Talk:Wp/cop/ⲓⲁⲣⲁⲥⲥⲟⲩⲁⲓⲥ

Where does ⲓⲁⲣⲁⲥⲥⲟⲩⲁⲓⲥ come from? Is ⲓⲁⲣ- a proposed construct participle of ⲓⲟⲣ? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, ⲓⲁⲣ- is the atonic form to ⲓⲟⲣ. In Bohairic, ⲓⲁⲣ- is more common than ⲓⲉⲣ- which is the default form in Sahidic. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it based on ⲓⲁⲣⲟ? I don't think ⲓⲁⲣ- is the atonic form in this case. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

ⲓⲁⲣⲟ most likely derives from older compound form yꜥr ꜥꜣ. If it was a purely Coptic formation I'd suppose it'd be ⲓⲟⲣ ⲱ or maybe ⲓⲟⲣⲟ. Even when ⲟ is used in compounds it's likely an irregular form – see ⲙⲉϩⲧⲟ (where it's just ⲙⲉϩⲧ+ⲟ), ⲣⲁⲙⲁⲟ (instead of ⲣⲉⲙⲟ if it'd be the case), Ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ, Ϧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲱ etc. Also see Vycichl's dictionary where he says that Bohairic ⲓⲁⲣⲟ is an "ancient vocalisation". --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't separate the vocalizations of ⲁ and ⲉ, because they both are the atonic vowels of ⲟ ⲱ ⲓ and others and can in theory be used interchangebly, although a certain word is usually attested with either this or that vowel (in the case of verbs, interchangeability is a bit more commonly found simply due to the shere number of verbs as opposed to nouns). The note about "ancient vocalization" refers to the fact that Bohairic has ⲓⲁⲣⲟ and not ⲓⲉⲣⲟ, which would be equally possible and is supposedly the more recent form because ⲁ preserved the quality better if we think that ⲉ is simply a shwa. The atonic form of Sahidic/Bohairic ⲟ is mostly ⲉ, but can also be ⲁ. Same case with ⲣⲁⲙⲁⲟ. Similar is the oscillation between ⲙⲓⲥⲓ, ⲙⲁⲥ- or ⲙⲉⲥ-. ϧⲉⲗⲗⲟ and other examples, in my opinion, don't speak against that, because *ϧⲁⲗ would have ϧⲉⲗ- as its atonic form (and ϧⲁⲗ- wouldn't be surprising although it is unattested). There is of course the possibility to not use the ablaut system (like ⲣⲉⲙ(ⲛ)-, ⲣⲱⲙⲓ `ⲛ-) which represents a chronologically later stage. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)