From: "Marianne Luban" Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 05:12:35 GMT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk Subject: AEL Re: The Amazing Israel Stela It occurred to me that I should clarify that the phrases I am studying are not written in Late Egyptian. But the scribes of the time of Merneptah did not know any vocalisation except the Egyptian of their day--and just what they did know about Middle Egyptian except as a graphic system is hard to say. But one can infer that perhaps they thought that the plural ending "w" ought to be pronounced since it was written and used that in an archaizing fashion. Marianne Luban http://thetimetravelerreststop.blogspot.com/ ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:55:39 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe B 230-31 From: Mark-Jan Nederhof To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Again, I think you would do well to check my transliteration and translation at: http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~mjn/egyptian/texts/ I don't claim to have the only 'correct' interpretation, but you may find useful hints there. In my interpretation xnt is an adverb: n jnk js qA sA xnt ; I was not haughty before, snD s rx <231> tA=f ; as a man respects one whom his land knows. I can't say I'm entirely happy with the grammar or sense, but still this seems less problematic than a solution where xnt is a preposition. In your solution 1) you imagine a word jnk that is not there. In your solution 2), the noun phrase "a man who knows his land" thrown in at the end makes this less than convincing. Mark-Jan ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:28:26 +0100 (CET) From: "omezzab@tin.it" To: Subject: R: Re: AEL Sinuhe B 230-31 >Again, I think you would do well to check my transliteration and >translation at: >I don't claim to have the only 'correct' interpretation, but you >may find useful hints there. I did check it, in fact. But in this case I felt something missing. >In my interpretation xnt is an adverb: >n jnk js qA sA xnt ; >I was not haughty before, That is what Parkinson suggests too, but I am not convinced. Are there other instances where "xnt" is used in that way? I mean, not in Sinuhe, but in other texts, so as to confirm its possible use. This is what I found at the Basel site, and it seems there are some doubts. H. Goedicke, in: JEA 51 (1965) S. 44: als Adverb =E2=80=9Ebefore=E2=80=9C J.W.B. Barns, in: JEA 53 (1967) S. 12: setzt sich mit Goedickes Kritik auseinander xnt Hannig, Pseudopartizip, S. 219f.: Pr=C3=A4position (und nicht Zeitadverbiale) >I can't say I'm entirely happy with the grammar or sense, but still >this seems less problematic than a solution where xnt is a preposition. >In your solution 1) you imagine a word jnk that is not there. In your >solution 2), the noun phrase "a man who knows his land" thrown >in at the end makes this less than convincing. Probably you are right in not accepting solution number 2, but - thinking twice - I think number one has some sense. The missing second "jnk" may be an implied reference, even though I confess I don't know whether such instances are present in other texts. Instances with implied prepositions are common, but pronouns? In my tentative translation I tried to get a logical sense and I think the missing "jnk" gives it! (The fact is that I am recording Sinuhe - just a private experiment - and I have to get a clear understanding of the lines, or, anyway, to make a plausible choice in order to give them a suitable expression.) Thank you for your kind help Orlando Mezzabotta Mark-Jan ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:18:06 +0100 (CET) From: "omezzab@tin.it" To: Subject: R: AEL Sinuhe B 230-31 Hi all! This is a self-reply. Even though my tentative translation "I am not arrogant in front of fear, [I am] a man who knows his land" has some sense (at least to me!) I have still many doubts. The hieroglyphs show: "n jnk js qA-sA xnt snD s rx(w) tA =f" My Sinuhe reference book is Marco Chioffi and Patrice Le Guillox "Le avventure di Sinuhe / Les aventures de Sinouhe". Marco Chioffi translates: "Io non sono altezzoso: =C3=A8 timoroso l'uomo che conosce il suo paese!" (I am not haughty: fearful is the man who knows his land!" But where does "xnt" fit? " snD s rx(w) tA =f" should be enough. Why "xnt"? Or does he mean "xnt snD"? Patrice Le Guilloux translates: " il est face =C3=A0 la peur, l'homme qui connait son pays!" (he is in front of fear, the man who knows his land" So he definitely points out the construction "xnt snD". And I think that fits! While "snD" is just "fear", "xnt snD" can be "to stand in awe". And that is an existential attitude. And Sinuhe's attitude in front of his king. So we have: "I am not haughty: he stands in awe - the man who knows his land" With the opposition "qA-sA / xnt snD". By the way, I think there is a nice stylistic nuance in the Egyptian text. The /q/ sound opposed to the softer /x/ and, more remarkable, the homophony "sA / s", whe "s" (man) was probably pronouncend "sa". bye Orlando ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:58:14 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Sinuhe B 230-31 From: Mark-Jan Nederhof To: Ancient Egyptian Language List On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM, omezzab@tin.it wrote: > [...] > "n jnk js qA-sA xnt snD s rx(w) tA =f" > [...] > But where does "xnt" fit? > " snD s rx(w) tA =f" should be enough. Why "xnt"? > > Or does he mean "xnt snD"? If this means that he conveniently supposes an idiomatic expression not attested elsewhere, then I won't be convinced. > Patrice Le Guilloux translates: > " il est face =E0 la peur, l'homme qui connait son pays!" > (he is in front of fear, the man who knows his land" This would then be what Allen calls an A B nominal sentence with nouns (p. 71). This would have xnt snD interpreted as noun phrase (the A part), with xnt or xnt(jw) as substantivized nisbe adjective from preposition xnt. I don't think this is impossible in principle, but it would be an exceptional use of an already uncommon construction. I would therefore not rank this analysis among the most plausible for this passage. Mark-Jan ============================================================================== To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.org.uk From: Dirk Campbell Subject: AEL waw Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:59:16 +0000 I would like to confirm that 'waw' means 'wave(s) of the sea' for a project I am working on, with the relevant hieroglyphs. Dirk Campbell ============================================================================== From: "A.K. Eyma" To: "AEL" Subject: Re: AEL waw Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:16:32 +0100 Hi Dirk, >I would like to confirm that 'waw' means 'wave(s) of the sea' for a >project I am working on, with the relevant hieroglyphs. In Egyptian, _wAw_ (w3w, second letter is a consonant, not a modern 'a'!) indeed means "wave". But, if that's what you are aiming for: it is not the origin of the English word "wave", for water in motion, as that derives from a Germanic word that also surfaces in the verb "to wag". Best, Aayko Eyma ==============================================================================