Coptic:Glossing recommendations

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. There are various systems to transliterate Coptic which differ in detail. Recently the following transliteration symbols have been suggested:

Copt.	Transl.		Copt.	Transl.		Copt.	Transl.		Copt.	Transl.		Copt.	Transl.		Copt.	Transl.
ⲁ	a		ⲏ	ê		ⲛ	n		ⲧ	t		ϥ	f		ⳉ	x’
ⲃ	b		ⲑ	t h		ⲝ	k s		ⲩ	u		ϩ	h		ⳃ	ç
ⲅ	g		ⲓ	i		ⲟ	o		ⲫ	p h		ϧ	x		ⳋ	ç’
ⲇ	d		ⲕ	k		ⲡ	p		ⲯ	p s		ϫ	č
ⲉ	e		ⲗ	l		ⲣ	r		ⲱ	ô		ϭ	c
ⲍ	z		ⲙ	m		ⲥ	s		ϣ	š		ϯ	t i

The encoder shall add the transliteration 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	šêre	nhoout
Glosses	DEF.SG.M:king(M)	but	PST:not_have:3SG.M	son/child(M)	ATTR:male(M)

‘But the king had no male child (but only two daugthers)’.
 

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)

‘But the king had no male child (but only two daugthers)’.
 

Glossing transcription	[p=r]ro	de	ne=m<n>t-f	\šêre/	n=hoout
Glosses	DEF.SG.M=king(M)	but	PST=not_have-3SG.M	son/child(M)	ATTR=male(M)

‘But the king had no male child (but only two daugthers)’.
 

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:

1. a Coptic line with philological markup,
2. a Transcription line (without philological markup),
3. the Glossing line.

Example

Coptic (edited)	[ⲡⲣ]ⲣⲟ	ⲇⲉ	ⲛⲉⲙ<ⲛ>ⲧϥ	\ϣⲏⲣⲉ/	ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ
Glossing transcription	p=rro	de	ne=mnt-f	šêre	n=hoout
Glosses	DEF.SG.M=king(M)	but	PST=not_have-3SG.M	son/child(M)	ATTR=male(M)

‘But the king had no male child (but only two daugthers)’.
 

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.

Expert Glossing Punctuation

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’

Expert Glossing Punctuation

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

Bibliography

• Grossman, Eitan & Martin Haspelmathin (in print). The Leipzig-Jerusalem Transliteration of Coptic, in: Egyptian-Coptic Linguistics in Typological Perspective, ed. by T. S. Richter, M. Haspelmath & E. Grossman (Manuscript submitted to De Gruyter Mouton).