Coptic interference in the greek letters from egypt victoria fendel

Coptic Interference in the Greek Letters from Egypt Victoria. Fendel

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://ebookmass.com/product/coptic-interference-in-the-greek-letters-from-egypt-vic toria-fendel/

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS

Publishedunder the supervision ofa Committee ofthe Faculty ofClassics in the University ofOxford

The aim of the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish books based on the best theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history, and ancient philosophy examined by the Faculty Board of Classics.

Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt

VICTORIA BEATRIX

MARIA FENDEL

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries

© Victoria Beatrix Maria Fendel 2022

The moral rights of the author have been asserted

First Edition published in 2022

Impression: 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022935398

ISBN 978–0–19–286917–3

ebook ISBN 978–0–19–269583–3

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869173.001.0001

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to my DPhil supervisor, Andreas Willi, who guided me all the way through the storms and calms of this study. For his never-ending insistence, his endless patience, his constant encouragement, and the countless hours he spent reading and discussing with me every single word of this study, I owe him my greatest thanks. My thanks go also to his opposite number, Gesa Schenke, who battled through the Coptic half of this study with me and never ceased to be enthusiastic and thus provide me with reassurance. Furthermore, I owe thanks to Wolfgang de Melo, who advised me on how to transform a DPhil thesis into a monograph. For his witty anecdotes, his consistently constructive criticism, and his enlightening comparisons, I am immensely grateful.

In addition, my college advisors, Amin Benaissa and Helen Kaufmann, the two directors of graduate studies I worked with during my time at Oxford, Felix Budelmann and Gregory Hutchinson, and my teaching mentor, Juliane Kerkhecker, were a constant source of support. They all contributed to creating a stimulating environment and helped me to overcome all the little hurdles on the way. Equally, all the staff of the Classics faculty, in particular the Craven committee, and the Bodleian libraries had their share in making for this wonderful experience.

Furthermore, I owe thanks to Matthias Müller (Basel) for his interminable willingness to advise me on all questions of Coptic linguistics and for the manuscripts of several forthcoming publications of his. Equally, I owe thanks to Willy Clarysse (Leuven) for providing me with the manuscript of a very insightful article on later Greek formulaic language as well as to Joanne Vera Stolk

(Ghent) and Klaas Bentein (Ghent) for allowing me to read their brilliant forthcoming articles on post-classical Greek linguistics.

I would not be at Oxford and this study would not exist without the generosity of Lady Margaret Hall and the Classics faculty, who awarded to me a Clarendon scholarship. This allowed me to focus fully and exclusively on my academic work. I will always be deeply indebted to both institutions.

My thanks go further to the two kind native speakers who identified all my interferences, hypercorrections, and languageinternal confusions of patterns, to Thomas McConnell and Jonathan Griffiths. They analysed my writing at least as meticulously as I analysed my Greek data.

Finally, too many people have been on this journey with me to name all of them. For their optimism, their encouragement and their reliability throughout this journey, I am indebted to Stephanie Johann (Mannheim), Florence Becher-Häusermann (Basel), Roxanne Taylor (Oxford/Manchester), Alexander Fairclough (Cambridge), Alexandre Loktionov (Cambridge), and Matthew Ireland (Cambridge) as well as my parents, Andreas and Brigitte, and my siblings, Leonard and Sophie.

Victoria Beatrix Maria Fendel

Oxford

12April2021

Contents

ListofAbbreviations

Sigla

I. SETTING THE SCENE

Introduction

Bilingual Interference

Egyptian Interference in Greek

Guiding Principles and Outline

Methodology

Concepts, Contexts, Corpora

Introduction

Evolution and Contact

Bilingualism and Bilinguality in Egypt

Corpus of Texts

Error Typology

Statistical Concepts

The Basics of Coptic Grammar

Introduction

Script

Lexicon Verbs and Sentences Prepositions and Nouns

Clause Connectors

Loans from Greek

The Mixed Language Debate

The Grammar of the Corpus (Standard and Variation)

Introduction

Phonology

Lexicon

Verb Phrases

Adverbial Phrases

Subordinate Clauses

Coordinate Clauses

Influence or Coincidence?

Personal Names

II. ANALYSIS

Verb Phrases: The Syntax of Arguments

Introduction

Data

Summary and Conclusion

Excursus: Avoidance Strategies

Adverbial Phrases: The Syntax of Adjuncts

Introduction

Data

Summary and Conclusion

Avoidance Patterns

Discourse Markers: The Syntax of Clause-Linkage

Introduction

Data

Summary and Conclusion

Avoidance Patterns

Formulaic Language: The Syntax of the Epistolary Frame

Introduction

Standard Patterns and Variants

Data

Summary and Conclusion

Personal Names

Semi-formulaic Phrases: The Syntax of Signposts and Hedges

Introduction

Standard Patterns, Variants and Variations

Data

Summary and Conclusion

III. CONTEXTUALIZING DEVIATIONS

Summary and Conclusion

Summary: Types of Errors

Conclusion 1: Error Type and Syntactic Domain

Conclusion 2: Contextual Information

Conclusion 3: Language Acquisition

Outlook

Appendix:

Corpus of Texts

Editions of Texts

Abbreviations for Letters

Bibliography

IndexofKeywords

IndexofPassages

List of Abbreviations

Achmimic dialect of Coptic

Greek accusative case accusative with infinitive adverbial archive of Apa John archive of Apa Nepheros archive of the Apiones of Oxyrhynchos aorist tense (in Coptic, the unmarked form of the aorist tense is referred to)

archive of Apa Paieous article (ART.DEF = definite article/ART.INDF = Coptic indefinite article)

attributive auxiliary verb

Bohairic dialect of Coptic classical Greek

Coptic causative infinitive

Coptic conditional conjugation

Coptic conjunctive

Greek copular verb/Coptic non-verbal copula complement

Coptic circumstantial conversion

archive of Dioscoros of Aphrodito

Greek dative case

dative with infinitive

definite

demonstrative pronoun

Coptic direct object marker

feminine gender future tense (in Coptic, the unmarked form of the future tense is referred to)

marked form of the Coptic future tense

modal form of the Coptic future tense (optative) genitive with infinitive

Greek genitive case infinitive marker

imperative

Coptic imperfect conversion/Greek imperfect tense

indefinite infinitive interjection

Coptic jussive

Lyko-Diospolitan dialect of Coptic light verb

light-verb construction masculine gender

Mesokhemic dialect of Coptic

Coptic marker of attribution

main clause/independent clause

modern Greek neutral gender nominative with infinitive

Greek nominative case

New Testament

Greek optative post-classical Greek

Coptic precursive predicative

archive of the village of Kellis (Greek texts)

archive of the village of Kellis (Coptic texts)

plural

predicative noun in a support-verb construction possessive

present tense (in Coptic, the unmarked form of the present tense is referred to)

marked form of the Coptic present tense

perfect tense (in Coptic, the unmarked form of the perfect tense is referred to)

marked form of the Coptic perfect tense

pronoun

preposition particle

Greek participle relative subject

Sahidic dialect of Coptic

Greek subjunctive subordinate clause/dependent clause

singular source language

Coptic stative support verb

support-verb construction target language

DDbDP

Lampe

LSJ

OED

TLG

Wb Sigla

Duke Database of Documentary Papyri

(http://papyri.info)

Lampe (1961)

Liddell, Scott, and Jones 1996

(http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/)

The Oxford English Dictionary (https://www.oed.com/)

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

(http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu)

Erman and Grapow (1926)

PART I

SETTING THE SCENE

Introduction

1.1 Bilingual Interference

Bilingual interference refers to a language user inadvertently drawing on two rather than one language when putting their ideas into words (Adams 2003 p. 426; Grosjean 2001 p. 6; Myers-Scotton 2006 p. 242). The resultant wording may be incorrect in the surface-level language, by comparison with the standard grammar of this language. [1a] is a modern example:

[1a] the man on the photograph.

The preposition ‘on’ is incorrect in English. Supposing that the system of another language interfered with English in [1a], we may consider [1b] and [1c]:

[1b] l’homme sur la photo.

[1c] der Mann auf dem Photo.

Both French sur and German auf could account for English on in [1a]. While the surface-level language in [1a] is English, the preposition on is conceptually incorrect in English. English, unlike French and German, profiles everything represented by a photograph as contained inthe photograph rather than put ontop of the photograph (Lakoff & Johnson 1980 image-schemata). Bilingual

interference is the interaction of two languages in an individual’s linguistic output, their idiolect. In being idiolectal, interference differs from other contact phenomena such as borrowing and convergence (see Chapter 2).

The present study investigates the surface-level language Greek and the interfering language Egyptian in fourth- to mid-seventhcentury Egypt. For most of its history, Egyptian was written with more than one writing system. In the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, the diachronic stages of the language are traditionally referred to by the name of the writing system used in everyday contexts, that is Demotic in the Ptolemaic and early Roman periods and Coptic in the later Roman and early Byzantine periods (Houston et al. 2003; von Lieven & Lippert 2016). In the early Byzantine period, Greek and Coptic were used alongside each other as papyrological evidence suggests: Archaeologically, Greek and Coptic documents dating from this period were found in Egypt with documents written in both languages often discovered together. Linguistically, there are bilingual documents (e.g. PKC 22) as well as documents that contain Greek passages in Coptic script or vice versa. Historically, studies of early Byzantine Egypt such as Bagnall (2007a) confirm a situation of bilingualism. [2] reflects people’s awareness of this:

[2] PKC 19, ll. 13–14 (Kellis, 4th c. AD)

ⲙⲉⲗⲉⲧⲉ ⲛ-ⲛ[ⲉⲕ]-ⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲥ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛ-ⲟⲩⲓⲁⲛⲓⲛ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲛ-ⲣⲙⲛ-ⲕⲏⲙⲉ ϩⲟⲟⲩⲛ <ⲛⲓⲙ>

melete n-n[ek]-psalmos eite n-ouianin eite n-rmn-kēme hooun <nim>

take.care.IMP DOM-POSS.PL.2sg-psalm either in.PRP-Greek or in.PRP-Egyptian day <every>

Study1 your psalms <every> day either2 in Greek or in Egyptian!

The coexistence of Greek and Egyptian for more than a millennium seems to have resulted in a situation of stable bilingualism by the fourth century (cf. Thomason 2001 p. 23) as opposed to language

shift (Adams 2003 pp. 367–80; Hamers & Blanc 2000 p. 22; Meakins 2013; Thomason 2001 pp. 21–5 and 66–76) or even language death (Romaine 2010).3 An example of the latter is the disappearance of minority languages in the Roman empire (J. Clackson 2012; Wilson 2012).

1.2 Egyptian Interference in Greek

1.2.1 Approaches

Past research into Egyptian interference in Greek (i) has focused on periods before the emergence of the Coptic alphabet, (ii) has taken the form of smaller-scale studies, (iii) has been conducted without a cognitive-linguistic component, and (iv) has pursued non-linguistic, such as historical or archaeological, goals for which the linguistic analysis was a steppingstone only.

The corpora that received scholarly attention are the agoranomos-contracts (Papathomas 2007; Vierros 2012a) and the Zenon archive (Evans 2007, 2010a, 2010b, 2012a, 2012b, 2015) dating from the Ptolemaic period as well as the Narmouthis ostraca dating from the Roman period (Bagnall 2007b; Leiwo 2003; Rutherford 2010). One may add Clarysse’s (1993) selection of texts, which are written with an Egyptian rush, and his selective study of the language of the archive of Kleon and Theodoros (Clarysse 2010a), both dating from the Ptolemaic period. Additionally, Gignac (2013) hints at several structures where he suspects bilingual interference in a selective study of Ptolemaic and Roman Greek.

Other than these, the same examples, such as the lack of case inflection in personal names (Fewster 2002 pp. 238–9; Torallas Tovar 2010 p. 262; Vierros 2003 p. 16, 2007 pp. 720–1) and confusion over case endings (e.g. Fewster 2002 p. 235; Stolk 2015 pp. 22–4), are requoted (see further Section 4.9). Alternatively, a small number

of illustrative examples is discussed selectively, as by Mussies (1968), Clackson (2010), and Torallas Tovar (2010). Or, descriptive statements without a full-fledged linguistic analysis of the data are provided (Fournet 2009 p. 442; Luiselli 2008 p. 715; MacCoull 1987 pp. 311–12; Richter 2014 p. 137).

The treatment of the data depends on a study’s goals. Studies investigating large-scale historical developments have tended to focus on quantitative statistical data, such as the number of texts written in Greek and Egyptian found in one place. They explore the content of the relevant texts and its relation to other sources, such as literary works.4 In that, the emphasis is often on single illustrative passages and their meaning. An example is the description of Cleopatra’s language skills with reference to Plutarch, Life of Anthony27.3–4 (Thompson 1994 p. 74).

By contrast, studies concerned with individuals’ social context are interested in the type of the Greek and Egyptian texts. For example, texts may be official contracts as opposed to private records. Based on this data, inferences about language usage in several domains of life can be made. Additionally, specific passages such as formulae referring to a person’s literacy (Choat & Yuen-Collingridge 2009; Kraus 2000) or the clause ὅτι οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι ἑλληνίζειν ‘I do not know how to speak in Greek’ / ‘behave in a Greek way’ in P. Col. Zenon II 66.21 (= P. Col. 4 66.21) render insights (Rochette 1996).

Finally, studies exploring the overall linguistic situation in Egypt primarily rely on qualitative/philological analysis of the data. While a text may be written in Greek on the surface, it may contain clear indications of an insecure writer.

1.2.2 Multiple Influences

In her contribution to ACompaniontotheAncientGreekLanguage, Torallas Tovar (2010 p. 259) writes:

[3] Egyptians learning Greek often reached a high level of proficiency and thus many documents produced by them cannot be distinguished from documents produced by native speakers of Greek since one cannot identify divergences from the correct language.

Conversely, in his description of the early Byzantine period in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Fournet (2009 p. 444) terms P. Ross. Georg. IV app. pp. 99–105 ‘a letter full of Copticisms’ (similarly MacCoull 1987 pp. 311–12).

The letter, in fact, shows the impact of different factors, including but not limited to bilingual interference, on someone’s writing:

[4] P. Ross. Georg 4 app. pp. 99–105 (Aphrodites Kome, Antaiopolites, AD 619–29)

† εἶδενὁἀγαθόςμο(υ) δεσπότηςὅτιπολὰκόπονἔπαθακ[αὶ(?) ]μ̣[ α] υταἀλλὰ

My good master (may) be aware that I have suffered a lot from beating and … but

καὶ τοὺς Πέρσο\υ/ς ἦλθεν ἐν Τηνί ἠει5 καὶ ἐξέν\ε/κέν μοι εἰς τω Φοσᾶτονκαὶἐβασάνισένμοι also the Persians, (they) came, stayed in Tinis and (then) carried me away to Fustat and (they) interrogated me

ἀπὸ ὠξιτήου καὶ μαρμάρον εἰς τὼ στόμα καὶ εἰς τὴν ῥῆναν καὶ ἀπέθαναὁςἕνανἐκ

with vinegar and stones in my mouth and nose and I (would have been) dead like one from το῀νμνιμίονκαὶμετὰτρῖςὅραςἦλθένμοιπνόηνκαὶηὗροναὐτο[ὺ]ς ἀπίλθασινκαὶκαίασένμοι6

the tombs but after three hours (fresh) air reached me and I found them, (who) had gone away and left me

ἐκβορᾶτῆςΛυτοῦςκαὶὁθεὸςἐβοήθισένμοιἐξήλισαεἰςτὰςχύρας αὐτο῀νκαὶἦλθα

north of Letopolis. Because God helped me, I (managed to) escape from their hands and I went

εἰςἈρσενοΐτηνκαὶἰδοὺἀειτισώμην. κιμουμένω <μου> καὶτὰπεδία μο(υ) ἔλαβενεἱΠέρσιςεἰς

to the Arsinoite nome, but behold I was unwell. While I was sleeping, the Persians took even my children ἐμʼ. ἔτη[ἐ]γὼμώνονκιμνὸςἦλθαἐνταῦθα. παρακαλ[ο῀] τῷἀγαθον μουδεσπότῃ.

away from me. Furthermore, I arrived there being alone and naked. I appeal to my good master.

The following phonetic spellings appear in the letter:

iotacism (οι/η/ει/υ), e.g. l. 4 μνίμιονfor μνημείων; issues surrounding vowel length (ο/ω), e.g. l. 4 το ῀ ν μνιμίον for τῶνμνημείων;

<ε> for <αι>, e.g. l. 6 τὰπεδίαfor τὰπαιδία; issues with gemination, e.g. l. 5 βορᾶfor βορρᾶ;

<σ> for <ζ>, e.g. l. 6 ἀειτισώμηνfor ἀηδιζόμην; issue with weak final <ν>, e.g. l. 4 πνόηνfor πνόη;

<κ> for <γ>, e.g. l. 7 κιμνόςfor γυμνός;

<τ> for <δ>, e.g. l. 3 ὠξιτήουfor ὀξιδίου.

The letter exhibits various features of post-classical morphology and syntax. Morphologically, we see the conflation of the thematic and athematic aorist-patterns, e.g. l. 1 ἔπαθαfor ἔπαθον, as well as the regularization of masculine second-declension nouns in <ης>, e.g. l. 2 τοὺςΠέρσο\υ/ς for τοὺςΠέρσας, and the accusative of the third declension with an additional <ν>, e.g. l. 3 ἕναν for ἕνα. Furthermore, the diminutive ending -ιον appears to lack semantic value (Horrocks 2014 pp. 175–6), e.g. l. 3 ὠξιτήου (ὀξιδίου) from ὀξίς, ὀξίδος, ἡ. This is a development relevant from the Roman

period onwards and essentially serving to regularize declensional paradigms.

Syntactically, we observe the use of the present indicative for the future indicative/present subjunctive (Lucas 2014; Markopoulos 2009), e.g. l. 1 εἶδεν for εἰδῇ, as well as the unclassical choice of prepositions regarding the indication of location vs direction and source vs instrument (Luraghi 2003 pp. 122–3, 322, 332), e.g. l. 2 ἐνΤηνίfor εἰςΤήνιν, l. 3 ἀπὸὠξιτήουfor διὰὠξιτήου, ἐνὠξιτήῳ, or ὠξιτήῳ. Furthermore, the focus particle ἰδούappears, e.g. l. 6 ἰδοὺ ἀειτισώμην(see Chapter 7).

Colloquial syntax surfaces in:

the use of the third-person singular of verbs as the default,7 e.g. l. 2 ἦλθεν, ἐξένεκεν, ἐβασάνισεν for ἦλθον, ἐξένεκαν, ἐβασάνισαν;

asyndetic sentence connection, e.g. l. 4 ηὗρον αὐτο[ὺ]ς

ἀπίλθασιν καὶ καίασέν μοι ‘I found them to have gone away and left me’; the ‘and’-style throughout the letter.

This leaves three unclassical passages, which Jernstedt related to Coptic idioms:

[5a] l. 1

πολὰκόπονἔπαθα literally: I frequentlysuffered from beating.

ⲁ-ⲓ-ϣⲡ ϩⲁϩ ⲛ-Ϩⲓⲥⲉ

a-i-šphahn-hise

PRF-1sg-receive much of.PRP-beating I suffered from muchbeating.

Since πολά(CG πολλά) is neuter and κόπονis masculine, a construal as ‘much beating’ (πολλὰ κόπων) seems less likely than construing πολλά as an adverbial accusative. This represents a slight modification of the supposedly underlying Coptic idiom. Such

modifications are common when idioms are translated word by word.8

[5b] ll. 3–4

ἀπέθαναὁςἕνανἐκτο῀νμνιμίον

literally: I was dead likeonefromthetombs.

ⲁ-ⲓ-ⲙⲟⲩ ⲛ-ⲑⲉ ⲛ-ⲟⲩ-ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ-ⲛⲉ-ⲙϩⲁⲁⲩ

a-i-moun-then-ou-ebolhn-ne-mhaau

PRF-1sg-die in.PRP-manner of.PRP-ART.INDF.SG-out ofART.INDF.PL-tomb

I was dead like onefromthetombs.

Jernstedt (1927 p. 103) considers ὁς (ὡς) equivalent to MG σάν (ὡσάν), a preposition meaning ‘like’ / ‘as though’. This preposition calls for a complement in the accusative. The accusative ἕναν is analogous to other third-declension accusatives with an additional -ν in this period. Alternatively, the Coptic parallel, ⲛ-ⲑⲉ ⲛ- n-then-, may account for the accusative after ὡς. While ὡς introduces an elliptic subordinate clause, ⲛ-ⲑⲉ ⲛ- n-the n- is a preposition. Greek prepositions call for oblique cases. Without additional evidence, it is impossible to decide which explanation accounts for [5b]. This is a situation frequently arising in the analysis.

[5c] l. 5

ἐξήλισαεἰςτὰςχύραςαὐτο῀ν literally: I escaped towardstheir hands.

ⲁ-ⲓ-ⲣ-ⲃⲟⲗ ⲉ-ⲛⲉⲩ-ϭⲓϫ

a-i-r-bole-neu-kjidj

PRF-1sg-do-outside of-POSS.PL.3pl-hand

I escaped fromtheir hands.

Multivalent Coptic ⲉ- e-may explain the choice of εἰς, which does not suit the semantic context (see Chapter 6).

On balance, Fournet’s judgement, ‘full of Copticisms’, oversimplifies the situation (cf. Evans 2012a p. 122). The letter is a prime example of the multitude of influences that impacted on

writers’ texts. Bilingual interference only shines through in three idiomatic passages. Similarly, several instances discussed in Mussies (1968) can be explained as features of post-classical Greek, as colloquialisms, or as mistakes resulting from false analogies.

1.2.3 Morphology, Syntax, Phraseology

Instances of bilingual interference exist in all the areas of the Greek language. Structures that were labelled interference in the past but that do not qualify as such are discussed in Section 2.2.4. Regarding phonology, it has been argued that a regional variety of Greek had developed by the second century AD. Studies concerned with the period before the emergence of Coptic are relevant to the present study since Coptic developed from earlier Demotic and many structures remained unchanged.

Morphological interferences are rare. Matras (2015 pp. 23–4) argues that the adoption of inflectional morphology is dispreferred in language contact settings because of its integral role in the predication grammar. The predication grammar is the primary indicator of the language used. Therefore, the adoption of inflectional morphology only happens with language shift impending and entails the renegotiation of identity. By contrast, examples of the adoption of derivational morphology include ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῆς ἑστιάσεωςrendering ⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ manouōmin [6]:

[6] Pachomius, Praecepta 91 (4th c. AD, Theban area) (Lefort 1956 p. 31)

ⲛ-ⲛⲉ-ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ϩⲛ-ⲧ-ⲥⲟⲟⲩϩⲥ ⲛⲟⲩⲉϣⲛ-ⲣⲁϩⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲓ-ⲧⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲉⲡ-ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲉ-ⲡ-ⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ n-ne-rōme mooše hn-t-soouhs nouešn-rahtou hi-tolomōn eite e-psōouheitee-p-manouōm

The men usually go in the congregation without a monkish garment and a belt9 either to the gathering or to the dining place.

The Coptic, and generally Semitic (Lipiński 1997 para. 29.21), prefix ⲙⲁⲛ- man- ‘place (of)’ is translated into Greek (Torallas Tovar 2004 p. 172). Naturally, we would expect deverbal nouns in Greek, such as δειπνητήριον ‘dining room’ or just ἑστία ‘hearth’, ἑστίαμα ‘banquet’.

Syntactic structures reflecting bilingual interference are more plentiful:

(1) When the numeral ‘two’ functions as a quantifier in combination with a noun, a plural noun is required in Greek, but a singular noun in Coptic with the singular noun preceding the numeral (Layton 2011 para. 70b; Müller forthcoming chap. 6.3.1). Greek phrases such as Νεφερῶτι δύο (P. Neph. 11.2–3) may thus reflect Coptic syntax (Kramer et al. 1987 p. 72).

(2) Several Greek verbs require a specific preposition to attach their complement in the post-classical period. For example, εὔχομαι calls for περί or ὑπέρ ‘about’. Conversely, Coptic ϣⲗⲏⲗ šlēl ‘to pray’ calls for ⲉϫⲛ- edjn- ‘above’ / ‘on top of’:

[7] P. Lond. 6 1926, ll. 14 ἐὰνεὔξῃἐπάνωμουεἴασινλαμβάνω

If you pray for me, I will get better.10

The parallel explains the choice of ἐπάνωafter εὔχομαιin passages such as [7] (Torallas Tovar 2010 p. 263).

(3) While Greek operates with a verbal copula (εἶναι), Coptic has a nominal copula (ⲡⲉ/ⲧⲉ/ⲛⲉ pe/te/ne). This nominal copula is optional in most syntactic contexts. Clarysse (2010a p. 42) points out that the secondary addition of copular εἶναιby a writer should hence be interpreted as suggesting a bilingual writer proofreading their work.

(4a) Vierros identified two interference patterns that are based on word order and alignment. The first of these is Greek relative clauses under the influence of Demotic. Writers tend to identify the Greek relative pronoun with the Demotic relative converter and the subject in the relative clause. This complicates choosing the correct gender and number of the relative pronoun. Given that the syntax of relative clauses did not change significantly in Coptic, we can apply these findings to Coptic. A theoretical example is [8]:

Assuming that the writer is female, the subject in the Coptic relative clause would be female. A pronominal subject ‘you (feminine)’ is covert in Coptic such that ‘who you’ (relative converter + subject) and ‘who’ (relative converter) are both represented by ⲉⲧⲉ- ete(Layton 2011 para. 396). Since the Coptic relative converter and the subject of the relative clause appear in the same slot as the Greek relative pronoun, these may be equated. The Coptic female subject then triggers an incorrect female gender in the Greek relative pronoun (Vierros 2008, 2012a).11

(4b) The second pattern identified by Vierros concerns possessive structures. Coptic employs two main possessive patterns: (i) {possessed} ⲛⲧⲉ- nte- {possessor} and (ii) {possessed} ⲡⲁ-/ⲧⲁ-/ⲛⲁpa-/ta-/na- {possessor} (Müller 2022). In pattern (i), the form of ⲛⲧⲉ- nte- is independent of the form of the possessed. In pattern (ii), the choice between ⲡⲁ-/ⲧⲁ-/ⲛⲁ- pa-/ta-/na- depends on the form of the possessed. By contrast, the Greek possessive genitive is independent of the form of the possessed. This mismatch results in difficulty choosing the correct number and gender for the article preceding a noun in the possessive genitive. A theoretical example is [9]:

In Coptic, ⲛⲁ- na-must be plural because the possessed is plural. In Greek, the article would have to be singular because the possessor is singular (Vierros 2012a pp. 195–203).

Several other syntactic structures have been the topic of debate in the context of bilingual interference, such as confusion between the genitive and dative cases, a preference for prepositional phrases over bare cases, periphrastic verb forms, such as ἔχωμαθώνin [10] (Bentein 2016), and cleft-sentences, such as ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙ-ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲁϥ-ⲃⲱⲕ nimm-monakhospenta-f-bōkin [11] (Reintges 2003):

[10] Sophocles, Antigone1270–2 {Χο.} οἴμ᾽ὡςἔοικαςὀψὲτὴνδίκηνἰδεῖν. {Κρ.} οἴμοι, / ἔχω μαθὼν δείλαιος.

Chorus: How unfortunate that you appear to have seen justice very late!

Creon: Very unfortunate, I have learned while being wretched.

[11] (Till 1936 p. 11, ll. 9–11)

ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙ-ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲁ-ϥ-ⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁⲣⲟ-ϥ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡ-ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ⲛ-ⲧⲉϥ-ⲯⲩⲭⲏ

ē nim m-monakhos pe nta-f-bōk šaro-f etbe p-oudjai n-tefpsukhē

or.PRT which MATT-monk COP.3sg.m PRF.REL-3sg.m-come towards.PRP-3sg.m about.PRP ART.DEF-health MATTPOSS.SG.3sg.m-psyche

Or which monk was it that approached him regarding the wellbeing of his psyche?

All these structures are too widespread in post-classical Greek to be classified as interferences. Furthermore, they fit into the diachronic path of the language. However, we will see below that a particular agglomeration of relevant instances could indicate a bilingual writer (cf. Aejmelaeus 1982) (see Section 4.8).

Phraseological transfer refers to the importing of a formulaic or idiomatic expression characteristic of Egyptian into Greek. The resulting structure may be grammatical or ungrammatical in Greek. In either case, it is unidiomatic. Relevant instances have been noted by Clarysse (2010a) and Bagnall (2007b) regarding dating-formulae, by Mussies (1968) regarding formulae in sales contracts and by Jernstedt (1927) as shown above. An example is the invented internal address, the first sentence of every letter, in [12]:

[12] {ὁΠαῦλος}sender {τῇΜαρίᾳ}addressee {χαίρειν}greeting Paul to Mary, best wishes.

The regular order in Greek of this period would be ‘addressee— sender’ rather than ‘sender addressee’. Conversely, the order common in Coptic internal addresses is ‘sender addressee’, for syntactic reasons. Therefore, the order ‘sender—addressee’ in [12] contradicts contemporary Greek usage but reflects Coptic patterns of usage. The choice of this order does not impact syntactic correctness but only idiomaticity.

Finally, lexical loans are discussed in Section 2.5.5 as they do not constitute instances of interference. However, Torallas Tovar (2004 p. 171), [13a], and Derchain (1955), [13b], found instances of loan shifts:

[13a] ὅρος ⲧⲟⲟⲩ toou‘mountain’ and ‘monastery’.

[13b] θάλλοςmnhand mnh.t‘young branch’ and ‘gift’.

Greek ὅροςmeans ‘mountain’ whereas Coptic ⲧⲟⲟⲩ toou means not only ‘mountain’ but also ‘monastery’. Resulting from this mismatch,

Greek ὅρος could adopt the meaning ‘monastery’. Similarly, Greek θάλλος means ‘young branch’. Yet, based on the Egyptian nearparallel mnh.t, θάλλοςcould adopt the meaning ‘gift’.

Lexicalized/idiomatic expressions are naturally difficult to identify. Some remarks appear in Torallas Tovar (2010). Derchain (2001) considers Herodotus, Historiae 2.133 ἔς τε τὰ ἕλεα καὶ τὰ ἄλσεα πλανώμεν‘Let us wander to the wild olive trees and to the groves’ to be modelled on Egyptian s3b sš.w literally ‘se promener à travers les marais’ but with the common figurative meaning ‘se donner du bon temps, batifoler’. Derchain argues for a word-by-word translation of the idiom s3b (πλανάω) sšw (ἕλεα) and the subsequent addition of καὶτὰἄλσεαin order to adapt the Egyptian metaphor to the imagery of a Greek huntsman (chasseur). As the expression does not exist in Demotic, but only in Hieroglyphs, an intermediate stage of translation may be involved.

1.3 Guiding Principles and Outline

The present study describes the linguistic dynamics of early Byzantine Egypt from the philological, socio-linguistic, and cognitivelinguistic perspectives. The focus is on Egyptian (Coptic) impact on Greek syntax in texts that were produced by presumably bilingual writers. The present study fills two research gaps. The first surrounds the study of syntactic contact phenomena between Greek and Egyptian in the early Byzantine period. Work on earlier periods and on other areas of the language has been done, as shown above. The second concerns the linguistic description of early Byzantine Greek which arises from the lack of a third volume (on syntax) to Gignac’s (1976) grammar.

There has been increasing interest in late antique Egypt, from the historical (e.g. Bagnall 2007a), sociolinguistic (e.g. Bentein 2013, 2016), and linguistic perspectives (e.g. Vierros 2012b) as well as in the diachronic development of Greek into the Middle Ages (e.g.

Bortone 2010; Markopoulos 2009). The notion of ‘bad Greek’ has been refuted convincingly (Bagnall 2007b p. 21; Evans 2012a, 2012b; Fewster 2002 pp. 233–5; Papathomas 2007) and unclassical structures are instead viewed as variations holding important information about the texts (Depauw & Stolk 2014) and their researchers (S. Clackson 2004). However, a full description of any early Byzantine Greek corpus of texts or a comprehensive grammar of the language of the period remains a desideratum (Evans & Obbink 2010 p. 11; Gignac 2013). Chapter 4 provides a description of the key elements of early Byzantine Greek and their acceptable variants.

The languages and research traditions discussed have usually remained separate. While studies on post-classical Greek are carried out by classicists, theologians, or papyrologists, studies on Coptic are the domain of Egyptology (and Coptology). General linguistic concepts are drawn upon by historical linguists working in the area of Classics or Egyptology. However, recently, there has been some collaboration between the disciplines of Classics, Papyrology, Egyptology, and Linguistics (Bentein & Janse 2020; Leiwo et al. forthcoming). Chapter 2 maps out how the present study joins empirically supported claims and workable methodologies with philological accuracy and the application of general linguistic notions (e.g. formulaicity and syntactic complexity).

It appears that the contact phenomena documented for a period of stable bilingualism are of a range of types, which include but are not limited to bilingual interference. Based on these findings, a typology of errors arising from bilinguality is developed (see Chapters 2 and 10). Empirically, the analysis of the data with bespoke typology of errors shows that not every area of the syntax is affected by contact phenomena to the same degree and in the same way. In particular, a clear line emerges between formulaic and non-formulaic contexts. Finally, Chapter 10 adds the cognitivelinguistic perspective to the picture. The contact situation in early Byzantine Egypt has often been described in socio-linguistic terms

only. Yet, this precludes any explanation of how interferences emerged in the first place.

The following three research questions serve as the golden threads for the analysis in Part II:

(1)

(2)

(3)

What types of ungrammatical structures occur? What is the relative distribution of internal confusion and external impact (interference)?

What is the relative distribution of internal confusion and/or interference in the areas of syntax analysed?

What is the relative distribution of internal confusion and/or interference across the texts and archives of the corpus? Are there clusters? Can we hence identify writers that are more likely to have been bilingual?

Chapter 2 comprises a thorough introduction to bilingualism and language contact. Chapter 2 also introduces the reader to the select corpus of texts and the types of language errors observed in the corpus. Chapter 3 outlines the basics of Coptic grammar to the extent that they are relevant for the present study. Chapter 4 describes the Greek grammar of the corpus. Chapter 5 examines the area of verbal syntax, that is the argument and participant structures surrounding predicates. Chapter 6 assesses the area of nominal syntax, that is the syntax of the adverbial phrase and its embedding in the surrounding sentence structure. Chapter 7 explores the area of clausal syntax, in that we delve into clause linkage by means of conjunctions, particles and implicature. Chapters 5–7 are concerned with non-formulaic contexts. Chapter 8 investigates formulaic contexts, that is the epistolary frame. Chapter 9 investigates semiformulaic contexts, that is fixed expressions used to structure the letter body. Finally, Chapter 10 returns to the research questions of this study in light of the full investigation of the three areas of syntax and the three types of contexts and links the results together.

1.4 Methodology

We rely throughout on two premises. Firstly, Greek and Coptic are independent languages rather than contact varieties. Their description in Chapters 3 and 4 supports this premise. The premise is relevant for the sampling of data, in that the Greek and Coptic samples are independent of each other (see Section 1.4.1). Secondly, the coexistence of two languages (bilingualism) and their use by the same individual (bilinguality) are cross-linguistic phenomena. This premise allows us to draw on frameworks and methodologies developed for modern languages. The differences to be accounted for lie in (i) the lack of native speakers (Adams 2003 p. 3) and (ii) the finite amount of data (Torallas Tovar 2010 pp. 253–4) (see Section 1.4.2).

1.4.1 Clusters and Interdependencies

Corpus-languages, such as Greek and Coptic, are only accessible through written sources (Fleischman 2000 pp. 34–5; Langslow 2002 pp. 23–4). Therefore, linguistically, we opt for a corpus-based approach, that is an inductive/empirical approach. We define a corpus of texts—of documentary rather than literary or epigraphic data—, collect the relevant data points in the corpus, and analyse the data philologically and quantitatively.

In order to define the corpus of interest, the notion of ‘archive’ as used in the field of papyrology is of interest. Papyrus archives are groups of texts that have been assembled by modern scholars based on the common origin of the texts or on prosopographical data in the texts indicating that the texts were sent to the same person or originated from the same community (Clarysse 2010b pp. 48–53; Jördens 2001; Vandorpe 2009 pp. 226–9). The owner of an archive received or collected the texts that constitute the archive. Thus, it is