Manu-scrits des XIIIe–XVe siècles).” In: Neuvième Journée d’Études Coptes (Mont-pellier, juin 1998), edited by N. Bosson, 265–304. CBibCopt 12. Leuven:Peeters.

———. In press. “Le modèle arabe en grammaire copte. Une approche des mu-qaddimât copto-arabes médiévales.” In: Le voyage et la langue: Hommage àAndré Roman et Anouar Louca. Damascus: Institut Français d’Études Ara-bes.

Yassa {Abd al-MasiÌ. 1947. “Al-muqaddimat wal-salalim.” Risalat [Jam{iyyat]Mar Mina 2:59–68. [Alexandria].

Zanetti, Ugo. 1986. Les manuscrits de Dair Abû Maqâr: Inventaire. COr 11.Geneva: Cramer.

Adel Y. SidarusRua dos Altos 16P - 7000-693 ÉvoraPortugal(E-mail: asidarus@ip.pt)