Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:30:16 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re: PWestcar lines 13-15 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk aHa.n sspd aHaw: >>aHa.n sspd aHaw... The verb form of sspd has not yet been correctly >>identified. Stephen has, however, translated it perfectly. Any ideas? Stephen wrote: >Well it is fairly obviously a passive construction. The two passive >constructions using the auxiliary "aHa" are given as "aha.n sDm.(w).f", >which uses the circumstantial perfect passive, and "aHa.n.f rdi.(w)", which >uses the stative. In this case the subject is "attached" to the verb "sspd" >rather than the auxiliary. So the verb form in question must be a passive >circumstantial form. There may be a better way of approaching the problem, >but that was my best bet. This is correct. The past, passive circumstantial form is usually referred to as the "sDm(w).f passive," but Stephen's terminology is probably better. (Stephen): >I think I'll have to defend my interpretation as a noun rather than an >infinitive - I have difficulty seeing this spelling as being an infinitive >of a 4th weak verb "xnti". If it were the infinitive, I would expect that >it would be "xntt" rather than "xntyt". Perfectly good argument--a lot of merit to this. The point here is that the infinitive, being a noun meaning "travelling upstream", is not far removed from a derived noun meaning "upstream trip." In other words, whichever approach one takes, there is little difference in meaning, and indeed little difference in grammar. I have an open mind on this one--as apparently did Faulkner! -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:51:53 -0700 To: James Hoch , AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL PWestcar lines 13-15 At 06:34 PM 97/04/18 -0400, you wrote: >Stephen has got it right about intw.k It is a prospective form Since I wrote that, I found that Gertie Enlund gives the spelling "in.tw.k" for the prospective of "ini". >aHa.n sspd aHaw... The verb form of sspd has not yet been correctly >identified. Stephen has, however, translated it perfectly. Any ideas? Well it is fairly obviously a passive construction. The two passive constructions using the auxiliary "aHa" are given as "aha.n sDm.(w).f", which uses the circumstantial perfect passive, and "aHa.n.f rdi.(w)", which uses the stative. In this case the subject is "attached" to the verb "sspd" rather than the auxiliary. So the verb form in question must be a passive circumstantial form. There may be a better way of approaching the problem, but that was my best bet. I notice Gertie Englund gives a handy table of compund verb forms, which agrees with the conclusion I came to after considerable reading. >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. I think I'll have to defend my interpretation as a noun rather than an infinitive - I have difficulty seeing this spelling as being an infinitive of a 4th weak verb "xnti". If it were the infinitive, I would expect that it would be "xntt" rather than "xntyt". The strange spelling of the word here makes this a little more uncertain with the insertion of an apparently intrusive "X" and the use of "ti" rather than "t". The vocabulary of "Middle Egyptian Grammar" give the phrase "m xntyt" the meaning "southward". Faulkner also gives "xntyt" (with the "ti" for "t") the meaning "southward voyage", but then confuses the issue by adding a further comment on a use as the infinitive of "xnti". Under "xnti" ("sail upstream") he lists the phrase "m xntyt" as "upstream" or "southwards". In none of this does Faulkner mention this specific instance. So, to me it doesn't look to have the form of an infinitive, and it works well as a noun in an adverbial prepositional phrase. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 18:41:35 -0400 To: AEgyptian-L@Rostau.demon.co.uk From: Brian Pasby Subject: AEL I am thrilled to have found this list as it provides a 'distance learning'source for a total beginner as I am.I am following the overwhelmingly (to me) erudite discussions of the Westcar payrus.Is it possible that when the dust settles someone would take the time to go through the transliteration,glyph group by glyph group giving the best translation for each.Professor Grahams translation is great but what I would appreciate is being shown what each group of signs means specifically.This is probably a horrendous job but I am sure there are others out there who would appreciate the effort. As someone who has spent his professional life in the sciences the whole thing smacks of translating a cypher and is of course a natural for the computer,Many thanks,Brian Pasby ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:10:20 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: AEL re- 'unusual hieroglyphs... To: to AEL REGARDING re: 'unusual hieroglyphs...' Regarding the recent post by: Amargi Hillier; President, BOOGIE NATION ----------------------------------------- I've looked at the few pictures at the web site indicated and the hieroglyphs are not unusual at all. They are badly damaged. It is a pity that the pictures did not include more of the region so I could get a few more clues. I suspect the same phrase would occur several times in the tomb because it probably comes just before the n.y-sw.t bj.t-y name, and may well be part of the titulary. The number nine (3 groups of 3 strokes) most likely refers to the 'nine bows' (ie. the traditional enemies of Egypt). The well preserved 't' to the side of the 9 strokes would fit with this, as would the flat sign above (er, the "helicopter"), which is probably a damaged pDt (a bow). The word before it could well be the verb dri (to subdue) with an arm determinative below. This would read something along the lines 'one who subdues the nine bows'. It should be realised that this is a badly worn inscription on rather poorly preserved stone. The original would have had any defects in the stone filled-in with plaster, and the whole beam would have been beautifully painted to highlight the signs. You can see this from the other face of the beam, which is far less damaged and retains some of the paint. This now bare and well-worn section of stonework should be interpreted in light of these physical changes. I see nothing unusual in this inscription. Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne, Australia ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:08:55 -0400 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Brian Pasby Subject: AEL With reference to my recent request for a glyph-by-glyph translation,close attention to the most recent digest shows that if I pay attentiom I will find that this is already being provided.Many Thanks,brian pasby ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:19:47 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Geoffrey Ponton Subject: AEL Hoch's Middle Egyptian Grammar My bookseller tells me that Hoch's Middle Egyptian Grammar is not available in the UK. I would appreciate any advice on the most straightforward way to obtain a copy. Thanks in anticipation - Geoff Ponton ------------------------------------- -- From: Geoff Ponton A true scientific vision: austere, tragic, alienated and supremely beautiful. A world that isn't for anything; a world that is just there. - Jerry Fodor ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:25:02 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: AEL Re: WESTCAR Part 1 Questions. James Hoch asks some questions about Westcar part 1. Hello James You will doubtless have realised immediately that I am a complete novice. Indeed, my experience of structured translation stretches back all the way to the commencement of this exercise! Nevertheless, as an adherant to the premise that one learns best when one's tentative propositions are corrected by those possessed of vastly superior knowledge, I have, in all temerity, ventured the below. >Line 9, Some questions for you: >1) what is rx? (O.k. that was an easy one! But how did you know?) rx = "know how to" because it is followed by the infinitive rdit. An alternative translation might be "is able to", for the same reason. Had the text read rdi(t?) rx, would I be correct in thinking that one could take the meaning to be "to give/cause knowing/knowledge" or as Faulkner suggests, "inform"? If so, what purpose is served by distinction between rdi rx and words which convey similar meaning such as sbA and Dd? When writing original (as in new) material, how should one decide which word or construction to use? >2) rdit has been identified as an infinitive. But what is its grammatical >function here? It is the object of the verb rx. (Gr 303 p 227) Does that make it an auxilliary verb and does the presence of the t indicate that it is to be considered passive? >3) What form is Sm and how does it work here? Hoping that I understand the question correctly, I took rx rdit Sm mAi to mean "know how (to), to cause, to walk, a lion". Would that make Sm another infinitive and if so, does that make it auxilliary to rdit? >Lines 9-10, Explain: how does the following phrase work: [leash].f Hr tA ? > I.e., what type of phrase/clause is it? Erm, well it seems to be composed of noun, suf. pron, prep, noun, but that's not what you're asking. I'm reading Gardiner 188 p 142 about Virtual noun clauses as subject after passives of rdi but I'm in over my head at that point so I'll have to pass on this one and hope that someone else can answer it. There, for what it's worth. Best regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:57:59 -0500 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Of "ssnDm" and more In the pWestcar we see mention of the untranslatable wood "ssnDm". I have seen the same term in the annals of Thutmose III in the section of the siege and surrender of Megiddo. Of course, this text does nothing to further our knowledge of "ssnDm" (for which sandalwood is a likely candidate), but it was interesting to me for several reasons on which I'd like to comment. Sandalwood, BTW, is an attractive wood from East India and does not grow in Egypt. It can be dark-red in color and that would make a pleasing contrast with gold trimming. It has a very nice odor, hence possibly the name "ssnDm" or "pleasant-smell". The text from Lichtheim is as follows. I wish I had the glyphs to transliterate. This describes booty seized by Thutmose's men from the vanquished enemy: "...Poles of "mry" wood worked with silver from the tent of the enemy..." As is seen, Lichtheim did not translate "mry". Now there is a wood known to the Egyptians, but foreign to their land, called "mryy", the wood of the "mr" tree. This is the "morus" or Mulberry. However, since I can think of no particular reason why the Asiatics would want mulberry wood for tent poles, it is possible that the "mry" in this text is no particular wood at all but only an "expensive" variety. Sometimes, even in languages that seem very different, the connections behind words are the same. In British English "dear" has the connotation of "costly". So it may be in Egyptian as well with "mry". It would be nice to see the glyphs to find out if the "tree" determinative is actually there. Another example of this sort of thing is the term "unut". Very often one sees, when speaking of pharaohs in battle, something like "he rushed upon the foe like Montu (the god of war) in his hour". What does this mean--Montu in his "time"? I doubt it. I think it should be "Montu in his rage". Here's why: In English we have the term "temper" as in metal-working. It is taken from the Latin "temperare", meaning "to regulate, mix properly". Somewhere in this "regulate" is the Latin "tempus, temporis" pertaining to "time". To the ancients, "time" was a regulation, something to be measured, which is present in the Egyptian "unut". Moreover, we also have "to lose ones temper", meaning the balance or regulation has been upset and the person flies into a "rage". Back to the text and the spoils of war: "...Carrying chairs of that enemy of ivory, ebony, and "ssnDm-wood" worked with gold..." Here I think Lichtheim has made an error and she is not the only one I have seen do this. "enemy" is not the right word here. Inanimate materials such as ebony and ivory do not have enmity. The term wanted here is "opposite", just as ones enemy "opposes" one, is ones "opponent". Obviously ebony and ivory, black and white, are on the opposite ends of the color spectrum. "...Large tables of ivory and "ssnDm-wood". One bed of "ssnDm-wood" worked with gold and all costly stones in the manner of a "krkr", belonging to that enemy, worked with gold throughout.." Of course, it is entirely possible that "ssnDm" is merely "cedar", another fragrant wood obtainable in nearby what is now Lebanon. Although the Egyptians had a couple of other words for cedar, there is no reason they should have limited themselves to those. The untranslatable "krkr" may be linked to the Hebrew "kurkar", which implies something being pulled down, even demolished. This may have been a way of saying "collapsible", which means that the bed could be folded up for convenience in travel. Again the glyphs would be very handy to see if there was a determinative here. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 18:42:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Luxor3@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Teaching tools I would be very interested in receiving a copy of your list. Thank you. Lynn Kordus ============================================================================== From: "YED" To: "AEgyptian-List" Subject: AEL le yod prothetique Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 22:21:45 +0200 Apologies if i do not speak of P. Wzestcar but you work too fast for me and, now, I have no much time to work Egyptian (business trips, ...) ; then I record important mails for a later use. Yet, I continue (so-so) since some months my study on _le papyrus d Orbiney_ and I have a question with regard to the yod prothetique j + A2 in late egyptian. Neveu in _grammaire du neo-egyptien_ speak of the yod prothetique but always in connection with verbs. Well, in papyrus d Orbiney, we can find (p.1 line 6, p.5 lines 6 & 8) the word hAyt (with determinatives 01 & Z3) [Faulkner p. 156 _portal_, here I think _enclosure_ ] with a foregoing j+A2. Is it a yod prothetique ? or something else ? What sens ans what construction ? Thanks if you can help me. amicalement, Yves Dupont - Lyon Croix-Rousse - France ydupont@lyonnet.dtr.fr ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:11:44 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Katherine Griffis Subject: Re: AEL re- 'unusual hieroglyphs... RE: In response to Mike Dyall-Smiths's excellent description of the so-called "mysterly hieroglyphs" of Boogie Nation: The following is the BEST reply I have seen given to Boogie Nation and their "unusual hieroglyphs". This is from David Lorton, and was posted recently to ANE. I pass it on the AEL for their information and their use, by permission of Lorton: "There is no mystery here; it's just a palimpsest, as was suggested (though without the use of that term) in two of the comments I read at your web site. It was decided in antiquity to replace the five-fold royal titulary of Seti I with that of his son and successor, Ramesses II. In the photos, we clearly see "Who repulses the Nine Bows," which figures in some of the Two-Ladies names of Seti I, replaced by "Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries," a Two-Ladies name of Ramesses II. With some of the plaster that once covered Seti I's titulary now fallen away, certain of the superimposed signs do indeed look like a submarine, etc., but it's just a coincidence. What is happening in the photographs is quite clear; just consult Juergen von Beckerath, Handbuch der aegyptischen Koenigsnamen, Muenchner aegyptologische Studien 20, pages 235 and 237." This is the reply I am sending back to the BN folks. Regards -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Member, American Research Center in Egypt University of Alabama at Birmingham Special Studies http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/ccer/PEOPLE2.HTML ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:32:51 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL le yod prothetique At 10:21 PM 97/04/22 +0200, you wrote: >Yet, I continue (so-so) since some months my study on _le papyrus d >Orbiney_ and I have a question with regard to the yod prothetique j + A2 in >late egyptian. >Neveu in _grammaire du neo-egyptien_ speak of the yod prothetique but >always in connection with verbs. > >Well, in papyrus d Orbiney, we can find (p.1 line 6, p.5 lines 6 & 8) the >word hAyt (with determinatives 01 & Z3) [Faulkner p. 156 _portal_, here I >think _enclosure_ ] with a foregoing j+A2. Is it a yod prothetique ? or >something else ? The combination of signs i+A2 seems to have been used in Late Middle Egyptian and Late Egyptian to indicate that the "i" is not a consonant sound but a vowel sound (actually, I think it was roughly equivalent to aleph + vowel). It is used not only at the beginning of words but also in the middle of words. So the combination does not necessarily indicate a "yod prothetique", which is found in certain verb forms of Late Egyptian (and Old Egyptian by the way). The word I believe you are referring to is found quite frequently in the Tale of Two Brothers, and is translated by Budge as "barn" and obviously refers to some building or enclosure for cattle. There is reference to one brother who "stood behind the door of his barn" (aHa n HA pA sbAi pAy.f ihAyt). Others more familiar with Late Egyptian can probably give you a better answer, but I thought this might help in the meantime. >What sens ans what construction ? > >Thanks if you can help me. > >amicalement, > >Yves Dupont - Lyon Croix-Rousse - France >ydupont@lyonnet.dtr.fr > > Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:23:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Hi, Brian, Just to set the record straight, I am not a professor yet, just a graduate student, though I feel complimented that you would think so. I believe that soon we will be seeing an obelisk inscription on the list. Becuase that text is shorter, and more formulaic, it will probably provide a good opportunity for a much more "one-glyph-at-a-time" approach. So hang on if you can. There are other glyphs in the works. Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:03:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Priscilla Schwei To: Aegyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Teaching tools. I would like to receive a copy of your list. Thank you. Priscilla Schwei ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:03:50 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL le yod prothetique Stephen Fryer wrote: > > At 10:21 PM 97/04/22 +0200, you wrote: > >Yet, I continue (so-so) since some months my study on _le papyrus d > >Orbiney_ and I have a question with regard to the yod prothetique j + A2 in > >late egyptian. > >Neveu in _grammaire du neo-egyptien_ speak of the yod prothetique but > >always in connection with verbs. > > > >Well, in papyrus d Orbiney, we can find (p.1 line 6, p.5 lines 6 & 8) the > >word hAyt (with determinatives 01 & Z3) [Faulkner p. 156 _portal_, here I > >think _enclosure_ ] with a foregoing j+A2. Is it a yod prothetique ? or > >something else ? > > The combination of signs i+A2 seems to have been used in Late Middle > Egyptian and Late Egyptian to indicate that the "i" is not a consonant sound > but a vowel sound (actually, I think it was roughly equivalent to aleph + > vowel). It is used not only at the beginning of words but also in the > middle of words. So the combination does not necessarily indicate a "yod > prothetique", which is found in certain verb forms of Late Egyptian (and Old > Egyptian by the way). > > The word I believe you are referring to is found quite frequently in the > Tale of Two Brothers, and is translated by Budge as "barn" and obviously > refers to some building or enclosure for cattle. There is reference to one > brother who "stood behind the door of his barn" (aHa n HA pA sbAi pAy.f ihAyt). > > Others more familiar with Late Egyptian can probably give you a better > answer, but I thought this might help in the meantime. Whatever the sound of "i+A2", the A2 seems to have been rather disposable. Stephen is correct in that "i+A2" is the equivalent of an "aleph". This can be discovered by looking under a list of foreign place names and seeing how "i+A2" was written by others. In Hebrew, it most often comes out "aleph" with the diacritical mark of -: beneath it, which indicates a shorter "a" such as in the word "ani" or "I". It is supposedly somewhat shorter than the "a" in a word like "aba" (father) but there isn't really much difference. Curiously, "i+A2" seems to correspond to the Greek "o" at times, also. The combination is used to write the river "Orontes", which I believe is the Greek way of saying a similar Semitic word for this river. Thus, "i+A2" appears to be used to write most Asiatic place names beginning in "a". On the other hand, Sudanese place names seem to start out "i3" instead. What this points out is difficult to say (for me, at least). Anyway, the conclusion is that "i+A2" precludes there being a "yod" present at all and serves as a warning, when the combination starts a word, not to imagine that a "y" sound could exist there. In fact, for "y" to be present at the beginnig of a word, I think it's safe to assume we need to see a "double reed-stalk" there. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:06:46 +0100 (NFT) From: Dr X Subject: AEL Re'hotep To: aegyptian Hello everybody, I am writing to ask if anybody can give me a clue about the inscription that appears over the shoulders of the well-known couple of statues representing a certain Re'hotep and his wife (Vth dynasty). I am not an egyptologist and therefore I got stuck after the first five hieroglyphs that should read "wr ma 'inw" i.e. 'great priest of Heliopolis'. What about the rest? Any help is welcome. Thanks Giorgio ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:12:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL le yod prothetique Hi, Yves, > Well, in papyrus d Orbiney, we can find (p.1 line 6, p.5 lines 6 & 8) the > word hAyt (with determinatives 01 & Z3) [Faulkner p. 156 _portal_, here I > think _enclosure_ ] with a foregoing j+A2. Is it a yod prothetique ? or > something else ? > What sens ans what construction ? As far as I know this is not a prothetic yod, but a radical in the original word. The word in Middle Egyptian had been jhw meaning "barn". Possibly the pronunciation at this period was similar enough to the other word that their spellings were slightly conflated. Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 23:26:42 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Hoch's Middle Egyptian Grammar At 06:19 PM 97/04/21 +0100, you wrote: >My bookseller tells me that Hoch's Middle Egyptian Grammar is not >available in the UK. I would appreciate any advice on the most >straightforward way to obtain a copy. Thanks in anticipation - Geoff >Ponton For Geoff Ponton and all others on the list who are interested in Dr. James Hoch's _Middle Egyptian Grammar_, I quote the author himself: " I am still handling the production and most of the distribution. The grammar is officially published, but since it is not quite finished (needs the sign list, and the hieroglyphic type needs to be re-set), we have not put out any official notices of publication. I plan to have the sign list ready for the fall version, but resetting the hieroglyphic type will take longer than that." So if you want a copy, contact him by e-mail at, James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca to order, or with any other inquiries about the (excellent) book. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== From: Patricia Cassonnet Subject: AEL le yod prothetique To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:27:25 +0200 (MET DST) Hello, I have nothing to add about what Stephen and Marianne wrote (04-25-97).Very interesting. Just a word for every beginners in Late Egyptian: Faulkner's Dictionary is not enough. I suggest R. Hanning, Grosses Handworterbuch Agyptisch-Deutsch, Mayence, 1995 (Easy to find in France) or Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian (5 vol.), Berkeley, 1982-1990. Of course, if you have money, you can buy THE Worterbuch. As Stephen and Geoff said, i +A2 is found in a lot of words in Late Egyptian, and is used to write a few words "en ecriture syllabique" (for example irm "with"). If you want to know more about the prothetic yod in verbal constructions, see J. Winand, Etudes de Neo-egyptien, La morphologie verbale, Liege, 1992. "r' is sometimes written i+A2 as preposition, or as morphem in Futur III ( see J. Winand, La morphologie verbale).Sometimes, the infinitive of the verb iri "to do, to make, to act" is written i+A2+iri. In O. Petrie 16, the morphem iri (Futur III ; iri +nominal subject + r+inf.)is written with the prothetic yod in the well-known expression " iri p3y.i nb (r) iri ... mom maitre fera en sorte que ...).This amazing writting reflect probably the pronunciation (writer'accent ?).I don't think it is a second tense. Conversely, the prothetic yod may be written "r" before some verbal forms like participes,relative forms, imperative, i-iri.t.f sdm form and Second Tenses (the periphrastic form i-iri.f sdm and, much more rarely the modal form i-sdm.f). Cordialement, Patricia Cassonnet ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:40:24 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re'hotep Dr X wrote: > > Hello everybody, > I am writing to ask if anybody can give me a clue about the inscription > that appears over the shoulders of the well-known couple of statues > representing a certain Re'hotep and his wife (Vth dynasty). I am not > an egyptologist and therefore I got stuck after the first five hieroglyphs > that should read "wr ma 'inw" i.e. 'great priest of Heliopolis'. What > about the rest? Any help is welcome. As luck would have it, I don't have a single picture of Rahotep here where all the glyphs can be seen! However, I do know this much: In addition to being a high priest of Heliopolis, Rahotep was one of the 30 who held the title "great man of the south" (Upper Egypt) and "first under the king". Evidently, men had this title who had no administrative duties in the "south", because Heliopolis certainly isn't located there. Rahotep was "district chief" over fisheries and the Nile. I was able to read all the glyphs beside the statue of Nofret, Rahotep's wife. There aren't many. They read: "rx-t nesu Nofret" or "royal kinswoman, Nofret". Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:23:33 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL le yod prothetique Patricia Cassonnet wrote: (snipped a bit) > "r' is sometimes written i+A2 as preposition, or as morphem in Futur > III ( see J. Winand, La morphologie verbale).Sometimes, the infinitive > of the verb iri "to do, to make, to act" is written i+A2+iri. > In O. Petrie 16, the morphem iri (Futur III ; iri +nominal subject + > r+inf.)is written with the prothetic yod in the well-known expression > " iri p3y.i nb (r) iri ... mom maitre fera en sorte que ...).This > amazing writting reflect probably the pronunciation (writer'accent > ?).I don't think it is a second tense. As someone most interested in the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, I find this fascinating. About this "iri": Although the Coptic words having to do with this idea of "doing" or "making" retained the "r" in the spelling of "iri" (Coptic dropped the "r" that occurred at the end of most Egyptian terms) I, too, have seen signs to make me think this "r" was lost in pronunciation. You indicate the preposition "r" was written "i+A2". What do you say to the name "Ionians" (Greeks) written in Egyptian beginning with the sign D4 or the "eye"? The next letter is the "hare". Since we know the Egyptians weren't writing about the "Ironians", we have to conclude from this that either, in some dialect, there was no "r" in the "ir" or "iri" represented by D4, or there generally wasn't in spoken Egyptian at that time. Also, since this particular sign was the glyph of choice to write the long "e" (ee) represented by the "I" in "Ionia(ns)", it wouldn't exactly be a wild assumption that the word "iri" began with a long "e". (Sorry if I am unable to express myself in better linguistic yerms). The "hare" is clearly a substitute for the "o", creating the "un" sound with an "n". Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:51:23 -0500 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL le yod prothetique In another message I wrote: > As someone most interested in the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, I > find this fascinating. About this "iri": Although the Coptic words > having to do with this idea of "doing" or "making" retained the "r" in > the spelling of "iri" (Coptic dropped the "r" that occurred at the end > of most Egyptian terms) I, too, have seen signs to make me think this > "r" was lost in pronunciation. You indicate the preposition "r" was > written "i+A2". What do you say to the name "Ionians" (Greeks) >written in Egyptian beginning with the sign D4 or the "eye"? The next >letter is the "hare". Since we know the Egyptians weren't writing >about the "Ironians", we have to conclude from this that either, in >some dialect, there was no "r" in the "ir" or "iri" represented by D4, >or there generally wasn't in spoken Egyptian at that time. Also, >since this particular sign was the glyph of choice to write the long >"e" (ee) represented by the "I" in "Ionia(ns)", it wouldn't exactly be >a wild assumption that the word "iri" began with a long "e". (Sorry if >I am unable to express myself in better linguistic yerms). The "hare" >is clearly a substitute for the "o", creating the "un" sound with an >"n". After I wrote the above I gave it some more thought. It continued to bother me that the Coptic kept the "r" in their "doing" words. However, I noticed that the Coptic for D4+t is "eiat". In Egyptian, D4+t had the value of "eye", the organ of sight, and other things having to do with "seeing". The "r" sound seems not to be present. So, perhaps, in this "duty" of the sign D4, the "r" was negligible and, with this in mind, was used to spell "Ionia(ns)" in Egyptian. In the Coptic version of the term for "eye", I get the impression that an "ey" vocalization was definitely there. Now in Hebrew, "Ionians" or "Greeks" are called "Yavonim". That is because in Hebrew there are precious few "ee" vocalizations at the beginning of a word. Even the name "Israel" is really "Yisrael". A "v" was also inserted. Perhaps this occurs in the Egyptian spelling, also, and the "hare" glyph really represents a "w" or "v" sound instead of an "o" substitute! Maybe the Pharaoh Unas always has really been Wenas...How are we to know for sure the "hare" wasn't a "v"? Perhaps some people find this sort of talk boring, but I know there are those of you out there who (like me) must have some questions about Egyptian pronunciation you would like answered. Assuming there is an answer! So far, we have been doing a lot of talking about grammar and parts of speech, which I know is necessary, but I'm sure that all comments and queries about any aspect of ancient Egyptian language are welcome. It is ,after all, a bit difficult to relate to a tongue whose words seem an unpronounceable string of glyphs. It is always present in my mind that somebody spoke this language once and trying to figure out how it may have sounded is a bit like King Khufu looking for that black box. Marianne Luban > Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 15:42:37 +0100 From: Mark Wilson To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Definition of "sDm=f" Graham wrote: > > Subjunctive: > In the study of sDm=f's we use this term some what loosely. Actually > there are two moods which it includes: subjunctive and prospective. > In Old Egyptian, one can distinguish more or less between the two, > however in Middle Egyptian the morphology no longer helps us in this > regard. > Subjunctive: "may he hear"/"let him hear"/"that he might hear" Now this is a funny thing, because I've always associated subjunctives with conditional tenses. For example, in English you could say "If linguistic jargon *were* consistent..." As regards "may he hear" etc. I would have called that an imperative. So what's going on here? Yours, somewhat puzzled, Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 10:31:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Le aleph prothetique Hi, OK, Marrianne, you have coaxed me back into this phonology thing. I wanted to keep my mouth shut because different people have different views on the subject, and I would not want anyone to think that I am any real authority, though I have done considerable reading on the subject. The Prothetic yod was always a prothetic aleph right from the beginning. In fact, I believe that the reedstalk sign was originally a glottal stop right from the start, but that it secondarily, in certain limited words, took on the character of a palatal glide /y/. This took place because it was used at times as a _mater lectionis_ (a weak consonant holding the place of a vowel). It could hold the place for /I/ just as much as any other vowel. The Egyptian vulture sign {3} was clearly originally a liquid sound, either /l/ or /R/. It was not until Late Egyptian that {3} had lost this characteristic. At that time it came to represent certain long vowels, /y/, and in certain instances, the glottal stop. There are a few rare places where it may have held onto its value as /l/ such as in H3 (would that) which end up being reconceived in the writing system with the combination {nr} which was how Late Egyptian represented the current /l/ sound, and the word j3r.t "grape" ends up in Coptic as {eloole}. There are probably some other examples, but I do not have them in mind at the moment. The writing of {reedstalk} with {man with hand to mouth} was developed for writings of foreign words originally, and seems to have represented words beginning in aleph with a /a/ after it. The prothetic {reedstalk} had existed as early as the Old Kingdom, and its sound had always been some kind of a short vowel, probably /a/. Late Egyptian then adopted {reedstalk} {man with hand to mouth} as a writing for the prothetic vowel because certain instances of {reedstalk} alone had come to represent other sounds, such as long vowels, and /y/ in certain instances. They did not opt to use {3} in its place because it was outside of the tradition of prothetic {reedstalk} having its own etymological associations with former /l/. The change was also gradual, and there must have been a brief time while not all of the examples of {3} had lost their liquid quality, but the {reedstalk} had also long begun to have various separate values. Thus, a clear writing for initial /a/ became doubly necessary. The use of {r} as the same sound developed because the preposition "jr" (the initial {j} of which was only sporadically written, possibly original "ar") before nouns had lost its final /r/ in pronunciation, and was at the time equivalent to /a/. Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 13:23:54 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Le aleph prothetique Graham wrote: > > Hi, > > OK, Marrianne, you have coaxed me back into this phonology thing. I > wanted to keep my mouth shut because different people have different >views on the subject, and I would not want anyone to think that I am >any real authority, though I have done considerable reading on the >subject. Well, nobody is going to mistake me for an authority, but even I have my views on phonology based on what I see. It's interesting. That's a good enough reason to discuss it, IMHO. > > The Prothetic yod was always a prothetic aleph right from the beginning. > In fact, I believe that the reedstalk sign was originally a glottal stop > right from the start, but that it secondarily, in certain limited words, > took on the character of a palatal glide /y/. This took place because it > was used at times as a _mater lectionis_ (a weak consonant holding the > place of a vowel). It could hold the place for /I/ just as much as any > other vowel. Yes. However, there don't seem to be very many Egyptian words that begin with an "ee" vocalization as in the English "easy". As I've said, that's true of Hebrew as well. > > The Egyptian vulture sign {3} was clearly originally a liquid sound, > either /l/ or /R/. It was not until Late Egyptian that {3} had lost >this characteristic. At that time it came to represent certain long >vowels, /y/, and in certain instances, the glottal stop. There are a >few rare places where it may have held onto its value as /l/ such as >in H3 (would that) which end up being reconceived in the writing >system with the combination {nr} which was how Late Egyptian >represented the current /l/ sound, and the word j3r.t "grape" ends up in Coptic as {eloole}. There are probably some other examples, but I >do not have them in mind at the moment. Now comes the "can of worms". BTW, maybe this is a good time to interject what Geoff means when he says Late Egyptian--it's the vernacular of Dynasties 18 to 24. Of all the "semi-vowels" or "weak consonants" I find the *vulture* or /3/ most confusing. What made scholars believe it was an /l/? This is not clear to me! I don't believe the Egyptians ever had an /l/. They wouldn't be the only ones--Persian didn't have one, either. Most languages in Europe and around the Mediterranean area have both an "r" and an "l", but they are not interchangeable. Every time /r/ occurs at the beginning of a word, it is always "r" in Coptic. The only time "r" is written "l" in Coptic at the start of a word is when E23, the "recumbent lion" is the "r". So maybe E23 wasn't really a true "r" but a peculiar sound somewhere bewteen a weak "r" and a foreign "l". The test of whether D21, the *mouth* was a true "r" is because, as I said, it is seen as the Coptic "ro" (a true "r") at the beginning of a word. If /r/ is not really pronounced "r" at the start of a word, then there is no logical reason for it to be there at all! Even in BBC British English, even though "r" is negligible in other places in words, it is always pronounced clearly when it begins a word. Because /r/ did become the equivalent in Coptic of the Greek Rho instead of the eighth of the seven "special" letters at the end of the Coptic alphabet that had no Greek equivalents, we are lead to think it may have been like a Greek "r". Even so, we can't be sure! More about that. I also have trouble seeing where /3/ was ever an actual "r". Where is this seen? Why, then, are there so many /r/'s routinely following /3/'s? Let's say, though, that /3/ once had the value of "ar". Weak as Egyptian "r's" were, anyway, that amounts to no more than "ah", seems to me. Same thing , in a sense, could apply to Geoff's example "j3r.t" (grape(s)) coming out "eloole" in Coptic (the ending "t" becomes lost in Coptic in many cases). I think perhaps the Copts wrote the "laula" (borrowed from the Greek Lambda) because that is what they *heard* in this "grape" term. In most attestations, "grape(s)" seems to be written in Egyptian with a double /r/. With this /r/ being weak as we suspect, the whole thing probably came out "ewoowe" and it is easy to get a couple of "l" sounds out of that. Because of the hard, burring "r" employed in Egyptian Arabic today, it's not easy to imagine the pharaohs saying their /r/'s like "Bawbawa" Walters, but things certainly seem to point in that direction. But what can be seen as the *rule* for pronoucing /r/ in Egyptian? In middle America, where I live, all "r's" are said alike. This is not true in all of America, however. Forget America. What about the standard BBC British English? As I mentioned, "r" is distinctly heard at the beginning of a word. In this type of English accent, the "r" at the end of the word is always "lost". (This seems to have happened in Egyptian as well). In BBC English, the "r" that occurs after vowels is lost, too. But, if the "r" follows a consonant, it is routinely pronounced. When there are two "r's" together, a sound results rather like a "d" and, once in awhile, this happens when there is only a single "r"! By my example of "posh" English pronunciation, we can get the idea that perhaps not every Egyptian "r" (even if it looks like a /3/!) has to have the same phonetic value or even be heard at all! As for "l", referring back to that *lion* used as "l" in the phonetic spelling of Ptolemaic times--in Polish there is an "l" with a slash through it that is pronounced rather like our "w"--so maybe that is a clue as to why E23 and D21 got mixed up the way they did in Egyptian. (snipped a bit) > The use of {r} as the same sound developed because the preposition >"jr" (the initial {j} of which was only sporadically written, possibly >original "ar") before nouns had lost its final /r/ in pronunciation, >and was at the time equivalent to /a/. > Geoff Graham You write complicated things so they are easily comprehensible, Geoff! Marianne Luban > sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 15:32:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Subjunctives and sDm=f's Hi, Mark, > > Subjunctive: "may he hear"/"let him hear"/"that he might hear" > Now this is a funny thing, because I've always associated subjunctives > with conditional tenses. For example, in English you could say "If > linguistic jargon *were* consistent..." In English the subjunctive is difficult to recognize except in instances such as the one which you just cited, because we have ceased to use many separate forms for it. "were" is one example of a separate subjunctive form which is still recognizable in English. Most of our subjunctives are formed with auxiliaries or helping verbs. "Subjunctive" means that there is some doubt as to whether or not it has, is, or will happen. "he *may* hear/he *might* hear/that he *might* hear", etc. As I said, Egyptologists use the term somewhat incorrectly because it is often applied to "prospective", which really is kind of a future tense. "He will hear". > As regards "may he hear" etc. I would have called that an imperative. Actually, an imperative is a command, and does not have a represented subject. "Hear!" is an imperative. "may he hear" is more like a subjunctive, but could be categorized as "jussive". I wish I knew more about grammar and I would be able to explain it all, but I just barely know more than you do actually. ;-) You have to learn it to survive when you study Egyptian! If you are interested in the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, there is an interesting article by John D. Ray in Crossroads II (Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Egyptian Grammar) pp. 243-258, Goettingen, 1991, called An Approach to the sDm=f; Forms and Purpose, where the author attempts to reconstruct the vocalization of the four types of sDm=f based on scattered evidence in Coptic and other sources. I am not sure if I agree totally with all of his reasonings, however I think he succeeds in getting very close to the original pronunciations, even though some of his ideas about the relationship between case endings to sDm=f's seems to be a little suspect to me. What he ends up proposing (and I tend to agree for the most part) is that the four sDm=f's sounded about like the following: (Terminology: some other scholars will use Prospective = Subjunctive and Emphasizing = Nominal or Emphatic) verb Indicative Prospective Circumstantial Emphasizing 3lit. sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f *sadjmuf *sadjmAf *sadjmif *sadjdjAmuf 3inf. mr=f mrj=f mr=f mrr=f *mariuf *mariAf *mariif *marrAruf I would change his 3rd weak verb example thusly however, because I believe the {reedstalk} to have generally represented a glottal stop and not a palatal glide. *mar'uf *mar'Af *mar'if *marrAruf Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== From: "YED" To: "AEgyptian-List" Subject: AEL thanks for j + A2 answers Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:27:26 +0200 I want to thank all AEL-listers who have answer to my query on the yod prothetique. The answers have gone farther than I though and open my mind on subjets I don't know like Egyptian's speech or the connection with other languages. Thanks again, Best regards, amicalement, Yves Dupont - Lyon Croix-Rousse - France ydupont@lyonnet.dtr.fr ==============================================================================