Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:22:11 -0700 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Text, line 1 At 06:05 PM 97/04/13 +1100, you wrote: >Just to get the ball rolling. What a terrible first line to analyse! I make >the first part of the sentence a form of bipartite nominal syntax of the form: > infinitive pw iri.n=f (=past relative form) > >The infinitive is a verbal noun, and is the predicate. The subject is past the >relative form of iri (to do/act/etc), which is an adjectival phrase. In this >case the translation might be: First, we should note that this document was written down in this form in (probably) Dynasty XIII, and is in LATE Middle Egyptian, i.e. it contains a number of things which are working in the direction of Late Egyptian (for example the use of pA as definite article, pAyf [his] as posessive adjectives, etc.). My own general impression of Late Egyptian is that one should never use a simple verb tense when it was possible to use some longer mode of expression. For example, here they could have used the simple past form (aHa.n.f). Basicaly, this translates literally as "What the King's Son Hardjedef did was stand up." What it means is "The King's Son Hardjedef stood up." The verb form is covered in Gardiner in Para.392, and in Hoch in Paras.136 and 163. >Please feel free to ATTACK (:-)> [I have a beard] Hmmm... so what it that at the other end of the face, your hard hat for warding off attacks? Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:58:18 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk CC: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 5-8 Marc Line wrote : > 2. I've used the word 'Prince' to replace 'king's son' even though > there seems to be a distinction between the two states in the Egyptian > mind. Is it too rash to do this? The only problem here is to be consistent, so that 'prince' is always sA-nsw, and not, for example 'iry-pat'. It's not tremendously important, though. > 3. The occurrence of person and place names raises the question of how > does one distinguish, except by context, when a group of glyphs is > referring to a proper name? For proper names, we are often lucky enough to have a determinative (here the Spsi-sign). Note that determinatives tend to be more regular in hieratic texts. When you haven't got one, you should use : * context :-) * knowledge of proper names. In particular, names of institutions tend to form whole sentences, like "Snefrou-l.h.p. is stable" Unfortunately, personnal names are definitly tricky :-( a rule which can be used : if you don't understand a sentence which seems out of place, try a proper name :-) > 4. I've taken Djed-Sneferu to mean "the estate of Sneferu, > linking the Djed (stable/enduring) to the concept of estate via Dt > (I10:X1:N16), meaning variously eternity/for ever/estate. Is this > inspired, presumptuous or just plain stupid? Not being aware of a > place by the name of Djed-Sneferu, it seemed like a useful > get-out. :) It could have been an egyptian wordplay :-) but in fact, Dd-snfrw is the name of the pyramid town at Meidum. > 5. The justified/vindicated groups following the names within > cartouches, I've taken to be meaning, "it is true to say" in prefix. > I'm a little uneasy about that as it could just as easily, and likely > more probably, be a part of the King's name-set. The second solution is the good one. When you have read the whole text, you'll see that mAa-xrw is added after most royal names, either because the kings were dead at the date the story happens (so you can translate snfrw mAa-xrw by : "the late Snefru") or as an automatism, as these kings where dead when the scribe actually wrote the story (so we have a number of "xwfw mAa-xrw"). It's an automatism, like adding anx-wDA-snb after certain names. > 6. Am I correct in thinking that the notion of someone being 110 years > old is a regional colloquial term for someone who is advanced in years? > I seem to remember the term being applied to someone in a Biblical > context. You are right : it's the traditionnal age a wise wishes to attain. > 7. I am intrigued by Geoff's translit of (M23-X1:N35) as n.y-sw.t > instead of swtn. Whilst it is, of course, in line with Gardiner, who > says that the word probably was pronounced ni-swt, can anyone tell me > whence Gardiner, and presumably others, drew that conclusion? I can't tell the whole story, but we have a few transcriptions in other languages that point to this reading : e.g. GEG p 51, note 1, quotes insibya as a cuneiform rendering of nsw-bity. A little correction : In "r-mn-n Hrw pn", r-mn-n is a composite preposition that means "until". hope this helps, Serge -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 5, rue Beranger 92240 Malakoff tel 01 48 70 37 13 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 16:50:18 -0700 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 5-8 At 02:14 PM 97/04/13 +0100, you wrote: >Prince Heru-tata-f said, "It is true to say that there is a "iw wn" translates simply as "There is" >commoner/person by the name of Djedi who lives in the estate of Sneferu. "Djed-Snofru" ia a place name so it is "he lives in Djed-Snofru" >He is 110 years old. He eats 500 loaves of bread, together with the >shoulder of a bull, as well as drinking many measures of beer in a >single day." "h(n)qt ds 100" = one hundred jugs of beer. The sign after the jug determinative is the number - the Egyptians loved accounting. "r-mn-m hrw pn" = until this very day. Indicates that he continues in this right up to the present. Contrary to general comment, I do not believe that these figures are meant to imply that he is eating and drinking an incredible amount. Figures of a persons rations are generally for a period of time (in Ramesside times they seem to be for a month) and usually mean supplies for his household. I'm not sure exactly what the figures given here were meant to imply - probably what is generally assumed, that Djedi was vigorous and prosperous. > :)) = writer is happy and has double chin (?) Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 16:50:15 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 5-8 At 11:58 PM 97/04/13 +0100, you wrote: >A little correction : > >In "r-mn-n Hrw pn", r-mn-n is a composite preposition that means "until". > A little further correction "r-mn-n" should be "r-mn-m," and it is translated as you say. It implies the continuation of an established custom until the specfied time (in this case "hrw pn") Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:21:48 -0500 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Ahmose Text Thanks to Stephen Fryer for putting up the glphs for those of us who don't have McScribe ,etc. Here is what I make of the passage. I don't really know how to transcribe the glyphs in an acceptable way, but I think I know what they say. > (so says the Admiral of the Fleet, Ahmose): Dd n tn rt nb.t I speak to you, each and every one dd rx tn hnt xpr.t n yw w< I bid you recognize the honors that were bestowed upon me kwy m nwb sp (7) xft hr n t3wy r drf I have been awarded the Gold seven times before the whole land hm hmt rmy.t ty r S3H kwy m 3Ht S3 Male and female slaves were given to me and I was awarded great estates wrt yw rn n qn nht ym ir-t n-f The greatness of the name of a valiant fighting man is in proportion to his deeds nn n Ht tm m wr m t3wy may it never become obscured or disappear in the Two Lands Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:57:40 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Text, line To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: RE>>AEL Westcar Text, line 1 The last part of the sentence, just befor the Dd=f ie. r mdw.t This is the preposition 'r', followed by what? An infinitive of the verb (to speak), or the noun (a/the speech/matter). If it is the verb (r + infinitive), then it gives : ie. [he] rose, "in order to speak". If it is the noun, then this adverbial phrase (preposition + noun) gives: [he] rose "concerning the speech/matter". Presumably referring to the preceding event; some kind of presentation by another person. Can anyone clear me up on this Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne, Australia mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au -------------------------------------- Date: 14/4/97 8:54 AM To: Michael Dyall-Smith From: Ancient Egyptian Language List At 06:05 PM 97/04/13 +1100, you wrote: >Just to get the ball rolling. What a terrible first line to analyse! I make >the first part of the sentence a form of bipartite nominal syntax of the form: > infinitive pw iri.n=f (=past relative form) > >The infinitive is a verbal noun, and is the predicate. The subject is past the >relative form of iri (to do/act/etc), which is an adjectival phrase. In this >case the translation might be: First, we should note that this document was written down in this form in (probably) Dynasty XIII, and is in LATE Middle Egyptian, i.e. it contains a number of things which are working in the direction of Late Egyptian (for example the use of pA as definite article, pAyf [his] as posessive adjectives, etc.). My own general impression of Late Egyptian is that one should never use a simple verb tense when it was possible to use some longer mode of expression. For example, here they could have used the simple past form (aHa.n.f). Basicaly, this translates literally as "What the King's Son Hardjedef did was stand up." What it means is "The King's Son Hardjedef stood up." The verb form is covered in Gardiner in Para.392, and in Hoch in Paras.136 and 163. >Please feel free to ATTACK (:-)> [I have a beard] Hmmm... so what it that at the other end of the face, your hard hat for warding off attacks? Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;14 Apr 1997 08:53:34 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-7 #17781) id <01IHOUFWHT54000XA2@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> for Michael_Dyall-Smith@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:53:33 +1000 Received: from rostau.demon.co.uk ([194.222.22.205]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0527042; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:30 -0300 (BST) Received: from relay-10.mail.demon.net by rostau.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA860967932 ; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:45:32 +0100 Received: from relay-9.mail.demon.net by mailstore for AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk id 860966612:09:07921:3; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:23:32 -0300 (BST) Received: from ranma.prcn.org ([206.186.106.1]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1005470; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:23 -0300 (BST) Received: from stephen (ppp27.shampoo.prcn.org [206.186.107.59]) by prcn.org (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA32075 for ; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:20:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:22:11 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Text, line 1 Sender: Ancient Egyptian Language List X-Sender: sfryer@prcn.org To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Reply-to: Ancient Egyptian Language List Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19970413212211.006e8354@prcn.org> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:44:53 -0700 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR lines 1-7, et al. (i.e. introductory disclaimer) At 03:20 AM 97/04/12 -0500, you wrote: >1) Stood up this (or is "pu" here more like the Coptic "pe"?) did king son >of Horus give to a speech he said ... in time "si nsw Hr-dd-f" is Prince Hardedef {or Dedef-Hor] "Pw" is definitely similar to Coptic "pe" - in fact it is the same word 2000 years later! So the first line translates as: Prince Hardedef [or Dedef-Hor] stood up to speak. He said...." >2) ... in knowledge of which ( - ? - ) not that knowledge of true (things) >to false (things) "ntyw swA" = those who have passed "mAat r grg" = truth from falsehood (or fact from fiction) Because this starts out from a break, it is a little difficult to be sure of the translation, but it may be: "...in an account of those who have passed away, one can't tell fact from fiction..." > >3) your majesty in your time yourself he knew not. "Ds-f" here translates as "your own", an emphatic possessive Who the subject of "rx-f" should be I don't know - once again we are victims of the demoness Lacuna. We might try translating it: "...your majesty in your own reign. He doesn't know..." >4) Said by his majesty: What (did) this king give, son of Horus? It is hard to tell if "Dd-in" in these phrases is a continuative form "then said..." or whather we should understand it as a passive "said by ...". In the case of the common introit to inscriptions "Dd mdw in..." it seems that the passive ("Words spoken by...") makes most sense (at least to me). Here I might go for a continuative form, sort of akin in meaning to the "waw-consecutinve" so beloved in the Hebrew bible. So we get: "Then his majesty said, "Who is it, Hardedef, my son?" >5) Said by King, son of Horus, There is a commoner, Djedi his name, >(implied: "when," or "at the time?") he sat "Hms-f" = he lives (dwells if you like to sound archaic) > >6) in stability ("he dwelt for a long time?") Seneferu, true of voice, "Dd-Snfrw-mAat-xrw" is the name of the pyramid town at (I believe Meidum), a place name. So these two lines are: "Then Hardedef said, "There is a commoner called Djedi who lives in Djed-Snofru-the-Justified." >7) He is as a commoner of (to? from?) year 5; he is upon eating 500 loaves >and shoulders of beef ( - ? - ) ("as he is meat?!") The curl under the "t" of "rnpt" is the sign for 100, and the following sign is 10 not 5. "iw-f nDs n rnpt 110" He is a commoner 110 years old "iw-f Hr wnm" is a progressive verb form, which could be translated "he is eating," however modern English usage includes progressive action in a simple present sometimes, and here is best translated as "he eats" "m iwf" = in meat, ie "in the category of meat" So we might translate it: "He eats 500 loaves of bread, a side of beef for meat,..." This last sentence continues (in the next line): "...along with drinking 100 jugs of beer until this day. >I warned you it would be crude. Pretty good actually! >(But I love those idioms "He stood up and did" and "he is upon >doing" though I am not positive what their exact sense should tranlate as.) "He is upon doing", as said above, expresses on-going action. "He stood up and did" is an idiom that doesn't occur in the passage we just did here. "aHa-n sDm-f" is a past tense, completed action. But perhaps you were referring to the opening verb of the passage which is the form "sDm pw iri-n-f", also a past tense but its best literal translation would be "what he did was hear" One of my favourites is "di-f sDm = He gave to hear" a causative form. There are also some very expressive names for occupations, etc., such as "Xr(y)-qni" = porter ("the fellow under the luggage"). >I also think it would be very much of interest, as has been suggested, if a >GIF or JPG of the hieratic version were also available to compare with the >glyphs. I would like this very much also! Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:43:00 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Text, line >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Dyall-Smith writes: Michael> Reply to: RE>>AEL Westcar Text, line 1 The last Michael> part of the sentence, just befor the Dd=f ie. r mdw.t Michael> This is the preposition 'r', followed by what? An I would favour the infinitive, and translate : "aHa pw ir.n sA-nswt Hr-dd=f r mdt Dd=f" by "Then the royal prince Hardedef stood up to speak, saying..." As Dd=f is probably a circumstancial sDm=f, I would prefer this to "and he said" which would in my opinion have been rendered by "Dd.in=f", or at least Dd.n=f. regards, -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 5, rue Beranger 92240 Malakoff tel 01 48 70 37 13 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:17:03 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 5-8 Serge Rosmorduc typed: >Marc Line wrote : snipped your helpful comments re Prince and Proper Names for which, my thanks >> 4. I've taken Djed-Sneferu to mean "the estate of Sneferu, >> linking the Djed (stable/enduring) to the concept of estate via Dt >> (I10:X1:N16), meaning variously eternity/for ever/estate. Is this >> inspired, presumptuous or just plain stupid? Not being aware of a >> place by the name of Djed-Sneferu, it seemed like a useful >> get-out. :) >It could have been an egyptian wordplay :-) but in fact, Dd-snfrw is >the name of the pyramid town at Meidum. Thanks for pointing that out for me Serge. It makes a lot more sense with that knowledge. Is it a rule that all place names which involve the name of a king have the royal name element within a cartouche? >> 5. The justified/vindicated groups following the names within >> cartouches, I've taken to be meaning, "it is true to say" in prefix. >> I'm a little uneasy about that as it could just as easily, and likely >> more probably, be a part of the King's name-set. >The second solution is the good one. When you have read the whole >text, you'll see that mAa-xrw is added after most royal names, either >because the kings were dead at the date the story happens (so you can >translate snfrw mAa-xrw by : "the late Snefru") or as an automatism, >as these kings where dead when the scribe actually wrote the story (so >we have a number of "xwfw mAa-xrw"). It's an automatism, like adding >anx-wDA-snb after certain names. Ah, yes, I see. I suppose it's not entirely dissimilar to a phrase used in England when referring to people for whom the speaker has respect, for instance, "Her Majesty the Queen, God bless her!" >> 7. I am intrigued by Geoff's translit of (M23-X1:N35) as n.y-sw.t >> instead of swtn. Whilst it is, of course, in line with Gardiner, who >> says that the word probably was pronounced ni-swt, can anyone tell me >> whence Gardiner, and presumably others, drew that conclusion? > >I can't tell the whole story, but we have a few transcriptions in >other languages that point to this reading : e.g. GEG p 51, note 1, quotes >insibya as a cuneiform rendering of nsw-bity. Thanks for pointing it out. I noticed that the text on page 50 is useful in this regard as well. >A little correction : > >In "r-mn-n Hrw pn", r-mn-n is a composite preposition that means "until". The more the better Serge. I made the mistake of tying up the r with the w preceding it (mental aberration missing the number 100) to make what I took to be a variant of wr (many) from Faulkner's association of it with the words bread and beer on page 63 of his ME dictionary. That left the mn m Hrw pn isolated from the r and led me straight down the wrong road! Hopefully, I shan't make that mistake again, until next time of course! :) >hope this helps, It certainly does, and thank you for it. Best regards Marc X ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:33:11 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Text, line 1 >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Fryer writes: Stephen> At 06:05 PM 97/04/13 +1100, you wrote: >> Just to get the ball rolling. What a terrible first line to >> analyse! I make the first part of the sentence a form of >> bipartite nominal syntax of the form: infinitive pw iri.n=f >> (=past relative form) >> >> The infinitive is a verbal noun, and is the predicate. The >> subject is past the relative form of iri (to do/act/etc), which >> is an adjectival phrase. In this case the translation might be: Stephen> First, we should note that this document was written down Stephen> in this form in (probably) Dynasty XIII, and is in LATE Stephen> Middle Egyptian, i.e. it contains a number of things That's definitly true ; for example : iw=f Hr wnm ... means here "he usually eat", and not "he is eating" ; in classical Middle Egyptian we would find "iw=f wnm=f" or "iw wnm=f", but this value of the sDm=f disapear in Late Egyptian. Stephen> posessive adjectives, etc.). My own general impression Stephen> of Late Egyptian is that one should never use a simple Stephen> verb tense when it was possible to use some longer mode Stephen> of expression. For example, here they could have used Stephen> the simple past form (aHa.n.f). A little precision : "aHa pw irw.n=f" is a classical formation (it still exists in Litterary Late Egyptian, though). In fact, "aHa.n sDm.n=f" simply doesn't exist for intransitive movement verbs, "aHa pw irw.n=f" is its counterpart, and has the same value. In fact, aHa.n=f would have posed a problem : intransitive movement verbs's sDm.n=f are always nominal (or "emphatic"), and thus "aHa.n=f r Dd" would have meant "it is to speak that he stood up". The non-narrative non-emphatic :-) counterpart would have been "iw=f aHa=w" (with an old perfective). regards, -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 5, rue Beranger 92240 Malakoff tel 01 48 70 37 13 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:32:59 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 5-8 Stephen Fryer typed: >At 02:14 PM 97/04/13 +0100, you wrote: >>Prince Heru-tata-f said, "It is true to say that there is a > >"iw wn" translates simply as "There is" Thanks Stephen. Serge has put me wise to the fact that mAa-xrw is a part of the King's name here and the contortions which placed it as a prefix indicating truth of speech were in error. >>commoner/person by the name of Djedi who lives in the estate of Sneferu. > >"Djed-Snofru" ia a place name so it is "he lives in Djed-Snofru" Indeed, a name I shall be sure to remember and another convolution not to be repeated. >>He is 110 years old. He eats 500 loaves of bread, together with the >>shoulder of a bull, as well as drinking many measures of beer in a >>single day." > >"h(n)qt ds 100" = one hundred jugs of beer. The sign after the jug >determinative is the number - the Egyptians loved accounting. That's where I went wrong. I didn't realise that the Z7 could be used for V1 as the number 100. Maybe I should learn to use the translit as well as the glyphs in future. >"r-mn-m hrw pn" = until this very day. Indicates that he continues in this >right up to the present. Contrary to general comment, I do not believe that >these figures are meant to imply that he is eating and drinking an >incredible amount. Figures of a persons rations are generally for a period >of time (in Ramesside times they seem to be for a month) and usually mean >supplies for his household. I'm not sure exactly what the figures given >here were meant to imply - probably what is generally assumed, that Djedi >was vigorous and prosperous. Agreed, Djedi would be a sight to behold, if he could even have survived such a diet. >> :)) = writer is happy and has double chin (?) Or egg on face! :) Thanks Stephen, for your help. Best regards Marc X ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:49:23 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Ahmose Text At 10:21 PM 97/04/13 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks to Stephen Fryer for putting up the glphs for those of us who >don't have McScribe ,etc. I realize that I didn't announce this officially on the list yet (OOPS!). There is an image of the text at: http://pr.mala.bc.ca/~fryersj/Egyptian/Ahmose.html or you can get to it (and other stuff) through my home page at: http://pr.mala.bc.ca/~fryersj/ It is a short passage from a Dynasty XVIII funerary biography. >Here is what I make of the passage. I don't >really know how to transcribe the glyphs in an acceptable way, but I >think I know what they say. > A transliteration of the first line is Hr(y)-Xnyt iaHms Dd-f >> (so says the Admiral of the Fleet, Ahmose): Faulkner has "Captain of sailors" for Ahmose's title. I'm not sure exactly what it actually entailed - it seems that the study of official titles is quite a difficult one. "Captain of sailors Ahmose says:" > > Dd n tn rt nb.t Dd-i n-tn r(m)Tt nbt > > I speak to you, each and every one I would take the verb starting this sentence to be something like "Let me / I shall speak..." since a bare verb form at the beginning of a sentence isn't usually a simple statement of fact in Middle Egytpian. Also I might translate it without the "to you" as being perhaps redundant in English. "Let me speak to (you) all people (=everyone)" > > dd rx tn hnt xpr.t n yw w< The "iwa-kwi" belongs to the next sentence, leaving di-i rx-tn Hs-wt xprt n-i > > I bid you recognize the honors that were bestowed upon me The expression using "di" is a causative and since it comes first in its sentence we should probably translate this as: "Let me make known to you the favours which were done for me." > > kwy m nwb sp (7) xft hr n t3wy r drf iwa-kwy m nbw sp 7 xft Hr n tA r Dr-f > > I have been awarded the Gold seven times before the whole land The implication of "xft Hr" is "in the presence of". It is interesting that the stative ending is spelled out in full phonetically here. You translation stands quite well as it is. > > hm hmt rmy.t ty r S3H kwy m 3Ht S3 > > Male and female slaves were given to me and I was awarded great estates Hm-w Hm-wt r mitt irw The first part of this is sort of a continuation of the previous statement, and contains the phrase "r mitt irw" meaning "likewise" or perhaps in this context we could translate it "to match" "...and male and female servants to match." The second half I prefer as a separate sentence: sAH-kwi m AHt aSA wrt The word "wrt" here is the adverb meaning "very" modifying the adjective "aSa" "I was endowed the very many fields." > > wrt yw rn n qn nht ym ir-t n-f > > The greatness of the name of a valiant fighting man is in proportion to > his deeds This one is a little difficult to understand. It could be transliterated as iw rn n qn m ir-t n-f or iw rn n qn m irt-n-f The last part could be a relative with indirect object "what is done for him" or a past relative tense "what he has done." Myself I think I prefer the latter interpretation: "The reputation of a hero ("Brave") is in what he has done ("his deeds") > > nn n Ht tm m wr m t3wy > > may it never become obscured or disappear in the Two Lands nn Htm m tA pn Dt Your translation looks basically OK except that he says "this land". What the relationship of this is to the previous and following statements, I am not sure. This might be referring back to his reputation for heroism, or it might be introducing the catalog of heroic actions which follows. If we take the first approach we would have the whole thing saying "The reputation of a hero is in his deeds and will never perish in this land." The passage concludes with ini-n-i wrryt ssm-s nty Hr-s m sqr-anx "I brought a chariot, its horses and what (who?) was on it as prisoner" I am not sure whether to take "nty Hr-s" as referring to the chariot's equipment and decoration or to the charioteer. The latter might be implied by the use of the term "prisoner" If we take the previous statement to be an introduction to this (and perhaps other items not included in this reading passage) we might have "It will never perish in this land that I captured a chariot with its horses and equipment (or driver?)" So, all you more expert folk out there, how are we doing on this one? Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:59:40 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Text, line 1 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk On aHa pw ir.n sA nsw: Mike and Stephen have essentially solved this one. Stephen's interpretation is exactly correct. The form of aHa is an infinitive "standing up". The sentence structure is a bi-partite sentence with pw. Pw is a demonstrative "it" (invariable, unlike the Coptic equivalents--i.e. it is used with masc. fem., and their plural forms invariably as pw). X pw means "It is x." In place of x you can substitute any noun. INFINITIVE pw iri.n.SUBJECT is a literary past tense form used ONLY with verbs of motion and a few other verbs, e.g. xpr "become, change (into)" and aHa "to stand up." (BTW "verbs of motion" mean that they involve going, coming, walking, etc. and not just that the activity involved motion.) It literally means "It is a standing up that he did." This construction is often found side by side with the aHa.n sDm.n.f construction. With verbs of motion, however, we do not find the occurrence of this with a verb of motion in the place of sDm.n.f. Rather, the construction is modified to aHa.n TOPIC STATIVE, where the stative (a.k.a "old perfective") form agrees with the topic. They all pretty much translate the same in English, namely simple past tense constructions: "Prince Hardjedef then stood up..." Nobody has, that I have seen yet, dealt with what immediately follows here: r mdt Dd.f Those of you who know might want to wait to let those not yet sure puzzle around a bit first before explaining. Jumping down a bit (I haven't had time to download the GIF version, so I don't know what line it is) Dd.in True enough, _in_ is indeed the marker of the agent "by" and regularly occurs with passive forms. Here, however, it is a verbal "infix" that occurs in the form called the "sDm.in.f" form. This form indicates sequence: "Then His Majesty said..." This indicates the next action in a sequence of actions. The bits immediately after line one are very scrappy. I would be able to supply some bits of information--we do know the general lines of the statement. If there is interest, I will fill in what I can. The phrase mAa xrw (fem. mAat xrw) that occurs after peoples' names (not just those in cartouches) means "justified" (in the court of the hereafter). When mentioning the deceased, one inserted this phrase immediately after the person's name. Note that in place names that contain the names of deceased individuals, one might also use the phrase. Stephen is correct that the copy is from the late Middle Kingdom. The text does not, however, contain Late Egyptianisms. The use of pA, tA, nA as articles began in colloquial Middle Egyptian quite early on, so their occurrence here should not be too disconcerting. We find them used even in tomb inscriptions, but only in quotations from persons of the lower classes (i.e. the nobles would not be caught dead saying pA in WRITING). This text exhibits many fine examples of Middle Egyptian forms that later dropped out of use--even before the advent of Late Egyptian. Good luck, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 00:16:49 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL RE: WESTCAR, line 7 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Serge wrote: That's definitly true ; for example : iw=f Hr wnm ... means here "he usually eat", and not "he is eating" ; in classical Middle Egyptian we would find "iw=f wnm=f" or "iw wnm=f", but this value of the sDm=f disapear in Late Egyptian. ******************** Well, this is not necessarily a Late Egyptianism here. In fact, it shows the hallmarks of excellent Middle Egyptian. First thing, we have here a circumstantial clause as modifier of a noun (relative clause with indefinite antecedant--"a NOUN who DOES" clause). Second point, time is not expressed in the "pseudo-verbal" constructions. The aspect is 1) on-going action, but also 2) repeated action. Just as in English we say, "My neice has been swimming since she was three years old." (and now that she is thirteen..., does not mean that she has been in the water for the last ten years), so the Egyptian should allow for a meaning "a commoner who has been eating 500 loaves (of bread), a side of beef, and drinking 100 jugs of beer down to this day..." Stephen's point that rations might be thought of in longer time periods is reasonable, but we are dealing with a story of MAGIC, WONDER, and MYSTERY. Djedi was not a FAT DRUNK, he was a WONDER--a miraculous person--a Paul Bunyon, so to speak. At least, that's my take on it. Best wishes to all, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:17:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Westcar Sentence 1 Hi, I am back now. It seems that discussion is progressing nicely. Rather than try to address all of the many interesting posts, many of which have been discussed a bit, I am opting to put my own interpretation of the first sentence here instead. I will try to explain some of my reasoning as well, in case this will be of help. (My pine server is acting up on me today, so I hope I will be able to send this at all!!) This is a corrected transliteration. I realized a few small errors in my first version, so take note! Also, I am restoring the lacunae in the translation, though I don't dare to fill put them into the transliteration. ;-) Notice also that I am using the relatively idiomatic English. I will get into the nitty gritty below. To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk CC: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Sentence 1 (and a few more) Geoffrey wrote : >Sentence type = existential (____ is equivalent to ____). This is a >literary device, making the narrative seem more colorful than simply >saying I think the respective values of aHa.n=f Hr sDm/iyt pw irw.n=f (A) on one side and sDm.in=f/wn.in=f Hr iyt (B) on the other side, are linked to the construction of the text. (A) introduces new parts, whereas (B) is a weaker separation, which tends to introduce sentences linked to the previous ones. This is a very usual interpretation, but in Westcar we have an interesting illustration ; the story of the royal childs' birth is repeated thrice (once for each child) ; and some sentences which begin with 'aHa.n' for the first child are repeated with sDm.in=f forms for the next two. > >I am grouping n together with rx.n.tw because n simply negates the verb. > >n rx.n.tw = negated circumstantial sDm.n.tw=f. The tw makes it into a >passive construction. (while/and ____ is not known) The verb rx has to >be used in the SDm.n=f most often where we would use a present >construction in English because the verb actually meant "get acquainted >with" or "COME to know". When one "knows" something this "getting >acquainted with" or "coming to know" has already taken place. > Usually, (I think there are exceptions to this, though) n sDm.n=f negates circumstantial sDm=f, except for "n sDm.n=f is ADVERB" which negates nominal sDm.n=f. So, I would think "n rx.n=tw mAa.t r grg" as "One can not distinguish truth from falsehood" (BTW, it seems to me on second thought that I've seen much more n rx.n=tw than n rx=tw... but in a way, it's normal : if rx means 'learn', to know is to have learnt => so "iw=i rx=kw", but "not to know" is equated with the impossibility to learn in the first place, and so we have a dissymetric pattern between the positive form and the negative one.) > >NOTE: I have modified the original transliteration. I had "n rx f...". >ON second thought the construction might be a noun formed out of an n >sDm=f similar to how jw=f-<3=f comes to be "entrepreneur" though its >literal meaning would be "he comes and he becomes great". That expression >is often used as a noun, and maybe this is one too. Literally "he is not >known" becoming "one who is not known" becoming "an unknown (person)". A remark : on Blackman's transcription, the =f is followed by a '?'. On the photograph, one can see the determinative of rx, and what is bellow is very damaged. There are two dots which might be the head and horn of f, but that's not sure. Has anyone an idea of some other possible restauration ? =k ? (doesn't seem to fit). regards -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 5, rue Beranger 92240 Malakoff tel 01 48 70 37 13 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:15:04 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Ahmose Text Dear Stephen and List Members, Just a few words about *translation*: The first point is most obvious--Egypytian is not English. The two languages (at least where we stand now with English) have very diverse ways of expressing the same thoughts. Therefore it must follow that, if we attempt to translate Egyptian into English precisely as to what we *think* the Egyptians were saying and following the pattern of how they said it, we are liable to get some very clumsy English. In fact, I maintain that we absolutely cannot even settle for clumsy English 100% of the time because, if we try, a lot of times we will get what amounts to *impossibly weird* English. There is simply no way to get around this fact. So, it is my feeling that, as long as we are forced to take some license with Egyptian, anyway, by sheer virtue of its being so different from English, we might as well go all the way and put the texts into a good and even literary English. Sometimes, to achieve this end, we may even have to ignore some points of grammar. In fact, to stick tenaciously to the grammar at all costs is not even possible--not if proper English is to be the end result. The people who composed the written record of ancient Egypt were literary men. If they were royal scribes, one would think their Egyptian would have been of the highest order. However they expressed their thoughts, it was surely the best Egyptian and the best writing available at that time. I think we can serve the texts best by , in our turn, putting them into a fluent English as opposed to a choppy one, but by no means losing sight of what the original author intended to say. Translation is really an art in itself and its first credo is not to slavishly follow the syntax, the grammar, of the language being translated. Marianne Luban So ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:27:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Suredesign@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL A Helpful Assist If you are working through Westcar and get stumped and think you have an English equivalent for the next phrase, a good reference to check is David Shennum's "English Egyptian Index of Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian". It has gotten me back on the right path many times by either confirming or denying my supposition. I got my copy from the Oriental Institute Suq for $25 Al Berens suredesign@aol.com ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:33:11 -0700 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Well no one else seems to have started this part, so I'll start off (and make a target of myself). First of all we have three parallel sentences that start with "iw-f rx". I'm taking the "rx" to be the stative "rx-w", so the opening of all of them is "He has learned...," that is "He knows..." The first two of these sentences continue with an infinitive, giving the meaning of "...how to..." The first sentence: iw-f rx(-w) Ts tp Hsq(-w) "He knows how to reattach a head which is cut off." The meaning is fairly clear, but I'm not sure of the form of the verb "Hsq" - I would take it to be a relative or a stative - comments? The second sentence: iw-f rx(-w) rdi-t Sm mAi Hr sA-f ?-f Hr tA "He knows how to make a lion walk behind him with its leash on the ground." There are some difficulties with this translation. For one thing Faulkner lists this use of the sign V12 in his "Readings Unknown or Doubtful" section (p.227). Presumably it means that he can teach lions to "heel" like a dog, although I seem to remember that Miriam Lichtheim thinks that some material may have been left out here (I don't have that here at the moment). The construction "(r)di + infinitive" is a causative "make something happen" The third sentence breaks the pattern somewhat since "iw-f rx" is followed by a noun rather than an infinitive: iw-f rx(-w) tnw ip-wt n-t wnt n-t DHwty "He knows the number of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth." The next sentence is an explanatory comment, not part of the prince's speech. It ex[lains why the last statement is something of special interest to the king. ist wrS Hm n n-sw-bit xfw mAat-xrw Hr HHy n-f nA-n ipt n-t wnwt n-t DHwty r irt mitt iry n Axt-f "For the Majesty of King Khufu, justified, spent much time in searching for himself these secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth in order to make their likeness for his tomb." The term "n Axt-f" starts out with the sign usually used for negation, however it is found sometimes for the more usual "n" sign - they were actually rather similar in Hieratic and represent a similar consonantal value. Literally it is "for his horizon" with "horizon" refering to the palce where he (like the setting sun) enters the underworld. "wrS ... Hr HHy" The opening verb means to spend time, but since it includes the word for "big" (wr), this may have been felt as "spending a lot of time" - comments? The "Hr + infinitive" is a description of repeated or continuous ongoing action, so I translate it as "spent much time in searching" The "n-f" following "HHy" would imply that he is seeking it either on his own or for his own purposes. OK, there's what I make of it, so now you can all tell me where I made mistakes, and hopefully clarify some of the points that were unclear to me. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 06:07:02 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Westcar Text, line To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: RE>>AEL Westcar Text, line 1 Regarding the description of the first part of the first sentence, James wrote: >INFINITIVE pw iri.n.SUBJECT >sentence structure is a bi-partite sentence with pw [full text of James' mail is given below] I thought Predicate-pw-subject would be tripartite rather than a bipartite nominal expression. Can someone comment on this please? Regards, Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne,Australia mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- [James Hoch wrote] On aHa pw ir.n sA nsw: Mike and Stephen have essentially solved this one. Stephen's interpretation is exactly correct. The form of aHa is an infinitive "standing up". The sentence structure is a bi-partite sentence with pw. Pw is a demonstrative "it" (invariable, unlike the Coptic equivalents--i.e. it is used with masc. fem., and their plural forms invariably as pw). X pw means "It is x." In place of x you can substitute any noun. INFINITIVE pw iri.n.SUBJECT is a literary past tense form used ONLY with verbs of motion and a few other verbs, e.g. xpr "become, change (into)" and aHa "to stand up." (BTW "verbs of motion" mean that they involve going, coming, walking, etc. and not just that the activity involved motion.) It literally means "It is a standing up that he did." This construction is often found side by side with the aHa.n sDm.n.f construction. With verbs of motion, however, we do not find the occurrence of this with a verb of motion in the place of sDm.n.f. Rather, the construction is modified to aHa.n TOPIC STATIVE, where the stative (a.k.a "old perfective") form agrees with the topic. They all pretty much translate the same in English, namely simple past tense constructions: "Prince Hardjedef then stood up..." Nobody has, that I have seen yet, dealt with what immediately follows here: r mdt Dd.f [rest snipped] Good luck, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:27:15 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL A Helpful Assist At 11:27 AM 97/04/15 -0400, you wrote: >Shennum's "English Egyptian Index of Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle >Egyptian". It has gotten me back on the right path many times by either >confirming or denying my supposition. > >I got my copy from the Oriental Institute Suq for $25 I just got this useful book, but $18 from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com) - sometimes their prices are better sometimes they're not. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:22:13 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Stephen Fryer wrote: (snipped a bit) > > The first sentence: > iw-f rx(-w) Ts tp Hsq(-w) > "He knows how to reattach a head which is cut off." > The meaning is fairly clear, but I'm not sure of the form of the verb "Hsq" > - I would take it to be a relative or a stative - comments? It is odd, but it seems to be just "severed". Another attestation is Peasant 289 "Dzw < tp Hsq" or "men (who can) restore a severed head". > > The second sentence: > iw-f rx(-w) rdi-t Sm mAi Hr sA-f ?-f Hr tA > "He knows how to make a lion walk behind him with its leash on the ground." > There are some difficulties with this translation. For one thing Faulkner > lists this use of the sign V12 in his "Readings Unknown or Doubtful" section > (p.227). Presumably it means that he can teach lions to "heel" like a dog, > although I seem to remember that Miriam Lichtheim thinks that some material > may have been left out here (I don't have that here at the moment). The > construction "(r)di + infinitive" is a causative "make something happen" Maybe it's just "his nose by the ground", meaning that the beast was tamed and became docile. Lichtheim's "leash" doesn't appeal to me--a bit fanciful. Unless there's some sort of determinative. I don't have the glyphs before me. > > The third sentence breaks the pattern somewhat since "iw-f rx" is followed > by a noun rather than an infinitive: > iw-f rx(-w) tnw ip-wt n-t wnt n-t DHwty > "He knows the number of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth." > > The next sentence is an explanatory comment, not part of the prince's > speech. It ex[lains why the last statement is something of special interest > to the king. > ist wrS Hm n n-sw-bit xfw mAat-xrw Hr HHy n-f nA-n ipt n-t wnwt n-t > DHwty r irt mitt iry n Axt-f > "For the Majesty of King Khufu, justified, spent much time in searching > for himself these secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth in order to make > their likeness for his tomb." > The term "n Axt-f" starts out with the sign usually used for negation, > however it is found sometimes for the more usual "n" sign - they were > actually rather similar in Hieratic and represent a similar consonantal > value. Literally it is "for his horizon" with "horizon" refering to the > palce where he (like the setting sun) enters the underworld. > "wrS ... Hr HHy" The opening verb means to spend time, but since it includes > the word for "big" (wr), this may have been felt as "spending a lot of time" > - comments? The "Hr + infinitive" is a description of repeated or > continuous ongoing action, so I translate it as "spent much time in searching" > The "n-f" following "HHy" would imply that he is seeking it either on his > own or for his own purposes. Lichtheim, for some reason, likes "temple". Your idea is fitting because who would be more interested in secret chambers than the builder of the Great Pyramid? However, if you want "horizon", there's got to be a definite determinative there of the solar disc. BTW, "yaxu-t Khufu" is the name of the Pyramid of Khufu and "yaxu-t HH" is "the tomb". I don't have the glyps right now, as I said, but maybe it's just "for his own glory". > > OK, there's what I make of it, so now you can all tell me where I made > mistakes, and hopefully clarify some of the points that were unclear to me. > > Stephen Fryer Same here. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:34:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Hi, Stephen, You wrote: > iw-f rx(-w) Ts tp Hsq(-w) > "He knows how to reattach a head which is cut off." > The meaning is fairly clear, but I'm not sure of the form of the verb "Hsq" > - I would take it to be a relative or a stative - comments? Firstly, though your transliteration is just fine and perfectly correct, I do want to point out, for those who are interested, that Ts "tie/bind/join" came from an original Old Kingdom T3z, and should not be confused with Tzj "lift/elevate/distinguish" even though most people would transliterate the two words identically as Stephen has. In certain cases, when the hieroglyphs cannot be included, it is helpful to use fuller writings in such instances where Middle Egyptian-style transliterations are quite ambiguous since one could write either verb as Ts. As for Hsq, it is a perfective passive participle, which is an adjectival form of the verb. "Severed" is the same in English. It is from the verb "sever" but it is past, passive, and adjectival, i.e. a perfective passive participle. > iw-f rx(-w) rdi-t Sm mAi Hr sA-f ?-f Hr tA > "He knows how to make a lion walk behind him with its leash on the ground." > There are some difficulties with this translation. For one thing Faulkner > lists this use of the sign V12 in his "Readings Unknown or Doubtful" section > (p.227). The reading of the sign is likely to be either "fx" or " iw-f rx(-w) tnw ip-wt n-t wnt n-t DHwty > "He knows the number of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth." Just one more suggestion for transliteration (and yours is actually quite fine) in order to avoid ambiguity: jp3.w.t are "forbidden/secret/private chambers" while jp.w.t can be "missions/tasks" (though it originates in wpj.w.t), while both of these words might conceivably be written jp.w.t. Of course, with access to the hieroglyphs this presents no problem. Also, just for those who are interested in orignal forms tnw comes from an original Tnw but at the time this text was written the palatalization had been lost. > ist wrS Hm n n-sw-bit xfw mAat-xrw Hr HHy n-f nA-n ipt n-t wnwt n-t > DHwty r irt mitt iry n Axt-f > "For the Majesty of King Khufu, justified, spent much time in searching > for himself these secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth in order to make > their likeness for his tomb." There is no [t] in m3<-xrw. m3<.t means "order/truth" which is the noun, while m3< is the adjective meaning "orderly/true/real". Had the adjective referred to a feminine noun, then the {t} would have been necessary. xwfw is however masculine, so m3< is the appropriate designation. One more side comment for those who enjoy knowing about origins: Khufu's name has been found in various locations with variant spellings. They seem to indicate that his FULL name was xwj=f-wj-Xnmw meaning "may Khnum protect me". If anyone is interested in seeing these variant spellings, he/she can find them in Juergen Bekerath's _Handbuch der aegyptischen Koenigsnamen_, Berlin, 1984, page 178. The spelling in Papyrus Westcar I is very unusual in that it seems to leave out the first {w} which is ubiquitous in inscriptions from the king's reign. > The term "n Axt-f" starts out with the sign usually used for negation, > however it is found sometimes for the more usual "n" sign - they were > actually rather similar in Hieratic and represent a similar consonantal > value. Yes, you are quite right. The water sign was a horizontal stroke and the negative arms sign was a horizontal stroke with a dot over it. Scribes accidentally put in the dot or leave it out frequently because both had the same phonetic value. > "wrS ... Hr HHy" The opening verb means to spend time, but since it includes > the word for "big" (wr), this may have been felt as "spending a lot of time" > - comments? The "Hr + infinitive" is a description of repeated or > continuous ongoing action, so I translate it as "spent much time in searching" The verb wrS is its own triliteral root and need not be compared with wr. The {swallow} was used simply to indicate the sound of /w/ followed by /r/ and had no special meaning attached to it. It can also be used in words like zwr "drink". Therefore adding in the "much" would be unnecessary. You have handled this passage quite well: good job! Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:40:56 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Hello, >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Fryer writes: Stephen> The first sentence: iw-f rx(-w) Ts tp Hsq(-w) "He knows Stephen> how to reattach a head which is cut off." The meaning is Stephen> fairly clear, but I'm not sure of the form of the verb Stephen> "Hsq" - I would take it to be a relative or a stative - Stephen> comments? I would personnaly think of a stative (old-perfective, pseudo-participle, perfect, or whatever name you like to give it), with a construction like a virtual relative clause : iw=f rx=w Ts tp (iw=f) Hsq(=w). (this is called a nexal construction : a word used in a sentence is also the subject of an adverbial sentence that follows) Because tp is not a definite noun. But perhaps I'm too Ramesside. With a stative, a closer translation would be ... a head after it has been cut off, or : ... a head which has been cut off Stephen> with this translation. For one thing Faulkner lists this Speaking of Faulkner, a remark : when he lists only one source for a word meaning, and when this source is the very text you are translating, beware ! The word might be an hapax (that is, it might be the only known occurence of the word), in which case, Faulkner's rendering is based on context. Stephen> The next sentence is an explanatory comment, not part of Stephen> the prince's speech. It ex[lains why the last statement Stephen> is something of special interest to the king. ist wrS Hm Stephen> n n-sw-bit xfw mAat-xrw Hr HHy n-f nA-n ipt n-t wnwt n-t As Geoffrey said, the relation between wrS and wr is only a coincidence. However, you are probably right to think that this describe an very involving activity from Kheops, but for grammatical reasons. I think 'wrS' he is a mrr=f (or nominal sDm=f/emphatic sDm=f/, depending of the name you give it). For thosed who work from Gardiner, I'll try to explain it with some details : The 'mrr=f' is a NOMINAL verb form. That is, the verb, its subject, and so forth, become a NOUN group (it has the denomination 'mrr=f' because 3iae inf. verbs like mry, sTi... geminate) See : * 'iw wnm=f t m pr=f' "he (usually) eats bread in his house" * 'wnm=f t m pr=f' => if 'wnm=f' is a mrr=f, then 'wnm=f t' means litterarily : 'the fact that he eats bread' and the whole sentence is an adverbial sentence : 'the-fact-that-he-eats-bread IS in his house' Which is usually rendered : "It is in his house that he eats bread" "If he eats bread, it is in his house" "he eats bread only in his house" The function of the form is to put an emphasis on the adverbial adjunct. Back to our text, let's say that if wrS is nominal, then you render the sentence litterarily as : "It is looking for the ..... that Kheops spent his time." And often with that kind of verbs, (wrS, sDr, ...) the value is almost one of exclusivity : The Majesty Kheops of king Kheops was spending his whole time looking for ... (In (very) popular french, I would say "Kheops, il etait rien qu'a chercher .... ;-) ) regards, -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 5, rue Beranger 92240 Malakoff tel 01 48 70 37 13 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:53:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Khufu Name Oops!!!! I really goofed on that translation of Khufu's name! It should be: Xnmw-xwj=f-wj "Khnum protects me". I have to get used to that aorist still! ;-) I should have followed my instincts but I started worrying about translating a sDm=f as a general present tense, yet, what would I have done with the =f in the name had its meaning been subjunctive? This is when I suddenly remembered Serge and James' words on "noun sDm=f" and it all clicked. So, having figured that out, and come right back to where I was about to begin, I am finally satisfied with this interpretation. This list is doing a lot for me because usually I just plough through Egyptian by rote, but now I am having to get much more analytical and spend more time thinking about each and every little detail. Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:18:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu cc: Graham , Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Hi, Chris, I see your point. > for hsq, i don't see why it wouldn't be old perfective. I suppose it might be but I really am not sure. Someone with a sounder grammatical background should comment here, but I feel that the stative is more likely to occur in a slightly more verbal context than this (though I mean really slightly because the stative does seem very adjectival since it refers to the state which comes about after the verb's action is complete). I am not sure whether it can be used so adjectivally as this instance seems to call for, but I could be wrong. I also kind of wonder about the relationship between third person statives and participles since their endings are often similar (Old Kingdom -j and Middle Kingdom -w, which seem not too distant from the final -y and -w which participles sometimes exhibit). I'm not sure I dare to say that they have a common source, but I sure would like to pose the question to someone who has looked into these forms in greater depth than I have. The persons to ask are really James Hoch and Antonio Loprieno, who I am sure are monitoring this exchange, maybe one of them will have some help for us. Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:12:07 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Stephen Fryer typed: >Well no one else seems to have started this part, so I'll start off (and >make a target of myself). Then allow me to suffer the slings and arrows with you. :) Purely from glyphs, translit still eludes me. (line 8 [tail end]) He is, know (how to), (line 9) rejoin, head, cut off. He is, know (how to), give, go/walk, a lion, on, after, him, leash, its, (line 10) on, ground. He is, know (how to), number***, secret chamber, of, sanctuary, of, Djehuti. (line 11) Lo (certainly?), spend much time, his majesty, King of North and South, Khufu, vindicated/justified, on, search for, that/those, this/these, to/for/in, count/examine, secret chambers, of, sanctuary, (line 12) of, Djehuti, so that, to do, of, it, likewise, thereof, for, horizon, his. All of which I took to mean: He knows how to rejoin a severed head. He knows how to command a lion to walk behind him with its leash on the ground. He knows the number of the secret chambers in the sanctuary of Djehuti. Certainly, his majesty, Khufu the justified, King of the North and the South spent a lot of time examining these secret chambers in the sanctuary of Djehuti so that he could copy them for his pyramid. Similar to your solution but not quite so elegant or informed methinks. Points arising for me were: ***line 10 The sequence X1:N35-W24-Z7-T14-G41-Y1:Z2 (or as Geoff has it [I think] tnw), I could only resolve by substituting V14 for X1, or T for t. Is this a scribal error, a transcription error or simply my lack of experience? In line 11, the nf nm n sequence looks rather cumbersome as I've understood it (that/those, this/these, to/for/in). Where am I going wrong with this? Oh and the other thing is the iri.t in line 12. I made it to be infinitive "to do" but more by luck than judgement I think and I'm not at all sure as to the how, the why or the correctness of it. Cheers all Marc X ============================================================================== From: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:58:08 -0700 (PDT) To: Graham cc: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 for hsq, i don't see why it wouldn't be old perfective. chris hoffman ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:45:23 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Marc Line wrote: > > Stephen Fryer typed: > > >Well no one else seems to have started this part, so I'll start off (and > >make a target of myself). > > Then allow me to suffer the slings and arrows with you. :) > > Purely from glyphs, translit still eludes me. > > (line 8 [tail end]) > He is, know (how to), > > (line 9) > rejoin, head, cut off. He is, know (how to), give, go/walk, a lion, on, > after, him, leash, its, Going "purely from glyphs" the word "leash" never appears at all. That is just Miriam Lichtheim's guess at what might have been there. Unless you can see something in lacunae and omissions that we can't! Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:59:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL WC 8-12 & 3rd Weak Verbs Hi, Marc, Nice job. > ***line 10 > The sequence X1:N35-W24-Z7-T14-G41-Y1:Z2 (or as Geoff has it [I think] > tnw), I could only resolve by substituting V14 for X1, or T for t. Is > this a scribal error, a transcription error or simply my lack of > experience? tnw is from an original Tnw. Middle Egyptian was slowly losing selective affricates/palatals. T in certain environments was becoming t, while D was also becoming d. The dictionaries tend to list things under their more pure standard forms, and this is yet another reason that I believe in transliterations which give MORE information rather than ones which boil things down to only what the scribe has written. However, one cannot provide that "more" information unless one has a bit of experience, so the learning process involves a stage of working with what you've got, and as you progress and learn through experience you will find new bits of information to incorporate into your future work. In this case, you just discovered a valuable tool: when you see a t, sometimes it is a good idea to also check your dictionaries under T, because the t MIGHT be a corruption of an original T. > In line 11, the nf nm n sequence looks rather cumbersome as I've > understood it (that/those, this/these, to/for/in). Where am I going > wrong with this? The problem you are encountering is ENTIRELY De Buck's handwriting. The sequence is: jst wrS Hm n.y n.y-sw.t bj.t.y xwfw m3<-xrw Hr HHy *n=f n3 n* jp3.w.t n.y.w.t wn.t n.y.t DHwty "in fact, the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, had was spending time seeking *these* forbidden-compartments of the sanctuary of Thoth *for himself*." n=f = "for him" (in this case, since the subject is identical with the dative recipiant, "himself") n3 n = "these" (literally "these of") The problem is that De Buck's vulture did not look enough like a vulture, and you read it as an owl. > Oh and the other thing is the iri.t in line 12. I made it to be > infinitive "to do" but more by luck than judgement I think and I'm not > at all sure as to the how, the why or the correctness of it. Yes, it is an infinitive. Remember that various different verb classes in Egyptian form their infinitives differently. The verbs which have final weak consonants (j and w) have feminine -t endings. The verb in quesion is actually jrj and not simply jr, as Gardiner introduces it. I believe it is very important to learn the verb's class at the time when one learns the verb instead of having to relearn everything when one finally gets to the chapter which intorduces the infinitive and various other verbal quirkinesses. Actually a large number of very common verbs are third weak. I list a few of them below with all of their radicals and their final -t endings for the infinitive: (notice that most of them have j as their third radical, but there are a few with w) 3wj.t extend 3bj.t desire 3bw.t stop/halt jwj.t come (or jj.t and jw.t can be considered separate but mean the same) jbj.t thirst jnj.t bring jrj.t do/make jTj.t take wpj.t open/judge/divide wdj.t put/push/hit/strike p3w.t have done in the past (later becomes pwj.t) prj.t emerge/go forth/leave psj.t cook/boil mrj.t love msj.t give birth/create mkj.t protect mdw.t converse/confront verbally nnj.t faint/become weak nrj.t fear rmj.t weep rSw.t rejoice rdj.t give (irregular verb but still has 3rd weak characteristics) h3j.t descend/return hrw.t become happy/content H From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 At 09:22 PM 97/04/15 -0500, you wrote: >Maybe it's just "his nose by the ground", meaning that the beast was >tamed and became docile. Lichtheim's "leash" doesn't appeal to me--a >bit fanciful. Unless there's some sort of determinative. I don't have >the glyphs before me. Unfortunately, all we have is the single sign, often used as a determinative with words associated with tying, etc. plus a single stroke, so what we have is essentially a determinative with no phonetic writing to help us figure out its precise meaning (or transliteration). >Lichtheim, for some reason, likes "temple". Your idea is fitting >because who would be more interested in secret chambers than the builder >of the Great Pyramid? However, if you want "horizon", there's got to be >a definite determinative there of the solar disc. I'm not sure why she uses "temple" rather than "tomb." Gardiner and Faulkner both give "tomb" as a secondary meaning for the word, which is written identically with "horizon." It also makes more sense to me in a symbolic sense, as I indicated in my original message. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:38:14 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 At 11:18 AM 97/04/16 -0400, you wrote: >> for hsq, i don't see why it wouldn't be old perfective. There is a problem of different terminology creeping in to confuse the issue here. Three terms have at various times and by various authors been used for this verb form: Pseudo-pariciple = old perfective = stative Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 22:23:04 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re: WESTCAR 5 ff. To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Hello! Let's take a bit of a look at line 5. iw wn nDs, Ddi rnf, Hms.f m Dd-snfrw-mAa xrw iw introduces an "existential sentence" ("There is/are/was/were..."). Ddi rn.f is a nominal clause that functions here as a circumstantial clause. Circumstantial clauses that modify (INDEFINITE) nouns are usually relative clauses ("a NOUN who..." or "a NOUN whose..." etc.). One could translate fairly literally: "There is a commoner whose name is Djedi", but other phrases may make for a better final translation: "by the name of Djedi", but one should still recognize that the clause means "Djedi being his name" at the most basic level. Hms.f m Dd-snfrw-mAa xrw Hms.f is a circumstantial sDm.f verb form and begins a circumstantial clause (notable for the ABSENCE of particle iw [etc.]). This clause also modifies the indefinite noun nDs "a commoner" and is a relative clause. Thus it is "a commoner who lives in Djed-Sonfru-Justified." The fact that the noun being modified is indefinite is an important fact, as a definite noun ("the commoner") would require a different type of construction. (Note that the concept of definite/indefinite existed even before there were articles to express the concept. LINE 9: tp Hsq(w) Serge is right on the money on this one. The key factor is that tp is indefinite--"a head" and not "the head." The stative (old perfective) is the one that occurs here. Note that the stative is essentially in the class "adverb" (whatever that turns out to be at the end of the day), but stative forms can modify nouns. The participle would seem also a likely possibility (since participles are adjectives), but experience with feminine nouns, where it is easier to distinguish between the participle and the stative makes me almost certain that it is a stative. LINE 11: Serge's idea of taking wrS as a 2nd tense form in an emphatic sentence is a good one. (I call them "explicatory sentences" because the speaker uses the construction to make a point about the circumstances under which an action took place--and not just to say that the action took place.) Circumstances include where, when, how, why, by what means, etc. Here a fairly literal translation would be: "In fact, how Khufu, justified, spent his nights was searching out for himself the ..." Of course, that can be polished up. Serge gave some excellent translation techniques of this construction. It should be considered an advanced level difficulty, so if you don't understand in detail, don't worry, you have years to learn the intricacies! LINE 12: r irt n.f irt is definitely the infinitive--how can you tell? Note that if a subject is required, the prospective sDm.f is used. But if no subject is required, the infinitive is used. A picky point, but it is best to reflect this in your translations: r + infinitive = "in order to hear"; contrasting with sDm.f "in order that he hear". LINES 11-12: What do you make of the n.f in both lines? How would you deal with it in translating for 1) a teacher, 2) a polished publication? *************************************************** You all are doing very well! It is gratifying to see that even the less experienced of you are really getting it, and are willing to put in the effort to really understand what is going on. It is easy to "wing it," but to read Egyptian you REALLY have to know the grammar. Otherwise, the ancients will throw you some really wierd lines, and you just can't guess those. Best wishes and keep up the good work, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:38:08 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 At 08:34 PM 97/04/15 -0400, you wrote: >As for Hsq, it is a perfective passive participle, which is an adjectival >form of the verb. "Severed" is the same in English. It is from the verb >"sever" but it is past, passive, and adjectival, i.e. a perfective passive >participle. Ok. I can accept that idea. However, applying the verb "sever" to a head rather than a limb doesn't feel like a properusage in my slavour of English, so I chose "which has been cut off" in my translation - just so you know why I did this. >Just one more suggestion for transliteration (and yours is actually quite >fine) in order to avoid ambiguity: jp3.w.t are "forbidden/secret/private >chambers" while jp.w.t can be "missions/tasks" (though it originates in >wpj.w.t), while both of these words might conceivably be written jp.w.t. Actually, I would probably have transliterated the word meaning "missions" with "wp" since it is written with the horns (F13) and I don't usually associate them with "ip". Does this mean that "Wapwawat" should be "Ipwawat" (or some such)? >There is no [t] in m3<-xrw. m3<.t means "order/truth" which is the noun, >while m3< is the adjective meaning "orderly/true/real". I sit (since I won't stand for such criticism) corrected. >The verb wrS is its own triliteral root and need not be compared with wr. >The {swallow} was used simply to indicate the sound of /w/ followed by /r/ >and had no special meaning attached to it. It can also be used in words >like zwr "drink". Therefore adding in the "much" would be unnecessary. I was mostly wondering whether the Egyptians felt any symbolic (as opposed to literal or etymological) significance in the presence of "wr" in the spelling. I have a feeling that at least in the Ptolemaic much might have been made of it. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:38:16 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 At 11:12 AM 97/04/16 +0100, you wrote: >Stephen Fryer typed: > >>Well no one else seems to have started this part, so I'll start off (and >All of which I took to mean: > >He knows how to rejoin a severed head. He knows how to command a lion >to walk behind him with its leash on the ground. He knows the number of >the secret chambers in the sanctuary of Djehuti. Certainly, his >majesty, Khufu the justified, King of the North and the South spent a >lot of time examining these secret chambers in the sanctuary of Djehuti >so that he could copy them for his pyramid. > >Similar to your solution but not quite so elegant or informed methinks. > >Points arising for me were: > >***line 10 >The sequence X1:N35-W24-Z7-T14-G41-Y1:Z2 (or as Geoff has it [I think] >tnw), I could only resolve by substituting V14 for X1, or T for t. Is >this a scribal error, a transcription error or simply my lack of >experience? Faulkner cross-references this "tnw" to "Tnw" as being a later form, where the original "T" had become "t" a phenomenon common in the development of Egyptian at this period. There are many other examples readily availble, e.g. the suffixes 2nd pers. sing. f. T -> t 2nd pers. plur. Tn -> tn >In line 11, the nf nm n sequence looks rather cumbersome as I've >understood it (that/those, this/these, to/for/in). Where am I going >wrong with this? Well, the "n-f" goes with "HHy" (to search) and means "for him(self)". The bird under the "n" is an "aleph" not an "m", so it transliterates as "nA n" (or "n3 n" if you prefer that style) which is a plural demonstrative "these". >Oh and the other thing is the iri.t in line 12. I made it to be >infinitive "to do" but more by luck than judgement I think and I'm not >at all sure as to the how, the why or the correctness of it. I think this is indeed the infinitive, following the preposition "r" (to), which comes out almost identically in both structure and meaning in English "to make" - expressing his purpose or intention. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:43:26 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL A Helpful Assist At 03:27 PM 97/04/15 -0700, you wrote: >At 11:27 AM 97/04/15 -0400, you wrote: >>Shennum's "English Egyptian Index of Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle >>Egyptian". It has gotten me back on the right path many times by either >>confirming or denying my supposition. >> >>I got my copy from the Oriental Institute Suq for $25 > >I just got this useful book, but $18 from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com) - >sometimes their prices are better sometimes they're not. I would like to say that I did not intend this to be in any way a put-down of you or the SUQ. It can pay to check around on pricing though - I saved $7 on this book at Amazon, but I realized (too late) that I could have got Gardiner from the SUQ for $7 less. Your idea about using Shennum to double-check translations, while actually an old translator's trick, hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for mentioning it! Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:57:16 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 16-18 Hello all A tentative interpretation of lines 16-18 of part 1 of the Westcar exercise, leaving a blank space of lines 13-15 in the hope that someone else might have a stab at them. If anyone feels that I'm being monopolist or "jumping the gun", please feel free to tell me, either on- list or off. I cannot be offended! :) Again, just from glyphs: (line 16) Further, as a result of, these, because, ships, moor, at, bank, travel, this, (line 17) make, his, on land, sitting, his, in, palanquin, of, ebony, carrying poles (line 18) of, an expensive wood, mount, in, gold Which, to me at least, means: Later, when the ships were moored at the riverbank, he made his way overland, sitting in his ebony palanquin which had carrying poles made of expensive wood, mounted with gold. Hopefully that's something close to correct. It sounds like a very civilised mode of transport. Looking forward to critique and/or suggestions. Regards Marc X ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:15:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Hi, Marianne, > Going "purely from glyphs" the word "leash" never appears at all. That > is just Miriam Lichtheim's guess at what might have been there. Unless > you can see something in lacunae and omissions that we can't! The word is supplied by what happens later in the papyrus when Djedi gets to the audience hall and performs his tricks for the king. Of course, you could not have known that unless you had gone way ahead to that section. Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:14:28 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Stephen typed: I asked: >>***line 10 >>The sequence X1:N35-W24-Z7-T14-G41-Y1:Z2 (or as Geoff has it [I think] >>tnw), I could only resolve by substituting V14 for X1, or T for t. Is >>this a scribal error, a transcription error or simply my lack of >>experience? >Faulkner cross-references this "tnw" to "Tnw" as being a later form, where >the original "T" had become "t" a phenomenon common in the development of >Egyptian at this period. There are many other examples readily availble, >e.g. the suffixes > 2nd pers. sing. f. T -> t > 2nd pers. plur. Tn -> tn Having looked at the dictionary again I can see it now. >>In line 11, the nf nm n sequence looks rather cumbersome as I've >>understood it (that/those, this/these, to/for/in). Where am I going >>wrong with this? >Well, the "n-f" goes with "HHy" (to search) and means "for him(self)". Aha! Yes, and what a silly mistake to make. I was reading the n-f as the demonstrative "that/those" instead of two words "for him". I think one of the errors in my approach is that I try to group glyphs into the largest meaningful groupings according to the dictionary. >The >bird under the "n" is an "aleph" not an "m", so it transliterates as "nA n" >(or "n3 n" if you prefer that style) which is a plural demonstrative "these". Oops! Sorry, that was an error in the posting. I read the vulture as an owl when typing nf nm n although I'd earlier treated it as nA n. However, I had taken the final n to be a stand-alone preposition, not realising that it should be seen as a part of the preceding nA demonstrative. (I find all these grammatical terms most confusing but it's slowly beginning to sink in.) Thanks, again, for your help. Regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:52:11 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Stephen Fryer wrote: > > At 09:22 PM 97/04/15 -0500, you wrote: > >Maybe it's just "his nose by the ground", meaning that the beast was > >tamed and became docile. Lichtheim's "leash" doesn't appeal to me--a > >bit fanciful. Unless there's some sort of determinative. I don't have > >the glyphs before me. Stephen: > Unfortunately, all we have is the single sign, often used as a determinative > with words associated with tying, etc. plus a single stroke, so what we have > is essentially a determinative with no phonetic writing to help us figure > out its precise meaning (or transliteration). Unfortunately, I have lost the ability (temporarily, I hope) to access the web site with the glyphs, so I have to assume the the sign is V6. Lichtheim is quite right to make it "leash" because the V6 with a single stroke does mean "cord, string, rope". Nevertheless, it can't have been a very fancy "leash", otherwise a word such as "DHr" (leather strap) might have been involved. Obviously it's not in the text, but, in my dictionary, there is actually a word "q3H3" that is given as having the meaning of "to tame lions", for one thing! Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 02:58:41 -0500 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Christopher Jacobs Subject: AEL Westcar lines 8-12, esp. 9 and 12 When I read the other posted translations, I was pleased that my own was generally quite similar. However, I was not able to recognize the rdi-t in line 9, which I was reading as rat, confusing the spelling with the Sun goddess minus the concentric circles determinative. Thus the word was making no sense to me. Is the rdi hand often missing the cake or whatever it is giving? In lines 11-12 I came up with: "Indeed, his majesty King Khufu, the vindicated, would seek out those chambers of Thoth's sanctuary until he did (it) like he was not making his tomb!" (Now that would really be going all out for an obsession!) I read the r as "until" and I was under the impression that mtt was usually "like" in a more comparative sense and "tut" was usual for "likeness" --however, the scroll determinative after mtt did not register with me when I made my first translation. Also, I agree with Marianne Luban that a final translation/interpretation should be rendered in smooth contemporary English, but as a beginner I think it is also valuable to see the literal word-for-word parallels first. This helps get a feel for the sentence structure and idiomatic expressions more easily with the English words following the Egyptian pattern--then seeing what it really means right after it (or under it). Although lacking the smooth version, this was one of the few useful features I found in the interlinear reading exercises of Budge's "textbook." Gardiner only used an interlinear format in a few early exercises. I do appreaciate reading the literary final product, but like it with the literal version, as it aids in understanding how the Egyptians thought. ...Just like learning Greek by reading a literal interlinear New Testament with a parallel English version is much easier (I think) than going straight to Herodotus, with only a side-by-side scholar's translation and a few notes. ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:26:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Hi, Stephen, > I'm not sure why she uses "temple" rather than "tomb." Gardiner and > Faulkner both give "tomb" as a secondary meaning for the word, which is > written identically with "horizon." It also makes more sense to me in a > symbolic sense, as I indicated in my original message. You are right. It is the tomb, because cosmologically the Akhet was a sort of compartment that the sun passed through on its way from the upper world to the lower world, and there was also another Akhet which it passed through on its way back in the opposite direction at the eastern horizon. We use the english word horizon for the Akhet, while for the Egyptians it constituted a whole realm just beyong the horizon. The picture sign for the word consists of the sun passing into the earth between two mountains, and it is determined by the house sign, whether it was used for a tomb or whether it was used for the horizon (both cases). Each tomb that was built hoped to serve as a model of the real Akhet so that it was a way station between worlds. See James P. Allen's Genesis in Egypt, YES 2 for a discussion of the cosmology involved. Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:35:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Hi, Stephen, > Actually, I would probably have transliterated the word meaning "missions" > with "wp" since it is written with the horns (F13) and I don't usually > associate them with "ip". Does this mean that "Wapwawat" should be > "Ipwawat" (or some such)? Yes, and you would be quite right to do so. Wpj.t was however becoming jp.t, as evidenced by some later writings and Coptic. Gardiner gives the word as jp.t, and this is due to the later writings. No, I think Wepwawet kept its w. > I was mostly wondering whether the Egyptians felt any symbolic (as opposed > to literal or etymological) significance in the presence of "wr" in the > spelling. I have a feeling that at least in the Ptolemaic much might have > been made of it. Sometimes cryptographic writing plays with the signs in this way, but this papyrus is not cryptographic. Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:14:56 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Marianne typed: >Marc Line wrote: >> (line 9) >> rejoin, head, cut off. He is, know (how to), give, go/walk, a lion, on, >> after, him, leash, its, >Going "purely from glyphs" the word "leash" never appears at all. That >is just Miriam Lichtheim's guess at what might have been there. Unless >you can see something in lacunae and omissions that we can't! Hi Marianne No, indeed my eyesight is poor enough to mistake vultures for owls on occasion. The glyphs I'm using are those which Michael kindly prepared and which Mark made available to us at http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/ In that rendition, line 9 ends with Gardiner's V12 Z1 I9. As I don't have access to any other material relating to Westcar I'm relying on Faulkner's dictionary which lists the V12-Z1 combination in the "Readings unknown or doubtful" section on page 327. Faulkner ascribes the meaning "leash" although as Geoff and Serge have said, it is a hapax and must therefore be treated with caution. I don't know whether Faulkner deduced his meaning from the context unaided or simply took the meaning from Lichtheim as I've never seen her comments on this papyrus. I would love to see a facsimile of the original papyrus if you, or anyone else, can tell me where I can find one. Sorry for the confusion but thanks for your help. Regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:27:48 +0100 From: Mark Wilson To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 16-18 Marc Line wrote: > If anyone feels that I'm being > monopolist or "jumping the gun", please feel free to tell me, either > on- list or off. I cannot be offended! :) Hello Marc, Yes, you have just reminded me that it is supposed to be 2 or 3 sentences or so per person. It's just a suggestion of course, but maybe all those who have offered translations so far should now stand aside and let the others have ago. I'm sure that of the total 145 list members, there are a few others out there who might like to have a go. Best Regards, Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:56:15 -0700 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 Well, here I go again, mainly because I'm having a few problems with thes lines and no-one else has addressed them yet. Dd-in Hm-f :Ds-k irf Hr-ddf sA-i ini-t-k n-i sw This would seem to mean: "Then His Majesty said,'You, yourself, shall bring him to me, Hardedef, my son.'" The problem I have is figuring out what form "ini-t-k" is. My best guess is that it is a prospective form (ini-t-k), with the W being stuck in, as in Late Egyptian (I understand), to indicate that the "t" is not silent. This would be sort of a command, only rather than imperative, "fetch him," the king makes what almost a statement of fact about the future "you will fetch him." Comments would be most welcome on this! aHa-n sspd aHaw n n-sw sA Hr-ddf "And so ships were made ready for Prince Hardedef." "aHa-n sDm" is a form of past tense used in narratives, with I believe a sort of continuative idea, which is why I start out my translation with "And so..." Perhaps James or Geoff or Serge would like to comment on this? I'm not sure whether to transliterate the ships as "aHaw-w". SAs pw iri-n-f m xntyt r Dd-snfrw-mAa-Hrw I think this means (rather literally): "He journeyed in (a southerly voyage?) to Djed-Snofru-the-Justified" The problem is that while the term "xntyt" means a voyage upstream (South), there is a sign in the middle of it which doesn't appear to belong there, and which I can only account for as a transcription error, either by the ancient scribes or the modern ones - it would be interesting to see the original hieratic. If the ancient scribes stuck it in, does anyone have any idea why they might have made such a spelling error, other that general ignorance and stupidity? If my emendation is correct then a smoother translation might be: "He journeyed south by boat to Djed-Snefru." As I have indicated, help with some of these problems would be appreciated (certainly by me and probably by others). Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:21:43 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Westcar lines 8-12, esp. 9 and 12 At 02:58 AM 97/04/17 -0500, you wrote: >When I read the other posted translations, I was pleased that my own was >generally quite similar. However, I was not able to recognize the rdi-t in >line 9, which I was reading as rat, confusing the spelling with the Sun >goddess minus the concentric circles determinative. Thus the word was making >no sense to me. Is the rdi hand often missing the cake or whatever it is giving? Yes this is frequently (usually?) the case for things transcribed from hieratic, as the various arm signs all come out looking the same in hieratic. If you check the sign list in Budge (p.57) he gives both transcriptions for the simple arm sign (his 4-59), although he transcribes this and 4-63 as "da" rather than "di" >(Now that would really be going all out for an obsession!) I read the r as >"until" and I was under the impression that mtt was usually "like" in a more >comparative sense and "tut" was usual for "likeness" --however, the scroll >determinative after mtt did not register with me when I made my first >translation. "r mitt iry" is a common phrase meaning "something like it" > >Also, I agree with Marianne Luban that a final translation/interpretation >should be rendered in smooth contemporary English, but as a beginner I think >it is also valuable to see the literal word-for-word parallels first. This >helps get a feel for the sentence structure and idiomatic expressions more >easily with the English words following the Egyptian pattern--then seeing >what it really means right after it (or under it). Although lacking the >smooth version, this was one of the few useful features I found in the >interlinear reading exercises of Budge's "textbook." Gardiner only used an >interlinear format in a few early exercises. I do appreaciate reading the >literary final product, but like it with the literal version, as it aids in >understanding how the Egyptians thought. ...Just like learning Greek by >reading a literal interlinear New Testament with a parallel English version >is much easier (I think) than going straight to Herodotus, with only a >side-by-side scholar's translation and a few notes. I think we would probably all agree that literal translations (of varying degrees of strictness) are extremely useful in figuring out what the Egyptian says, but that they should never be considered an end product, which should be in "good" English. Where the fur is really likely to start flying is in dealing with that word "good". As for Budge's interlinear translations, in case you aren't already aware of it, they represent an understanding of Egyptian words and grammar from 100 years ago, and while helpful, should always be taken 'magno cum grano salis' Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:17:50 -0500 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Christopher Jacobs Subject: AEL Westcar translation lines 13-19 Here is my attempt at this passage, with a few parenthetical questions or inferences. 13 His majesty said, "Will you, yourself, bring* him to me?" 14 (He then) stood up (and) made sharp/effective boats of the royal son Hordidif. 15 It is a traveling that he did as head of/(in the leading?) boat to Djed-Snofru-Justified. 16 And further after, these of (the) ships (having) moored to shore, he traveled 17 by land. He made sweet/pleasant (i.e. traveled pleasantly) in a palanquin of plow-sycamore carrying poles 18 in it, made-sweet (finely finished?) sycamore mounted to it in gold. 19 And then after a month he came to Djedi. *I read line 13's inintuk as ini-n-tu-k, coming up with a 2nd person passive past, "you were/had been brought" but it didn't make sense. What is the explanation for this form? ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:21:47 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 16-18 At 09:27 PM 97/04/17 +0100, you wrote: > >Yes, you have just reminded me that it is supposed to be 2 or 3 >sentences or so per person. It's just a suggestion of course, but maybe >all those who have offered translations so far should now stand aside >and let the others have ago. > >I'm sure that of the total 145 list members, there are a few others >out there who might like to have a go. > I'm all in favour of this, however I needed some help with several points in lines, so I posted (after a delay to give someone else a chance to ask - I doubt if I'm the only one puzzled by these points!) what I had so far on those lines. So, to all those lurkers out there - PLEASE ask questions if you don't understand something in what you're trying to translate (and I do hope you're trying) and don't be afraid to post whatever you have so far accomplished - we're all (well, most of us) struggling here! Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 00:33:00 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL WC 8-12 & 3rd Weak Verbs Geoff typed: >Hi, Marc, Hello Geoff >Nice job. Thank you! More by luck than judgement at this stage I think. I shan't be happy until I understand the grammar of it. snipped about T becoming t and D becoming d >so the >learning process involves a stage of working with what you've got, and as >you progress and learn through experience you will find new bits of >information to incorporate into your future work. Quite, and I am finding this list invaluable for picking up those bits of information, the following being a prime example of that. >In this case, you just discovered a valuable tool: when you see a t, >sometimes it is a good idea to also check your dictionaries under T, >because the t MIGHT be a corruption of an original T. There was something else in a similar vein which puzzled me for a bit, until I was lucky to stumble across the solution to it. In line 9, what you transliterate as rdj.t, from the glyphs seemed to be r> In line 11, the nf nm n sequence looks rather cumbersome as I've >> understood it (that/those, this/these, to/for/in). Where am I going >> wrong with this? > >The problem you are encountering is ENTIRELY De Buck's handwriting. The >sequence is: > >jst wrS Hm n.y n.y-sw.t bj.t.y xwfw m3<-xrw Hr HHy *n=f n3 n* jp3.w.t >n.y.w.t wn.t n.y.t DHwty > >"in fact, the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, had >was spending time seeking *these* forbidden-compartments of the >sanctuary of Thoth *for himself*." > >n=f = "for him" (in this case, since the subject is identical with the >dative recipiant, "himself") > >n3 n = "these" (literally "these of") The problem is that De Buck's >vulture did not look enough like a vulture, and you read it as an owl. Thanks for this Geoff. If I could be dishonest I'd allow the blame to rest with De Buck but it's not in my nature. His vulture may well be rather owlish but the fault is my own and there is no excusing it. I'm working solely from the glyphs which Michael set for us and referring to your translit as and when necessary to clarify things here. I don't have access to De Buck yet, even though it is on order. When I typed out nf nm n I mistook the vulture for an owl or mistyped the 3 as an m. However, at the translation stage, I'd read it as nf n3 n and treated the nf as a single word demonstrative (that/those) rather than relating it as n=f to the HHy (search) preceding it. To complicate matters further, I'd failed to allow for the final n to be a genitival adjective connecting the n3 demonstrative to the noun group "secret chambers...". Instead, I was thinking of the n as the preposition to/for/in and getting in a right muddle. In the end I ignored the confusing words and went for sense rather than confidence. I've since read Gardiner's lesson IX and learned the error of my ways! :) I'm still having to look in the English dictionary for the definitions of the grammatical terms which are used here but the exciting thing is that I'm actually beginning to understand some of it!!! snipped list of 3rd weak verbs >I hope this list, though NOT a complete one at all, might be of some help >to some of you. Printed and pinned up for reference. Thanks Geoff, for your much appreciated help. Best regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 01:00:27 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 16-18 Mark Wilson typed: >Hello Marc, > >Yes, you have just reminded me that it is supposed to be 2 or 3 >sentences or so per person. It's just a suggestion of course, but maybe >all those who have offered translations so far should now stand aside >and let the others have ago. > >I'm sure that of the total 145 list members, there are a few others >out there who might like to have a go. Hi Mark I wondered as I was typing the previous post whether I was getting a little over-enthusiastic so I thought I perhaps ought to ask. Your point is well taken and thanks for the clarification. We are very fortunate to have some very accomplished authorities on the Egyptian language on this list. I hope that the gentle and helpful manner in which my own errors have been corrected by them, and the invaluable information which they have presented in relation to points raised so far, will serve to encourage others, who like myself have never tackled a translation like this before, to have a go. There's nothing to lose and so much to gain. Best regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:24:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar translation lines 13-19 Hi, Christopher, Welcome to the discussion. This was a good first attempt at the text. Congratulations. > 13 His majesty said, "Will you, yourself, bring* him to me?" Good. You did leave out "Hardedef, my son", though. I had not thought of this as a question, but there is no reason why it could not be one actually. Your question about jnj.tw=k is a very good one, which I am glad that you bring up. I believe that that {w} is not semantic, and simply reflects the fact that the {t} should be pronounced hard, giving [jnj.t=k]. The prospective form of the verb "jnj" has this one little irregularity, that it produces an unexpected {t}, very much like the verbs "jw" and "jj", which both mean "come". In Late Egyptian and Demotic, because many final {t}s had become silent, they used the combinations {tw} and {tj} to represent instances where the {t} was to be pronounced rather than being silent. I am not sure, because this text is relatively early, but I suspect that this could be an instance of such. Given your desire to translate this sentence as a question, let me just offer the following translation in accordance with that: Dd.jn Hm=f Ds=k Hrw-dd=f z3=j jnj.t=k n=j sw Then His Majesty said; "Then, as for yourself, Hardedef, my son, will you bring him him to me?" Alternately if it is not a question: Then His Majesty said; "Then as for yourself, Hardedef, my son, may you bring him to me!" In these translations, I have translated the "jr=f" as "then" though it is some particle, maybe something like "indeed", but this sounds a bit stilted. It could be an "as for him" possibly refering in some way to Djedi, yet Egyptian seems to throw in "jr=f" very often, even when it seems to have no specific referent. My writing "as for" does not come from any particular words written in the Egyptian, but rather because of the extraposition of "Ds=k jr=f Hrw-dd=f z3=j" before the verb. This "as for" is just a stylistic way of introducing the subject in English, and is probably not entirely necessary. A cleaner translation incorporating the "jr=f" as a real thought and taking out the "as for"s might be: Then His Majesty said; "As for him, Hardedef, my son, may you bring him to me yourself." (OR "will you bring him to me yourself?") The "as for" here is a translation of the "jr=f". I have put it at the beginning because I think it is enclitic, meaning that it always takes second position, though in English we would probably put it first. This last translation involves changing the word order considerably though. And, since the author decided to extrapose certain words the true emphasis is probably on the "yourself". This is why putting it at the end might make particular sense for the English, since putting a word at the end often emphasizes it in our language, much like putting a word at the beginning did so in Egyptian. > 14 (He then) stood up (and) made sharp/effective boats of the royal son > Hordidif. Yes, this is pretty good. Literally it is right, since "spDd" meant "become sharp" and the causative {s} would have converted it to "make sharp", however, to make better sence out of it in English we have to play a bit with this word, which seems usually to mean "prepare". Also, while the first " 15 It is a traveling that he did as head of/(in the leading?) boat to > Djed-Snofru-Justified. This part is hard, because I think the scribe left something out in {Xtyt}. I think he ment to write {Xntyt} meaning "navigating", but I am not certain. Maybe others will have different suggestions. There is also the main verb which is "xnt" which means "go upstream/southward". S3s pw jrj.m=f m xnt Xnty.t r Dd-snfrw m3<-xrw What he did was travel, going upstream, navigating toward Djed-Snofru-the- justified. > 16 And further after, these of (the) ships (having) moored to shore, he > traveled "xr-m-xt" is an adverb of time meaning "afterwards". Literally it meant "it befell afterwards that", though of this I am not precisely sure either. xr-m-xt n3 n 17 by land. He made sweet/pleasant (i.e. traveled pleasantly) in a > palanquin of plow-sycamore carrying poles m Hr.t.y means "upward". s-nDm means "travel over land". hbny means "ebony". ... S3s pw jrj.n=f m Hr.t.y s-nDm=f m qnjw n hbny ... what he did was travel upward, while he traveled over land in a litter of ebony, > 18 in it, made-sweet (finely finished?) sycamore mounted to it in gold. The ssnDm could mean something like that , maybe "sweet wood"? However, I am not sure why it has two {s}s. It could have been a foreign word also. nb3.w m ssnDm gnX.w r=f m nbw (with) poles of sesnedjem wood (?) covered with gold > 19 And then after a month he came to Djedi. The word you have read as "month" has been incorrectly transcribed by someone along the way. The Egyptians constantly confused the signs for {crescent moon} with the {rib with meat stuck to it}. Look up the rib sign and you will find its phonetic value to be "spr", giving us the verb "arrive/approach". xr-m-xt spr=f r Ddj Afterwards he approached Djedi. Well, I think you did a very nice job with the text, even with the few little points I have brought up. Do not be discouraged. It is a very difficult language and it takes a long time to get used to the writing system and all the little nuances. You were able to make pretty good sense out of these lines. Try looking at more of the variants in the dictionaries so you can see other possibilities for various words. I think in certain ways, some of your translations were very close to the Egyptian, but we need also to try to make sense for the English in our translations too. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 22:45:24 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re: WESTCAR, Line 7ff. / Difficulties Ahead To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Hello folks! First, although this may have already been answered--the verb rdi is normally written with the arm sign in Hieratic texts, as in the infitive in line 9. Now that we have been through some of the grammar, let's appreciate some niceties, as well. There is a pun in line 7-8 Djedi eats rmn n(y) iH ... r mn m hrw pn. It's not an exact pun, but it's typical of Egyptian word plays. What do you think of iwf "meat" in the context of a whole slough of iw.f... clauses? Line 7, note that Djedi eats the side of beef m iwf. I suspect that the writer intended us to read: m iwf.f "as his meat". As long as all the needed signs are in the vicinity, Egyptian scribes felt quite happy to cut corners in this fashion. Line 9, Some questions for you: 1) what is rx? (O.k. that was an easy one! But how did you know?) 2) rdit has been identified as an infinitive. But what is its grammatical function here? 3) What form is Sm and how does it work here? Lines 9-10, Explain: how does the following phrase work: [leash].f Hr tA ? I.e., what type of phrase/clause is it? Line 12: n Axt.f. The use of the negative arms for the preposition n "to, for" etc., is fairly common in Hieratic texts. Note that it is extremely rare as the genitival n(y) "of". The letter n and the negative arms signs differ in Hieratic only through a dot in the middle of the negative arms sign. O.k., please, let's slow down a bit before moving into some difficult lines (I say this for those who are feeling in over their heads). There are still a few good points to made, such as in line 4, for example. Rather than get into the details of anything past line 12, I would, however, like to point out some upcoming difficulties, and to throw out a few hints to those who can take them. (Later on, hints will be less required, I suppose, but I feel that you all should not be spending hours over what will turn out to be simply explained--but probably not by anything that you have access to.) Line 13: This is difficult until you know what it is. It is also a construction that some of you will not have seen yet. But, as a bit of a hint to those who may be able to solve the problem, the form written *in.tw.k is NOT a passive form, and should have been written int.k. (O.K., this is heading towards a Late Egyptian style spelling [although Late Egyptian writing had not been developed at this time]). In later texts, one writes tw in order to let the reader know that there is a pronounced t (as so many were silent by this time). The pronounced "t" in this form is, however, a sign of very good Middle Egyptian. Line 14: Contains a somewhat tricky sentence. The grammar is dead easy, but not if you have been learning from Gardiner. Remember that the expected construction is aHa.n sDm.n.f (with a sDm.n.f not sDm.f). The construction aHa.n sDm.f is attested, but rare. What we have here is not really rare--just often overlooked. General advice: I may have said this already--I say it in class over and over, so not much difference here. Rather than looking up all the vocabulary and trying to make sense of it, it is much better to 1)establish the likely word divisions, 2)determine the basic parts of speech, 3)work on the grammatical relations between the words, 4)check the vocabulary, 5)re-interpret the grammar as needed (e.g., when objects start preparing or otherwise doing unexpected things--be prepared for passives, statives, or infinitives). Good luck! James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 00:43:37 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 16-18 Marianne typed: referring to my incomplete method of presentation >Don't you think it would help if you gave the transliteration above your >translation? If you are able to look up the words in your dictionary, >you can just write them as you see them there. Otherwise, it is rather >difficult for someone to see from your messages what you are >translating. Hi Marianne Your suggestion has considerable merit and I shall certainly do so in future, as well as re-posting the relevant sections complete with the added transliterations from Faulkner, as soon as I can get them processed. Thanks for the idea. Regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 01:13:53 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12 Stephen typed: Re: Miriam Lichtheim's preferred interpretation of Khufu's "horizon" >I'm not sure why she uses "temple" rather than "tomb." Gardiner and >Faulkner both give "tomb" as a secondary meaning for the word, which is >written identically with "horizon." It also makes more sense to me in a >symbolic sense, as I indicated in my original message. I agree with you and Marianne on this. Perhaps Lichtheim's preference for "temple" was due to the akhet symbology of the pylons of Egyptian Temples as representations of the mountains between which the sun rises. Just a thought, and drifting off-topic so I'll say no more. Regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:31:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 Hi, Stephen, > Well, here I go again, mainly because I'm having a few problems with thes > lines and no-one else has addressed them yet. Well, here I go again too! I am sorry if I post too frequently, but I guess I am rather attached to this endeavor, having worked with Mike and Mark to get this going. We must be getting our the posts in different order from one another, as I had already received a very good post on this section by Christopher. You have jumped the gun again! ;-) It is interesting that some of the same areas of the text are difficult for all of us. I think I just addressed these same questions in response to his message, but of course, it may be a while before that reaches the you. > The problem I have is figuring out what form "ini-t-k" is. My best guess > is that it is a prospective form (ini-t-k), with the W being stuck in, as in > Late Egyptian (I understand), to indicate that the "t" is not silent. I think your guess is a good one. This is the way I interpreted it myself. > "aHa-n sDm" is a form of past tense used in narratives, with I believe a > sort of continuative idea, which is why I start out my translation with "And > so..." Another excellent idea on your part. It gets tiresome to constantly use "then" for both the sDm.jn=f and The problem is that while the term "xntyt" means a voyage upstream (South), > there is a sign in the middle of it which doesn't appear to belong there, > and which I can only account for as a transcription error, either by the > ancient scribes or the modern ones - it would be interesting to see the > original hieratic. It is there. I have seen it. I would put the hieratic up on the web if it were not SO very memory intensive. I have not found a way to make scans that are small enough for this to be feasible yet. If you wish to check it, you might look for _Die Maerchen des Papyrus Westcar_ by Adolf Erman. The photographs are there. You would have to find a good library in order to get this though. I have been pondering your take on this obvious scribal error. I think however, that since {xnt} is nicely written before the {Xtyt}, combined with my perception that the {t} should be a sound radical in "xnt", whereas the following sequence looks like another verb which is third weak, makes me interpret this as two infinitives in a sequence. First we get "xnt", "go upstream", and then we get what might be "Xny.t", with the {n} not having been written, meaning "rowing" or "navigating". See my previous post for a translation using these two verbs. Hmmmm, upon perusal of Faulkner, I am wondering again. Maybe you are right. He gives "xntj" as a fourth weak verb. I have been thinking of xnt the preposition. Maybe it could be m-xnt as a compound preposition and then Xnty.t? Or, maybe it really is xnty.t only and the writing has been influenced by "xnt.y-Xt.y" which is the name of the eleventh month, as shown by Faulker on page 194. Well, as usual, you have done a really nice job, Stephen! Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:26:46 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: RE>AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 Stephen Fryer wrote (about p1, line 15) ie. SAs pw iri-n-f m xntyt r Dd-snfrw-mAa-Hrw >The problem is that while the term "xntyt" >means a voyage upstream (South), >there is a sign in the middle of it >which doesn't appear to belong there, >and which I can only account for as a >transcription error, either by the >ancient scribes or the modern ones. Just throwing this in; there is a word mXnty (ferryman), presumably a nisbe from mXnt (ferry-boat). I wonder if the strange sign is telling us to switch the x for a X in the previous sign for xnt. I believe this is a common method of retaining the original written word, but stating that the word was now spoken differently. Mike Dyall-Smith, Melbourne, Australia mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:42:43 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 5-8 Hello all At Marianne's suggestion, I have reposted this section of my earlier post with the added transliterations from Faulkner in the hope that it will be clearer. Note refs in parentheses. >(line5) Dd in, nsw sA, (1), iw, wn (2), nDs, (3), rn, >Said by, king's son, Heru-tata-f, is, exists, commoner, Djedi, name, f, Hmsi, f, m, >his, dwell, he, in, >(line6) Dd, (snfrw), mAa-xrw. >Djed, Sneferu, vindicated/justified. >(line7) iw f, m, nDs, n, rnpt(4), (5). iw f, Hr, wnm, t(6), (7), >He is, as, commoner, of, years, 110. He is, on, eat, bread, 500, rmn, n, (8), m, iwf, >arm/shoulder, meat of a bull, from, its flesh, >(line8) Hna, s(z)wr, Hnqt, ds, wr, mn, m, hrw, >together with, drink, beer, beer measure, many, as well as, in, daytime, pn. >this. Hoping that this helps. Regards Marc Notes: 1 Lifted from Budge pAni as I couldn't find the word in Faulkner. 2 Taken from wnn, don't know why, just "felt" right. 3 Assumed to be a name, from the context. 4 Pluralised in context of 110 following. 5 Sn mD 6 Unclear in my copy of Faulkner. 7 Sn Sn Sn Sn Sn or djw(sN) 8 Wrongly took it to be a bull, no udder. ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:49:00 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar translation lines 13-19 Geoff wrote: > The ssnDm could mean something like that , maybe "sweet wood"? However, I > am not sure why it has two {s}s. It could have been a foreign word also. > > nb3.w m ssnDm gnX.w r=f m nbw > > (with) poles of sesnedjem wood (?) covered with gold Could the element "ssn" have something to do with smelling? This "ssnDm", in my dictionary, doesn't even contain a glyph for "n", although it is written out that way in the transliteration! So, I suppose, two "s's" followed by a "D" must imply an "n" in there. This is certainly something I never realized before. Perhaps this wood was sandalwood, which has a sweet odor. The reason I say this is because I think the oars of Cleopatra's barge were of sandalwood topped with gold, but I can't swear to this. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:22:01 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Fryer writes: Stephen> Well, here I go again, mainly because I'm having a few Stephen> problems with thes lines and no-one else has addressed Stephen> them yet. Stephen> Dd-in Hm-f :Ds-k irf Hr-ddf sA-i ini-t-k n-i sw This Stephen> would seem to mean: "Then His Majesty said,'You, Stephen> yourself, shall bring him to me, Hardedef, my son.'" The Stephen> problem I have is figuring out what form "ini-t-k" is. Stephen> My best guess is that it is a prospective form (ini-t-k), Stephen> with the W being stuck in, as in Late Egyptian (I Stephen> understand), to indicate that the "t" is not silent. The prospective form of ini is int. What we have there is probably a cleft sentence with a prospective form : in A sDm=f "It is A who will hear" If I remember well, the sDm=f used there is an old form of the prospective (prospective sDmw=f, but I'm a bit unsure of this). In this case, the "in" of the cleft sentence has disapeared, which occurs from time to time. In particular, funerary inscriptions often display the text : Mister so-and-so Dd (note, NOT Dd=f). And the easiest way to give it a grammatical status is to suppose it is a cleft sentence without "in", and so it means 'It is Mister so-and-so who says : ...' In this particular case, the meaning is excellent : "It is you yourself, royal prince Hardedef, who will fetch him" (BTW, "ini"'s usual translation as "bring" is not always perfect. "ini" is often : 'go and bring back') Stephen> aHa-n sspd aHaw n n-sw sA Hr-ddf "And so ships were made Stephen> ready for Prince Hardedef." "aHa-n sDm" is a form of Stephen> past tense used in narratives, with I believe a sort of Stephen> continuative idea, which is why I start out my Stephen> translation with "And so..." Perhaps James or Geoff or Stephen> Serge would like to comment on this? I'm not sure Stephen> whether to transliterate the ships as "aHaw-w". I think aHa usually introduces a new episode in a narrative. Here we have the end of the discourse part. regards, -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 5, rue Beranger 92240 Malakoff tel 01 48 70 37 13 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:50:56 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL WESTCAR readings To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Hello again, I am glad that so many of you are so enthusiastic about reading the text, but please, PLEASE, slow down a bit. Savour the texts! Don't rush through them. There are some really important bits that need to be dealt with. There IS time! If we were able to do this in class, of course, we could go at much faster speeds, but there is a lag time on the 'net. And then, there are those that have felt too intimidated to speak out... YET. One concern that I have had is that those of us who are more conversant with the net have JUMPED ahead of those who would like to take part in the WESTCAR exercise, but who do not have the access thereto ("What do you mean 'download'?"). When this began, my de Buck was in my office, and I had no time to print the file off the net. I did have a copy of Sethe's Aegyptische Lesestuecke at hand, but line numbers were a problem. That being so, it was quite difficult for me to follow--and I know the text well! Let's give people a bit of time to get hooked into the discussion. There are only a handful of us actually discussing things, but I suspect that there are many more OUT THERE who really want to get involved, but are not sure even how to get access to the text. Perhaps a slight down-speeding might let them get involved. The lag-time that we encounter here is slightly annoying, but it is like everything in life. Get used to it--or put up the big bucks to change it! We had better get used to it, as nobody here seems to have the BIG BUCKS. The time lag means that we often repeat our comments, but then, that is not so bad, as I maintain that repetition is paramount in the learning process. Frustrating for me, is that I have tried to put out warnings: "Don't go here yet!" (and for good reason), but because of the time-lag, some of you have already gone there--well, we cannot change that, but if we slow the pace down a bit, we perhaps can keep things in a reasonable order. Of course, this does not stop anyone from raising any question from any text whatever, but I think some structure in the WESTCAR undertaking will make things easier (and more benficial) for all. Friends, I am afraid that I seem more crabby electronically than I am in person. You are doing great work, but am I picky?? Well... yes I am!! As always, my best wishes to all! James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:50:01 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 16-18 Hello all Again, following Marianne's inspired suggestion, I've added the Faulkner transliterations to my earlier post in the hope that will be clearer. Notes in parentheses. >(line 16) xr, m-xt, nA, n,(1) aHaw, mni, r, mryt, SAs, >Further, as a result of, these, because, ships, moor, at, bank, travel, pw, >this, >(line 17) ir n, f, m Hrty (2), snDm(3), f, m, qniw, n, hbny, nbAw,(4) >make, his, on land, sitting, his, in, palanquin, of, ebony, carryingpoles >(line 18) m, ssnDm, gnX, m, nbw >of, an expensive wood, mount, in, gold 1 Since learned about nA-n and hopefully won't repeat this error. 2 Should have written "on, travel by land" but contracted to "on land." 3 Faulkner gives seated, but I tend to say sitting in everyday use. 4 w making plural from nbA singular 5 There's an r.f following gnX in line 18 but I don't know what "encl.part" means and in the absence of a word I chose to ignore it in the hope that it didn't affect the sense too greatly. Hope this helps. Regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:56:58 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: AEL Order of messages At 11:31 PM 97/04/17 -0400, Geoff wrote: >We must be getting our the posts in different order from one another, as I >had already received a very good post on this section by Christopher. You > I have noticed that the AEL messages do not necessarily arrive in the order they were sent; in fact they often arrive last first (reverse order) in a group. My solution, to avoid reading answers before questions has been to sort all AEL messages by date before reading them. The rest of you might find this a useful idea too. I also have taken to reading all the messages before I reply to one - cuts down mightily on how much typing I need to do :-)> (Yes Mike, I have a beard too. Now how do I do long hair?) In the case of my message and Chris Jacob's, they crossed in the mail - He sent his slightly before mine, but due to the delay in the AEL mail server (not a complaint, just pointing out a fact) I didn't receive it until after I had sent mine. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:10:50 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar translation lines 13-19 Saida wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > > The ssnDm could mean something like that , maybe "sweet wood"? However, I > > am not sure why it has two {s}s. It could have been a foreign word also. > > > > nb3.w m ssnDm gnX.w r=f m nbw > > > > (with) poles of sesnedjem wood (?) covered with gold Marianne: > > Could the element "ssn" have something to do with smelling? This > "ssnDm", in my dictionary, doesn't even contain a glyph for "n", > although it is written out that way in the transliteration! So, I > suppose, two "s's" followed by a "D" must imply an "n" in there. This > is certainly something I never realized before. Perhaps this wood was > sandalwood, which has a sweet odor. The reason I say this is because I > think the oars of Cleopatra's barge were of sandalwood topped with gold, > but I can't swear to this. Silly me! The elements of the word are "ssn" and "nDm". It comes out to "sweet" or "pleasant" smelling. One "n" is just superflous so it was left out of the spelling. Marianne Luban > Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:34:45 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Hello! Stephen has got it right about intw.k It is a prospective form, and it is either a request or a statement of expected action: You, yourself, Hardedef, my son, are to bring him to me." In other contexts the prospective may be translated, "should, ought, are supposed to (do), might, may," and even "must" on the odd occasion. The prospective is sometimes used with a meaning close to the future, but the force is not quite that of a statement of fact (which uses a different construction). aHa.n sspd aHaw... The verb form of sspd has not yet been correctly identified. Stephen has, however, translated it perfectly. Any ideas? Stephen's question about the transliteration of the word for ships is one often asked by students--the word does seem to end in w in the singular, and here they are using it as plural (as we can tell by the use of the plural article later). Egyptologists generally hedge our bets and just transliterate aHaw in both cases. At this stage, however, it is probably best to err on the side of completeness. The writing of xntyt with the intrusive X sign is attested elsewhere, and probably originates from xnty-Xty, as Geoff proposed. What is it here? Geoff holds it to be an infinitive. Why? (I think he is right.) Stephen took it as a derived noun--and his translation clearly shows how it would function in this sentence. This interepretation works just as well. All the best, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 19:01:09 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Serge raises an interesting point about the construction known as the "participial statement." This construction begins with the particle _in_, which is followed by a noun to yield "It is so and so" the rest of the statement consists of a participle or for the future time, the *2nd prospective.* The whole meaning, "It is So-and-so who did/does/will do..." Two problems with that approach here: 1) The 1st prospective of ini "to bring" is int, which we have here. The 2nd prospective form is, as Serge mentions, in(w). This makes me think that Stephen's rendering is correct. 2) In place of the particle in + noun, we also find the dependent pronoun series (which seems to have connections to the particle in, itself). The normal way to have said: "It is you, yourself who will bring him to me" would be to begin ntk, Ds.k..., in(w).k n.i sw. The "participial statement" construction is used correctly later in this papyrus--which is probably why the scribe bent over backwards to let you know that there was a _t_ in the form. As for the use of aHa, I think Serge is on the right track. It introduces a new step in the narrative structure. But note that it occurs extremely frequently in some texts, such as the Shipwrecked Sailor, and we should keep our minds open and see how it is actually used. I don't seem to have gotten many takers on my questions, but I will throw out another one: HHy "to search out" has been identified as an infinitive. What is noteworthy about the infinitive of this verb? James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 23:59:42 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: Re: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Hello, Yikes!!! I just noticed a SERIOUS typo in my previous post regarding the "participial statement". When the particle _in_ is replaced with a pronoun, it is of the INDEPENDENT PRONOUN SERIES (and not the dependent pronoun series as I wrote). Sorry if this caused any confusion. With my best wishes to all, James -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==============================================================================