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/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from

Egypt Victoria Beatrix Maria Fendel

https://ebookmass.com/product/coptic-interference-in-the-syntax-
of-greek-letters-from-egypt-victoria-beatrix-maria-fendel/

Gymnasia and Greek Identity in Ptolemaic Egypt 1st

Edition Mario C. D. Paganini

https://ebookmass.com/product/gymnasia-and-greek-identity-in-
ptolemaic-egypt-1st-edition-mario-c-d-paganini/

Greek Epigram from the Hellenistic to the Early

Byzantine Era Maria Kanellou

https://ebookmass.com/product/greek-epigram-from-the-hellenistic-
to-the-early-byzantine-era-maria-kanellou/

Dearest Lenny: Letters from Japan and the Making of the

World Maestro Mari Yoshihara

https://ebookmass.com/product/dearest-lenny-letters-from-japan-
and-the-making-of-the-world-maestro-mari-yoshihara/
Empire of Letters: Writing in Roman Literature and
Thought from Lucretius to Ovid Stephanie Ann Frampton

https://ebookmass.com/product/empire-of-letters-writing-in-roman-
literature-and-thought-from-lucretius-to-ovid-stephanie-ann-
frampton/

Salt of the Earth: Secrets and Stories From a Greek

Kitchen Carolina Doriti

https://ebookmass.com/product/salt-of-the-earth-secrets-and-
stories-from-a-greek-kitchen-carolina-doriti/

The Ancient Greek Hero in 24 Hours: Sourcebook

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-ancient-greek-hero-in-24-hours-
sourcebook/

Latin Poetry in the Ancient Greek Novels Daniel

Jolowicz

https://ebookmass.com/product/latin-poetry-in-the-ancient-greek-
novels-daniel-jolowicz/

Pausanias in the World of Greek Myth Greta Hawes

https://ebookmass.com/product/pausanias-in-the-world-of-greek-
myth-greta-hawes/
 OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS
Published under the supervision of a Committee of the Faculty of Classics in the
University of Oxford
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

V I C TO R I A B E AT R I X
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.
To my parents Andreas and Brigitte
 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 language-
internal 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
12 April 2021
 Contents

List of Abbreviations
Sigla

I. SETTING THE SCENE

1. Introduction
1.1. Bilingual Interference
1.2. Egyptian Interference in Greek
1.3. Guiding Principles and Outline
1.4. Methodology
2. Concepts, Contexts, Corpora
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Evolution and Contact
2.3. Bilingualism and Bilinguality in Egypt
2.4. Corpus of Texts
2.5. Error Typology
2.6. Statistical Concepts
3. The Basics of Coptic Grammar
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Script
3.3. Phonology
3.4. Lexicon
3.5. Verbs and Sentences
3.6. Prepositions and Nouns
3.7. Clause Connectors
3.8. Regionalisms
 3.9. Loans from Greek
3.10. The Mixed Language Debate
4. The Grammar of the Corpus (Standard and Variation)
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Phonology
4.3. Lexicon
4.4. Verb Phrases
4.5. Adverbial Phrases
4.6. Subordinate Clauses
4.7. Coordinate Clauses
4.8. Influence or Coincidence?
4.9. Personal Names

II. ANALYSIS
5. Verb Phrases: The Syntax of Arguments
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Data
5.3. Summary and Conclusion
5.4. Excursus: Avoidance Strategies
6. Adverbial Phrases: The Syntax of Adjuncts
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Data
6.3. Summary and Conclusion
6.4. Avoidance Patterns
7. Discourse Markers: The Syntax of Clause-Linkage
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Data
7.3. Summary and Conclusion
7.4. Avoidance Patterns
8. Formulaic Language: The Syntax of the Epistolary Frame
 8.1. Introduction
8.2. Standard Patterns and Variants
8.3. Data
8.4. Summary and Conclusion
8.5. Personal Names
9. Semi-formulaic Phrases: The Syntax of Signposts and Hedges
9.1. Introduction
9.2. Standard Patterns, Variants and Variations
9.3. Data
9.4. Summary and Conclusion

III. CONTEXTUALIZING DEVIATIONS

10. Summary and Conclusion
10.1. Summary: Types of Errors
10.2. Conclusion 1: Error Type and Syntactic Domain
10.3. Conclusion 2: Contextual Information
10.4. Conclusion 3: Language Acquisition
10.5. Outlook
Appendix:Corpus of Texts
Editions of Texts
Abbreviations for Letters

Bibliography
Index of Keywords
Index of Passages
 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
Greek vocative case
 Sigla

DDbDP Duke Database of Documentary Papyri

(http://papyri.info)
Lampe Lampe (1961)
LSJ Liddell, Scott, and Jones 1996
(http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/)
OED The Oxford English Dictionary (https://www.oed.com/)
TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
(http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu)
Wb Erman and Grapow (1926)
 PART I

SETTING THE SCENE

 1
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 in the photograph rather than put on top 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-seventh-
century 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
Anthony 27.3–4 (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 ἐπίστ̣αμαι 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 A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language,
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)
† εἶδεν ὁ ἀγαθός μο(υ) δεσπότης ὅτι πολὰ κόπον ἔπαθα κ[αὶ(?) ̣]μ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣
̣ ̣ ̣ α] υτα ἀλλὰ
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
Φοσᾶτον καὶ ἐβασάνισέν μοι
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
ἀπέθανα ὁς ἕναν ἐκ
with vinegar and stones in my mouth and nose and I (would have
been) dead like one from
το῀ν μνιμίον καὶ μετὰ τρῖς ὅρας ἦλθέν μοι πνόην καὶ ηὗρον αὐτο[ὺ]ς
ἀπίλθασιν καὶ καίασέν μοι6
the tombs but after three hours (fresh) air reached me and I found
them, (who) had gone away and left me
ἐκ βορᾶ τῆς Λυτοῦς καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐβοήθισέν μοι ἐξήλισα εἰς τὰς χύρας
αὐτο῀ν καὶ ἦλθα
north of Letopolis. Because God helped me, I (managed to) escape
from their hands and I went
εἰς Ἀρσενοΐτην καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀειτισώμην. κιμουμένω <μου> καὶ τὰ πεδία
μο(υ) ἔλαβεν εἱ Πέρσις εἰς
to the Arsinoite nome, but behold I was unwell. While I was
sleeping, the Persians took even my children
ἐμʼ. ἔτη [ἐ]γὼ μώνον κιμνὸς ἦλθα ἐνταῦθα. παρακαλ[ο῀ ] τῷ ἀγαθον
μου δεσπότῃ.
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 μνίμιον for μνημείων;

• issues surrounding vowel length (ο/ω), e.g. l. 4 το῀ν μνιμίον
for τῶν μνημείων;
• <ε> for <αι>, e.g. l. 6 τὰ πεδία for τὰ παιδία;
• issues with gemination, e.g. l. 5 βορᾶ for βορρᾶ;
• <σ> for <ζ>, e.g. l. 6 ἀειτισώμην for ἀηδιζόμην;
• issue with weak final <ν>, e.g. l. 4 πνόην for πνόη;
• <κ> for <γ>, e.g. l. 7 κιμνός for γυμνός;
• <τ> for <δ>, e.g. l. 3 ὠξιτήου for 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 ἔπαθα for ἔπαθον, as well as
the regularization of masculine second-declension nouns in <ης>,
e.g. l. 2 τοὺς Πέρσο\υ/ς for τοὺς Πέρσας, 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
ἐν Τηνί for εἰς Τήνιν, l. 3 ἀπὸ ὠξιτήου for διὰ ὠξιτήου, ἐν ὠξιτήῳ, or
ὠξιτήῳ. Furthermore, the focus particle ἰδού appears, 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 πολὰ κόπον ἔπαθα

literally: I frequently suffered from beating.
ⲁ-ⲓ-ϣⲡ ϩⲁϩ ⲛ-Ϩⲓⲥⲉ
a-i-šp hah n-hise
PRF-1sg-receive much of.PRP-beating
I suffered from much beating.

Since πολά (CG πολλά) is neuter and κόπον is 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 ἀπέθανα ὁς ἕναν ἐκ το῀ν μνιμίον

literally: I was dead like one from the tombs.
ⲁ-ⲓ-ⲙⲟⲩ ⲛ-ⲑⲉ ⲛ-ⲟⲩ-ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ-ⲛⲉ-ⲙϩⲁⲁⲩ
a-i-mou n-the n-ou-ebol hn-ne-mhaau
PRF-1sg-die in.PRP-manner of.PRP-ART.INDF.SG-out of-
ART.INDF.PL-tomb
I was dead like one from the tombs.

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-the n-, 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 ἐξήλισα εἰς τὰς χύρας αὐτο῀ν

literally: I escaped towards their hands.
ⲁ-ⲓ-ⲣ-ⲃⲟⲗ ⲉ-ⲛⲉⲩ-ϭⲓϫ
a-i-r-bol e-neu-kjidj
PRF-1sg-do-outside of-POSS.PL.3pl-hand
I escaped from their 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
ἑστιάσεως rendering ⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ manouōm in [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 ⲉ-
ⲡ-ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲓⲧⲉ ⲉ-ⲡ-ⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ
n-ne-rōme mooše hn-t-soouhs nouešn-rahtou hi-tolomōn eite e-p-
sōouh eite e-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 ἐὰν εὔξῃ ἐπάνω μου εἴασιν λαμβάνω
If you pray for me, I will get better.10

The parallel explains the choice of ἐπάνω after εὔχομαι in 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 εἶναι by 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-/ⲛⲁ-
pa-/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 ἔχω μαθών in [10]
(Bentein 2016), and cleft-sentences, such as ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙ-ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲁ-
ϥ-ⲃⲱⲕ nim m-monakhos pe nta-f-bōk in [11] (Reintges 2003):

[10] Sophocles, Antigone 1270–2

{Χο.} οἴμ᾽ ὡς ἔοικας ὀψὲ τὴν δίκην ἰδεῖν.
{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-tef-
psukhē
or.PRT which MATT-monk COP.3sg.m PRF.REL-3sg.m-come
towards.PRP-3sg.m about.PRP ART.DEF-health MATT-
POSS.SG.3sg.m-psyche
Or which monk was it that approached him regarding the well-
being 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] {ὁ Παῦλος}sender {τῇ Μαρίᾳ}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] θάλλος mnh and mnh.t‘young branch’ and ‘gift’.

Greek ὅρος means ‘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 near-
parallel mnh.t, θάλλος could 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 καὶ τὰ ἄλσεα in 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 cognitive-
linguistic 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 cognitive-
linguistic 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) What types of ungrammatical structures occur? What is the

relative distribution of internal confusion and external impact
(interference)?
(2) What is the relative distribution of internal confusion and/or
interference in the areas of syntax analysed?
(3) 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 semi-
formulaic 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
not the archive owners’, but their surroundings’ linguistic ability that
we assess by considering an archive.
Occasionally, archives contain several letters by the same person
due to long-term contact. Examples include Philinos and Iason
(Evans 2012b pp. 26–9 and 34–9), Zenon, Amyntas, and Hierokles
(Evans 2010b pp. 64–6, 2015), and Ktesias, Hierokles, and
Artemidoros (Evans 2007) in the Ptolemaic Zenon archive, as well as
Paul in the early Byzantine Nepheros archive (Kramer et al. 1987 pp.
24–32).12 If an archive contains Greek and Coptic texts,13 we can
assume that the archive originated from a bilingual environment
(Fewster 2002 p. 236).
Archives are the incomplete reflection of someone’s social
network (Gardner et al. 1999 p. 6).14 This reflection was always
incomplete as someone’s archive only documents their incoming
correspondence but (usually) does not contain any outgoing
correspondence. A rare exception is the archive of Apollinarios
(Vandorpe 2009 pp. 237–8), who kept copies of his own writings.
In order to show clearly which archives papyri belong to, the
references to the letters of an archive are given abbreviations that
reflect their belonging to the archive (e.g. AN for the archive of Apa
Nepheros). The reader is referred to the List of abbreviations for the
resolution of these abbreviations. The select archives are discussed
in Section 2.4.4.
The advantage of using archives is that we can gauge
comparatively well what kind of relationship existed between the
interlocutors involved, that is the writer and the archive owner. The
relevant relationship differs between archives, as for example
someone writing to a desert monk must still consider a certain
hierarchy between the former and themselves, whereas someone
writing to a fellow villager may not have any hierarchy on their mind.
However, using archives complicates statistical analysis. Our
sample is not a simple random sample to start with, but we are
looking at cases that are clearly linked. This is a problem for carrying
out statistical testing, such as hypothesis testing. Furthermore, the
texts that have come down to us have undergone substantial
selective procedures that we cannot account for ranging from the
chance of preservation through sorting/throwing out/etc. in antiquity
and multiple pre-modern scholars’ decisions to keep or discard texts
to accessibility in modern collections. Thus, in the eyes of a
statistician, the data sample is challenging to say the least. Finally,
our sample is very small, and data cannot be multiplied. Statistically,
this raises the issue that standard errors go up as the sample size
goes down.
Nonetheless, what we can do, with caution, is calculate
proportions with regard to the distribution of errors/contact
phenomena and test for the difference between proportions.
Furthermore, we can draw on statistical methods developed for
small samples and complex samples (although with the caveat that
the sampling procedure is largely unknown to us) and apply chi-
square tests to the error distributions (see Chapter 2).
In the end, we have a sample of texts the social context of which
we can describe comparatively well and for which we can assume a
linguistically speaking mixed environment. This sample of texts is
preserved well enough to lend itself to qualitative/philological
analysis. Thus, we rely heavily on qualitative analysis and support
this with quantitative analysis where possible.
Manual data collection and analysis is preferable as the following
four examples taken from the texts of the corpus illustrate:

[14a] AP 1, ll. 19 καὶ τὸν μονάριν Ἡρακλίδην̣ δύ[σα]ντες καὶ

ὑβρίσαντες
concerning the monk Heraklides, having bound/plunged and
maltreated (him).

In [14a], orthographic variability impacts on which verbal lemma we

catalogue. Depending on whether we assume iotacism, <υ> for
<η>, or not, we may read either δύω or δέω. Both readings suit the
context.

[14b] AJ 7, ll. 7 ἵνα ἀπολύομαι

in order that I may be released.
[14c] AP 2, ll. 13 ἵν<α> καὶ ὑμῖς γνώντες συμβάλλεσθε αὐτῷ
in order that you too, then being aware (of it), may help him.

In [14b] and [14c], orthographic variability affects syntactic

correctness. If we assume a lack of vowel-length distinction between
<ο> and <ω> in [14b] and between <ε> and <η> in [14c]
(Clarysse 1993 p. 197), both instances reflect classical syntax.
Alternatively, we may construe the apparent indicatives as modern,
colloquial structures (Hult 1990 pp. 171–2).

[14d] AN 13, ll. 11]πραὺ̣ ἐπιξαμε[ν

we urged …

In [14d], orthographic variability is relevant to the voice of the verb.

If we read ἐπείξαμεν, the verb is active; if we read ἐπειξάμην, the
verb is middle. The context is too damaged to decide conclusively.
Besides orthographic variation, frequent abbreviations of words
and misspellings render automatized searches difficult. Often, only
the entire context clarifies which option is more likely. For example,
AJ 7 contains several ungrammatical structures. In light of these,
reading an indicative after ἵνα in [14b] seems conceivable. However,
AJ 7 also contains various phonetic spellings (Fournet 2019 pp. 50–
3) so that interchange of <ο> and <ω> cannot be excluded.
All the Greek texts are quoted in the form in which they appear in
the relevant edition of the text, including spurious apostrophes. Only
occasionally a correction is suggested, primarily with regard to the
accentuation of single words. The version of the text given in the
edition is then quoted in a footnote.

1.4.2 Structure, Context, Formation

As we aim to linguistically describe, contextually embed and
cognitively explain the errors that appear in the corpus, three
frameworks are relied upon. Lexical-functional grammar serves to
describe philologically the relevant instances; the sociolinguistic
framework serves to embed the relevant instances contextually;
Construction Grammar serves to explain how and why an error
occurred. The three frameworks are briefly described one by one.
Lexical-Functional Grammar (henceforth LFG) is built around three
principles, that is variability, universality and monotonicity (Bresnan
et al. 2015 pp. 56–7).15 The c-structure, that is the constituent or
categorical structure, is the external structure (Bresnan et al. 2015
p. 56). The c-structure is language-specific (cf. the principle of
variability), in that different languages have different surface-level
representations. The f-structure, that is the functional structure, is
the internal structure. The f-structure describes universal
grammatical relations (Bresnan et al. 2015 p. 56). Recall the
example of ‘in the picture’ vs ‘sur la photo’ / ‘auf dem Bild’, where we
have different surface-level representations of the same underlying
functional structure and concept. The c-structure and the f-structure
map onto each other. When we add up the c-structure and the f-
structure attributes of a given constituent, our description of the
constituent becomes more and more defined. The level of specificity
increases monotonically (Bresnan et al. 2015 p. 78).
The ‘argument structure is an interface between the semantics
and syntax of predicators (which we may take to be verbs in the
general case)’ (Bresnan et al. 2015 pp. 253–4). It is double-faced, in
that we have the representation of the event structure on the
semantic side and the representation of the syntactic
subcategorization on the syntactic side. On the syntactic side, we are
interested in syntactic dependents of a governing head (Bresnan et
al. 2015 pp. 253–4), that is in arguments and adjuncts. On the
semantic side, we are interested in core participants, that is in
essence semantic or thematic roles (Kroeger 2005 p. 54).
Thematic roles are notoriously difficult to define. For example,
where do we draw the line between a Theme, a Stimulus, and a
Patient?

[15] (Kroeger 2005 p. 54)

Theme: entity which undergoes a change of location or possession, or
whose location is being specified.
Stimulus: object of perception, cognition, or emotion; entity which is
seen, heard, known, remembered, loved, hated, etc.
Patient: entity which is acted upon, affected, or created; or of which
a state or change of state is predicated.

In prototypical cases, the distinction may be clear, but in reality it is

often blurred. Therefore, Naess (2007) in her book on prototypical
transitivity proposed an alternative way of defining participant roles.
She considers the criteria of volitionality, instigation, and
affectedness for every participant role. Volitionality refers to the
volitional involvement of an entity in an action; instigation refers to
an entity’s instigating role as regards an action; affectedness refers
to whether or not an entity is affected/changed by an action.
Applying these three criteria, Naess defines the following participant
roles:

[16] Participant roles according to Naess (2007 chap. 5).

Drawing on three clear-cut diagnostic criteria homogenises the
assignment of participant roles.
For the application of the sociolinguistic framework to classical
and post-classical Greek, we draw on the work by Labov (1963,
1991), Romaine (1982), Halliday and Matthiessen (2004), Halliday
and Webster (2007), and specifically Willi (2003) and Bentein
(2016). Sociolinguistics is a usage-based approach to language
centred on the language users. The approach holds that there is an
intricate connection between the social and linguistic realities. The
general idea is that users of language are influenced by their
situational surroundings including other users who they interact with
(see in detail Sections 2.2.3 and 2.3.1).
Cognitive approaches focus on language users’ processing of
language (Bybee 2010). Unlike LFG, Construction Grammar is a
monostratal theory (Goldberg 1995 p. 7). Any formal difference is
linked to a functional difference (Goldberg 1995 p. 3). For example,
formally, the difference between ‘to be afraid to’ and ‘to be afraid of’
is the change in the final particle triggering the subsequent change
in the form of the complement of the particle, that is an infinitive
after ‘to’ and an ing-form after ‘of’. While ‘to be afraid to’ involves
intentionality, ‘to be afraid of’ does not (Goldberg 1995 p. 3). A
construction ‘is posited in the grammar if and only if something
about its form, meaning, or use is not strictly predictable from other
aspects of the grammar’ (Goldberg 1995 p. 13). Constructions exist
at all structural levels, including the clause, the phrase, and the
sentence. The change in meaning between ‘to be afraid of’ and ‘to
be afraid to’ results from the constructional change rather than
polysemy of the verb phrase or lexical changes (Goldberg 1995 p.
18). By contrast, no functional difference exists between English ‘try
to’ and ‘try and’ (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004 pp. 122–3). Hence, we
cannot posit a construction. Experimental research indicates that
language users have a certain awareness of the close association of,
for example, certain verbal items with specific constructions
(Goldberg 1995 p. 36) (see further Section 2.5.1).

1.4.3 Standard, Variation, Deviation

The analysis of structures observed in the corpus of texts proceeds
along a triad: A standard is established, variations of the standard
are identified, and deviations from the standard are pinpointed.
Variations are grammatically correct instances that do not reflect the
standard. Deviations are ungrammatical instances that do not reflect
the standard.
The concept of a standard is complex. The seminal work is
Haugen (1966), who proposes that the evolution of a standard
results from the interaction of social and linguistic processes. A social
group selects a norm, which is then codified in the language and the
function of which is elaborated. At this stage, the social group in
question accepts (or rejects) it. Social groups or social networks thus
play an important role in the spread of new features and the
maintenance of old features, depending on the makeup of the
network (Milroy & Milroy 2012 pp. 49–50). Haugen’s model falls into
the category of a standard evolving from acceptance through
agreement.
Alternatively, a standard may evolve by prescription through
authority (Versteegh 2002 p. 55), a modern example of which is the
Académie Française. In this scenario, the standard is an artificial
written ideal that users aim for (Colvin 2009 p. 36) and which gives
rise to a standard ideology. Colvin (2009 p. 43) shows that such a
standard existed already in the classical period. The existence of a
standard ideology and the prestige thus attributed to a standard
language can be detrimental to research efforts as it creates an
underlying conceptualization of a bipartite distinction between
correct and corrupted (Hernández Campoy & Schilling 2012 pp. 70–
3).
Generally speaking, standard languages do not notate sociolectal
(e.g. the glottal stop in ‘water’), colloquial (e.g. the contractions in
‘isn’t’ and ‘can’t’), or dialectal features (e.g. the British English north-
south isogloss /a/ as in ‘castle’). Standard languages are likely to
surface in non-literary official contexts where the focus is on the
factual transmission or recording of a message.
In Egypt, a standard ideology seems to have existed at least from
the Roman period onwards, as evidenced by the availability of
grammar teaching and movements such as Atticism and the Second
Sophistic (see Section 2.5.2). Furthermore, writers occasionally
amended their own mistakes. These self-corrections point to the
writers’ awareness of an existing standard language. Scribal
corrections are noted in passing when they appear in ungrammatical
or unidiomatic passages but are not listed systematically in Part II.16
Ideally, we would have a simple random sample taken from all
the texts that existed in fourth- to mid-seventh-century Egypt in
order to assess people’s average linguistic choices, in the sense of a
standard as acceptance through agreement or Hult’s (1990 p. 23)
notion of Normalprosa. This is what descriptive grammars should
provide us with. By contrast, prescriptive grammars are influenced
by the standard language paradigm. For early Byzantine Greek and
early Coptic, we lack either kind of detailed grammatical descriptions
(S. Clackson 2004; Oréal 1999 pp. 197–302), unlike for the
Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser 1906), the New Testament (Bailey 2009;
Blass 1990; Kirk 2012; Moulton 1957; Robertson 1919) and later
Coptic literature. However, there are studies on single phenomena,
such as Markopoulos (2009) on the future or Bentein (2015, 2017)
and Hult (1990) on verbal complementation patterns.
Generally, we need to be careful when drawing on literary sources
as a point of comparison since writers of documentary texts did not
aim for literary excellence but comprehensibility. A multiplicity of
factors impacted on their texts including the diachronic development
of the language, the situational register, the writers’ level of
education, and their social context (Evans 2012a p. 123). Coptic
grammars, in particular, are usually based on literary sources.
For the present study, the standard is defined in the sense of
acceptance through agreement. Three measures are established to
distinguish between post-classical standard Greek in Egypt and
deviations from the standard.

(a) Frequency: The more frequent a structure, the more common

it is. However, mere token frequency is not indicative. For instance,
we may have a fair number of tokens, but all of them in the writings
of the same person. In this case, the structure may rather reflect an
idiolect than a general trend (Ellis 2003; Stolk 2015 pp. 65–7). The
frequency measure is readily applicable only to high-frequency items
(> 10 attestations) that are distributed across a range of writers.
(b) Grammaticality (see further Section 2.5.2): If a pattern
appears in classical Greek, the Ptolemaic papyri, or the New
Testament (henceforth NT), it is considered grammatical. The NT is
a well-studied corpus of Roman Greek literature. Despite it being a
work of literature, its language is generally regarded as closely
resembling standard Roman Greek (Blass 1990 para. 3; Deissmann
1908 p. 40; Horrocks 2014 p. 147; Mandēlaras 1973 paras 21–2 and
35; Watt 2013 pp. 21–4).17 However, Gignac (2013 p. 419)
emphasizes the bilingual surroundings in which the NT emerged. On
the Coptic side, the situation is more complicated as the Coptic NT is
a translation from Greek (Hasznos 2006, 2012 pp. 74–8; Oréal 1999
p. 295). Thus, translation techniques pertain to the shape of the
language (Langslow 2012 pp. 143–5). For either language, the NT
has come down to us in a multiplicity of manuscripts and
consequently a multiplicity of versions of the text (Ehrman 2016 p.
23; Metzger & Ehrman 2005 pp. 50 and 250–99).
The Septuagint is less relevant as it was translated from Hebrew
around the third century bc (Horrocks 2014 pp. 106–8). Hence, there
is a time-gap to our early Byzantine data. Despite being a translated
text, the Septuagint seems to reflect regular diachronic trends. For
example, Evans (2015 p. 80) finds this to be true for the choice of
verbal aspect (further Evans 2001).
A pattern is also considered grammatical if it has clearly
developed from a pattern attested in one of the three varieties
mentioned above reflecting a regular evolutionary path (see Chapter
2.2.4). Yet, incidentally, the restructuring of many areas of the
language system and the resulting coexistence of several patterns
meant that even native speakers may sometimes have struggled to
apply what seems to have still been the standard pattern. This kind
of internal variation preceding language change is a regular
phenomenon (Matras 2009 p. 60; Stolk 2015 pp. 25–6).
(c) Convergence (see further Section 2.2.2): Convergence means
that the structures of two languages fall together and mix rather
than there being imposition of the structures of one language onto
the other as there is in interference. When trends converge, the
resulting structure may appear commonly or rarely. In the former
case, it may be a regionalism. In the latter case, a proficient
bilingual may have produced the structure as part of their idiolect.
The above observations are summarized in [17]:

[17] Defining a standard

Structures that have resulted from interference or a proficient
individual’s idiolect are discussed in Chapters 5–9. Structures that
represent the standard or constitute regionalisms are discussed in
Section 2.5.6 and Chapter 4.

Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt. Victoria Beatrix
Maria Fendel, Oxford University Press. © Victoria Beatrix Maria Fendel 2022. DOI:
10.1093/oso/9780192869173.003.0001

1 Greek μελετάω (Förster 2002 p. 510).

2 Greek εἴτε … εἴτε (Müller 2017 pp. 288–97).
3 See Section 2.3 (domain stability).
4 Henkelman et al. (2011 p. 465) argue not to take literary works at face
value.
5 CG ἦ(ν) ‘he was’ (Jernstedt 1927).
6 καίασέν μοι stands for καὶ εἴασάν με. The third-person singular is used as a
default form. μοί for μέ appears repeatedly in the letter.
7 One may argue for interchange between <ε> and <ο> in final unaccented
syllables (Horrocks 2014 pp. 112, 118; Leiwo 2003 p. 8). This does not apply to
ἠει ‘to be’ in l. 2 and is difficult to uphold where an enclitic pronoun follows the
verb (ἐξέν\ε/κέν μοι, ἐβασάνισέν μοι, καίασέν μοι).
8 Phraseological transfer is feasible but impossible to prove here (see Chapters
8 and 9).
9 This is Torallas Tovar’s (2007) interpretation of the terminology.
10 The writer repeats the construction in l. 24.
11 See also Mussies (1968) on attractio relativi and Clarysse (1993 p. 198) on
the gender of the relative pronoun.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Robert Merry's
museum, Volumes III-IV (1842)
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Robert Merry's museum, Volumes III-IV (1842)

Author: Various

Editor: Samuel G. Goodrich

Release date: February 26, 2024 [eBook #73026]

Language: English

Original publication: Boston: Bradbury & Soden, 1842

Credits: Carol Brown, Linda Cantoni, Jude Eylander, Katherine

Ward and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet
Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ROBERT

MERRY'S MUSEUM, VOLUMES III-IV (1842) ***
 ROBERT MERRY’S

MUSEUM:
VOLUMES III. IV.

BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY BRADBURY, SODEN & CO.
10, SCHOOL STREET, AND 127, NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.
1843.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, by S. G.

Goodrich, in
the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
 ROBERT MERRY’S
MUSEUM.

edited by

S. G. GOODRICH,

a u t h o r o f p e t e r pa r l e y ’ s ta l e s .

VOLUME III.

BOSTON:
B R A D B U R Y, S O D E N , & C O . ,
No. 10 School Street, and 127 Nassau Street, New York.
1842.
 CONTENTS OF VOLUME III.
JANUARY TO JUNE, 1842.

The New Year, 1

Wonders of Geology, 3
The Siberian Sable-Hunter, 7, 65, 122
Merry’s Adventures, 12, 36, 79, 150, 177
Repentance, 16
17, 41, 74, 97, 131,
Indians of America,
165
Story of Philip Brusque, 21, 60, 87
Solon, the Grecian Lawgiver, 25
How to settle a Dispute without Pistols, 26
The Painter and his Master, 27
The Turkey and Rattlesnake,—a Fable, 28
Flowers, 28
Christmas, 29
31, 95, 126, 159,
Puzzles,
190
Varieties, 31, 188
Hymn for the New Year,—Music, 32
Anecdote of a Traveller, 33
Dr. Cotton and the Sheep, 34
The Robin, 34
Echo,—A Dialogue, 35
The Lion and the Ass, 35
National Characteristics, 35
The Two Seekers, 38
Resistance to Pain, 40
The Voyages, Travels and Experiences of 45, 84, 102, 139,
Thomas Trotter, 182
Cheerful Cherry, 48
The War in Florida, 56
Composition, 58
Natural Curiosities of New Holland, 59
Beds, 61
The Great Bustard, 62
The Tartar, 63
Answers to Puzzles, 63
The Snow-Storm,—Music, 64
Bees, 69
The several varieties of Dogs, 72
Anecdote of the Indians, 73
The Wisdom of God, 77
The Canary Bird, 78
The Paper Nautilus, 79
The Zodiac, 83
The Tanrec, 89
Letter from a Correspondent, 89
Different kinds of Type, 91
The Three Sisters, 92
The Zephyr, 95
To Correspondents, 95, 127, 158, 189
March,—A Song, 96
Butterflies, 101
Herschel the Astronomer, 107
Truth and Falsehood,—An Allegory, 108
The Chimpansé, 110
The Sugar-Cane, 111
Dialogue on Politeness, 112
The Date Tree, 114
Dress, 115
Eagles, and other matters, 117
April, 120
The Prophet Jeremiah, 121
Letter from a Subscriber, 124
Toad-Stools and Mushrooms, 125
Return of Spring, 126
Smelling, 129
Isaac and Rebekah, 135
Mr. Catlin and his Horse Charley, 136
The Kitchen, 138
Knights Templars, 145
The Garden of Peace, 146
The Banana, 148
Comparative Size of Animals, 149
Misitra and the Ancient Sparta, 155
Absence of Mind, 155
The Star Fish, 156
Where is thy Home? 157
Sea-Weed, 157
Inquisitive Jack and his Aunt Piper, 158
“Far Away,”—the Bluebird’s Song, 160
The Sense of Hearing, 161
“Fresh Flowers,” 162
June, 164
House-Building, 173
Edwin the Rabbit-fancier, 175
Who planted the Oaks? 181
The Deluge, 186
Page for Little Readers, 187

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, by S. G.

Goodrich, in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of
Massachusetts.
THE IGUANADON.
MERRY’S MUSEUM.

V O L U M E I I I . — N o . 1 .

Tom Stedfast.
 The New Year.

There are few days in all the year that are pleasanter than the
first of January—New Year’s Day. It is a day when we all salute each
other with a cheerful greeting;—when children say to their parents,
as they meet in the morning, “I wish you a happy new year!” and the
parents reply, “A happy new year, my dear children!”
The first of January is, then, a day of kind wishes; of happy
hopes; of bright anticipations: it is a day in which we feel at peace
with all the world, and, if we have done our duty well during the
departed year, we feel peaceful within.
Methinks I hear my young readers say, “Would that all our days
might be thus cheerful and agreeable!” Alas! this may not be. It is not
our lot to be thus cheerful and happy all the days of our lives. A part
of our time must be devoted to study, to labor, to duty. We cannot
always be enjoying holidays. And, indeed, it is not best we should.
As people do not wish always to be eating cake and sugar-plums, so
they do not always desire to be sporting and playing. As the cake
and sugar-plums would, by and by, become sickening to the palate,
so the play would at last grow tedious. As we should soon desire
some good solid meat, so we should also desire some useful and
instructive occupation.
But as it is now new year’s day, let us make the best of it. I wish
you a happy new year, my black-eyed or blue-eyed reader! Nay, I
wish you many a happy new year! and, what is more, I promise to do
all in my power to make you happy, not only for this ensuing year,
but for many seasons to come. And how do you think I propose to do
it? That is what I propose to tell you!
In the first place, I am going to tell you, month by month, a lot of
stories both useful and amusing. I wish to have a part of your time to
myself, and, like my young friend Tom Stedfast, whose portrait I give
you at the head of this article, I wish you not only to read my
Magazine, but, if you have any little friends who cannot afford to buy
it, I wish you to lend it to them, so that they may peruse it.
 Tom is a rare fellow! No sooner does he get the Magazine than he
sits down by the fire, just as you see him in the picture, and reads it
from one end to the other. If there is anything he don’t understand,
he goes to his father and he explains it. If there are any pretty
verses, he learns them by heart; if there is any good advice, he lays
it up in his memory; if there is any useful information, he is sure to
remember it. Tom resembles a squirrel in the autumn, who is always
laying up nuts for the winter season; for the creature knows that he
will have need of them, then. So it is with Tom; when he meets with
any valuable knowledge—it is like nuts to him—and he lays it up, for
he is sure that he will have use for it at some future day. And there is
another point in which Tom resembles the squirrel; the latter is as
lively and cheerful in gathering his stores for future use, as he is in
the spring time, when he has only to frisk and frolic amid the
branches of the trees—and Tom is just as cheerful and pleasant
about his books and his studies, as he is when playing blind-man’s-
buff.
Now I should like to have my young readers as much like Tom
Stedfast as possible; as studious, as fond of knowledge, and yet as
lively and as good humored. And there is another thing in which I
should wish all my young friends to resemble Tom; he thinks
everything of me! No sooner does he see me stumping and stilting
along, than he runs up to me, calling out, “How do you do, Mr.
Merry? I’m glad to see you; I hope you are well! How’s your wooden
leg?”
Beside all this, Tom thinks my Museum is first-rate—and I assure
you it is a great comfort to my old heart, when I find anybody pleased
with my little Magazine. I do not pretend to write such big books as
some people; nor do I talk so learnedly as those who go to college
and learn the black arts. But what I do know, I love to communicate;
and I am never so happy as when I feel that I am gratifying and
improving young people. This may seem a simple business, to some
people, for an old man; but if it gives me pleasure, surely no one has
a right to grumble about it.
There is another thing in Tom Stedfast which I like. If he meets
with anything in my Magazine which he does not think right, he sits
down and writes me a letter about it. He does not exactly scold me,
but he gives me a piece of his mind, and that leads to explanations
and a good understanding. So we are the best friends in the world.
And now what I intend to do is, to make my little readers as much
like Tom Stedfast as possible. In this way I hope I may benefit them
not only for the passing year, but for years to come. I wish not only to
assist my friends in finding the right path, but I wish to accustom their
feet to it, so that they may adopt good habits and continue to pursue
it. With these intentions I enter upon the new year, and I hope that
the friendship already begun between me and my readers, will
increase as we proceed in our journey together.
 Wonders of Geology.

There are few things more curious, strange, and wonderful than
the facts revealed by geology. This science is occupied with the
structure of the surface of the earth; it tells us of the rocks, gravel,
clay, and soil of which it is composed, and how they are arranged.
In investigating these materials, the geologists have discovered
the bones of strange animals, imbedded either in the rocks or the
soil, and the remains of vegetables such as do not now exist. These
are called fossil remains; the word fossil meaning dug up. This
subject has occupied the attention of many very learned men, and
they have at last come to the most astonishing results. A gigantic
skeleton has been found in the earth near Buenos Ayres, in South
America; it is nearly as large as the elephant, its body being nine feet
long and seven feet high. Its feet were enormous, being a yard in
length, and more than twelve inches wide. They were terminated by
gigantic claws; while its huge tail, which probably served as a means
of defence, was larger than that of any other beast, living or extinct.
This animal has been called the Megatherium: mega, great,
therion, wild beast. It was of the sloth species, and seems to have
had a very thick skin, like that of the armadillo, set on in plates
resembling a coat of armor. There are no such animals in existence
now; they belong to a former state of this earth,—to a time before the
creation of man.
Discoveries have been made of the remains of many other fossil
animals belonging to the ancient earth. One of them is called the
Ichthyosaurus, or fish lizard. It had the teeth of a crocodile, the head
of a lizard, and the fins or paddles of a whale. These fins, or paddles
were very curious, and consisted of above a hundred small bones,
closely united together. This animal used to live principally at the
bottoms of rivers, and devour amazing quantities of fish, and other
water animals, and sometimes its own species; for an ichthyosaurus
has been dug out of the cliffs at Lyme Regis, England, with part of a
small one in his stomach. This creature was sometimes thirty or forty
feet long.

The jaws of the Ichthyosaurus.

Another of these fossil animals is called the Plesiosaurus, a word
which means, like a lizard. It appears to have formed an intermediate
link between the crocodile and the ichthyosaurus. It is remarkable for
the great length of its neck, which must have been longer than that
of any living animal. In the engraving at the beginning of this number,
you will see one of these animals swimming in the water. The
following is a view of his skeleton; the creature was about fifteen feet
long.

Skeleton of the Plesiosaurus.

But we have not yet mentioned the greatest wonder of fossil
animals; this is the Iguanodon, whose bones have been found in
England. It was a sort of lizard, and its thigh bones were eight inches
in diameter. This creature must have been from seventy to a
hundred feet long, and one of its thighs must have been as large as
the body of an ox. I have given a portrait of this monster, drawn by
Mr. Billings, an excellent young artist, whom you will find at No. 10,
Court st., Boston. I cannot say that the picture is a very exact
likeness; for as the fellow has been dead some thousands of years,
we can only be expected to give a family resemblance. We have
good reason to believe, however, that it is a tolerably faithful
representation, for it is partly copied from a design by the celebrated
John Martin, in London, and to be found in a famous book on the
wonders of geology, by Mr. Mantel.
There was another curious animal, called the Pterodactyle, with
gigantic wings. The skull of this animal must have been very large in
proportion to the size of the skeleton, the jaws themselves being
almost as large as its body.

Skeleton of the Pterodactyle.

They were furnished with sharp, hooked teeth. The orbits of the
eyes were very large; hence it is probable that it was a nocturnal
animal, like the bat, which, at first sight, it very much resembles in
the wings, and other particulars.
The word pterodactyle signifies wing-fingered; and, if you
observe, you will find that it had a hand of three fingers at the bend
of each of its wings, by which, probably, it hung to the branches of
trees. Its food seems to have been large dragon-flies, beetles and
other insects, the remains of some of which have been found close
to the skeleton of the animal. The largest of the pterodactyles were
of the size of a raven. One of them is pictured in the cut with the
Iguanodon.
Another very curious animal which has been discovered is the
Dinotherium, being of the enormous length of eighteen feet. It was
an herbiferous animal, and inhabited fresh water lakes and rivers,
feeding on weeds, aquatic roots, and vegetables. Its lower jaws
measured four feet in length, and are terminated by two large tusks,
curving downwards, like those of the upper jaw of the walrus; by
which it appears to have hooked itself to the banks of rivers as it
slept in the water. It resembled the tapirs of South America. There
appear to have been several kinds of the dinotherium, some not
larger than a dog. One of these small ones is represented in the
picture with the Iguanodon.
The bones of the creatures we have been describing, were all
found in England, France, and Germany, except those of the
megatherium, which was found in South America. In the United
States, the bones of an animal twice as big as an elephant, called
the Mastodon, or Mammoth, have been dug up in various places,
and a nearly perfect skeleton is to be seen at Peale’s Museum, in
Philadelphia.
Now it must be remembered that the bones we have been
speaking of, are found deeply imbedded in the earth, and that no
animals of the kind now exist in any part of the world. Beside those
we have mentioned, there were many others, as tortoises,
elephants, tigers, bears, and rhinoceroses, but of different kinds from
those which now exist.
It appears that there were elephants of many sizes, and some of
them had woolly hair. The skeleton of one of the larger kinds, was
found in Siberia, some years since, partly imbedded in ice, as I have
told you in a former number.
The subject of which we are treating increases in interest as we
pursue it. Not only does it appear, that, long before man was
created, and before the present order of things existed on the earth,
strange animals, now unknown, inhabited it, but that they were
exceedingly numerous. In certain caves in England, immense
quantities of the bones of hyenas, bears, and foxes are found; and
the same is the fact in relation to certain caves in Germany.
Along the northern shores of Asia, the traces of elephants and
rhinoceroses are so abundant as to show that these regions, now so
cold and desolate, were once inhabited by thousands of quadrupeds
of the largest kinds. In certain parts of Europe, the hills and valleys
appear to be almost composed of the bones of extinct animals; and
in all parts of the world, ridges, hills and mountains, are made up of
the shells of marine animals, of which no living specimen now dwells
on the earth!
Nor is this the only marvel that is revealed by the discoveries of
modern geology. Whole tribes of birds and insects, whole races of
trees and plants, have existed, and nothing is left of their story save
the traces to be found in the soil, or the images depicted in the layers
of slate. They all existed before man was created, and thousands of
years have rolled over the secret, no one suspecting the wonderful
truth. Nor does the train of curiosities end here. It appears that the
climates of the earth must have been different in those ancient and
mysterious days from what they are at present: for in England, ferns,
now small plants, grew to the size of trees, and vegetables flourished
there of races similar to those which now grow only in the hot
regions of the tropics.
As before stated, the northern shores of Siberia, in Asia, at
present as cold and desolate as Lapland, and affording sustenance
only to the reindeer that feeds on lichens, was once inhabited by
thousands and tens of thousands of elephants, and other creatures,
which now only dwell in the regions of perpetual summer.
The inferences drawn from all these facts, which are now placed
beyond dispute, are not only interesting, but they come upon us like
a new revelation. They seem to assure us that this world in which we
dwell has existed for millions of years; that at a period, ages upon
ages since, there was a state of things totally distinct from the
present. Europe was then, probably, a collection of islands. Where
England now is, the iguanodon then dwelt, and was, probably, one of
the lords of the soil.
This creature was from seventy to a hundred feet long. He dwelt
along the rivers and lakes, and had for his companions other animals
of strange and uncouth forms. Along the borders of the rivers the
ferns grew to the height of trees, and the land was shaded with
trees, shrubs, and plants, resembling the gorgeous vegetation of
Central America and Central Africa.