Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:27:15 +1100 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Mike Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL To Mike D-S Re: Methodology WbnRaMPt wrote, >What is the purpose of collecting the answers to Gardiner's exercises? I agree a purpose needs to be defined here. My serious concern is that beginners following Gardiner will be taught the wrong things about verbs: this will confuse them later when they hear about the current knowledge in this area. Gardiner leaves verb forms till later, so my suggestion is to simply alter his examples so they do exactly that: leave all but the circumstantial sDm=f and sDm.n=f to later. The alternative is to say: "Yes, Gardiner has a lot of good points, but there are many outdated notions in it as well." Without any concrete guidance, beginners will be suspicious of everything, since they don't know what is still correct and what is not. Either we point out the complexities in Gardiner's examples (with the resulting confusion), or we change the examples so they are both instructive and fit current ideas. I will put up a version of lesson 2 problems for people to examine and comment on. Mike Dyall-Smith, Melbourne PS: can participants please give their name. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr Mike Dyall-Smith, Dept. Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne, 3052 Australia Tel: +61 3 9 344 5693 Fax: +61 3 9347 1540 e-mail: m.dyall-smith@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au ----------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:13:55 +1100 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Mike Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise II This is not yet finished, but I would like some feedback on what I've done so far with the exercises for lesson 2. Please take a look at: http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/texts/ael/gardiner/index.htm Particularly the page dealing with the problems in section 2A. Regards, Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne, Australia ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:29:32 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re: Re: AEL Re: AE/OK phonology Abu Elisha wrote: > > Regarding the metaphysical meanings of hieroglyphic symbols: > > Historically speaking, while a typical member of the ancient priestly class > would undoubtedly have been acquainted with the various "levels" of meaning > for many, perhaps most, symbols (though probably not for all, since the Greek > pharoahs greatly inflated the number of signs [historians, please > confirm/correct me]), not all literate Egyptians were priests. I mean, after > all, other religions/ethnicities have attached mystic significance to graphic > symbols (Runes, Hebrew letters), but most users were/are not aware of this > semantic. Would the typical Egyptian accountant/lawyer/author/normal educated > person have actually known the spiritual meanings? The esoteric meanings of hieroglyphic signs seem to have been pretty much peripheral and not much developed until the Ptolemies took over, by which time hardly any could read them any more. Most of the time prior to that, any symbolic meanings were usually not taken into account. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:51:26 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List , urnammak@aol.com Subject: Re: AEL AEL: AE/OK phonology ApeLucy wrote: > I was thrilled and irritated by Loprieno's approach, I am very curious as to what "thrilled" and "irritated" you about his approach? -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:55:45 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise IV Mike Dyall-Smith wrote: > > From Mark and Serge's comments we seem to have a problem. If we take > Gardiner's questions as they stand then we have to do a lot of explaining! > A simpler route would be to alter them slightly so that they are reasonable > for the level they are aimed at. It would be easier for everyone concerned. To make it even worse, many examples in the exercises were invented by Gardinaer for the purpose, and according to current understanding of Egyptian grammar some are just plain wrong. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:47:15 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise II Mike Dyall-Smith wrote: > > Can I just go over problem II, b, 9: Translate into hieroglyphs: 'A man in > there in the house'. > > The sentence can be taken a couple of ways: > " A man is therein(within) the house"; or" A man is there, in the house." > > The answer suggested before was 'iw s im pr' using the adverb 'im'. > My attempt (from my old note books) was 'iw s im m pr'. > So, can you use an adverb like 'im' as a preposition, as in 'therein the > house'? > Can someone quote me a real example where the adverb 'im' is used in the > same manner as suggested above, ie. 'iw s im pr' ??? > > Perhaps my reading of the example could have been better translated into > egyptian as: > 'iw s im iw=f m pr' The sentence is simply iw s im m pr The adverb im cannot be used as a preposition before a noun. However, the preposition may be spelled the same way before a pronoun suffix - eg "im=f" ("therein"). By the way, I interpret this variation in spelling as reflecting the vocalization of the preposition, as being similar to the cognate preposition in Hebrew - that is with a short neutral vowel (shewa - @). Before nouns, this didn't cause any problems: m@dapa(t) - "in the ship" But with a preposition: m@f --> @mf The shift of the vowel produced a need for a prothetic consonant (aleph) written with the reed-leaf sign. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:56:03 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise IV Mike Dyall-Smith wrote: > Serge Rosmorduc wrote: > >I would transliterate the following sentence : > > di=f sxr pn m ib=f, sxA=f sw ra nb > >because the 'r' is not written. In which case, you have a prospective > >sDm=f. I think it IS a circumstantial form - the circumstantial form could be either "di" or "rdi". This clause is parallel to the one beginning with sDm=f: nfr sA sDm=f n it=f ... di=f sxr pn m ib=f sxA=f sw ra nb I would take them all as descriptive clauses: "...who listens ...who puts ... and who remembers..." -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:45:26 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise IV Mike Dyall-Smith wrote: > Following on from what Serge said on the first problem, you have here a > bare sDm=f, ie. there is nothing preceding the verb in this sentence. That > means it is not circumstantial/aorist. You could use a prospective verb > form and go: > "Ra shall appear/shine...." > The next verb, wbn, could be taken as a circumstantial form as it begins a > subordinate clause. > "... when he rises in the sky. This is assuming that this is indeed grammatically correct Middle Egyptian. Since it is in one of Gardiner's earlier exercises, it is probably a made-up sentence. Gardiner was not aware of these distinctions of verb types, of initial/non-intitial, etc. I would guess that what he intended was simply "The sun appears on the horizon and shines in the sky. Every heart is in rejoicing when they see him." > The next sentence begins with a 'nfr sw' type of construction (nominal > syntax; adjectival predicate). This is not a "nfr sw" sentence - "nfr sw" is an adjectival sentence and begins with an adjective. This is in fact an adverbial sentence: "m rSwt" is an adverbial phrase. > I am thinking about the next problem. It looks to me as if the verb 'Sw' > (empty) should be a circumstantial form. If so, then it should have a > resumptive pronoun to reflect the subject, 'itrw', river. > "How bad is the river WHEN it is empty of water". > Could 'Sw' also be in the stative form: "How bad is the river (in a state > of) empty of water." I would take it as an "adjectival" form - which could include stative. It's always hard to know precisely what form was actually intended - stative or adjective, etc. So "itrw Sw m mw" is "a river empty of water." It seems to me that Sw is often used as an adjective. (eg. nwk Sw HAw "I am free from exaggeration" Sh.S. 12-13 - sounds like a good opening line for a used flying carpet salesman!) -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:10:46 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL To Mike D-S Re: Methodology WbnRaMPt wrote: > If it is, as I suspect, to help students working through Gardiner by > themselves, why bring in suggestions about forms that Gardiner has not > introduced by the Lessons in question? Every teacher introduces his > material in a certain sequence for good reasons. You can't expect a > student on Lesson II to know all the forms of the verb, and I believe > you only confuse him by discussing them. > > For example, to complete the exercises in Lesson II, all you need is the > material Gardiner has presented in Lessons I and II. Using only this, > there is *only* one way to translate problem II, b, 9: 'iw s im m pr'. > > The same is true for Lesson IV. By this time, Gardiner has introduced > *only* the basic bare sDm-f form and told students they can translate it > by and tense or mood. Gardiner wanted students on this Lesson to > concentrate on pronouns on adjectives, not on verb forms not yet > introduced. > > Would we not serve beginning students of Gardiner best if we restrict > our suggestions to the "knowlege domain" created by Gardiner for each > Lesson? Similarly, if we were to discuss answers to Hoch's exercises, > should we not restrict ourselves to the "knowledge domain" created by > Hoch? The problem is that Gardiner, while rcognizing that the sDm=f form comprised several verb forms, did not understand the differences in usage between them. This means that when constructing sentences for his exercises, he frequently got things wrong. He also did not understand the usage or meanings of iw - still a difficult problem, but much better understood now. He also tends, in his made up examples, to get the order of clauses in sentences mixed up. Remember that Gardiner wrote this stuff in 1926. It has become increasingly clear to me lately that trying to learn from Gardiner leads often to a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding of Egyptian grammar. So the question is "Do we follow his often incorrect) grammatical explanations, or do we try to point out the deviations (even though this involves stuff he hasn't explained because he didn't know about it)?" -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:34:22 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Nubkhas wrote: > To someone like myself, who stands firm in > agreeing with Egyptian philologists of old that this language is not wholly > separate > from IE, getting through to the last page before the Epilogue was worth the > effort > , if for no other reason, than to discover this example: > > y3 (sic) j.jr=j gmj(.t) jw dj=f jw w' tsm r t3y=j > > Indeed, (y3) I found out that he had caused a boat to come to take me I'm not sure what significance you are seeing in this. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 03:27:51 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Katherine Griffis Subject: Re: AEL Re: AE/OK phonology At 10:29 PM 5/10/98 -0700, Stephen Fryer wrote: >Abu Elisha wrote: >> >> Regarding the metaphysical meanings of hieroglyphic symbols: >> >> Historically speaking, while a typical member of the ancient priestly class >> would undoubtedly have been acquainted with the various "levels" of meaning >> for many, perhaps most, symbols (though probably not for all, since the Greek >> pharoahs greatly inflated the number of signs [historians, please >> confirm/correct me]), not all literate Egyptians were priests. I mean, after >> all, other religions/ethnicities have attached mystic significance to graphic >> symbols (Runes, Hebrew letters), but most users were/are not aware of this >> semantic. Would the typical Egyptian accountant/lawyer/author/normal educated >> person have actually known the spiritual meanings? > >The esoteric meanings of hieroglyphic signs seem to have been pretty much >peripheral and not much developed until the Ptolemies took over, by which time >hardly any could read them any more. Most of the time prior to that, any >symbolic meanings were usually not taken into account. This is very likely true. It was interesting to note from a presentation given at the recent ARCE conference that there were apparently two forms of rituals performed in state temples -- the official royal and priestly versions, within the temples themselves, and a representation of the event pictorially in the forecourts where the people gathered to "participate" in the ceremonies by being _told_ what was occurring - by lesser priests and from the pictures. One has to remember that it is believed by most scholars that only about .4% of the population was literate during the Pharonic periods, so this surely led to some misconceptions about the symbolic nature of hieroglyphic language from the beginning. Therefore, it is possible that one learned such mass ritual activities by rote, and were told that certain words written carried out the efficacy of what was done. This could mean that "symbolic" attachment to hieroglyphs occurred, without a full knowledge of their meaning, by non-literate Egyptians. This was at least the assertion of Carolyn Routledge in her presentation"Parallelism in Ritual Between Official and Non-Official Practice in Ancient Egypt". Best -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Member, American Research Center in Egypt International Association of Egyptologists University of Alabama at Birmingham Special Studies http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1692/index.html ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:44:29 +1000 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Mike Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise IV I wrote: >> The next sentence begins with a 'nfr sw' type of construction (nominal >> syntax; adjectival predicate). and Stephen Fryer responded: >This is not a "nfr sw" sentence - "nfr sw" is an adjectival sentence and >begins >with an adjective. This is in fact an adverbial sentence: "m rSwt" is an >adverbial phrase. So I looked back at the hieroglyphs and Ivo's transliteration and saw there was a difference: Ivo wrote originally: > 2. The sun appears on the horizon and it shines in the sky. Happy are > all hearts when they see it. > xai ra m Ax.t wbn=f m p.t ** ib nb m rSw.t ** mAA=sn sw [my asterisks] But the actual text (as I am reading the hieroglyphs from page 49, top line of the page) is not 'ib nb m rSw.t ...', it is '... nfr ib nb mAA=sn sw'. I should have checked this, but at the time (er, late at night) I was working directly from the glyphs, not the transliteration. Ivo, where did the 'm rSw.t' come from ? Sorry for the apparent confusion here. Regards, Mike D-S ******************************** Mike Dyall-Smith, Melbourne, Australia m.dyall-smith@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au ******************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:17:05 +1000 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Mike Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise IV Still mulling over problem 3. Ivo's suggestion:- > 3. How evil is a river empty of water! > bin.wy itrw Sw m mw I wrote:- >> Could 'Sw' also be in the stative form: "How bad is the river (in a state >> of) empty of water." Stephen Fryer wrote:- >I would take it as an "adjectival" form - which could include stative. It's >always hard to know precisely what form was actually intended - stative or >adjective, etc. So "itrw Sw m mw" is "a river empty of water." It seems >to me >that Sw is often used as an adjective. (eg. nwk Sw HAw "I am free from >exaggeration" Sh.S. 12-13 - sounds like a good opening line for a used flying >carpet salesman!) I found Hoch's grammar quite instructive. Section 87 (The stative as modifier) gives the following: 'dpt mH.t(i) m mw', a boat full of water (ie. a boat that has become full of water). Hoch says, "This use is quite commonplace in Egyptian." Gardiner's example would seem to fit this construction very well. In this case, the verb would have a stative ending .w, ie. Sw.w, which would not normally show up in the hieroglyphs.... So, is this a case where Gardiner's example should be changed? What about: bin.wy itrw n(y) niw.t tn "How bad is the river of (belonging to) this city" Regards, Mike D-S ******************************** Mike Dyall-Smith, Melbourne, Australia m.dyall-smith@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au ******************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 06:04:47 -0400 From: Don Feruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL To Mike D-S Re: Methodology Mike Dyall-Smith wrote: > .... My serious concern is that > beginners following Gardiner will be taught the wrong things about verbs: > this will confuse them later when they hear about the current knowledge in > this area. Gardiner leaves verb forms till later, so my suggestion is to > simply alter his examples so they do exactly that: leave all but the > circumstantial sDm=f and sDm.n=f to later... I can't agree that Gardiner is seriously outdated. Yes, some new approaches have been developed. But they don't affect what a student would learn by completing the first 20 lessons of Gardiner as is. Enormous numbers of students have developed a firm foundation from Gardiner and then gone on to be able to consider the new theories with some experience in the language. I believe both you and I fit in that category. Gardiner did not die in 1926 and Polotsky wasn't born in 1970. Gardiner continued revising his grammar until 1957 and Polotsky began writing about his theories in the 1940's. Gardiner even refers to Polotsky in his grammar, if only to say he disagrees. Gardiner did make up some exercises, as every teacher does, but *every* sample sentence of his (of which there are many) is taken straight from a source and footnoted. Hoch, on the other hand, makes up both exercises and sample sentences - as he himself explains in the first paragraph of his Preface. That is one of the reasons he can present an "easier" and more sanitized version of the language. Following his rules to the letter, not only are some of Gardiner's exercises wrong, but so are some of his samples - which are all real Egyptian! Polotsky's Standard Theory has already (in Loprieno's words) "exhausted its innovative potential" and is being slowly superceded. For example, Loprieno's own treatment of "iw" permits some of the so-called inaccuracies in Gardiner, and he cites a 2-volume Dutch grammar by Borghouts (still being translated into English) as the one which will ultimately replace Gardiner. In sum, I still think strongly that it is a disservice to students to undermine the textbook they are working with, especially since the differences (especially in the first half of the book) are minor and there is in many cases no general agreement about what is "right". ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:39:25 +0200 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner Exercise IV Stephen Fryer wrote : > > I think it IS a circumstantial form - the circumstantial form could be either > "di" or "rdi". This clause is parallel to the one beginning with sDm=f: [..] > I would take them all as descriptive clauses: "...who listens ...who puts ... > and who remembers..." You are right, I was wrong. ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:52:50 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-11 03:40:04 EDT, you write: << > To someone like myself, who stands firm in > agreeing with Egyptian philologists of old that this language is not wholly > separate > from IE, getting through to the last page before the Epilogue was worth the > effort > , if for no other reason, than to discover this example: > > y3 (sic) j.jr=j gmj(.t) jw dj=f jw w' tsm r t3y=j > > Indeed, (y3) I found out that he had caused a boat to come to take me > I'm not sure what significance you are seeing in this. >> As Gardiner says, "The number of Egyptian words that can be definitely classed as interjections is very small." He also says "For want of a better rubric, we may place "tiw" (as) "yes" and the rare use of "nn" for "no"." Although Gardiner gives "is" as "indeed" over and over, he can never bring himself to say that it actually could mean "yes". Perhaps he was afraid of criticism for comparing "is" or "ys" with an English word that appeared so similar ;-) Gardiner also gives "n" as "not" constantly because that is how it would translate into English in his examples. But I don't recall him mentioning that it probably just means "no". For example, if a foreigner, speaking English says "I no go there", he is just literally translating from his own language, which does not have the concept of "not" or even "do not". So what makes us so certain the ancient Egyptians had the concept of "indeed", which is only a kind of synonym for "yes"? What is the reason for believing that, everytime we see the term "is" in an Egyptian text that it is not merely "yes", as in "Yes, we have no bananas"? In the above phrase, it seems to me that "y3" takes the place of "is". Maybe I am wrong, but this does have some significance to me. It indicates to me that one of several things might be going on: 1. That "y3" might be the common way of saying "yes" in Egyptian. When I say "common", I mean just that. Perhaps it was too common for Egyptian texts and that, when an affirmation was needed, "tiw" , meaning "truly or verily" was used as being more refined. In this scenario, the term "is" is perhaps only interjectional in character, with "some such meaning as "lo", as Gardiner puts it, without ever being used in affirmation. I should say, however, that "lo" appears in my English dictionary as having the meaning of "look, see, behold". This would not make much sense in Egyptian phrases that we might translate as "Behold what I am saying to you", which I know exist. One cannot, after all, "behold" what anybody is saying. 2. That "y3" (as transliterated by Loprieno) was the correction pronunciation of the writing "is" or some modification of it. That could best be possible if "is" were pronounced something like "yas" or "yes". (As everyone now knows from the film "Fargo", we here in Minnesota use "yes" and "ya" interchangeably). And that "is" was, in fact, used as an affirmative response in common speech, just as it was used to indicate "affirmation" (i.e, indeed) in the written language. If anyone else has a better explanation of where Loprieno's "y3" comes from, I certainly would like to see it. If there is none, then the presence of "ys" and "y3" in ancient Egyptian seem very ironic for a language that is supposed to have no connection to IE. There is always the possibility, of course, that I have a very odd way of looking at all this and that I don't see Egyptian words the way other do. I think this is probably true. For example, when I see a term like "xnt " (nose, face) I am already pronouncing in "snout or snoot" in my mind. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: Abu Elisha Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:52:26 EDT To: sfryer@prcn.org, owner-AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk, AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: Re: AEL Re: Re: AEL Re: AE/OK phonology S. Fryer wrote: "The esoteric meanings of hieroglyphic signs seem to have been pretty much peripheral and not much developed until the Ptolemies took over, by which time hardly any could read them any more. Most of the time prior to that, any symbolic meanings were usually not taken into account." For clarification's sake, what is the referent of "them" that hardly anybody could read any more? Is it specifically the esoteric meanings, or the complete hieroglyphic system? P.S. Thanks for the tip on Hoch and Loprieno! Michael Akard Modesto, CA ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:32:15 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Hi Marianne I don't think anyone would claim that there is NO connection between Egyptian and the Indo-European languages. Or between biblical Hebrew and I-E. There is a (to my mind) fairly clear genetic relation -signalled for instance by a number of correspondences in pronouns and numbers, use of grammatical gender, etc. Similarly we can see that there is relationship between Egyptian and Hebrew, and that this is much closer (a lot more shared vocabulary and grammar). On the question of the negatives n and nn in Egyptian, I think these may be descended from a common root with I-E (and I'm not sure but this may also be cognate with Heb. lo and Ar. la ) However, when it comes to y3 at the beginning of a (Late Egyptian) sentence corresponding to I-E, I think we're on very uncertain ground. I say this because any way I think of how it might have sounded, it could just be one of those "meaningless" noises that people the world over love to put at the beginning of statements. Like "Oh, he's gone home," or "Ah, I see," when we could have simply said "he's gone home," or "I see," with little or no change of meaning. In Japanese "Ah, soo desu," instead of simply "Soo desu." I'm not claiming this IS the case here, just that there is no real way to tell. It remains an interesting speculation, but I see no way of testing it, so it doesn't rank as an hypothesis. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:12:25 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL To Mike D-S Re: Methodology Don Feruggia wrote: > I can't agree that Gardiner is seriously outdated. In the area of verbal syntax, he certainly is. > Gardiner did not die in 1926 and Polotsky wasn't born in 1970. Gardiner > continued revising his grammar until 1957 and Polotsky began writing about his > theories in the 1940's. Gardiner even refers to Polotsky in his grammar, if > only to say he disagrees. Gardiner's revisions were minor. This is very clear when you look at a book written at the same time and never revised (Mercer, _Hieroglyphic Grammar_) and see the same interpretation of the grammar (though in a more condensed format). Basically his approach never changed. > Gardiner did make up some exercises, as every teacher does, but *every* sample > sentence of his (of which there are many) is taken straight from a source and > footnoted. Hoch, on the other hand, makes up both exercises and sample > sentences - as he himself explains in the first paragraph of his Preface. That > is one of the reasons he can present an "easier" and more sanitized version of > the language. Following his rules to the letter, not only are some of > Gardiner's exercises wrong, but so are some of his samples - which are all real > Egyptian! I checked this. In the first four chapters of Gardiner, practically none of the examples are footnoted with sources. I noted one example which is footnoted, but only to say where actual examples of the construction in question are to be found - the example is not a "real Egyptian" sentence. I also noted an example which is attributed to the Shipwrecked Sailor, which seems to show an initial sDm.n=f form, however on checking the original text, the sentence actually begins with an aHa.n sDm.n=f form - very different from what he is trying to tell us. ( I found examples of similar misquoting, or taking out of context, later in the book too). Hoch does use examples from actual texts where practical and does note their source. If he has made any changes or omissions, he either does not attribute it, or indicates that something has been omitted with ellipses. I noticed one example in lesson 4 which could have been attributed to the Eloquent Peasant, except he had left out a descriptive phrase (which had no effect on the verbal syntax or the word order), so it is not so attributed. It is unfortunately true that in order to give simple illustrative examples it may be necessary to risk making them up. And it is indeed a great risk because (a) you are not a native speaker of Middle Egyptian, and (b) you nay not understand some point of the grammar and write something incorrect. > Polotsky's Standard Theory has already (in Loprieno's words) "exhausted its > innovative potential" and is being slowly superceded. For example, Loprieno's > own treatment of "iw" permits some of the so-called inaccuracies in Gardiner, > and he cites a 2-volume Dutch grammar by Borghouts (still being translated > into English) as the one which will ultimately replace Gardiner. "Exhausting its innovative potential" and "wrong" are two different things. Loprieno (Hoch studied under Loprieno by the way), and the others are not throwing out Polotsky's results. In many cases it is more a matter of looking at them from a slightly different point of view. > In sum, I still think strongly that it is a disservice to students to undermine > the textbook they are working with, especially since the differences > (especially in the first half of the book) are minor and there is in many cases > no general agreement about what is "right". The problem is, that the differences are NOT minor. And I would say to anyone wishing to learn Egyptian, that they should use Hoch (there are other good books in English which cover the same material and grammatical ideas, but are not as easy to learn from) rather than Gardiner from the beginning, so they don't have to unlearn a bunch of stuff and learn the new. Those who have Gardiner already, well we will all agree that there is a lot of very good material there, but they should be aware that there are problems with it, and try to make adjustments and corrections as necessary. -- 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 AE/OK phonology Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 03:01:24 PDT >..."lo" appears in my English dictionary as having the meaning of "look,see,behold". This would not make much sense in Egyptian phrases that we might translate as "Behold what I am saying to you", which I know exist. >One cannot, after all, "behold" what anybody is saying. > Marianne, we are too often forced to rest in the procustean bed of the language we speak. Perhaps not in English, but in Spanish you can indeed say "Mira lo que te digo" (Behold what I'm saying to you). Tom ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:40:31 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-12 03:36:40 EDT, you write: << Similarly we can see that there is relationship between Egyptian and Hebrew, and that this is much closer (a lot more shared vocabulary and grammar).>> And don't forget Old Arabic. The commonalities there are amazing. What I have not been able to ascertain is whether there has ever been a study comparing Egyptian to Sanscrit, which I think would be very interesting. I don't know Sanscrit, myself, yet, in the past, I have seen a couple of words that are very similar between the languages. >>On the question of the negatives n and nn in Egyptian, I think these may be descended from a common root with I-E (and I'm not sure but this may also be cognate with Heb. lo and Ar. la ) >> However, when it comes to y3 at the beginning of a (Late Egyptian) sentence corresponding to I-E, I think we're on very uncertain ground. >> In this case, I'm not so much interested as to whether it corresponds to IE than what the implications are for "y3" possibly meaning "yes" in Egyptian. What is "yes" in Coptic, anyway? What is "indeed"? It's ironic that we know so much Egyptian vocabulary but are uncertain of this simple response. >> I say this because any way I think of how it might have sounded, it could just be one of those "meaningless" noises that people the world over love to put at the beginning of statements. Like "Oh, he's gone home," or "Ah, I see," when we could have simply said "he's gone home," or "I see," with little or no change of meaning. In Japanese "Ah, soo desu," instead of simply "Soo desu." I'm not claiming this IS the case here, just that there is no real way to tell.>> Yet Loprieno didn't see it that way. Well, it would be nice, at least, to know what the source for the passage is, which Loprieno gives as LRL 7, 11-12. Does anyone know what LRL stands for? Loprieno shows quite a few examples from it in his book, but he doesn't say what the initials stand for. BTW, it's deplorable how my messages wind up looking so disjointed and difficult to read. If anyone knows what causes this, perhaps they could email me privately. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:55:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Dear Marianne, I have one or two little answers. > In this case, I'm not so much interested as to whether it corresponds to IE > than > what the implications are for "y3" possibly meaning "yes" in Egyptian. What > is > "yes" in Coptic, anyway? Yes was "se" in Coptic. What is "indeed"? Indeed was "eie" in Coptic. It's ironic that we know so much > Egyptian vocabulary but are uncertain of this simple response. In Late Egyptian, "yes" in answer to a command or request was "jrj=j" (lit. "I shall do!"). > Yet Loprieno didn't see it that way. Well, it would be nice, at least, to know > what the source for the passage is, which Loprieno gives as LRL 7, 11-12. > Does anyone know what LRL stands for? jj3 is very common in Late Egyptian. It stands at the beginnings of senteces, but is not used as a response. LRL stands for Late Ramesside Letters. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:47:49 -0700 From: Kasia & Malcolm Jarrett To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Hi! LRL is the standard abbreviation for "Late Ramesside Letters" and usually refers to: Author: Cerny, Jaroslav paleographer Title: Late Ramesside letters. Published: Bruxelles, Edition de la Fondation egyptologique reine Elisabeth, 1939. Description: xxvi, 74, 74a, 75-81 p. 28 cm. Series: Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, 9 Great stuff. Hope this helps! --Kasia Szpakowska Nubkhas wrote: > > Well, it would be nice, at least, to know > what the source for the passage is, which Loprieno gives as LRL 7, 11-12. > Does anyone know what LRL stands for? Loprieno shows quite a few examples > from it in his book, but he doesn't say what the initials stand for. > Marianne Luban > ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:32:01 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-12 13:12:43 EDT, you write: << >..."lo" appears in my English dictionary as having the meaning of "look,see,behold". This would not make much sense in Egyptian phrases that we might translate as "Behold what I am saying to you", which I know exist. >One cannot, after all, "behold" what anybody is saying. > Marianne, we are too often forced to rest in the procustean bed of the language we speak. Perhaps not in English, but in Spanish you can indeed say "Mira lo que te digo" (Behold what I'm saying to you). >> Okay, Tom, and in German, "ja" means both "yes" and "indeed". There is really no distinction. "Ja, ich gehe mit meine Mutter." Yes, I will go with Mother. "Ich gehe, ja, mit meine Mutter." I will, indeed, go with my mother. This is what I think is going on in ancient Egyptian. We have other terms for "behold", anyway. Then we have to possibly reckon with terms that have the English equivalent of "surely, certainly, actually, truly, probably, etc." which are close in meaning to "indeed" but have varied nuances and which might be represented by certain Egyptian terms that present a challenge to sort out. I have noticed that the modern Egyptians I talk to at home here are very fond of saying "probably" and I wonder why. They seem to preface nearly every statement with it! Marianne Luban Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: USHorus Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:11:09 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: AEl AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-12 15:42:17 EDT, you write, >I have noticed that the modern Egyptians I talk to at home here are very fond of saying "probably" and I wonder why. They seem to preface nearly every statement with it! >> The Arabic word, 'yem-ken', could mean possible or probable, depending on the speaker's intention. The Arabic word, 'mom-ken', generally means possible, but some use it as a subtle probable. I am a lurker on this list, because I don't agree with most of the participants, who have their noses too close to the books, and nothing else. At least you are trying to find the answers. Back to lurking and working on the Tehuti Research Foundation. Moustafa Gadalla http://members.aol.com/TehutiRF ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:41:19 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-12 16:34:51 EDT, you write: << >In Late Egyptian, "yes" in answer to a command or request was "jrj=j" (lit. "I shall do!").> I said: >> Written so, but pronounced --???? I think, again, it comes out "aye'". Oops--no! Not this time. I forgot that Coptic retains the /r/ in this case and has "ere" for "iri", the "doing" verb. I confused it with "ir-t" or "eye", which comes out sounding pretty much like the English in Coptic. >> Yet Loprieno didn't see it that way. Well, it would be nice, at least, to know >> what the source for the passage is, which Loprieno gives as LRL 7, 11-12. > >Does anyone know what LRL stands for? > jj3 is very common in Late Egyptian. It stands at the beginnings of senteces, but is not used as a response. LRL stands for Late Ramesside Letters. >> Another example Loprieno gives from that text is: y3 wn-j mr.kw "Indeed I was ill". But, from the pAbbott 6, 1-2, we have the phrase: y3 ix (why so) jw (since) ink p3 H3.tj-' Dd smj n p3 Hq3 'nx wD3 snb "Why so, since I am the the mayor who reports to the Ruler ,lph?" So this time Loprieno translates "y3" a bit differently, although, I suppose, one could have it "Indeed why, since I am, etc." Geoff, I appreciate that "jrj=j" (lit. "I shall do!") was a common response, but can you see that it would not have done as "yes" under all circumstances? It wouldn't, for example, be an appropriate response for a question like "Are you sad?" or "Did you go to the feast last night?" Most languages (I think) have a simple monosyllabic term for "yes" that has nothing to do with future intentions like "I shall do". The question is, did the Egyptians have it? Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:34:51 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-12 15:41:42 EDT, you write: << Yes was "se" in Coptic.>> Interesting! What I am thinking now is that, too, is an eminently reasonable outcome of the written "ys" , particularly keeping in mind that /s/ was not necessarily a final sibilant. This "se" certainly doesn't come from Greek, so it has to originate with something. >> What is "indeed"? >> < Indeed was "eie" in Coptic.> Which is, of course, nothing more than "aye", which is what I originally suspected the Egyptian "yes" may have been! You may recall that long ago I posted that "aye and "nay" were my candidates for the ancient Egyptian affirmative and negative responses. How curious all this is! >> It's ironic that we know so much > Egyptian vocabulary but are uncertain of this simple response. >In Late Egyptian, "yes" in answer to a command or request was "jrj=j" (lit. "I shall do!").> Written so, but pronounced --???? I think, again, it comes out "aye'". What would you say? >> Yet Loprieno didn't see it that way. Well, it would be nice, at least, to know >> what the source for the passage is, which Loprieno gives as LRL 7, 11-12. > >Does anyone know what LRL stands for? > jj3 is very common in Late Egyptian. It stands at the beginnings of senteces, but is not used as a response. LRL stands for Late Ramesside Letters. > That's the trouble--the simple responses are not there in texts of all periods because the Egyptians did not write like this. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: Urnammak Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:23:49 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL AE/OK Phonology Stephen Fryer wrote: "I am very curious as to what "thrilled" and "irritated" you about his approach?" To be honest, it was the first time in print that I saw anyone speculating about the vowels of Egyptian. For multiple reasons, I have had little desire in learning Egyptian when I am unable to pronounce the words even with a reasonable approximation of the original. I am also frustrated in my attempts to compare Egyptian with other Afroasiatic languages with which I am more familiar, such as Akkadian. Hence I found Loprieno's work priceless. Admittedly, I am not an Egyptologist, and there may be more comprehensive treatments of the vowels of Ancient and Old Kingdom Egyptian. At the same time, Loprieno limits himself to a few examples, and focuses his work mostly on grammatical concerns. Not that this is a problem, you understand, but I'd love to get some more juicy stuff to sink my teeth into than he offers. And honestly, I can learn a language SO much more easily if I can say the words... I'm a vocal learner (*snort*). Brian Betty the Hound of Namma urnammak@aol.com ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:53:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK Phonology Dear Mr. Betty, If you wish to look at larger works on Egyptian vocalization, I recommend Juergen Osing's _Die Nominalbildung des Aegyptischen_. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:25:45 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL AE Phonology & Loprieno Urnammak wrote: > > Stephen Fryer wrote: "I am very curious as to what "thrilled" and "irritated" > you about his approach?" > > To be honest, it was the first time in print that I saw anyone speculating > about the vowels of Egyptian. For multiple reasons, I have had little desire > in learning Egyptian when I am unable to pronounce the words even with a > reasonable approximation of the original. I am also frustrated in my attempts > to compare Egyptian with other Afroasiatic languages with which I am more > familiar, such as Akkadian. Hence I found Loprieno's work priceless. > Admittedly, I am not an Egyptologist, and there may be more comprehensive > treatments of the vowels of Ancient and Old Kingdom Egyptian. At the same > time, Loprieno limits himself to a few examples, and focuses his work mostly > on grammatical concerns. Not that this is a problem, you understand, but I'd > love to get some more juicy stuff to sink my teeth into than he offers. > > And honestly, I can learn a language SO much more easily if I can say the > words... I'm a vocal learner (*snort*). I have had the same problem of being a rather "vocal" learner - in fact I think a lot of people are. Egyptologists seem to tend to shy away from committing themselves in print about vocalization, and I can understand why, when two chains of evidence produce conflicting results. You might find my little essay at http://home.prcn.org/~sfryer/pronunciation.html interesting. I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate why I am wrong and everyone else is right - I find it difficult to believe that I am right and everyone else is wrong, though my arguments and evidence seem reasonable. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:50:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Dear Marianne, All of this is very interesting, even it if does not relate to any particular relationship. At least it is interesting to discuss and think about some more conversational features. Re: Coptic {se}: > Interesting! What I am thinking now is that, too, is an eminently > reasonable outcome of the written "ys" , particularly keeping in mind > that /s/ was not necessarily a final sibilant. This "se" certainly doesn't > come from Greek, so it has to originate with something. Werner Vycichl has suggested on page 182 of _Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue copte_ that it comes from st, which would have been a personal pronoun of the third person indefinite. However, I suppose, it could just as well come from Late Egyptian jst < Middle Egyptian jsT < Old Egyptian jsk., meaning something like "indeed the case was/is". On the other hand, Coptic preserves js as {eis} where it means something like "behold" or "while the case is/was". In fact, both words could well be related to one another. Often, however, {eis} has an adversative effect. So that you can say "such and such" BUT, on the other hand, the case is "such and such". At ARCE in LA this Year, Leo Depuydt gave an interesting talk about the meaning of Old Egyptian sk (basically the same as jsk, because the initial {j} was optional). He pointed out that, in one interesting letter to a vizier, the meaning seems to have been something like "and THIS when"... The author was complaining about a mishandling of his request that his workmen be clothed, and complained that sending them to be clothed in Memphis would entail a lapse in the work at Tura. He kept saying things like, "your letter came in a barge, and THIS when, it could easily have brought the clothing" or something like that. I have not the time to look it up at the moment unfortunately, but he made a very interesting case. These kinds of particles are among the most difficult words to translate accurately into English and we only determine their meanings by the contexts in which they occur. > >> What is "indeed"? >> > > < Indeed was "eie" in Coptic.> > > Which is, of course, nothing more than "aye", which is what I originally > suspected the Egyptian "yes" may have been! You may recall that long > ago I posted that "aye and "nay" were my candidates for the ancient Egyptian > affirmative and negative responses. How curious all this is! The pronunciation of this word in Coptic may have been something like *eyye. This is also why I transcribe the Late Egyptian word as jj3, rather than y3, since, I believe, along with some others, that the first reedstalk represented an initial vowel, and the second one may have represented /y/. At any rate initial /y/ did not exist at all, in writing, before Late Egyptian, and THIS when they were writing words of Semitic origin much of the time. ;-P > >In Late Egyptian, "yes" in answer to a command or request was "jrj=j" > (lit. "I shall do!").> > > Written so, but pronounced --???? I think, again, it comes out "aye'". > What would you say? Well, during the New Kingdom, perhaps as *'ari or *'iri. It is difficult to say for sure, because the sDm=f was defunct by the time of Coptic. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:07:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Dear Marianne, > << >In Late Egyptian, "yes" in answer to a command or request was "jrj=j" > (lit. "I shall do!").> > > I said: > >> Written so, but pronounced --???? I think, again, it comes out "aye'". > > Oops--no! Not this time. I forgot that Coptic retains the /r/ in this case > and > has "ere" for "iri", the "doing" verb. I confused it with "ir-t" or "eye", > which comes > out sounding pretty much like the English in Coptic. In Coptic the word jr.t comes out only with a suffix pronoun on it, and is {eiatf} perhaps pronounced *yat@f ("his eye(s)"). It is mostly used in certain crystalized expressions such as {tounes eiatf ebol} "instruct him" (literally, "lift his eyes"), or something like that. The regular word for "eye" becomes {bal} by this time though. A reconstruction for jr.t=f "his eye", in Late Egyptian, might be something like *yirtuf, based on {eiatf}. It is uncertain where the new lexeme {bal} came from. > y3 ix (why so) jw (since) ink p3 H3.tj-' Dd smj n p3 Hq3 'nx wD3 snb > > "Why so, since I am the the mayor who reports to the Ruler ,lph?" > > So this time Loprieno translates "y3" a bit differently, although, I suppose, > one could have it "Indeed why, since I am, etc." The problem is that there is not a single one-for-one correspondence between words in any language, and one has to translate based on context. Idioms are bizarre, so often one language has to employ different kinds of expressions to get the same meaning as another. > Geoff, I appreciate that "jrj=j" (lit. "I shall do!") was a common response, > but > can you see that it would not have done as "yes" under all circumstances? It > wouldn't, for example, be an appropriate response for a question like "Are you > sad?" or "Did you go to the feast last night?" Most languages (I think) have > a > simple monosyllabic term for "yes" that has nothing to do with future > intentions > like "I shall do". The question is, did the Egyptians have it? Of course, jrj=j is not suitable for all situations. Well, in Coptic, it seems to be {se}. In some rare examples, there is older Egyptian {tjw}, but we don't get enough of the kinds of text which would inform us thoroughly on this matter. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:24:09 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-13 13:12:15 EDT, you write: << > In a message dated 98-05-12 03:36:40 EDT, you write: > > << Similarly we can see that there is relationship between Egyptian > and Hebrew, and that this is much closer (a lot more shared > vocabulary and grammar).>> > > And don't forget Old Arabic. The commonalities there are amazing. > What I have not been able to ascertain is whether there has ever > been a study comparing Egyptian to Sanscrit, which I think would be > very interesting. I don't know Sanscrit, myself, yet, in the past, > I have seen a couple of words that are very similar between the > languages. > >> I wonder how far we can go with this. The japanese word for "to look" is 'miru'. The Spanish word for "to look" is 'mira'. > Does this imply some connection or mere synchronicity? Just curious. >> A few sound alike words don't have much significance, I'm afraid. There has to be a larger picture. Sometimes the picture looks like modern art--hard to determine what you are looking at. Sometimes one has to wonder about who in the world is trying to sell this picture to us. For example, just today a Hungarian friend of mine wrote to me: "Hungarian belongs to the Finno-Ugric language family. The only other languages in this family are Finnish and Estonian. Some say that there may be a tribe in Outer-Mongolia that has the same origin. I personally don't claim to be a relative of any Mongol (except perhaps Genghis Khan). I have an Estonian friend and I have met some Finnish people. I can tell you that we have not come up with any word that is remotely similar in these languages." Sometimes the picture is a "now you see it, now you don't". At the turn of the century, Egyptian philologists thought the language was partly IE and it is certainly easy to see why. Now nobody in academia that I know of espouses this view. Whether this is because no provable hypothesis resulted or because nobody can recognize IE in Egyptian any longer, I can't say. I suspect the former is the scenario. However, there is not much point discussing this on this list. I think we would be better off giving our views on Egyptian words and phrases, bringing to them whatever understanding and linguistic backgrounds we possess. This can never be harmful, in my opinion, because, basically, it is the only weapon any philologist has when, for example, confronted with any unknown language or any unknown quantity in a given language. I give you the case of Hittite, whose study is even now far from complete. When it was first deciphered, the philologists brought to bear on it IE roots and other languages within a considerable radius of Turkey, including the Fertile Crescent--nearly all of which proved useful. Let's say there had never been a Rosetta Stone and Coptic had died out without leaving any literature. All there had been was (a very handy) key to what the hieroglyps represented phonetically, bequeathed by some Greek. If armed with only this, scholars had to reconstruct ancient Egyptian, they would have done exactly what was done with Hittite. Do you really think IE roots would have been excluded from this? I don't. And you know something--if IE had been used to aid in reconstruction of Egyptian, the result would have been ultimately the same as the dictionary says now in the case of many, many terms. Do you see what I am trying to say? Marianne Luban Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: "Tom Sobota" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:34:52 PDT Marianne, > >In Late Egyptian, "yes" in answer to a command or request was "jrj=j" > (lit. "I shall do!").> > >Written so, but pronounced --???? I think, again, it comes out "aye'". >What would you say? In my opinion, this is again applicable only to English. In other Indo-European languages, the pronunciation of 'jrj' and 'aye' are very different. In English, both 'i' and 'a' have often more or less the same sound, but this is not true of other languages. In particular it is not true of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit, as far as I know. This is not to say that I know the origins of 'aye'. I do not. But in Czech 'ano' (the 'a' has the same sound as in 'aye') means 'yes', so perhaps in the I-E tree there is a common ancestor for 'yes' starting with 'a'. Whether this ancestor goes back to A-E is, of course, very debatable, but to make analogies based on the pronunciation in English is somewhat risky, to say the least. Bye Tom ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:53:02 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-13 03:37:25 EDT, you write: << n Coptic the word jr.t comes out only with a suffix pronoun on it, and is {eiatf} perhaps pronounced *yat@f ("his eye(s)"). It is mostly used in certain crystalized expressions such as {tounes eiatf ebol} "instruct him" (literally, "lift his eyes"), or something like that. The regular word for "eye" becomes {bal} by this time though. A reconstruction for jr.t=f "his eye", in Late Egyptian, might be something like *yirtuf, based on {eiatf}. It is uncertain where the new lexeme {bal} came from. >> I do see a "pr" for "to see, sight, vision, aspect, appearance" with "pr3" as "to see". I don't know what texts these are from, but they are likely the same as "bal". Even closer is "br" (Rev.) for "eye", which is surely Coptic "bal". Then there is the Coptic "eierboone" or "the evil eye", about which Budge says only the "ei" means "eye". If this is true, knowing that "boone" is for "bin"or "bni" (evil), what is the left over "er"? From? Kind of odd to have two words for "eye" in one language. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: "Leo Bores" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 06:45:28 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology > In a message dated 98-05-12 03:36:40 EDT, you write: > > << Similarly we can see that there is relationship between Egyptian > and Hebrew, and that this is much closer (a lot more shared > vocabulary and grammar).>> > > And don't forget Old Arabic. The commonalities there are amazing. > What I have not been able to ascertain is whether there has ever > been a study comparing Egyptian to Sanscrit, which I think would be > very interesting. I don't know Sanscrit, myself, yet, in the past, > I have seen a couple of words that are very similar between the > languages. > I wonder how far we can go with this. The japanese word for "to look" is 'miru'. The Spanish word for "to look" is 'mira'. Does this imply some connection or mere synchronicity? Just curious. Leo === Leo D. Bores, M.D. 8049 N. 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 FAX:602-998-1552 ============================================================================== From: Abu Elisha Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:34:56 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: AEL AE Phonology & Loprieno I found Steve Fryer's webpage on Egyptian pronunciation very interesting. Though I myself do not yet know enough Egyptian to make any sort of educated evaluation, I did appreciate the reasoning attempt to devise practical, plausible solutions, without claiming to have solved all the problems. Steve, where you write, "Luprieno... supports this view...," do you mean your view, or Gardiner's (and thus your nervousness about contradicting both of them)? Michael Akard Modesto, CA ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:40:34 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re: AEL AE Phonology & Loprieno Abu Elisha wrote: > evaluation, I did appreciate the reasoning attempt to devise practical, > plausible solutions, without claiming to have solved all the problems. Thank you. And when it comes to "solving all the problems" all I can say is that the more you study the situation the more problems you realize there are! > Steve, where you write, "Luprieno... supports this view...," do you mean your > view, or Gardiner's (and thus your nervousness about contradicting both of > them)? I meant, in the context I believe you are quoting, that he supports Gardiner, in disagreement with my conclusions. By the way, in the area of pronunciation of the stative form, Loprieno partially disagrees and partially agrees with my conclusions, but in this case Schenkel seems to have reached the same conclusion as me. By the way, Loprieno's book is a brief survey of the field of Egyptian linguistics in general, and vocalization is just one part of this. Unfortunately such a work is not the place to give all the detailed arguments and reasoning in support of the conclusions presented, that is why he has such a huge set of end notes and bibliography. Unfortunately most of the works referenced are not available to either myself, or probably to most people on the list (even assuming in many cases that they can read German!). The two major players in the vocalization field seem to be Osing and Schenkel (I know that Schenkel is still around - he used to be a member of this list, but was too busy to continue with it). -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:43:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Dear Marianne, > I do see a "pr" for "to see, sight, vision, aspect, appearance" with "pr3" as > "to > see". That might be ptr, which is the Late Egyptian word for see, but I know of no such word pr meaning that. I don't know what texts these are from, but they are likely the same as > "bal". Even closer is "br" (Rev.) for "eye", which is surely Coptic "bal". Yes. I think br is an early attestation of {bal}, but we still don't know where this root is coming from... it could be a borrowing from an adjacent language such as Libyan or Nubian(?), although who can really know for sure with languages that were not written. > Then there is the Coptic "eierboone" or "the evil eye", about which Budge says > only the "ei" means "eye". If this is true, knowing that "boone" is for > "bin"or "bni" (evil), what is the left over "er"? From? Kind of odd to have > two words for "eye" in one language. The "er" is part of jr.t. It comes from jr.t bjn.t "evil eye". It is reonstructable to *yira(t) bA'na(t), and this is one of the indications that the feminine .t ending had fallen off in this construction while it had remained in jr.t=f (*yirtuf) which produced {iatf} as opposed to the {eier} in {eierbOOne}. Yours, Geoff Graham ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 03:32:17 -0400 From: Don Feruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL To Mike D-S Re: Methodology Don Feruggia wrote: > I can't agree that Gardiner is seriously outdated. Stephen Fryer wrote: > In the area of verbal syntax, he certainly is. Really, how much has changed? The tenses have been given new names and their usage has been clarified a little. As for the rest, such as verbs acting as adverbs, that is IMHO merely a fad of interpretation that will be discarded in a few years. Gardiner's revisions were not minor. He called both revisions extensive and said almost every page was affected. And Mercer's grammar, if time hasn't gilded my memory, was a little jewel with a nice reading selection, and inexpensive, too. Possibly still a viable choice for someone who doesn't want to put the effort into a massive textbook. Which brings us back to my main point, which is that it is up to the student to pick a textbook. We can give our recommendations (and mine will be different from yours, because I don't think Hoch is well-written) but once the choice is made we should respect it and, if we want to help with exercises, confine ourselves to the sequence and methodology of that particular book. I looked at Gardiner's first few chapters again and admit there are few footnotes attached to the samples, indicating he made them up. And many of his copious later footnotes do refer to places where points of grammar are discussed rather than to texts. But I am surprised if he changed any texts on purpose. Were you using the same edition of Shipwrecked Sailor as he was? ============================================================================== From: ApeLucy Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:42:51 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL AE Phonology & Loprieno I must say that I am having serious problems because I cannot read German. All of the books that have been recommended to me or I have read in Loprieno's notes on vocalic reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian are in German - Loprieno's own works are even in German ("Das Verbalsystem im Aegyptischen und im Semitischen," par example). Oy! I knew I shouldn't have taken French! Brian Betty the Hound of Namma urnammak@aol.com ============================================================================== From: Michael Tilgner To: 'Ancient Egyptian Language List' Subject: AEL AW: AEL AE/OK phonology - conversational features of AEL Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 11:13:18 +0200 Rainer Hannig, Grosses Handwoerterbuch Aegyptisch-Deutsch (2800 - 950 v.Chr.), Mainz, 1995 [it's a great work!] U33-V1-A2 tiw yes!, indeed!, certainly! - iri tiw to agree - tiw wr (sp snw) yes, indeed! m-V6-Z1-R4 m-sSrw (m-sS) excellent - tw=3Di m-sSrw I'm OK - ...- sw m-sSrw pAi i.iri=3Dk it is Ok what you have done (-> sw m-sSrw it's good, it's OK) iri (1) ... (14) iry [y =3D i-i] yes, indeed, I do it - iry r Hswt-k yes ("yes, for the sake of your praise") - iry=3Dn mk n we are doing it, we are at hand mAat (1) ... (3) mAat pw that is true, it is true, that is right - iw mAat m truly, in truth (truth is in it) - mAat m pA-Dd=3Di nb all is true what I said b-i-A-t-W10:F18-A2 biAt - m-biAt no! not at all, on the contrary a-U28-A-D40 aDA - injustice, mistake ... aDA wrong! it is not true! - aDA pA Dd=3Dk it is wrong what you said In addition: S43-d:t-A2 mdwt (1) speech, (spoken) word ... (3) language mdwt rmT n kmt Egyptian - iw=3Df sDm mdwt kmt he understands Egyptian - mdwt nt HAw mrw colloquial language, slang Best wishes, Michael Tilgner mtilgner@baan.nl ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:45:24 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-14 03:35:16 EDT, you write: << > I do see a "pr" for "to see, sight, vision, aspect, appearance" with "pr3" as > "to > see". That might be ptr, which is the Late Egyptian word for see, but I know of no such word pr meaning that. I don't know what texts these are from, but they are likely the same as > "bal". Even closer is "br" (Rev.) for "eye", which is surely Coptic "bal". Yes. I think br is an early attestation of {bal}, but we still don't know where this root is coming from... it could be a borrowing from an adjacent language such as Libyan or Nubian(?), although who can really know for sure with languages that were not written. >> The "pr" I got from Budge's dictionary (page 243 a) It seems to have a number of attestations, all with the *eye* determinative. Where they come from is not given, as I said. Budge links it with "ptr". As for "bal" being a borrowing--certainly possible but, IMHO, if "bw n r" (outside) can become "bol" in Coptic, I don't see the impossibility of "ptr" becoming "bal". Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: ApeLucy Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:54:07 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology In a message dated 98-05-14 03:35:16 EDT, Geoff Graham writes: > The "er" is part of jr.t. It comes from jr.t bjn.t "evil eye". It is > reonstructable to *yira(t) bA'na(t), and this is one of the indications > that the feminine .t ending had fallen off in this construction while it > had remained in jr.t=f (*yirtuf) which produced {iatf} as opposed to the > {eier} in {eierbOOne}. > Yours, Geoff Graham So (forgive my ignorance), assuming that the form 'eierbOOne' is to be understood as /yerbo:'@n/ or /yerbo:'n/ (or the like), the form must be considered an archaism? Why is the r retained here when it was lost elsewhere in Coptic? Brian Betty the Hound of Nammak urnammak@aol.com ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:58:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AE/OK phonology Dear Mr. Betty, I said: > > The "er" is part of jr.t. It comes from jr.t bjn.t "evil eye". It is > > reonstructable to *yira(t) bA'na(t), and this is one of the indications > > that the feminine .t ending had fallen off in this construction while it > > had remained in jr.t=f (*yirtuf) which produced {iatf} as opposed to the > > {eier} in {eierbOOne}. > > > Yours, Geoff Graham > > So (forgive my ignorance), assuming that the form 'eierbOOne' is to be > understood as /yerbo:'@n/ or /yerbo:'n/ (or the like), the form must be > considered an archaism? Why is the r retained here when it was lost elsewhere > in Coptic? It has to do with the position of /r/ in a given word. If, in the earlier stage, it came at the end of a syllable as in *yir-tuf, then it would have to have disappeared. But, if it came at the beginning of a syllabe as in *yi-ra-bA'na (although, by Coptic the second syllable had also dropped out), it would NOT have disappeared. Compare this to the pronunciation or lack of pronunciation of /r/ in many British, Southern United States, and New England dialects of English. /r/ is often a very weak consonant in final position, but still strong in initial position. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:03:44 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List CC: sfryer@prcn.org Subject: Re: AEL AE Phonology & Loprieno Brian Betty wrote: > I must say that I am having serious problems because I cannot read German. All > of the books that have been recommended to me or I have read in Loprieno's > notes on vocalic reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian are in German - Loprieno's > own works are even in German ("Das Verbalsystem im Aegyptischen und im > Semitischen," par example). Oy! I knew I shouldn't have taken French! Even if you could read German, you might find it difficult to get the books! This is unfortunately true of a lot of books in Egyptology. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:14:16 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: AEL AE/OK phonology - conversational features of AEL In a message dated 98-05-14 14:27:25 EDT, you write: << Rainer Hannig, Grosses Handwoerterbuch Aegyptisch-Deutsch (2800 - 950 v.Chr.), Mainz, 1995 [it's a great work!] U33-V1-A2 tiw yes!, indeed!, certainly! - iri tiw to agree - tiw wr (sp snw) yes, indeed!>> Hi, Michael! I am saving all your word lists. They are very handy. I would love to get the above book, but it is rather expensive right now. Wish there were a paperback edition! Anyway, about "tiw". It looks to me like the basic meaning of it is "agree"--as in "iri tiw" (make agreement). So, when one answered "tiw", it was probably "Agreed!" and not really "yes". The "yes" I am looking for would be an "all-purpose" term. It goes without saying that "Agreed!" or "Greatly agreed" (tiw wr) cannot be a reply to a question like "Are you well?" or "Will you leave tomorrow?" >> m-V6-Z1-R4 m-sSrw (m-sS) excellent - tw=i m-sSrw I'm OK - ...- sw m-sSrw pAi i.iri=k it is Ok what you have done (-> sw m-sSrw it's good, it's OK)>> Can you explain "tw-i"? I am not familiar with this. Is it a way to say "I am"? >> iri (1) ... (14) iry [y = i-i] yes, indeed, I do it - iry r Hswt-k yes ("yes, for the sake of your praise") - iry=n mk n we are doing it, we are at hand>> This one we talked about. I don't think it can really be "yes". Even the second example is really "done for the sake of your praise", isn't it? >> mAat (1) ... (3) mAat pw that is true, it is true, that is right - iw mAat m truly, in truth (truth is in it) - mAat m pA-Dd=i nb all is true what I said b-i-A-t-W10:F18-A2 biAt - m-biAt no! not at all, on the contrary a-U28-A-D40 aDA - injustice, mistake ... aDA wrong! it is not true! - aDA pA Dd=k it is wrong what you said. In addition: S43-d:t-A2 mdwt (1) speech, (spoken) word ... (3) language mdwt rmT n kmt Egyptian - iw=f sDm mdwt kmt he understands Egyptian - mdwt nt HAw mrw colloquial language, slang>> Btw, this one is interesting (Loprieno page 176) Coptic: " ti-na Shaye (I shall speak) while you listen (e-tetn-sotm). All nice examples, but not a plain "yes". We are wiser, but still stuck with the fact that the Coptic "se" had to come from somewhere. I hope others like this kind of discussion as much as I do. Somehow, outside of the texts which are, of course interesting, to know things like the above makes ancient Egyptian life seem more immediate to us. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: Michael Tilgner To: 'Ancient Egyptian Language List' Subject: AEL Re: Conversational features of AEL Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:14:29 +0200 Hallo, Marianne, ><<=20 > Rainer Hannig, Grosses Handwoerterbuch Aegyptisch-Deutsch > (2800 - 950 v.Chr.), Mainz, 1995 [it's a great work!] >=20 > U33-V1-A2 tiw yes!, indeed!, certainly! - iri tiw to agree > - tiw wr (sp snw) yes, indeed!>> > > ... Anyway, about "tiw". It looks >to me like the basic meaning of it is "agree"--as in "iri tiw" (make >agreement). >So, when one answered "tiw", it was probably "Agreed!" and not really "yes". >The "yes" I am looking for would be an "all-purpose" term. It goes = without >saying that "Agreed!" or "Greatly agreed" (tiw wr) cannot be a reply = to a >question like "Are you well?" or "Will you leave tomorrow?" I can't agree. (1) I could not find any other words of tiw with a = meaning "to agree". (2) There are some constructions iri X to do/to make X, e.g. iri nini to do the nini-salutation (illustration on the wall in Tut-ankh-Amun's tomb). Therefore I believe iri tiw is to do/to make/to produce "yes". But to solve this question, one has to collect conversational examples. = At the moment I found only this one: "Three Tales of Wonder" Text: Sethe, Aegyptische Lesestuecke, p. 30, line 22 Translation: Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. I, p. 219 "His majesty said: 'Is it true, what they say, that you can join a = severed head? Dd.in Ddi tiw iw=3Di rx=3Dkwi iTi anx wDa snb nb=3Di Said Djedi: 'Yes, I can, O king [may you live, be prosperous, be = healthy], my lord.'" For me it is exactly that kind of "yes" you are looking for! Perhaps somebody else may have more examples? The relevant literature is (unfortunately all in German and not easily accessible): Adolf Erman, Reden, Rufe und Lieder auf den Graeberbildern des Alten Reiches, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [=3D APAW], Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1918, Nr. 15 Hermann Grapow, Wie die alten Aegypter sich anredeten, wie sie sich gruessten, und wie sie miteinander sprachen, APAW 1939, Nr. 11, 1940, Nr. 12, 1941, Nr. 11, 1942, Nr. 7 (2nd edition, Leipzig, 1960 [omitting = hieroglyphs and refrences and condensing text]) Waltraud Gugliemi, Reden, Rufe und Lieder auf altaegyptischen = Darstellungen der Landwirtschaft, Viehzucht, des Fisch- und Vogelfangs vom Mittleren Reich bis zur Sp=E4tzeit, Bonn, 1973 >>> m-V6-Z1-R4 m-sSrw (m-sS) excellent - tw=3Di m-sSrw I'm OK - ...- > sw m-sSrw pAi i.iri=3Dk it is Ok what you have done > (-> sw m-sSrw it's good, it's OK)>> > >Can you explain "tw-i"? I am not familiar with this. Is it a >way to say "I am"? This is emerging Late Egyptian or a kind of Late Middle Egyptian: tw=3Di I; tw=3Dk you (m); tw=3Dt you (f); ...; tw=3Dn we; ...; tw=3Dtw = one For more details see Gardiner, =A7 124 "The pronomial compound tw=3Di" > ... Somehow, outside >of the texts which are, of course interesting, to know things like the above >makes ancient Egyptian life seem more immediate to us. That's my feeling, too. Across a gulf of 4000 years there are some constants in human life. Michael Tilgner mtilgner@baan.nl =20 ============================================================================== From: Urnammak Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:27:19 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL AE/OK phonology - conversational features of AEL I'm not criticizing this search for the word 'yes' in Egyptian per se, but I would remark that many languages do not have neat words for 'yes' and 'no' which work in every instance as they do in english. In Mandarin, for example, some questions are answered with the affirmative form of the verb, although more and more in Modern Mandarin the words dui (correct) and bu/budui (not, not correct) are being used like their English equivalents. But for many Mandarin questions you _cannot_ answer with yes, most likely because of the unusual form that questions take: Ni qu bu qu? (lit. you go not go, ie. 'Are you going?'). Brian Betty the Hound of Namma urnammak@aol.com ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:59:37 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Fwd: Loprieno on "y3" Subj: Re: "Y3" Date: 98-05-15 10:19:47 EDT From: h61@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Antonio Loprieno) To: Nubkhas@aol.com (Nubkhas) Dear Ms. Luban, Thank you for your letter. To start with the easy part: LRL is "Late Ramesside Letters," a collection of correspondences from the latter portion of the New Kingdom, of course in Late Egyptian. Now to y3. Yes, indeed it is a frequent interjection, especially at the beginning of sentences of informal character--in other words, chances of your finding this word in a literary text are very slim. As you know, the words "yes" and "no" are far less frequent in Egyptian (and generall, in the languages of the Ancient world) than they are in modern languages. One usually preferred to answer with a confirmation or a denial of the predicate of the question. "Will you go home"--"I will (iry=j)" or "I will not" (nn jry=j) rather than just yes or no. The same, as I said, applies to Greek and Latin: the modern romance languages have created "yes" out of Latin words meaning "this same thing" or "as (scil. you say)," etc. To a certain extent, therefore, general interjections such as ys or y3 (no etymological connection between the two) can indeed replace OUR "yes" or "no" without meaning exactly those adverbs, but rather the positive (in the case of y3) or negative (in the case of m bj3) attitude of the speaker towards the preceeding statement. This is the reason for Gardiner's (and others') awkward translations with "indeed," "absolutely," and other approximations, which sound in English certainly more formal (and less immediate) than their Egyptian counterparts. I hope this helps. All the best to you and the other AEL list members. Antonio Loprieno So that is that. However, there has still got to be a means of answering when someone asks a simple question like "Are you sick?"--something to which one cannot reply in agreement. Perhaps it was only "I am" or "I am not". Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 19:58:48 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Katherine Griffis Subject: Re: AEL Re: Conversational features of AEL At 11:14 AM 5/15/98 +0200, Michael Tilgner wrote: >But to solve this question, one has to collect conversational examples. =3D >At the moment I found only this one: > >"Three Tales of Wonder" >Text: Sethe, Aegyptische Lesestuecke, p. 30, line 22 >Translation: Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. I, p. 219 > >"His majesty said: 'Is it true, what they say, that you can join a =3D >severed head? >Dd.in Ddi tiw iw=3D3Di rx=3D3Dkwi iTi anx wDa snb nb=3D3Di >Said Djedi: 'Yes, I can, O king [may you live, be prosperous, be =3D >healthy], my lord.'" > >For me it is exactly that kind of "yes" you are looking for! Perhaps >somebody else may have more examples? Just a comment. Faulkner on p. 294 confirms the use of tiw as 'yes', as does Gardiner in =A7258, but notes that it is not an independent word but an enclitic particle, or a word that forms a unit with another word, and thus has no independent meaningTimes New Roman. So, your example of what Djedi says is a "yes" with a purpose and not a simple affirmation. The answer is to a query for corroboration (Gardiner: =A7491) The king's query is in the standard "negative form" of in iw, and which requires a "yes" answer. Here, the query is in the nominal predicate utilizing pw: Dd.in Hm=3Df=20 in-iw mAa.t pw pA-Dd=20 iw=3Dk rx.ti TAs tp Hsq.w=20 and Djedi replies -- Dd.in Ddi=20 tiw iw=3Di rx.kw=20 it.y anx.w wDA.w snb.w nb=3Di=20 Source: AEL Papyrus Westcar Page Transliterations at: =20 http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/texts/ael/westcar/TRANSLIT.HTM (Lines 16, 17, and 18 of Page 3),=20 Hieroglyphic text at: =20 http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/texts/ael/westcar/HIEROGPS/WESTP3.HTM (Line 16, 17 and 18) The king queries,=20 "Is the saying truth in-iw mAa.t pw pA-Dd that (it is the condition) you iw=3Dk can < rx.ti join a severed head..." TAs tp Hsq.w When Djedi answers the king, he is not merely saying "yes", but is repetitively affirming his _ability_ to do the action of which the king inquired about, or=20 "Yes, it is (the condition) that I=20 tiw iw=3Di can=20 rx.kw <=20 [join a severed head]..." (implied) It is as Dr. Loprieno said in a previous AEL post, that the affirmation must relate back to the predicate of the question: =20 "One usually preferred to answer with a confirmation or a denial of the predicate of the question. "Will you go home"--"I will (iry=3Dj)" or "I will not" (nn jry=3Dj) rather than just yes or no." A simple "yes" is not sufficient, but has to come back, directly or indirectly, stating the inquired about action. See Gardiner: =A7 492, ex. 4 for the exact phrasing of the king's query as shown here. See also Faulkner, p. 151 on the use of rx as "ability" or "be able to". Best -- Katherine Griffis-Greenberg University of Alabama at Birmingham Special Studies http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/1692/index.html ============================================================================== From: Nubkhas Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 10:29:31 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: Conversational features of AEL In a message dated 98-05-15 18:55:28 EDT, you write: << Therefore I believe iri tiw is to do/to make/to produce "yes". I don't know. It seems to me you can only produce a "noun" like "agreement"or "concord". "yes", as we perceive it in English and other European, Semitic, etc. languages, does not come under this category. It is simply an interjection. >>But to solve this question, one has to collect conversational examples. = At the moment I found only this one: "Three Tales of Wonder" Text: Sethe, Aegyptische Lesestuecke, p. 30, line 22 Translation: Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. I, p. 219 "His majesty said: 'Is it true, what they say, that you can join a = severed head? Dd.in Ddi tiw iw=3Di rx=3Dkwi iTi anx wDa snb nb=3Di Said Djedi: 'Yes, I can, O king [may you live, be prosperous, be = healthy], my lord.'" >> It's an excellent example, however not conclusive. The initial "iw" could be an independent statement from the rest of the phrase as in "Agreed." Or it could be "Agreed, I can..." The point I am trying to make is wherever one might write "yes", "agreed" could easily substitute in many cases, just as "indeed" is a natural substitute for "yes". Marianne Luban ============================================================================== From: Aayko Eyma To: 'Ancient Egyptian Language List' Subject: AEL AW: AEL AE/OK phonology Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 22:08:06 +-200 jr.t bjn.t - *yi-ra(t) bA'na(t) > {eierbOOne}. jr.t=f - *yir-tuf > {iatf} >It has to do with the position of /r/ in a given word. If, in the earlier stage, it came at the end of a syllable as in *yir-tuf, then it would have to have disappeared. But, if it came at the beginning of a syllabe as in *yi-ra-bA'na (although, by Coptic the second syllable had also dropped out), it would NOT have disappeared. Compare this to the pronunciation or lack of pronunciation of /r/ in many British, Southern United States, and New England dialects of English. /r/ is often a very weak consonant in final position, but still strong in initial position. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ***Yes, but in a sense this a circular argument or is it not? "we reconstruct the word and syllables thus, because the r shows; and now we give as reason for the r showing the 'fact' it is at the beginning of a syllable (where we reconstructed it to be)". Hmm. I believe you though :) Was the .t in a construction never dropped when it had to support a suffix? Or no general rules here? To toss in something that seems to be a somewhat related phenomenon (but what do I know): A. Egberts (Talanta 28/29), when tackling Bernal's claim of Athena < H.t-n.t, collects examples of _h.t_ ("house") in Greek and Coptic names and compositions. As we would expect, the female .t drops away in most cases (Coptic_ho_ etc.), but with a few exceptions, and these share this 'law': _.t_ + _H_ (laryngeal spirant) => th (aspirated dental) like in: H.t-Hry-jb -> Coptic Athrebe, Greek Athribis H.t-Hr ->Coptic Hathor, Greek Athur (Athyr) Nb.t-H.t -> Coptic Nebtho, Greek Nephthus (Nephthys) I suppose it would also make a difference WHEN the constructions where made (before or after the 'custom' of dropping _.t_s). Anyone knows other cases of such assimilation, by which the .t or the r remained? kind regards, Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== From: Abu Elisha Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 14:34:39 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Chronology Confusion I like this chat letter. Can you help clarify something for me? I'm a little confused about the officially-accepted death date of the hieroglyphic system. I've heard/read everything from the 1st century A.D. to as late as the 7th century. And then again, if only .4% of the people could read it during the Ptolemaic period, does that qualify it to be a living language even then? Was it already being eclipsed by an alternate system, or did the people simply not read and write anything at all? Michael Akard Modesto, CA ============================================================================== From: Aayko Eyma To: "AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk" Subject: AEL AW: AEL Chronology Confusion Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 20:54:44 +-200 ---------- >Can you help clarify something for me? I'm a little confused about the officially-accepted death date of the hieroglyphic system. I've heard/read everything from the 1st century A.D. to as late as the 7th century. And then again, if only .4% of the people could read it during the Ptolemaic period, does that qualify it to be a living language even then? Was it already being eclipsed by an alternate system, or did the people simply not read and write anything at all? Michael Akard Modesto, CA ***Baines&Malek 'Atlas', and Gardiner p.25: the latest hieroglyphic inscription is from 394 AD (in Philae); at the same site are demotic grafitti from 452/470 AD. Demotic was the common writing system to write Egyptian in Ptolemaic and Roman times. Greek written with Greek letters also was used. In the 2nd c. AD they began to use Greek letters to write Egyptian texts, which developped into Coptic in the 4th c. So the transition was gradual. Aayko Eyma ==============================================================================