ꜣbd — 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
jꜣbtj — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
jfdw — 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
jmntj — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
jḥ — if the first vowel is /a/ it shouldn’t reduce to schwa
jḥw — 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
mr(“to suffer”) — unexplained retention of final /ɾ/; maybe restored by analogy with other verb forms?
msḏj — irregular preservation of final schwa, perhaps by analogy with other verbs?
nḥḥ — irregular monophthongization; descendants seem to demand /ˈnuːħVħ/, which, however, doesn’t match the given etymology
ršwt — irregular disappearance of /w/ from final /wə/
r-pr — descendants cannot possibly come from r-pr, must be a form like *r-prjt or somesuch
rd(“bud, shoot”) — why does final /wə/ in the plural develop as if it’s /jə/?
hbj — unaccounted-for monophtongization and metathesis (why not just /ˈhiːbaj/, plural /hiˈbaːjiw/ or somesuch? this is similar to what Osing proposes)
ḥꜣb — 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/?
ḥfꜣw — /j/ from /ʀ/ should be preserved in this position and then vocalized, yielding Late Egyptian */ħafi/ rather than */ħaf/
ḫprw — why does /w/ disappear in the plural? Once again, why does Loprieno reconstruct /w/ rather than /j/?
ḫt — Bohairic would be expected to be *ϣⲁ(*ša), unless the original vowel is actually /u/ rather than /i/
ẖpꜣ — irregular preservation of final schwa. Vycichl suggests the Coptic forms actually come from *ẖpꜣt */ˈçuplat/
sbꜣ(“gate”) — is the Fayyumic descendant regular? And is the Akkadian transcription explicable? Vycichl gives it as pu-us-bé-u.
šmj — irregular development /mj/ > /jj/ > /j/? > /ʔ/; Junge accepts such a development, but Vycichl postulates two different words instead, */ʃim/ and */ˈʃimjat/
qbb — final /b/ fails to develop to /p/ — perhaps by analogy with the first /b/, since this is a reduplicated stem?
kꜣmw — 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/
gbb — final /b/ vanishes or develops as if /w/ (perhaps /b/ > /w/ irregularly happened by the time of the New Kingdom?)
.sn — should generally develop as if unstressed, right?
jꜥḥ — not a problem with our reconstruction per se, but with the whole reconstruction model — a form like /jaʕħ/ is highly implausible
jtrw — 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?
-w — 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
mdwj — …what about that w? is this verb 4ae-inf or what?
nb — sort out what’s going on with those speculative notes on dialect
nswt — reconstructed based on what is probably an incorrect derviation; see etymology notes (and yet it works surprisingly well)
hrw — is what’s going on at the end of the reconstructed plural idiosyncratic to Loprieno? should we reconstruct differently?
ḥtp — labelled as a participle, but is it really? or just a rendering of the infinitive?
z-n-wsrt — needs more careful investigation and coparison with Greek renderings to correctly determine how the compound developed
sḫm — 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 BCE? Current reconstructions don’t reflect this
did final schwa from lost glides in fact survive into the Neo-Assyrian period? evidence in favor: jwnw, ḥr, šn, wꜥw; evidence against: ḫmnw, psḏw
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 nḥḥ above
