Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 14:45:55 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Ancient Eqyptian for Dummies? Judith Prueitt wrote: > >> this mailing list is a bit advanced for me. . > > Hang in there many of us feel that way. I've got a few www, that I've > been > collecting. > > Like every other BBS, Chat group, chainletter you name it a few vocal > energetic people carry on the daily so-thats-so sorta' stuff. and the > rest of > us wait until we feel safe getting a word in edgewise. without feeling > foolish. Or live our lives until we get the bug to start a thread. > But don't > give up. NEVER let the appearance of ANYbodys education or vocabulary > intimidate you. Please this took me many years to figure out. Life > got a > whole lot easier then. > > I'd kinda like to know your on the other end when I have an idea i'd > like to > banter about. This is a problem I've been worried about for a while, that there are a lot of people who aren't active on our list because the topics under discussion are too advanced. Admittedly this part of Westcar is far from a beginner's text. The story about the boating party is a little easier, but still not really beginner level. Three years ago I would have been in rather the same position, though perhaps a little more vocal about it. We need some way of surveying what the less advanced people on the list need - what level of knowledge they have, resources available to them, what they feel they need. And we definitely need to come up with something simpler (probably shorter too) but just as interesting as Westcar, to help focus discussion for them. One thing, beginners should remember is that this list is for them too, and if they have any questions arising from their own attempts to learn this language, they should not feel intimidated about asking them. Make it work for you. If you watch the messages, you'll discover that all of us have things we don't know, have mistaken ideas about, or are puzzled by (including James Hoch who has been doing this stuff professionally for years!). So, let's hear from you (privately if you're too shy to send a message to the list!) -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:35:35 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like James Hoch wrote: > > iw xrt.k mi anx tp-m tni > > The translations have been pretty good. (That is a high compliment from me!) > Whatever anx is, it has been correctly taken as a noun or nominal form: > "life" or "living." Here is another suggestion: why not take it as a > participle "one who lives." This would be the imperfect active participle. > Lichtheim also takes it this way. She correctly fixes the English to > something like "Your condition is like (that of) one who lives before old > age." (although she has "who lives above age," whatever that means...) It would mean to me "your condition is like that of one who transcends old age". > > xr iAwt st-mni > > The particle xr may introduce a new sentence: "Now, ..." or perhaps here it > is more subordinate "for old age is mooring" ("mooring" being a metaphor for > dying). The sentence structure was questioned earlier and as no one has > jumped in, perhaps I can explain what I think. It seems to be the simplest > nominal construction: what I call the "AB Nominal Sentence." In this > construction element A is placed up against element B without any other > connecting words. This construction is rather restricted in its use, but it > looks like that's what we've got here. It means "A is B." > > Note that st-mni, st-qrs, and st-smA-tA are all abstract nouns formed with > st. Similar compounds are formed with bw. Most of these words do not > have any direct connection with "place" or spacial location, but often they > refer to conditions. Many of these are not to be found in the dictionaries, > but are fairly easy to figure out. My dictionary, which is Budge, but which I find very easy to work with, has the *throne* or "3st" as meaning both "place" and "occasion". I think "3st-mniw" is clearly "time for dying" and I'm afraid I find "mooring" very difficult to accept here. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:20:04 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said In article , Graham typed: >Dd.jn Ddj pn >Then this Djedi said; > > "Djedi-san" is good but not really English. I'd be open to suggestions > for something that really is an English expression, but so far I > have not thought of anything. Rather stilted to some ears but still in common use in my neck of the woods would be the term, "This Chap Djedi", or, "This Djedi fellow" Might work? >Snj.t k3=k jx.w.t r xft.y=k >May your Ka enchant things against your enemy! > > I do not have any good explanation for the {t} on Snj.t. > Does anyone else? I thought about it being a sDm.tw=f passsive, > but doesn't jx.w.t have to be the object here? Don't know about the t but how can you be sure that Snt is not a variant of SnT, meaning "to revile"? Just a thought. Best regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 17:22:34 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like Saida wrote: > My dictionary, which is Budge, but which I find very easy to work > with, > has the *throne* or "3st" as meaning both "place" and "occasion". I > think "3st-mniw" is clearly "time for dying" and I'm afraid I find > "mooring" very difficult to accept here. The term mni, "mooring," was definitely used to mean this in other contexts, including the determinative of a mooring post. It seems to refer to the concept that one moors on the western horizon like the sun's boat. st-mni was a euphemism for "dying." Faulkner's dictionary lists all three terms: st-mni "(the state of) dying" st-qrs "(the state of) being coffined" st-smA-tA "interment" All these plus a list of others are under the thrid usage of st, "prefixed to other words to form abstract nouns." Budge's dictionary is somewhat less than totally reliable. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:37:22 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL On Father's Day Yet! Serge Rosmorduc wrote: > One of the possible explanation is that the 'f' in itf is not to be > read 'f' at all, but has an old phonetic value of 'it'. In this case, > it would be virtually a variant of the crocodile sign in ity > (sovereign), which would mean 'little father' (rings a russian bell;-)) Yes, Serge, and it also corresponds to the English word "sire", which is a term for addressing the sovereign and also a word for "father". > A possible example in a passage from the Eloquent Peasant about a town > called 'per fefy' in translations, and otherwise unkown ; in fact, > this town might be simply 'per ity'. Yes, it could well be. There is also an unknown word "ffi" seen in the pAmherst with the determinative of Gardiner A1 or *kneeling man*. Evidently this "ffi" is some sort of occupation or, more likely, a type of individual (this det. also follows a word like "z3" or "son"). Anyway, while looking this up, an alternate idea came to me about the /f/ following "it" or "iti" as a determinative. It is difficult to imagine what the horned viper has to do with "father" (or what the vulture has to do with mother). Still, that little viper means /f/, even though an /f/ doesn't seem to be called for here. Another /f/ is a small glyph, Gardiner 51, which rather looks like a teardrop. This sign is the det. for "flesh", "limb", "members", "vagina", "womb" and "phallus", too (such as in the word "b3H"). Phonetically, the *viper* and the Gard.51 are interchangeable, as well--for example the term "ft" or "sweat" is shown to begin either way. So, if Gard. 51 were the det. for "father", THAT would be logical in the sense of "engendering", "of ones flesh", etc. Perhaps, when we see the *horned viper* following "iti", we are supposed to think Gard. 51. Why??? You may well ask. The Egyptians were practical people and did not try to mix us up for no reason. As far as I am concerned, they always try to make sense--so that whenever I see something in a text or in a dictionary that doesn't make sense (like the "iti"(f)), I know it's because we are not interpreting it correctly. There is another term "it" or "iti" with the meaning of "vagina", "vulva", "womb" (Lord, give me strength!), sometimes with Gardiner 51 as the determinative. Now do you see why it's possible "it, iti", with the meaning of "father" CANNOT have the determinative Gardiner 51 but has the *viper* instead? Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 23:46:51 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said Dear Geoff: Just a couple of suggestions: > > > Snj.t k3=k jx.w.t r xft.y=k > May your Ka enchant things against your enemy! > May your reputation (k3) often (-t) go beyond (zni) what is owned (what is yours) according to him who has opposed you!. > (may your reputation surpass what your critics acknowledge!) > rx b3=k w3.w.t May your Ba be acquainted with the ways of the coffin toward the pylon > > of covering (i.e. "which covers") the weary! May your spirit learn the ways, ( which are ) a strongbox to protect (sbx) the aged (tny.t), who are clothed in remissness. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 21:39:23 -0500 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: On Father's Day Yet! I wrote: >It is difficult to > imagine what the horned viper has to do with "father" (or what the > vulture has to do with mother). Still, that little viper means /f/, > even though an /f/ doesn't seem to be called for here. Another /f/ is > a small glyph, Gardiner 51, which rather looks like a teardrop. This >sign > is the det. for "flesh", "limb", "members", "vagina", "womb" and > "phallus", too (such as in the word "b3H"). Phonetically, the *viper* > and the Gard.51 are interchangeable, as well--for example the term >"ft" or "sweat" is shown to begin either way. So, if Gard. 51 were >the det. > for "father", THAT would be logical in the sense of >"engendering", "of ones flesh", etc. Perhaps, when we see the >*horned viper* following "iti", we are supposed to think Gard. 51. >Why??? (snip) > > There is another term "it" or "iti" with the > meaning of "vagina", "vulva", "womb" (Lord, give me strength!), > sometimes with Gardiner 51 as the determinative. Now do you see why > it's possible "it, iti", with the meaning of "father" CANNOT have the > determinative Gardiner 51 but has the *viper* instead? Hang on! I am wrong here, but I still think I am on the right track. "iti" (father) IS attested as being written with the det. Gardiner 51. I found one! Also, "iti" as "father" would NOT be likely to get mixed up with feminine "iti" words because the latter have other determinatives to prevent this. But, my conclusion still is that the *horned viper* determinative after "iti" is interchangeable with Gardiner 51 and is there for the same reason that Gard. 51 is present in the "vagina", womb", etc. terms because all these are words of procreation. So why isn't either determinative present in the word "mwt" (mother)? Good question. I do see it with a determinative that resembles an egg that I believe can take the place of Gardiner 51. I'll check on this. Consider this, though: I think there is something in this Egyptian "father" business that we are missing. Perhaps we are looking at a concept, even though not a complicated one, for which there is not a "single" English word. In Budge's Dictionary (page 96) we have "reed, loaf" (det. a man) father "reed, loaf" (det. a child) child "reed, loaf, loaf" (det. woman holding child) nurse "reed, loaf" (det. womb, vagina) womb, etc. >From this little story I get the impression that perhaps "it" the word represents a term which we might translate as "genitor". Or, look at the line-up in Latin terms, even though I haven't a Latin dictionary right now and can't be sure of the spellings: genitor--father gens (genus)--offspring genitrix-mother genitalia--same By the same token, perhaps "it-t" was wrongly translated by Budge as "nurse" and meant "genitrix". There seem to be quite a few words which have been read as "nurse", but many of them are rather ambiguous of meaning and can be related to other feminine activity. The "it" as womb or female parts is attached to this "female parent" concept, in the same sense that "Mutterleib" or "Gebarmutter" means "womb" in German. Even so, "mwt" is still inarguably the Egyptian word for "mother". It is clear that the spellings "it" (without det.) and "itf" were still operating independently in the Classic era of Egypt from the transliterations of the names "Philopatores" (spelled "It-netjer-it-netjer-mery) and "Philopator" spelled "Itf-mery". >From the prenomen pf Ptolemy VIII, "Panetjer-hunnu-Tef-f-mery", we can see that an extra "f" was put on to make "his father" distinct from "(i)tf". Marianne Luban Does this make sense to you? Marianne > Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 20:04:44 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Finding Djedi James Hoch wrote: > Jumping back a line, we had Hardedef arrive in his palanquin, which > was then > set down. He arises to address Djedi. This brings us back to some > things > that Marianne brought up some time ago. How did a royal address a > powerful > eminence? It seems to me that getting out of the palanquin and > standing up > was probably a sign of respect. (Would have been rather rude talking > to Djedi > just sitting in a deposed palanquin--but also maybe it would not be > decorous > to be just sitting in a grounded palanquin in any situation??!!) An alternative explanation might be that it would have been considered highly improper (sacrilege?) for a normal mortal to be in the presence of even a prince royal (let alone the king) while one's head was higher than his. Hardedef may have pre-empted this problem by standing. And I don't see any hints that Djedi scrambled to stand up to talk to the prince as a mark of respect. This would leave his later raising of Djedi, especially with his own hand, as a signal sign of respect and honour. I'm not sure to what extent this idea applied in ancient Egypt, but it certainly held in a number of other, somewhat similar societies. If so, the symbolism could be interesting: Hardedef standing publicly asserts his position of dominance; his raising of Djedi would have affirmed a very high status for Djedi in the eyes of those present. Is there anything definite known that would bear on this? -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 07:22:21 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like Stephen Fryer wrote: > > Saida wrote: > > > My dictionary, which is Budge, but which I find very easy to work > > with, > > has the *throne* or "3st" as meaning both "place" and "occasion". I > > think "3st-mniw" is clearly "time for dying" and I'm afraid I find > > "mooring" very difficult to accept here. > The term mni, "mooring," was definitely used to mean this in other > contexts, including the determinative of a mooring post. It seems to > refer to the concept that one moors on the western horizon like the > sun's boat. st-mni was a euphemism for "dying." Faulkner's dictionary > lists all three terms: > st-mni "(the state of) dying" > st-qrs "(the state of) being coffined" > st-smA-tA "interment" > All these plus a list of others are under the thrid usage of st, > "prefixed to other words to form abstract nouns." Oops! It's true. I did my original translation from Geoff's transliteration in the days when I could not get to the website. Now I see it is "mooring" by the dets. whereas, before, I thought it had to do with "mni.t" (dying)--even though it is all related, I realize now. Strangely, even today, when I click on my bookmark to get to the site, half the time I only get the picture of the cartouche, etc., with nothing else underneath and nothing to click on! Then I have to go back "home" and start all over again, hoping I will get the entire webpage. It's weird. > Budge's dictionary is somewhat less than totally reliable. Don't blame Budge--he's got all this correctly. It was my doing. Let's get something straight, though. I don't recommend Budge's dictionary to everybody, even though it is pretty accessible. I am saying *I* like it for various reasons. Also, it is not the only source I use. Can you tell me in what way I have shown myself to be disadvantaged on this list because of Budge? Can you tell me which Egyptian dictionary is 100% reliable and tells everything exactly as known and intended by the ancient Egyptians? I wouldn't put my money on any of them, but I would put my money on the notion that there are going to be errors and misconceptions in them ALL. We really don't have any way of knowing that even the innovations and revisions in Egyptian philology are correct because we have no ancient Egyptian to consult as to their accuracy. This is not exactly a case of "state of the art" as in technology, if you get my meaning. We are going by verisimilitude--that is all, the fact of one person being able to convince his peers that he is more correct than the last person with his ideas. My opinion here is that with these dictionaries (as with so many other things in life) it is maybe not so much the dictionary as what one is capable of gleaning from them. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:29:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL mnjw Hi, Marianne, > I > think "3st-mniw" is clearly "time for dying" and I'm afraid I find > "mooring" very difficult to accept here. The word mnjw has two main meanings, "pasture" (sheep/cattle/etc.) or "moor" (a boat) both of which are connected by rope. In Egypt animals are usually tied to a rope when pastured in order to confine them to a particular area. When you tie an animal it is similar to tying a boat. There is a secondary meaning of mnjw also: "marry", when you "tie the knot". This word also was commonly used as a euphamism for "die". mnjw does not literally mean "death" but rather "wrap-up time" as you so excellently put it in one of your previous posts! Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:07:15 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Re: Westcar Back-tracking? (beware : a subject a little advanced) About gm.n=f : There are a number of verbs who are almost always used with the nominal sDm.n=f form, and whose value is almost those of auxiliaries. It include sDr, gmi, and a few others. To sum up, the nominal form emphasises the circumstances, which is why the order is reversed in translation. With some verbs, the circumstances are naturally the most important part of the sentence, and these verbs show a great trend toward systematic use of the nominal form. For example, sDr or wrS (spend the night/day) are mostly used to express HOW your spend the day. As of gmi, it usually stresses the state of the thing found. The translation of : * gm.n=i sw mwt.ti could be : I found him, dead. but a better one would be : I found that he was dead Interestingly, in Westcar, most sDm.n=f found in the narrative parts correspond to this kind of verbs. But too systematic a use can weaken a construction. And while the form is almost certainly nominal, it might sometimes be a perfectly good translation not to express the e,mphasis in the translation. LIST of probably nominal sDm.n=f in Westcar : - wrS.n.s im Hr swir Hna pA nDs - gm.n.f pA nxAw wAH Hr pAqyt - wrS.n Hm.f Hr hrw nfr Hna pr-nswt-aws mi-qd.f - pr.n fqA.n.f Xry-Hbd Hry-tp DADA-m-anx m bw nb nfr - gm.n.f sw sDr Hr tmAm m sS n pr.f - gm.n.sn sw aHa dAiw sxd - gm.n.s ir.tw m Xnw.f (?perhaps?) - rd.n.s st r at wnnt Xr Hnw.s - gm.n.s sn.s n mwt.s smsw Hr mr mHy nwt Hr xtyw - gm.n.f rwDDdt Hms.ti tp.s Hr mAst.s ib.s Dw r xt nbt note the frequency of 'gm.n=f'. You never find "aHa.n gm.n=f" in this text. (And while I'm at it, the aHa in 'aHa.n sDm.n=f' was probably originaly a nominal form). 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, 16 Jun 1997 12:14:20 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like Hello James Sorry to bombard you with questions and propositions but regarding >iw xrt.k mi anx tp-m tni you wrote: >Here is another suggestion: why not take it as a >participle "one who lives." This would be the imperfect active participle. >Lichtheim also takes it this way. She correctly fixes the English to >something like "Your condition is like (that of) one who lives before old >age." (although she has "who lives above age," whatever that means...) I wonder if we should consider either of the following possibilities: 1. That "tp-m tni" should be taken as meaning, "transcendence of old age" 2. That tni should be seen in the sense of "growing old" and that "tp" would then be suggesting that Djedi is someone whose condition is such that he appears to be "above" growing old, i.e. that his powerful magic allows him to stay the effects of ageing. In the first case, then, we should derive meanings like: "Your condition is as one who lives transcendent of old age." or in the second: "Your condition is as one who lives without (licence, I know) growing old." >xr iAwt st-mni > >The particle xr may introduce a new sentence: "Now, ..." or perhaps here it >is more subordinate "for old age is mooring" ("mooring" being a metaphor for >dying). The sentence structure was questioned earlier and as no one has >jumped in, perhaps I can explain what I think. It seems to be the simplest >nominal construction: what I call the "AB Nominal Sentence." In this >construction element A is placed up against element B without any other >connecting words. This construction is rather restricted in its use, but it >looks like that's what we've got here. It means "A is B." > >Note that st-mni, st-qrs, and st-smA-tA are all abstract nouns formed with > st. Similar compounds are formed with bw. Most of these words do not >have any direct connection with "place" or spacial location, but often they >refer to conditions. Many of these are not to be found in the dictionaries, >but are fairly easy to figure out. Yes, and Faulkner gives "st-mni" as "_the_state_of_ dying". Taking the "st" as a kind of generic status prefix, the section, "xr iAwt st-mni, st-qrs, st-smA-tA sDr r Ssp..." might mean: "For old age is dying, being coffined, buried and going to rest from the light..." My best regards Marc Line marc@bosagate.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== From: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 06:44:40 -0700 (PDT) To: Marc Line cc: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said what about "then the aforementioned djedi said...." chris hoffman ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:47:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL On Father's Day Yet! Hi, Marianne, [big snippety] > Another /f/ is a > small glyph, Gardiner 51, which rather looks like a teardrop. This sign > is the det. for "flesh", "limb", "members", "vagina", "womb" and > "phallus", too (such as in the word "b3H"). Phonetically, the *viper* > and the Gard.51 are interchangeable, as well--for example the term "ft" > or "sweat" is shown to begin either way. Marianne, this is the problem with using Budge's dictionary. He mixes all stages of the language together without telling you from which stage any given reading comes. It is during the Ptolemaic Period that the {flesh} sign becomes a writing for /f/. This happens because of cryptography in the later New Kingdom, but does not become common until the Ptolemaic period at which time cryptography became really popular and ubiquitous. The average user of Egyptian hierglyphs would never have recognized this value of the sign. Moreover, before the New Kingdom this value for that sign was not even thought of yet. Sorry to always kill your interesting ideas like this. Get yourself a copy of Faulkner or the Woerterbuch so that you can check to see that you are not working with an inappropriate writing for the earlier periods about which you are speaking. Have fun. Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:58:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Why I have come Hi, Marc, > I resolved it to be: "I have come here in order to summon you at the > behest of my father, Khufu, the justified." That seems to fit the order > of words very closely whilst still conveying the same sense as Geoff's > interpretation. Is that equally valid as a translation and if not, why > not? Why is it necessary to reverse the two parts of the sentence? There is no necessity to reverse the order so long as you make it clear which part is the emphasized part. The cleft sentence is one way that English can emphasize an adverbial adjunct. At other times we do so by special wording or by underlining or in certain instances final position can emphasize too. Egyptian could emphasize by word order too, but it seems to have also had the second tense as an efficient tool for doing so without shifting the words. I also think that sometimes Egyptologists are making too much out of the emphasis that the second tense created. We do not always need to indicate it so strongly, making our translations filled with too many stilted cleft sentences. There are varying degrees of emphasis and sometimes you just have to get a feel for the context in order to know what degree is warranted in a given translation. My Coptic instructor feels that some second tenses are best translated in the usual fashion so as to avoid overly dramatic English when the original was only mildly emphasized. I used the cleft sentence in this example in order to make a point mostly. It helps people to remember the emphasizing/second tense form of the sDm=f/sDm.n=f. If I had left it as: "I have come to summon you on a mission of my father, Khufu the justified." it still would have worked just as well. In a sense the "on a mission of..." is still emphasized in English because it is at the end of the sentence. The point was, however, to draw attention to the fact that we have a special grammatical circumstance here. So long as people understand that, it really does not matter if one uses a cleft sentence in English or not. > (I see that /m/ is not normally reckoned to have the meaning of "at" but > there are times when it seems to be leaning towards it in the English > 'causative agency' sense of something proceeding *from* something else, > as here. If this is a misapprehension I would appreciate correction > lest it become ingrained.) The prepositions in Egyptian are really pretty fluid. There is NO one-for-one correspondence in English. Really you can say that about any language though. The usage of prepositions is very specific from one language to the next. There will be times when you are forced to translate "m" as any number of English prepositions depending on what the context is. This takes some time to get used to, but just keep notes on the prepositions for a while and you will begin to get a general sense of them. They are also dependent upon various idioms in Egyptian AND in English. Be well. Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:15:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said Hi, marc, [regarding: Ddj pn] > Rather stilted to some ears but still in common use in my neck of the > woods would be the term, "This Chap Djedi", or, "This Djedi fellow" > > Might work? Hmmmm, it seems pretty good. The only thing is that "fellow" and "chap" seem very chummy and informal somehow, whereas Egyptian seems to use pn/tn with proper names in relatively formal situations, like the Pyramid Texts or when Djedi is addressing royalty for instance! "Mr. Djedi" seems more appropriate, but it has such a modern and Euro-centric ring to it! Moreover, it is English custom to use family names with Mr., and not personal names. It seems to me that sometimes German uses the article with personal names "der Hans sagt..." etc. I wonder if the context is similar? I just can't come up with anything in English that feels right though. Would "Sir Djedi" sound right?... then sir Djedi said... (?) Maybe it is not worth belaboring. Who knows. > >Snj.t k3=k jx.w.t r xft.y=k > >May your Ka enchant things against your enemy! > > > > I do not have any good explanation for the {t} on Snj.t. > > Does anyone else? I thought about it being a sDm.tw=f passsive, > > but doesn't jx.w.t have to be the object here? > > Don't know about the t but how can you be sure that Snt is not a variant > of SnT, meaning "to revile"? Just a thought. No, I just found the idiom. It is on Faulkner, Page 268. Snj.t jx.t r is an idiom meaning "litigate against". It would be: "May your Ka litigate against your enemy." That would be a reference to the trials of the afterlife and it would express Djedi's wish that the prince would win and have a good position in the next world. I am glad you forced me to go look this up. Thanks, Marc! Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:33:57 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL On Father's Day Yet! Graham wrote: > > Hi, Marianne, > > [big snippety] > > > Another /f/ is a > > small glyph, Gardiner 51, which rather looks like a teardrop. This sign > > is the det. for "flesh", "limb", "members", "vagina", "womb" and > > "phallus", too (such as in the word "b3H"). Phonetically, the *viper* > > and the Gard.51 are interchangeable, as well--for example the term "ft" > > or "sweat" is shown to begin either way. > > Marianne, this is the problem with using Budge's dictionary. He mixes all > stages of the language together without telling you from which stage any > given reading comes. It is during the Ptolemaic Period that the {flesh} > sign becomes a writing for /f/. This happens because of cryptography in > the later New Kingdom, but does not become common until the Ptolemaic > period at which time cryptography became really popular and ubiquitous. > The average user of Egyptian hierglyphs would never have recognized this > value of the sign. Moreover, before the New Kingdom this value for that > sign was not even thought of yet. The phonetic value of these signs is perhaps not so crucial, nor at what point they became interchangeable. In "iti" (father) the /f/ has no ponetic value, nor does the *flesh sign* in most of the instances I have mentioned. Nevertheless, the two glyphs DID ultimately become interchangeable. Can you give a better reason why they would have than that they had previously had the same significance as determinatives? Let's face it, we really don't know what the ancients *recognized* when they looked at that *viper* on the end of "iti". > > Sorry to always kill your interesting ideas like this. Get yourself a > copy of Faulkner or the Woerterbuch so that you can check to see that you > are not working with an inappropriate writing for the earlier periods > about which you are speaking. Have fun. Come on, Geoff! You don't really have the opportunity to kill ALL my interesting ideas even though, as you say, by all reasoning you ought to be able to do so considering your superior arsenal of lexicons. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:38:39 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re: Westcar Back-tracking? Dear AEListers: Serge Rosmorduc wrote: > (beware : a subject a little advanced) > > About gm.n=f : > > There are a number of verbs who are almost always used with the > nominal sDm.n=f form, and whose value is almost those of > auxiliaries. It include sDr, gmi, and a few others. To sum up, the > nominal form emphasises the circumstances, which is why the order is > reversed in translation. With some verbs, the circumstances are > naturally the most important part of the sentence, and these verbs > show a great trend toward systematic use of the nominal form. > > For example, sDr or wrS (spend the night/day) are mostly used to > express HOW > your spend the day. > > As of gmi, it usually stresses the state of the thing found. The > translation of : > > * gm.n=i sw mwt.ti > could be : > I found him, dead. > but a better one would be : > I found that he was dead > I believe the correct Egyptian would be: gm.n.i zw mwt(w). "What I found was he was dead." And, to judge by Sahidic cine, find, gm should be reconstructed with a medial -i- just as mwt has a medial -w-: gim.n.i. Pat --- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:55:29 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said Graham wrote: > > Hi, Since no one seems to want to start translating what Djedi said, I > figured I would put in a translation of my own, and see if we can get > some > discussion going here. AAARGH! Just when I was beginning to get the first part of Hardedef's speech sorted out! > > Dd.jn Ddj pn > Then this Djedi said; > > "Djedi-san" is good but not really English. I'd be open to > suggestions > for something that really is an English expression, but so far > I > have not thought of anything. I hadn't thought of anything just what I wanted in English, so I had to cover by borrowing from Japanese. Suggestions would be most welcome! > m Htp m Htp Hrw-dd=f z3-n.y-sw.t mr.y n.y jt=f > "Welcome, welcome, Hardedef, (O) prince, beloved of his father! > > I still stand by "welcome" because I believe it is simply the > omission of "jj.tj" in "jj.tj m Htp". I think this is it too. Marianne disagrees though. > Snj.t k3=k jx.w.t r xft.y=k > May your Ka enchant things against your enemy! > > I do not have any good explanation for the {t} on Snj.t. > Does anyone else? I thought about it being a sDm.tw=f > passsive, > but doesn't jx.w.t have to be the object here? > > rx b3=k w3.w.t May your Ba be acquainted with the ways of the coffin toward the pylon > of covering (i.e. "which covers") the weary! > > This is a reference to achieving a proper funeral and making > it to the > afterlife in one piece, I think. This comes out too much like nonsense, so I think there must be something wrong here. I haven't had time to sit down and try it myself, though. > xr m-xt spr=f r Xnw > After it had arrived at the Residence, > > OK, I am taking Stephen and James's idea and letting this be > subordinate because I guess it works better that way. I think maybe "he" (referring to the prince) rather than "it" (the barge) to fit better with the following sentences. > Dd.jn Ddj > Then Djedi said; > > njs pw jj.w > "Was there a summons which came? > > I am making this interrogative because it seems odd that he > would > answer the question in this way. What do you think? Try nis.w pw i.y = One who is summoned comes. I think both verb forms are participles, the first passive, the second "active" (intransitive verb of motion) > jt.y The Sovereign, may he live, prosper, and be healthy, has summoned for > me. > > mk wj jj.kw > Behold, I have come!" A few points here. I'm a little unsure whether "sovereign, l.p.h" is the subject of this sentence, or a vocative at the end of the previous one. With the subject at the beginning of the sentence this way, wouldn't that require the verb to either have a resumptive pronoun suffix (nis=f) or to be a stative ("pseudoparticiple", "old perfective")? After "nis" the object may take the preposition "r" so nis r=i would be "summon me" I think there may not be a break before mk: nis r=i mk wi iy.kw Something like "You sent for me and, see, here I am!" (+ gesture of magician pulling rabbit out of hat?) -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:20:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like Hi, Marc and James: > >iw xrt.k mi anx tp-m tni Marc: > 1. That "tp-m tni" should be taken as meaning, "transcendence of old > age" Me: If tp were a writing of tp.y, it could mean "best". That could possibly give "Your condition is like the best life in old age." However, this would entail sacrificing the idea that tp-m were a compound preposition meaning "before". Marc: > 2. That tni should be seen in the sense of "growing old" and that "tp" > would then be suggesting that Djedi is someone whose condition is such > that he appears to be "above" growing old, i.e. that his powerful magic > allows him to stay the effects of ageing. Me: I think tnj probably is something like that. "Old" for people is Tnj, and "old" for monuments and more permanent things is jz. If you take >xr iAwt st-mni > > > >The particle xr may introduce a new sentence: "Now, ..." or perhaps here it > >is more subordinate "for old age is mooring" ("mooring" being a metaphor for > >dying). The sentence structure was questioned earlier and as no one has > >jumped in, perhaps I can explain what I think. It seems to be the simplest > >nominal construction: what I call the "AB Nominal Sentence." In this > >construction element A is placed up against element B without any other > >connecting words. This construction is rather restricted in its use, but it > >looks like that's what we've got here. It means "A is B." Me: James, I have been given to believe that the "noun-noun" sentence structure was well on its way out of use by the time that this papyrus was written. It is common enough in the Old Kingdom, but is it really very common in Middle Egyptian anymore? This is a real question, since I know you have studied Middle Egyptian grammar in greater detail than I have. I know it is clearly gone by Late Egyptian, but I did not think there were too many examples left in Middle Egyptian either. James: > >Note that st-mni, st-qrs, and st-smA-tA are all abstract nouns formed with > > st. Similar compounds are formed with bw. Most of these words do not > >have any direct connection with "place" or spacial location, but often they > >refer to conditions. Many of these are not to be found in the dictionaries, > >but are fairly easy to figure out. Marc: > Yes, and Faulkner gives "st-mni" as "_the_state_of_ dying". Taking the > "st" as a kind of generic status prefix, the section, > > "xr iAwt st-mni, st-qrs, st-smA-tA sDr r Ssp..." > > might mean: > > "For old age is dying, being coffined, buried and going to rest from the > light..." Me: Marc, that is an interesting take. It is possible that r can have the maaning of "with respect to" and thus "from", however I am not sure if sDr can mean "take a rest". It certainly means something more like "lie" than it does "sleep" because one can sDr with someone and do other things besides sleeping, as is well attested in various stories. While sleeping can be expressed by qdd. What I like about how you have handled this is that, if the original sentence means "your condition is like one who lives BEFORE ageing", then, the rest of it will be a description of what ageing can be, and how very close it seems to death. "For agedness is dying, burial, landing, and lying down from the light" but then what do you do when it starts to name positive characteristics, or at least the lack of naegative ones?... "free of illness, without the hacking of a cough." Your know what, James, you have to be right here! This is a noun-noun sentence! There really is nothing else you can do with it! I do get the impression, however, that there might be something left out though. Why does the description of old age shift from a comparison with death, something that is bound to be negaitve, is it not, to the lack of illness? Have we missed something in the middle here? Could this be some kind of exclamation? let me take some liberties and see what you think: "Oh what an old age, (that is usually) death, burial, interment, (YET, look at YOU) lying in the sun, free of illness, and with not (even) the hacking of a cough!" I think I am sounding more and more like Marianne's take on this sentence. She was probably right. It is amazing how different this one little passage can look if you stop to puzzle over it for a moment! I am still not entirely satisfied. I just want there to be some adversative conjunction stuffed in there between the death metaphores and the picture of health motif, don't you? Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:30:43 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like Correction: While Budge does have a listing for 3s.t, he refers the reader to jst. Pat Saida wrote: > Stephen Fryer wrote: > > > > Saida wrote: > > > > > My dictionary, which is Budge, but which I find very easy to work > > > with, > > > has the *throne* or "3st" as meaning both "place" and "occasion". > -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:33:49 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Katherine Griffis Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said Cc: sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu At 03:15 PM 6/16/97 -0400, Geoff wrote: >Hi, marc, > >[regarding: Ddj pn] >> Rather stilted to some ears but still in common use in my neck of the >> woods would be the term, "This Chap Djedi", or, "This Djedi fellow" >> >> Might work? > >Hmmmm, it seems pretty good. The only thing is that "fellow" and "chap" >seem very chummy and informal somehow, whereas Egyptian seems to use pn/tn >with proper names in relatively formal situations, like the Pyramid Texts >or when Djedi is addressing royalty for instance! "Mr. Djedi" seems more >appropriate, but it has such a modern and Euro-centric ring to it! >Moreover, it is English custom to use family names with Mr., and not >personal names. It seems to me that sometimes German uses the article >with personal names "der Hans sagt..." etc. I wonder if the context is >similar? I just can't come up with anything in English that feels right >though. Would "Sir Djedi" sound right?... then sir Djedi said... (?) >Maybe it is not worth belaboring. Who knows. Just to toss in an idea, perhaps the honorific would be along the lines of the "venerable" or "honorable". I know that in certain languages the concept of an older individual assumes a certain reverence (for their experience, wisdom, etc.). Just as in Arabic, you refer to older men and women you may not know personally as "Hajj" or "Hajja", with the assumption being that they have undertaken their Haj (pilgrimage) to Mecca based upon their age, and thus honor them for it. Please note that I am not implying a religious title here, but one that merely accords respect, much as we refer to statesmen and judges as "the honorable...." Best -- Katherine Griffis ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:16:25 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL On Father's Day Yet! Pat Ryan wrote: > > The idea that -f- is a determinative for it, father, is not credible. I wouldn't say that it is "not credible". Still, do you know of any other words with the *viper* as the determinative at the end? I can't seem to find any where it even makes sense that the *viper* could be a determinative instead of phonetic. Maybe it's somehow connected to the term "Hm.f" or "His Majesty". Serge brought out previously the similarity between "iti" (father) and "iti" (sovereign) so maybe "father" is the one other word in Egyptian that gets to have a possessive form. Saying what, though? "His Paternity"? It's a mystery, all right. Somewhere I have an article in French about this little *viper* business. I'll have to look for it and see what points it brought out. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 17:17:44 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said Graham wrote: > > > >Snj.t k3=k jx.w.t r xft.y=k > > >May your Ka enchant things against your enemy! > > > > > > I do not have any good explanation for the {t} on Snj.t. > > > Does anyone else? I thought about it being a sDm.tw=f > passsive, > > > but doesn't jx.w.t have to be the object here? > > > > Don't know about the t but how can you be sure that Snt is not a > variant > > of SnT, meaning "to revile"? Just a thought. > > No, I just found the idiom. It is on Faulkner, Page 268. Snj.t jx.t > r is > an idiom meaning "litigate against". It would be: > > "May your Ka litigate against your enemy." I just got around to hauling out the Faulkner. On page 269, under SnT you will find the same spelling we have here for "revile." Further in the same he has SnT xt r "vent anger on" with Westcar 7,25 as a reference. That would make this May your ka vent its anger on your enemy! -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:22:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL On Father's Day Yet! Hi, Marianne, ;-) > interchangeable. Can you give a better reason why they would have than > that they had previously had the same significance as determinatives? > Let's face it, we really don't know what the ancients *recognized* when > they looked at that *viper* on the end of "iti". Yes, it comes from the word jwf "flesh" which comes out in Coptic as {af}. The flesh sign could usually be used to write the whole word. This word was probably no more than glottal stop and /f/. jw probably only represented glottal stop plus a short vowel as in the example of jw becoming coptic {e}. So, the word for "flesh" being something like *uf or *if in the New Kingdom would have seemed a good sign to use cryptographically to represent /f/, n'est ce pas? > Come on, Geoff! You don't really have the opportunity to kill ALL my > interesting ideas even though, as you say, by all reasoning you ought to > be able to do so considering your superior arsenal of lexicons. Oh, Marianne! Nothing could KILL all the interesting ideas in you! You are indefatigable!!!! ;-) Have fun! And certainly don't let me kill that. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:27:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re: Westcar Back-tracking? Hi, Serge, Thank you for the information on verbs that frequently take the second tense/nominal/emphasizing form. I sure wish we all had the same terminology, because with so many names for it, we have to do so much more typing. ;-) > * gm.n=i sw mwt.ti > could be : > I found him, dead. > but a better one would be : > I found that he was dead I am certain that you must have meant to type: gmj.n=j sw mwt.w I am sure you are well aware that mwt.tj would be feminine or second person singlular. I am just posting this back to the list lest any beginners get confused by the typo. Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:48:26 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL The Problem of Iti I wrote: >"reed, loaf" (det. a child) child >"reed, loaf, loaf" (det. woman holding child) nurse >"reed, loaf" (det. womb, vagina) womb, etc. I am curious as to how it is known that these are Ptolemaic corruptions. Are they attested only in writings of that period? I tried to relate these terms to: genitor--father gens (genus)--offspring genitrix-mother genitalia--same But this pattern shows up in Arabic, as well. walada "to bear"; "to procreate"; "to produce"; "to father" walad "child" (lit, that which has been born/produced/fathered) waliid "baby" wulayd "small child" waalid "procreator"; "father" waalidah "mother" mawlid "new born" muwallad "begotten" It doesn't seem so far-fetched to me that some pattern like this could be found in Egyptian, as well. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:58:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL This Djedi Hi, Katherine, > Just to toss in an idea, perhaps the honorific would be along the lines of > the "venerable" or "honorable". I know that in certain languages the Yes, I think you may be just about right, at least in meaning, yet throwing in such words seems like taking such liberty with the original text. I was tempted to try "then good Djedi said" but this would make the reader expect that I was translating Ddj nfr instead of Ddj pn. I just don't know if there is any decent way around using the stilted old "this Djedi". If we start improvising too much, then those who cannot read the original will make all kinds of assumptions about what the text actually says. If I insert "honorable", even if this actually helps to give the flavor of the intent, the casual reader could make all kinds of assumptions about the importance of the fact that Djedi was an "honorable" man even though the text nowhere says this. It might not be terribly important in a story from Westcar, but just imagine if the next person to come up with a "master theory" about the pyramids were citing my translation of the Pyramid Texts and misconstruing the importance of such a word as "honorable Pepi" as if it were a title or something! I just don't see any easy solutions. Translation is just such a difficult task at times. A funny example that was pointed out to me by Bently Layton once was that if you translate the Coptic epithet {patnauerof} as "the invisible one", the casual English-speaking theologian who does not know Coptic might very well construe it to mean "the one (a unity, as in monotheism) which is invisible". For this reason he insisted that we translate the phrase as "the invisible" and leave off the word "one" lest it give birth to too many fallacies in future secondary literature. While finding just the right translation for the phrase Ddj pn is an intriguing pass-time, we should all remember that, if we were actually preparing a translation for publication, we would have to think long and hard about how our words make the original text sound. The reading public might not take our interpretations the way we had originally intended them. I am sure this is why even today so many Egyptologists persist in using archaic-sounding phrases like "this Djedi". What else can one do? Thanks, Katherine. It is a good idea, and I think you are right in the gist, but I realized after thinking about it that were I to use "honorable" in this instance, it might muddy the waters even more than just having stilted English. I think the issue is unsolvable. Maybe it's time to hang it up. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:39:28 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like Good day one and all. I ventured: >> Faulkner gives "st-mni" as "_the_state_of_ dying". Taking the >> "st" as a kind of generic status prefix, the section, >> >> "xr iAwt st-mni, st-qrs, st-smA-tA sDr r Ssp..." >> >> might mean: >> >> "For old age is dying, being coffined, buried and going to rest from the >> light..." > To which Geoff replied: >Marc, that is an interesting take. It is possible that r can have the >maaning of "with respect to" and thus "from", however I am not sure if sDr >can mean "take a rest". It certainly means something more like "lie" than >it does "sleep" because one can sDr with someone and do other things >besides sleeping, as is well attested in various stories. While sleeping >can be expressed by qdd. There's a whole ream of meanings for sDr associated sequences in Faulkner, among which is the proposition, "lie down / go to rest." (p259) >What I like about how you have handled this is that, if the original >sentence means "your condition is like one who lives BEFORE ageing", then, >the rest of it will be a description of what ageing can be, and how very >close it seems to death. > >"For agedness is dying, burial, landing, and lying down from the light" > >but then what do you do when it starts to name positive characteristics, >or at least the lack of naegative ones?... Panic? You'll note that I ended the sentences with ... ;)) No, seriously, >"free of illness, without the hacking of a cough." doesn't necessarily have to be seen as a shift although I admit that having thought about it more they probably should be here. I was initially thinking along the lines of death being a blessed release from the sufferings of mortality, notable among which, particularly in the aged of that time, might be a hacking cough. Geoff continued: >Your know what, James, you have to be right here! This is a noun-noun >sentence! There really is nothing else you can do with it! > >I do get the impression, however, that there might be something left out >though. Why does the description of old age shift from a comparison with >death, something that is bound to be negaitve, is it not, to the lack of >illness? Have we missed something in the middle here? I was about to say something along the lines that death for the Egyptians was not necessarily negative but that kind of thinking is perhaps out of place here. The logic would then have been to suppose that death, the freedom from suffering, might be seen as the positive side of the contrast which would tend to mitigate against the fact that Djedef-hor is clearly making a favourable comparison between the state in which he finds Djedi and the state of death. So, rather than paint myself into a corner with it, I'll put down the brush here. :) Thanks for your clarification of the points raised in my other posts. I take your point about the cleft sentence and as far as Ddi pn goes, it'll remain a mystery. In cheer and with best regards Marc Line marc@bosagate.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:28:48 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re: Westcar Back-tracking? >>>>> "Graham" == Graham writes: Graham> Hi, Serge, Thank you for the information on verbs that >> * gm.n=i sw mwt.ti could be : I found him, dead. but a better >> one would be : I found that he was dead Graham> I am certain that you must have meant to type: Graham> gmj.n=j sw mwt.w Ouuuuups ! sorry ! ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:32:24 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL On Father's Day Yet! >>>>> "Saida" == Saida writes: Saida> connected to the term "Hm.f" or "His Majesty". Serge Saida> brought out previously the similarity between "iti" Saida> (father) and "iti" (sovereign) so maybe "father" is the one I should perhaps be more precise. There are two writings of ity : one is phonetic : i-ti-i-i, the other writting comes with two crocodiles, the dual giving the reading ity. Therefore, one crocodile in this word is to be read 'it'. The proposal I make is that this might be a variant of the vyper sign used in the word father. ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:55:43 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Fryer writes: >> m Htp m Htp Hrw-dd=f z3-n.y-sw.t mr.y n.y jt=f "Welcome, >> welcome, Hardedef, (O) prince, beloved of his father! >> >> I still stand by "welcome" because I believe it is simply the >> omission of "jj.tj" in "jj.tj m Htp". Stephen> I think this is it too. Marianne disagrees though. I think this Htp might also be related with the ritual used while awakening a divinity : "rs=k, Htp=k, rs=k m Htp" and thus mean "good day". >> Snj.t k3=k jx.w.t r xft.y=k May your Ka enchant things against >> your enemy! >> >> I do not have any good explanation for the {t} on Snj.t. Does >> anyone else? I thought about it being a sDm.tw=f passsive, but >> doesn't jx.w.t have to be the object here? The same expression appears later in the text : aHa.n Snt RwDDdt xt n tA wbAyt rd.n=s xsf=tw n=s m Hwt Then Roudidit had a argument ? with the maid servant, and had her beaten. So, I don't believe much in the "enchant things" translation. The litteral meaning looks like 'make things difficult'. Perhaps 'winning an argument' ? and in the case of the Ka, a trial ? >> jt.y > prosper, and be healthy, has summoned for me. >> >> mk wj jj.kw Behold, I have come!" Stephen> A few points here. I'm a little unsure whether Stephen> "sovereign, l.p.h" is the subject of this sentence, or a Stephen> vocative at the end of the previous one. With the Stephen> subject at the beginning of the sentence this way, Stephen> wouldn't that require the verb to either have a Stephen> resumptive pronoun suffix (nis=f) or to be a stative Stephen> ("pseudoparticiple", "old perfective")? I would more or less agree : ... the one who comes it is one who has been called, oh sovereign lph my lord ; and then "nisw r=i" as a passive sDmw=f : A call has been made for me, and see, here I am. (cf. the post I made about some grammerian thinking the sDmw=f being a 3rd person 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: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:31:27 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said I have some questions about various names that start with "pn" and maybe if we could break them down to their basic meanings, it could provide a clue to something "pn" might mean other than "this". Also, we can't forget about "pw", which has this same place behind people's names and seems to be another form of "pn". I would say this serves to indicate that "pn" and "pw" are nothing more than "this". But here goes: Pnt3t.h3n A canal in the 21st Nome of Uper Egypt PnS To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL The Problem of Iti Hi, Marianne, > I am curious as to how it is known that these are Ptolemaic corruptions. > Are they attested only in writings of that period? Yes, they are. If you are near a library that has it, go and look up these words in the Woerterbuch by Erman and Grapow. There you will probably find the spellings but they will be marked with "Gr" for "Graeco-Roman Period". You will also be referred to the original spellings of the words so that you can see what they were during the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms as well. Budge gives none of this information. This is why people are so critical of Budge. His dictionary was seminal in its own period for being the first one available in English, however Erman's Berlin school so quickly put Budge out of date that no respectable Egyptologist will use Budge anymore. I do look in there upon a rare occasion when I have exhausted all other possibilities. I also will admit that once in a while Budge comes through and even saves the day. However, these occasions are far and few between. We should not throw Budge out altogether. It would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water! However, we must learn to recognize the good parts and the bad parts, and use him selectively. > I tried to relate these terms to: > genitor--father > gens (genus)--offspring > genitrix-mother > genitalia--same And, indeed, the words j3d "boy", j3d.t "vagina", and j3d.y.t "girl" probably are all related in such a fashion, but just not jt "father" because the root consonants are different. > But this pattern shows up in Arabic, as well. > > walada "to bear"; "to procreate"; "to produce"; "to father" > walad "child" (lit, that which has been born/produced/fathered) > waliid "baby" > wulayd "small child" > waalid "procreator"; "father" > waalidah "mother" > mawlid "new born" > muwallad "begotten" Very true! Almost certainly the Egyptian root j3d is related to Hebrew yld and Arabic wld. You are not that far off the mark at all with the instances of words that have those radicals. See, even with a less-than-adequate dictionary you have managed to figure out some good things! I think you have talent in this area, and this is especially why I would like to see better resources in your hands. > It doesn't seem so far-fetched to me that some pattern like this could > be found in Egyptian, as well. No, Marianne, there is nothing far fetched about it. You are quite right to be looking for such parallels. Look in works by Erman and other more recent and meticulous scholars and you will discover much of great value, I am certain. Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:54:05 +0200 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: "Hans van den Berg (CCER)" Subject: AEL Fwd: HOW TO CONTACT THE BERLIN WORTERBUCH BY E-MAIL The following message was posted on the Ancient Near East (ANE) discussion list: >Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and >inquiries should be directed. >============================================================== > >Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 17:15:42 +0100 >Reply-To: "FPunkt" > >Dear Ladies, dear Sirs, > >The Berlin "Woerterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache" is currently being engaged in >connecting itself to the internet. Until now having a question about a special >term of the Ancient Egyptian langunge could mean to have to make a long journey >to Europe to view the actual words having been collected more than 80 years >ago. It is planned to make all the material of the dictionary database >available for use through the WWW but as you can imagine there is very much >work to be done until then. > >Meanwhile I want to use this opportunity to invite you to send your possible >requests and questions to me. I myself am engaged in writing a PHD and have a >very close contact to the Woerterbuch. I would be pleased to forward your >questions to the Woerterbuch-crew to have them answered. > >Post your questions to: >florian.steinborn@rz.hu-berlin.de > >Thanks. > >Florian Steinborn, M.A. > >__________________________________________________________________________ > >feel free to visit my homepage at > >http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h0444xho/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Centre for Computer-aided Egyptological Research (CCER) Faculty of Theology Utrecht University Trans 2 Heidelberglaan 2 NL-3584 CS Utrecht The Netherlands Tel: +31-(0)30-2531982; Fax: +31-(0)30-2540413 e-mail: vdplas@cc.ruu.nl WWW: "http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:02:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said Hi, Stephen, > > rx b3=k w3.w.t > May your Ba be acquainted with the ways of the coffin toward the pylon > > of covering (i.e. "which covers") the weary! > > > > This is a reference to achieving a proper funeral and making > > it to the > > afterlife in one piece, I think. > > This comes out too much like nonsense, so I think there must be > something wrong here. I haven't had time to sit down and try it myself, > though. Yes, it is not very easy reading at this section, but I don't know what else you can do with it. > > xr m-xt spr=f r Xnw > > After it had arrived at the Residence, > > I think maybe "he" (referring to the prince) rather than "it" (the > barge) to fit better with the following sentences. Yes, that works just as well. > > njs pw jj.w > > "Was there a summons which came? > > > Try nis.w pw i.y = One who is summoned comes. I think both verb forms > are participles, the first passive, the second "active" (intransitive > verb of motion) Yes!!! I think you have got it! That is great, Stephen. I often forget those participles. The sentense would literarally say: "One who is sommoned IS one who comes." A pw B: A is B. > nis r=i mk wi iy.kw > > Something like "You sent for me and, see, here I am!" (+ gesture of > magician pulling rabbit out of hat?) Hmmmmm, it almost works, but there is no "you" expressed. Could it be imperative? Summon for me, and I.... NO, this is stative, it has to be past action following. This is why I decided to put the jt.y l.p.h. as the subject and call njs another stative. There has to be a subject for njs, and it is clearly not expressed after it. The only other choice seems to be that the subject is before it. Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:49:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said Hi, Marianne, Thanks for the interesting thoughts. > I have some questions about various names that start with "pn" and maybe > if we could break them down to their basic meanings, it could provide a > clue to something "pn" might mean other than "this". Also, we > can't forget about "pw", which has this same place behind people's names > and seems to be another form of "pn". I would say this serves to > indicate that "pn" and "pw" are nothing more than "this". Yes, pw was Old Egyptian for "this" and pn is Middle Egyptian "This". But here > goes: > > Pnt3t.h3n A canal in the 21st Nome of Uper Egypt > PnS Pnipt The month Paopi > Pnint The month Paoni > PnimnHtp The month Phamenoth All of the above come from Late Egyptian and are derived from p3-n "he/it/the one of..." For example p3-n-jp.t meant "that of Opet" meaning "the moth of Opet/Paophi". > Pn Pnr3mw A group of gods I am not familiar with this word. > Pnrnt The month Pharmuthi from p3-n-rnnwt.t "that of Renenwetet" (her month). > Pnhwb3 A name of Ra > PnHsb A god of offerings > Pn.n.xnti.imnti Serpent-headed god All these are also from p3-n- constructions. > If, by some chance, the "pn" at the start of these names should have > some meaning of "greatness"--maybe "Djedi pn" means "the excellent > Djedi". Any ideas about what those names mean? I don't think there is any question that pn was the demonstrative in Egyptian, but just how one should treat it in English translations since we are not acustomed to putting the demonstrative pronoun onto proper names in English. Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:50:21 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said > Pnt3t.h3n A canal in the 21st Nome of Uper Egypt > PnS Pnipt The month Paopi > Pnint The month Paoni > PnimnHtp The month Phamenoth > Pn Pnr3mw A group of gods > Pnrnt The month Pharmuthi > Pnhwb3 A name of Ra > PnHsb A god of offerings > Pn.n.xnti.imnti Serpent-headed god Once more, there is a little diachronical problem here : In some cases, like in the verb 'pna' (to turn back), the 'pn' belongs to the root. But in most cases, what you have is New Kingdom words (and later). In this case, most 'pn's come from 'pA n' which means 'he of' e.g. pntAwr : pA-n-tA-wr : he-of-the-great-land, i.e. he-of-the-Abydene-nome * Pnipt : pA-n-ipt : he-of-the-valley-(feast) : the month of the beautiful festival of the valley. 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 ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:20:00 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Fwd: HOW TO CONTACT THE BERLIN WORTERBUCH BY E-MAIL > >Meanwhile I want to use this opportunity to invite you to send your possible > >requests and questions to me. I myself am engaged in writing a PHD and have a > >very close contact to the Woerterbuch. I would be pleased to forward your > >questions to the Woerterbuch-crew to have them answered. > > > >Post your questions to: > >florian.steinborn@rz.hu-berlin.de It sounds like this could come in useful. If anyone does send off a question in connection with an on-list discussion, it might be a good idea to mention it to the list to avoid the 'crew' being inundated with multiple request for the same word. Regards, -- Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/ ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:15:33 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL What Djedi Said I wrote: (snip) > > Pnt3t.h3n A canal in the 21st Nome of Uper Egypt > PnS Pnipt The month Paopi > Pnint The month Paoni > PnimnHtp The month Phamenoth > Pn Pnr3mw A group of gods > Pnrnt The month Pharmuthi > Pnhwb3 A name of Ra > PnHsb A god of offerings > Pn.n.xnti.imnti Serpent-headed god > > If, by some chance, the "pn" at the start of these names should have > some meaning of "greatness"--maybe "Djedi pn" means "the excellent > Djedi". Any ideas about what those names mean? Having figured out what these names mean--all except for the "pn" part--I would have to guess that "pn", at the start of a name, doesn't necessarily mean "this here". Yet our "pn", the one following Djedi's name in the text, is a demonstrative and, as such, always follows its noun. Now the Djedi in our story is a person of some renown due to his great age and abilities and people have suggested that the "pn" following his name is some sort of honorific. Yet, in his examples illustrating the demonstrative "pn", he gives the phrase "Dd-in sXty pn n hmt-f tn" or "then said this peasant to his wife". A peasant, unless I'm missing something that is implied in the text from whence this phrase, is just a peasant. Therefore, it is obvious quite ordinary persons are assigned this demonstrative. "pw" is supposed to be another, older form pf "pn" and, as far as I can see from examples, "pw" is applied to objects as a demontrative as well as specific individuals, "fnd-k pw Spss" or "this they noble nose". However, Gardiner does point out that even "pw" has its curious aspects, such as use in vocatives like "Hk3y pw", which is supposed to be "thou magician" but is lit. "this magician". THAT, I think, strikes a false note. As to above examples where "pn" precedes some other concept, it would be difficult to believe that "pn" implies "this here". All the names I mentioned are extraordinary things--months, canals, the epithets of gods. For example, "this here Abydos" and "this here goddess of the harvest" just don't do it for me as translations of "Pnibtw" (a canal at Abydos) or "Pnrnt", the month of Pharmuti. Right away, when I saw these names, it struck me that, with the prefix "pn", some sort of idea of "grandeur" was indicated. But, then, I've been known to be wrong before. Now what if one had translated "Hk3y pw" as "worthy magician" or something like that. To put "this magician" as a vocative doesn't seem right. One can have a "worthy Djedi" or a "worthy peasant" just as easily. Even a "worthy nose", even though "pn and "pw" don't HAVE to be the same thing, though they probably are. Can anyone give me an example where "worthy" does not work as a translation of "pn"? Meanwhile, I'll be on the look-out for such examples, myself. BTW, a "worthy" is a "person of outstanding worth or importance" and that can apply to things other than people, as well. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:43:46 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re(2): AEL What Djedi Said To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk > Dd.jn Ddj pn > Then this Djedi said; I don't have a problem with taking pn quite literally as "this". Unlike "vocative pw", it need not be taken as an honorific. The idea of translating it "the aforementioned Djedi" is a good one. > njs pw jj.w Stephen: Try nis.w pw i.y = One who is summoned comes. I think both verb forms are participles, the first passive, the second "active" (intransitive verb of motion) Stephen is on the right track here, and Serge's translation was I think perfect, except that the construction he used is better in French than in English, where we would rather say: "The one who comes is the one who has been summoned." Serge's interpretation is excellent: and then "nisw r=i" as a passive sDmw=f : A call has been made for me, and see, here I am. The sDm(w).f passive often does not take a subject, especially in a case like this, where the following preposition phrase indicates the person involved. The sDm(w).f passive is a subordinate type (i.e. it can't stand on its own in a new sentence without a "crutch" at the beginning of the sentence). Here it would be "a summons having been made to me--me voila" or "since I was summoned--Here I am!" rx b3=k w3.w.t To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Pw and Pn After checking out a good many examples of the uses of "pw and "pn", it becomes very evident that "pw", at least, is similar to the English "this", but that is far from the whole story. With "pn" it is not so obvious. For those interested in this demonstrative stuff, here are some examples of their uses: A couple of vocatives: "inD Hriw-Tn nDrw ipw"---"Greetings, ye gods" "h3, Pepi pw!"-- "Hail, thou Pepi!" To us, "this" doesn't make much sense in the vocative, but it isn't our call to say what's strange in another language. In fact, to make it "this" isn't always correct. The main thing to remember is that "pw" and "pn" are demonstratives and that their meanings could have been flexible. "nn s To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL p3-n- Hi, Serge, You are absolutely right. Just one more typo! ;-) > * Pnipt : pA-n-ipt : he-of-the-valley-(feast) : the month of the > beautiful festival of the valley. Here you must mean p3-n-jp.t is "that one of Opet": the month of the Opet Feast (Paophi); whereas p3-n-jn.t "that one of the Valley/wadi" would be the month of the Valley Feast (Paoni). No problem, Serge, I have done this too! Remember when I called something an adverb when I meant to call it a preposition? ;-) Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:46:06 -0700 Subject: AEL General pn comments From: n-ael@juno.com (Nancy2 R Tomasheski) The ongoing discussion of the common word pn is fascinating; many good ideas are being thrown about. One of the greatest benefits of the list to all involved is the varying backgrounds and foci of the members: the academics, the hobbyists, the grammarians, the philologists, &c. Our papyrus of interest at the moment is a work of literature, by definition intended for the enjoyment of its language as much as for its story. For this reason alone, the construction Dd(w)-in DDi-pn is more "interesting" than a simple Dd(w)-in DDi. Remember your creative writing teacher telling you to avoid using 'said x'? But that doesn't address the _meaning_ of pn (and I use the word "meaning" in its proper sense of what it evokes to the native speaker, not in its over-mis-use as a synonym for "translation" into a different language). It is my belief that x-pn was a spoken convention (in that sense, similar to Marianne's hillbilly analogies) which made its way into the written language fairly early. Whether pn is a descendant or cousin to p3 is another discussion. The construction Wnis-p3 appears in the Pyramid Texts, sometimes abbreviated p. Over time, as scribe after scribe learned by copying (introducing the inevitable errors, of which pn for p3 may or may not have been one), and as spoken language became formalized in written language, the two may have become somewhat interchangeable. It is not an honorific in the strictest sense, but might be considered something similar, in the sense of a usage "marking off" or drawing attention to a name of particular interest in a given discussion (James' "the aforementioned"). Furthermore, I personally have never had a problem with the sound in English of translating x-pn as "this x". I hear it merely as an Egyptianism. Rats! I have to get ready to go to work now. I'd rather stay here and finish this essay . . . -Nancy R. Tomasheski n-ael@juno.com ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:31:35 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: Re: AEL General pn comments To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk The best argument against an honorific function is that it occurs in the narrative and not in quoted speech. Characters in stories don't get honored by the narrator, but rather by other characters. Only the deceased and the king (and associated persons & things) merit honorifics of any sort, such as mAa xrw and interjections like To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL General pn comments Nancy Tomasheski wrote: > It is not an honorific in the strictest sense, but might be > considered something similar, in the sense of a usage "marking off" or > drawing attention to a name of particular interest in a given discussion > (James' "the aforementioned"). Yes, Nancy, exactly--only you put it much more elegantly than it could have been, which is "this here James". That is why we sometimes have to choose our language depending upon what sort of text we are translating. Gardiner compares "pw and pn" with the French "celui-ci" and "celui-la", which is "this one here" and "this one there". And he says: "Pn, tn, nn are the commonest words for "this, i.e., near me, at hand, both of time and of place." Also, one cannot forget that, in a language where there is an absence of terms like "am, is and are", there has to be something like pw and pn to convey the thoughts repeated below: > After a lengthy discourse about the door, its >posts and whatnot, there are some questions demanding an answer. The >final answer is "DHwti pw", translated as "Thoth it is". But "pn" is >not supposed to mean "it is", so evidently "pw" has a another sense >than merely "this". Soon afterwards comes another question "Who goeth >down into the flame, its walls surmounted with uraei, being his path in >that same lake?" The answer: "sbi pw 3sir pw", translated "the >traveler--Osiris is". Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:26:12 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL General pn comments Dear Nancy and AELers: I think it is possible that pn simply means "this". If we imagine that personal names in ancient Egypt were limited in terms of what we can choose from today, prefixing a name with "this" might simply be a way of focusing on the present Dedi rather than the other two or three Dedi's standing around. Pat Nancy2 R Tomasheski wrote: > The ongoing discussion of the common word pn is fascinating; > many > good ideas are being thrown about. One of the greatest benefits of > the > list to all involved is the varying backgrounds and foci of the > members: > the academics, the hobbyists, the grammarians, the philologists, &c. > Our papyrus of interest at the moment is a work of literature, > by > definition intended for the enjoyment of its language as much as for > its > story. For this reason alone, the construction Dd(w)-in DDi-pn is > more > "interesting" than a simple Dd(w)-in DDi. Remember your creative > writing > teacher telling you to avoid using 'said x'? > But that doesn't address the _meaning_ of pn (and I use the > word > "meaning" in its proper sense of what it evokes to the native speaker, > > not in its over-mis-use as a synonym for "translation" into a > different > language). It is my belief that x-pn was a spoken convention (in that > > sense, similar to Marianne's hillbilly analogies) which made its way > into > the written language fairly early. Whether pn is a descendant or > cousin > to p3 is another discussion. The construction Wnis-p3 appears in the > Pyramid Texts, sometimes abbreviated p. Over time, as scribe after > scribe learned by copying (introducing the inevitable errors, of which > pn > for p3 may or may not have been one), and as spoken language became > formalized in written language, the two may have become somewhat > interchangeable. > It is not an honorific in the strictest sense, but might be > considered something similar, in the sense of a usage "marking off" or > > drawing attention to a name of particular interest in a given > discussion > (James' "the aforementioned"). > Furthermore, I personally have never had a problem with the > sound > in English of translating x-pn as "this x". I hear it merely as an > Egyptianism. > Rats! I have to get ready to go to work now. I'd rather stay > here and finish this essay . . . > -Nancy R. Tomasheski > n-ael@juno.com -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:34:31 -0600 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: "M. A. R. Barker" Subject: Re: AEL This Djedi Hi! I had posted this batch of *humorous* suggestions to Geoff before, but continued interest in finding a "translation" for Ddi pn makes me think that I should let the whole list read them (with apologies to Geoff). >For Ddi pn we might try what I have so often heard in my hillbilly dialect >(northern Idaho, circa 1940): "This here Djedi." ;-) > >I can't go with "Sire Djedi" because of the connotations of "Camelot!" Or >perhaps the next thing would be a billing of "Sire Djedi" against the >"Black Knight" at the wrestling arena on Saturday afternoon. ;-) > >In modern kid-slang one can say "this Djedi dude" with connotations >vaguely similar to Djdi pn. ;-) > >>> Just to toss in an idea, perhaps the honorific would be along the lines of >>> the "venerable" or "honorable". I know that in certain languages the >> >>Yes, I think you may be just about right, at least in meaning, yet >>throwing in such words seems like taking such liberty with the original >>text. I was tempted to try "then good Djedi said" but this would make the >>reader expect that I was translating Ddj nfr instead of Ddj pn. "Honourable" and "good" might go well in a semi-mediaeval-style piece of fiction: "then spake good Djedi..." Vut I don't see this as a suitable translation. >I agree. I am at a loss for more ideas. We just have to accept the fact >that linguistic and cultural usages may differ enough so that we cannot >always supply a word-for-word translation. In the Urdu language once can >express "I am very happy" by /mera dil bagh-bagh ho gaya/ -- which >literally means "My heart has become garden-garden." I used to get two or >three smart alec students each year who would drop this phrase into their >English! ;-) > >>I just don't know if there is any decent way around using the stilted old >>"this Djedi". If we start improvising too much, then those who cannot >>read the original will make all kinds of assumptions about what the text >>actually says. If I insert "honorable", even if this actually helps to >>give the flavor of the intent, the casual reader could make all kinds of >>assumptions about the importance of the fact that Djedi was an "honorable" >>man even though the text nowhere says this. > >Your reasoning is right-on. > >>While finding just the right translation for the phrase Ddj pn is an >>intriguing pass-time, we should all remember that, if we were actually >>preparing a translation for publication, we would have to think long and >>hard about how our words make the original text sound. The reading public >>might not take our interpretations the way we had originally intended >>them. I am sure this is why even today so many Egyptologists persist in >>using archaic-sounding phrases like "this Djedi". What else can one do? > >Use "this Djedi" and go on to the next problem. There is nothing one can >do, really, with linguistic/cultural differences that cannot easily be >bridged. > >Regards, > >Phil ==============================================================================