From: Rhio Barnhart Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:09:42 -0800 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Orlando et al, As I am a beginning student of this grammar, it is a challenge to try to make sense of this sentence. Looking at the following, one realizes that this sentence receives numerous clumsy translations ("To place myself between the bushes, to remove the way and its farer") : Facsimile of Berlin 3022 with German translation: http://www.astrodoc.net/aegypten/Sinuhe/html/abschnitt_1.html Another including the hieratic text: http://jennycarrington.tripod.com/JJSinuhe/ Concordance of the various sources: http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~mjn/egyptian/texts/corpus/pdf/Sinuhe.pdf Perhaps Marianne or another expert could comment on my questions: The Vygus Dictionary (Nov. 2009 edition) page 166, gives a verb "ir wAt n" - prepare a way for. The "n" would be a past tense marker? I could be way off here but is it possible that this is the word meant by irt wAt? Is the w in smw.s a past tense passive sDm(w).f form? I suppose one might say "I placed myself between two bushes to prepare a way to depart". Difficult grammar for me in any case. Cheers, RHB ============================================================================== From: "Jenny Carrington" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:59:14 +1100 Just a note for anyone checking out my Sinuhe pages, if you go to this site you won't have to put up with those pesky ads. http://carrington-arts.com/JJSinuhe/index.html Jenny Carrington ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:53:53 +0100 From: marwan kilani To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Personally, I think there is another possible solution (not very different from the ones already proposed): rd.t wi imy-tw bAty "to place myself between two bushes" => "going between two bushes" r ir.t wAt Sm.w=s "to make a path (there, between the bushes) and (to make (myself) ) a traveler of it" => "to make a path between the bushes and to become its traveler (of the path)" => "to find a path between the bush and to escape on it" The complete egyptian form would have been something like *"r ir.t wAt(=i), r ir.t wi Smw=s" but the "r ir.t wi" is clearly too heavy and useless, and can logically be omitted. In English we would have put a nice "and" between wAt and Sm.w=, but there is no "and" in egyptian.. I think this is the easiest way to translate it: it's clear and the meaning is logic and coherent with the situation, the grammar is respected and you don't need to change or add any word. P.S. can I ask a question about English? You said "making a way [as] HER traveler".. why "her"? is it not "its"? "way" is feminine? ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:58:55 -0500 Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) From: Aurelio LaRotta To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Hi Rhio & al., Thanks for posting the links. Here is Gardiner's take on the subject http://www.etana.org/coretexts/15243.pdf Check out the four text variants in chapter III, page 126 and then look at his explanations in chapter II, page 15. Apparently, different versions of the text have different verbs (not necessarily jr.t), hence the *'to separate'* interpretation. Actually, Gardiner spells out how to arrive at this particular reading (it's not based on the jr.t reading but an altogether different verb). He concludes himself: *"The extreme artificiality of this sentence is undeniable"* (and finishes the thought with a 'but - ' statement that doesn't fully convince me). Only a few lines before that,Gardiner notes what I'd consider the key observation: *"The disagreement of [sources] B, R and GC here seems to show that difficulties were early felt as to the sense of this phrase; each version has a different infinitive beginning with the letter i".* Like Marianne said a bit earlier - it's either an unusual expression or a scribal error. Or maybe it's both ... if jr.t was the original, then Rhio's proposal opens an interesting way to look at it: could it be a simple as 'make (myself) a way to travel upon'? As Gardiner points out, the Sms.w looks like an active participle, so that does not seem to fit - unless you emend an 'n' (@Rhio: I'd take that to be a dative marker, not past tense - BTW: does your dictionary give sources/examples for each entry?) Or it's a way to use the participle that's new to me, similar to a first supine in Latine (*spectatum veniunt*) :-) But, again, jr.t may not have been the original anyways but a scribal attempt to make sense of a forgotten or rare word/construction used in the original version ... Best regards, Aurelio ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:06:48 -0500 Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) From: Aurelio LaRotta To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Correction: Latine = Latin, nisi forte latine loquimur :-) Cheers, Aurelio ============================================================================== From: "A.P. de Visser" To: "'Ancient Egyptian Language List'" Subject: RE: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:30:53 +0100 Jenny In your hierogl.text I read,but in the transliteration I found which looks a bit like with the E9 sign,with the meaning.This last one is also the version used by Sethe in his reading-book. In a French edition by Luino,who used ,,The story of Sinuhe,, by Blackman(Bruxelles)I find this same version. Kind regards Bram de Visser -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Jenny Carrington Verzonden: dinsdag 15 december 2009 12:59 Aan: Ancient Egyptian Language List Onderwerp: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Just a note for anyone checking out my Sinuhe pages, if you go to this site you won't have to put up with those pesky ads. http://carrington-arts.com/JJSinuhe/index.html Jenny Carrington ============================================================================== From: "Marianne Luban" Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:59:16 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: RE: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "A.P. de Visser" To: "'Ancient Egyptian Language List'" Subject: RE: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:30:53 +0100 >Jenny >In your hierogl.text I read,but in the transliteration I found iwt> which looks a bit like with the E9 sign,with the meaningseparate>.This last one is also the version used by Sethe in his >reading-book. >In a French edition by Luino,who used ,,The story of Sinuhe,, by >Blackman(Bruxelles)I find this same version. Jenny has the Berlin papyrus. The "iwd" is actually from nothing I know of. The Ramesseum version has "iwt", which Gardiner thought was a scribal error for "iwd". Marianne Luban http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/ ============================================================================== From: Rhio Barnhart Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:53:07 -0800 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Aurelio, Thanks for the Gardiner link. It will take some time to read, but looks to be an education in itself. I know almost nothing regarding how the hieratic script was deciphered. It seems that it was an adjunct to the hieroglyphic decipherment, but I am most curious about it. I cannot find any "substantial" studies before Moeller. I was able to download the Moeller "Hieratische Palaeographie" from http://www.egyptology.ru/lang.htm#Moeller. Moeller made a concordance of hieratic sign variation from several mss including Sinuhe. There is an ongoing "Hieratic Font Project" by Sheldon Gosline but the books are expensive and I have not seen them: http://shangri-la.0catch.com/hp/index.html. After spending a little time looking at the script, it is certainly easy to see how scribes could make errors. I would find it almost impossible to determine some differences between the signs. Eyesight is not what it used to be. Regards, RHB ============================================================================== From: "Marianne Luban" Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:55:17 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Aurelio LaRotta To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:06:48 -0500 > Thanks for posting the links. Here is Gardiner's take on the subject > http://www.etana.org/coretexts/15243.pdf Thanks a lot for this paper by Gardiner--most edifying! > Check out the four text variants in chapter III, page 126 and then look at > his explanations in chapter II, page 15. Apparently, different versions of > the text have different verbs (not necessarily jr.t), hence the *'to > separate'* interpretation. > Actually, Gardiner spells out how to arrive at this particular reading > (it's not based on the jr.t reading but an altogether different verb). He > concludes himself: *"The extreme artificiality of this sentence is > undeniable"* (and finishes the thought with a 'but - ' statement that > doesn't fully convince me). Only a few lines before that,Gardiner notes what > I'd consider the key observation: *"The disagreement of [sources] B, R and > GC here seems to show that difficulties were early felt as to the sense of > this phrase; each version has a different infinitive beginning with the > letter i".* Like Marianne said a bit earlier - it's either an unusual > expression or a scribal error. For those who are a bit daunted by the paper, here are the salient points in addition to those provided by Aurelio: B. is , of course, the Berlin version we have been looking at and R. is for "Ramesseum". [The others we'll ignore for now.] The Berlin is supposed to be 12th Dynasty and the R. around the time of the Hyksos. C. is supposed by Gardiner to be the worst [most corrupt] version. He says: "Smw can only be the masc. sing. of the imperfect active participle. wAt must be the first object of the preceding infinitive and Smw-s "its goer" "or him who was traveling upon it". Verbs taking two objects are in Egyptian by no means common." [to answer someone else's question--yes "wAt" is a feminine noun and, in Egyptian, it would be "her" instead of "it".] To recap, version B. has "r irt wAt Smw=s and version R. has "r iwt wAt Smw=s " which Gardiner thought should be emended to "iwd" or "separate" and that is where Simpson got his "in order to separate the road from its traveler". Lichtheim, as I said before, gives "so as to leave the road to its traveler" and she may have deduced that from one of the other versions. [snip] >But, again, jr.t may not have been the original anyways but > a scribal attempt to make sense of a forgotten or rare word/construction > used in the original version ... I think I have an idea whence "irt" and "iwd". Possibly, it all boils down to a "tapped r", which there are signs the Egyptian one was when it was not dropped [pretty much the case as in posh British English]. It looks to me like a matter of pronunciation, something being read to one or more copiers-- which is the way copies were routinely made in antiquity. Judging from Coptic, "irt" was most probably vocalized near to "eire" and "iwd" was probably something like "ede" [iw mostly survives as "e" in Coptic]. Therefore, with a "tapped r", the difference was difficult to hear. But that is no help when it comes to figuring out the original verb. Further Gardiner thought that R. must be correct with "iwd" as he saw that as "in order that I might avoid the road" or, as Simpson had it literally, "to separate the road from its traveler". Gardiner says "The extreme artificiality of this sentence is undeniable, but when one compares such expressions as "I gave a way to my feet", "I gave the sand to those who are in it" this objection vanishes." Well....the objection might fade some but I don't think it actually vanishes because the expressions Gardiner gave as examples are easier to understand. Nobody has scratched his head over them in their context. Leaving the sand to the sand-dwellers [bedu] is comprehensible enough. Marianne Luban http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/ ============================================================================== From: "Marianne Luban" Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:23:08 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) I wrote: >I think I have an idea whence "irt" and "iwd". Possibly, it all boils down to >a "tapped r", which there are signs the Egyptian one was when it was not dropped >[pretty much the case as in posh British English]. It looks to me like a >matter of pronunciation, something being read to one or more copiers--which is >the way copies were routinely made in antiquity. Judging from Coptic, "irt" >was most probably vocalized near to "eire" and "iwd" was probably something like >"ede" [iw mostly survives as "e" in Coptic]. Therefore, with a "tapped r", >the difference was difficult to hear. But that is no help when it comes to >figuring out the original verb. Well, "mostly" is not "always" and I should have checked Crum first. On his page 495 one can perhaps see the story of the survival of ancient "iwd". Since the Coptic letter "Ue" is used as the second one and this can be either "u" or 'y"--I am not so sure of the pronunction of these terms but, in column a there is what looks like an "ouete" with the meaning of "remit, abandon", echoing Lichtheim's translation of "leave the road to its traveler". In column b I see "s-oute" meaning "separate between". Ancient /d/ is *mostly" rendered by Coptic "t"--or at least that's how it appears to me. On balance, then, I now have to lean toward "oude" being very near the old pronunciation of "iwd", which was written in the R version as "iwt". Seeing no alternative, I have to agree with Gardiner that it must be a miswriting. Even with the "tapped r", "eire" and "ouede/oude" were probably not that similar in vocalization to cause confusion--but who knows? The preceding preposition "r" may have had some influence on the pronunciation, too. Gardiner makes a list of some curious discrepancies in the various recensions. Some seem to me to be the result of pronunciation and mishearing, as well. As examples, R 46 has "xn-kwi Hr" and so does C but B21 gives "r" for "Hr". Did someone drop an /H/ in reciting? R 84-85 gives "hA=f tAbtiw but G has "hAb" for "hA=f", causing me to wonder if Egyptian /b/ was not pronounced like a "v" in certain dialects reminiscent of Spanish "v" versus that of Mexico, which leans toward "b". B has "mA=f ibt" there--which is certainly a departure. R 90 and G have "iT.n-f m mrwt" and B66 omits the "m" which could simply be a case of forgetting to write it or an indication of the vocalization of "mrwt", which meade the preceding "m" sound superfluous. GC were written, it appears in the time of the 20th Dynasty. Gardiner writes: "In the few instances where GC agrees with B against R, it is usually in order to correct obvious and unimportant errors in R." As to that puzzling sentence, G gives "r isq wAt Smw=sn" and C has "r isq wAt Smt=sn". For "isq" see Hannig 104 b. It seems to me that, in this case, it has the meaning of "hindering" or "tying up" [as in traffic] the road by "their traveling". In other words, Sinuhe, in hiding, cannot go until the way is clear. Whatever the case, some 20th Dynasty scribe evidently had no idea what that other older stuff was all about and substituted something that made sense to him. Marianne Luban http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/ ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:55:07 +0100 From: Vincent Euverte To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Dear AEL members, I read with much interest the debate related to the Sinuhe Tale. Should you read French, may I suggest to have a look at our current work on this text at the following address : http://projetrosette.info/page.php?Id=799&TextId=173 We are using the two Berlin papyri 10499 ("R") and 3022 ("B") and the Lepsius' Denkm=E4ler original pictures. By clicking on any Element number, you will get the detailed hieroglyphic text, transliteration and French translation. This work is not yet finalized, and any comment will be welcome. If an English translation is available with proper authorization from the author, we will be very pleased to publish it in our text corpus. Truly yours, /*Vincent Euverte, Rosette Project*/* web = http://vincent.euverte.free.fr Projet Rosette : http://projetrosette.info * ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:18:02 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) From: Mark-Jan Nederhof To: Ancient Egyptian Language List On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Marianne Luban wrote: > [...] > Jenny has the Berlin papyrus. The "iwd" is actually from nothing I know of. > The Ramesseum version has "iwt", which Gardiner thought was a scribal error for "iwd". May I suggest an alternative reading "iw.tw", with the verb "iw", "abschneiden, abtrennen (=separate)". This would explain why there is "t" instead of "d". It leads to other problems however, such as a missing preposition between "wAt" and "Smw=s", and one would expect a knife determinative. Admittedly, this solves very little. Mark-Jan ============================================================================== From: "Michael Tilgner" To: "AEL" Subject: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:10:38 +0100 Dear Vincente, > We are using the two Berlin papyri 10499 ("R") and 3022 ("B") and the > Lepsius' Denkm=E4ler original pictures. These facsimiles were drawn at a time when there was only insufficient knowledge of Hieratic. They have been replaced by photographic plates (with Hieroglyphic transcription and German translation) in Alan H. Gardiner, Literarische Texte des Mittleren Reiches II: Die Erz=E4hlung des Sinuhe und die Hirtengeschichte, Leipzig, 1909 (Hieratische Papyrus aus den K=F6niglichen Museen Berlin, vol. V). Adolf Erman commented for the similar drawings of the Hieratic texts of the Eloquent Peasant: "as a result a secure reading of the complicated texts was out of question." (in the preface of: F. Vogelsang, Alan H. Gardiner, Literarische Texte des Mittleren Reiches I: Die Klagen des Bauern, Leipzig, 1908 (Hieratische Papyrus aus den K=F6niglichen Museen Berlin, vol. IV)). Unfortunately both works aren't online yet. If you can read German, look at the following website, which was already mentioned in a recent posting by Rhio Barnhart (Dec. 15, 2009): http://www.astrodoc.net/aegypten/Sinuhe/index.html You'll find the Hieroglyphic text, a transcription and a German translation based on the versions R and B. Even if you don't understand German, the excellent detailed color photographs of pBerlin 10499 and 3022 - with line numbering! - could be useful for you! In addition there all other fragments (papyri and ostraca) available with photographs or drawings, Hieroglyphic text, transcription and German translation (section: "weitere Textzeugen"). This is really a great work! Best wishes, Michael Tilgner ============================================================================== From: "Marianne Luban" Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:01:15 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Maybe we're on the wrong track and should consider "bAt" again. According to Hannig [page 239 a] it is not just "bushes" but "bush" with the meaning of a generally overgrown area. Is it possible, then that "imitw" [page 69 b] does not mean just "between" but also "in the middle of"? If all that is possible, then perhaps Sinuhe is hiding in some sort of thicket and has to figure out how to make a way through it--decide. Since what comes next is so confusing, maybe there is something different there--a term that does mean "decide", possibly "Hr rwA" [page 462 a]. We have seen, among the versions, that somebody wrote "r" for "Hr" elsewhere and God only only knows how "rwA" was pronounced. [I'll see if I can find out.] Maybe it wasn't something written that often and so others substituted "irt" [eire] and the rather inscrutable "iwt". You'll notice that "rwA" already has N31 as a determinative so maybe there was no "wAt" there as a noun at all. But there still can have been. If not, in that case, Sinuhe would have to decide how to go through the bush and the genitve "=s" goes with "bAt". But he could still decide on "a way" through. If "Smw" here really means "traveler", that should probably have been clear in all the versions--but GC don't reflect that. These indicate "going" or "traveling" as a verb and variously have "Smw" and "Smt". Marianne Luban http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/ ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:19:19 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) From: Mark-Jan Nederhof To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Note that versions B, R, G, C all have bAtj, with dual determinative, and versions R, AOS, G, C all have two occurrences of the plant determinative. This strongly suggests "between (two) bushes" rather than "in the middle of an overgrown area". Mark-Jan ============================================================================== From: "Marianne Luban" Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:12:58 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Mark-Jan Nederhof To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:19:19 +0000 >Note that versions B, R, G, C all have bAtj, with dual determinative, and >versions R, AOS, G, C all have two occurrences of the plant determinative. >This strongly suggests "between (two) bushes" rather than "in the middle of >an overgrown area". Okay, but among these versions there must be a clue to something that makes good sense. G gives "r isq wAt Smw=sn" and C has "r isq wAt Smt=sn". What do you make of these? Is Sinuhe *waiting* to find out the way "they" are going or are the bushes a * hindrance* on some path? Which is the meaning of "isq" there? But let's take R. The more I look at this "iwt" the more I think maybe it's not so much a scribal error but an omission. Perhaps the scribe intended to write "iwdt" and simply forgot the /d/ above the /t/. Hannig on page 18 a gives this "iwdt" as a feminine noun and explains it as "Trennung" which, in English, could mean several things--all with the idea of some "separation". According to Faulkner "iwdt" is attested only once in Peasant, B1, 254. I haven't discovered the context yet but that might be edifying. Also, in CG, "they" are going, more than one person and it becomes obvious that Sinuhe is hiding from them. Can that be "r Iwdt wAt Smw=sn" or "near a divergence of the road they were traveling"? It may be there ought to be a preposition between "iwdt" and "wAt" but perhaps one wasn't necessary. Of course, this would mandate a major error in writing just "=s" instead of "=sn"--but, once again, the 20th Dynasty scribes [or even some unattested earlier ones] could not make out what there was in B or R--if they saw them--and substitued something else. For me that is a clue that some error [s] rendered those earlier writings nonsense. One didn't "separate the road from its traveler" in Egyptian any more than one does in English--much less leave it to someone else by the mere act of hiding. One also didn't "make a way for one who travels it" by hiding in shrubbery. It seems to me that, as they stand, there are prepositions missing in B and R, too. And the modern error may be in assuming "Smw" was a noun. I think one can make a case for a "divergence" or a "cut off" on the main road. If the Egyptians are on it, Sinuhe has to get off. If they take the "high road" [to the palace?], he will take the "low road"--go in some different direction. In other words "south". And this is where I run out of ideas. Marianne Luban http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/ ==============================================================================