Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:54:40 -0600 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Etymology of inm.t Hi; I was looking at the Epithets of Thoth, and wondering if anyone could help me with the etymology of the word inm.t translated "wine". There seems to be a word, inmm.ty which means "wine drinking"? On p. 187 of his book on Thoth, Boylan cites an epithet found at Philae and Dakka: nb-i-in:n-Aa15:Aa15-t:y*nw-aSA-3:N33A-A2 which would appear to me perhaps a defective transcription were it not found in more than one place. Calling Thoth "Lord of Wine" or maybe "Lord of Wine-drinking"? seems to suggest a potentially edifying aspect of wine in the mind of Egyptians. Would anyone know, does inm.t suggest "that which is found in the wineskin" or maybe "that which is particularly red" or something I have overlooked? There are more common words for wine, but from the phonemes I am guessing that this one may have perhaps given rise to "oinos". Thanks, Bob ============================================================================== From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Etymology of inm.t Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:30:22 +0100 Wb I, 97 lists inmty (as written in your example, in:n-Aa15:Aa15-t:y with jar det.) as "the two wine jars", of inmt "wine" (only in Greek period). Greek oinos was originally *woinos, and ties in with Latin vinus etc, so cannot stem from inmt. The origin of the Egyptian escapes me. Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.4 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:51:17 -0600 24.4 jw.j m H(j)H(j) bw wn.n.j jm I am seeking the place in which I was. jw.j = I introductory particle + 1s suffix pronoun, the subject m HjHj = am seeking, pseudo-verbal predicate bw = place wn.n.j = I was, perfect relative jm = in preposition After Exercise 24.3 one might think of m HjHj as the m of predication followed by a participle noun. However, a simpler explanation is that jw.j m HjHj is a sentence with Pseudo-verbal predicate, as Allen's key indicates by its reference to §15.2. This translates as I am seeking. The object of HjHj is bw, place. COMMENT: Allen transliterates the next word as wn.n.j, a perfect relative form, but without context wnn.j. the imperfective relative, is a possibility. The relative clause wn.n.j jm is the relative clause equivalent to the adverbial sentence jw.j jm.(f). The antecedent bw is identical with the object of the preposition jm. Normally the preposition would require a co-referent pronoun as its object, but with the preposition jm the co-referent is sometimes omitted (§24.5.2). ******************************************************** RESPONSE #1 > Allen transliterates the next word as wn.n.j, a perfect relative form, but > without context wnn.j. the imperfective relative, is a possibility. I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this ambiguity. Perhaps it's clear from context. COMMENT #2 Here I think the m is one of acquired status with HjHj being the participle it is referencing. ********************************************* COMMENT #3 After exercise 24.3 I too thought m HjHj might be the m of predication plus a participle, but Allen's solution that it is a pseud-overbal predicate (m + infinitive) is simpler. 24.4 jw.j m H(j)H(j) bw wn.n.j jm jw.j = particle + suffix pronoun = I m H(j)H(j) = verb 4-lit = seek m + infinitive = is seeking jw.j m H(j)H(j) = I am seeking bw = noun = thing, place wnn = verb 2ae-gem = exist wn.n.j = perfect relative = which I was jm = in (it) - (the suffix pronoun .f as the coreferent has been omitted ? S24.5.2) bw wn.n.j jm = the place which I was in it = the place in which I was jw.j m H(j)H(j) bw wn.n.j jm = I am seeking the place in which I was 24.4 jw.j m HjHj bw wn.n.j jm jw - proclitic particle .j - 1S suffix m - preposition HjHj - seek, m + inf - 'in seeking' bw - thing, place wn.n.j - perfect relative form, 'I was' jm - preposition. 'therein' SO: I am seeking a place wherein I was. ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.5 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:52:29 -0600 24.5 pw-trj jrt.n r.s perfective relative: jrt.n; co-referent: .s What can we do about it? pw-trj = "What" interrogative pronoun (§5.11.1) jrt.n = "we (can) do", perfective relative r.s = "about it", prepositional phrase This sentence starts with a form of the interrogative pronoun ptr (§5.11.1). Grammatically this is a nominal sentence after the pattern in §7.13.2 - ptr + noun clause. The noun clause is jrt.n r.s, a clause with a perfective relative form. In the dictionary Allen gives the meaning of jrj r as act against (someone). However, unless it had been established that this was about a woman, I would expect a masculine suffix pronoun as the object of r. So here the topic is probably a thing rather than a person, and the meaningof jrj r is "do/act concerning". Literally the sentence is "What is that which we will do concerning it"?, in more natural English: "What can we do about it"?. COMMENT: In the key Allen identifies the pronoun in r.s as the co-referent. To my mind this is incorrect. The unexpressed antecedent of jrt.n is the action which it is proposed to take, but the object of the pronoun r is the undefined circumstances that necessitate the proposed action. If the pronoun really was the co-referent then the sentence would be querying the prior circumstance and mean "What is that about which we will act?" QUESTION: The translation offered is "what CAN be done about it?" I've gone through my notes and the chapter (quickly - skimming to be accurate) and haven't found where the concept of ability enters into relatives. So where does this come from? RESPONSE : regarding the translation of perfective relative forms, if you look at the table the perfective examples there are translated as 'commanded,you will exist, can depend, I might put', among others. So, 'can' is one possibility among others. I suspect the exact translation depends on the context which here, as you pointed out, is missing. Cheers, 24.5 pw tr jrt.n r.s pw - 'is' tr - interrogative particle jrt.n - perfective relative 'that which we can do' r.s - 'with respect to it' SO: What can be done about it? ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.7 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:53:22 -0600 24.7 qrrt StAt nt dwAt appt nTr pn aA Hr.s "The secret cavern of the Duat which this great god enters by it." qrrt - noun "cavern" StAt - active participle of the 3-lit. verb 'StA' "inaccessible, secret" with feminine suffix to agree with qrrt. nt - feminine genitival adjective dwAt - noun "Duat" "The secret cavern of the Duat" appt - imperfective relative (gem. stem) of the 3ae-inf. verb apj "pass" nTr - noun "god" subject of the relative form pn - demonstrative pronoun "this" referring to nTr aA - active participle of the 2-lit. verb aA "big, great, important" Hr.s - prepositional phrase "by/upon it" co-referent, refers back to qrrt "which this great god passes by it." The gloss warns this is not a complete sentence. It is a noun phrase instead. English doesn't have to express the co-referent, so this could be shortened to "The secret cavern of the Duat by which this great god passes." Question: there doesn't seem to be any way to tell the difference between adjectives derived from verb forms and participles, other than some entries in Allen's dictionary being marked "adjective-verb". Is there believed to be a difference here, or is the concept of an adjective just scaffolding for the previous chapters? 24.7 qrrt StAt nt dwAt appt nTr pn aA Hr.s Words: qrrt cavern StAt inaccessible, secret nt of dwAt Duat apj 3ae-inf 'pass', with Hr = pass by appt relative, imperfective, feminine the one he passes/used to pass nTr pn aA this great god Hr.s by it Together: secret/inaccessible cavern of Duat the one this great god passes by it Finally: the secret cavern of Duat, by which this great god passes 24.7 Transliteration: qrrt StAt nt dwAt appt nTr pn aA Hr.s Dissection: 1) qrrt = "cavern" 2) StAt = "secret, inaccessible," from StA (adj.-vb. 3-lit.) +t (feminine ending) 3) nt = indirect genitive 4) dwAt = Duat (Essay 2) 5) appt = imperfective relative, from apj (3ae-inf.) "pass"; apj Hr = "pass by"; "which passes by" 6) nTr = god (honorific transposition) 7) pn = demonstrative pronoun 8) aA = "big, important, great" 8a) nTr pn aA = "that great god" 9) Hr.s = "by it" (apj hr + .s 3FS suffix pronoun (referring to qrrt StAt nt dwAt) Translation: Literal: the secret cavern of the Duat, which this great god passes by it... Paraphrase: the secret cavern of the Duat, by which this great god passes... (Allen states that this is not a complete sentence. ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.6 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:52:54 -0600 24.6 Awt.sn xpr sn m wDt.sn nTr pn aA Awt - offering gifts sn - their, 3PL suffix xpr - become, evolve, occur, Here: imperfective subj. + verb construction. The subject Awt.sn - 'their gifts' is referred to again by the suffix .sn - 'they' m - prep. wD - command, wDt - perfective relative form 'commanded'. nTr - god pn - this aA - great The word order in the second part of the sentence is VoS: Wdt.sn nTr, 'smthg the god has commanded them'. SO: Their offering gifts come about from what this great god has commanded them. ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.2 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:39:39 -0600 24.2 jmj jr.tw jr.n nbt Hm.j m nxt Hr wD Htp st.f m jpt-st m wAst r nHH Hna Dt jmj - imperative of rdj give, put, cause jr - to do, make (subjunctive) jmj jr.tw - 'cause one to make' jr.n - perfect relative nbt - everything, anything Hm.j - my Reincarnation jr.n nbt Hm.j - 'Everything, my Reincarnation has done'. Here, nbt modifies relative form and comes to it as close as possible (§24.4) m - in nxt - victory Hr - upoon wD - stela Htp - be at peace, perfective relative st.f - its place jpt-st - Karnak wAst - Thebes nHH - eternal regeneration Hna - 'together with', 'and' Dt - eternal sameness SO: Let everything that my Reincarnation has done in victory be [put] upona stela, whose resting place will be in Karnak in Thebes for all eternity. ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.1 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:38:58 -0600 24.1 transliteration: nn zp jry.j Ddt.n.s translation: I will never do what she said This sentence is the third example in section 19.11.1. 'jry' is the subjunctive of the 3ae-inf. verb 'jrj' ("do"); the form here shows the double reed leaf (M17 M17) 'y' occasionally seen in the subjunctive of 3ae-inf. verbs. The 1S suffix pronoun 'j' attached to 'jry' is its subject ("I"). 'jry' is preceded by 'nn zp' which acts as a strong negation ("never") (sec. 19.11.1). The object of 'jry' is 'Ddt.n.s'. This involves the perfect relative form 'Ddt.n' of the 2-lit. verb 'Dd' ("say"). This relative form has the ending 't', so it is feminine. The 3FS suffix pronoun 's' attached to the relative form is its subject ("she"). The perfect relative frequently corresponds to a past tense, so 'Ddt.n.s' can be translated "(that) which she said". 24.1 nn zp jry.j Ddt.n.s Words: nn negative, not nn zp not happen = 'never' jry subjunctive of jrj, 3ae-inf 'do, make'- here used with future meaning: 'I will do' nn zp jry.j = it will not happen (that) I will do = 'I would never do' Ddt.n.s = perfect relative = that which she said Finally: I would never do what she said 24.1 Transliteration: nn zp jry.j Ddt.n.s Dissection: 1) nn zp jry.j = (19.11.1) "Never would I do" 1a) nn zp = "never" + subjunctive jry.j "I would do" 2) Ddt.n.s = perfect relative, "what she said" Translation: "I would never do what she said." ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.8 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:53:45 -0600 24.8 ms.n.f wj m jrr(j) jrt.n.f "He gave birth to me as one who does what he did." (huh?) ms.n.f - perfect of the 3ae-inf. verb msj "give birth, bear" wj - 1S dependent pronoun as object m - preposition introducing an adverbial phrase jrr(j) - imperfective active participle of jrj "make" being used as a noun and the object of the preposition. "One who does." jrt.n.f - perfective relative of jrj "made" with 3MS suffix pronoun as subject. This relative form is being used as a noun, which is the object of the participle. The co-rreferent is the direct object and not expressed. So "He gave birth to me as (one who) does (what) he did." COMMENT: I had to look in the back for this one. I think I understand the grammar, but I don't understand the translation! 24.8 transliteration: ms.n.f wj m jrr jrt.n.f translation: He "bore" me as one who does what he did This sentence begins with the perfect 'ms.n' of the 3ae-inf. verb 'msj' which means "give birth, bear". The 3MS suffix pronoun 'f' attached to 'ms.n' is the subject ("he") of the sentence. It is certainly odd for a man to give birth to or bear a child which no doubt explains Allen's rendering "he has given me birth". The object of the verb is the 1S dependent pronoun 'wj' ("me"). The action of the verb is modified by the prepositional phrase 'm jrr jrt.n.f'. The preposition 'm' here has the sense of "as" someone or something. The object of the preposition is the phrase 'jrr jrt.n.f'. Here 'jrr' is the active, imperfective participle of the 3ae-inf. verb 'jrj' ("do, make") and means "(one) who does". It is being used here to describe a habitual/customary action. The participle has 'jrt.n.f' as its object. 'jrt.n' is the perfect relative form of 'jrj'; the ending 't' denotes it as feminine. Attached is the 3MS suffix pronoun 'f' which serves as its subject ("he"). The object of the relative form is unexpressed as it would also serve as the co-referent. Putting it together, 'jrt.n.f' means "(that) which he did". 24.8 Source: pBerlin 3029, I, 5-6 (Studia Aegyptiaca I, 49) F31-S29-N35:I9-Z7-A1-G17-D4:D21-D4:X1-N35:I9 ms n.f wj m jr jt n.f "He sired me having become one who does what he did." VOCABULARY: ms = verb, weak = "give birth" n.f = perfect marker + suffix pronoun, ms wj = dependent pronoun, ms m = preposition jr = perfective? participle, ms, from jrj = "to do" jrt.n.f =perfect relative, fs + suffix pronoun, ms SIGNS: ms = F31 S29 n.f = N35 I9 wj = Z7 A1 m = G17 jr = D4 D21 jrt.n.f = D4 X1 N35 I9 GRAMMAR: ms.n.f = perfect form wj = object of ms m = acquired status, the so-called "m of predication" which I think is a poor term. jr = object of m jrt.nf = the feminine form refers to some generalized event(s). ============================================================================== From: To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL ALLEN GLYPHSTUDY COLLATION 24.3 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 15:50:18 -0600 24.3 jw rx st m tmw ab am bA.f He who knows it is (as) one whose ba the horned crocodile does not swallow. jw introductory particle rx = one who knows, active participle st = it, 3c dependent pronoun, object of rx m = (as) - m of predication tmw = does not, imperfective relative ab = horned crocodile, subject of tmw am am = swallow, negatival complement (or infinitive) bA.f = his ba, object of tmw am; f is the coreferent This sentence begins jw rx st followed by the preposition m. Although st is the object of rx, there is no obvious subject of this verb. A number of verb forms do not have a separate subject: the imperative is not preceded by jw, but this might be an infinitive, "knowing it", or a participle, one who knows it. Whether this is an infinitive or a participle the phrase rx st functions as a noun. It is introduced by jw, and is followed by some type of prepositional phrase. So it looks like rx st is the subject of an adverbial sentence. Following the preposition is tmw ab am bA.f. The -w ending of tmw suggests that it is a participle or relative form, and since ab is its subject it is a relative form. Unless -w is a plural ending this is a masculine singular relative form. (Allen doesn't give an example of a negated relative form with a noun as subject in §24.12. When tm is used in the negation of the subjunctive, a nominal subject normally follows the negatival complement §19.11.3) The negatival complement is followed by bA.f, which is its object (cf. the example in §24.12). So the whole clause is :(one who) the horned crocodile does not swallow his ba, where the possessive pronoun f is the co-referent of the unexpressed antecedent (cf. the second example of §24.5.3). The relative clause is the object of the preposition m, which looks like it is the m of predication. This makes sense if the subject is the participle one who knows it. Relative clauses with a possessive are usually translated with the relativeword "whose" (§24.5.3). So, rearranging the relative clause: He who knowsit (subject) is one whose ba the horned crocodile does not swallow (predicate). 24.3 jw rx st m tmw ab am bA.f jw = particle rx = verb 2-lit = learn, know rx = active perfective participle = he who knows st = dependent pronoun = it m = m of predication = is as (relates to the whole of the second clause below) jw rx st m = the one who knows it is as tm = verb 2-lit = not do tmw = imperfect relative = who does not do ab = noun = horned crocodile m tmw ab = is as the horned crocodile am = verb 2-lit = swallow bA.f = his Ba tmw ab am bA.f = the horned crocodile who does not swallow his Ba = the one whose Ba is not swallowed by the horned crocodile jw rx st m tmw ab am bA.f = He who knows it is as the one whose Ba is not swallowed by the horned crocodile QUESTION: The problem I had with this one is how we know that ba.f relates to the person and not the crocodile. I think it is explained in S24.6 (after the bullet marks): "the co-referent is part of a dependent clause governed by the relative form"?. Here the 2nd clause is the dependent clause governed by the relative form, and it must therefore relate to the first clause. Do you think this sounds possible? 2nd try at 24.3: Transliteration: jw rx st m tmw ab am bA.f Dissection: 1) jw = introductory particle 2) rx = active participle, "he who knows" 3) st = 3rd person neutral singular pronoun, "it", object of rx 4) m = m of predication (jw A (is) B) 5) tmw = imperfective relative (Allen says co-referent is the .f of bA.f); from tm (2-lit. verb) "not do" 6) ab = "horned crocodile" 7) am = (verb 2-lit.)infinitive, "swallowing" 8) bA.f = "his ba" Translation: Literal: He who knows it is in the capacity of the horned crocodile does not do swallowing (of) his ba. Paraphrase: He is one who knows that his ba is not swallowed by the horned crocodile. 24.3 Transliteration: jw rx st m tmw ab am bA.f Dissection: 1) jw = introductory particle 2) rx = active participle, "he who knows" 3) st = it 4) m = ? 4) tmw = imperfective relative (Allen says co-referent is the .f of bA.f, but isn't this referring to the crocodile?); from tm (2-lit. verb) "not do" 5) ab = "horned crocodile" 5a) tmw ab = "that which the horned crocodile does not do"? 6) am = (verb 2-lit.) "swallow" 7) bA.f = "his ba" Translation: He who knows (that) it is one who his ba the horned crocodile does not swallow. QUESTION: What is the function of the m? RESPONSES: #1 That 'm' stumped me also, but I have finally decided it must be here in the meaning 'in the capacity of', described in 10.6 - adverbial sentences of identity. The example there is 'jw.k m zA.j' - you are my son, where, according to Allen, "you are my son" indicates that the person being addressed is acting as a son (whether he is speaker's real son or not). I think here the situation is the same: 'jw A m B' where A is the subject 'the one who knows' and B is the identifying phrase. Sorry, for being somewhat confusing. I hope, my main idea is clear. *************************************************** #2 I agree that the m must be the m of acquired status, the so-called "m of predication". It must be going with the particple rx, yet it appears well in the arears of rx. Do we have any other examples of this splitting off of m and, additionally, putting it after the noun/participle/adjective, whatever, that it draws attention to? It seems that this is basically a preposition (= "in the state of") in which case the noun, as the object of the preposition, should follow it immediately, not preceed it. Sense would indicate that it doesn't go with tmw (= "he has entered the state of being the crocodile who is not eating his ba"). If m needs to be present, I would expect to see maybe something like: "m rx st", or maybe no m at all. Or is there something else going on here? *************************************************** #3 My understanding of this was that the "m of predication" was connecting >jw rx st< "He who knows it" with >tmw ab am bA.f< "that his ba is not swallowed by the horned crocodile." The person who knows "it" is the same person (i.e., the one serving in the capacity of one) whose ba is not swallowed. So, the "m of predication" is connecting two phrases, not just single words. I am by any means an expert, but that is my completely amateur opinion. *************************************************** RESPONSE FROM POSTER #2 TO POSTER #3 I agree with you, I'm just looking for someone to show me where this was covered in Allen. Lacking that, I wish we could have had a helpful note from the author. ============================================================================== From: Carl Edlund Anderson Subject: Re: AEL Etymology of inm.t Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:45:29 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List On 30 Jan 2008, at 18:54 , Robert Myers wrote: > Would anyone know, does inm.t suggest "that which is found in the > wineskin" or maybe "that which is particularly red" or something I > have overlooked? There are more common words for wine, but from > the phonemes I am guessing that this one may have perhaps given > rise to "oinos". Or have been borrowed from the same unknown source as Greek oinos, and adapted to fit Egyptian as oinos was adapted to Greek? Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:10:36 -0600 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Etymology of inm.t Yes, that would make sense, providing that the word does not appear too early. But, as far as I know, Egyptian viticulture preceded Greek by many centuries, unless there was an Indo-European antecedent. If the Egyptian world is older, the spelling may simply fail to reflect an initial liquid or vowel. But, since the examples come from late temples, we might give more weight to it being a loan word from Greek with an Egyptianized spelling. We can see that the spelling of Greek and Roman names in hieroglyphs may indicate a heavily accented representation. Thanks, Best wishes, Bob ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:17:06 -0600 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Etymology of inm.t A.K. Eyma wrote: > > Wb I, 97 lists inmty (as written in your example, > in:n-Aa15:Aa15-t:y with jar det.) as "the two > wine jars", of inmt "wine" (only in Greek period). > > Greek oinos was originally *woinos, and ties in with > Latin vinus etc, so cannot stem from inmt. > > The origin of the Egyptian escapes me. > > Aayko Eyma > > > Thanks, very much. One concern remains to me, however, in that a word like "wine" in ancient times may have been more of the technological aspect of the language than the original aspect. And, such words are very often loan words, like the technology, itself. Perhaps the word inm simply means "wine-colored"? Best regards, Bob ==============================================================================