1) If a form, not directly derived from Arabic, is found in a Berber language and also in Ancient Hebrew then it is probably found in Ancient Egyptian.
2) If a form is found in Latin or Koine Greek and the form is also found in Ancient Hebrew then it is probably found in Ancient Egyptian.
3) Basic Cushitic vocabulary may be considered in the Comparative method, but there is little in the way of outgroup comparrison as in the above two principles. It should also be noted that 12 Semitic languages are also spoken in Ethiopia, as are the Cushitic languages; so though there may be some relationship, we can not say that Egyptian was the common origin.
4) Chadic languages have derived some of their vocabulary from Berber languages, and they are substantial in number among basic words. If there are forms in Chadic which were lost in Berber, we can probably only detect that if they are related to Semitic, then principle (1) would hold. Otherwise as I have studied Chadic languages I find that their vocabulary is derived somehow from various branches of African languages.
5) In Coptic much of the vocabulary is derived from Greek. Of a small sampling of basic vocabulary of Coptic it was found to be 33% related to Berber, 8% related to Chadic, 17% related to Cushitic. Also another 33% seems to have been determined improperly; for example 'ro' for "mouth" because the mouth symbol was deciphered as being 'r' in a cartouch of 'Ceezrz' (Caesar), but the name of that symbol during the Greco-Roman period was something beginning with 'r' as Latin 'rictus'. That would only be a guess except that we have several forms with phonetic values showing Latin influence, so Latin influence is certain, and some of the phonetic values of Egyptian symbols have changed.
6) It should be noted that Egyptian hieroglyphic writing shows evidence of being structurally related to Ancient Hebrew. I have discussed that in an article on 'Methods in Decipherment'.
7) The book of Genesis is considered a Hebrew book, but the last 27% of the book is the story of Joseph which takes place in Egypt. Also the first 18% had been put together from earlier books. For instance chapter 5 literally translated begins "this book generation Adam . . ." and it is preceded by the letter samek which was used to show 'partition'. Those earlier books probably came from Egypt where writing of the Near East was dominant. The language of the book of Genesis is very old and I would expect to find forms there related to Egyptian. Also we can obtain important spellings from the texts of Genesis and Exodus such as 'yar' "nile", 'bol' "sphynx", 'mgdl' "tower" (pyramid), 'prow' (meaning "freedom" /pharo-/ uncertain stem pronunciation, Hebrew 'pr'h') "Pharaoh", 'mcrym' "Egypt". Even the word 'Ramses' comes to us from the Bible. Another consideration is that Israel came from Egypt, they entered Egypt as an extended family, grandparents 13 children, their spouses, their children, servants and employees. When they left Egypt 430 years later they left with some Egyptians, scripture says. At that time I believe the culture was identical. We can still see menorahs and the 'lamb cain' (the 'lamda') in hieroglyphic writing. And the book of Ruth has the young women gleaning grain following the men, exactly as depicted in Egyptian scenes.
8) I have written an article on the original pronunciation of the fifth Hebrew letter 'he' and it relies on some Coptic and some African language evidence, so it is also an important consideration in Egyptian comparative linguistics.
9) An important principle is do not consult the Egyptology dictionaries as the methods were doctored. There are few forms which seem correct, such as 'mt' but that form was searched for, then they thought they found it in a hieroglyphic spelling, so they entered it into their lexicon. There are two problems with finding 'mt', the first is that symbols thought to be 'm' are not. For example, the [owl] symbol does not correspond to 'm' it corresponds to 'a'. For hieroglyphic methods see my article on 'Methods in Decipherment'.
10) There are few ancient Greek sources which help us with Egyptian vocabulary. Recently I came across a word derivation given by Plutarch. Also the Greek list of the names of the Egyptian months is very important, with such names as 'thoth' and 'mekheir' ('mcr', 'mcrym'). I have seen a list of several ancient authors who provide us with little information, authors such as Strabo and Herodotus. I do not believe Herodotus to be reliable on matters of Egypt, particularly with respect to pyramid construction. Manetho chronicled the dynasties but his original text has not survived. Abstracts of later writers give the gist of his account, but they have been found to be very summary, imperfect, and in some cases display a corrupt text (Brittanica 1982, v.6 p.461).
11) There is a matter of Ancient Hebrew which should be considered. Let us take an example. The word 'yod' is understood to mean "hand", but it means "arm" in Ancient Hebrew while 'kp' (kapa) means "hand". The Egyptian hieroglyph [arm] is pronounced as /ee/ and this is a common sound of 'y' in Ancient Hebrew. The Greek name of the corresponding letter is 'iota' ('o' here is omega). The Egyptian form is probably 'yd'* pronounced /yauda/* (/au/ as in /caught/). The point that I am raising is that there are issues in pronunciation and meaning in Ancient Hebrew. The Masoretic vocalization invented 1000 years ago was supposed to make the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew clear, but that was how the language was pronounced then, not 4000 years ago when Ancient Hebrew was spoken. Though words are spelled the same way, except when we consider Hebrew vowels, yet the understanding of word formation is different than what it was originally. And word pronunciation is partly determined by word formation. So though Ancient Hebrew is related to Ancient Egyptian, some work of decipherment must be done in Ancient Hebrew. Another problem is, for example, 'y-' prefix is a masculine pronoun in some Semitic and Chadic languages, so Ancient Hebrew 'y-' has been misunderstood as sometimes a masculine pronoun prefix. Ancient Hebrew 'y-' sometimes means "shall" for future tense, and sometimes means "do" or "make" in the sense of inhibit, contrasting with 'os' which means "make" in the sense of "produce".
Something should be said about the Shilluk of the Sudan, and the Dinka as well. The Shilluk say that they are the last of the Ancient Egyptian royalty. I am wondering when they separated from Egypt (Modern Egypt, technically they are still in Egypt as Egypt included the Sudan. I make no distinction between Nubian and Egyptian. Let us face it King Tut had red skin, but his two chief guards had very dark skin and they were, Tut and all, of Negroid genetic character. Also 'mcrym' probably referred to the larger part of Africa, if not then Africa itself, but it would be very difficult to prove that.
In conclusion with the above methods we can work together reconstructing a basic, perhaps partial, vocabulary of Egyptian. That can be used in conjunction with the methods of Egyptian hieroglyphic decipherment to challenge current thought on the nature of the Egyptian language. Historical linguistic methods along with techniques in decipherment can now be used to produce accurate results.
