User:Vorziblix/Egyptian reconstructed pronunciations with issues

No listed descendants, citations, or foreign transcriptions/no given basis for reconstruction

 * — both reconstructed terms
 * — but the derivation does have descendants
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — both reconstructed terms
 * — but the derivation does have descendants
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — but the derivation does have descendants
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — but the derivation does have descendants
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists
 * — no Coptic descendant exists

More parts reconstructed than the evidence warrants

 * — the second syllable — why not with -j, as Osing has it?
 * — the second syllable — again, why not with -j?
 * — also, the vowel doesn’t match descendants — Akhmimic and Fayyumic have /a/ here, not /e/
 * — also, the vowel doesn’t match descendants — Akhmimic and Fayyumic have /a/ here, not /e/
 * — also, the vowel doesn’t match descendants — Akhmimic and Fayyumic have /a/ here, not /e/

Irregular developments/sound changes

 * — development of -w at the end of the first plural would regularly be to /u/ rather than schwa; perhaps the form ought to be (contra Loprieno) not */ʀaˈbutʼw/ but */ʀaˈbutʼjaw/? Also unclear why initial unstressed /a/ is reduced in most descendants
 * — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
 * — the Sahidic descendant is unaccounted for
 * — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa; the Akkadian transcription also suggests something else is going on in the first syllable
 * — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
 * — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
 * — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa; also, the ending conflicts with Loprieno’s reconstruction, which we give at the singular
 * — /t/ irregularly preserved in the plural
 * — strange developments of first syllable, and the ending needs justification
 * — why is the first syllable lost?
 * — why does /w/ become /j/? Or why does Loprieno reconstruct /w/ rather than /j/? Note that Osing and Vycichl both reconstruct -/jVw/, not -/wVw/
 * — irregular change of initial /w/ > /j/, and why is the second /w/ lost?
 * — inexplicable disappearance of the first n
 * — stressed vowel doesn’t match
 * — given plural form (which is not in the Loprieno citation) would be expected to have the change /w/ > /j/ and end up as */peːʔ/
 * — irregular preservation of ꜣ > /j/ in this position
 * — irregular loss of final syllable; should become schwa
 * — irregular preservation of final schwa
 * — unexplained retention of final /ɾ/; maybe restored by analogy with other verb forms?
 * — irregular preservation of final schwa, perhaps by analogy with other verbs?
 * — irregular monophthongization; descendants seem to demand /ˈnuːħVħ/, which, however, doesn’t match the given etymology
 * — irregular disappearance of /w/ from final /wə/
 * — descendants cannot possibly come from, must be a form like or somesuch
 * — why does final /wə/ in the plural develop as if it’s /jə/?
 * — unaccounted-for monophtongization and metathesis (why not just /ˈhiːbaj/, plural /hiˈbaːjiw/ or somesuch? this is similar to what Osing proposes)
 * — glottal stop should come after the stressed vowel. But how to satisfy this when the stressed vowel is short and the word ends in /p/ rather than /β/?
 * — /j/ from /ʀ/ should be preserved in this position and then vocalized, yielding Late Egyptian */ħafi/ rather than */ħaf/
 * — why does /w/ disappear in the plural? Once again, why does Loprieno reconstruct /w/ rather than /j/?
 * — Bohairic would be expected to be, unless the original vowel is actually /u/ rather than /i/
 * — irregular preservation of final schwa. Vycichl suggests the Coptic forms actually come from *ẖpꜣt */ˈçuplat/
 * — the whole final syllable
 * — not sure exactly how to derive the Coptic forms, or why the Akkadian has tonic /a/ so early (or was it transcribed relatively late?)
 * — vowel doesn’t match descendants — Akhmimic and Fayyumic have /a/ here, not /e/
 * — why no vowel change?
 * — is the Fayyumic descendant regular? And is the Akkadian transcription explicable? Vycichl gives it as pu-us-bé-u.
 * — irregular development /mj/ > /jj/ > /j/? > /ʔ/; Junge accepts such a development, but Vycichl postulates two different words instead, */ʃim/ and */ˈʃimjat/
 * — irregular preservation of final schwa
 * — final /b/ fails to develop to /p/ — perhaps by analogy with the first /b/, since this is a reduplicated stem?
 * — seems to me both singular and plural should have /u/ rather than /i/ as the stressed vowel. The plural also should maybe have a single rather than geminated /w/
 * — final /b/ vanishes or develops as if /w/ (perhaps /b/ > /w/ irregularly happened by the time of the New Kingdom?)

Other issues

 * — should generally develop as if unstressed, right?
 * — not a problem with our reconstruction per se, but with the whole reconstruction model — a form like /jaʕħ/ is highly implausible
 * — need to ask User:Rhemmiel about source for ‘loss of t before r is a Late Egyptian sound change’; note that t before r behaved differently depending on whether the preceding vowel was stressed — maybe there’s some confusion here, whether on my part or theirs?
 * — need to think through the possible forms & developments. Also not sure if Loprieno’s model of the suffix (which we currently follow) is widely accepted or needs changing
 * — …what about that w? is this verb 4ae-inf or what?
 * — sort out what’s going on with those speculative notes on dialect
 * — reconstructed based on what is probably an incorrect derviation; see etymology notes (and yet it works surprisingly well)
 * — is what’s going on at the end of the reconstructed plural idiosyncratic to Loprieno? should we reconstruct differently?
 * — needs page for Loprieno citation
 * — labelled as a participle, but is it really? or just a rendering of the infinitive?
 * — needs more careful investigation and coparison with Greek renderings to correctly determine how the compound developed
 * — cited to Loprieno, but what evidence is he basing this on, and which of the nouns does this reconstruction correspond to?
 * shouldn’t ejective and aspirable plosives be merged in most positions by 800 ? Current reconstructions don’t reflect this
 * did final schwa from lost glides in fact survive into the Neo-Assyrian period? evidence in favor:, , , ; evidence against: ,
 * does ˈiː > ˈeː occur also in other environments? Peust in “Zur Herkunft des koptischen ⲏ”, page 118–119, says that Osing gives its environment as / _[ʕ, ħ, χ, q’, j] (but optional in all cases). If those conditions are still accepted as valid, it would at least in part explain above