@article {21739,
	title = {Notes de voyage: Shenoute\&rsquo;s Puns, Alliteration, Paronomasia, \&ldquo;Disiunctio\&rdquo;},
	journal = {Journal of Coptic Studies},
	year = {Submitted},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10389,
	title = {Musings on Neutralization in Coptic},
	booktitle = {From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton},
	year = {2018},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	url = {http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz.asp?nr=10396},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {23133,
	title = {Shenoute\&rsquo;s rhetorical discourse: Points for thought from a Structuralist approach},
	journal = {Journal of the Canadian Society for Coptic Studies},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {37-43},
	url = {https://lockwoodonlinejournals.com/index.php/jcscs/article/view/289/268},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10390,
	title = {Structural/Interferential View of Greek Elements in Shenoute},
	booktitle = {Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language (DDGLC Working Papers 1)},
	year = {2017},
	publisher = {Widmaier Verlag},
	organization = {Widmaier Verlag},
	address = {Hamburg},
	url = {http://widmaier-verlag.de/index.php?content=issue\&isbn=978-3-943955-17-0},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {21171,
	title = {Reflections on the Historical Study of Egyptian},
	journal = {Journal of the Canadian Society for Coptic Studies},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {33{\textendash}39},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10387,
	title = {The Circumstantial Conversion in Coptic: Materials towards a Syntactic Profile},
	booktitle = {Aere Perennius: M{\'e}langes {\'e}gyptologiques en l{\textquoteright}honneur de Pascal Vernus},
	year = {2016},
	month = {2015},
	pages = {709{\textendash}739},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	address = {Leuven~/ Paris},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Collombert, Philippe and Lef{\`e}vre, Dominique and Polis, St{\'e}phane and Jean Winand}
}
@article {10392,
	title = {Diversions of Juncture. On Shenoutean Anacoluthia, and Other Puzzles of Unexpected Syntax},
	journal = {Journal of Coptic Studies},
	volume = {18},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {113{\textendash}179},
	abstract = {This paper consists of two parts. The first ({\textsection}1 etc.) is a special commented mini-chrestomathy: I present grammatically classified Shenoutean passages, briefly commenting on their structure and analytic implications. Thereafter ({\textsection}2 etc., {\textquotedblleft}postliminaries{\textquotedblright}), I will share with the reader, at some length, reflections on issues arising from consideration of these texts, beginning with a discussion of the meaning and significance of the anacoluthia concept, in a language such as Coptic.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@conference {10391,
	title = {Nominal Predications in Shenoute\&rsquo;s Rhetorical Poetics},
	booktitle = {The Tenth International Congress of Coptic Studies},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2016},
	month = {2016},
	pages = {1333{\textendash}1338},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	address = {Rome},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10388,
	title = {Review article of: Gardner, Iain; Alcock, Anthony; Funk, Wolf-Peter: Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis Volume 2. P. Kellis VII. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2014 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monographs 16)},
	journal = {Wiener Zeitschrift f{\"u}r die Kunde des Morgenlandes},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {269{\textendash}276},
	abstract = {Fifteen years on, we now have the second volume of fourth-century documentary texts {\textendash} mainly letters {\textendash} from Kellis (present-day Ismant el-Kharab, in the Dakhleh oasis), editing seventy-five new documents, added to the forty-five published in 1999.1 In fact, these are {\textquotedblleft}two halves of a single work{\textquotedblright} (p.4).Given the syntactical and dialectal peculiarities of {\textquotedblleft}dialect L*{\textquotedblright}, we by now have a corpus well worthy of its own systemic grammar, with the impressive second installment also serving as control, to evaluate the impressions given by the first.2 Here too we have an admirable edition, textual apparatus, translation and commentary {\textendash} this reviewer would be grateful for a more intensive grammatical annotation. The edition, classified mainly by provenance and sender, follows an introduction (a brief one; that of Kellis I serves both volumes), including dating of texts (p.5f.), and is followed by exhaustive reasoned indices.I shall dwell here briefly on syntactical highlights, remarkable or striking constructions, taking up a few points of grammar, as well as a few critical comments on analysis and translation. This elegant work and the rare privilege of {\textquotedblleft}discovering{\textquotedblright} a {\textquotedblleft}new{\textquotedblright}, extensively documented dialect, and at the same time a rich trove of grammatical features in so early a source are any linguist{\textquoteright}s and philologist{\textquoteright}s wistful vision {\textendash} to say nothing of such enviable collaboration of leading scholars.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10386,
	title = {Work-Notes on Modern Welsh Narrative Syntax (II): Presentatives in Narrative},
	journal = {Journal of Celtic Linguistics},
	volume = {17},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {97{\textendash}146},
	abstract = {The paper assigns, in a {\textquoteleft}pointillistic{\textquoteright} structural profile, narrative functions to dyma and dyna, formal presentatives, in syntactic detail and macrosyntactic patterning, on the database of Kate Roberts{\textquoteright}s short stories and novellas.1 The extensive distribution and rich functional range of these elements matches their formal complexity and narratological significance. This presentative pair, expanded by verbal, substantival or pronominal presentates, form six narrative tenses, distinct formally and functionally, in complex interplay with their environment.In fact, however, dyma and dyna comprise doubly two homonyms: dyma/dyna presentatives, and dyma/dyna referential pronouns, typically rhematic or focal.Following a descriptive breakdown of the syntactic properties of the presentatives, the Presentative Narrative Tenses (PNTs) I to VI are discussed.Functionally striking and statistically prevalent is (PNT I) $\#$ dyma + noun phrase/personal pronoun + yn-converb2$\#$, where we encounter two homonymous sub-tenses: the first with specific scenic or theatrical ({\textquoteleft}dramatic{\textquoteright}, narratologically scene-setting) semantics; the second non-scenic, but tagmemically functional. It is noteworthy that the entire presentative clause is high-level, narratologically rhematic or focal to the preceding text: it contains the key event. The presentative signals immediacy between narrator, reader and narrated character.Two presentative narrative tenses are non-verbal: adverbial presentates (dramatic presentation of motion) and scenic presentation of nouns.Another major issue treated here concerns the anaphoric pronouns dyna and dyma, rhematic in Nominal Sentence and Cleft Sentence patterns.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10383,
	title = {Work-Notes on Modern Welsh Narrative Syntax (I) fe- and mi- Revisited: From Macro-Syntax to Narratology},
	journal = {Journal of Celtic Linguistics},
	volume = {16},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {81{\textendash}111},
	abstract = {Following an early brief attempt at a formal-and-functional resolution of the pre-verbal elements fe- and mi- in narrative (Shisha-Halevy 1995: Excurse II), these two discourse-function converters are examined again, as part of a comprehensive narrative-grammatical study of Kate Roberts{\textquoteright}s fiction.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@booklet {10384,
	title = {Circumstantial Vignettes: Reflections on Adnominal, Adverbial, Adnexal: The Coptic \&lsquo;Circumstantial\&rsquo; Converb},
	howpublished = {Journal of Coptic Studies},
	volume = {16},
	year = {2014},
	month = {2014},
	pages = {155{\textendash}193},
	abstract = {This paper ponders analytically the Circumstantial and Relative Conversions in Coptic (CC, RC), seen especially as satellital, in the [nucleus {\textemdash} satellite (expansion)] dependences. I wish to present here some progressions of thought about central topics and vexed questions concerning the CC, which is arguably among the {\textquotedblleft}most Egyptian{\textquotedblright} of Coptic grammatical features, familiar as they may be, as a basis for a typological profile. The issues considered are presented in sequences which, I believe, are pertinent, with connections that appear to me instructive. The examples given are usually minimal and representative only. The hidden agenda of this paper aims, inter alia, at demonstrating the descriptive effectiveness of structural syntactic analysis. I submit that we do not yet properly understand the CC, and contest the conventional way of approaching it. The CC differs interestingly from the other conversion. Not only is it the earliest of converters in Egyptian diachrony {\textemdash} it is the earliest {\textquotedblleft}completely formed{\textquotedblright} converter. Its structural tension with the RC is an informing feature of Coptic syntax. (The RC is but half-way to converterhood, ⲛⲉ- is arguably not a converter at all, deposed by Polotsky in the 1987 Grundlagen from converterhood, and the Focalizing Conversion is of restricted distribution, morphologically overlapping the RC and the CC and (in Bohairic at least), giving sometimes (in the Preterite) impression of a base-conjugation form.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10385,
	title = {Linguistic Symptoms of Shenoute\&rsquo;s Authorship},
	booktitle = {Coptica Argentoratensia. Conf{\'e}rences et documents de la 3e universit{\'e} d{\textquoteright}{\'e}t{\'e} en papyrologie copte (Strasbourg, 18-25 juillet 2010)},
	year = {2014},
	month = {2014},
	pages = {59{\textendash}66},
	publisher = {De Boccard},
	organization = {De Boccard},
	address = {Paris},
	abstract = {Speaking metaphorically, the array of distinctive linguistic traits is a portrait or profile, not a check-list or catalogue. This means that we are considering, not a list but systemic co-occurrence and/or combination and/or hierarchy of features that is distinctive. This, however, is difficult or near-impossible to depict in a simple presentation, and in the following lines I will also particularize or list after all. Twenty-five years ago, in the Coptic Grammatical Categories (Rome, 1986), I attempted to present a system of systems, focusing on adverbials, that might serve as basis for identification. It goes without saying, that a precise, sensitive high-delicacy descriptive work is a sine qua non in authorship studies, with the central query being to what extent we can detect the typical, and to what extent can the typical be misleading. Authorship statements are not infallible,1 and can only be as confident as the linguistic description is sensitive and broad-based. The difficulty of authorship proof in a dead language, and, besides, one which we are still trying to get the measure of, should not be underestimated. And yet, ideally and with careful and considered application, I would suggest linguistic attribution is even more conclusive than explicit {\textquotedblleft}philological{\textquotedblright} one.Not unlike forensics in general, the logic of cumulativity is based on systemic configurativity. (This logic is exponential: the more numerous and high-ranking the symptoms, the exponentially higher the certainty of attribution.) Few of the features here presented by themselves are exclusively Shenoutean, but any of them in combination with others are conclusively so. The number of features {\textquotedblleft}necessary{\textquotedblright} for establishing a Shenoutean {\textquotedblleft}identikit{\textquotedblright} depends on their critical value, which is scalar (lexical features differ in indicativity from phraseology, from morphology, micro- and macro-syntax); on the other hand, the greater the number of traits, the more confident the attribution. An instance of a very high criterion is the rich syntactic range of quotation manipulations; low-value traits are morphological features, including morphophonological ones such as {\textquotedblleft}Akhmimoid{\textquotedblright} (or Southern) ⲁ for {\textquotedblleft}normal Sahidic{\textquotedblright} ⲉ, or unreduced prenominal infinitive allomorphs (e.g. ⲟⲩⲱⲙ-), or unreduced thematic pronouns in the Interlocutive Nominal Sentence (e.g. ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ-). The theoretical aspects of authorship studies (familiar especially from study of Biblical corpuses), as against the practical aspect, on which I shall focus here, regards internal relations, such as those between ϣⲁⲧⲛⲁⲩ and ϣⲁⲛⲧⲉ-ⲟⲩ ϣⲱⲡⲉ, or between the jussives ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥ- and ⲉϥⲛⲁ, the positions of ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲟⲩ and ⲛⲁϣ ⲛϩⲉ, also such issues and calculi as the cumulative probability of a specific authorship, the absence of occurrence as an identifying factor, statistical features and scales of typicality. The practical angle concerns features occurring in the texts, and aims at assessing them cumulatively, with rising confidence of attribution. While less-than-typical characteristics are ubiquitous, they are usually interspersed with features of diacritical value. A practical principle, of the type of {\textquotedblleft}the dog that did not bark at night{\textquotedblright}, would conclude non-Shenoutean authorship from a consistent and total absence (in a text of considerable length) of Shenoutean traits, or absence in Shenoute of specific features (cf. Crum, Dictionary 544a, ϣⲁⲓ {\textquotedblleft}festival{\textquotedblright} not found in Shenoute). Of course, this {\textquotedblleft}identity kit{\textquotedblright} is as dynamic as it is systemic, in the sense that new texts introduced into the canon, texts removed from the canon, new forms and interpretations, all may modify the critical syndrome.The stylistic tones of Shenoute{\textquoteright}s work are familiar, mostly summed-up as passionate rhetoric, and have been pointed out in various, often (but not always) more or less derogatory descriptions, since Johannes Leipoldt, De Lacy O{\textquoteright}Leary, K. H. Kuhn and Bell. This biased and impressionistic view of Shenoute at his most typical, which, however, is of limited use in less than typical, less rhetorical, texts or passages in texts, is simplistic;, Shenoute, who can be quite pedestrian, occasionally surprises us with gentle, emotional, even poetic turns as well as register changes. But his consummate rhetorical craftsmanship is much more sophisticated than that, and his authorial fingerprint accordingly very complicated.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Boud{\textquoteright}hors Anne and Delattre, A. and Louis, C. and Richter, S.}
}
@article {10382,
	title = {Two Remarkable Features of Coptic Syntax},
	journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r {\"a}gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde},
	volume = {139},
	year = {2012},
	month = {2012},
	pages = {105{\textendash}112},
	abstract = {On the following pages, we propose to present and discuss our database for some features of Coptic, deviating from the {\textquotedblleft}canonical{\textquotedblright} picture as seen in the grammars, from L. Stern{\textquoteright}s to B. Layton{\textquoteright}s, and in the grammatical literature generally. These are Lesefr{\"u}chte, and the treatise more of a work-note than a conclusive and systematic discussion; it is meant to attract attention, but also a description of environment and function. A historical dimension is of the essence in these cases, and will be addressed in some detail, for a diachronic cycle may here be in evidence, and an appeal to pre-Coptic Egyptian linguists is envisaged; also, a methodological perspective {\textendash} pointing out the flimsiness of our comprehension of Coptic grammar, as well as its {\textquotedblleft}canonical{\textquotedblright} nature, which is the main reason for the impulse for editorial condemnation and emendation. Finally, this essay is an homage to the syntactical sensitivity and analytic intelligence of W. E. Crum, not to be eclipsed by his lexicographical genius. In Ludwig Stern{\textquoteright}s words, Coptic cannot easily be {\textquotedblleft}erlernt{\textquotedblright}: of its terra incognita patches, our notes pick one verbal, one non-verbal feature.},
	author = {Boud{\textquoteright}hors, Anne and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10381,
	title = {Rhetorical Narratives, Tableaux, and Scenarios: Work-Notes on Narrative Poetics in Shenoutean Sahidic Coptic},
	booktitle = {Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East},
	year = {2011},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	address = {Leuven},
	abstract = {In the course of an exploratory study of {\textquoteleft}Shenoute{\textquoteright}s rhetorical syntax{\textquoteright}, a comprehensive investigation of the syntactic poetics of rhetorical complexes (the grammatical high-order signifiers, for which the signified {\textquoteleft}added-value{\textquoteright} is {\textquoteleft}rhetoricity{\textquoteright}), I have encountered a textemic set of rhetorical narrative structures which, I believe, provides important new insights on the grammatical nature, texture, and properties of narrative in general.2 In this, a pilot study, I shall offer a brief overview of this set, attempting a cursory formal-and-functional description of the individual textemes, and present representative and selective token documentation (usually not more than a single example for each category; more, sometimes many more are attested).3 Statements made here have no claim to be universally valid, but are meant to describe the Coptic situation. For reasons of space, I have left out most of the secondary literature, whether literary, narratological or linguistic stricto sensu; the types discussed are selective, out of the numerous types in my files: I wish here to draw attention to this rich vein of syntactical and stylistic data, to their variety and intricacy, to offer a provisional typology and observations on distinctive grammatical properties, and perhaps to stimulate debate. The writings of Shenoute (c. AD 348{\textendash}c. AD 465) are the most extensive authentic (i.e. untranslated) corpus of Sahidic Coptic and Coptic in general, a corpus which (although always appreciated for its high stylistic, literary, and rhetorical sophistication), has in the last decade of the last century gained in scholarly attention, and is currently being re-edited and retranslated as a joint international project.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10380,
	title = {Converbs in Welsh and Irish: A Note},
	booktitle = {Kelten am Rhein: Akten des dreizehnten Internationalen Keltologiekongressesvon LVR Landesmuseum Bonn (Autor), Verein von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande Mainz},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {270{\textendash}277},
	publisher = {Verlag Philipp von Zabern},
	organization = {Verlag Philipp von Zabern},
	abstract = {The converb, in its least specific and sharp resolution, is used to mean {\textquoteleft}adverbial verb form{\textquoteright}, or {\textquoteleft}verbal adverb{\textquoteright} (see the subtitle of Haspelmath and K{\"o}nig 1995). Mostly and for long it has been known, in the description of various languages, as {\textquoteleft}gerund{\textquoteright}. Definition of the converb reveal an underlying blurredness: Haspelmath (1995: 3ff.): {\textquoteleft}Non-finite verb-form whose main function is to mark adverbial subordination{\textquoteright}; Nedjalkov{\textquoteright}s (1995) is more sophisticated: {\textquoteleft}a verb-form which depends syntactically on another verb-form but is not its syntactic actant, that is does not realize its semantic valences{\textquoteright}. (This is surely unsatisfactory, for the converb is arguably actantial in cases like {\textquoteleft}start walking{\textquoteright}). Probably the worst is the definition in Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt (2005: 60): {\textquoteleft}we use the term converb for {\textquoteleft}participles{\textquoteright} which are used primarily as adjuncts{\textquoteright}. As Gr{\o}nbech (1979: 35) says of Turkic postpositions and gerundial forms, the converbs are {\textquoteleft}fluid and hard to hold on to{\textquoteright}, which for a {\textquoteleft}cross-linguistic valid category{\textquoteright} (Haspelmath and K{\"o}nig 1995, in which see Haspelmaths{\textquoteright}s and K{\"o}nig{\textquoteright}s own contributions), is not an ideal condition. [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10377,
	title = {Work-Notes on Shenoute\&rsquo;s Rhetorical Syntax: ⲉϣϫⲉ and ⲁⲣⲁ \&mdash; suspension of disagreement, irony and reductio ad absurdum},
	booktitle = {Liber Amicorum: J{\"u}rgen Horn zum Dank},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {113{\textendash}129},
	publisher = {Göttingen Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Universit{\"a}t},
	organization = {Göttingen Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Universit{\"a}t},
	address = {G{\"o}ttingen},
	abstract = {Published in: A. Giewekemeyer, ed. Liber Amicorum: J{\"u}rgen Horn zum Dank. G{\"o}ttingen. G{\"o}ttingen: Göttingen Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Universit{\"a}t, pp. 113{\textendash}129.The following are notes taken in the course of an ongoing long-term study on {\textquotedblleft}Shenoute{\textquoteright}s Rhetorical Syntax{\textquotedblright}, mapping the grammatical (mainly syntactic) poetics of Shenoute{\textquoteright}s published and unpublished work, with a focus on rhetorical value and effect of forms and constructions. I wish to present here textual and descriptive materials on some not unimportant rhetorical devices which, beyond having rhetorical functions (such as lusis), also signal tonal and emotional nuances, in particular bearing on Shenoute{\textquoteright}s often underplayed sardonic sense of humour, irony and sarcasm. Note that this is a mere outline: the observations basic, brief and often laconic, discursive and occasionally repetitive, the theses tentative and often, I fear, half-baked, the bibliographical referencing minimal, the illustration no more than representative.Uploading this article to the Internet Archive is done with the author{\textquoteright}s permission and by his request.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Giewekemeyer, A.}
}
@inbook {10378,
	title = {A Note on Converbs in Egyptian and Coptic},
	booktitle = {Afroasiatic Studies in Memory of Robert Hetzron},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {95{\textendash}105},
	publisher = {Cambridge Scholars},
	organization = {Cambridge Scholars},
	address = {Newcastle upon Tyne},
	abstract = {The term and its diffusion. The converb, in its vaguest and least critical, also least specific resolution - cf. the notorious conceptual muddle involving -ing forms and constructions in English - is used as meaning {\textquotedblleft}adverbial verb form{\textquotedblright}, or {\textquotedblleft}verbal adverb{\textquotedblright}; see the subtitle of Haspelmath and K{\"o}nig (eds.) 1995.; mostly and for long it has been known as {\textquotedblleft}gerund{\textquotedblright}. Definitions reveal the underlying blurredness: Haspelmath (1995:3ff.): {\textquotedblleft}Non-finite verb-form whole main function is to mark adverbial subordination{\textquotedblright}; Nedjalkov{\textquoteright}s (in Nedialkov 1995) is more sophisticated: {\textquotedblleft}a verb-form which depends syntactically on another verb-form but is not its syntactic actant, that is does not realize its semantic valences{\textquotedblright}: this is surely unsatisfactory, for the converb is arguably actantial in cases like {\textquotedblleft}start walking{\textquotedblright}. Probably the worst is the definition in Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt (eds.), 2005:60 {\textquotedblleft}we use the term converb for {\textquoteleft}participles{\textquoteright} which are used primarily as adjuncts{\textquotedblright}. As Gr{\o}nbech 1979:35 says of Turkic postpositions and gerundial forms, the converbs are {\textquotedblleft}fluid and hard to hold on to{\textquotedblright}, which, for a {\textquotedblleft}cross-linguistically valid category{\textquotedblright} (the title of Haspelmath and K{\"o}nig (eds.) 1995, in which see Haspelmath{\textquoteright}s and K{\"o}nig{\textquoteright}s own contributions), is not an ideal condition.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {H{\"a}berl, Charles G.}
}
@article {10379,
	title = {On Typology, Syntax and Aspect in Egyptian: a Question of Method (review article on J. Winand, Temps et aspect en \&eacute;gyptien)},
	journal = {Chronique d{\textquoteright}Egypte},
	volume = {84},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {136{\textendash}152},
	abstract = {Published in: Chronique d{\textquoteright}Egypte, 84, pp. 136{\textendash}152.This work of Jean Winand{\textquoteright}s aims at providing an account of Tense and Aspect (or rather Aspect and Tense) systems in Egyptian: this (notwithstanding the focus on Old and Middle Egyptian, with Late Egyptian rather thinly treated, and Demotic and Coptic virtually absent) is a staggeringly ambitious undertaking. It implies a confidence in our comprehension of Egyptian, synchronic and diachronic, which this reviewer must admire, but cannot share. And yet, it is almost a blessing that the Later Egyptian systems are only lightly touched upon, for this renders the in-depth treatment of OE and ME virtually monographic, which would be hardly feasible for the whole of Egyptian history {\textemdash} all the more so, since the joints or seams between {\textquotedblleft}successive{\textquotedblright} phases are fictive and indeed fallacious. On the other hand, one would wish for an extended application of the author{\textquoteright}s hypotheses to LE (and Demotic), for the cryptic nature of the earlier phases of Egyptian renders any judgement made regarding their imponderables both subjective and irrefutable. It is easy to pass speculation on O/ME as descriptive statement, which would never do in the more {\textquotedblleft}transparent{\textquotedblright} later phases. Be that as it may, the reader gets occasionally the eerie, unsettling feeling that it is a transcendental, panchronic (or panoramic) Egyptian that is here under typological scrutiny. (I cannot see, for instance, the soundness of a combined statement [p. 197] on the Stative and sḏm.n.f forms on the basis of Sinuhe and the Late Ramesside Letters).Uploading this article to the Internet Archive is done with the author{\textquoteright}s permission and by his request.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10374,
	title = {H. J. Polotsky},
	booktitle = {Lexicon Grammaticorum},
	year = {2007},
	edition = {2},
	abstract = {Polotsky, Hans Jakob, b. Sep. 13, 1905, Z{\"u}rich, Switzerland, d. Aug. 10, 1991, Jerusalem, Israel; Egyptologist, Semitist, and Orientalist.P. was born to Russian-speaking parents who emigrated from the Crimea and settled in Germany. From an early age he was well versed in Classical languages, esp. in Greek, and studied hieroglyphic Egyptian and Hebrew. In the universities of Berlin and G{\"o}ttingen he studied Egyptology (with K. Sethe), Semitic languages (with M. Lidzbarski), Iranian (with F. C. Andreas) and Turkic (with W. Bank). He also specialized in late Greek. During his studies and afterwards, P. was engaged in the Septuagint project directed by A. Rahlfs, and took active part in the study and publications of the Coptic Manichaean texts. His comprehensive article on {\textquotedblleft}Manich{\"a}ismus{\textquotedblright} (1935), based on the synthesis of all the sources in the various languages, has remained the most important research paper on the subject and P.{\textquoteright}s only non-linguistic study. (It was translated into Italian and appeared sixty years later with updated notes [1996]). After the rise of Nazism P. left Germany, and in 1934 began teaching at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he became Professor of Egyptian and Semitic Linguistics and founded the Department of Linguistics and the Department of Egyptian. He was elected a member of the Israel academy of Sciences and Humanities, the Hebrew Language Academy, and the British, Danish, and Dutch academies, was awarded the Israel Prize, other prestigious prizes, and the gold Lidzbarski medal of the Deutche Morgenl{\"a}ndische Gesellschaft, as well as some honorary doctorates.},
	author = {Goldenberg, Gideon and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Stammerjohann, H.}
}
@book {10376,
	title = {Topics in Coptic Syntax : Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect},
	year = {2007},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	address = {Leuven},
	url = {http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz.asp?nr=8219}
}
@inbook {10375,
	title = {Determination-Signalling Environment in Old and Middle Egyptian: Work-Notes and Reflections},
	booktitle = {Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg (Alter Orient und Altes Testament vol. 334)},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {223{\textendash}254},
	publisher = {Ugarit Verlag},
	organization = {Ugarit Verlag},
	address = {M{\"u}nster},
	abstract = {Barring the Nominal Sentence, Egyptian grammatical study of the heroic age, from Old Egyptian to Middle Egyptian, from K. Sethe to H. J. Polotsky, was mainly concerned with the verbal system and verb syntax. What has been stated about nominal syntax beyond the very basics would not exceed, all grammarians told, a few pages of print and very little individual variation based on real original research. One cannot help feeling this is due to the absence of {\textquotedblleft}orthodox{\textquotedblright} affixed articles, as if these are anchoring points for syntactical observation of the noun. (Terminologically, of course, {\textquotedblleft}articulum{\textquotedblright}, Greek ἄρθρον, means a metaphoric {\textquotedblleft}linking joint{\textquotedblright} {\textemdash} Gelenk {\textemdash} revealing no less than a realization of its prime environmental role). And yet, the absence of bona-fide definite and indefinite articles in written Old and Middle Egyptian, somewhat like the absence of graphemic notation of vowels, which, in H. J. Polotsky{\textquoteright}s conception of verbal category, sets us free from la superstition de la forme (De Boer) and encourages us to resort to the structural definition of linguistic identity, this {\textquotedblleft}deprivation{\textquotedblright} too must be taken as a blessing in disguise: it forces our attention off the noun {\textemdash} temptingly {\textquotedblleft}adequately{\textquotedblright} translatable in isolation into a European-style language {\textemdash} onto its environment, where much signalling information regarding (non-)specificity and (non-)particularity is to be found. The difficulty of seeing clearly in the matter of noun determination stems inter alia from looking for a {\textquotedblleft}copy{\textquotedblright} correlation with what we have grown used to feel as Indo-European (or rather European) articles; but also from the generally implicitly accepted dichotomy of grammar and lexicon, a dichotomy more leaking than most other linguistic models; and especially from our being so to speak mesmerized by the article(s), which impairs our peripheral vision (yet another metaphor) and obscures our view of co-signals of determination. Here, incidentally, the trap of ethnocentricity is particularly ready for the unwary, the more so since it is, by easy terminological transference, the article {\textemdash} where present {\textemdash} that is conceived of as {\textquotedblleft}definite{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}indefinite{\textquotedblright}, and not the noun and its environment. Moreover, in ignoring environmental determination, the typological significance of a definite article (and as a matter of fact, the article is but marginal in the overall phenomenon) can easily be exaggerated.The commonly {\textemdash} indeed conventionally {\textemdash} erroneous synchronic view of article function can also flaw a satisfactory resolution of article-less states. For instance, the proportion of (macro)syntactic {\textemdash} anaphorical or cataphorical {\textemdash} and exophorical or intrinsic functioning of the articles may vary dramatically between narrative, dialogic, expositive, legal or ritual textemes. Finally, the continuity fallacy, of chronologically successive written phases seen as real succession in linguistic diachrony, distorts our view of article evolution.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@book {10369,
	title = {Ancient Egyptian, Neo-Semitic, Methods in Linguistics: Workshop in Memory of H.J. Polotsky - Proceedings},
	year = {2006},
	publisher = {The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities},
	organization = {The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities},
	address = {Jerusalem},
	editor = {Goldenberg, Gideon and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10373,
	title = {Eight Notes on Coptic Typology},
	booktitle = {Coptica-Gnostica-Manichaica: Festschrift Wolf-Peter Funk},
	year = {2006},
	publisher = {Presses de l{\textquoteright}Universit{\'e} Laval, Peeters},
	organization = {Presses de l{\textquoteright}Universit{\'e} Laval, Peeters},
	address = {Qu{\'e}bec/Louvain-Paris},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Painchaud, L. and Poirier, P.-H.}
}
@article {10372,
	title = {H.J. Polotsky Structuralist},
	journal = {Lingua Aegyptia},
	volume = {14},
	year = {2006},
	note = {After Polotsky: Proceedings of the Colloquium, Bad Honnef, September 2005.},
	pages = {7{\textendash}14},
	abstract = {One hundred years after the birth of our Master and fourteen years after his sudden death, in the peak of his research activity, the scholarly world of linguistics is, both essentially and technically, very different from, and probably less attractive than the one he knew and worked in. Still, not one of the peculiarities of modern scholarship was unheralded or indeed unknown when he was still alive. We, his disciples, frequently wonder, sadly, as to what would his reaction and opinion have been: very probably dry and sarcastic, delivered with a quizzical smile, but never egocentric er self-involving. We would dearly like to have his comments on many new grammatically baffling loci in Coptic, Egyptian, Amharic, Neo-Aramaic\&nbsp;{\textemdash} he would have commented on those with relish, a trenchant lucidity and, again, a wonderful humility in face of language and the text: {\textquotedblleft}trust the text, not your own ideas and bias{\textquotedblright} was ever his guiding principle. This, the absence of overweening confidence in his ability of fathom the deeps of linguistic systems: Polotsky was a scholar of great humility in the presence of linguistic intricacy.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10371,
	title = {Review of Layton, Coptic Grammar, Second Edition},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {75},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {132{\textendash}133},
	abstract = {The second edition of Bentley Layton{\textquoteright}s A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic Dialect, so quickly replacing the first of 2000, can only be viewed with gratification, answering as it does the evident demand that it must imply. The main improvement and real expansion of the present edition is in its Index of Citations. ({\textquotedblleft}Revised and Expanded With an Index of Citations{\textquotedblright}: the question of what constitutes {\textquotedblleft}revision{\textquotedblright} {\textemdash} see Glenn E. Snyder{\textquoteright}s review in RBL 3 (2005) {\textemdash} and the valency-grammar snag of whether {\textquotedblleft}expanded with{\textquotedblright} can be seen as an alternative construction to {\textquotedblleft}expanded by{\textquotedblright}, need hardly be addressed here. However, a list, technically easy to compile, of additions, omissions and replacements could have prevented misunderstanding and forestalled protest.) The Index of Citations is especially useful for Shenoute؛ in fact, it can serve as the basis of a {\textquotedblleft}Shenoutean sub-grammar{\textquotedblright} (e.g. in isolating exclusively or predominantly Shenoutean usage {\textemdash} consider the Conjunctive, p. 283, or adnominal xe- in negative environment, {\textsection}483). But it also brings home rather sharply a striking imbalance in documentation, as well as the programmatic limitations of the Grammar{\textquoteright}s corpus database, already commented on in reviews of the first edition. One regrets that the author has not exploited the rare opportunity of a new edition coming out so soon after the first, to provide at the least some highlights for the grammatical usage of more Sahidic texts, from the Pistis Sophia to non-literary sources (including documents and such specialized textemes as medical prescriptions) and such {\textquotedblleft}Late Sahidic{\textquotedblright} genres as martyrologies and other patristic sources, and cases like Drescher{\textquoteright}s Legends, which are grammatically distinctive and probably illuminating for their glimpses into Coptic colloquial usage.}
}
@inbook {10370,
	title = {On Conversion, Clause Ordination and Related Notions},
	booktitle = {Proceedings, Ancient Egyptian, Neo-Semitic - Methods in Linguistics: Workshop in Memory of H.J. Polotsky},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {92{\textendash}105},
	publisher = {The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities},
	organization = {The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities},
	address = {Jerusalem},
	abstract = {This is a methodological and theoretical essay. In the following notes, I wish to present some reflections and raise certain questions on the tensions between terminology, conceptualization and analytic models on the one hand and linguistic reality on the other, focussing on an issue that has never ceased to fascinate me, namely the hierarchy between subtextual units {\textemdash} in particular, the so-called subordination or, more generally, ordination of one unit to another. In the context of Polotsky{\textquoteright}s teaching and heritage invoked in this solemn gathering, and for Egyptian and Coptic linguists, first of all, this issue acquires a special significance and piquancy.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Goldenberg, Gideon and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10368,
	title = {Epistolary Grammar: Syntactical Highlights in Kate Roberts\&rsquo;s Letters to Saunders Lewis},
	journal = {Journal of Celtic Linguistics},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {83{\textendash}103},
	abstract = {The Modern Welsh epistolary texteme is here introduced and briefly examined, on the basis of the correspondence of Kate Roberts and Saunders Lewis. Following some preliminary general comments on the texteme, six syntactical topics are discussed {\textendash} the nynegocentric deixis and tensing; presentation; focalization, topicalization and related issues; the epistolary narrative; allocutive and reactive elements; parenthesis {\textendash} with a view to demonstrating the special grammatical systems of this texteme which, despite its affinities with the dialogue, is idiosyncratic in perspective and juncture.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10367,
	title = {Juncture Features in Shenoutean Coptic: Linkage and Delimitation},
	booktitle = {Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Milennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {155{\textendash}175},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	address = {Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Immerzeel, M. and van der Vliet, J.}
}
@inbook {10363,
	title = {Future, Present, Narrative Past: a Triple Note on Oxyrhynchite Tempuslehre},
	booktitle = {Sprache und Geist. Peter Nagel zum 65. Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von Walter Beltz, Ute Pietruschka und J{\"u}rgen Tubach},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {249{\textendash}309},
	publisher = {Halle (Saale)},
	organization = {Halle (Saale)},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10366,
	title = {Celtic Syntax, Egyptian-Coptic Syntax},
	booktitle = {Das Alte {\"A}gypten und seine Nachbarn: Festschrift Helmut Satzinger},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {245{\textendash}302},
	publisher = {{\"O}sterreichisches Literaturforum},
	organization = {{\"O}sterreichisches Literaturforum},
	address = {Krems},
	abstract = {H. J. Polotsky{\textquoteright}s {\textquotedblleft}Syntaxe amharique et syntaxe turque{\textquotedblright} (1960a), the Master{\textquoteright}s only article in a properly speaking General Linguistics (typological-comparative) genre, the paper opening Polotsky{\textquoteright}s Collected Papers (Jerusalem: the Magnes Press, 1971), has drawn little attention outside the small circle of the Jerusalem School and its adherents, perhaps because of an hermetic quality of style, as well as the exclusive Ethiopistic forum of publication. And yet, it is a wonderful fruit of Polotsky{\textquoteright}s annus mirabilis, an insightful and sensitive expos{\'e} of an instance of the non-geographical, cross-genealogical Sprachbund and what may be called the historical-connection-indifferent typological rapprochement As is generally realized today, the Sprachbund phenomenon is varied and complex, reflecting the variety of languages-in-contact scenarios and their historical configuration. The relatively rare non-adjacent or non-geographical Sprachbund is less well understood and falls between the stools of typological and genetic comparison, and goes, to mix metaphors, against the grain of conventional comparativist temperament.The {\textquotedblleft}Eurafrican{\textquotedblright} (so Wagner in Transactions of the Philological Society 1969) hypothesis, first outlined in modern times at least as early as 1990 by John Morris-Jones, has been for most of the last century associated almost exclusively with the names of Julius Pokorny and his disciple, Heinrich Wagner. I believe it now deserves detailed objective re-appreciation, in view of the considerable expansion in our knowledge of Celtic and the advance in the unveiling of the languages commonly known as Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic, and especially of Egyptian and Coptic. Although it is generally not clear which languages are invoked on the Afro-Asiatic side\&nbsp;{\textemdash} {\textquotedblleft}Semitic{\textquotedblright} (which languages?) {\textquotedblleft}Egyptian{\textquotedblright} (which phase or phases in its near four millennia of evolution?), Arabic, North-West Semitic, Accadian, Berber\&nbsp;{\textemdash} a vagueness contributive to the scepticism with which the theory is still regarded (not that there is a generally accepted idea about hierarchies and chronologies inside the Celtic branch of Indo-European); nor is there any real confidence about either the chronological parameters, or the hierarchical structuring of syntactical and non-syntactical comparata of the comparison.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10365,
	title = {Juncture Features in Literary Modern Welsh: Cohesion and Delimitation \&mdash; Problematik, Typology of Exponents and Features},
	journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r celtische Philologie},
	volume = {53},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {230{\textendash}258},
	abstract = {In the following pages, I wish to present some preliminary reflections and some relevant documentation, upon attempting to understand the grammatical phenomenology of cohesion or linkage. This, I believe, is of the most fascinating, perhaps the most fascinating topic of syntax, for here is something close to the very quintessence of textuality\&nbsp;{\textemdash} hence, of grammaticality itself, bearing in mind Louis Hjelmslev{\textquoteright}s opening words in his Prolegomena: {\textquotedblleft}The object of interest for linguistic science are texts{\textquotedblright} (not {\textquotedblleft}languages{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}a language{\textquotedblright}\&nbsp;{\textemdash} which is only a seeming paradox). My corpus for the following observations is triple: some of Kate Roberts{\textquoteright}s short stories, and two novels (I am engaged in work on a comprehensive syntax of the corpus of K.R.{\textquoteright}s fiction, on the basis of her editions and MSS, for which a pilot work, incorporating three monographic studies, appeared in 1998. The present paper may be seen as a cluster of preliminary work-notes to a chapter on juncture and textuality within this projected work. A second source is John Emyr{\textquoteright}s collection of short stories, Mynydd Gwaith a storiau eraill (Denbych, 1984). A third source are some numbers of the defunct weekly magazine Y Faner.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10364,
	title = {A Definitive Sahidic Coptic Grammar (review article of B. Layton\&$\#$39;s Coptic Grammar)},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {71},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {424{\textendash}459},
	abstract = {This is beyond doubt the finest Coptic grammar ever written, a splendid achievement, masterfully carrying out the formidable task of making the leap from Stern{\textquoteright}s pre-scientific (if insightful) Koptische Grammatik of 1880, to bridge a century of Coptic and Egyptian linguistic study. By painstaking and elegant grammatical charting, the Sahidic dialect of Coptic now has a definitive, authoritative description, which I daresay will be superseded only if the corpus changes considerably. The work consolidates the findings of almost a century of research work on Coptic grammar, adding numerous new insights in statements that result from a correct and penetrating analysis of complicated data. It opens much new ground, while providing a clear, even-handed and lucid account of established comprehension, and puts much in a fresh perspective, often contradicting orthodoxy and deepening or clarifying the insights offered in many a study.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10361,
	title = {The Focalizing Conversion: Structural Prelimiaries to a Chapter in the Grammar of Oxyrhynchite Coptic},
	booktitle = {For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {309{\textendash}340},
	publisher = {Brill},
	organization = {Brill},
	address = {Leiden~/ Boston},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel and Bethge, H-G. et al.}
}
@article {10362,
	title = {\&ldquo;An Emerging New Dialect of Coptic\&rdquo; (review article of Gardner, Alcock and Funk, Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis)},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {71},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {298{\textendash}308},
	abstract = {The work under review presents in full, with a translation and extensive erudite philological, textual and grammatical annotations, detailed indices and long descriptive, historical and linguistics introductions, the elegant editio princeps of forty-four Coptic texts (fifty-four epistolary and documentary texts in all, of which fifty-two are papyri) from the site of Ismant el-Kharab (the Dakhle oasis, at the Roman-period village of Kellis). All were written to members or associates of a textile-processing Manichaean or Christian-Manichaean community at the place, and are datable to the fourth century A.D. (mainly 355{\textendash}380). These texts are written in a special dialect of Coptic, which\&nbsp;{\textemdash} as W.-P. Funk believes\&nbsp;{\textemdash} may be the closest yet to {\textquotedblleft}L{\textquotedblright} pure and simple\&nbsp;{\textemdash} a dialect exhibiting some interesting features, on some of which I shall very briefly dwell in the following review (which focusses only on the linguistic, not historical or archaeological aspects of this exciting find). They are not easy, but are remarkable rich in interesting grammatical features and of considerable syntactic interest.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@book {10359,
	title = {Word Order - Stability and Change over Time},
	year = {2000},
	publisher = {J. Benjamins},
	organization = {J. Benjamins},
	address = {Amsterdam~/ Philadelphia},
	editor = {Poppe, E. and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel and Sornicola, R.}
}
@inbook {10360,
	title = {Stability in Clausal/Phrasal Pattern Constituent Sequencing: 4000 Years of Egyptian (With Some Theoretical Reflections, also on Celtic)},
	booktitle = {Word Order - Stability and Change over Time},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {71{\textendash}100},
	publisher = {J. Benjamins},
	organization = {J. Benjamins},
	address = {Amsterdam~/ Philadelphia},
	abstract = {The linguistic study of Egyptian, fully deciphered only about 150 years ago, is a young discipline: modern Egyptian linguistics, dating more or less from the work of Hans-Jakob Polotsky, is much younger still: no more than about half a century old. Coptic, the final stage of Egyptian, dead as a spoken language at some point after the XIIIth century AD, had been scientifically known in the West from around the XVIIth century. It is a curious and somehow sobering thought that Champollion le Jeune probably got the brainwave and forward push to the final decipherment of the hieroglyphic script by a wholly and deeply erroneous idea about diachronic word order correspondence. He believed (or took for granted) that Coptic f-s{\^o}tm {\textquotedblleft}he is hearing{\textquotedblright} (roughly, {\textquotedblleft}he + hear{\textquotedblright}) was the inversion of a {\textquoteleft}pan-Egyptian{\textquoteright} sdm.f ({\textquotedblleft}hear-he{\textquotedblright}), which, he thought, had the same tense form, but which - we now know - is in fact a cluster of homographs, drastically differing, formally and functionally, in tense form and syntactical status from one phase of Egyptian to another and within one and the same phase. The idea was wholly misguided, yet the confidence it gave him, and his conviction that Coptic and Egyptian were two phases of the same language were not unjustified, and led him to eventual success. Today we have a reasonably good synchronic resolution - and, paradoxically, a sometimes seemingly sharper diachronic resolution - of nearly four millennia of uninterrupted evolution of a language (or rather an ensemble of dialects and language varieties), made visible to us in the written documentation of five or six distinct broad linguistic systems (in the sense of la langue as well as norme and usage). Roughly, with some arbitrariness and considerable overlapping, Old Egyptian ({\textquotedblleft}OE{\textquotedblright}, 2800-2200 BC), Middle Egyptian ({\textquotedblleft}ME{\textquotedblright}, 2200-1500 BC), Late Egyptian (or Neo-Egyptian) ({\textquotedblleft}LE{\textquotedblright}, 1500-700 BC); Demotic, from the VIIth-VIIIth century BC to the Vth century AD, and finally Coptic, {\textquoteleft}Christian Egyptian{\textquoteright}, written in customized graphemic systems based on the Greek graphemes and several Egyptian ones, from the IVth century AD on, until its death as a spoken language: Arabic entered Egypt in the VIIth century AD, but Coptic probably lingered on until the XVIIth century. (Incidentally, Coptic is formally differentiated as {\textquoteleft}Egypto-Coptic{\textquoteright} in the current International Linguistic Bibliography. Roughly since the Fifties, Coptic Studies have moved away from Egyptology, a separation unfortunate for both Egyptology and Coptic studies, which has all but wiped out Coptic linguistics as a discipline). Most phases, as we conveniently and simplistically delimit them (ignoring here the relationships, complicated in Egyptian, between language phase and script phase, as well as the religious-political implications of traditional archaizing use of earlier phases) have considerable overlapping or {\textquoteleft}mutual leaking{\textquoteright} with preceding ones, as well as transitory stages, and of course numerous diasystems of registers and other linguistic varieties which become clearer as detailed description progresses. Some phases extend up to a thousand years, which makes the need for a finer sub-periodization obvious (Junge 1985). Generally speaking, we witness the uninterrupted evolution of a language on one and the same terrain, in its first attestation cradled in a Neolithic culture, before the end of its life-span a para-classical language, part of a pious and totally Christian civilization: very little secular literature is attested in Coptic.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Poppe, E. and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel and Sornicola, R.}
}
@inbook {10357,
	title = {Bohairic Narrative Grammar},
	booktitle = {{\"A}gypten und Nubien in sp{\"a}tantiker und christlicher Zeit, II: Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt, Acts of the 6th International Congress of Coptic Studies},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {375{\textendash}389},
	publisher = {Reichert},
	organization = {Reichert},
	address = {Wiesbaden},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Emmel, S.}
}
@inbook {10358,
	title = {Coptic Linguistics 1992-1996},
	booktitle = {Acts of the 6th International Congress of Coptic Studies (M{\"u}nster, 1996)},
	year = {1999},
	address = {M{\"u}nster},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {satzinger.h+:1999:snark,
	title = {(review) The Snark is Dead},
	journal = {Lingua Aegyptia},
	volume = {6},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {167{\textendash}176},
	abstract = {The Heroe, Scourge of Ing{\'e}nuit{\'e} and Na{\"{\i}vet{\'e}, couched his Lance and spurred his mighty Stallion. He bore on the trembling enemy like a tempest, charged him en v{\'e}ritable sanglier, and\&nbsp;{\textemdash} a few echoing pages and many poignant footnotes later\&nbsp;{\textemdash} what had been nasty Standardtheorie (more conveniently known to its rather dubious friends as {\textquoteleft}the Snark{\textquoteright}) was left a wretched, bloody bundle of opinions squirming on the ground. O great relief! The Menace, the obnoxious (And, if the truth be told, pathetic) Skandalon of modern enlightened Linguistics and Egyptology, is no more\&nbsp;{\textemdash} to the everlasting gratitude and awe of future generations.},
	author = {Satzinger, Helmut and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10356,
	title = {Structural Sketches of Middle Welsh Syntax (II): Noun Predication Patterns},
	journal = {Studia Celtica},
	volume = {33},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {155{\textendash}234},
	abstract = {The Nominal Sentence is a convenient code-name for a specific predicative pattern set primarily predicating nouns (that is substantives or adjectives) and pronominals, characterized, not by {\textquoteleft}the absence of a verb{\textquoteright}, but as a distinct nexus type that is sometimes paradigmatically opposed (or, in given environments, opposition-neutralized) to both verbal and statal adverb-rheme nexus, and in any case one for which verbal nexus has no constitutive relevance. In the following pages I aim at a structural account\&nbsp;{\textemdash} the syst{\`e}me des valeurs (opposition and neutralization), definition, typology and documentation\&nbsp;{\textemdash} of noun predication patterns on the basis of the Four Branches (Mabinogi) and Owein.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10355,
	title = {(review) A First Structural Grammar of Demotic},
	journal = {Bibliotheca Orientalis},
	volume = {55},
	year = {1998},
	pages = {587{\textendash}600},
	abstract = {0.1 The book under review is structured as follows: Presentation of the texts, previous work on them, features of the corpus; the structure of nominal phrases (bases, determiners and quantifiers, their lexical expansions; clausal expansions, the augens, number and gender, adjectives; partitive, genitival and appositive constructions). Special types of noun (PNs, numbers, verbal nouns). Verb phrases and verb clauses (bases and their expansions; the tenses; auxiliaries); the durative system (with discussion of subjects and predicates, negation, conversion, aspect and existential patterns). Predication and emphasis (esp. Nominal Predications and the Second Tenses). Appendices include Tables (demonstrative, determinators, quantifiers, pronominals, converters); the texts and their translation. Bibliographical references and Indexes (passages discussed, words discussed, other texts quoted). Individual section are structured as follows: Form (morphology, orthography, palaeography); {\textquotedblleft}Function{\textquotedblright} (grammatical status and role, patterning and construction); {\textquotedblleft}Content{\textquotedblright} (semantics).0.2 This work is wondrously attractive in presentation, to a linguist, especially a {\textquoteleft}linguist of later Egyptian{\textquoteright}. I must say, at the onset, that I find the book a splendid achievement. I must also personally and subjectively confess to an especially festive feeling, under the enticing sensation of Demotic as {\textquoteleft}Egyptian-encoded Coptic{\textquoteright}, a sensation intensified and enhanced by carefully perusing the present work. Demotic, and especially early Demotic, is still the least familiar of all phases of Egyptian; and that not least due to this very same enigmatic balance between the Coptic-type and {\textquoteleft}pre-Coptic Egyptian{\textquoteright}-type phenomena. In fact, Demotic has a special value for the typological diachrony of Egyptian: its conception as an in-between phase between the (analyzing) LE to the (agglutinating in resynthesizing) Coptic must stand or fall by precise structural information, such as is offered by this painstaking work. For instance, the Second Tenses and focalization; the perfect vs. preterite opposition; the Nominal Sentence; the aorist (atemporal) tense category; the future, the causative form-constructions {\textemdash} these are all features that pattern and inform the unbroken history of Egyptian, the longest unbroken evolution of any language in our experience.This work is a non-generative, truly descriptive, methodologically impeccable grammar. It sets out to evaluate and criticize prior research as well as collect and consolidate new evidence. Its statements are clearly and convincingly expounded, offering coherent interpretations, firmly grounded in source material, and many mises en question, with a wealth of detailed information. Indeed, it is th the first Demotic grammar since Lexa{\textquoteright}s work of 1940-1951 (Janet Johnson{\textquoteright}s account of the verbal system in Roman Demotic [1976] comes nearest to being a comprehensive grammar, and of course covers much more extensive ground, corpus-wise).0.3 The corpus at the base of Simpson{\textquoteright}s work is of a textemic genre very much sui generis. The author himself is fully aware of the limited corpus and ensuing incomplete picture of grammatical systematization (58). We have here a case of Kanzleistil - archaic, formal, formulary; arguably not a style but a genre, even a texteme. (A blend of Leviticus with a {\textquoteleft}Vita Monachorum{\textquoteright} preceptive genre comes to a Coptologist{\textquoteright}s mind). In this corpus, the documentation of the tenses is very partial (note esp. the absence of non-converted forms. The use of the future is restricted; no modal future is attested. The prospective form is almost exclusively grammaticalized as a causative exponent). In this sense, the work is an instance of corpus-based textemic grammar. It is however only fair to observe that Simpson offers as a rule documentation from a broad range of other corpuses (cf. pp. 60, 90, 91, 93, 128, 130f., 153ff. etc.), effectively giving his statements the validity of a comprehensive grammar. When the canvas is as large and varied as in Demotic (the differences between phases are complex and rich, often comparable to those between Old and Middle Egyptian), this has a real advantage.The Index Locorum is thus especially welcome; yet one misses a Subject Index.The Bibliography (with the discussion of grammatical opinion in the text) constitutes no less than a full resum{\'e} of the Demotistic (and to a considerable extent Egyptian and Coptic linguistic) literature of the last century (from Griffith{\textquoteright}s Stories of the High Priests [1900] onwards).0.4 Non-attestation, ever an important problematic issue in dead-language linguistics, to be resolved only structurally, acquires an urgency still more acute in a Spezialgrammatik, and all the more so in a genre so special as the present one. In this context, the dilemma of the authenticity of the Demotic (in the sense of {\textquoteleft}linguistic validity as uninfluenced by a Vorlage text{\textquoteright}) acquires a special meaning (22ff. - Relation of demotic and Greek texts{\textquoteright}). On this question, I would suggest a parallel composition of the texts, with an ongoing accommodation of the Demotic to the Greek version. The validity of the Demotic as a testo di lingua is in any case beyond doubt.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@book {10354,
	title = {Structural Studies in Modern Welsh Syntax: Aspects of the Grammar of Kate Roberts},
	year = {1998},
	publisher = {Nodus},
	organization = {Nodus},
	address = {M{\"u}nster},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10353,
	title = {Modern Literary Welsh Narrative Grammar: Two Features Described},
	journal = {Journal of Celtic Linguistics},
	volume = {6},
	year = {1997},
	pages = {63{\textendash}102},
	abstract = {Two narrative feature sets of Modern Literary Welsh are studied, on the basis of a mixed corpus (works by Kate Roberts, J.G. Williams, Islwyn Ffowc Elis, Y Faner): First, the infinitive (Alias verb-noun) co-ordinated to a finite verb form, as constituent of a compound {\textquotedblleft}micro-episodal{\textquotedblright} narrative tense; the infinitive as an {\textquotedblleft}entry-making{\textquotedblright} form, in a special system of diary syntax, which is here scanned in some detail; the reminiscent {\textquotedblleft}condensing{\textquotedblright} infinitive; the infinitive presented in narrative by dyma, for narrative changes and episode-opening in dramatic highlight. The highlighting delimitative converters mi- and fe- are discussed in the context of manipulative {\textquotedblleft}dramatic{\textquotedblright} narrative staging. Second, the aorist (alias [future-] present) as a main narrative-evolution carrier tense-form in complex autobiographical narrative systems.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10352,
	title = {Review of G. King, Modern Welsh: a Comprehensive Grammar},
	journal = {Studia Celtica},
	volume = {29},
	year = {1995},
	pages = {321{\textendash}325},
	abstract = {We must certainly give Gareth King the credit of putting the more informal varieties of the language on the map of linguistic description. However, when a work titled {\textquoteleft}Comprehensive Grammar{\textquoteright} professes on its first page the conviction that {\textquoteleft}{\textellipsis} for the serious student of any language, grammar is a key to understanding and not an obstacle{\textquoteright} (vii), it is not over-rash to suspect the author has (or has had) some deep-lying misgivings about {\textquoteleft}grammar{\textquoteright}. The book before us, I fear, amply confirms this inference.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10350,
	title = {Some Reflections on the Egyptian Conjunctive},
	booktitle = {Divitiae Aegyptii (Krause Festschrift)},
	year = {1995},
	pages = {300{\textendash}314},
	publisher = {Reichert},
	organization = {Reichert},
	address = {Wiesbaden},
	abstract = {The conjunctive is still the most mystifying clause-form in Egyptian, from LE through Demotic to Coptic. For several reasons, including its shadowy origins and puzzling morphology, but especially because of its elusive semantics and syntactic properties, and indeed, its syntactic essentials, it is still not clearly understood and probably often misinterpreted. [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10351,
	title = {Structural Sketches of Middle Welsh Syntax (I): The Converter Systems},
	journal = {Studia Celtica},
	volume = {29},
	year = {1995},
	pages = {127{\textendash}223},
	abstract = {This article is the first in a series of corpus-based profiles or sketches of certain central subsystems of Mabinogi Middle Welsh grammar. These aim at putting pattern-sets, patterns and pattern details in their proper perspectives of values, relevancies and relationship network, by applying structural-analytic procedure to complex phenomena of synax hitherto not treated systematically in this approach. viz. in terms of oppositions and neutralizations, of paradigmatic (categorial constituency) and syntagmatic (compatibility) properties, commutabilities and compatiblities.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10349,
	title = {Pluridimensional Oppositions: Case Studies from Scripture Bohairic},
	booktitle = {Coptology: Past, Present and Future},
	year = {1994},
	pages = {225{\textendash}247},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	address = {Leuven},
	abstract = {While the usual paradigmatic (binary or {\textquotedblleft}polyvalent{\textquotedblright}) conception of grammatical opposition as envisaged by the Geneva, Prague and Copenhagen structural schools is unidimensional, representing the tension between two poles, more complex oppositions are often observable. These are {\textquotedblleft}disjointable{\textquotedblright} i.e. decomposable and resolvable into two or more {\textquotedblleft}simple{\textquotedblright} paradigms, yet, in actual linguistic reality, constitute multifaceted categories. [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10345,
	title = {Bohairic},
	booktitle = {The Coptic Encyclopaedia},
	volume = {8},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {54{\textendash}60},
	abstract = {A major dialect of Coptic, called {\textquotedblleft}Memphitic{\textquotedblright}, {\textquoteleft}the northern dialect{\textquotedblright}, or {\textquotedblleft}dialect of Lower Egypt{\textquotedblright} in earlier terminology, or simply {\textquotedblleft}Coptic{\textquotedblright} in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century treatises, Bohairic being the first Coptic dialect with which Western scholarship became aquainted. {\textquotedblleft}Bohairic{\textquotedblright} (B) was first used by Stern (1880, p. xii).},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10348,
	title = {In Memoriam Hans Jakob Polotsky},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {61},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {208{\textendash}213},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10346,
	title = {Sahidic},
	booktitle = {The Coptic Encyclopaedia},
	volume = {8},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {194{\textendash}202},
	abstract = {Sahidic (siglum S) is a major Coptic dialect, earlier known as Upper Egyptian, Theban, or the southern dialect; the term {\textquotedblleft}Sahidic{\textquotedblright}, used by Athanasius of Quṣ, was adopted by Stern (1880). In twentieth-century Coptology, S has been the main dialect of study and research{\textemdash}indeed Coptic par excellencem today totally supplanting Bohairic in this respect (compare, for instance, its precedence in Crum, 1939, to that of Bohairic in Stern, 1880). [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10347,
	title = {The Shenutean Idiom},
	booktitle = {The Coptic Encyclopaedia},
	volume = {8},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {202{\textendash}204},
	abstract = {{\textquotedblleft}Shenutean Coptic{\textquotedblright} is the term applied to the idiom, including the grammatical norm and stylistic-phraseological usage, observable in the corpus of writing by the archimandrite Apa Shenute (334{\textendash}451), outstanding among Coptic literary sources in that it constitutes the single most extensive homogenous and authentic testo di lingua for Sahidic and Coptic in general. [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10344,
	title = {The \&lsquo;Tautological Infinitive\&rsquo; in Coptic: a structural examination},
	journal = {Journal of Coptic Studies},
	volume = {1},
	year = {1990},
	pages = {99{\textendash}127},
	abstract = {In the following pages, I wish to scan a neglected, if familiar, construction of Coptic for some of its most striking formal and functional, paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of significance nd implications. I refer to the construction sometimes called the {\textquotedblleft}tautological{\textquotedblright}, {\textquotedblleft}absolute{\textquotedblright}, or paronomastic infinitive, in which an infinitive is followed by a homolexemic (or otherwise related) finite verbal form, the two constituting together a single clause pattern: [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@book {10339,
	title = {The Proper Name: Structural Prolegomena to its Syntax \&mdash; a Case Study in Coptic},
	year = {1989},
	publisher = {Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften {\"O}sterreichs (VWG{\"O})},
	organization = {Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften {\"O}sterreichs (VWG{\"O})},
	address = {Wien},
	abstract = {The present investigation, which is to be view as a seminal or pilot study of proper-name grammar in Coptic rather than a definitive {\textquotedblleft}Grammar of Proper Names{\textquotedblright}, attempts to observe the PN environmentally (in both syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of grammatical environment, examining commutabilities and compatibilities), its syntactic incorporation, especially its signalling\&nbsp;{\textemdash} the formal means for its distinction from other nominal and pronominals; its structural role, identity and role relationships. [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10343,
	title = {The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Middle Egyptian},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {58},
	year = {1989},
	pages = {247{\textendash}254},
	abstract = {A review article of {\'E}ric Doret, The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Middle Egyptian.The importance of the narrative parole to descriptive grammar is (esp. in a written or dead language) greater than that of dialogue, because of the heavier contribution of pragmatic factors and circumstances in the latter case; that is, in narrative these are {\textquotedblleft}segmented{\textquotedblright} and cotextually given and the {\textquotedblleft}environmental{\textquotedblright} factor is therefore much more considerably textual. This makes the book under review so important as a comprehensive component study of Egyptian grammar in general and an account of the Old and Middle Egyptian verb in particular.[{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10341,
	title = {Papyrus Vandier recto: an Early Demotic Text in the Hieratic Script?},
	journal = {Journal of the American Oriental Society},
	volume = {109},
	year = {1989},
	pages = {421{\textendash}435},
	abstract = {In a review article of the first edition of the Hieratic text in P. Vandier, an attempt is made to locate the linguistic usage of the story on the recto in Egyptian diachrony. Taken as a corpus consistently and coherently representative and {\'e}tat de langue, the text is systematically scanned for grammatical features and feature clusters as cumulative indications of affinity with Late Egyptian or alternatively Demotic. The Hieratic script notwithstanding, the linguistic picture observed\&nbsp;{\textemdash} remarkably rich and varied\&nbsp;{\textemdash} is that of an Early Demotic linguistic system, strikingly similar to that of P. Rylands IX. The evidence points insistently to Demotic (or post-LE) typology, while presenting virtually no unambiguous evidence of Late Egyptian grammar associations.[{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10342,
	title = {Work Notes on Demotic Syntax},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {58},
	year = {1989},
	pages = {28{\textendash}60},
	abstract = {This series of notes is meant to suggest and define relevant issues and systemic implications, reflecting on certain not unimportant grammatical phenomena of Demotic. They constitute annotated documentation or record, combining the time-honoured categories of {\textquotedblleft}Miszellen{\textquotedblright}, {\textquotedblleft}Lesefr{\"u}chte{\textquotedblright}, and {\textquotedblleft}Vermischte Beitr{\"a}ge{\textquotedblright} (In the spirit of A. Tobler{\textquoteright}s [1886{\textendash}1912], on Old French and Romance syntax. Often, they suggest diachronic {\textquotedblleft}tie-ins{\textquotedblright} between comparable Demotic and Coptic facts, and almost always they have direct bearing on locus interpretation. The evidence adduced is predominantly local or incidental and lays no claim to exhaustiveness, the discussion suggestive and not definitive; its chief justification is in putting the discussed phenomena in systemic perspective and {\textquotedblleft}opening pigeonholes{\textquotedblright} for further documentation and consideration.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@book {10338,
	title = {Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy: a Course for Academic and Private Study},
	year = {1988},
	publisher = {Peeters},
	organization = {Peeters},
	address = {Leuven},
	abstract = {(I). Aims and conception. The following reasoned collection of text is intended to serve as a means for acquiring acquaintance with the elements of Sahidic Coptic grammar, giving the student the competence and confidence which should enable him to deal subsequently with any Coptic text as far as grammatical analysis and translation is concerned; it is meant for students approaching the language for its general linguistic, Egyptological, theological or literary interests. This is neither a grammar, nor a textbook, not yet an {\textquotedblleft}Introduction to Coptic{\textquotedblright}, but a custom-built annotated anthology meant as a one-year (approx. 40 weeks, 4 to 6 weekly hours) course of initiation into the analysis of Coptic texts, expressly meant as a substitute to so-called {\textquotedblleft}grammars{\textquotedblright}. [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10337,
	title = {Grammatical Discovery Procedure and the Egyptian-Coptic Nominal Sentence},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {56},
	year = {1987},
	pages = {147{\textendash}175},
	abstract = {The book before us [Callender{\textquoteright}s Studies in the Nominal Sentence in Egyptian and Coptic] is not a reworking of the author{\textquoteright}s 1970 University of Chicago dissertation\&nbsp;{\textemdash} and this is a disappointment, for here one misses much important information on the Nominal Sentence (NS) which was provided in the dissertation, such as predicate constituency (Chap. I), predicate determination (II) and apposition (V). Yet the present monograph merits more attention than might seem called for at first glance; more, indeed, than is warranted by its contribution to our understanding of the grammatical phenomena discussed. For this is the first time that a method-conscious linguist treats this issue comprehensively, in a way representative of a major methodological trend of present-day Egyptology: the generative-transformational method.[{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@book {10335,
	title = {Coptic Grammatical Categories: Structural Studies in the Syntax of Shenoutean Coptic},
	year = {1986},
	publisher = {The Pontifical Institute},
	organization = {The Pontifical Institute},
	address = {Rome},
	abstract = {This book is not a Coptic grammar, nor is it cast in the semblance of one: it is a series of studies of a fairly central area of Coptic syntax, a detailed systematic charting of a subsystem or more or less continuous range of grammatical phenomena.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10336,
	title = {({\i}͗)rf in the Coffin Texts: A Functional Tableau},
	journal = {Journal of the American Oriental Society},
	volume = {106},
	year = {1986},
	pages = {641{\textendash}658},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10334,
	title = {What\&rsquo;s in a Name? On Coptic ⲡⲁ- \&lsquo;he of-\&rsquo;},
	journal = {Enchoria},
	volume = {13},
	year = {1985},
	pages = {97{\textendash}102},
	abstract = {In a terminological note with the title, {\textquotedblleft}The Possessive Relation Marker in Coptic{\textquotedblright} (Enchoria 12:191{\textendash}193, 1984), P. Swiggers criticizes and corrects the conventional designation {\textquotedblleft}possessive article{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}possessive prefix{\textquotedblright} for ⲡⲁ-/ⲧⲁ-/ⲛⲁ- {\textquotedblleft}he/she/they of-{\textquotedblright} and, much less explicitly, ⲡⲉϥ- {\textquotedblleft}his{\textquotedblright}. Following several arguments meant to establish that these morpheme set(s) are {\textquotedblleft}neither an article, nor a prefix{\textquotedblright}, Dr. Swiggers offers to replace the current terms with a new one, namely {\textquotedblleft}possessive relation-marker{\textquotedblright}, presumably for both ⲡⲁ- and ⲡⲉϥ-.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10332,
	title = {On Some Coptic Nominal Sentence Patterns},
	booktitle = {Festschrift W. Westendorf},
	year = {1984},
	pages = {175{\textendash}189},
	address = {G{\"o}ttingen},
	abstract = {There can be no doubt that of all issues of Coptic pattern grammar, it is the Nominal Sentence that has had the most monographic attention. Whatever the reasons for this special cultivation\&nbsp;{\textemdash} the relative familiarity of this pattern set (known in similar forms from Egyptian and Semitic), its (again relative) compactness and transparency as regards internal structure and external relations of its constituents, the urge of typological interest in a verbless prediction pattern\&nbsp;{\textemdash} the happy outcome is that today, although many details are still controversial, the patterns have been by and large isolated and their formal (if not always functional) analysis more or less agreed upon [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10333,
	title = {The Existential Sentence in the Sahidic New Testament},
	journal = {GM},
	volume = {77},
	year = {1984},
	pages = {67{\textendash}77},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10331,
	title = {\&lsquo;Middle Egyptian\&rsquo; Gleanings: Grammatical Notes on the \&lsquo;Middle Egyptian\&rsquo; Text of Matthew},
	journal = {Chronique d{\textquoteright}Egypte},
	volume = {58},
	year = {1983},
	pages = {311{\textendash}329},
	abstract = {The book before us is by no means yet another text edition: it is difficult to overstate its importance\&nbsp;{\textemdash} comparable, in my opinion, to that of Thompson{\textquoteright}s Subakhm{\^{\i}mic John\&nbsp;{\textemdash} or over-praise the editor for a perfect execution of his task. This edition will, I believe, prove a veritable milestone in the story of Coptic grammatical and dialectological research. For here wer are offered the first extensive testo di lingua for this {\textquoteleft}new{\textquoteright} dialect, for which we have hitherto had the evidence of lacunary or very short fragments [{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10330,
	title = {Recent Publications in Coptic Linguistics (Studi Copti 7)},
	journal = {Vetera Christianorum},
	volume = {18},
	year = {1981},
	pages = {222{\textendash}230},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {10328,
	title = {Bohairic-Late Egyptian Diaglosses: a Contribution to the Typology of Egyptian},
	booktitle = {Studies Presented to H.J. Polotsky},
	year = {1981},
	pages = {413{\textendash}438},
	publisher = {Beacon Hill},
	organization = {Beacon Hill},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel},
	editor = {Young, D. W.}
}
@article {10329,
	title = {The Oracular Conference: a Text-Linguistic Case Study in Late Egyptian},
	journal = {Folia Linguistica Historica},
	volume = {2},
	year = {1981},
	pages = {113{\textendash}141},
	abstract = {The following discussion aims primarily at a tentative application of explicit text-linguistic analytic procedure to a special Late Egyptian corpus hitherto subjected but to superficial linguistic attention, viz. the Egyptian oracular texts (here I shall examine the Late Egyptian, not the Demotic evidence). However, a secondary goal of this paper is to make a contribution towards an aspect of a general theory of the dialogue: in viewing the texts which constitute the discussed corpus as embryonic dialogue-forms, I will attempt to explore some ideas for a schematic-typological approach to defining and characterizing these dialogues in general.},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10326,
	title = {Review Article: Cherix, Etude de lexicographie copte},
	journal = {Chronique d{\textquoteright}Egypte},
	volume = {55},
	year = {1980},
	pages = {338{\textendash}342},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10327,
	title = {Shenoute Quotations in an Unpublished British Library Manuscript},
	journal = {Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists},
	volume = {17},
	year = {1980},
	pages = {167{\textendash}172},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {shisha-halevy.a:1980:merikare,
	title = {\&Agrave; propos of a New Edition of the Instructions for King Merikare},
	volume = {49},
	year = {1980},
	pages = {195{\textendash}198},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {10325,
	title = {Review Article: Osing, Der sp\&auml;t\&auml;gyptische Papyrus BM 10808},
	journal = {Journal of Egyptian Archaeology},
	volume = {66},
	year = {1980},
	pages = {181{\textendash}186},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9732,
	title = {A Coptic Proverb},
	journal = {Aegyptus},
	volume = {58},
	year = {1978},
	pages = {174{\textendash}176},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9731,
	title = {A North-West Semitic Text in the Egyptian Hieratic Script},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {47},
	year = {1978},
	pages = {145{\textendash}162},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9733,
	title = {Quelques th\&eacute;matisations marginales du verbe en n\&eacute;o-\&eacute;gyptien},
	journal = {Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica},
	volume = {9},
	year = {1978},
	pages = {51{\textendash}67},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9734,
	title = {A Shenoutean Pun and the Preservation of a Precoptic Lexemic Distinction},
	journal = {Journal of Egyptian Archaeology},
	volume = {64},
	year = {1978},
	pages = {141},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9728,
	title = {Bohairic ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ: a case of lexemic grammaticalization},
	journal = {Enchoria},
	volume = {7},
	year = {1977},
	pages = {109{\textendash}113},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@inbook {9730,
	title = {Coptic: language and literature},
	booktitle = {Encyclopedia Hebraica},
	volume = {29},
	year = {1977},
	pages = {453{\textendash}454},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9727,
	title = {Protatic ⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ: additional material},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {46},
	year = {1977},
	pages = {127{\textendash}128},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9729,
	title = {ⲧⲱ ⲉⲧⲱ: the Shenoutean idiom and its analysis},
	journal = {Wiener Zeitschrift f{\"u}r die Kunde des Morgenlandes},
	volume = {69},
	year = {1977},
	pages = {33{\textendash}39},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9725,
	title = {Akhmimo{\"{\i}d Features in Shenoute{\textquoteright}s Idiolect},
	journal = {Le Mus{\'e}on},
	volume = {89},
	year = {1976},
	pages = {353{\textendash}366},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9726,
	title = {The Circumstantial Present as an Antecedent-less (i.e. Substantival) Relative in Coptic},
	journal = {Journal of Egyptian Archaeology},
	volume = {62},
	year = {1976},
	month = {1976},
	pages = {134{\textendash}137},
	abstract = {Coptic disposes of two procedures to express the substantival relative clause ({\textquoteleft}he who{\textellipsis}{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}that which{\textellipsis}{\textquoteright} etc.), namely, either by substituting a substantivator morpheme (of the ⲡ-/ⲧ-/ⲛ- paradigm) for the antecedent, yet in close juncture with the relative-converted form: ⲡⲉⲧ-, ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥ-, ⲡⲉϣⲁϥ-, etc.; or by having an indefinite pronoun or pronominal (ⲟⲩⲁ, ⲣⲱⲙⲉ, ϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ: {\textquoteleft}one{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}any{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}some{\textquoteright}) as antecedent to a circumstantially converted form, as the relative:circumstantial opposition is neutralized, in favour of the latter, when adnominal to a non-ⲡ-determined substantival kernel.[{\textellipsis}]},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9724,
	title = {Unpublished Shenoutiana: grammatical-phraseological commentary},
	journal = {Enchoria},
	volume = {6},
	year = {1976},
	pages = {29{\textendash}62},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9720,
	title = {The Coptic Circumstantial Present with an Empty (Impersonal) Actor Suffix and Adverbial Function},
	journal = {Journal of Egyptian Archaeology},
	volume = {61},
	year = {1975},
	month = {1975},
	pages = {256{\textendash}257},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9721,
	title = {Two New Shenoute Texts from the British Library},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {44},
	year = {1975},
	pages = {149{\textendash}185},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9722,
	title = {Two New Shenoute Texts: grammatical-phraseological commentary},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {44},
	year = {1975},
	pages = {469{\textendash}484},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9723,
	title = {Unpublished Shenoutiana in the British Library},
	journal = {Enchoria},
	volume = {5},
	year = {1975},
	pages = {53{\textendash}108},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9719,
	title = {Protatic ⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ: a hitherto unnoticed Coptic tripartite conjugation form and its diachronic connections},
	journal = {Orientalia},
	volume = {43},
	year = {1974},
	pages = {369{\textendash}381},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@article {9718,
	title = {Apodotic ⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ: a hitherto unnoticed, Late Coptic tripartite conjugation form and its diachronic perspective},
	journal = {La Mus{\'e}on},
	volume = {85},
	year = {1973},
	pages = {455{\textendash}466},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
@mastersthesis {9717,
	title = {The Circumstantial Sentence in Shenoute\&rsquo;s Coptic},
	year = {1972},
	month = {1972},
	type = {mastersPhD thesis},
	author = {Shisha-Halevy, Ariel}
}
