Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:12:31 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe: line 5 of 7 (Berlin 3022, 2-7) From: Mark-Jan Nederhof To: Ancient Egyptian Language List On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Marianne Luban wrote: > 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? At http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~mjn/egyptian/texts/ I translated AOS as "r jsq Hr wAt Smt=sn", "to wait near the road where they were walking". I'm not sure what to make of Hr missing in G and C. In the absence of a better suggestion, I guess that jsq could be used with a direct object. The problem in G is further that Smw doesn't have the expected feminine ending. > 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. That would be B1, 285-286 in the modern numbering scheme. My translation at the time at http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~mjn/egyptian/texts/ was: <285> jw Ahw=j sSm=f r jw<286>dt ; <285> My anguish leads to separation I'm not sure how helpful that is for the problem at hand. > Can that be "r Iwdt wAt Smw=sn" or "near a divergence of the road they were traveling"? Perhaps. But once more, the missing feminine ending poses a problem. > It seems to me that, as they stand, there are prepositions missing in B and R, too. I tend to agree that sense and form would have been less puzzling had there been a preposition. > And the modern error may be in assuming "Smw" was a noun. I think that Smt=sn in AOS is most likely a relative form. In some other versions, I would still favour interpretation as a noun. Mark-Jan ============================================================================== From: "Marianne Luban" Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:35:00 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: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:12:31 +0000 On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Marianne Luban wrote: > >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? >At http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~mjn/egyptian/texts/ >I translated AOS as "r jsq Hr wAt Smt=sn", "to wait near the road where they >were walking". I'm not sure what to make of Hr missing in G and C. In the >absence of a better suggestion, I guess that jsq could be used with a >direct object. >The problem in G is further that Smw doesn't have the expected feminine >ending. > >Can that be "r Iwdt wAt Smw=sn" or "near a divergence of the road they were traveling"? >Perhaps. But once more, the missing feminine ending poses a problem. Yes, I should have written "Smt" for that. But what if "Smw" isn't a person, a traveler? What if it's a "route"? That would almost work for CG with their "r isq wAt Smt=sn", with G having the "Smw", instead. But then maybe one would expect "which was" before the route. There is always something missing from these versions in order to have a clause that isn't clumsy --or so it seems. As to the discrepancy between C and G, there is perhaps a simple explanation--this being that not everyone knew how to write Middle Egyptian well by the time of the 20th Dynasty. Those who were in the service of the king, wrote monumental inscriptions, had to know it well but "Sinuhe" is not one of those texts. I have noticed that in the later hieratic texts "Smy" becomes ubiquitous. Some example of the use are: Brothers: "iw=f Hr Smy m-sA nAyf iAwt" ["he was going behind his herd"] "wn in=s Hr Dd n=f i Smy" ["so she said to him, 'Well, go....' "] As far as I can tell, "Smy" is used in all contexts and It may be that, in the case of G, the scribe had "Smy" in his head when he wrote "Smw", believing that to be the correct older verbal form. Marianne Luban http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/ ==============================================================================