Coptic:Glossing recommendations
From Glossing Ancient Languages
Common forms
(Please contribute) You might want to take Ancient Egyptian:Glossing recommendations as a model.
Examples in published articles and books
List of examples of glossed texts online.
Extra Glossing transcription line
Readers outside the field of Coptology cannot be expected to be able to read Coptic letters. Anyhow, it is good common practice to translate all not latin-based script systems into latin-based transliterations or transcriptions. Standards to transcribe Coptic are already established. The encoder shall add the transcription in an an extra ‘Glossing transcription line’ between the original Coptic line and the Glossing line.
- Example
| Coptic | ⲡⲣⲣⲟ | ⲇⲉ | ⲛⲉⲙⲛⲧϥ | ϣⲏⲣⲉ | ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ |
| Glossing transcription | prro | de | nemntf | šēre | nhoout |
| Glosses | DEF.SG.M:king(M) | but | PST:not_have:3SG.M | son/child(M) | ATTR:male(M) |
But there is also another issue.
Traditional philological editions of manuscripts use a system of punctuation (cf. the Leiden Conventions) which is partially in conflict with the punctuation as defined by the Glossing Rules.
Compare the following table:
| Puctuation | Meaning in philological editions |
Meaning in Glossing transcription line |
Meaning in Glossing line |
|---|---|---|---|
| < > | Emendation of a scribal error (addition) | Infix | |
| { } | Emendation of a scribal error (deletion) | — | |
| [ ] | Completely destroyed text (lacuna), potentially with reconstructed content |
— | ‘Zero’ morpheme |
| [[ ]] | Deleted text | — | |
| ( ) | Non-overt part of an abbreviation | — | Inherent category |
| dot below (e.g. ⲁ̣) |
Damaged or unclear characters | — | |
| \ | Addition/insertion above the line (\ / or ‘ ’) | — | Ablaut phenomenon |
| / | — | Ambigous morpheme | |
| ~ | — | Reduplication morpheme | |
| _ | — | Fixed phrase | Fixed phrase |
In order to prevent any confusion between the meaning of “[ ]” and “( )” in the Coptic line and “[ ]” and “( )” in the Glossing line, it is strongly advisable to use these symbols in their traditional meaning in the Glossing transcription line directly above the Glossing line at all. As far as “< >” is concerned, it is even mandatory not to use it with the philological meaning (emendation) in the Glossing transcription line. (Keep in mind that the number and sequence of “-”, “=”, “~”, and “< >” in the Glossing transcription and the gloss needs to match exactly.)
- Problematic examples
| Coptic (edited) | [ⲡ=ⲣ]ⲣⲟ | ⲇⲉ | ⲛⲉ=ⲙ<ⲛ>ⲧ-ϥ | \ϣⲏⲣⲉ/ | ⲛ=ϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ |
| Glosses | DEF.SG.M=king(M) | but | PST=not_have-3SG.M | son/child(M) | ATTR=male(M) |
| Glossing transcription | [p=r]ro | de | ne=m<n>t-f | \šēre/ | n=hoout |
| Glosses | DEF.SG.M=king(M) | but | PST=not_have-3SG.M | son/child(M) | ATTR=male(M) |
The advices to provide a latin-based transcription and to keep the line directly above the Glossing line free of philological markups are the two main reasons to provide the following three lines:
- a Coptic line with philological markup,
- a Transcription line (without philological markup),
- the Glossing line.
- Example
| Coptic (edited) | [ⲡⲣ]ⲣⲟ | ⲇⲉ | ⲛⲉⲙ<ⲛ>ⲧϥ | \ϣⲏⲣⲉ/ | ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ |
| Glossing transcription | p=rro | de | ne=mnt-f | šēre | n=hoout |
| Glosses | DEF.SG.M=king(M) | but | PST=not_have-3SG.M | son/child(M) | ATTR=male(M) |
In the Glossing transcription line, all symbols need to be used according to the Glossing Rules. In the Traditional transliteration line, however, the encoder may use all the symbols according to his/her philological tradition.
| X:C | X-C | X=C | X~C | X<C> | C1...C1 | X\C | X\C | X[C] | X.C | X(C) | X_Y | C/D |
| unspecified | affix | clitic | reduplication | infix | circumfix | ablaut | transfix | ø morpheme | Portmanteau | inherent | phrase | polysemous |
Hands-on transcription transformation guidelines
To derive a valid Glossing transcription line from a Coptic line with philological markup, the follwoing hands-on rules may help.
Compare the following table:
| Coptic (edited) | Glossing transcription line | Examples | |
|---|---|---|---|
| dot below (e.g. ⲁ̣) |
leave dot below out | keep character | ϣⲏ̣ⲣⲉ → šēre son/child(M) ‘child’ |
| < > | leave brackets out | keep content | <ϣ>ⲏⲣⲉ → šēre son/child(M) ‘child’ |
| ( ) | leave parentheses out | ⲁⲩ(ⲟ) → auo and ‘and’ | |
| \ / or ‘ ’ | leave ‘slashes’ out | ϣ\ⲏ/ⲣⲉ → šēre son/child(M) ‘child’ | |
| [ ] | leave brackets out | keep content or leave it out |
ϣⲏ[ⲣⲉ] → šēre son/child(M) ‘child’ ϣⲏ[ⲣⲉ] → šē[__] ‘[-destroyed-]’ |
| [[ ]] | leave brackets out | leave content out | ϣⲏ[[ⲏ]]ⲣⲉ → šēre son/child(M) ‘child’ |
| { } | ϣⲏ{ⲏ}ⲣⲉ → šēre son/child(M) ‘child’ | ||
| X:C | X-C | X=C | X~C | X<C> | C1...C1 | X\C | X\C | X[C] | X.C | X(C) | X_Y | C/D |
| unspecified | affix | clitic | reduplication | infix | circumfix | ablaut | transfix | ø morpheme | Portmanteau | inherent | phrase | polysemous |