From: barahona@lander.es To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL On Dayr al-Bahri texts Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:13:43 GMT On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 04:31:18 -0700, you wrote: >Yes the temple has been published by The Egypt Exploration Fund/Society. >"THE TEMPLE OF DEIR EL BAHARI" >By: Edouard Naville >In 6 volumes >First volume published 1895 Thank you very much. Tomorrow I'll try in my University Library. Regards: Agustin Barahona ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:52:52 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List , raven@javanet.com Subject: Re: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Raven Brooke wrote: > Thanks for something fun to work on! I'm getting a little bogged down > with the vocabulary, but I have made a start-am I on the right track at > all? Some of the sentences don't seem to make sense even after I've > looked up the unfamiliar words; I like leafing through the dictionary, > though, I could waste hours that way! I know what you mean. There have been times when I've spent ages just browsing through a dictionary (English, Hebrew, Latin, whatever) - a rather strange passtime! > 1. jw=f r smr=j He is my friend. (isn't "friend" a court title?) "Friend" was indeed frequently used as a court title (="Friend of the King", though I believe it could alos be used in a more ordinary context. > 2. jw Hm=f m Hr jb sn His majesty is in the sight of their hearts. The problem with this one was that Hr-ib is a compound word meaning "in" or "middle" so m Hr-ib=sn means "in the middle of them." Egyptian had as many of these compound expressions as North American English, which tends to use compounds to replace simple words such as replacing "behind" with "in back of" > 3. jw Hm=f m tp n mS` His majesty is at the head of his army. > > 4. jw jt jm hn` (?)ty There is barley is there, together with (?). The word you had problems with is bdt, "emmer" (a species of wheat) - This is a word you might have better look looking up in a sign list rather than a dictionary. You could also translate this sentence as "It had both barley and wheat," which would sound a little more natural in English. > Sorry this isn't complete, Ill send more in as I learn the vocabulary. Well, after all this in NOT a timed exam or anything - do it as much or as little as you want at a time! If you get stuck on a word or two, just ask. Of course it is good exercise learning to find things in a dictionary, but the Egyptian dictionaries I've seen have a number of unexpected quirks that frequently make finding what I'm looking for more difficult. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: imarinov@lnd.internet-bg.bg To: 'Ancient Egyptian Language List' Subject: RE: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 01:03:15 +0200 Hi Stephen, Thanks for the exercise. I tried to translate the sentences, but I not = found the meanings of most of the words (I have not any books; my only = sources of information are on the web). I marked these words with (?). = Maybe if you help me with some of them, I will be able to translate the = sentences (on second pass). Thank you. 1. iw=3Df r smr=3Di He will be my friend. 2. iw Hm=3Df m Hr ib=3Dsn His majesty is in their minds. 3. iw Hm=3Df m tp n (?)=3Df His majesty is in front of his army (I assume the glyph, representing = archer(s), means "army"). 4. iw it im Hna (?) The barley is there, together with (?). 5. iw xrw Haw m Xr.y.t-nTr In this sentence I need to know the meaning of "Haw". 6. iw (?) nb Hr ir.w.t=3Df I don't know how to transliterate/translate the second word and the = meaning of "ir.t" (if this is the correct transliteration). 7. iw Xnw m sgr ib.w m gm.w The residence is in peace when the hearts are in (?). 8. iw=3Di r Smt I will go. 9. iw (?) pn n nswt Hr mAA These king's soldiers are watching. 10. iw=3Df r iTi.t (?) He will take (?). 11. iw Hm.w aSA Hr qdi=3Df Many artisans are/were building it. 12. iw=3Df Hr wnm t 500 He eats/ate five hundred (?!) loaves of bread. 13. iw (?) r wHm (?)=3Dk With some help I will give another try on this sentence. ============================================================================== From: "mark vygus" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Cc: "V. Raisman" <100411.1154@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: AEL Correspondence Courses Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:46:00 -0000 I can recommend Vivian Raisman. I went to her evening class for beginners, and in one year we went from not knowing anything to reading small texts and then "The Shipwrecked Sailor" in full.I do not know how much she charges for corresspondence but it should be worth it. ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:08:58 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review imarinov@lnd.internet-bg.bg wrote: > Thanks for the exercise. I tried to translate the sentences, but I not found the meanings of most of the words (I have not any books; my only sources of information are on the web). I marked these words with (?). Maybe if you help me with some of them, I will be able to translate the sentences (on second pass). Thank you. > > 1. iw=f r smr=i > He will be my friend. This is just iw=f r smr "he will be (appointed to be) a Friend." This term friend, with those two determinatives, was a court position and is probably more nearly translated as "Friend (or Companion) of the King" > 2. iw Hm=f m Hr ib=sn > His majesty is in their minds. The phrase Hr-ib is used as a compound preposition meaning "within" or "inside". Here the translation of "m Hr-ib=sn" would be "in the middle of them" (that is he was surrounded by them). > 3. iw Hm=f m tp n (?)=f > His majesty is in front of his army (I assume the glyph, representing archer(s), means "army"). You are quite correct. It is transliterated as mSa, and is a singular noun representing a group, so it gets the plural strokes. > 4. iw it im Hna (?) > The barley is there, together with (?). This is bdt = "emmer" (a species of wheat). In this case you don't need to put the definite article in front of the nouns. > 5. iw xrw Haw m Xr.y.t-nTr > In this sentence I need to know the meaning of "Haw". Haw = "rejoicing" > 6. iw (?) nb Hr ir.w.t=f > I don't know how to transliterate/translate the second word and the meaning of "ir.t" (if this is the correct transliteration). That is wdp.w = "household servants" The second is ir.w.t which means "job," or "task" > 7. iw Xnw m sgr ib.w m gm.w > The residence is in peace when the hearts are in (?). sgr = "silence" gmw = "mourning" I might interpret this as "because" rather than "when," although either is possible, since the Egyptians tended to leave such relationships rather vague. > 8. iw=i r Smt > I will go. > 9. iw (?) pn n nswt Hr mAA > These king's soldiers are watching. Once again we have mSa = "army". We can be sure it is singular because the word used for "this" is singular (pn). So we translate it as "This army of the king was watching." > 10. iw=f r iTi.t (?) > He will take (?). Two words ar hiding in your question mark: tA.w = lands (written witht he multiple signs for land rs.y.w = Southern > 11. iw Hm.w aSA Hr qdi=f > Many artisans are/were building it. A couple of points: The verb qd is a biliteral NOT a weak verb - a weak verb infinitive would have made it *qdt=f (see what Geoff Graham said about infinitives). Another way of looking at this Hr qd=f would be "were involved in its building" rather than a simple progressive (however your translation is quite OK!) > 12. iw=f Hr wnm t 500 > He eats/ate five hundred (?!) loaves of bread. I should explain here that frequently when a list of fodd and drink items is given, like this item here, what is probably referred to is not the amount the individual ate in a day, but what his weekly or monthly ration (his "paycheque" in effect) was - used to support his entire household. > 13. iw (?) r wHm (?)=k > With some help I will give another try on this sentence. iw=i at the beginning of the sentence uses the glyph for "very important person" to represent the pronoun ending ("I") Question mark #2 is Hb.w = "festivals" I hope this helps. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:12:56 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: blochprint@zelacom.com (Julie Purple) Subject: Re: AEL Correspondence Courses Dear Steve, Thanks! I'll do this! Julie >Try contacting Vivian Raisman at University College (London) >who runs a correspondence course : > >V. Raisman <100411.1154@compuserve.com> > > Julie Bloch blochprint@zelacom.com * * * (@v@) * * * ============================================================================== From: Aayko To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:14:04 +-100 ---------- Van: Stephen Fryer[SMTP:sfryer@prcn.org] > 4. jw jt jm hn` (?)ty There is barley is there, together with (?). The word you had problems with is bdt, "emmer" (a species of wheat) - This is a word you might have better look looking up in a sign list rather than a dictionary. You could also translate this sentence as "It had both barley and wheat," which would sound a little more natural in English. ** This jw-particle is rather complex thing; if I understand correctly it 'actualizes' a phrase in its own time frame, and as such can be used for descriptive emphasis as well. I would feel that consequently translating it would be helpfull: - a 'jw [..]' phrase with NOW [NOW THAT]: jw d3b jm=f = "NOW the figs are/were in it" a familiar way of phrasing for those acquinted with the Bible, I suppose. "Now the Filistines were in the land" :) - a ' jw [..][..]' phrase with 'NOW [..(is, etc.)...] WHILE/WHEN [...(is, etc.)...]", or 'NOW........NOW THAT....' So: >iw sxt.y m AH.t Hm.t=f m pr > The peasant was in the field while his wife was in the house. I would render: "NOW the peasant (is) in the field WHILE/WHEN his wife (is) in the house" >>iw sxt.y m rS.wt iw=f m AH.t=f >The peasant is in rejoicing when he is in his field. "NOW the peasant (is) in rejoicing WHILE/WHEN he (is) in his field" Would that be acceptable? Or did I misunderstand? I think that translating things litterally helps in learning to 'talk like an Egyptian'? Why do you translate sometimes past and sometimes present? Same in the example to Raven: "It had barley.." instead of "Now wheat is there(in) together with emmer" ? Is there a rule here? Or just depending on the verbial tenses in the context? What I did not understand in your piece was: >We could also combine this with an adjectival sentence: > > nfr.wy pr=i Hm.t=i im > How beautiful my house is when my wife is in it! Which to me reads: "Twice beautifull my house (is), my wife (is) there(in)" So I do not see the 'combine' as the jw is missing here? Why is this not: jw nfr.wy pr=i Hm.t=i jm "NOW twice nice my house (is) WHILE my wife (is) there(in)" without the jw, the two things are not put in the same time, the being nice not 'actualized' (made dependent) on the wife being inside? Like the rejoycing above depending on being in the field Or am I misunderstanding totally?? Why btw is jm used and not jm=f ("in it")? Is there a rule for that? And when m or jm, just random writing differences? kind regards, Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:32:17 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Answers to Exercise II Tomas Sobota wrote: > I have the following questions about lesson II: > > a.- The hieroglyphs for iAd-y-t (or jAd-y-t) "girl" lack the A symbol, > which is however present in iAd-y "boy". Is this just an overlook > or it can be written that way? Apologies for being so slow responding to this. You will find that usually "boy" is written id and girl is written id.t. Occasionally we have iAd for "boy" Graham tends to transliterate things so as to reconstruct their original form. In this case he was being guided by two things: 1) the A was often equivalent to Semitic l or r 2) there are Semitic words for "boy" (Heb. yeled, Arab. walad) and "girl" (Heb. yaldah) which seem to parallel these Egyptian words. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:10:45 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List CC: Aayko Eyma Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Aayko wrote: > ** This jw-particle is rather complex thing; > if I understand correctly it 'actualizes' a phrase > in its own time frame, and as such > can be used for descriptive emphasis as well. This is, as you say a very complex subject, and one where there is considerable discussion. For instance: J.P. Allen "Tense in Classical Egyptian," in _Essays on Egyptian Grammar_, 1986, is mostly devoted to exploring the use and implication of "iw". Or Thomas Ritter, "On Particles in Middle Egyptian" in _Lingua Aegyptia 2_, 1992 (summary in AEB for 1992) discusses the use of all the "sentence particles" including iw. Unfortunately, to complicat the issue, besides the use of iw to open main sentences, it can also open a subordinate clause with a pronoun subject so that there is something to attach the pronoun suffix to (iw sxty m rSwt iw=f m sxt=f). In terms of its usage, it is only used at the beginning of initial main sentences which are being spoken by a particular person. Subsequent sentences might not have it because they are either subordinate clauses (iw sxty m sxt=f Hmt=f m pr) or because they are in a sort of "and then" (paratactic) relation to the first clause. In terms of meaning, first of all, it seems to label the sentence as a statement of fact (no matter how outrageoulsy the person may obviously be lying), and second, it makes the tenses of any following verbs relative to the time (and place) of the speaker. >For a start there are two common uses of iw [SNIP] > Would that be acceptable? Or did I misunderstand? In terms of attempting to give some standard translation of the WORD iw, I don't think it can really be done. The situation is somewhat similar to particles in Japanese, where you can announce the topic of a conversation by following it with the particle -wa. > Why do you translate sometimes past > and sometimes present? Same in the > example to Raven: "It had barley.." instead > of "Now wheat is there(in) together with emmer" ? > > Is there a rule here? Or just depending on the > verbial tenses in the context? Verbal tenses in Egyptian were dependent on context. Non-verbal sentences, such as we are dealing with here, give no indication of time whatever. It has to be taken from context. In the case of isolated examples, like these exercises, that is not going to be possible. I could just as easily (and probably more correctly, considering the context) have used "It has...." > What I did not understand in your piece was: > > >We could also combine this with an adjectival sentence: > > > > nfr.wy pr=i Hm.t=i im > > How beautiful my house is when my wife is in it! > > Which to me reads: > "Twice beautifull my house (is), my wife (is) there(in)" > > So I do not see the 'combine' as the jw is missing > here? Why is this not: > > jw nfr.wy pr=i Hm.t=i jm Adjectival sentences NEVER begin with iw; only adverbial sentences (and according to the Standard Theory that includes verbal sentences beginning with iw - but we don't want to get into that here). It is quite possible to see Egyptian sentences as being very "chopped up" when translated very literally. However, the implication is still made in this sentence that there is a connection between the beauty of my house and the presence of my wife within it. By the way, the dual of adjectives frequently, as here, has an exclamatory meaning (To quote an example from a popular movie, Stargate: "Bani. Baniway!" = bnr bnr.wy "Sweet. How sweet!" referring to the first contact with a chocolate bar.) > Why btw is jm used and not jm=f ("in it")? > Is there a rule for that? And when m or jm, just > random writing differences? There isn't a whole world of difference between the two. im usually means rather vaguely "there," whereas im=f, or im=s, or im=sn are more specific and mean "in it," or "in them." But there are cases where what is written is simply im when it is probable that what is meant is im=s. I hope these explanations are both helpful and reasonably accurate. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: "Tom Sobota" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Answers to Exercise II Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:43:22 PST Thanks, Stephen Better late than never :-) believe me. By now I thought that this question of mine had become lost among intergalactic debris! Bye Tom Tom Sobota tom_sobota@hotmail.com >Tomas Sobota wrote: > >> I have the following questions about lesson II: (snip) >> >Apologies for being so slow responding to this. (more snip) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ============================================================================== From: Aayko To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL AW: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:03:57 +-100 Hi Stephen, >However, the implication is still made in this sentence that there is a connection between the beauty of my house and the presence of my wife within it. **Well, that was my point, to me this connection failes to be implied: >nfr.wy pr=i Hm.t=i im > How beautiful my house is when my wife is in it! > "How beautifull my house is!; my wife is there(in)" I do not see why the beautifull depends on the wife being in! That's why I wanted an iw in there ;) How do you know these are not two seperate factual statements: "How beautifull my house is! (And) my wife is in it (and the cat and the canary etc)." Would there be a difference in writing? If you translate "Twice beautifull my house is; my wife is therein." Then some sort of connection arises (twice compaired to what? to a wife-less house, unless someone else's house is mentionned before). But that would not help with other adjectival sentences. Sigh. I think I will start learning Akkadian instead... Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 19:13:45 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List , Aayko Eyma Subject: Re: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Aayko wrote: > >However, the implication is still made in this sentence that there is a > connection between the beauty of my house and the presence of my wife within > it. > > **Well, that was my point, to me this connection > failes to be implied: > > >nfr.wy pr=i Hm.t=i im > > How beautiful my house is when my wife is in it! > > "How beautifull my house is!; my wife is there(in)" > > I do not see why the beautifull depends on the wife > being in! That's why I wanted an iw in there ;) > How do you know these are not two seperate factual > statements: "How beautifull my house is! (And) my wife > is in it (and the cat and the canary etc)." Would > there be a difference in writing? I won't debate the philosophical issue of a house with or without a wife :-) However, grammatically there is a definite connection here. If it were two independent sentences we would have: 1) an adjectival sentence: nfr.wy pr=i My house is beautiful. and 2) an adverbial sentence: iw Hm.t=i im My wife is there. Since there is no iw introducing the adverbial part, that indicates that it is a subordinate part of the sentence (an adverbial clause). This defines the fact that there IS a connection. The precise nature of the connection tends to be much more vague in Egyptian than in English or Dutch - we tend to introduce our clauses with conjunctions, words which spell out the connection ("when," "while," "because," "if," etc.). I have been fighting my desire to want explicit conjunctions for over 30 years (originally in Hebrew, which doesn't make much use of subordinate conjunctions either). Remember that iw + [NOUN] + {ADVERB] is a main adverbial sentence, whereas [NOUN] + [ADVERB] is a subordinate sentence (clause). Having clarified (maybe!) that, I shall have to add that you can get situations where a sentence beginning with a main adverbial sentence continues with sentences without iw which we might translate using the conjunctions "and" or "but" implying a relative equality ("parataxis" - Loprieno, _Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction_, pp.162-6). Also muddying the issue are those subordinate clauses which start with iw=[SUFFIX], where all the iw is doing is giving the suffix something to lean on. I remember getting very confused the first time I tried to translate such a sentence, having paid insufficient attention to this detail. (The sentence was: nfr sA sDm=f n it=f iw=f m Xrd) > If you translate "Twice beautifull my house is; my > wife is therein." Then some sort of connection > arises (twice compaired to what? to a wife-less > house, unless someone else's house is mentionned > before). But that would not help with other > adjectival sentences. This usage of nfr.wy is an exclamation ("Wie shoen ist mein haus!"); if you check the Beinlich list you will find an entry for .wy as "admirativ partikel"; similiter: Faulkner, p.56 and Gardiner, par.49. > Sigh. I think I will start learning Akkadian instead... Ummm..... I hate to mention this, but Akkadian is a Semitic language and they tend to be just as deficient in explicit subordinate conjunctions as Egyptian. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: USHorus Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:38:37 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Rosetta Stone tranlation/transliteration Hello, Can someone tell me where I can find the translation/transliteration of the lines on the Rosetta Stone, character for character? Thanks, Moustafa Gadalla ushorus@aol.com ============================================================================== From: Aayko To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:40:54 +-100 Thank you Stephen! Now I'm getting somewhere! >>However, grammatically there is a definite connection here. If it were two independent sentences we would have: 1) an adjectival sentence: nfr.wy pr=i My house is beautiful. and 2) an adverbial sentence: iw Hm.t=i im My wife is there. Since there is no iw introducing the adverbial part, that indicates that it is a subordinate part of the sentence (an adverbial clause). This defines the fact that there IS a connection. Remember that iw + [NOUN] + {ADVERB] is a main adverbial sentence, whereas [NOUN] + [ADVERB] is a subordinate sentence (clause). ***But what if you have two adjectival sentences? "How beautifull my house is because my wife is beautifull"? What would that be? nfr.wy pr=i... nfr Hm.t=i Is there at least a decent conjuction present then? And: WHY only iw with adverbial predicates. There must be some sort of logic behind it? You see, I have not yet reached your state of Zen Mastership yet ;) : >I have been fighting my desire to want explicit conjunctions for over 30 years (originally in Hebrew, which doesn't make much use of subordinate conjunctions either). Problem remains that my modern Dutch book says iw is 'now'. It says further this: iw + verbal sentence or noun ->independant sentence (usually...) -> "now..." iw= + pronomen ->dependant sentence, IF sentence applies to past -> "while.." iw= + pronomen ->independant sentence IF sentence applies to non-past Brunner seems to agree here. Still leaving the problem of recognizing between the two latter, as you say: >Also muddying the issue are those subordinate clauses which start with iw=[SUFFIX], where all the iw is doing is giving the suffix something to lean on. I remember getting very confused the first time I tried to translate such a sentence, having paid insufficient attention to this detail. (The sentence was: nfr sA sDm=f n it=f iw=f m Xrd) *** By chance I knew all the seperate words by heart (I think), but.... "Perfect is the son who listened to his father when he was a child" ? applying the above 'past' rule here. >This usage of nfr.wy is an exclamation ("Wie shoen ist mein haus!"); if you check the Beinlich list you will find an entry for .wy as "admirativ partikel"; similiter: Faulkner, p.56 and Gardiner, par.49. ***Brunner mentions the admirative particle, iw, but as a *seperate* word, not suffix : nfr wj sw = "how beautifull it is!" Is this a mistake? Outdated? My Dutch book says this admirative suffix (i.w) is "perhaps" a dualis, "it only occures when the adjective is a predicate". So if we interprete it as a particle it comes seperate (Brunner), if we interprete it as a dualis it comes as suffix (which seems the modern opinion). And no way to know how the Egyptians saw it, I guess? >Ummm..... I hate to mention this, but Akkadian is a Semitic language and they tend to be just as deficient in explicit subordinate conjunctions as Egyptian. ** Not to mention cuneiform, which possibly is even more awfull as hieroglyphs. ;0 Aayko Eyma ==============================================================================