Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:49:21 -0500 (EST) From: Suredesign@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Pitfalls in Lessons 1-10 of Gardiner There has been some suggestions that as the answers to lessons 1-10 exist that we plow through those (a big undertaking unaided, I believe). Perhaps those with a solid knowledge of the language like Geoff Graham or Dr. Loprieno or Dr. Hoch might indicate some of the potential problems which have come to light since Gardiner was last revised. When I took Middle Egyptian a couple of years ago (lessons 1-24) our instructor was constantly updating us how scholarly opinion now differs from Gardiner's day. Al Berens suredesign@aol.com ============================================================================== From: "YED" To: "AEgyptian-List" Subject: AEL About Lesson 1 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:42:45 +0100 Thank you for this first lesson ; this lesson had not set me a problem b= ut I want to do some suggestions : 1) the cutting out in three parts is good but is it necessary to write in vocabulary, male and female words (as nfr / nfr.t, zA / zA.t) ? I think, explanations about egyptian feminine gender would be better ; or, merely, references to Gardiner grammar (example : see Gardiner =A7 26, ...) ; so = , for the demonstrative pronouns. 2) the lesson shows one sort of egyptian sentence (iw ... m ...) ; the same, explanation or Gardiner reference ; 3) Between explanation or reference, I prefer the second solution because a) no too much work to M. Graham :-) b) student can learn grammar dependi= ng the difficulty of the lesson and not in a linear manner (=A71, =A72, ...). Excuse me for my rather bad english. amicalement, Yves Dupont - Lyon Croix-Rousse - France ydupont@lyonnet.dtr.fr ============================================================================== From: "YED" To: Subject: Re: AEL Thoughts on how we might proceed (long) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:07:55 +0100 M. A. R. Barker wrote: >I am in agreement with (4). It will be hard for more advanced people to be >patient with beginners, but this is urgent. That is why I advocate three >different sub-lists where each assumed level can have its own materials: on >Level A we present the signs (and sounds, as far as we know them), plus some >basic grammar, and lots of reinforcement materials. On Level B the intermediates >work through basic texts, still with exercises and drills. On Level C the >advanced students read texts selected and annotated by one or more of our senior >people. THere might be a Level D as well: historical phonetics/phonemics, where >people can talk about sound-shifts and the introduction of grammatical >formations. We can ask people to mark their levels carefully: put "A" into the >subject header for introductory materials, "B" for intermediate, etc. Once our >sub-topics are established and clearly marked, a person who does not wish to >look at textual analyses much too advanced for him/her can simply push the >"discard" button on their mailing programme. In response, David Maclennon wrote : > I like this suggestion. I think this is a good way to go. As a total > beginner, I want lessons pitched at my level of inexperience to start > with, getting more complex as I go on. So you've got my vote on this > one! Like David Maclennan I agree this suggestion amicalement, Yves Dupont - Lyon Croix-Rousse - France ydupont@lyonnet.dtr.fr ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:47:42 +0000 Subject: AEL Membership tops 100 / List archives updated After the initial flurry of new subscriptions, the number of people on the list has steadily grown to the point where we now have just over 100 people subscribed. If you are new to the list, you can easily catch up with the discussions so far from list archive, available via the AEL homepage: http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/ Weeks 2 and 3 have just been added to the archive, and are presented with the return path information of the message headers removed. This significantly reduces the size of the file. There is now a line of double dashes separating each message to make it clearer where one message finishes and the next starts. The original archive of week 1 has also been updated to the new format. Best regards, Mark Wilson ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-List Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 Hello, Yves, Thank you for your comments. > 1) the cutting out in three parts is good but is it necessary to write in > vocabulary, male and female words (as nfr / nfr.t, zA / zA.t) ? I think, > explanations about egyptian feminine gender would be better ; or, merely, > references to Gardiner grammar (example : see Gardiner =A7 26, ...) ; so = , > for the demonstrative pronouns. I believe it is important for people to get into the habit of separating the feminine endings at an early stage, because later, there will be various masculine words which end in root {t}, and because there will also be instances where understanding that a {t} represents some agreement with a previous feminine noun will aid in translations of longer more complicated sentences. Admitedly at this very early stage, the pointing is not crucial, but itsill become so at a later time. Or, is it that you think that both forms will not be necessaryint he vocabulary? There wille be some individuals on this list who have done no Egyptian yet, and who might not own Gardiner's grammar. I wanted the lessons to contain enough information for a total beginner. > 2) the lesson shows one sort of egyptian sentence (iw ... m ...) ; the > same, explanation or Gardiner reference ; Same reasons: Not everyone will have access to the same textbooks. I should note to the members of the list that my use of the "iw .... m =2E..." sentence is a little contrived in a few instances. I do not feel that the beginner is ready for the "noun noun" sentence or the "pw"=20 sentence right away. The actual translation of "Any m jt Ab.t" would be "Ani is _AS_ a father of the family." Since one _is_ or _is not_ a father by nature, the use of the "iw noun m noun" sentence is not actually how the Egyptians would have chosen to express "Ani is the father of a family." In later exercises the other sentence patterns will be introduced, however. :)=20 > 3) Between explanation or reference, I prefer the second solution because > a) no too much work to M. Graham :-) b) student can learn grammar dependi= ng > the difficulty of the lesson and not in a linear manner (=A71, =A72, ...)= =2E >=20 > Excuse me for my rather bad english. No, your English is quite fine. It is good to practice. Il faut que je essay des foix d'ecrire en francais aussi, mais j'ai l'orthographe et grammaire penible! J'imagine bien vos difficultees! Peutetre vous m'en pourrez corriger! La problem c'est que je lis souvent le francais mais je ne l'ecris presque jamais. C'est une chose de savoir lire ou parler, mais quelque chose d'autre d'ecrire, n'est ce pas? Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:35:00 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 At 08:23 AM 97/02/28 -0500, you wrote: >I should note to the members of the list that my use of the "iw .... m >...." sentence is a little contrived in a few instances. >The actual translation of "Any m jt Ab.t" would be >"Ani is _AS_ a father of the family." Or "Ani is like a father to the family." This construction is called the "M of predication" in Gardiner and Hoch, who say it was only used in describing "accidental" properties of the subject, not "intrinsic" ones. So we COULD say "Any m sxAw" = "Ani is a scribe". Loprieno and Englund do not treat it as a separate phenomenon from the preposition "m" ="in, as", so the second part of the sentence (for those of you with a grammatical bent) is an adverbial phrase. Probably more correct, but harder to remember than treating it as a special structure. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 10:58:53 -0500 (EST) From: Luxor3@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL School Editions of Texts I would definitely be interested in assisting in this most worthwhile project in any way I can. Lynn Kordus ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 11:03:18 -0500 (EST) From: Luxor3@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Ancient Egyptian Texts I agree with Stephen on Parkinson's text.....in addition to Stephen's comments, the book offers a very good supplemental, expanded perspective to the traditional grammar book. Lynn M. Kordus, Principal Luxor House International Wausau, Wisconsin ARCE, OI, AIA Member ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 16:57:24 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 Hello, Stephen, > Or "Ani is like a father to the family." > > This construction is called the "M of predication" in Gardiner and Hoch, who > say it was only used in describing "accidental" properties of the subject, > not "intrinsic" ones. So we COULD say "Any m sxAw" = "Ani is a scribe". True indeed. > Loprieno and Englund do not treat it as a separate phenomenon from the > preposition "m" ="in, as", so the second part of the sentence (for those of > you with a grammatical bent) is an adverbial phrase. Probably more correct, > but harder to remember than treating it as a special structure. The other options would be "Any jt Ab.t" or "Any jt pw Ab.t", while "Any pw jt Ab.t" might express "It is Ani who is father of the family". The first example is a "noun noun" sentence which was fast becoming extinct in Middle Egyptian, and the second is the most likely way that the Egyptians would have said "Ani is the father of a family". However, I think it would be bad to get into a discussion of pw sentences in the very first exercise, so this is why I have opted to use the "m of predication", with the proviso that the sentence expresses a special circumstance in which "Ani is in the position of father of the family". Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 17:53:29 -0500 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re: Lesson 1 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk I just went through Geoffrey Graham's exercise Lesson 1. Geoffrey's handwriting is excellent and the low-resolution version prints out fine. The problem in printing that was noted in an earlier post can be avoided by printing at a reduced size (e.g. 80%). It is not my intention to be harsh about this, but there are some serious problems with some of the sentences in Lesson 1. Mostly they are problems of logic that recur in several sentences. (Stephen Fryer has just pointed out the main problem--so some of what I am posting has become redundant.) The main problem is this: Egyptian has several ways to say "X is Y" or "X is a Y". The different constructions are used for different situations and are not interchangeable. The construction that occurs in Lesson 1 is: _iw X m Y_, in which X is characterized as a Y. The prepsosition m, known in this use as the "m of predication" indicates that X has taken on the capacity, functions as, or otherwise qualifies as a Y. This construction cannot be used when X and Y are intrinsically identical--by definition the same. For instance, "He is a baker" would use the "m of predication--he was not born a baker, and presumably at some point in his life he will or might cease to be a baker (either changing professions or becoming too old to work). On the other hand, "She is my mother", must use a different construction since "she" and my mother" form a definite identity and not just a role that one takes on (such as is expressed by the "m of predication"). (Stephen is correct in pointing out that the "m of predication" is nothing more than the ordinary preposition _m_ (the term is, however, useful for discussing the language). In other words, as far as structure is concerned, _iw.f m pr_ "he is in the house" is identical to _iw.f m sS_ "he is a scribe", in which both sentences have a prepositional phrase (which is adverbial) as the predicate.) The other main problem with Lesson 1 is the use of the bound construction where a different genitival construction should properly be used. The bound construction tends to form compound nouns and is fairly restricted in use. The other genitival construction (using the genitival n(y) its related forms) occurs freely. Here are the sentences and their problems. Problems that also occur in later sentences are not always specifically pointed out. 1. a) the use of the "m of predication" is strained here, if not impossible. b) The phrase _it Abt_ "father of a family" strikes me as unusual--it is grammatically correct, but somehow does not feel right. My impression is that it might be used as a generic reference "a family man", but not for being the father of a specific family. The joining of two nouns e.g. _pr HD_ "treasury" (lit. "house of silver")--the "bound construction"--normally forms compound nouns or otherwise close units. Otherwise, the genitival adjective (_n(y), n(y)t, n(y)w, n(yw)t_) would be used. 3. iw Mrt m mt Abt Any. a) the meaning of the sentence here precludes the use of the "m of predication". b) the same genitival problem as in 1, above, but here it is worse since it is followed by the proper noun (PN) _Any_. In the case of "PN's X" one would say _X n(y) PN_. 7. a) improper use of "m of predication" (Djehuty-mes cannot cease to be Ani's son). b) _wr_ can refer to age of a child, but to say older/elder, one uses the word _smsw_. c) one indeed says _sA PN_ "son of PN" (this is almost a compound name, cf. Hebrew Yehoshua bin-Nun, Russian patronymics). But to say so-and so- is "the son of PN" would require _sA n(y) PN_. 9. a) improper use of "m of predication"; b) the wording should be _sAt Srt n(y)t Any_; c) _Srt nfrt_: typically one does not use more than one adjective--except when listing the qualities of something--the use is not really wrong here, but it is unusual. 11. like it or not, the Egyptian practice is to mention "father" before "mother"; usually only one parent is mentioned unless there is a secondary reference: e.g. "PN son of PN2, whom PN3 bore"; it should be noted that sometimes only the mother is mentioned. 13. a) improper use of "m of predication; b) use of bound construction 14. (various, as mentioned above) 16. (various, as mentioned above) 18. improper use of bound construction (twice) 19. improper use of "m of predication"; improper use of bound construction (twice) 20. improper use of "m of predication"; improper use of bound construction (3 times) Please, I hope that nobody takes the above criticisms as hostile. Sentences that are grammatically correct may sometimes be impossible for reasons of logic, culture, etc. Yes, I, too, have written bad Egyptian. It does make sense to try to follow real Egyptian models--even if one does replace the difficult words with simpler vocabulary. Keep up your hard work! With best wishes, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 08:47:13 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 Graham wrote: > > Hello, Stephen, > > > Or "Ani is like a father to the family." > > > > This construction is called the "M of predication" in Gardiner and Hoch, who > > say it was only used in describing "accidental" properties of the subject, > > not "intrinsic" ones. So we COULD say "Any m sxAw" = "Ani is a scribe". > > True indeed. > > > Loprieno and Englund do not treat it as a separate phenomenon from the > > preposition "m" ="in, as", so the second part of the sentence (for those of > > you with a grammatical bent) is an adverbial phrase. Probably more correct, > > but harder to remember than treating it as a special structure. > > The other options would be "Any jt Ab.t" or "Any jt pw Ab.t", while "Any > pw jt Ab.t" might express "It is Ani who is father of the family". The > first example is a "noun noun" sentence which was fast becoming extinct in > Middle Egyptian, and the second is the most likely way that the Egyptians > would have said "Ani is the father of a family". However, I think it > would be bad to get into a discussion of pw sentences in the very first > exercise, so this is why I have opted to use the "m of predication", with > the proviso that the sentence expresses a special circumstance in which > "Ani is in the position of father of the family". > > Yours, Geoff > sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu Dear Geoff: Another possibility that might be mentioned is that the "m of predication" is actually an old verb meaning "function as". Attested verbal uses of m include: "behold, do not, take, come". Since I am convinced of the ultimate interrelationship of all languages, perhaps it will not be amiss to mention Sumerian (a)m(e), to be. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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, 03 Mar 1997 08:58:52 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: Lesson 1 James Hoch wrote: Dear James: Thank you for your cogent remarks. > b) The phrase _it Abt_ "father of a family" strikes me as unusual--it is > grammatically correct, but somehow does not feel right. My impression is that > it might be used as a generic reference "a family man", but not for being the > father of a specific family. The joining of two nouns e.g. _pr HD_ "treasury" > (lit. "house of silver")--the "bound construction"--normally forms compound > nouns or otherwise close units. Otherwise, the genitival adjective (_n(y), > n(y)t, n(y)w, n(yw)t_) would be used. Whatt strikes me about n(y), which used to be called the genitival PARTICLE, is that: 1) it inflects for feminine and plural like a normal demonstrative; 2) it is in the position of a normal demonstrative, i.e. follows the noun to which it refers; 3) -n is a part of the demonstratives p-n, t-n, n-n; 4) Egyptian n corresponds to AA l; 5) therefore, I entertain the possibility that n(y) is, in reality, an old demonstrative; and 6) may be equivalent to the Arabic definite article in phrases like: baitu -l rajuli, house of the man. Just a minority opinion. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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) ****************************************** ============================================================================== From: "M. A. R. Barker" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: Server problems? Date: Mon, 3 Mar 97 09:35:21 -0600 Dear Mark, Every time I go to Netsccape and try to reach the site where I can see Lesson i, etc. I get a message: "The servver is not either busy or not accepting messages at this time; try again later" (or words to that effect). Am I correct in assuming that the address (AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk ) is the place to go to view the lessons? I hunted through my e-mail but could not find the address of the lesson-site -- my e-mail files are scattered, messy, and incomplete due to various system crashes. This is my fault, not yours! Some authors put the address of their FTP site or website into each e-mail letter as part of the "signature" so that people will instnatly know where to go to reach them. Possible? James Hoch's letter about the problems with lesson 1 made sense to me. What does one do, though, about pedagogical materials for a "dead" language? You can't go and ask a native speaker. Even when you can, you don't always get a single "correct" answer. I have known native speakers to dispute hotly over the "correctness" of what seemed to me to be simple, straightforward utterances. I hope Professor Hoch continues to contribute! Regards, Phil Barker ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 12:42:45 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Re: Server problems? At 09:35 AM 97/03/03 -0600, you wrote: >Am I correct in assuming that the address (AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk ) is >the place to go to view the lessons? No, that is just the e-mail address. It does NOT work as a web address (the clues are that it doens't start out with "http://" and that it contains a "@". Two different types of server program deal with mail and with web pages. The correct address for the web page is: http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/ In most mail programs these days you can just click on that address and it will launch your browser to that site. Once you're there, add it to you bookmark list so you can always get there. (I back up my bookmark file from time to time in case of disaster - "He who laughs last probably made a backup copy.") Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 16:23:08 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: Lesson 1 Hi, Dr. Hoch, I do not feel offended that you have critiqued my lesson. I was aware that it would probably have various problems. Indeed, it was I, and not Stephen Fryer who pointed out the "iffy" use of the m of predication to the list, however. Thank you for helping to clarify some things. Obviously, anyone trying to make a basic reading primer for a dead language is going to have problems. For those of you who have wondered why scholars never produce these things, here is a good example of the reasons why. Few people actually feel knowledgeable enough to produce good grammatical Egyptian, and then there are people like me, who know just enough to get into trouble! ;-) Mr. Hoch, might I ask if you would be so kind as to have a look at future lessons before they are posted, and maybe with combined effort we can ensure that the highest quality exercises make there way onto the web? My approach thus far has been to create some kind of a graduated reader from which the student can build knowledge as s/he goes along. If you can see any merit to this approach, then perhaps you might help this student to produce such with your guidance as a real expert in Egyptian grammar. Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu > I just went through Geoffrey Graham's exercise Lesson 1. Geoffrey's > handwriting is excellent and the low-resolution version prints out fine. The > problem in printing that was noted in an earlier post can be avoided by > printing at a reduced size (e.g. 80%). > > It is not my intention to be harsh about this, but there are some serious > problems with some of the sentences in Lesson 1. Mostly they are problems of > logic that recur in several sentences. (Stephen Fryer has just pointed out the > main problem--so some of what I am posting has become redundant.) > > The main problem is this: Egyptian has several ways to say "X is Y" or "X is a > Y". The different constructions are used for different situations and are not > interchangeable. The construction that occurs in Lesson 1 is: _iw X m Y_, in > which X is characterized as a Y. The prepsosition m, known in this use as the > "m of predication" indicates that X has taken on the capacity, functions as, > or otherwise qualifies as a Y. This construction cannot be used when X and Y > are intrinsically identical--by definition the same. For instance, "He is a > baker" would use the "m of predication--he was not born a baker, and > presumably at some point in his life he will or might cease to be a baker > (either changing professions or becoming too old to work). On the other hand, > "She is my mother", must use a different construction since "she" and my > mother" form a definite identity and not just a role that one takes on (such > as is expressed by the "m of predication"). > > (Stephen is correct in pointing out that the "m of predication" is nothing > more than the ordinary preposition _m_ (the term is, however, useful for > discussing the language). In other words, as far as structure is concerned, > _iw.f m pr_ "he is in the house" is identical to _iw.f m sS_ "he is a scribe", > in which both sentences have a prepositional phrase (which is adverbial) as > the predicate.) > > The other main problem with Lesson 1 is the use of the bound construction > where a different genitival construction should properly be used. The bound > construction tends to form compound nouns and is fairly restricted in use. The > other genitival construction (using the genitival n(y) its related forms) > occurs freely. > > Here are the sentences and their problems. Problems that also occur in later > sentences are not always specifically pointed out. > > 1. a) the use of the "m of predication" is strained here, if not impossible. > b) The phrase _it Abt_ "father of a family" strikes me as unusual--it is > grammatically correct, but somehow does not feel right. My impression is that > it might be used as a generic reference "a family man", but not for being the > father of a specific family. The joining of two nouns e.g. _pr HD_ "treasury" > (lit. "house of silver")--the "bound construction"--normally forms compound > nouns or otherwise close units. Otherwise, the genitival adjective (_n(y), > n(y)t, n(y)w, n(yw)t_) would be used. > > 3. iw Mrt m mt Abt Any. a) the meaning of the sentence here precludes the use > of the "m of predication". b) the same genitival problem as in 1, above, but > here it is worse since it is followed by the proper noun (PN) _Any_. In the > case of "PN's X" one would say _X n(y) PN_. > > 7. a) improper use of "m of predication" (Djehuty-mes cannot cease to be Ani's > son). b) _wr_ can refer to age of a child, but to say older/elder, one uses > the word _smsw_. c) one indeed says _sA PN_ "son of PN" (this is almost a > compound name, cf. Hebrew Yehoshua bin-Nun, Russian patronymics). But to say > so-and so- is "the son of PN" would require _sA n(y) PN_. > > 9. a) improper use of "m of predication"; b) the wording should be _sAt Srt > n(y)t Any_; c) _Srt nfrt_: typically one does not use more than one > adjective--except when listing the qualities of something--the use is not > really wrong here, but it is unusual. > > 11. like it or not, the Egyptian practice is to mention "father" before > "mother"; usually only one parent is mentioned unless there is a secondary > reference: e.g. "PN son of PN2, whom PN3 bore"; it should be noted that > sometimes only the mother is mentioned. > > 13. a) improper use of "m of predication; b) use of bound construction > > 14. (various, as mentioned above) > > 16. (various, as mentioned above) > > 18. improper use of bound construction (twice) > > 19. improper use of "m of predication"; improper use of bound construction > (twice) > > 20. improper use of "m of predication"; improper use of bound construction (3 > times) > > Please, I hope that nobody takes the above criticisms as hostile. Sentences > that are grammatically correct may sometimes be impossible for reasons of > logic, culture, etc. Yes, I, too, have written bad Egyptian. It does make > sense to try to follow real Egyptian models--even if one does replace the > difficult words with simpler vocabulary. > > Keep up your hard work! > > With best wishes, > James Hoch > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:04:14 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 Hello, Patrick, > Attested verbal uses of m include: "behold, do not, take, come". The {m} used in the particular sentences under discussion is clearly an adverb, and the sentence type is a typical Egyptian adverbial sentence. The {m} of the particles and imperatives which you have cited has nothing to do with this {m} to the best of my knowledge. "BEHOLD": Indeed the {m} used in "m.k"/"m.T"/"m.Tn"..., actually seems to represent *mj, especially because of the use of the arm sign in the writing. The arm which holds the rounded loaf had the phonetic value of /mj/, and when the owl is written with it, it acts as a phonetic compliment distinguishing the arm sign from other arm signs which might be confused with it. Middle Egyptian often indiscriminately replaced various of the arm signs that held objects with the plain arm sign, otherwise known to represent /a/ (/ Since I am convinced of the ultimate interrelationship of all languages, > perhaps it will not be amiss to mention Sumerian (a)m(e), to be. Well, that is interesting, but there seem to be no indications that the Egyptian {m} of predication was ever conceived of as a verb. It can be replaced by other prepositions, such as {r} when the sentence has some implication of future state. So, I believe we can surely define this {m} as the preposition and not some remnant of a verb. Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 17:13:33 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: Lesson 1 Hello, Patrick, Sorry to keep pestering you! :) I do not mean to be a nudge! > 1) it inflects for feminine and plural like a normal demonstrative; > 2) it is in the position of a normal demonstrative, i.e. follows the > noun to which it refers; > 3) -n is a part of the demonstratives p-n, t-n, n-n; > 4) Egyptian n corresponds to AA l; > 5) therefore, I entertain the possibility that n(y) is, in reality, an > old demonstrative; and > 6) may be equivalent to the Arabic definite article in phrases like: > baitu -l rajuli, house of the man. OK, Patrick, what other parts of speech show gender and number and come after the noun which they _modify_? Why have you not suggested "adjective"? That is what they are. They are the "nisbah"* forms of the preposition "n" meaning "to". If you make an adjective out of "to", you get something approximating "of", and this is the origin of the interesting inflection you have observed. *nisbah: (or German spelling: "nisbe"... I use the American Library of Congress spelling of Arabic words when possible.) an adjective made out of a noun, with a final /y/ ending, in the Arabic language (as well as various other Afroasiatic ones). Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 00:27:13 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 Graham wrote: > The {m} used in the particular sentences under discussion is clearly > an > adverb, Dear Geoff: Even if we accept the standard analysis of m + N in existential sentences as a prepositional phrase, m cannot be considered an "adverb"; it would simply be the preposition m --- heading a prepositional phrase. and the sentence type is a typical Egyptian adverbial sentence. If I said in English: "He is as a lion among men", would you say the phrase "as a lion among men" is adverbial or adjectival? It seems to me that in sentences like "jw.f m sS", even IF we assume a prepositional phrase, it functions as a adjective since it describes -f, "he". > The {m} of the particles and imperatives which you have cited has nothing > to do with this {m} to the best of my knowledge. I was only suggesting that very simple verbs in those meanings have a similar form (cf. Coptic ma-, give). > > "BEHOLD": Indeed the {m} used in "m.k"/"m.T"/"m.Tn"..., actually seems to > represent *mj, especially because of the use of the arm sign in the > writing. The arm which holds the rounded loaf had the phonetic value of > /mj/, and when the owl is written with it, it acts as a phonetic > compliment distinguishing the arm sign from other arm signs which might be > confused with it. I accept "behold" as mj. Words meaning "see", "eye", commonly have the form *me:(<- mey)/mi in languages around the world. Middle Egyptian often indiscriminately replaced various > of the arm signs that held objects with the plain arm sign, otherwise > known to represent /a/ (/ why I do not like the Manuel de Codage! How can you discuss vowels and > consonants simultaneously when some of the consonants are written with > vowels? I agree here entirely. I use 3 for the Egyptian vulture and ' for the arm so no suggestion of a vowel occurs; I have adopted j for the single reed and y for doubled reed-leaves. > "DO NOT": The negative {m} probably has nothing to do with the adverb {m}, > but rather is probably the prefixal form of {jmj}, the imperative of the > negative verb {tm}. I have not suggested that prepositional m has anything to do with m, negative. However, I would raise a couple of points. I am not aware that ANY OTHER Egyptian verb has a "prefixal form"; hence, I doubt that negative m is a "form" or jmj, particularly in view of the fact that, again in languages around the world, irrealis negatives frequently have the form: mV. I would not argue against the negative m (perhaps also *mj) having, at least in its alternate form, a shape identical to mj, behold. > > "TAKE": The imperative used for {jTj.t} "take" is once again written with > the arm sign which could either be interpreted as a determinative > indicating motion and use of the arms in taking, or that the word was to > be read as *mj, as in the case of "m.k" above. At any rate, during the > Old kingdom, some examples of this imperative were written with the owl > alone, while others were written with a particular mace sign lying on its > side, and this sign is usually to be read as "mn". Again, in view of the ubiquity of words for "hand" in the shape mVn, my feeling would be that this is probably the earliest and best reconstruction for *m(n), take! However, Coptic mo argues for an even simpler form, *m. Whether it was always that simple or derives from even earlier *jm is questionable since, again, languages like IE have "*em-, nehmen". If there were some > sort of alternation between a {j} and a {n}, one has to wonder if the > original sound intended might not have been /l/. Geoff, this is the kind of speculation that has made it possible for Egyptian to be isolated from AA and IE (through Nostratic), and, I would say, has little basis in the facts. But let me keep an open mind. Can you give me another example of an attested variation in spelling between j and n that has a cognate in AA with an l? My view is that "take" probably originally had the form *jm rather than *mj; and that the "mace" represents *jmn, and was playfully used for the *jm-n for jm n.k, "take for yourself". Here, I would certainly > defer to the opinions of Drs. Loprieno, and Schenkel, if they have a > suggestion for the reconstruction of the word. Incidentally this word > comes down to us in Coptic as {mO}. I am not sure what you are indicating by a uppercase "o" but the word appears in Coptic as simple mo (not mo:?) > > "COME": The imperative form "m" used for "jj.t"/"jw.t", was often written > with an accompanying {j}, indicating that the word in question was > definitely "mj". This word comes down to us in Coptic as {ma}. Here, again, I would agree. There are, again, words all over the world that incorporate mVj meaning "go", e.g. IE "3. mei-, wandern, gehen". As is well-known, "go" and "come" seem to be somewhat interchageable. > > > Since I am convinced of the ultimate interrelationship of all languages, > > perhaps it will not be amiss to mention Sumerian (a)m(e), to be. > > Well, that is interesting, but there seem to be no indications that the > Egyptian {m} of predication was ever conceived of as a verb. Well, it certainly would be a defective verb if it was, that I admit. Although I acknowledge m meaning "as" in some sentence, it is very difficult for me to conceptualize "he is as a scribe" as a reasonable translation. It can be > replaced by other prepositions, such as {r} when the sentence has some > implication of future state. So, I believe we can surely define this {m} > as the preposition and not some remnant of a verb. Well, you may be right. I brought up the idea as food for thought. I am not sure how we could ever really know if m was or was not an ancient verb functioning only is certain restricted contexts. The point I would differ with is that it phrases compounded with it can be correctly characterized as "adverbial". snbtj! Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 08:55:06 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: Lesson 1 Graham wrote: > > Hello, Patrick, > > Sorry to keep pestering you! :) I do not mean to be a nudge! > Dear Geoff: If I did not enjoy discussing these matters, I would not write. > > 1) it inflects for feminine and plural like a normal demonstrative; > > 2) it is in the position of a normal demonstrative, i.e. follows the > > noun to which it refers; > > 3) -n is a part of the demonstratives p-n, t-n, n-n; > > 4) Egyptian n corresponds to AA l; > > 5) therefore, I entertain the possibility that n(y) is, in reality, an > > old demonstrative; and > > 6) may be equivalent to the Arabic definite article in phrases like: > > baitu -l rajuli, house of the man. > > OK, Patrick, what other parts of speech show gender and number and come > after the noun which they _modify_? 1) Since articles or definitizing particles are utilized in so many languages to express genitival relationships, 2) and since we have expanded demonstratives like n3, corresponding to p3 and t3, a) surely, you would not suggest that the basis of n3 is n, a preposition?; and since 3) the commonest derivation of articles is demonstratives; and 4) since Egyptian n sometimes corresponds to AA l, and an article in a similar fashion is being employed by a sister AA language to express the genitive; a) would you derive Arabic ?al from li? It seems reasonable to think in terms of demonstratives preferentially. Why have you not suggested > "adjective"? That is what they are. I think there is a case to be made for considering demonstratives a kind of adjective with certain additional properties (distributive). They are the "nisbah"* forms of the > preposition "n" meaning "to". Nisbah forms of prepositions simplifies matters a bit, does it not? After all, these forms typically have the form j+Preposition+j/y when they are written fully, e.g. jmj/y, "he who/that which is in". There is no evidence from Coptic of which I am aware that suggests a fuller form for n-genitive; nor, are there to my knowledge, any fuller writings of n-genitive to suggest either *jn, *nj, or *jnj. If you make an adjective out of "to", you > get something approximating "of", and this is the origin of the > interesting inflection you have observed. I am not sure that this change of meaning is very realistic semantically: it seems to me that to (->) is rather opposed to of (<-). > > *nisbah: (or German spelling: "nisbe"... I use the American Library of > Congress spelling of Arabic words when possible.) an adjective made out of > a noun, with a final /y/ ending, in the Arabic language (as well as > various other Afroasiatic ones). > > Yours, Geoff > sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu For all of the above reasons, I believe that n-genitive is best analyzed as a simple demonstrative, *n, which is the base of other demonstratives like n-3 (cf. p-3, t-3; certainly p- and t- are not prepositions?), and which is used in its oldest and simplest form in the genitive construction. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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) ****************************************** ============================================================================== From: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 07:59:46 -0800 (PST) To: "Patrick C. Ryan" cc: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 the objections to "standard" interpretations of the m of predications as being adverbial seem to have more to do with english terminology than with the language itself. but then, gardiner, who,i assume, bears a lot of responsibility for saddling us with these terms, had quite a mind for turning an inpenetrable phrase. as to the objection to the translation of iw.f mSs as "he is as a scribe" on grounds of sense, again this seems a problem with english and not with egyptian. i mean there's the phrase. whether or not the m is really an adjective is ultimately unknowable. yet it is surprising that it shows no inflection.... chris hoffman ============================================================================== From: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 12:54:54 -0800 (PST) To: "Patrick C. Ryan" cc: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: Lesson 1 as to the parallel for n which is adduced from arabic al, i don't quite see it. the al here is a definite article and is not required. moreover, the noun (or rectum if you will) is in the genitive, which is not parallel as far as i know to egyptian. chris hoffman ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:23:03 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL About "of" (n.y, n.y.t, n.y.w, n.y.w.t) Hi, Patrick, Here we go again! :) > 2) and since we have expanded demonstratives like n3, corresponding to > p3 and t3, But we have n.y, n.y.t, n.y.w, n.y.w.t, and NOT *p.y, *t.y, *n.y, now don't we? Wouldn't you expect demonstratives to behave alike in the language? > a) surely, you would not suggest that the basis of n3 is n, a > preposition?; No, I would do no such thing. The "n" of "nw", "n3", "nn", and "nf" is something _unrelated_ to the preposition "n". > 3) the commonest derivation of articles is demonstratives; Wait a minute. Who ever said that n.y, n.y.t, n.y.w, n.y.w.t represented an article in the first place? Just because Arabic uses an article in its "iDaafah" construction, does not mean that Egyptian was doing the same. Indeed the definite article did not yet exist in Middle Egyptian but was developed by Late Egyption. Morover, the definite article was p3, t3, n3, which I have already told you, I don NOT at all connect with the preposition "n" or its nisbah forms "n.y, n.y.t, n.y.w, n.y.w.t". > 4) since Egyptian n sometimes corresponds to AA l, and an article in a > similar fashion is being employed by a sister AA language to express the > genitive; > a) would you derive Arabic ?al from li? No. But, rather I would say there is a relationship between Egyptian's prepositions "n" and "jr" to Arabic's Prepositions "li-" and "ilaa". Only IF it can be demonstrated that Arabic's definite article "al-" can be proved to derive from one of these PREPOSITIONS, would I concede any relationship at all to Egyptian's n.y, n.y.t, n.y.w, n.y.w.t. > I think there is a case to be made for considering demonstratives a kind > of adjective with certain additional properties (distributive). Yes, this is true, however, I have not agreed to regard n.y, n.y.t, n.y.w, n.y.w.t as demonstratives. :) > There is no evidence from Coptic of which I am aware that suggests a > fuller form for n-genitive; nor, are there to my knowledge, any fuller > writings of n-genitive to suggest either *jn, *nj, or *jnj. You won't find evidence in Coptic, because, by the time of Coptic the vocalization had changed drastically. All non-accented syllables had deteriorated to having only a "shwa" vowel or, where they were supported by weak vowels often they had disappeared altogether. > I am not sure that this change of meaning is very realistic > semantically: it seems to me that to (->) is rather opposed to > of (<-). Well, play with it a bit. If "n" means "to", and "n=f" means both "to him" and "he has", then why should not "n.y" mean "belonging (to)", and thus "of"? > For all of the above reasons, I believe that n-genitive is best analyzed > as a simple demonstrative, *n, which is the base of other demonstratives > like n-3 (cf. p-3, t-3; certainly p- and t- are not prepositions?), and > which is used in its oldest and simplest form in the genitive > construction. But, what evidence do you have for "n" having any relationship to p3, t3, n3, in the first place? At least we KNOW that Egyptian could make, and frequently did make nisbahs out of its prepositions. (Xr > Xr.y; jr > jr.y; m > jm.y; Hr > Hr.y. etc., etc., etc.) What parallel do you have for a morpheme that should be forming some kind of paradigm with p-, t-, and n-, but only n- is ever attested, yet it behaves in all other respects like a typical nisbah? We can run all the nisbahs I have cited through the genders and numbers of Egyptian in exaclty the same way as n.y, n.y.t, n.y.w, n.y.w.t. So, why should we look for any other origin than the obvious? under at, on, for in, with, from upon, on prep. XR jr m Hr ___________________________________________________________________________ m.s. Xr.y jr.y jm.y Hr.y f.s. Xr.y.t jr.y.t jm.y.t Hr.y.t m.p. Xr.y.w jr.y.w jm.y.w Hr.y.w f.p. Xr.y.w.t jr.y.w.t jm.y.w.t Hr.y.w.t ________ ________ ________ ________ mean: "bearing" "pertaining" "inhabiting "upper" Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 23:03:17 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu CC: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL About Lesson 1 cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote: > > the objections to "standard" interpretations of the m of predications as > being adverbial seem to have more to do with english terminology than with > the language itself. but then, gardiner, who,i assume, bears a lot of > responsibility for saddling us with these terms, had quite a mind for > turning an inpenetrable phrase. > > as to the objection to the translation of iw.f m sS as "he is as a scribe" > on grounds of sense, again this seems a problem with english and not with > egyptian. Dear Chris: This is, as the lawyers say, a slippery slope. Once we accept that Egyptian cannot be properly translated into English, Pandora's box is opened to the awkward and ultimately nonsensical translations that have occurred all to often in translations of Egyptian materials in the past. i mean there's the phrase. whether or not the m is really an > adjective is ultimately unknowable. yet it is surprising that it shows no > inflection.... Actually, I am not sure that anyone has described m as an adjective. It is a preposition (Geoff) or possibly verb (Pat). The question is if it is a preposition heading a prepositional phrase, is it more appropriate to consider in an adverbial phrase (Geoff) or an adjectival phrase (Pat). Pat > chris hoffman -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 23:22:28 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk CC: "Patrick C. Ryan" Subject: Re: AEL Re: Lesson 1 cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu wrote: > > as to the parallel for n which is adduced from arabic al, i don't quite > see it. I am rather suggesting that there was an AA word that was the parent of both. the al here is a definite article and is not required. We have phrases in Egyptian like nb jm3x, possessor of veneration; this is called by Gardiner the DIRECT genitive. The genitive with n is termed by Gardiner INDIRECT genitive. So, Egyptian obviously does not REQUIRE n. moreover, > the noun (or rectum if you will) is in the genitive, which is not parallel > as far as i know to egyptian. Since Egyptian does not OVERTLY mark the genitive, how would we know? Pat > > chris hoffman -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 19:38:40 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Adverbial Sentences with "m of predication" Hello, Patrick, I am sorry, but every indication points to "m" being a preposition in Egyptian, and prepositional phases are adverbial. > Even if we accept the standard analysis of m + N in existential > sentences as a prepositional phrase, m cannot be considered an "adverb"; > it would simply be the preposition m --- heading a prepositional phrase. Why not? If a language has no way of expressing the verb "be" in the present tense, AS IS THE CASE in most Afroasiatic languages about which I know, then other means are used to express existence, and many solutions are adverbial. Look at the modern Arabic sentence "fiy mashaakil katiyrah!", "there are many problems". The place of "be" is held by what? "fiy" is none other than a prepostion, meaning "in". This is exactly the same meaning as that which Egyptian "m" had. Why do you have a problem with accepting "m" as an adverb? > If I said in English: "He is as a lion among men", would you say the > phrase "as a lion among men" is adverbial or adjectival? It seems to me > that in sentences like "jw.f m sS", even IF we assume a prepositional > phrase, it functions as a adjective since it describes -f, "he". It is still adverbial, because it tells HOW he is. It functions as an existential predicate. In English we have a verb "be" so the case is a bit different. Egyptian made adverbial sentences when the main idea was equality or the semblance thereof. We know the Egyptian verb "be". It is only relevant to sentences expressing past or future existence. The verb is "wnn". Similarly Arabic has a verb "kaana" (root = /kwn) "be" which is only relevant to past and future sentences. If you look at the other languages to which Egyptian is related, you will see some of the very same patterns occuring. > Geoff, this is the kind of speculation that has made it possible for > Egyptian to be isolated from AA and IE (through Nostratic), and, I would > say, has little basis in the facts. But let me keep an open mind. Can > you give me another example of an attested variation in spelling between > j and n that has a cognate in AA with an l? Egyptian "jb" "heart"/ Semitic "lb", and rare Old Egyptian writings of "jnb" for same. Egyptian "jwn" "color"/Semitic "lawn". > My view is that "take" probably originally had the form *jm rather than > *mj; and that the "mace" represents *jmn, and was playfully used for the > *jm-n for jm n.k, "take for yourself". You may be right. It is hard to say. > I am not sure what you are indicating by a uppercase "o" but the word > appears in Coptic as simple mo (not mo:?) I was using upper case {O} for the long vowel. Obviously you mean the same by {o:}. > Well, you may be right. I brought up the idea as food for thought. I am > not sure how we could ever really know if m was or was not an ancient > verb functioning only is certain restricted contexts. Well we can all always use food for thought! :) > The point I would differ with is that it phrases compounded with it can > be correctly characterized as "adverbial". It is adverbial in that it uses an adverb. Do we translate it adverbially? Well, probably not. However, within the system of Egyptian itself. It WAS adverbial, whether we translate it that way into English, French, Germnan, Japanese, or any other language that way or not. Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 22:58:58 +0000 From: Mark Wilson To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL "m of predication" Hello Stephen, > Second, what is the grammatical function of this prepositional phrase? > In spite of the fact that I sometimes feel that Polotskyites see > an adverb in every word, I think that this phrase is definitely > adverbial. In section 28 of Gardiner, a preposition + it's noun is defined as being an adverbial phrase. Turning to setion 116 we see that an adverbial predicate can consist of an actual adverb, or an adverbial phrase composed of preposition + a noun, such as m pr=f 'in his house'. In the latter event there are two noteworthy cases where the preposition may be a) the datival {n} 'to', 'for' which serves to convey the notion of possession or b) the {m} of predication or the {r} of futurity. If it's case b, Gardiner observes that this adverbial predicate in Egyptian corresponds to an English nominal predicate, i.e. a predicate consisting of a noun. This leads on to your comment that: > However "translation" is sometimes used for something closer to > lexical substitution - "literal translation" - frequently as an aid > to demonstrating > the structure of the original language. This is something you have to contend with even when translating from one european language to another. As a general example, it would sound strange to translate the german "Ich waesche mir die Haende" as "I wash for myself the hands". As you say Stephen, it helps to show the structure of the original language, but for a general audience you would, of course, want to convert it to a more acceptable english usage such as "I wash my hands". In english you can't say "I am as a scribe", but you can say "As a scribe I have a certain status". I suppose this doesn't count though, because it's really a special case. I hope I haven't confused matters further! Best Regards, Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 01:00:35 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: AEL "Genitive n" and prepostions The prepostion "n" seems likely to be cognate with Hebrew "l" which can be used both in a sense of "to" or "for" someone and also in a possessive sense (though it isn't used as liberally in this sense as Egyptian uses "n"). So I don't see any necessary problem with this sort of shift of meaning. Whether the genitival n was in fact a nisbe I don't know, but I haven't heard of any time it was written in full as "ny". To complicate matters when comparing Hebrew (or Arabic, I suppose) with Egyptian, we have two prepostions in Egyptian which seem related to "l" in Hebrew: "n" (for, of) and "r" (towards), although the latter seems also to be close to the Hebrew "'l" (towards). And we also have in Hebrew " Subject: AEL "m of predication" The waters around this topic seem to be getting considerably muddied. It seems to me that in some cases people have been having what I call a "non-argument", i.e. they aren't really disagreeing, just not communicating. However, it has certainly been of some value to me in encouraging me to think about the grammatical issues and meaning of the "m of predication." Let me try to summarize my understanding of the issue: First, is this "m" a preposition? Well, on the basis of what we know (we don't know if it was pronounced differently or something, and without further evidence this becomes a non-question), it seems to be the same as the preposition "m". It occurs in a position in a sentence where one could use the preposition: e.g. iw=f m pr He is in the house. iw=f m sS He is a scribe. The structure of those seems to be the same from what we can see. I believe the preposition is cognate with the Hebrew or Arabic "b", so we have Eg. "m-Htp", Heb. "bSlm", "in peace". I don't think you could make a reasonable case for "m" being either an adverb or an adjective (although I'm not sure if this suggestion was what was intended, or just a case of poorly expressing a comment). Second, what is the grammatical function of this prepositional phrase? In spite of the fact that I sometimes feel that Polotskyites see an adverb in every word, I think that this phrase is definitely adverbial. The alternative which was suggested was that it is adjectival. The best we can do is to compare non-verbal sentence structures: Adverbial "m of predication" Adjectival iw N m pr iw N m sS iqr N N is in the house. N is a scribe. N is reliable. The "m of predication" sentence seems to bear a much closer relation to the adverbial sentence than to the adjectival, which has a completely different structure. Third, how should we translate this idiom? There was a complaint about "He is as a scribe" to translate "iw=f m sS" I think this was based on the rather vague English term "translation." A translation should always express the same idea in English (or whatever target language) as the Egyptian sentence. Since English does not make any grammatical distinction between statements like "He is my father" (inherent) and "He is my teacher" (circumstantial), we must translate both "iw=f it=i" and "iw=f m sbA.w=i" with this one English structure (in fact we have to use the same type of sentence to express Egyptian adjectival sentences also). However "translation" is sometimes used for something closer to lexical substitution - "literal translation" - frequently as an aid to demonstrating the structure of the original language. Such is the use of "He is as a scribe" to represent "iw=f m sS" We actually have an idiom in English that is somewhat similar to this usage: e.g. He is an archer He is into archery He is a Scout He is in Scouting He is a plumber He is in plumbing There is admittedly a slight connotational shift between the two structures, however it might give some feeling for the structure to translate "iw=f m sS" as "He is in scribing" (although it might be well to point out that this doesn't necessarily imply that the word "sS" in the Egyptian is therefore an infinitive or participle!) Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:07:05 -0800 (PST) To: Aegyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Molly Walzer Subject: AEL Re: ane Hieroglyphs by mail Apologies for putting this on the list; I was asked for this information off-list, but cannot send mail to any of the addresses given. So here is the information about the Oriental Institute's Hieroglyphics by mail. Molly Walzer mwalzer@pacbell.net Return-Path: adult-ed@memphis-orinst.uchicago.edu From: "adult-ed" Subject: Re: ane Hieroglyphs by mail >YES! Please register me for Hieroglyphs by Mail: > An Oriental Institute Correspondence Course > >This course, taught by mail, will teach you how to read the most common >hieroglyphic inscriptions by concentrating on non-literary texts that appear as >labels, captions, and offering formulas on temple walls and on artifacts. The >course begins with fundamentals of the writing system, progressing to reading >royal and personal names and titles, formulas which appear on funerary >monuments, and the texts which accompany offering scenes. Whenever possible, >readings will be drawn from objects in the collection of the Oriental Institute >Museum of from Oriental Institute publications. The course begins on March 1, >1997, and will consist of ten lessons. Complete each lesson and return it by >mail or fax it to the instructor. It is estimated that you will complete the >course in fifteen weeks. > >Instructor: Emily Teeter, Ph.D., is Associate Curator of the Oriental >Institute Museum. > >Cost: Members of the Oriental Institute Museum: $135 >Non-Members: $155 > >Total enclosed $_____ (Please make checks payable to the Oriental Institute.) >I prefer to pay by credit card: >____Mastercard or _____Visa (check one) > >Card Number______________________________ Exp.Date____________ >Signature__________________________Name____________________ >Address________________________________________Phone_______ >City_________________________State______________Zip_________ > >Return to: The Oriental Institute Museum Museum Education 1155 East 58th >Street, Chicago, IL 60637 or call us at 773.702.9507. >(Unfortunately, we cannot register people over the internet. If you want to >register, please download this and snail-mail it back to the address above. >Thank you.) ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:58:44 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL "m of predication" Stephen Fryer wrote: > > The waters around this topic seem to be getting considerably muddied. I believe > the preposition is cognate with the Hebrew or Arabic "b", so we have Eg. > "m-Htp", Heb. "bSlm", "in peace". Dear Stephen: Changes from an oral to a homorganic nasal are rare unless motivated by an adjacent nasal (e.g. nb -> m); denasalizing is more common but 1) what other cognates can be cited for Egyptian m = AA b? 2) since we have Egyptian m-$, with (m'), which is probably related to Arabic ma$a, with, is it not likelier that Egyptian m normally corresponds to AA m? Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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, 6 Mar 1997 23:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL "m of predication" I need to retract my apparent lapse of thinking when I inadvertantly called the "m" of predication an "adverb" in one of my posts. It was not what I had intended to say. :) I meant to emphasize exactly what Stephen Fryer has nicely pointed out: that prepositions before nouns constitute adverbial phrases in Egyptian. I did not intend to disagree with anyone other than that I would maintain that it could not have actually been a verb "be". And, I agree, we need not muddy the water further with too much conjecture, when so much good scholarship has already nicely defined the "m" of predication before the creation of this list. Gardiner's understanding of it was quite good, and I would recommend referring to his useful grammar on the subject. Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 20:38:34 -0500 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re: "m of predication" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Stephen F.'s analysis is accurate. There is no reason to think the m of the "m of predication" as anything different from the preposition m in other instances. The term "m of predication" should not suggest that we are dealing with a different word, but rather it indicates a particular use of the preposition m. (Just as we talk about the "r of separation" or the "r of comparison," etc. m sS and m pr are both adverbials. Prepositional phrases are by their nature adverbial (and this is quite easily proven in Egyptian, if one cares to check it out--I suggest we do this on the list, but only at a later point). About adverbials as predicates, I think it was Geoffrey who pointed out that the big difference between English and Egyptian is that we use the verb to be in such cases, but the Egyptian language uses their verb "to be" only in some cases. We, with a verb "to be", like to peg predicates as verbal, but in languages (including Russian) that do not always use the verb "to be", the only option is to have the adverbial part of the sentence serve as predicate. About the use of the preposition m with the meaning "in the capacity/function/guise etc. of", I like to compare the French expressions involving "en" ("in") used by my Aunt Suzanne: _escalier en colimac,on_ (c, is for c ce'dille) "spiral staircase" (literally "staircase in snail (form)") or my favourite: _fene^tre en guillotine_ (literally "window in guillotine (fashion)" for the old-fashioned, weighted windows that open vertically--what are they called in English, anyway? I can't help but remember the French! I agree with Stephen's other comments. I must say how happy it makes me to see you THINKING about and EXAMINING how language works. My students are often skeptical about the whole process at the onset, but at the end of the year, they comment that they now see English in a quite different light, even if they have studied French, German, Spanish, etc. There was only one problem with Stephen's comments--that is the sentence type for "He is my father" (i.e. the relationship is inherent, not just circumstantial). This would require a different sentence type than the: iw subject + adverbial predicate (or to use the terms in my book: iw TOPIC + ADVERBIAL COMMENT). In the case where the subject is a pronoun, the sentence construction would be: independent pronoun (as TOPIC) + it.i (as nominal COMMENT), the sentence type that I call AB nominal sentence (i.e. nominal unit A is simply juxtaposed to nominal unit B with no connecting words). For those who have dealt with the independent pronouns (ntf being "he"), the correct sentence for "he is my father" would be _ntf it.i_ Best wishes, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 20:55:46 -0500 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re: Genitive "n(y)" and Prep n To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Stephen's interpretations on prep. n and genitival n(y) agree mostly with my own. There is probably a ton of secondary literature out there on the relation between Egyptian and Semitic prepositions, but my experience has shown that solid first-hand examination of the evidence is the best approach for one's initial investigation. Egyptian preposition n corresponds very, very well with Semitic l. Aramaic uses the relational particle _di_ + _l-_ to express the genitive. This is functionally equivalent to using the nisba of l/n, which is the route that Egyptian took. (The Egyptian equivalent [not cognate, but similar in concept] of the relational particle is the relational adjective nty [plus its variously declined forms].) James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:06:33 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL "Genitive n" and prepostions Hi, Stephen, > Whether the genitival n was in fact a nisbe I don't know, but I haven't > heard of any time it was written in full as "ny". In old Egyptian and in certain archaizing texts from later times the genitive "n" is spelled out more fully in various instances as {nj}, {njt}, {njw}, and {njwt}. This is the origin of the argument that they are nisbahs, parallel with other nisbahs based on prepositions. Old Egyptian did not use the combination {jj} as a writing for /y/ yet, but combinations with {jj} during the Old Kingdom represented instances of more than one sound, whatever sound you believe that to have been (most likely the glottal stop or the palatal glide, or even both). > To complicate matters when comparing Hebrew (or Arabic, I suppose) with > Egyptian, we have two prepostions in Egyptian which seem related to "l" in > Hebrew: "n" (for, of) and "r" (towards), although the latter seems also to > be close to the Hebrew "'l" (towards). And we also have in Hebrew " (upon) although this is probably related to Eg. "Hr". Nowhere in Hebrew is > there an "l" to be found as an article or other demonstrative. I would tend to say, but am not sure about this, that "n" is most parallel with Arabic "li-", while "jr" is most parallel with Arabic "ilaa/ilayhi". This is just a suggestion. I believe that the initial "j" was always there but not written based upon certain Old Egyptian writings which include it, and on the Coptic prenominal equivalent "e-", indicating that an initial vowel had to be supported befor the "r" so that the "r" could drop off, and on the persistance of an initial "e" in the pre-pronominal forms (eroi, erok, ero, erof, eros, eron, erOtn, eroou). In the case of the preposition "n", it is more difficult to determine whether an initial "j" would have been present because of lack of writings employing it, and also because Coptic "n-" was a sonorant, and therefore did not need any vowel before it to help its articulation, even if a slight vowel might actually have been realized when it was pronounced before a stop. Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 21:43:41 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL "m of predication" At 10:58 PM 97/03/06 +0000, you wrote: >In section 28 of Gardiner, a preposition + it's noun is defined as being >an adverbial phrase. I was trying to avoid the "appeal to authority" argument. I wanted to see WHY Gardiner (or anyone else) might make that statement. Also I don't have a copy of Gardiner, though I could probably have made similar reference to Hoch. There is also the potential problem that someone might want to disqualify Gardiner on the grounds that he wrote his Grammar so long ago (originally 1926; last revision 1956) and before the Polotskyan revolution in our understanding of the Egyptian verbal system and sentence patterns. >This is something you have to contend with even when translating from >one european language to another. No two languages will express everything in the same way, with merely lexical transposition. The less closely related the two languages are, the more this is true. Fortunately, English and Egyptian are RELATIVELY closely related. Try something a little more exotic like Chinese: Literal: MANY WHAT SAY LITTLE WHAT KNOW. LITTLE WHAT SAY MANY WHAT KNOW. Translation: The fellow who talks a lot, doesn't know much. The one who knows a lot, doesn't say much. I realise that is poetry, but still.... Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:46:14 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Contact with Dr. Hoch Hello, I am very sorry to disturb the list with this semi-relevant message. I have been attempting to write to Dr. Hoch, but, for some reason, my message always bounces back. Mr. Hoch, can you please send me an email address which will actually reach your account. The return address on your last message is not getting to you, though I simply responded to it with the automatic address that my program created for you. Thank you, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: David Maclennan Subject: Re: AEL Lesson 1 - problem with downloading Date: 26 Feb 1997 14:05:31 +1200 In , Mark Wilson wrote: >The low res scans have been done with an 800x600 super vga screen in >mind. If you have a lower resolution, it may be that you need to use >the scroll bars at the bottom of the display to move the view from >side to side. > >I've just noticed that there is quite a wide left margin on each of >the 3 images. I've removed this margin in the low-res versions which >has resulted in the width of the image being closer to that which >should fit on a VGA screen. You may need to hit the 'reload' button to >get Netscape to fetch the updated images. The problem is not looking at them on a screen - it's when I try to print them out that the ends of some lines get chopped off. Maybe the reduced left margin will help - I'll give it a go, anyway. Cheers, David Maclennan ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:17:56 -0500 (EST) From: Luxor3@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL De-lurking down under I picked up my copy of Fischer's book from the Suq at the Oriental Institute. Lynn Kordus ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 08:20:29 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Re: Genitive "n(y)" and Prep n At 08:55 PM 97/03/06 -0500, you wrote: >Egyptian preposition n corresponds very, very well with Semitic l. Aramaic >uses the relational particle _di_ + _l-_ to express the genitive. This is >functionally equivalent to using the nisba of l/n, which is the route that >Egyptian took. Later Hebrew also uses the relative : _she_ + _l_ + [noun or pronoun] to express the owner. Of course they sometimes go overboard and use both the suffix pronoun and the possessive form (probably for emphasis?) such as _karmi shelli_ "my garden" (or "my own garden" because of the extra emphasis). Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 08:20:27 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Re: "m of predication" At 08:38 PM 97/03/06 -0500, you wrote: >There was only one problem with Stephen's comments--that is the sentence type >for "He is my father" (i.e. the relationship is inherent, not just >circumstantial). This would require a different sentence type than the: iw >subject + adverbial predicate (or to use the terms in my book: iw TOPIC + >ADVERBIAL COMMENT). In the case where the subject is a pronoun, the sentence >construction would be: independent pronoun (as TOPIC) + it.i (as nominal >COMMENT), the sentence type that I call AB nominal sentence (i.e. nominal unit >A is simply juxtaposed to nominal unit B with no connecting words). For those >who have dealt with the independent pronouns (ntf being "he"), the correct >sentence for "he is my father" would be _ntf it.i_ > Oops. Somehow thinking too closely about one problem makes everything else look the same, even if you know better! I stand corrected. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:17:21 +1100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Keith Wong Subject: AEL First lesson Hello to all. This list is a godsend. I am a beginner, and have worked through 9 or so chapters of Gardiner, only to become bogged down by unanswered questions and other complexities. Many thanks to Geoffrey Graham for making his lessons available. Lesson one was downloaded and printed out with ease. I hope that the experts on the list won't mind the simple questions posed by us beginners, and that they also won't mind our eavesdropping on their erudite discussions. I have one question. I am unclear about the correct use of the m of predication in "iw X m Y". James Hoch mentions that it cannot be used when X and Y intrinsically identical; and Gardiner p.42 expresses that Y is an acquired attribute rather than a permanent property of X. Am I correct in concluding that: iw.f m sS He is a scribe iw mry.t m Hm.t n Any Meryet is the wife of Any. (?) are appropriate uses, and iw ra m sbA The sun is a star iw inpw m nTr Anubis is a god iw.f m it.i He is my father are inappropriate because star and god are intrinsic properties of sun and Anubis respectively, etc. Thanks Keith Sydney, Australia (Keith Wong, wongkkh@zeta.org.au) --------------------------------------------- Keith Wong wongkkh@zeta.org.au keith.wong@clubmac.org.au KEWong@doh.health.nsw.gov.au ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 08:43:33 -0600 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL "Genitive n" and prepostions Graham wrote: > > Hi, Stephen, > > > Whether the genitival n was in fact a nisbe I don't know, but I haven't > > heard of any time it was written in full as "ny". > > In old Egyptian and in certain archaizing texts from later times the > genitive "n" is spelled out more fully in various instances as {nj}, > {njt}, {njw}, and {njwt}. This is the origin of the argument that they > are nisbahs, parallel with other nisbahs based on prepositions. P- is a base for demonstratives in Egyptian, to which -n, -3, -f, -w, and -j can be affixed. Pj (p-j) is rare outside of the Pyramid Texts, and even there restricted to use as a postposed subject: "R' pj", "he is Re'" (Elmar Edel, Altaeg. Grammatik, 87). We know that n- is a demonstrative base also. For the indirect genitive, nj (n-j) is a spelling attested --- like pj --- "PT 1737 a(M); 1194 b (P); 1202 b. d (P) und sonst oft in den PT; KAUM ausserhalb der PT" (Edel, 137). So, it seems to me that we may have an analog to pj: 1) use practically restricted to the Pyramid texts; 2) specialized employment (pj-postposed subject; nj-postposed deomstrative/article to indicate genitive). Obviously, we can never know certainly if indirect genitive n(j) is a demonstrative (n-j) or a nisbah from the preposition n (n-j) but I prefer the interpretation as a demonstrative in a specialized use because of the rather common AA phenomenon of articles (Arabic ?al/Hebrew ha) being a feature of genitive constructions. Although Edel confirms a spelling of n-j for the indirect genitive, the spelling actually attested for the feminine is n-t NOT n-j-t, unless Edel has neglected to include an attested spelling of *njt, so the *njt cited above is an INTERPRETATION rather than a fact. But, I think it is pertinent to remember that even if the indirect genitive should be reconstructed as nj, it could be the demonstrative base n- + -j, parallel to pj/tj rather than a nisbah of prepositional n. Pat Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN {ProtoL9@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA 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: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 14:41:53 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL "m of predication" At 08:58 PM 97/03/06 -0600, you wrote: >Changes from an oral to a homorganic nasal are rare unless motivated by >an adjacent nasal (e.g. nb -> m); denasalizing is more common but >1) what other cognates can be cited for Egyptian m = AA b? >2) since we have Egyptian m-$, with (m'), which is probably related to >Arabic ma$a, with, is it not likelier that Egyptian m normally >corresponds to AA m? > If I am incorrect on this, then at least I am in good company, since both Hoch and Loprieno make the same connection. One point - is this a case of AA b -> Eg m, or a case of Sem. b <- AA ? -> Eg. m ? I'm not sure that we know enough about the root AfroAsiatic language to say much about it with a high degree of confidence. Most of what I've seen on the subject relied very heavily on Egyptian and Semitic, which are only two branches of the family. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ==============================================================================