1 

A grammatical overview of Egyptian and Coptic*

MARTIN HASPELMATH

tо арреаr іn:
Grоѕѕmаn, Еіtаn & Наѕреlmаth, Маrtіn & Rіⅽhtеr, Тоnіо Ѕеbаѕtіаn (еdѕ.)
Еgурtіаn-Сорtіⅽ іn tуроlоgіⅽаl реrѕреⅽtіvе.

This chapter presents a brief outline of the grammar of Earlier Egyptian (in the form of
Middle Egyptian; Part A) and a brief outline of the grammar of Later Egyptian (in the
form of Coptic, Sahidic dialect; Part B). This outline is intended for non-Egyptologist
readers who are interested in the grammatical structure of Egyptian, so the description
makes minimal use of idiosyncratic terminology. Occasionally peculiarities of Egyptian that
are cross-linguistically uncommon are pointed out.
Middle Egyptian (the most-studied form of Earlier Egyptian) is written in hieroglyphic
or heratic script, which is a complex mixture of ideographic, logographic and phonographic
signs. Only consonants are represented by the phonographic signs, so the vowel sounds are
largely unknown (though some of them can be inferred from the representation of
Egyptian names in other languages, and most importantly, from Coptic forms).
Transliteration of pre-Coptic Egyptian is not practical due to the very large number of
signs, so Egyptologists use a system that transcribes only the consonants.1
Coptic is written with Greek letters, augmented by a few consonant letters deriving from
the Demotic script. The transliteration that is used here is the Leipzig-Jerusalem
transliteration (see Grossman & Haspelmath 2014, in this volume).

Part A. Salient grammatical patterns of Middle Egyptian

A1. Consonant inventory

This chapter focuses on morphosyntax, so very little is said about phonology here. Most
importantly, Middle Egyptian has the consonants in Table 1.

                                                        
* I am grateful to Bernard Comrie, Eitan Grossman, Tonio Sebastian Richter and Daniel A. Werning for
helpful comments on this chapter. 
1
For oral discussion of Egyptian expression, Egyptologists generally use an artificial pronunciation that
syllabifies consonant sequences with an [e] sound (e.g. nfr is pronounced [nefer]), that treats j and w as [i]
and [u], and that treats ɜ and ʕ as [a] (thus, Nfrtjtj is pronounced as [nefertiti], and the name is also rendered
in English as Nefertiti).
  2 

Table 1. Middle Egyptian consonants

p t ṯ k q
b d ḏ g
f s š ḫ ẖ ḥ h
z ʕ
m n r ɜ
w j, jj
The exact values of several of these consonants is not quite clear. For discussion of
Egyptian phonology and the values of the letters used in transcription, see Schenkel (1990:
ch. 2), Loprieno (1995), Kammerzell (1998), Peust (1999), Müller (2011), and Allen (2013).
The special case of the consonant ʕ is discussed in detail by Gensler (2014) (in this volume).
The transcription conventions used here mostly follow Loprieno (1995) and Allen
(2000). Other authors follow different conventions. In particular, ṯ and ḏ are sometimes
transcribed as č and č̣, j is transcribed as ỉ, jj is transcribed as y, and ʕ is transcribed as ᶜ.2
Note that ɜ is a consonant (perhaps [l], [r] or later [ʔ]).

A2. Word order

Egyptian is a consistently right-branching language in which word order is primarily

determined grammatically, or in other words, word order is fairly rigid. Right-branching
(Dryer 1992) means that in syntactic phrases consisting of a non-branching constituent and
a branching constituent, the branching constituent follows. Thus, Egyptian has the word-
order patterns in Table 2.

Table 2. Some phrase types in Middle Egyptian

phrase type non-branching constituent branching constituent example
verb phrase verb object NP (1)
noun phrase noun possessor NP (2)
adpositional phrase preposition complement NP (3)
auxiliary complex auxiliary verb phrase (4)
subordinate clause subordinator clause (5)

(1) jw mɜɜ-n-j [nḫt-w]

PCL see-PRF-1SG victory-PL
‘I saw the victories.’ (Englund 1988: 35)

(2) swḥ-t [n-t njw]

egg-F of-F ostrich
‘the egg of an ostrich’ (Allen 2000: 41)
                                                        
2
Reintges (2014, in this volume) uses an idiosyncratic transcription with IPA symbols: ʃ for š, x for ḫ, ħ for
ʒ ʃ
ḥ, ɣ for ẖ, ʔ for ɜ, d for ḏ, and t for ṯ. The problem with using IPA characters is that the actual
pronunciation of these consonants is quite uncertain.
  3 

(3) ḥnt-f ntj m [ḥwt-nṯr]

statue-3SGM which.M in house-god
‘his statue, which is in the temple’

(4) wn-jn ḥm-f [ḥr pgɜ zẖɜ-w]

be-JN majesty-3SGM on open writing-PL
‘Then His Incarnation was spreading open the writings.’ (A178)

(5) mɜɜ-f [ntt štɜw pw ʕɜ]

see-3SG that serpent COP big
‘He saw that it was a great serpent.’ (A137)3

In this respect, Egyptian behaves like many other Afroasiatic languages, notably like Berber
and Chadic languages, and like many Semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew (but
note that Cushitic languages as well as Ethiopic Semitic and Akkadian have different word-
order patterns).
The canonical position of the nominal subject is immediately following the verb, so
Egyptian is a VSO language, like Berber, Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew:

(6) jsṯ gm-n ḥm-f r-pr pn m ḏbt

PCL find-PRF majesty-3SGM mouth-house this in brick
‘His Incarnation found this sanctuary in brick.’ (Gardiner 1957: 330)

A3. Gender and number

Egyptian nouns are either masculine or feminine, much like nouns in Semitic, Berber and
other Afroasiatic languages. Gender is shown on agreeing personal pronouns as well as
adjectives, demonstratives and other adnominal modifiers. Feminine nouns typically show
the feminine gender suffix -t, while masculine nouns have no particular suffix.
The plural of masculine nouns generally ends in -w, while the plural of feminine nouns
also ends in -t (though it is often distinguished in writing by ideographic signs).

(8) nṯr ‘god’ nṯr-w ‘gods’

(9) sn-t ‘sister’ sn-t ‘sisters’

There was also a dual number form, masculine -wj and feminine -tj (see 15b).

                                                        
3
“(A137)” is short for “(Allen 2000: 137)”. Most of the Middle Egyptian examples cited here are from Allen’s
excellent grammar. Almost all the examples are attested in texts (see Allen 2000 for the sources), and only a
few are constructed by the grammarian for pedagogical purposes.
  4 

A4. Reference, predication and attribution: nouns, verbs and adjectives

Most commonly, in all languages, thing-words (including words for people) are used for
the function of reference, action-words are used for the function of predication, and
property-words are used for the function of attribution (= nominal modification) (see Croft
1991, 2000, 2001: ch. 2). These combinations of semantic type (thing/action/property) and
pragmatic function (reference/predication/attribution) tend to be expressed in the simplest
way across languages, without additional coding. Consider example (9), with a predicating
action-word (‘arrive’), a referential thing-word (‘cause’), and an attributive property-word
(‘unworthy’).

(9) nj spr-n zp ẖz r dmj

NEG arrive-PRF cause unworthy to harbour
‘An unworthy cause cannot succeed (lit. arrive at the harbour).’ (A236)

In Middle Egyptian, nouns, verbs and adjectives are clearly distinct in these three basic
constructions. Special marking is required for less usual combinations of semantic type and
pragmatic function. When used referentially, action-words use the special infinitive form,
which has a -t suffix with many verbs, thus distinguishing verbs from nouns (e.g. pr-t ‘to
go out’):

(10) nn n-s pr-t m jmnt

NEG for-3SGF exit-INF in west
‘Emerging from the West is not for her.’ (A167)

Property-words can be used referentially like thing-words, so in this respect adjectives are
noun-like, e.g.

(11) a. nfr ‘a good one (masculine)’

b. nfr-t ‘a good one (feminine)’

For this reason, Allen (2000: 61) claims that “all Egyptian adjectives are nouns“, but this is
not true, because in predicative function, property-words behave quite differently from
thing-words. First of all, they do not show gender forms, so (12) has nfr, not nfr-t, even
though the subject is a feminine noun. And second, clauses with a predicative noun usually
require the copula pw, as in (13).

(12) nfr ḥm-t tn

beautiful woman-F this.F
‘This woman is beautiful.’ (A68)
  5 

(13) sn-t-f pw tfnt

sister-F-3SGM COP Tefnut
‘His sister is Tefnut.’ (A72)

Thus, predicative adjectives are more verb-like than noun-like, but they are also distinct
from verbs in that they lack the various tense and aspect forms that we find with verbs..
Thus (12) is not specified for tense and could also mean ‘The woman was beautiful.’
In attributive function, adjectives are postposed and agree in gender and number:

(14) a. zɜ nfr ‘good son’

b. zɜ-t nfr-t ‘good daughter’

When nouns are used attributively, there are two possibilities: either they are preceded
by the possessive marker n(j), as in (15a) or (2), or they follow the possessum directly, as in
(15b).

(15) a. zɜ n zj
son of.M man
‘the son of a man’

b. nswt tɜ-wj
king land-DU
‘the king of Egypt’ (lit. ‘of the two lands’)

When verbs are used attributively, they are more like adjectives – see the discussion of
participles and relative forms in A.11 below.
Thus, noun, verb and adjective are clearly distinguished in Egyptian, not unlike the
situation in Semitic languages or in older Indo-European languages. Adjectives are similar
to verbs in predicative function and to nouns in referential function, but overall, they are
clearly distinct from both.

A5. Personal pronouns and full NPs

Earlier Egyptian does not have an agent-patient distinction in full noun phrases. There is
neither accusative case nor an accusative preposition, and no ergative marking either. The
verb does not agree with a full NP Subject or Object, so the alignment of full NPs is
completely neutral.

(16) jm sḫpr [jb-j pn] [ḏbʕw pn ḏw] r-j

NEG create heart-1SG this.M reproach this.M bad to-1SG
‘May my heart not create this bad reproach against me.’ (A256)
  6 

However, agent-patient clauses with two full NPs are very rare in actual discourse: Most of
the time, the agent or the patient is a personal pronoun, and these do distinguish clearly
between agents and patients (or Subjects and Objects).
Table 3 shows a simplied representation of the three series of personal pronouns in
Middle Egyptian: person suffixes, dependent pronouns, and independent pronouns.

Table 3. Three series of personal pronouns

person suffixes dependent pronouns independent pronouns
SG 1 -j wj jnk
2M -k ṯw ntk
2F -ṯ ṯn ntṯ
3M -f sw ntf
3F -s sj/st nts
PL 1 -n n jnn
2 -ṯn ṯn ntṯn
3 -sn sn/st ntsn

With transitive verbs, the suffix pronouns are used as Subjects and the dependent pronouns
are used as Objects, so they could be called “nominative“ and “accusative“ forms,
respectively:

(17) mɜ-n-j ʕfd-t n-t sjɜ

see-PRF-1SG box-F of-F Sia
‘I have seen the box of Sia.’ (A232)

(18) sjɜ-n wj mjtn(w)

recognize-PRF 1SG.DEP scout
‘The scout recognized me.’ (A226)

However, the suffix pronouns also have a variety of other functions, most notably as
possessors and as complements of prepositions.

(19) pr-f ‘his house’

house-3SGM

(20) n-j ‘to me’

to-1SG

Thus, the term “nominative“ does not fit in general, and the leftmost series in Table 3 is
generally called “suffix pronouns“. The dependent pronoun series is used not only in object
function with transitive verbs, but also in subject function with predicative adjectives, e.g.
  7 

(21) nfr ṯw ḥnʕ-j

good 2SG.DEP with-1SG
‘You are good with me.’ (Schenkel 2012: 112)

Thus, the term “accusative“ would not fit well either. However, the use of the same
pronoun forms for transitive objects and intransitive subjects is quite remarkable, and one
could regard this as a kind of alignment partition: While the Subjects of (mostly dynamic)
intransitive verbs are coded like transitive Subjects (thus showing nominative-accusative
alignment), the Subjects of stative (intransitive) adjectives are coded like transitive Objects
(thus showing ergative-absolutive alignment). This is certainly not a common situation
cross-linguistically (though similar situations have been described as „agentive-inagentive“
in the typological literature, see Donohue & Wichmann 2008).
Dependent pronouns are generally regarded as enclitics, as opposed to the suffixal
pronouns of the first series. They may occur directly after the verb, as in (18) above and in
(22), but they may also occur as subject pronouns of adverbial-predicate clauses after certain
initial particles (such as nḥmn in 23).

(22) ḏɜ-n-f sw
ferry-PRF-3SGM 3SGM.DEP
‘He ferried him.’ (Gardiner 1957: 45)

(23) nḥmn wj mj kɜ
surely 1SG.DEP like bull
‘I am really like a bull.’ (A111)

But the contrast between „enclitic“ dependent pronouns and „suffixal“ pronouns is not very
clear-cut, because these can sometimes occur in second position as well, e.g. following the
element jw:

(24) jw-f m ʕt
PCL-3SGM in room
‘It is in a room.’ (A110)

One could say that jw is really a copula verb, not a particle like nḥmn, so that jw-f shows the
suffix pronoun in verbal subject function, as in (17). But jw does not behave like a verb in
other respects (it does not have different tense-aspect forms, and is negated differently), so
it is generally called a particle.
Independent pronouns are mostly used in nominal predication, as in (25).

(25) jnk jt(j)-k

1SG.INDP father-2SGM
‘I am your father.’
  8 

A6. Verbal arguments

A verb has either a single unflagged argument (i.e. an argument without case or adposition)
or two unflagged arguments: Intransitive verbs have just a subject, and transitive verbs have
a subject and an object. All other arguments are prepositional phrases. With full NPs, the
order is strictly „verb – Subject – Object – prepositional phrase“. Recipient arguments of
ditransitive verbs are expressed by prepositional phrases with the dative preposition n:

(26) jmj mrwt-k n tɜ-tmw

give.IMP love-2SGM to everyone
‘Give your love to everyone.’ (A187)

However, when the object is a pronoun, it precedes the full-NP subject, as seen in (18).
Likewise, prepositional pronominal objects with the preposition n precede full-NP Objects,
as seen in (27):

(27) jmj n-n ḫn-t-n nfr-t

give.IMP to-1PL outcome-F-1PL good-F
‘Give us our good outcome.’ (A187)

In fact, the dative pronominal object even precedes the pronominal nonprepositional
object:

(28) jr-t n-f st

do-INF to-2SGM it
‘to do it to you’ (A163)

The tendency for pronominal arguments to precede full NP arguments is very widespread
in the world’s languages (e.g. Dik 1997: 411).
Adverbial phrases are usually expressed by prepositional phrases as well, following the
verb and its arguments.

(29) dd-tw ḥtp-nṯr pn m-bɜḥ twt pn

place-PASS offering-god this in-front statue this
‘This offering shall be placed before this statue.’ (Gardiner 1957: 353)

Topicalized phrases may occur before the verb, e.g.

(30) m-k nṯr rdj-n-f ʕnḫ-k

behold-2SG god cause-PRF-3SGM live-2SGM
‘Behold, god has caused thee to live.’ (Gardiner 1957: 115)
  9 

A7. Noun phrase structure

Noun phrases consist of nouns plus optional modifiers which generally follow the noun,
such as adjectives, demonstratives, numerals and possessors:

(31) a. ḥm-wt nfr-t

woman-PL.F good-F
‘good women’ (A60)

b. nṯr pn
god this.M
‘this god’ (A52)

c. dmj wʕ
harbour one.M
‘one harbour’ (A100)

d. nswt tɜ-wj
king land-DU
‘the king of the two lands (= of Egypt)’ (A40)

The demonstratives pn/tn (‘this’, M/F) and pw/tw (‘this’, M/F) follow the noun, while the
demonstrative pɜ/tɜ (‘this’, M/F) precedes the noun. Likewise, the determiners kjj ‘other’ and
ṯnw ‘each’ precede the noun (kjj sbɜ ‘another gate, the other gate’; ṯnw rnpt ‘each year’, Allen
2000: 62).
When the possessor is a personal pronoun, it is expressed by the suffix series, e.g. pr-f
‘his house’, sn-w-ṯ ‘your (F) brothers’.
In addition to the unmarked possessive construction, as in (31d, 34b) (and in pr-f ‘his
house’), Middle Egyptian has an “indirect“ possessive construction with the genitive
preposition n/n-t/n-w (M/F/M.PL) that agrees with the possessum in gender and number:

(32) a. zɜ n zj
son(M) of.M man
‘the son of a man’ (A41)

b. ḥm-wt n-t wr-w

wife-PL.F of-F chief-PL
‘the wives of the chiefs’ (A41)

The contrast between the unmarked and the n-marked possessive constructions is discussed
further in Haspelmath (2014) (in this volume).
  10 

A8. Nonverbal predication

Egyptian clauses are typically divided into verbal-predicate clauses (§A9) and nonverbal-
predicate clauses, and the latter are subdivided into adjectival-predicate, nominal-predicate
and adverbial-predicate clauses.
We already saw that adjectival-predicate clauses are expressed by clause-initial non-
agreeing adjectives followed by full NPs (cf. 12) or by dependent pronouns (cf. 21).
Nominal predicates are generally marked by the copula pw, as in (13) and in (33).

(33) pẖrt pw ʕnḫ

cycle COP life
‘Life is a cycle.’ (A72)

When the subject of a nominal-predicate clause is a third person pronoun, it is not

expressed at all:

(34) a. zɜ-j pw
son-1SG COP
‘He is my son.’ (A72)

b. ḥm-t wʕb pw
wife-F priest COP
‘She is a priest’s wife.’ (A72)

The copula pw presumably derives from the demonstrative pw ‘this(M.SG)’, but it is used
regardless of gender. When the predicate NP has an adjectival or indirect-possessor
modifier, the copula follows the noun immediately, i.e. it is a kind of second-position
enclitic that may occur inside a noun phrase:

(35) a. tɜ pw nfr
land COP good
‘It is a good land.’ (A72)

b. mnw pw n zj nfrw-f
monument COP of man goodness-2SGM
‘The monument of a man is his goodness.’ (A73)

Nominal-predicate clauses may be copulaless when the subject is a first- or second-person

pronoun (see (25) above), or when the predicate is an inalienable kinship term (e.g. mwt-j
nwt [mother-1SG Nut] ‘Nut is my mother’, Allen 2000: 71).
While adjectival-predicate and nominal-predicate clauses are mostly predicate-initial,
adverbial-predicate clauses have the adverbial predicate following the subject, e.g.
  11 

(36) ẖr-wt-k m pr-k

possession-PL.F-2SGM in house-2SGM
‘Your possessions are in your house.’ (A109)

(37) a. jw mwt m ḥr-j mjn

PCL death in face-1SG today
‘Death is in my sight today.’ (A110)

b. m-k sw ʕɜ m ʕ-j
lo-2SGM 2SGM.DEP here in hand-1SG
‘(Look) he is here in my hand.’ (A111)

c. nn mwt-k ḥnʕ-k
NEG mother-2SGM with-2SGM
‘Your mother is not with you.’ (A111)

The predicate of an adverbial-predicate clause is generally a prepositional phrase, but it may

also be a simple adverb such as ʕɜ ‘here’. The subject may be clause-initial as in (36), but it
is mostly preceded by some kind of “particle“ such as jw, m-k or nn in (37a-). The most
neutral and most frequent “particle“ is jw, which is followed by a suffix pronoun when the
subject is pronominal (cf. (24) above).
Adverbial-predicate clauses can also have the sense of nominal predication, using the
preposition m (originally ‘in’):

(38) m-k ṯw m mnjw

look-SGM 2SGM.DEP in herdsman
‘You are a herdsman.’

A9. Verbal predication

There are three types of verbal predication, used for different tense-aspect forms:
postverbal-subject clauses, periphrastic clauses, and Stative clauses. They make use of three
different types of verb forms: standard finite verb forms, infinitives, and Stative verb forms.
Postverbal-subject clauses have postverbal full-NP or pronominal subjects that follow
the finite verb. Pronominal subjects are from the suffix series, so verbs and pronominal
subject suffixes are often said to form the “suffix conjugation“. However, the construction
with postverbal full NPs (where there is no suffix on the verb as in 39a) is no different, so
this term is not very suitable.

(39) a. ḥʕ sbkw, ḥqɜ-n-f pt

appear Sobek rule-PRF-3SG sky
‘Sobek has appeared, he has begun to rule the sky.’ (A265)
  12 

b. šm-k ḥnʕ-sn r ẖnw

go-2SGM with-3PL to home
‘You will go home with them.’ (A248)

c. ḏd-n-f ʕḥɜ-f ḥnʕ-j

say-PRF-3SGM fight-3SG with-1SG
‘He said he would fight with me.’ (A253)

Postverbal-subject clauses are further discussed in §A10.

Periphrastic clauses have verbal predicates that consist of a preposition and an infinitive:
ḥr + infinitive (‘upon doing’) and m + infinitive (‘in doing’) are used in a progressive sense,
while r + infinitive (‘to doing’) is used in a future sense. As in adverbial-predicate clauses,
their subject precedes the predicate, though normally some kind of particle comes first.

(40) a. jw srj-w ḥr rdj-t n-k jw-k ḥr jt-t

PCL official-PL on give-INF to-2SGM PCL-2SGM on take-INF
‘The officials are giving to you and you are taking.’ (A176)

b. m-ṯ wj m hɜ-t r km-t

lo-2SGF 1SG.DEP in go.down-INF to Egypt
‘(Look) I am going down to Egypt.’ (A176)

c. nn sw r ḫpr
NEG 3SGM.DEP to become.INF
‘He will not come into existence.’ (A178)

The infinitive is most typically identical to the verb stem, but with some verbs it has the
suffix -t. Note that the pronominal object of the infinitive is often expressed as a suffix
pronoun, as in (41).

(41) nn jw-j r wɜḥ-ṯ

NEG PCL-1SG to stop.INF-2SG.F
‘I am not going to stop you.’ (A178)

Stative clauses typically have the subject before the verb as well, as in (42).

(42) a. m-k wj ɜtp-kw m jʕnw

lo-2SGM 1SG.DEP load.STAT-1SG in woe
‘(Look) I am loaded with woe.’ (A204)

b. tɜ ɜq-w r ɜw
land ruin.STAT-3SG to entirety
‘The land is ruined entirely.’ (A204)
  13 

The Stative verb forms have a special set of person-number forms, shown in simplified
form in Table 4. These suffixes are very different from the ordinary suffixes shown in Table
3.

Table 4. Stative suffixes

SG 1 -kw
2 -tj
3M -w
3F -tj
PL 1 -wjn
2 -tjwnj
3 -wj

The Stative is special in a number of respects: It seems to be the oldest finite verb form
(with clear cognates in Semitic languages), but it is also the only one that has survived into
Coptic – all the standard finite verb forms disappeared and were replaced by a variety of
periphrastic forms using the Infinitive. Grammatically, the most striking peculiarity of the
Stative is that the person-number suffixes act more like agreement markers than like
pronouns. While the suffix pronouns are in complementary distribution with full-NP
subjects in the postverbal-subject construction (šm-f ‘he will go’, šm sn-j ‘my brother will
go’), in the Stative the person-number suffixes generally cooccur with an overt (full-NP or
pronoun) subject (wj in 42a, tɜ in 42b). Orthographically, what is special about the Stative is
that (some of) its suffixes are normally written before the determinative of the verb, unlike
all the other postverbal grammatical markers. This suggests that they are felt to be closer to
the verb stem than the other markers.
Semantically, the Stative is peculiar as well because it expresses a state or (completed)
past event, but with a different effect for intransitive and transitive verbs. The Stative of an
intransitive verb expresses an ordinary intransitive action or state:

(43) a. m-k wj jj-kw

lo-2SGM 1SG.DEP come.STAT-1SG
‘(Look) I have come.’ (A205)

b. nḥman zɜ-f ʕq-w r ʕḥ

PCL son-2SGM enter.STAT-3SGM to palace
‘His son has surely entered the palace.’ (A208)

But the Stative of transitive verbs expresses a passive state or completed event, as seen in
(42). Such verb forms have been called „resultative“ (Nedjalkov 1988). A syntactic
peculiarity is that it most often occurs in a circumstantial adverbial clause. The Stative is
discussed in great detail by Reintges (2014, in this volume).
  14 

A10. Postverbal-subject clauses

Verbal-predicate clauses with postverbal subjects contain standard finite verb forms, which
come in a variety of subtypes. The most clearly distinguishable subtypes are the V-Ø form,
the V-n form, the V-jn form, and the V-ḫr form (as well as a few others where a consonant
follows the verb stem). Only the V-Ø form and the V-n form are common, but here are
examples of the rarer forms:

(44) a. jw-jn-tw r smj n ḥm-f

come-JN-GENER to report.INF to majesty-3SGM
‘Then one came to report to His Incarnation (i.e. the king).’ (A302)

b. jr-ḫr-k n-f zp-w n-w wšš

make-HR-2SGM to-3SGM concoction-PL of-PL excretion
‘You have to make for him concoctions for excretion.’

The V-n form (also called the Perfect) is used as a past tense or perfect aspect:

(45) rdj-n-j ḥknw n mntw

give-PRF-1SG praise to Montu
‘I gave praise to Montu.’ (A226)

But when negated, the Perfect refers to a potential event (see also (9) above):

(46) m-k wj ḥr spr n-k, nj sḏm-n-k st

lo-2SGM 1SG.DEP on petition.INF to-2SGM NEG hear-PRF-2SGM 3SGF.DEP
‘(Look) I am petitioning to you, but you cannot hear it.’ (A235)

The simple V-Ø form has a variety of different uses: perfective (e.g. 47a), imperfective
(e.g. 47b), and subjunctive or prospective (e.g. 47c), as well as a passive use (e.g. 47d). With
some verbs, especially several frequent and irregular verbs, there are different forms for
different uses, e.g. the verb rdj/dj has the stem dj with subjunctive uses (dj-k ‘you should
give’) and the stem rdj with perfective uses (rdj-k ‘you gave’). Thus, Egyptologists generally
assume that there were at least three different V-Ø forms for most or all verbs,
distinguished primarily by the (unwritten) vowels.

(47) a. nj kɜ-j spr r ẖnw pn

NEG plan-1SG arrive.INF to capital that
‘I did not plan to arrive at that capital.’ (A265)

b. jw jr-j m mt-t n-t jb n nb rʕ nb

PCL do-1SG in correctness-F of-F heart to lord day every
‘I used to act with correctness of heart for the lord every day.’ (A267)
  15 

c. jr-n-f ṯɜw n jb, ʕnḫ fnḏ-w-sn

make-PRF-3SGM air to heart live nose-PL-3PL
‘He has made air for the heart, so that their noses might live.’ (A251)

d. ʕʕb šnw-j
comb hair-1SG
‘My hair was combed.’ (A291)

The question of how many different verb forms there were in the postverbal-subject
construction, and how they were used, has been a matter of considerable debate (see, e.g.,
Schenkel 1990: ch. 3).

A11. Relative clauses

Relative clauses follow the head noun like other adnominal modifiers. When the predicate
of a relative clause is a verb, Middle Egyptian uses a set of special verb forms that agree in
gender and number with the head noun, as in (48).

(48) a. jt-w mw-wt wnnjj-w ḥnʕ-j

father-PL mother-PL.F [exist.REL-PL with-1SG]
‘the fathers and mothers who existed with me’ (A327)

b. nfr-t nb-t jnn-t n ḥm n nb-j

good-F every-F [bring.REL-F to majesty of lord-1SG]
‘every good thing that was brought to the incarnation of my lord.’ (A328)

c. mdw-w ḏd-w n-sn nṯr pn

word-PL [say.REL-PL to-3PL god this]
‘the words that this god says to them’ (A349)

Egyptologists distinguish between various subtypes of “participles“ used in subject relative

clauses like (48a) and “relative forms“ used in non-subject relative clauses like (48c).
However, there are also “passive participles“ as in (48b) that are semantically non-subject
relative clauses as well. Like adjectives, relative verb forms can be used on their own
without a head noun (e.g. mr ‚one who loves’).
The relative pronoun ntj/ntt (M/F) is used almost exclusively in relative clauses with non-
verbal predicates (e.g. (3) in §A2 above).
  16 

Part B. Salient grammatical patterns of Coptic

B1. Anasynthesis in Later Egyptian

Perhaps the most salient change between Earlier Egyptian (Old and Middle Egyptian) and
Later Egyptian (represented here by Coptic) is the change from postposed (and probably
suffixed) markers of person and tense-aspect to preposed markers, deriving from originally
analytic, periphrastic expressions. Such a replacement of synthetic patterns by analytic
patterns, which later become synthetic again, has long been discussed as “synthesis-
analysis-synthesis“ cycle (e.g. von der Gabelentz 1901, Schwegler 1990, van Gelderen 2011;
for Egyptian-Coptic, see Ewald 1862, Hintze 1950, Hodge 1971, and Reintges 2012). I call
this macro-process anasynthesis here. Since few languages are attested over a similarly long
period, it is not quite clear whether anasynthesis is a truly universal diachronic trend, and
in some language families such as Chinese and Germanic, there is not much evidence for
secondary synthesis (though analysis, i.e. innovative periphrastic expression, is widely
attested). However, for Egyptian-Coptic, the trend is hard to overlook. In particular, we
observe the changes listed (and briefly illustrated) in (49). Here ≫ means ‘is replaced by’,
and > means ‘turns into’.

(49) a. postposed demonstrative ≫ preposed demonstrative pei-/tei-

rmṯ pn ≫ pɜj rmt > pei-rôme ( ⲱ )
man this this man this-man
‘this man’

b. preposed demonstrative > prefixed definite article p-/t-

pɜ rmṯ > pɜ rmt > p-rôme ( ⲱ )
‘this man’ ‘the man’ ‘the man’

c. numeral ‘one’ > prefixed indefinite article ou-

ḥfɜw wʕ ≫ wʕ (n) ḥfɜw > ou-hof ( ⲩϩ ϥ)
snake one one (of) snake INDF-snake

d. ordinal numeral suffix -nw ≫ prefix meh-

ḫmt-nw ≫ mḥ-ḫmt > meh-šomnt ( ϩϣ )
three-ORD fill-three ORD-three
‘third’

e. suffixed possessive pronoun ≫ prefixed possessive pronoun (following the article)

rn-k ≫ pɜj-k rn > p-ek-ran ( ⲁ )
name-2SGM DEF-2SGM name DEF-2SGM-name
‘your name’
  17 

f. postverbal-subject construction ≫ pre-subject-TAM construction

sḏm-n-f ≫ jr-f sdm > a-f-sôtm (ⲁϥ ϣ )
hear-PRF-3SGM do-3SGM hear PRET-3SGM-hear
‘he heard’

g. Stative construction with agreement > Stative without agreement

X st wḏɜ-tj > st wḏɜ > s-ouoj ( ⲩ ϫ)
X she whole.STAT-3SGF she whole 3SGF-whole.STAT
‘she is whole’

h. synthetic suffixed passive ≫ passive-like construction with 3PL person form

sḏm-w-f ≫ a-u-sotm-f (ⲁⲩ ϥ)
hear-PASS-3SGM PRET-3PL-hear-3SGM
‘he was heard’ ‘he was heard’ (“they heard him“)

i. periphrastic construction > subject-verb construction

X sw ḥr sḏm > f-sôtm (ϥ ⲱ )
he on hear 3SGM-hear
‘he is hearing’ ‘he is hearing, he hears’

j. suffix object pronouns (on infinitives) ≫ prepositional accusative4

sḏm-n ≫ sdm jm-n > sôtm mmo-n ( ⲱ )
hear.INF-1PL hear.INF in-1PL hear ACC-1PL
‘to hear us’

In some of these changes, the analytical construction is very old (e.g. the periphrastic
construction with ḥr in 49i, which we saw in 40a above), while in others it is newer. Thus
the changes did not take place simultaneously, and it is not clear how closely they are
connected. It may only be in hindsight that they seem to form a coherent group of
changes. The extent to which the Coptic constructions are synthetic is not always clear, as
there are no criteria for distinguishing between prefixes and proclitics in Coptic. But it is
striking to see the massive reorganization of Egyptian morphosyntax over the millennia.5
The anasynthesis changes observed in Egyptian are of course just a manifestation at the
macro-level of what is generally called grammaticalization. Changes of this type are
widespread in all languages, and we observe anasynthesis also elsewhere, but not in the
same clear way. We always observe a change from synthesis being replaced by analysis which
then turns into synthesis, and there has been a fair amount of discussion of the
                                                        
4
The new prepositional accusative with the preposition n-/mmo- coexists with the old suffixed person forms
(sotm-n ‘to hear us’, cf. 49h above and B3 below).
5
Grammaticalization is continuing in Coptic. As shown by Grossman (2009), some varieties of Coptic have a
new perfect of the form: a-f-ouô e-f-sôtm ‚he finished hearing’ > ‚he has heard’.
  18 

unidirectional development that we see here (e.g. Haspelmath (1999), Börjars & Vincent
(2009)), but even if it is not fully understood yet, it is clear that this is a widespread
tendency of which Egyptian shows a particularly striking example.

B2. Coptic sounds and stress groups

The Sahidic Coptic consonants and vowels are given in Table 5 (simplified, as everything in
this chapter). (See Depuydt 1993, Peust 1999 and Funk 2009 for details on Coptic
phonology.)

Table 5. Coptic consonants and vowels

p t c k kʲ ʔ i: u:
b (d) (g) ə
f s ʃ (x) h e e: o o:
m n, r a
w l j

The sounds [p, t, k, d, g, s, m, n, r, l, e, o, a, e:, o:, i:] are written in the expected way,
using the corresponding Greek letters ( , , , , , , , , , , , ⲏ, ⲱ, ). [u:] is written as
<ou>, as in Greek, and [i:] is written as <i> or <ei>. [w] and [j] are written as <ou> (or as
<u> in the diphthongs <au>, <êu> and <eu>) and <i, ei>.
For the sounds [f, ʃ, h, x, c, kʲ], Coptic uses a set of special letters not derived from
Greek, but from the Demotic script: ϥ, ϣ, ϩ, ϭ, and ϫ. In the Leipzig-Jerusalem
transliteration of Coptic, ϭ and ϫ are transliterated as <c> and <č>, mostly for typographic
convenience.6
Another special letter, ϯ, is used for [ti] (transliterated as <ti>). The Greek letters Φ, Θ,
Χ, Ψ and Ξ are also used for sequences of two segments in Sahidic Coptic: /ph/, /th/, /kh/,
/p/ and /ks/, respectively.
The glottal stop was apparently written by doubling the letter of the preceding vowel,
e.g. toot /toʔt/ ‘my hand’, ouêêb /we:ʔb/ ‘priest’. The schwa sound is written as <e> at the
end of words (e.g. mise [mi:sə] ‘give birth’), and is unwritten between consonants (e.g. tootf
‘his hand’, probably pronounced [toʔtəf], and ouêêb was probably pronounced [we:ʔəb].
There was a clear contrast between stressed and unstressed syllables in Coptic: Stressed
syllables may have long vowels or the vowel [o], but unstressed syllables were apparently
confined to the vowels [a] and [ə]. Where unstressed <e>, <i> and <ou> occur in writing,
they were probably pronounced as [ə], [(ə)j], and [(ə)w] (Loprieno 1995: 50).
Stress is not marked in Coptic writing, but it can be inferred from a number of vowel
alternations where a long vowel appears to alternate with schwa, e.g.

                                                        
6
It is not quite clear how ϭ <ϭ> and ϫ <č> were actually pronounced. The values [c] and [kʲ] are from
Loprieno (1995: 40), but in view of the similarity between the two, this is not very likely. Layton (2004: 13)
gives [kʲ] for ϭ and [tʃ] for ϫ.
  19 

eire [̍ˈi:rə] ‘do’ ( ) vs. r-nobe [ər-ˈnobə] ‘(do) sin’ ( )

j
nouče [̍ˈnu:k ə] ‘throw, put’ ( ⲩϫ ) vs. neč-êrp [nəkj-ˈe:rəp] ‘put wine’ ( ϫⲏ )

The stress pattern that can be inferred from vowel patterns allows us to identify a
prosodic constituent “stress group“ (called “bound group“ in Layton 2004: 22). A stress
group consists of a noun or a verb root (always stressed on the last non-schwa syllable)
preceded by a series of unstressed, phonologically dependent (“clitic“) elements which are
typically grammatical morphemes, e.g.

(50) a. ⲁ
p-ek-ran [pə-k-rán]
DEF.M-2SGM-name
‘your name’

b. ϩ ϩϣ
hm-p-meh-šomnt [həm-p-məh-ʃómənt]
in-DEF.M-ORD-three
‘in the third’

c. ⲩ ϥ
ou-ref-r-nobe [w-rəf-ər-nóbə]
INDF-AGT-do-sin
‘a sinner’

d. ⲩ ⲩϣ
e-unt-s-ou-šeere [ə-wənt-əs-w-ʃéʔrə]
REL-have-3SGF-INDF-daughter
‘who had a daughter’

e. ⲁⲩ ⲩ
mn-n-ete-n-tn-nau ero-ou [mən-n-ətə-n-tən-náw ərów]
with-DEF.PL-REL-NEG-1PL-see to-3PL
‘and those which we do not see’

Stress groups cannot be identified with “words“, however, because verb roots are sometimes
unstressed and precede a stressed subject or object:

(51) a. ϫ ⲏ ⲩ
peče-iêsous [pəkjə-je:sú:s]
say-Jesus
‘Jesus said.’
  20 

b. ϫ ϥ ϩ
e-neč-t-ef-shime ebol [ə-nəkj-t-əf-shí:mə əból]
to-throw-DEF.F-3SGM-wife out
‘to throw out (=divorce) his wife’

Moreover, unstressed tense-aspect and relative markers can precede a full-NP subject:

(52) a. ⲁ ⲁⲩ ⲁⲩ ϥ
a-paulos nau ero-f [a-páwlos náw əró-f]
pret-Paul see to-3SGM
‘Paul saw him.’

b. ⲁ ⲱⲩ ⲏ ϩⲁ ⲏⲏ ϥ
p-ent-a-môusês shai etbêêt-f [p-ənt-a-mo:isé:s sháj ətbé:ʔt-əf]
DEF.M-REL-PRET-Moses write about-3SGM
‘the one of whom Moses wrote’

One would of course not want to say that the stress group p-ent-a-môusês ‘the one who
Moses (past tense)’ is a word. There does not seem to be any use for the term “word“ in
Coptic, and Layton’s (2004) thoughtful description of Coptic completely dispenses with the
notion “word“ (he confines himself to the two related notions of “morph“ and “bound
group“, i.e. stress group).

B3. Personal pronouns and full NPs

Coptic has two basic series of person forms, independent personal pronouns (which have
been preserved from Earlier Egyptian) and bound person forms. The prefixal and suffixal
bound person forms differ somewhat in their shapes.

Table 6. Three series of personal pronouns (simplified)

independent prefixal forms suffixal forms
pronouns (subject) (subject, object)
SG 1 anok ti- -i/-t
2M ntok k- -k
2F nto te- -Ø/-re
3M ntof f- -f
3F ntos s- -s
PL 1 anon tn- -n
2 ntôtn tetn- -(t)etn
3 ntoou se- -ou
  21 

The independent pronouns are mostly used in nonverbal predication and to express
contrast, as in Earlier Egyptian. The prefixal forms are used as subject pronouns, while the
suffixal forms can be used both as subject and as object pronouns.
There are two basic types of clause patterns: TAM-subject patterns and subject-
predicate patterns. The former use the suffixal person forms, while the latter use the
prefixal forms of the personal pronouns. In the subject-predicate pattern, the prefixal
personal pronouns may combine directly with the verb stem, though the future tense
marker na- comes between the subject and the verb.

(53) TAM-subject patterns (54) subject-predicate patterns7

a. ⲁϥ ⲱ a. ϥ ⲱ
a-f-sôtm f-sôtm
PRF-3SGM-hear 3SGM-hear
‘he heard’ ‘he is hearing’

b. ⲩ b. ⲁ ⲱ
mp-s-mou te-na-bôk
PRF.NEG-3SGF-die 2SGF-FUT-go
‘she did not die’ ‘you will go’

c. ϣⲁⲩ ⲁⲁϥ c. ⲏ
ša-u-kaa-f se-kêt
HAB-3PL-put-3SGM 3PL-build.STAT
‘they put it (habitually)’ ‘they are built’

As in Earlier Egyptian, a bound person form does not normally cooccur with a coreferential
full NP, so when an NP is present, the bound person form is absent. In the TAM-subject
patterns (cf. 53d), this means that the TAM marker is procliticized to the subject. This is a
cross-linguistically very unusual situation, but it is explicable diachronically, as the markers
derive from auxiliary verbs in a VSO pattern (cf. 49f).

(53) d. ⲁ ⲩ ⲱ
a-p-noute sôtm
PRF-DEF.M-god hear
‘God heard’

(54) d. ⲁ ⲱ
petros na-bôk
Peter FUT-go
‘Peter will go’
                                                        
7
What is called „subject-predicate pattern“ here is often called „durative sentence pattern“ in Coptic
linguistics.
  22 

While the subject precedes the verb, the object follows it. Thus, suffixal person forms can
be identified as subject or object forms by position (TAM-subj-VERB-obj):

(55) a. ⲁϥ
a-f-sotp-t
PRF-3SGM-choose-1SG
‘he chose me’

b. ϣⲁ ϥ
ša-n-sotm-f
HAB-1PL-hear-3SGM
‘we hear him (habitually)’

Full-NP objects may likewise follow the verb, with no special marking:

(56) a. ⲩ ⲁⲁⲩ
mp-ou-setm-laau
PRF.NEG-3PL-hear-anyone
‘they did not hear anyone’

b. ⲁϥ ⲁ ⲁ ⲁ ⲁ ⲁⲩ
a-f-ka-barabbas na-u ebol
PRF-3SGM-put-Barabbas to-3PL out
‘He released Barabbas for them.’ (L129; Mark 15:15)

Note that special verb forms are used when a direct object immediately follows the verb.
In such cases, not only the pronominal suffix, but also the full-NP object is bound to the
verb (in that it belongs to the same stress group). Since the stress moves to the full-NP
object, the vowel of the verb is reduced, cf. the forms in (57).

(57) free form bound before bound before

full NP suffxed pronoun

sôtm setm- sótm- ‘hear’

kôt ket- kót- ‘build’
tamó tame- tamó- ‘inform’
jíse jest- jást- ‘raise’
sólsl slsl- slsôl- ‘console’
eíre r- áa- ‘do’

Reduced bound forms of verbs in a verb-object combination are quite unusual typologically,
and very tight verb-object combinations such as those in (56) tend to be found only in
special “object incorporation“ contexts, mostly when the object is generic (as in German
  23 

Fahrrad fahren [bicycle ride] ‘to cycle’). The construction in (56) has not been treated as
“incorporation“ by Coptic grammarians, because it is much less constrained than typical
incorporation constructions.
However, the direct-object construction in (55-56) is not the only possibility. Direct
objects may also be coded by the preposition n-/m- (before nouns) or mmo- (before suffix
pronouns), which earlier meant ‘in’; in such cases, the free form of the verb is used. This
preposition is glossed ACC (accusative) here.

(58) a. ϣⲁ ⲱ
ša-n-sôtm mmo-s
HAB-1PL-hear ACC-3SGF
‘we do not hear her (habitually)’

b. ⲁϥ ⲩϫ ⲩ ⲁ ⲁ ⲁⲑⲁ
a-f-nouče ebol n-ne-pneuma n-akatharton
PRF-3SGM-throw out ACC-DEF.PL-spirit ATTR-unclean
‘He cast out the unclean spirits.’ (L132; Matthew 8:16)8

Such prepositional direct objects remind the typologists of differential object marking (cf.
Lazard 2001, and for Coptic see Engsheden 2008), but the conditions for the use of n-
/mmo- in Coptic are complex. In subject-verb patterns, prepositional direct objects seem to
be virtually obligatory (Stern-Jernstedt Rule), while in TAM-subject patterns, there is
variation: When the NP lacks an article, it cannot occur with a preposition (Layton 2004:
132). The latter restriction is similar to conditions on incorporation constructions, which
typically exclude articles or other modifiers. See Winand (2014, in this volume) for the
origins of these patterns in Middle and Late Egyptian.

B4. Noun phrase structure

Definite articles (p-/t-/n-), indefinite articles (ou-/hen-), demonstratives (pei-/tei-), and

possessive pronouns precede the noun (cf. 59), while other modifiers follow it (cf. 60).

(59) a. ⲱ
p-rôme
DEF.M-man ‘the man’

b. ϩ
tei-shime
DEM.F-woman ‘this woman’
                                                        
8  “(L132)” is short for “(Layton 2004: 132)”. All of the Coptic examples cited here are from Layton’s

excellent grammar. Most of the examples are attested in texts (often in the Bible, and see Layton for the
sources of the other examples), but some are constructed by the grammarian for pedagogical purposes. 
  24 

c. ⲁ
p-es-ran
DEF.M-3SGF-name ‘her name’9

d. ⲩ ϩ
ou-shime
INDF.SG-woman ‘a woman’

e. ϩ ϩ ⲁ
hen-hebraios
INDF.PL-Hebrew ‘Hebrews’

(60) a. ϩ ⲁⲁⲩ
hraau nim
dish any ‘every dish’

b. ⲱ ⲁⲩ
p-rôme snau
DEF.M-man two ‘the two men’

c. ⲁ ⲁⲁ ⲏ
t-galilaia têr-s
DEF.F-Galilee all-3SGF ‘all Galilee’

d. ⲩ ⲱ ⲁ
ou-rôme n-sabe
INDF-man ATTR-wise ‘a wise man’

e. ⲏ ϫ
p-êi m-p-čoeis
DEF.M-house ATTR-DEF.M-lord ‘the house of the lord’

Most commonly, property-words such as sabe ‘wise’ (60d) follow a thing (or person) word
that they modify, but the reverse is also possible (see Malchukov 2000 for some typological
discussion):

(61) ⲩ ⲁ ⲱ
ou-sabe n-rôme
INDF-wise ATTR-man ‘a wise man’
                                                        
9
A few nouns have postposed possessive pronouns, like hêt- ‘belly’ (cf. 63b below) (see Haspelmath 2014, in
this volume for further discussion).
  25 

And thing-words may also modify other thing-words in the same attribution construction
with the attributive marker n-:

(62) ⲩ ⲱ ϣⲱ
ou-rôme n-ešôt
INDF-man ATTR-merchant ‘a man who is a merchant’

Thus, there is no obvious grammatical distinction between property-words and thing-

words, and consequently Layton (2004) calls them both nouns. The only difference
between words like shime ‘woman’ and words like sabe ‘wise’ is that the former has a fixed
gender (namely feminine: te-shime [DEF.F-woman] ‘the woman’), whereas sabe can occur
with either gender: p-sabe ‘the wise one (M)’, t-sabe ‘the wise one (F)’.

B5. Nonverbal predication

Nonverbal predications with nominal predicates use the copula pe (M) / te (F) / ne (PL)
when the subject is 3rd person:

(63) a. ⲁ ⲁ ⲱ ⲁ
pai pe p-a-sôma
this.M COP.M DEF.M-1SG-body
‘This is my body.’ (L217; 1 Cor 11:24)

b. ⲩ ⲩ ϩⲏ ⲩ
p-eu-noute pe hêt-ou
DEF.M-3PL-god COP.M belly-3PL
‘Their god is their belly.’ (L217; Phil 3: 19)

c. ⲩ ϥ
ou-ref-r-nobe te
INDF-AGT-do-sin COP.F
‘She is a sinner.’ (L209; Luke 7:39)

d. ⲩⲁ ⲩ
ou-adikos pe p-noute
INDF-unjust COP.M DEF.M-god
‘God is unjust.’ (L340; Rom 3:5-6)

When the subject is first or second person, it is expressed by (a reduced form of) the
independent pronoun and no copula is needed:
  26 

(64) ⲁ ⲑ ϩⲁ ϫ
ang t-ʰmhal m-p-joeis
I DEF.F-servant ATTR-DEF.M-lord
‘I am the handmaid of the Lord.’ (Luke 1:38)

When the nonverbal predicate is a prepositional phrase or an adverb, no copula is used, and
the predicate simply follows the subject:

(65) a. ϩ ⲁ
t-me hm-pai
DEF.F-truth in-that.M
‘The truth is in that one.’ (L237)

b. ⲁⲩ
petros mmau
Peter there
‘Peter is there.’ (L237; Acts 9:38)

In such constructions, person forms are from the prefixal series:

(66) a. ⲁⲩ
s-mmau
3SGF-there
‘It is there.’ (L237)

b. ϯ ⲁϥ ϩ ϥⲑ ⲯ
ti-nmma-f hn-t-ef-tʰlipsis
1SG-with-3SGF in-DEF.F-3SGM-affliction
‘I am with him in his affliction.’ (L237; Ps 90:15)

c. ϥϩ ⲏⲩ
f-hn-m-pêue
3SGM-in-DEF.PL-heaven.PL
‘He is in the heavens.’ (L328)

The existential copula oun- (negative mn-) is used in existential clauses:

(67) a. ⲩ ⲁ
oun-aggelos
EXIST-angel
‘Angels exist.’ (L381; Acts 23:8)
  27 

b. ⲩ ⲁ ϩϩ ⲏ
mn-ioudai hi-hellên
NEG.EXIST-Jew on-Greek
‘There is neither Jew nor Greek.’ (L384; Gal 3:28)

The possessive verb-like form ounte- (negative mnte-) is used to express ‘have’, in a special
construction verb-possessor-possessum:

(68) a. ⲩ ⲁϣ ⲩ ⲏ
ounte-b-bašor n-eu-bêb
have-DEF.PL-fox DEF.PL-3PL-hole
ⲁⲩⲱ ⲩ ϩⲁ ⲁ ⲩ ⲁϩ
auô ounte-n-halate n-t-pe n-eu-mah
and have-DEF.PL-birds ATTR-DEF.F-sky DEF.PL-3PL-nest
‘Foxes have their holes and birds of the sky have their nests.’ (L305; Luke 9:58)

b. ⲩ ⲁ ⲁⲩ
ount-k-pai mmau
have-2SGM-this.M there
‘You have this.’ (Rev 2:6)

c. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲁⲩ ϥ ⲏ
auô mn-laau e-mnt-f-smê
and NEG.exist-anyone [CIRC-NEG.have-3SGM-voice]
‘And there is none that has no voice.’ (1 Cor 14:10)

In this construction (and only here), there may be two person suffixes in a series:

(69) ⲁⲩϥ
mnta-u-f
NEG.have-3PL-3SGM
‘they do not have it’

B6. Relative clauses

Relative clauses are marked by the relativizer ete(re)-/et-/ent- when the head noun is
definite. In almost all cases, the relativized element is represented by a resumptive pronoun
in the relative clause.

(70) a. ϣⲁϫ ⲁϥϣⲱ

pei-šače ent-a-f-šôpe
this.M-saying [REL-PRF-3SGM-happen]
‘this saying that has come to pass’ (L327; Luke 2:15)
  28 

b. ⲩ ⲁⲩ ⲁⲩ ϥϩ ⲁ ϣⲁ
p-siou ent-a-u-nau ero-f hn-mma n-ša
DEF.M-star [REL-PRF-3PL-see to-3SGM in-place of-rise]
‘the star that they had seen in the East’ (L326; Matt 2:9)

c. ⲱ ϥϭ ϫ ⲩ
p-rôme etere-t-ef-cič moout
DEF.M-man [REL-DEF.F-3SGM-hand withered]
‘the man whose hand was withered’ (L326; Mark 3:3)

This relative marker presumably derives from the Earlier Egyptian relative pronoun ntj/ntt
(§A11).
When the head noun is indefinite, the circumstantial marker e-/ere- (see §B7) is used
(see also 68c above):

(71) a. ⲩ ⲱ ⲁϥϫ ⲩϭ ϭ
ou-rôme e-a-f-jo n-ou-croc
INDF-man [CIRC-PRF-3SGM-sow ACC-INDF-seed]
‘a man who sowed seed’ (L327; Matthew 13:24)

b. ⲩ ϩ ⲩ ⲩϣ ⲁⲩ
ou-shime e-unt-s-ou-šeere mmau
INDF-woman [CIRC-have-3SGF-INDF-daughter there]
‘a woman who had a daughter’ (L327; Mark 7:25)

Relative clauses of the first type may be readily used independently with definite articles,
often in a generalized sense (‘all those who...’, ‘whoever...’).

(72) a. ⲁⲩ ⲩⲱ
n-ent-a-u-ouôm
DEF.PL-[REL-PRF-3PL-eat]
‘those who ate’ (L333; Mark 6:44)

b. ϭ ⲩ
n-ete-mn-com mmo-ou
DEF.PL-[REL-NEG.exist-power in-3PL]
‘those in whom there is no power’ (i.e. the weak) (L337; Rom 15:1)

c. ⲩ ϥ ⲁⲁϫ ⲱ
p-ete-unt-f-maače e-sôtm
DEF.M-[REL-have-3SGM-ear to-hear]
‘whoever has ears to hear’ (L333; Mark 4:9)
  29 

(Relative clauses preceded by definite articles also occur in cleft constructions, cf. (75a)
below.)
The relative-clause marker ete(re)-/et-/ent- is always clause-initial and is thus similar to
relative particles in many other languages (e.g. English that, Spanish que, Indonesian yang).
It is not pronoun-like at all, as it does not show any case or agreement. But it is different
from the well-known relative particles, and typologically unusual, in that its shape varies
depending on the tense-aspect form of the verb: ent- is used before the Affirmative Perfect
tense a- (e.g. 70a-b), ete- is used before other tense-aspect forms (e.g. 72b), and etere-/et- is
used in subject-verb constructions (e.g. 70c). Relative markers which are intimately bound
up with tense-aspect markers are known from Indo-European languages and are called
“participles“, but the Coptic forms are very different in that they show no signs of
nonfiniteness – the subject is expressed in much the same way in relative clauses as in
independent clauses.
However, in subject-predicate patterns, the pronominal subject is expressed as a suffix
on the relative marker et-, rather than as a prefixal form. Table 7 shows that there are some
differences between the two series, especially in the 3rd person plural, but also in the 2nd
singular feminine and elsewhere.

Table 7. Prefixal subject pronouns and subject forms after et-

prefixal forms subject forms after et-
(subject)
SG 1 ti- et-i
2M k- et-k
2F te- et-e(re)
3M f- et-f
3F s- et-s
PL 1 tn- et-n
2 tetn- et-etn
3 se- et-ou

An example of a subject suffix after et- in a subject-predicate construction is (73).

(73) ⲁ ⲁ ⲱ ϥ
p-ma et-i-na-bôk ero-f
DEF.M-place [REL-1SG-FUT-go to-3SGM]
‘the place that I am going to’ (L326; John 8:21)

This is thus a peculiar combination of a relative marker and a subject pronoun. When a full
NP is used in a subject-verb construction, the form etere- is used (e.g. 70c).
  30 

B7. Circumstantial and focalizing constructions

The marker e- or ere- is used both as a general subordination marker (called

Circumstantial) and as a marker of focalization. In TAM-subject constructions, e- precedes
the TAM marker while in subject-predicate constructions, ere- precedes a full-NP subject
and e- combines with the same suffixes that follow the relativizer et- (cf. Table 7), thus:

(74) a. ne-hiome sôtp ‘the women choose’ (subject-predicate pattern)

se-sôtp ‘they choose’

b. ere-ne-hiome sôtp ‘as the women choose’ (circumstantial)

e-u-sôtp ‘as they choose’

c. a-ne-hiome sôtp ‘the women chose’ (TAM-subject pattern)

a-u-sôtp ‘they chose’

d. e-a-ne-hiome sôtp ‘as the women chose’ (circumstantial)

e-a-u sôtp ‘as they chose’

Like the relative marker, the circumstantial marker is thus closely bound up with the
tense-aspect structure of the clause, and is not simply a clause-initial complementizer.
Again, this kind of complexity of subordinate forms is not common cross-linguistically.
The circumstantial marker is used in various kinds of adverbial clauses (75a-b) and in
certain complement clauses (76a-b). It also occurs in relative clauses with an indefinite head
noun, as seen above in (71a-b).

(75) a. ⲁⲩ ⲏ ⲩ ⲁ ⲁⲩ ⲩ ⲁ ⲁϫ ⲩ
e-mnta-u-iêsous gar mmau ou p-et-na-tačro-ou?
[CIRC-NEG.have-3PL-Jesus for there] what DEF.M-[REL-FUT-strengthen-3PL]
‘For as they do not have Jesus, what (is that which) will strengthen them?’ (L338)

b. ⲁⲍ ϩ ⲁ ϩⲁ ⲩ ⲁ ⲏ ϣⲁ
a-u-ei ehrai e-pe-mhaou e-a-p-rê ša
PRF-3PL-come up to-DEF.M-tomb [CIRC-PRF-DEF.M-sun rise]
‘They arrived at the tomb when the sun had risen.’ (L338; Mark 16:2)

(76) a. ⲁ ϥ ⲱ ⲫⲏ ⲏ ϥϫⲱ ⲁ
mare-f-sôtm e-pe-propʰêtês e-f-čô n-nai
OPT-3SGM-hear to-DEF.M-prophet [CIRC-3SGM-say ACC-these]
‘Let him listen to the prophet saying these (words).’ (L341)
  31 

b. ⲁⲩ ⲩ ϣ ⲁϥ
a-u-lo e-u-mooše nmma-f
PRF-3PL-cease [CIRC-3PL-go.about with-3SGM]
‘They ceased going about with him.’ (L342; John 6:66)

A formally similar construction with the prefix e-/ere- is also used in focalizing
constructions, when the main focus is not on the verb but on some other constituent, cf.
the contrast between (77a) and (77b):

(77) a. ϫϭ
k-či-col ‘You are lying (lit. saying falsehoods).’
2SGM-say-falsehood

b. ϫϭ
e-k-či-col ‘You are LYING (lit. saying FALSEHOODS).’ (L354)
FOC-2SGM-say-falsehood

(78) ϫⲱ ⲁ ϩⲁ ⲁⲩⲁⲁ
e-k-čô m-pai haro-k mauaa-k?
FOC-2SGM-say ACC-this on.behalf-2SGM alone-2SGM
‘Is it OF YOUR OWN ACCORD that you say this?’ (L354; John 18:34)

(79) ϥ ⲩ ⲁ ,ⲁ ⲁ ⲁϥ ⲁ ⲩ
n-e-f-pisteue ero-ei an, alla e-p-ent-a-f-taouo-ei
NEG-FOC-3SGM-believe to-1SG NEG but to-DEF.M-[REL-PRF-3SGM-send-1SG]
‘He believes NOT IN ME, but in him who sent me.’ (L360)

When the tense-aspect form is the Perfect (a-), the focalizing marker is not e-, but nt-:

(80) ⲁϥϫ ⲁ ϥ ⲁⲏ ϥ
nt-a-f-če-pai de e-f-piraze mmo-f
FOC-PRF-3SGM-say-this but [CIRC-3SGM-test ACC-3SGM]
‘But he said this (by way of) TESTING HIM.’ (John 6:6)

So again, we have a marker that is tightly bound up with the tense-aspect structure of the
clause, even though it expresses a pragmatic notion that has nothing to do with tense or
aspect. However, such special focalizing verb forms are not uncommon in African
languages.
  32 

Abbreviations

AGT agent noun

ATTR attributive
COP copula
DEF definite article
DEP dependent pronoun
DU dual
EXIST existential
F feminine
FUT future tense
GENER generic person
IMP imperative
INDP independent pronoun
INF infinitive
M masculine
NEG negation
ORD ordinal numeral
PCL particle
PL plural
PRF Perfect
REL relative clause marker
SGF singular feminine
SGM singular masculine
STAT Stative

References

Allen, James P. 2000. Middle Egyptian: An introduction to the language and culture of
hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, James P. 2013. The ancient Egyptian language: an historical study. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Börjars, Kersti & Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Kersti Börjars, Nigel Vincent. Grammaticalization
and directionality: data, analysis and explanation. In: Narrog, Heiko & Heine,
Bernd (eds.) 2011. Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization
of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, William. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular
categories. In Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the typology of
word classes, 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33 

Depuydt, Leo. 1993. On Coptic sounds. Orientalia 62, 338-375.

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. 2 vols. vols. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment.
Oxford: Oxford University
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1). 81–
138.
Englund, Gertie. 1988. Middle Egyptian: an introduction. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Engsheden, Åke. 2008. Differential object marking in Sahidic Coptic. In Folke Josephson
& Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, 323–
44. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 103.). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ewald, Heinrich. 1861. Abhandlung über den bau der thatwörter im Koptischen. Göttingen:
Dieterichsche Buchhandlung.
Funk, Wolf-Peter. 2009. Methodological issues in the (morpho)phonological description of
Coptic. In: Goldenberg, Gideon & Shisha-Halevy, Ariel (eds.) Egyptian, Semitic and
general grammar: Studies in memory of H.J. Polotsky. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, 70-91.
Gardiner, Alan. 1957. Egyptian grammar being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. 3rd
ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Gensler, Orin. 2014. A typological look at Egyptian *d > ʕ. In this volume.
Grossman, Eitan & Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. The Leipzig-Jerusalem transliteration of
Coptic. In this volume.
Grossman, Eitan. 2009. Periphrastic perfects in the Coptic dialects: a case study in
grammaticalization. Lingua Aegyptia 17: 81-118.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–
1068.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. The three adnominal possessive constructions in Egyptian-
Coptic: Three degrees of grammaticalization. In this volume.
Hintze, Fritz. 1950. Konversion und analytische Tendenz in der ägyptischen
Sprachentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 4, 41-
56.
Hodge, Carleton T. 1970. The linguistic cycle. Language Sciences 13. 1–7.
Kammerzell, Frank. 1998. The Sounds of a Dead Language: Reconstructing Egyptian
Phonology. Göttinger Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 1, 21-41.
Layton, Bentley. 2004. A Coptic grammar: with a chrestomathy and glossary: Sahidic dialect.
2nd edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. Le marquage différentiel de l'objet. In Martin Haspelmath,
Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds.) Language typology
and language universals: An international handbook Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 873-
885.
Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
  34 

Malchukov, Andrej L. 2000. Dependency reversal in noun-attributive constructions: towards a

typology. München: LINCOM Europa.
Müller, Matthias. 2011. Ägyptische Phonologie? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen
linguistischer Modelle bei der Beschreibung des Lautsystems einer extinkten
Sprache. In: Verbovsek, Alexandra & Backes, Burkhard & Jones, Catherine (eds. )
2011. Methodik und Didaktik in der Ägyptologie. München: Fink, 509-531.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Peust, Carten. 1999. Egyptian Phonology: an introduction to the phonology of a dead language.
Göttingen: Peust & Gutschmidt. (available from http://digi.ub.uni-
heidelberg.de/diglit/peust1999)
Reintges, Chris H. 2012. Macroparametric change and the synthetic-analytic dimension:
the case of Ancient Egyptian. In: Galves, Charlotte & Cyrino, Sônia & Lopes, Ruth
& Sandalo, Filomena & Avelar, Juanito (eds.) Parameter theory and linguistic change.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 132-156.
Reintges, Chris. 2014. The Old and Early Middle Egyptian Stative: morphosyntax,
semantics, typology. In this volume.
Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1990. Einführung in die altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Schenkel, Wolfgang. 2012. Tübinger Einführung in die klassisch-ägyptische Sprache und Schrift.
Tübingen: W. Schenkel.
Schwegler, Armin. 1990. Analyticity and syntheticity: a diachronic perspective with special
reference to Romance languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The linguistic cycle: language change and the language faculty. New
York: Oxford University Press.
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und
bisherigen Ergebnisse. 2. Auflage. Leipzig: C. H. Tauchnitz.
Winand, Jean. 2014. The oblique expression of the object in Ancient Egyptian. In this
volume.