User:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues you have here. The definition of the word User:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

No listed descendants, citations, or foreign transcriptions/no given basis for reconstruction

More parts reconstructed than the evidence warrants

  • ꜣḫ (noun) — the second syllable — why not with -j, as Osing has it?
  • fnṯ — the second syllable — again, why not with -j?
  • msdmt
  • ḥḏt
  • z — also, the vowel doesn’t match descendants — Akhmimic and Fayyumic have /a/ here, not /e/
  • kꜣpt

Irregular developments/sound changes

  • ꜣbd — development of -w at the end of the first plural would regularly be to /u/ rather than schwa; perhaps the form ought to be (contra Loprieno) not */ʀaˈbutʼw/ but */ʀaˈbutʼjaw/? Also unclear why initial unstressed /a/ is reduced in most descendants
  • jꜣbtj — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
  • jꜥn — the Sahidic descendant is unaccounted for
  • jfdw — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa; the Akkadian transcription also suggests something else is going on in the first syllable
  • jmntj — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
  • jḥ — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
  • jḥw — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa; also, the ending conflicts with Loprieno’s reconstruction, which we give at the singular
  • jt — /t/ irregularly preserved in the plural
  • ꜥnḏw — strange developments of first syllable, and the ending needs justification
  • ꜥḥꜣwtj — why is the first syllable lost?
  • ꜥqw — why does /w/ become /j/? Or why does Loprieno reconstruct /w/ rather than /j/? Note that Osing and Vycichl both reconstruct -/jVw/, not -/wVw/
  • wpwt — irregular change of initial /w/ > /j/, and why is the second /w/ lost?
  • wnn — inexplicable disappearance of the first n
  • bjt — stressed vowel doesn’t match
  • pt — given plural form (which is not in the Loprieno citation) would be expected to have the change /w/ > /j/ and end up as */peːʔ/
  • mꜣj — irregular preservation of ꜣ > /j/ in this position
  • mwt (“mother”) — irregular loss of final syllable; should become schwa
  • mnty — irregular preservation of final schwa
  • mr (“to suffer”) — unexplained retention of final /ɾ/; maybe restored by analogy with other verb forms?
  • msḏj — irregular preservation of final schwa, perhaps by analogy with other verbs?
  • nḥḥ — irregular monophthongization; descendants seem to demand /ˈnuːħVħ/, which, however, doesn’t match the given etymology
  • ršwt — irregular disappearance of /w/ from final /wə/
  • r-pr — descendants cannot possibly come from r-pr, must be a form like *r-prjt or somesuch
  • rd (“bud, shoot”) — why does final /wə/ in the plural develop as if it’s /jə/?
  • hbj — unaccounted-for monophtongization and metathesis (why not just /ˈhiːbaj/, plural /hiˈbaːjiw/ or somesuch? this is similar to what Osing proposes)
  • ḥꜣb — glottal stop should come after the stressed vowel. But how to satisfy this when the stressed vowel is short and the word ends in /p/ rather than /β/?
  • ḥfꜣw — /j/ from /ʀ/ should be preserved in this position and then vocalized, yielding Late Egyptian */ħafi/ rather than */ħaf/
  • ḫprw — why does /w/ disappear in the plural? Once again, why does Loprieno reconstruct /w/ rather than /j/?
  • ḫt — Bohairic would be expected to be *ϣⲁ (*ša), unless the original vowel is actually /u/ rather than /i/
  • ẖpꜣ — irregular preservation of final schwa. Vycichl suggests the Coptic forms actually come from *ẖpꜣt */ˈçuplat/
  • ẖt — the whole final syllable
  • zꜣw — not sure exactly how to derive the Coptic forms, or why the Akkadian has tonic /a/ so early (or was it transcribed relatively late?)
  • zt — vowel doesn’t match descendants — Akhmimic and Fayyumic have /a/ here, not /e/
  • sw — why no vowel change?
  • sbꜣ (“gate”) — is the Fayyumic descendant regular? And is the Akkadian transcription explicable? Vycichl gives it as pu-us-bé-u.
  • šmj — irregular development /mj/ > /jj/ > /j/? > /ʔ/; Junge accepts such a development, but Vycichl postulates two different words instead, */ʃim/ and */ˈʃimjat/
  • šr — irregular preservation of final schwa
  • qbb — final /b/ fails to develop to /p/ — perhaps by analogy with the first /b/, since this is a reduplicated stem?
  • kꜣmw — seems to me both singular and plural should have /u/ rather than /i/ as the stressed vowel. The plural also should maybe have a single rather than geminated /w/
  • gbb — final /b/ vanishes or develops as if /w/ (perhaps /b/ > /w/ irregularly happened by the time of the New Kingdom?)

Other issues

  • .sn — should generally develop as if unstressed, right?
  • jꜥḥ — not a problem with our reconstruction per se, but with the whole reconstruction model — a form like /jaʕħ/ is highly implausible
  • jtrw — need to ask User:Rhemmiel about source for ‘loss of t before r is a Late Egyptian sound change’; note that t before r behaved differently depending on whether the preceding vowel was stressed — maybe there’s some confusion here, whether on my part or theirs?
  • -w — need to think through the possible forms & developments. Also not sure if Loprieno’s model of the suffix (which we currently follow) is widely accepted or needs changing
  • mdwj — …what about that w? is this verb 4ae-inf or what?
  • nb — sort out what’s going on with those speculative notes on dialect
  • nswt — reconstructed based on what is probably an incorrect derviation; see etymology notes (and yet it works surprisingly well)
  • hrw — is what’s going on at the end of the reconstructed plural idiosyncratic to Loprieno? should we reconstruct differently?
  • ḥꜣtj — needs page for Loprieno citation
  • ḥtp — labelled as a participle, but is it really? or just a rendering of the infinitive?
  • z-n-wsrt — needs more careful investigation and coparison with Greek renderings to correctly determine how the compound developed
  • sḫm — cited to Loprieno, but what evidence is he basing this on, and which of the nouns does this reconstruction correspond to?
  • shouldn’t ejective and aspirable plosives be merged in most positions by 800 BCE? Current reconstructions don’t reflect this
  • did final schwa from lost glides in fact survive into the Neo-Assyrian period? evidence in favor: jwnw, ḥr, šn, wꜥw; evidence against: ḫmnw, psḏw
  • does ˈiː > ˈeː occur also in other environments? Peust in “Zur Herkunft des koptischen ⲏ”, page 118–119, says that Osing gives its environment as / _ (but optional in all cases). If those conditions are still accepted as valid, it would at least in part explain nḥḥ above
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia