Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:14:42 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Le aleph prothetique In another message I wrote: (snip) > > I don't > believe the Egyptians ever had an /l/. They wouldn't be the only > ones--Persian didn't have one, either. Most languages in Europe and > around the Mediterranean area have both an "r" and an "l", but they >are not interchangeable. Every time /r/ occurs at the beginning of a >word, it is always "r" in Coptic. The only time "r" is written "l" in >Coptic at the start of a word is when E23, the "recumbent lion" is the >"r". So maybe E23 wasn't really a true "r" but a peculiar sound >somewhere between a weak "r" and a foreign "l". The test of whether >D21, the > *mouth* was a true "r" is because, as I said, it is seen as >the Coptic "ro" (a true "r") at the beginning of a word. I would like to say a few words more about E23 as this sign really intrigues me. Evidently the person who compiled my Egyptian dictionary thought E23 and D21 were interchangeable because both glyphs are under the "R's" when they begin a word. However, it is clear that E23 rarely begins a word and, everytime it does, it survives into Coptic beginning with an "l". Plus, more often than not, a Hebrew equivalent is present beginning with a "lamed". The situation changes somewhat when it comes to the "place names". There E23 is found more often as beginning a name that is seen as beginning in "r" in Semitic. Usually, though, it is "a place in Syria, situation unknown" so, quite often, there is not actually a foreign name given to compare. > Because of the hard, burring "r" employed in Egyptian Arabic today, >it's > not easy to imagine the pharaohs saying their /r/'s like "Bawbawa" > Walters, but things certainly seem to point in that direction. But >what can be seen as the *rule* for pronoucing /r/ in Egyptian? (snip) > By > my example of "posh" English pronunciation, we can get the idea that > perhaps not every Egyptian "r" (even if it looks like a /3/!) has to > have the same phonetic value or even be heard at all! As for "l", > referring back to that *lion* used as "l" in the phonetic spelling of > Ptolemaic times--in Polish there is an "l" with a slash through it >that is pronounced rather like our "w"--so maybe that is a clue as to >why E23 and D21 got mixed up the way they did in Egyptian. Here I don't mean to imply that Egyptian should be judged by Polish. I merely gave this as an example of what can happen to an "l". The point I am trying to make is the best place to judge the value of a letter is at the beginning of a word. As seen in British English, the value of the same letter is subject to change after that. And so, E23 was either an "l", very close to an "l", or E23 and D21 (/r/) were vocalized so much alike (my guess would be like a "w"), especially in the middle of a word, that they were very often seen as interchangeable even by the ancient Egyptians. BUT E23 can also be read as "sn<"! This I don't understand at all. Can anybody help with all this? Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 20:57:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Hi, Marianne, > vernacular of Dynasties 18 to 24. Of all the "semi-vowels" or "weak > consonants" I find the *vulture* or /3/ most confusing. What made > scholars believe it was an /l/? First of all, {3} did not count as weak until the vernacular language of the New Kingdom. It remained a strong consonant throughout Middle Egyptian's history. Well it all began when people began to anlayze writings of foreign words in both Egyptian and Akkadian. The Egyptians employed {3} in places where Semitic languages had {r} and {l} mostly. Then when diplomatic Akkadian represented Egyptian words with {3} it also employed either {r} or {l}. Meanwhile, the {j} in Egyptian writings of foreign words almost always represented a {'} in the languages of origin. Of course it is all more complicated than I am representing it, however, scholars finally realized that the original value of {3} had to have been some kind of liquid. It can be easily established that Egyptian {r} is actually /r/, so there would be no reason for {3} to have also represented this sound. Therefore, two camps have arisen. One believes that {3} must have been some other kind of /r/ possibly /R/ (a uvular /r/ like in German, French, or modern Ashkenazic pronunciation of Hebrew) or a heavily trilled /r/ like that in Spanish, or even an emphatic /r./ such as occurs in Kurdish. The other camp believes that {3} represented /l/ and that Egyptian originally had this sound but lost it in many instances. The development was in two separate directions with certain instances of /l/ becoming ever more heavy like the Polish emphatic /L/ and finally turning into /w/ and then falling off altogether, and on the other side, a light /l/ which moved in the direction of /y/ as in French and Spanish {ll} in "fille" and "pollo". I belong to the second camp. My reasons for this are that in most instances of final {3} Late Egyptian through Coptic realized [y], AND, even more importantly, there are several words in Egyptian which show alternation between {3} and {n} and this is very unlikely to happen if {3} had represented some form of /r/. (Hfnw > Hf3w "snake" and the prospective of m33 is often written m3n, etc. etc.) The disappearance of initial {3} is the most problematic part of the whole affair however, because, one would expect that a liquid would not tend to drop out of the spoken language when it was at the beginning of a syllable. Could it be that Initial /l/ tended to be heavy /L/ and final /l/ tended toward light /l/? The other confusing part of this whole issue is that by the time of Demotic a whole series of /l/'s were realized in places that had once been {n} and /r/. Exactly what had taken place is not that clear. I suspect that Antonio Loprieno, who by the way, according to his recent book _Ancient Egyptian: a linguistic introduction_, is of the first camp, believing {3} to have originally represented {R}, will possibly be able to throw some light on the subject. This is not clear to me! I don't > believe the Egyptians ever had an /l/. They wouldn't be the only > ones--Persian didn't have one, either. Most languages in Europe and > around the Mediterranean area have both an "r" and an "l", but they are > not interchangeable. Every time /r/ occurs at the beginning of a word, > it is always "r" in Coptic. Yes, you are right. The example of the preposition "r" becoming vocalic stems from the fact that it represented, not an intitial /r/ but a final one. Many Old Kingdom and even some later writings of this prepostion show {j} in initial position. I was not trying to suggest that initial {r} dropped out, only that after the preposition had evolved into [a] it could be used to represent the identical sound as the prothetic aleph in verb forms. Of course, you are probably speaking of initial {3} in this case. This is indeed problematic. I also find it confusing. The only time "r" is written "l" in Coptic > at the start of a word is when E23, the "recumbent lion" is the "r". So > maybe E23 wasn't really a true "r" but a peculiar sound somewhere > bewteen a weak "r" and a foreign "l". The use of the lion to represent /l/ only begins in very late times. Previously it represented /rw/ and later /r/ in the syllabic orthography. The Ptolemaic Period first made systematic use of the lion as /l/. > I also have trouble seeing where /3/ was ever an actual "r". Where is > this seen? There are a few examples within Egyptian itself, for instance the "viewing place" of the Aten is a m3rw, probably coming from the verb m33, to see. Actually the issue of liquids and the glottal stop in Egyptian is still a very difficult area and many people have differing opinions about it still. I personally believe that Egyptian had the following scenario at first but that it evolved over time: {3} = /l/ {j} = /'/ {r} = /r/ The big problem with my scenario is where in all of this was there room for /y/? My only guess at this is that Egyptian originally felt this sound to be vocalic /I/ and only later began to represent it in writing using {j} (because, as a glottal stop, it could hold the vowel /I/), and {jj} later when there was too much confusion between the two values of {j}. There are, however, those who would say that {j} originally represented /y/ and that Egyptian had no original way of writing {'}. I would ask these people then what was the reason for a later development of {jj} to represent /y/? They would probably answer that too many instances of {j} representing /y/ had become silent. So, it is all a circular argument, unless one decides that {j} had represented both /'/ and /y/ right from the beginning. To the best of my knowledge at this point, however, I believe that we are pretty much unanimous in recognizing that {3} was not originally the glottal stop. I have not seen any recent argumentation for this value of {3}, since the evidence pretty well stacks up against it from several different directions, the most cogent of which is that {3} remained a strong consonant and was never treated as weak, until the last stages of the language (Late Egyptian, Demotic, and Coptic) by which time it seems to have become /y/ or to have disappeared altogether in many instances. I think most of us modern people, having been influenced by the logic of Classical civilization, and the subsequent development of deductive reasoning as we now know it, are troubled unduly by the fact that many pre-Classical civilizations did not seem to employ neat systematic modes of writing a static language. When you get right down to it, how logical is English orthography anyway???? Who are we to talk, huh? We all want Egyptian to have had one-for-one correspondences for each of the monoliteral characters, but this may just not have been the case. Moreover, the writing system never changed as fast as the spoken language and we frustratingly do not have easy answers to all of our phonological questions. We can infer some logic in the values of the system but we just cannot pinpoint anything as accurately as we would like. Even after Egyptian began to be written in the Greek alphabet (Coptic) we do not see unity in how the Greek characters were employed to represent sound. What we find are what appear to be several different dialects, some of which might actually have been different spelling conventions representing the same dialects. Even after the addition of about six new alphabetic signs Coptic did not have all the necessary letters to represent all of its sounds, and we watch as the Coptic scribes spelled things in amazingly different ways attempting to approximate sounds which the Greek alphabet simply had no capacity to represent. One wonders whether the Egyptian language ever had signs for each of its sounds at all. Also, many of the Greek letters were simply superfluous for the purposes of Coptic, yet the scribes used them nonetheless, and used them in many bizarre ways to boot. The question is ultimately whether Egyptologists should modify their transliteration system to represent current knowledge about Egyptian pholology, or continue as we have been, using symbols which we now know to be slightly inaccurate until some day when all the mysteries might be solved once and for all. The examples that I know of in our system which are outdated are the following: {3} might be better as {l} or {R} depending on which camp you fall in. {j} might be better as {'} or {y} ,, ,, ,, ,, {z} might be better as {} (theta, because it can be shown to have had such a value) {T} (underscore t) might be better as {c} (hacek c: ) {d} might be better as {} (emphatic t) {D} (underscore d) might be better as {C} (emphatic hacek c: ) Yet it is all so much more convenient just to leave them as they are since this is how they have been treated in most of the literature up til now, and the alternations between z and s, d and D, and t and T are conveniently not so shocking as they would seem if we were to employ a more accurate phonetic system. Also, what are we to do on the internet with ascii as the norm and no good diacritic marks available to show what we are really talking about? Moreover, we are creatures of habit too. ;-) However, people entering discussions of Egyptian phonology from other disciplines will tend to be a bit baffled by our conventions because the identity of T and D would tend to suggest interdental sounds in any other transliteration system. By the way, this is NOT a suggestion that we change our conventions on list, as I already know that my own convention is not well accepted by various Egyptologists who have been using the internet longer than I have. I am sorry that I just cannot get used to using a, A, and i. (I have to sheepishly admit that I can never remember which sign (a or A) represents which value (3 or <). I really should have figured this out by now, but I have noticed that people who use that system do not seem to always be consistant about it either, and I always spend a few moments puzzling over precisely what they mean to write.) I also do not intend to be picking at that old sore either. Please accept my usual apologies for being so unconventional! ;-) Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 19:37:18 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: AEL Pronunciation of sDm=f At 03:32 PM 97/04/27 -0400, Geoff Graham wrote: >If you are interested in the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, there is >an interesting article by John D. Ray in Crossroads II (Proceedings of the >Second International Conference on Egyptian Grammar) pp. 243-258, >Goettingen, 1991, called An Approach to the sDm=f; Forms and Purpose, >where the author attempts to reconstruct the vocalization of the four >types of sDm=f based on scattered evidence in Coptic and other sources. I >am not sure if I agree totally with all of his reasonings, however I think >he succeeds in getting very close to the original pronunciations, even >though some of his ideas about the relationship between case endings to >sDm=f's seems to be a little suspect to me. What he ends up proposing >(and I tend to agree for the most part) is that the four sDm=f's sounded >about like the following: (Terminology: some other scholars will use >Prospective = Subjunctive and Emphasizing = Nominal or Emphatic) > >verb Indicative Prospective Circumstantial Emphasizing > >3lit. sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f > *sadjmuf *sadjmAf *sadjmif *sadjdjAmuf > >3inf. mr=f mrj=f mr=f mrr=f > *mariuf *mariAf *mariif *marrAruf > >I would change his 3rd weak verb example thusly however, because I believe >the {reedstalk} to have generally represented a glottal stop and not a >palatal glide. > > *mar'uf *mar'Af *mar'if *marrAruf Oh, dear! I was sort of planning to stay out of this - I'm rather busy this week - but this is something I can't ignore. I'm not sure what methodology Ray used, but it doesn't correspond with the conclusions I reached a couple of years ago, and which correspond reasonably well with what Loprieno quotes in _Anciant Egyptian_. Trying to use Coptic evidence seems extremely chancy to me, since the sDm=f conjugation had become obsolete already in Late Egyptian. I based my conclusions on what information I had available at the time - Middle Egytpian itself, and that in somewhat limited amounts. Since then more information has become available to me, none of which seems to contradict my conclusions, and in fact gives them considerable support, confirming predictions based on my scheme. I should say that I made no attempt to decide on vowel quality or quantity; merely to discover how the words were divided into syllables, and where the vowels occurred (although I developed a few GUESSES since then). I'm not sure what Ray is referring to by "indicative" - perhaps the Old Egyptian past tense sDm=f which was obsolete in Middle Egyptian? Likewise his Emphasizing - perhaps equivalent to Polotsky's Second Tense? Anyway, a partial table of my conclusions (representing vowels by a conventional "e"): Circumstantial Prospective Second Tense 3-lit. sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f *seDemef *seDmef *seDemef 3-weak mr=f mry=f mrr=f *mere(y)f *meryef *mereref 2-gem. qbb=f qb=f qbb=f *qebebef *qebbef *qebebef The scheme was originally derived from the spelling of 2-gem. forms, but was found to make considereable sense of the 3-weak verb spellings for Circumstantial and Propsective forms - the Second Tense spelling I don't understand. Variations in the spelling of the 3-weak Prospective in which a "w" appears instead of a "y" probably reflects the origin of this class from several other classes, including verbs originally ending in "y" and "w", which were weakened into silence at the end of the root, but reappear when they become the opening consonant of a syllable. This is rather like the Hebrew "lamed-he" verbs. My own feeling (supported by both Hoch and Gardiner) is that if the Egyptians wrote a consonant twice it meant they were heard separately, ie they had a vowel between them, otherwise the wrote only one. This applies also to unpointed Hebrew spellings. If people are interested in more detail on methodology and conclusions, I will make them available. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:02:46 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Le aleph prothetique Graham wrote: > > Hi, > > OK, Marrianne, you have coaxed me back into this phonology thing. I > wanted to keep my mouth shut because different people have different views > on the subject, and I would not want anyone to think that I am any real > authority, though I have done considerable reading on the subject. > > The Prothetic yod was always a prothetic aleph right from the beginning. > In fact, I believe that the reedstalk sign was originally a glottal stop > right from the start, but that it secondarily, in certain limited words, > took on the character of a palatal glide /y/. This took place because it > was used at times as a _mater lectionis_ (a weak consonant holding the > place of a vowel). It could hold the place for /I/ just as much as any > other vowel. > > The Egyptian vulture sign {3} was clearly originally a liquid sound, > either /l/ or /R/. It was not until Late Egyptian that {3} had lost this > characteristic. At that time it came to represent certain long vowels, > /y/, and in certain instances, the glottal stop. There are a few rare > places where it may have held onto its value as /l/ such as in H3 (would > that) which end up being reconceived in the writing system with the > combination {nr} which was how Late Egyptian represented the current /l/ > sound, and the word j3r.t "grape" ends up in Coptic as {eloole}. There > are probably some other examples, but I do not have them in mind at the > moment. > > The writing of {reedstalk} with {man with hand to mouth} was developed for > writings of foreign words originally, and seems to have represented words > beginning in aleph with a /a/ after it. The prothetic {reedstalk} had > existed as early as the Old Kingdom, and its sound had always been some > kind of a short vowel, probably /a/. Late Egyptian then adopted > {reedstalk} {man with hand to mouth} as a writing for the prothetic vowel > because certain instances of {reedstalk} alone had come to represent other > sounds, such as long vowels, and /y/ in certain instances. They did not > opt to use {3} in its place because it was outside of the tradition of > prothetic {reedstalk} having its own etymological associations with former > /l/. The change was also gradual, and there must have been a brief time > while not all of the examples of {3} had lost their liquid quality, but > the {reedstalk} had also long begun to have various separate values. Thus, > a clear writing for initial /a/ became doubly necessary. > > The use of {r} as the same sound developed because the preposition "jr" > (the initial {j} of which was only sporadically written, possibly original > "ar") before nouns had lost its final /r/ in pronunciation, and was at the > time equivalent to /a/. > > Geoff Graham > sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu Dear Saida, Geoff, and AEListers: For a slightly different view: I believe Egyptian always had the phonetic value of , i.e. y --- ALTHOUGH it is cognate with AA ?/h/(I?(J/H (dotted h). In verbal forms, prothetic i- derives from an adverbial *i, *then, which simply shifts the focus to a different temporal setting (usually past), which can be compared to the e-augment in IE. The spelling "reed"+ "man with hand to mouth" stems not from foreign word spelling -- as Geoff suggests -- but from the rather common use of i for "say, utterance", and is EXACTLY analogous to the spelling of "reed"+"spray of leaves" for i as reed(s), leaf/leaves. An excellent example illustrating these assumptions is Coptic eio:te, father, for it(i). Here, clearly, i = y ALTHOUGH the initial consonant is cognate with AA/IE ? (cf. IE (?)atta, father). Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:35:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Lions and Ploughs Hi, Marianne, You've had some very interesting thoughts about all of this. Could you please refer to the signs as what they represent pictorially too? I don't like to constantly lug out my Gardiner to figure out which sign you mean every time. ;-) To me E23 means virtually nothing, but if you called it the recumbant lion, then I and anyone who didn't have Gardiner for some reason would be immediately with you. > ancient Egyptians. BUT E23 can also be read as "sn<"! This I don't > understand at all. Can anybody help with all this? In hieratic the lion is written in such a way that it is almost identical with the plough. The plough itself has a few different possible values, one of which is Sn<. It is the same kind of confusion that takes place between the nose sign (face in profile) and the baker's cane (U31). Both of these signs are written almost identicaly in hieratic and through this they eventually become somewhat interchangeable in hieroglyphic as well. However, I believe that when a modern Egyptologist is transcribing hieratic texts into hieroglyphs, he/she has a responsibility to select the value which will have the most significance and not the one which first pops into his/her head. Unfortunately many hieratic texts are transcribed with the wrong signs because the scholar doing the work made an unhappy decision with regard to which sign will make the most sense to the most people. When the Egyptians themselves made these confusions, we of course leave the signs as they wrote them in the hieroglyphs, but why make more complication than necessary out of hieratic when there are simple choices involved? While seasoned Egyptologists know the reasons for sign alternation, most students do not. For instance, in Papyrus Westcar, De Buck has transcribed the crossed planks (Z11) for the quatrifoil blossom (M42) in the word wnm "eat". Well, in hieratic these two signs are written identically, however the planks have the value /jm/ while the quatrifoil has the value "wn". Since the word is obviously "wnm" and he was trying to write a readingbook for people learning the language, the least he could do would be to transcribe the glyphs in a fashion which might allow learners to FIND the word in the dictionary! I believe I had Mike change this sign for our typesetting of the passage because, I figured, why make people struggle unnecessarily when the transcription could just as easily be better suited for the needs of students? Sorry, to go off on this tangient! Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:12:47 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Graham wrote: > > Hi, Marianne, > > > vernacular of Dynasties 18 to 24. Of all the "semi-vowels" or "weak > > consonants" I find the *vulture* or /3/ most confusing. What made > > scholars believe it was an /l/? Geoff: > First of all, {3} did not count as weak until the vernacular language of > the New Kingdom. It remained a strong consonant throughout Middle > Egyptian's history. > > Well it all began when people began to anlayze writings of foreign words > in both Egyptian and Akkadian. The Egyptians employed {3} in places where > Semitic languages had {r} and {l} mostly. Then when diplomatic Akkadian > represented Egyptian words with {3} it also employed either {r} or {l}. Geoff--I don't mean to be argumentative, by any means, but I see so much contradictory stuff with this /3/ that I am waiting for you or anybody to show me the light and convince me, but so far I'm still confused. I would guess that the tendancy for the /3/ to become "weak" was already well under way in Middle Egyptian. So didn't the Akkadian correspendences date from the New Kingdom? Anyway, I don't know about Akkadian but I do know about Hebrew. Looking through the place names, /3/ always represents an "aleph" or a vowel indicated by a diacritical mark--never a "resh" or a "lamed"! I do know what you are saying, however. There are certain Semitic cognates that, I think, are partly responsible for people believing /3/ was an "r". Here are a few: b3q (bright, white)--Semitic "baraq" (shining) (however "b3q" was usually not written with the *vulture* but another sign. I have seen it written with an /r/ as well) bk3 (morning)--Semitic "bakir" or "boker" of the same meaning k3m (vineyard)--Semitic "karm" or "kerem" of the same meaning etc. Yes, it's easy to see how people would deduce from this that /3/ was an "r", but, on the other hand, one could also rationalize that Egyptians (like the British) didn't like a strong "r" except at the beginning of a word and just omitted the "r" the Semitic cognates contained! My suspicion is still, although I am far from sure about this, that /3/ was just "aw". > > Meanwhile, the {j} in Egyptian writings of foreign words almost always > represented a {'} in the languages of origin. Of course it is all more > complicated than I am representing it, however, scholars finally realized > that the original value of {3} had to have been some kind of liquid. > > It can be easily established that Egyptian {r} is actually /r/, so there > would be no reason for {3} to have also represented this sound. > Therefore, two camps have arisen. > > One believes that {3} must have been some other kind of /r/ possibly /R/ > (a uvular /r/ like in German, French, or modern Ashkenazic pronunciation > of Hebrew) or a heavily trilled /r/ like that in Spanish, or even an > emphatic /r./ such as occurs in Kurdish. It is interesting that, in Israel today, the *standard* "r" is a German one because the German Jews were the first pioneers in palestine. It sounds almost like a "w" now. Probably, Egyptian didn't have an emphatic "r" like the Spanish, Arabs, etc, because that kind of "r" doesn't tend to become "lost". > > The other camp believes that {3} represented /l/ and that Egyptian > originally had this sound but lost it in many instances. The development > was in two separate directions with certain instances of /l/ becoming ever > more heavy like the Polish emphatic /L/ and finally turning into /w/ and > then falling off altogether, and on the other side, a light /l/ which > moved in the direction of /y/ as in French and Spanish {ll} in "fille" and > "pollo". Well, it looks like maybe I should move out of the "no /l/" camp. Maybe I was the only one living there ;-) So maybe there was something like an /l/, but, as I said before, very few words seem to begin with such a sound and I don't think /3/ represents it. Coptic clearly has an /l/, but whether this was a remnant from the ancient language or a Greek legacy adapted to an old Egyptian /l/ comparable is iffy. Look at the word "outside"-- "r bnr". It becomes "ebol" in Coptic! My guess is the first "r" was so weak as to be just "e", the last "r" lost until there was just "eben" or "ebon" and finally nasally slurred into "ebol", just as we would say it if we had a cold. > > I belong to the second camp. My reasons for this are that in most > instances of final {3} Late Egyptian through Coptic realized [y], AND, > even more importantly, there are several words in Egyptian which show > alternation between {3} and {n} and this is very unlikely to happen if {3} > had represented some form of /r/. (Hfnw > Hf3w "snake" and the prospective > of m33 is often written m3n, etc. etc.) This sort of thing is not uncommon in linguistics. For example, Yiddish is an Old German dialect. It has "milner" for "miller" whereas later German has "muller" with an umlaut. The same discrepancy is seen in many other words. This time, the "n" gradually disappeared, but it could have happened the other way around as well. I would not pay too much attention to "m33" becoming "m33n". All this indicates to me is that is sounded nasal and was later written ever more nasally. > The disappearance of initial {3} > is the most problematic part of the whole affair however, because, one > would expect that a liquid would not tend to drop out of the spoken > language when it was at the beginning of a syllable. Could it be that > Initial /l/ tended to be heavy /L/ and final /l/ tended toward light /l/? To me, it doesn't seem possible that /3/ could ever have been an /l/. I just don't see it. > > The other confusing part of this whole issue is that by the time of > Demotic a whole series of /l/'s were realized in places that had once been > {n} and /r/. Exactly what had taken place is not that clear. I suspect > that Antonio Loprieno, who by the way, according to his recent book > _Ancient Egyptian: a linguistic introduction_, is of the first camp, > believing {3} to have originally represented {R}, will possibly be able to > throw some light on the subject. We can't just toss aside the fact that in the syllabic writing of the cartouches in Ptolemaic times /3/ was chosen to represent the Greek "alpha", which is a definite "a" and no glottal stop. There has got to be a reason for this choice and the fact that /3/ was the equivalent of "aleph" in Hebrew in the place names. > > This is not clear to me! I don't > > believe the Egyptians ever had an /l/. They wouldn't be the only > > ones--Persian didn't have one, either. Most languages in Europe and > > around the Mediterranean area have both an "r" and an "l", but they are > > not interchangeable. Every time /r/ occurs at the beginning of a word, > > it is always "r" in Coptic. > > Yes, you are right. The example of the preposition "r" becoming vocalic > stems from the fact that it represented, not an intitial /r/ but a final > one. Many Old Kingdom and even some later writings of this prepostion > show {j} in initial position. I was not trying to suggest that initial > {r} dropped out, only that after the preposition had evolved into [a] it > could be used to represent the identical sound as the prothetic aleph in > verb forms. Of course, you are probably speaking of initial {3} in this > case. This is indeed problematic. I also find it confusing. As I said, it is seen in BBC "standard" English. Maybe it began as an affectation. Who knows? > > The only time "r" is written "l" in Coptic > > at the start of a word is when E23, the "recumbent lion" is the "r". So > > maybe E23 wasn't really a true "r" but a peculiar sound somewhere > > bewteen a weak "r" and a foreign "l". Geoff: > The use of the lion to represent /l/ only begins in very late times. > Previously it represented /rw/ and later /r/ in the syllabic orthography. > The Ptolemaic Period first made systematic use of the lion as /l/. Try to pronounce /rw/! It must have been something like "awoo" to even get to be an /l/ or a "lambda". Even the Coptic "laula" (for lambda) gives a clue as to the pronunciation (snip of good thoughts) > Please accept my usual apologies for being so > unconventional! ;-) > > Yours, Geoff Graham Ego te absolvo :-) because I admire people who dare to be unconventional and also because the last round has not been fought in Egyptian philology by a long way. It has been a process but we do seem to be sort of stuck in place right now. However, when things get *too* confusing, as in the case of the /3/, it seems to me a sure sign that something is wrong . Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:47:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Value of {j}: /'/ or /y/? Hi, Patrick, Thanks for your input. > For a slightly different view: I believe Egyptian always had the > phonetic value of , i.e. y --- ALTHOUGH it is cognate with AA ?/h/(I?(J/H > (dotted h). Yes, and these tend to point to the glottal stop, do they not? > The spelling "reed"+ "man with hand to mouth" stems not from foreign > word spelling -- as Geoff suggests -- but from the rather common use of > i for "say, utterance", and is EXACTLY analogous to the spelling of > "reed"+"spray of leaves" for i as reed(s), leaf/leaves. Yes, ultimately t does, but it is not used to spell words other than that particular one until the beginning of syllabic orthography. > An excellent example illustrating these assumptions is Coptic eio:te, > father, for it(i). Here, clearly, i = y ALTHOUGH the initial consonant > is cognate with AA/IE ? (cf. IE (?)atta, father). The example you cite is one of the very FEW exceptions. There are hardly very many words in Coptic which show {j} having become /y/. This word is an exception rather than the rule. Look also at coptic {eiOhe} meaning "field". This one is derived from 3H.t but it still produces this strange /y/. In fact, we can find more examples of {3} having become {ei} in Coptic than we can of its having become a glottal stop. The problem with which we are faced is that both {3} and {j} had for the most part fallen out of pronunciation at all by the time that the Greek alphabet was ever adopted. Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:30:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Pronunciation of sDm=f Hi, Stephen, Thanks for your input. > Trying to use Coptic evidence seems extremely chancy to me, since the sDm=f > conjugation had become obsolete already in Late Egyptian. No, the sDm=f survives throughout Demotic and appears in a few rare "Old Coptic" manuscripts as well, though these documents are not well understood and might be some kind of writing of an earlier stage of the language for magical purposes. Moreover, there are certain crystalized sDm=fs which do survive into Coptic in one form or another. For instance, all of the "t-causative" verbs. Remember that in Older Egyptian, you had to use a prospective sDm=f after "dj", thus "di msj.t" "cause to give birth" is "dj" "cause" + a prospective sDm=f of "msj.t" "give birth". In Coptic one finds {mesiO}, and the final {o} would have to derive from an accented /a/, probably a long one. Thus one can reconstruct that "she might give birth" would be realized something like "*misyAsu" or "*misyas" (if you do not posit a final vowel for the suffix ending). > I should say that I made no attempt to decide on vowel quality or quantity; > merely to discover how the words were divided into syllables, and where the > vowels occurred (although I developed a few GUESSES since then). Of course, having talked with you about this before, I know that you are already aware of the apparent fact that Egyptian (like classical Arabic) only had three vowels in both long and short form until the end of the Amarna Period: /a/, /A/, /i/, /I/, /u/, and /U/. Coptic is very helpful for determining which of these vowels might have been in which words. > I'm not sure what Ray is referring to by "indicative" - perhaps the Old > Egyptian past tense sDm=f which was obsolete in Middle Egyptian? > Likewise his Emphasizing - perhaps equivalent to Polotsky's Second Tense? Yes, in fact he is calling it the "preterite", which is of course a perfective form. No, not likely the "second tense". You should note also that the indicative/perfective sDm=f comes back into full use again in Late Egyptian and continues through the end of Demotic. Middle Egyptian is the only stage of the lnaguage which seems to use this form sparingly. > Anyway, a partial table of my conclusions (representing vowels by a > conventional "e"): > > Circumstantial Prospective Second Tense > > 3-lit. sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f > *seDemef *seDmef *seDemef > > 3-weak mr=f mry=f mrr=f > *mere(y)f *meryef *mereref > > 2-gem. qbb=f qb=f qbb=f > *qebebef *qebbef *qebebef I would point out here that your scheme is NOT in conflict with Ray's, since you have not attempted to give vowel quality or duration. I especially like the way you have handled the circumstantial which goes a long way toward explaining the lack of gemination and non-appearance of the weak consonant in 3rd weak verbs! Very nice! > The scheme was originally derived from the spelling of 2-gem. forms, but was > found to make considereable sense of the 3-weak verb spellings for > Circumstantial and Propsective forms - the Second Tense spelling I don't > understand. Variations in the spelling of the 3-weak Prospective in which a > "w" appears instead of a "y" probably reflects the origin of this class from > several other classes, including verbs originally ending in "y" and "w", > which were weakened into silence at the end of the root, but reappear when > they become the opening consonant of a syllable. This is rather like the > Hebrew "lamed-he" verbs. Yes, this is very good reasoning, indeed. It would be nice to look for more of the examples of third w verbs, because we seem to be missing some of them. > My own feeling (supported by both Hoch and Gardiner) is that if the > Egyptians wrote a consonant twice it meant they were heard separately, ie > they had a vowel between them, otherwise the wrote only one. This applies > also to unpointed Hebrew spellings. Yes, and I think it is an indication especially that there was an accented long vowel between the two consonants. Here is the vocalization that I imagine has taken place: The basic infinitive of a verb was probably originally *sADim or *sADum, based on Coptic {sOtm} and {sOtem} (Coptic long /O/ derives from older Egyptian long /A/.). When a suffix was added to it, the rules for long and short vowels caused the long vowel to have to become shortened, giving *saDmuf or some such (Egyptian syllables with long vowels could never be closed by a consonant.). (short /i/ and /u/ both produced Coptic {e} so we are at great pains to know precisely which of the two filled these slots.) Ray's assertion that the vowel was /u/ is based on his belief that in the nominative case, the verbal noun/infinitive should realize this vowel as did other Afroasiatic languages. However, whether or not Middle Egyptian still possessed case endings is somewhat doubtful, but an earlier stage most probably did, and the sDm=f might have been crystalized during such a time. The rest of his thesis involves the sDm=f going through the other two cases. This is the weakest part of his argument. However, it can, as I have pointed out above be demonstrated that the prospective sDm=f did in all likelyhood have an /A/ ending; most all of the t-causative verbs will attest to that. As for which vowel was used in the circumstantial, he is just guessing that it might have been /i/ because it fits with his thoughts on case endings. I know it seems rather strange, but it is not entirely out of the question. Our problem mostly lies in the fact that both /i/ and /u/ had degenerated into a generic /e/ and we can not tell which vowel was the original in most cases. Mostly, Stephen, I do not see anything in your scheme with which I would disagree in the least. You are probably right to remain cautious about deciding on vowel quality and length until you have studied the relationship between Coptic vocalization to earlier stages. Even those of us who have studied this, feel a little bit reluctant to be overly secure in our postulations. Mostly, I just have to say that you have done an excellent job. But, where was your particular point of disagreement with the system proposed by Ray? I must have missed it? ;-) Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:29:28 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL Re'hotep Marianne typed: snipped some leaving: >As luck would have it, I don't have a single picture of Rahotep here >where all the glyphs can be seen! Hi Marianne I do have a picture of Rahotep in which all the glyphs are present although the lighting could have been better and the printing process has made for rather dubious identification of some of them. However, in the hope that it might help..... The glyphs are arranged in two sets of 3 vertical registers, each set being above and behind one of Rahotep's shoulders. Unless the prints have been reversed, often the case, facing page they read from right to left. The text is unlike that of Nofret in that the left set does not repeat the right although having said that, the final register on the left, ending with the name of Rahotep, is identical to the final register on the right. Spaces indicate following below, dashes indicate following left, colon indicates following below but within same linespace, parentheses indicate note. RIGHT SHOULDER Register 1: G36 U1-O28 W24-O49 (Aa14) G36 O22 T7 S29-S44 Register 2: (M40)-A19 (Aa14) G36 N37/39 Q3-O49 N35 G1/4 Register 3: X1-M23 G38/39 N35 F32 X1 I9 D21 D36 R4 X1-Q3 LEFT SHOULDER Register 1: G36 N35 Q3-X1:(O49) G17 D21 (M17)-(A9) V13 X1 Register 2: (G17) D21 N37/39 D36 (A12) U23/27-X1:U1-(N34) Register 3: As RIGHT Register 3 Notes: Aa14 in R register 1 and 2 is closest match M40 in R register 2 could be the O.K. vertical Y2 or Aa29 O49 in L register 1 could be O50 or Aa1 M17 in L register 1 is closest match, seems to be a reed A9 in L register 1 basket is quite a bit larger than in Gardiner G17 in L register 2 has a squared head but quite sleek A12 in L register 2 is closest match, bow seems to point towards man N34 in L register 2 is closest match, I can't make any sense out of it but I hope this is of some help. Regards Marc ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:51:26 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Value of {j}: /'/ or /y/? Graham wrote: > > Hi, Patrick, > > Thanks for your input. > > > For a slightly different view: I believe Egyptian always had the > > phonetic value of , i.e. y --- ALTHOUGH it is cognate with AA ?/h/(I?(J/H > > (dotted h). > > Yes, and these tend to point to the glottal stop, do they not? Dear Geoff: I do not understand your point here. Egyptian i represents ALL of these: ?/h/(I?(J/H so that in Arabic, which preserves them, Egyptian i will show up as ? or h or (I?(J or H. The glottal stop (?) is only ONE of the sounds Egyptian i represents. There seems to be no reason to give this reflex any kind of a preferred status. > > > The spelling "reed"+ "man with hand to mouth" stems not from foreign > > word spelling -- as Geoff suggests -- but from the rather common use of > > i for "say, utterance", and is EXACTLY analogous to the spelling of > > "reed"+"spray of leaves" for i as reed(s), leaf/leaves. > > Yes, ultimately it does, but it is not used to spell words other than that > particular one until the beginning of syllabic orthography. > Nor does i + "spray of leaves". The reason is straightforwardly simple: i BY ITSELF had the reading of /j(a)/. Unless a Volksetymologie indicated that another word was a compound of i ("say") with some secind element, there would be no reason to use the "man with hand to mouth" determinative. > > An excellent example illustrating these assumptions is Coptic eio:te, > > father, for it(i). Here, clearly, i = y ALTHOUGH the initial consonant > > is cognate with AA/IE ? (cf. IE (?)atta, father). > > The example you cite is one of the very FEW exceptions. But very important exceptions: i(i), come = Coptic ei! There are hardly > very many words in Coptic which show {j} having become /y/. I suggest you look at Cerny, pp. 44-49. There are many IMPORTANT ones: e.g. eio:, wash = i'; eibe, thirst = ib(i); eine, bring = in(i); eipn, this = ipn; eire, make = ir(i); eis, behold = is. This word is > an exception rather than the rule. I would like to see this proved rather than merely asserted. Look also at coptic {eiOhe} meaning > "field". This one is derived from 3H.t but it still produces this strange > /y/. 3H.t is not the precursor of eio:he; rather it is iH.t, field (Budge I, 75; W$BB(J, mistakenly under 'H; Faulkner in iHt.t, land tax). In fact, we can find more examples of {3} having become {ei} in > Coptic than we can of its having become a glottal stop. Could you offer some examples? The problem with > which we are faced is that both {3} and {j} had for the most part fallen > out of pronunciation at all by the time that the Greek alphabet was ever > adopted. While this is undoubtedly true for 3 it is absolutely NOT true for i! > > Geoff Graham > sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:15:13 -0400 (EDT) From: DPeregrine@aol.com To: Subject: AEL Hypocorisms, "good names" Interested in collecting a list of these, especially for 18th dynasty but also farther back, into Middle Kingdom if possible. Do you know of anyone who has done a study or paper on these? So far I'm just picking them up as bits and pieces. Please reply to DPeregrine@aol.com ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:56:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Hi, Marianne, Thank you for your very interesting note. I think that if you pursue the subject you will go far. At the end of this post I have included a list of some of the important works on the subject if you are interested. And, I know that you will be, given your talents and enthusiasm. I think that the purposes of the list will be best served by providing a bit of bibliography, so do not take it as a personal slight that I go listing books to you without your having asked for them. ;-) > to show me the light and convince me, but so far I'm still confused. I > would guess that the tendancy for the /3/ to become "weak" was already > well under way in Middle Egyptian. So didn't the Akkadian > correspendences date from the New Kingdom? As far as I gather {3} remained completely strong throughout Middle Egyptian. There were two different syllabic orthographies employed by the Egyptians. The earlier one used {3} to represent /r/ and /l/. The Later New Kingdom one used it to represent some instances of /'/. As for the cuneiform side of things, I just don't know enough to cite the sources, however, it was made very clear in a recent Yale course in the historical linguistics of Egyptian that Earlier cuneiform writings of Egyptian words exhibited /r/ and /l/ in the place of {3}. The archives about which you are probably thinking date to the New Kingdom however, and I am not sure how they delt with this sound. James Hoch wrote a very comprehensive book on the Semitic words borrowed into Egyptian. I am sure he knows many of the answers to these questions if he is monitoring the list at this point in time. > This sort of thing is not uncommon in linguistics. For example, Yiddish > is an Old German dialect. It has "milner" for "miller" whereas later > German has "muller" with an umlaut. The same discrepancy is seen in > many other words. This time, the "n" gradually disappeared, but it could > have happened the other way around as well. I would not pay too much > attention to "m33" becoming "m33n". All this indicates to me is that is > sounded nasal and was later written ever more nasally. {Diverging briefly from the list topic} In colloquial Arabic dialects it is extremely common even today. BurtuqAl "orange" is often realized as burtu'An, and finjAl "cup" as fingAn. I believe there are many other instances which pepper the Semitic languages. Light /l/ often can become /n/ in certain phonetic environments. > We can't just toss aside the fact that in the syllabic writing of the > cartouches in Ptolemaic times /3/ was chosen to represent the Greek > "alpha", which is a definite "a" and no glottal stop. There has got to > be a reason for this choice and the fact that /3/ was the equivalent of > "aleph" in Hebrew in the place names. The Ptolemaic orthography was developed in a period when Demotic was the standard norm for Egyptian. Demotic had already entirely lost the consonantal character of {3} and conceived of it as a vowel. Therefore the Ptolemaic cartouches are simply irrelevant to the question because they were not recorded in a period contemporary with strong {3}... sad but true. > Try to pronounce /rw/! It must have been something like "awoo" to even > get to be an /l/ or a "lambda". Even the Coptic "laula" (for lambda) > gives a clue as to the pronunciation Well, you are probably right, the pronunciation of the sign would have come pretty close to an /l/ in certain cases where no vowel intervened between the /r/ and /w/. Surely this is why it was chosen to represent this sound in the Demotic script, and hence in the Ptolemaic. The problem was, as I believe it, that the original /l/s had fallen out, and secondary ones had cropped up as modifications of certain instances of/r/ and /n/. On the other hand, those who subscribe to the theory that {3} did not represent /l/ believe that /l/ had simply been an alomorph (alternate value without phonemic or semantic value) of both /n/ and /r/. The fact that various /n/s and /r/s did develop into /l/ is possible confirmation of this idea, but it does not preclude that {3} had originally held this value at an earlier date and slowly lost it either. I fully understand your confusion and reluctance to accept these theories. I was extremely resistant to them myself when I first began to learn about them. However, over time, and with more and more exposure to the data, I have become convinced of their veracity. I do not totally exclude the possiblity that {3} might have represented some kind of /r/, but I am entirely sure that this sound was a liquid which lost its value some time during the New Kingdom. My biggest problem in accepting the theory was my extreme attachemnt to {j}'s value as /y/. I really did not want to let go of that. The development of my thinking in this area was finally turned around when, last year I was asked to write a paper on the subject. I decided that I would take a new approach to the question and apply root patterning theory, like what has been done in the Semitic disciplines. I figured that if certain phonemes tended to group themselves with others in verbal roots while avoiding others, then one might be able to determine something about the character of the sounds involved. So, I began by reading an article by P.J. Watson (in the H. W. Fairman Festschrift) in which he had made three useful charts of root patterning in Egyptian. Next, using Watson's charts, I did a statistical analysis of which root consonants {3} and {j} tended to group next to, and in which positions, then I did the same for all the consonants which they clearly avoided. Finally I analyzed all the other consonants which behaved in similar fashion. The end result was that in all three positions (initial, medial, and final) {3} behaved like a front articulated voiced fricative, possibly indicating a value like /l/ or /r/, and {j} behaved like a back articulated voiceless stop, probably indicating that it had been a glottal stop. Because these conclusions matched with those of several other scholars who had used different methods, I was ultimately forced to concede that these values were necessarily correct. I would like to redo my research again at some point using a controlled sample only from Old Egyptian and containing nominal roots as well as verbal ones to see what I come up with then. However, I have not had time to spend on collecting the data up til now, because I have been in the thick of courses here. Moreover, my main area of research now is in Egyptian religious iconography, and I have unfinished projects in which I have strong obligations. Do not feel bad for disagreeing, many people still do. You are not alone by any means. I was right in your camp a little more than a year ago. If you are interested enough in the issue, you might attempt some analysis of your own, but you will need to do lots of reading and collect lots of cogent examples and data in order to prove anything. Of course, we should not "re-invent the wheel" all the time either, as has been so often pointed out on this list of late. You might start with Helmut Satsinger's "Das Aegyptische <>-Phonem", unfortunately I only have a typed version of the article but I believe it was destined for the Thausing Festschrift. Please pardon the length of the following list, but I wanted to be helpful ;-)! You should also read: Schenkel, W. _Zur Rekonstruktion der deverbalen Nominalbildung des Aegyptischen_ Osing, J. _Die Nominalbilding des aegyptischen_ Cermak, W. _Die Laute der aegyptischen Sprache_ Lacau, P. _Phonetique egyptienne ancienne_ Sethe, K. _Das aegyptische Verbum_ Vergote, J. _Phonetique historique de l'egyptienne_ and _La phonetique de l'egyptien ancien_ Worrell, W. _Coptic Sounds_ Maspero, G. _Introduction a l'etude de la phonetique egyptienne_ Hoch, J. _Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period_ Fecht, G. _Wortakzent und Silbenstruktur_ Ember, A. "Semito-Egyptian Sound-changes" in ZAS 49 Cohen, M. _Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonetique de Chamito-Semitique_ Callender, J. "Middle Egyptian" in _Afroasiatic Dialects_ Albright, W. _The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography_ There is also much good work my Erman, but I can't dig up the title at the moment. I am sure I am leaving off many other important works as well. Maybe other people monitoring will be able to add to the list. Pardon my lenghtiness, and definitely have fun searching for answers to your questions! ;-) Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:58:49 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Saida wrote: > > Graham wrote: > > > > Hi, Marianne, > > > > > vernacular of Dynasties 18 to 24. Of all the "semi-vowels" or "weak > > > consonants" I find the *vulture* or /3/ most confusing. What made > > > scholars believe it was an /l/? > One of the largest hurdles in Egyptian philology is the assumption that Egyptian SHOULD share Semitic characteristics. On the contrary, Egyptian separated from Afro-Asiatic BEFORE such characteristically Semitic phoneomena as vowel-patterning came into existence. An areal phenomenon that did affect Egyptian particularly decisively is the differentiation of consonants into two classes: those before a/e; and those before o. The consonants before -o developed in many AA languages into emphatics, which are variations of "retroflex" articulations known to us from South Indian languages most familiarly. Thus, Egyptian d represents AA t(h)/t(')a/e while Egyptian t represents AA t(h)/t(')o; the contrast between aspiration (h) and glottalization (') was neutralized in Egyptian. This is the explanation for the pair 3 and r, both representing AA /r(h)/. Egyptian 3 represents AA r(h)a/e, a trilled r, produced in the front of the mouth. Egyptian r represents AA r(h)o, a flap r, produced in the back of the mouth. Dialectal variations of VOWEL produced spellings of alternating 3/r. Several languages (in Africa, and around the world) change an /r/ to /l/ before a back vowel (o/u), and the variation of Coptic vocalization for r(w) between r/l reflects this situation. However, unless from a dialect where ra/e had become ro, Egyptian 3 can NEVER represent /l/. This /l/ is probably a dark /l/, similar to the back l's found in Slavic languages. The ligature nr is meant to represent an /l/ since what n and r have in common is an alternative /l/-pronunciation. The /l/-pronunciation is n is the mirror opposite of r. It stems from a denasalized palatal n, and so represents a palatalized /l/, l(y). Another ligature that contains the reflexes of a palatalized n is Egyptian nn (wave-wave or two drooping stems), which represents not *nVn but *iVn(i). As for the use of 3 and i to represent initials in later Egyptian transcriptions of foreign names, 3 would have been suited to represent ?V since it probably sounded like 0V to unfamiliar listeners; Semitic words that began with y or (I?(J would have been represented by i. What would be important in the context of Hebrew transcriptions would be to determine whether the Hebrew word etymologically began with ? or y/(I?(J. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:46:46 -0400 (EDT) From: To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop The Helmut Satzinger article Goeff referred to did indeed appear in the Thausing Festschrift: *Zwischen den Beiden Ewigkeiten. Festschrift Gertrud Thausing* ed. by Manfred Bietak, et al. (Vienna, 1994), 191-205. Gerald E. Kadish Professor of History and Near Eastern Studies Department of History Binghamton University (SUNY) Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 (607) 777-2488 e-mail: kadishg@binghamton.edu ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:53:19 +0000 Subject: AEL Hieroglyphic text of Hatshepsut's Obelisk. We seem to have reached a natural break with the Westcar Papyrus, so rather than go straight on to page 2, it might be interesting to have a look at something different (and hopefully a little easier ;-)). Al Berens has very kindly prepared a hieroglyphic text for us from Hatshepsut's Obelisk at Karnak. The text is based on slides of the obelisk taken by Al himself. The text is in four parts, taken from the west, south, north, and east faces of the obelisk respectively. One interesting thing is that the North face inscription appears to have a non-Gardiner sign in line 4. Maybe someone on the list can identify it? Once again I'd suggest that we should break up the text into small chunks, with no single person translating more than 1 or 2 sentences. As before, please also make it clear which part of the text you are referring to. For example, in the subject heading, you could put something like: Hatshepsut's Obelisk, North face lines 1-2 etc. The line numbers, for easy reference, refer to the lines of our text on the web page. As always, you can reach the AEL web page by pointing your web browser at http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/ You may need to hit "Reload" if the Hatshepsut link doesn't appear. Finally, I would also ask that those of you who submitted translations of the Westar text should not submit translations of the Obelisk text (at least until a few others have had a go). It would be wonderful if we could encourage some people who have not yet contributed to have an attempt at a translation. Even if you can only manage few words, just go for it, and post your attempt to the list! It doesn't matter if you make a mistake or two. Whatever happens, I'm sure we'll all learn something from it!! And above all, have fun..!! Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:22:21 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Dear Geoff, Thank you for your encouragement and the bibliography you included. Hoepefully, I will be able to get hold of some of these titles and, yesterday, I was compelled to order A. Loprieno's book, which I meant to do for some time. About both "l" and "r" being represented by {3}--which I have a problem with--I came across something in my "archives" that I thought you and other list members might be interested in. It was written on another list by Joan Stanley-Baker: " Native Japanese speakers have a singular admixture (of "r" and "l") in their phonetic system (r/la, r/li, r/lu, r/le, r/lo) where it is neither purely r or l, and different speakers stress one or the other. But when HEARING and repeating English they tend to veer toward the r sound, (frequent-ry)." Perhaps there is something here that applies to Egyptian as well. It is certainly a mystery (but then I have always liked mysteries). However, I am not so sure we will ever solve these phonological riddles. That's why, whenever I see an Egyptian mummy, I feel like banging on the glass case and demanding, "Don't just lie there--say something!" ;-0 > > This sort of thing is not uncommon in linguistics. For example, >>Yiddish is an Old German dialect. It has "milner" for "miller" >>whereas later German has "muller" with an umlaut. The same >>discrepancy is seen in many other words. This time, the "n" gradually >>disappeared, but it could have happened the other way around as well. >> I would not pay too much attention to "m33" becoming "m33n". All >>this indicates to me is that is sounded nasal and was later written >>even more nasally. I would just like to add to this that Yiddish (a mixture of Old German and Hebrew) is such an old language that, for a basically IE tongue, it retains some very antiquated ways of saying things. That's why those Egyptian particles, sometimes intranslatable in English, don't phase me--I'm used to them. Example: "Tsi veyst Ihr wer ich bin?" (Do you know who I am?) becomes in later German "Wissen Sie wer ich bin?" The particle "tsi" has long become lost. > > > We can't just toss aside the fact that in the syllabic writing of the > > cartouches in Ptolemaic times /3/ was chosen to represent the Greek > > "alpha", which is a definite "a" and no glottal stop. There has got to > > be a reason for this choice and the fact that /3/ was the equivalent of > > "aleph" in Hebrew in the place names. Geoff: > The Ptolemaic orthography was developed in a period when Demotic was the > standard norm for Egyptian. Demotic had already entirely lost the > consonantal character of {3} and conceived of it as a vowel. Therefore > the Ptolemaic cartouches are simply irrelevant to the question because > they were not recorded in a period contemporary with strong {3}... sad but > true. The cartouches are very late, true, but perhaps not entirely irrelevant. What they are is just a continuum of what was already occurring as far back as the time of Thutmose III--the writing of foreign places and terms employing the {3} as an "aleph" or other indicated vowel. So this is what I question. This is where my problem with {3} lies: At what point (between appr. which dynasties) did {3} cease to be a strong "r" or "l"? Can someone just show me one or two examples of words in which {3} can definitely be seen to represent either "r" or "l"? That's all I need to help me get started understanding what's going on. However, something along these lines won't help: b3q (bright, white)--Semitic "baraq" (shining) (however "b3q" was usually not written with the *vulture* but another sign. I have seen it written with an /r/ as well) bk3 (morning)--Semitic "bakir" or "boker" of the same meaning k3m (vineyard)--Semitic "karm" or "kerem" of the same meaning etc. Because I have already written: >Yes, it's easy to see how people would deduce from this that /3/ was an >"r", but, on the other hand, one could also rationalize that Egyptians >(like the British) didn't like a strong "r" except at the beginning of >a word and just omitted the "r" the Semitic cognates contained! I suppose what I need is to see some proof that {3}, at the beginning of a word or place or person's name can be seen to represent "r" or "l". Because I believe that the initial letter or glyph is least likely to see any distortion (just as the first "r" in the word "rare" in British English is strong, the second second sort of disappears). Once I see this, I'll shut up and meekly accept the truth :-> Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:10:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Hi, Pat, Thanks for the response. > One of the largest hurdles in Egyptian philology is the assumption that > Egyptian SHOULD share Semitic characteristics. On the contrary, Egyptian > separated from Afro-Asiatic BEFORE such characteristically Semitic > phoneomena as vowel-patterning came into existence. Yes, the two branches of Afroasiatic separated long ago, and they DID have rather separate developments. There are many areas of divergence as well as many areas of similarity. We have to look very closely to make the best judgment calls we can. > An areal phenomenon that did affect Egyptian particularly decisively is > the differentiation of consonants into two classes: those before a/e; > and those before o. The consonants before -o developed in many AA > languages into emphatics, which are variations of "retroflex" > articulations known to us from South Indian languages most familiarly. Yes, this is true. Egyptian did have its emphatic consonants though. > Thus, Egyptian d represents AA t(h)/t(')a/e while Egyptian t represents > AA t(h)/t(')o; the contrast between aspiration (h) and glottalization > (') was neutralized in Egyptian. There is still debate about the exact nature of the distinction. Some would say it is a matter of aspiration and others would maintian that it is a matter of emphaticness. I believe in the emphatic values personally. > This is the explanation for the pair 3 and r, both representing AA > /r(h)/. Egyptian 3 represents AA r(h)a/e, a trilled r, produced in the > front of the mouth. Egyptian r represents AA r(h)o, a flap r, produced > in the back of the mouth. Yes, this has been suggested. Pierre Lacau also believed that the pair was between {3} and {j} with {3} representing the glottal stop as a stong click while {j} represented it with a light click. As you know I do not particularly agree with him. {3} was indeed probably a front articulated consonant, and might have been trilled as you suggest. The only problem I see with this argument is that it would more likely have remained while {r} would have been the more likely candidate for extinction in this scenario. > Dialectal variations of VOWEL produced spellings of alternating 3/r. > > Several languages (in Africa, and around the world) change an /r/ to > /l/ before a back vowel (o/u), and the variation of Coptic vocalization > for r(w) between r/l reflects this situation. This is a very useful and astute observation which we should all keep in mind. > However, unless from a dialect where ra/e had become ro, Egyptian 3 can > NEVER represent /l/. This sounds interesting. Can you elaborate it further? I am not sure I follow you. I mean present an example or two that will demonstrate the point, because I am not sure I get it. I would like to though. > This /l/ is probably a dark /l/, similar to the back l's found in Slavic > languages. > > The ligature nr is meant to represent an /l/ since what n and r have in > common is an alternative /l/-pronunciation. Undoubtedly, you are quite right. > The /l/-pronunciation is n is the mirror opposite of r. It stems from a > denasalized palatal n, and so represents a palatalized /l/, l(y). This makes good sense too. > Another ligature that contains the reflexes of a palatalized n is > Egyptian nn (wave-wave or two drooping stems), which represents not *nVn > but *iVn(i). Interesting. How did you come to this conclusion though? I am interested. > As for the use of 3 and i to represent initials in later Egyptian > transcriptions of foreign names, 3 would have been suited to represent > ?V since it probably sounded like 0V to unfamiliar listeners; Semitic > words that began with y or (I?(J would have been represented by i. What > would be important in the context of Hebrew transcriptions would be to > determine whether the Hebrew word etymologically began with ? or y/(I?(J. As for this last idea, it will be necessary to discern between the two systems employed for syllabic orthography. What you are saying does not seem to be applicable to the Middle Kingdom system since that system used {3} for /r/ and /l/, but it might apply to the New Kingdom system. However, by the New Kingdom the value of {3} may well have been considerably altered. Yours, Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 17:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Value of {j} VERY LONG! Hi, Pat, Thanks for your interesting feedback. I see that you have been doing your research. > I do not understand your point here. Egyptian i represents ALL of these: > ?/h/(I?(J/H so that in Arabic, which preserves them, Egyptian i will show up > as ? or h or (I?(J or H. The glottal stop (?) is only ONE of the sounds > Egyptian i represents. There seems to be no reason to give this reflex > any kind of a preferred status. No, it represented one value (but maybe with an allophone of one other value by our reckoning (probably /'/ and some instances of /y/)). However, in comparative Afroasiatics, one finds that it CAN correspond to all of the above mentioned values. > Nor does i + "spray of leaves". The reason is straightforwardly simple: > i BY ITSELF had the reading of /j(a)/. Unless a Volksetymologie > indicated that another word was a compound of i ("say") with some secind > element, there would be no reason to use the "man with hand to mouth" > determinative. Yes there is a good reason, and that is that in the syllabic orthography most of the signs employed came in pairs or groups, and this helped to indicate to Egyptian readers that they were reading a foreign word rather than a native Egyptian one. You will note that the syllabic orthography also had a few other group writings that can be said technically to begin with {j} and these probably represented /'/ with different vowels after it. See Albright's book which I mentioned in my previous post. He explains it quite well there. > But very important exceptions: i(i), come = Coptic ei! {ei} was prounounced as a vowel. So this is not the best possible example. Why do you assert this so strongly when more examples can be found that either ignore it altogether or indicate that it had been a glottal stop? Just from a cursory glance at my dictionaries, I was able to come up with this rather long list of words which derive from lexemes beginning with {j} and which do NOT indicate any value of /y/. I also found a few which do, and I will list them in a separate group below. This list does not even take into account words which had {j} in positions other than initial. I simply did not have enough time to search them out just now. jrj=f {aaf} "do it" jrj.t {eire} "do" (The initial sound is a glottal stop followed by the vowel /I/!) jw {e} circumstantializing morpheme jbw {abE} "cord" jbT.t {abO} "net" jtmw {AOm} "Atum" jwty {at} "without" j3r.t {eloole} "grape" jmn {amoun} "Amun" jmnt.t {amnte} "Hades" (coming from "west") jnk {anok} "I" jnq {ankoki} "embrace" jnn {anon} "we" jp.t {ape} "head" (coming from "brow") jp3 {apei} "red dye" jp=s {aps} "number" jpt {apot} "cup" js {aas} "old" jsw {asou} "exchange value" jzj {asai} "be light of weight" jsw.wy {asoui} "purse"/"scrotum" j3d.t {ate} "filet" jwn {auon} "color" jn.w {auan} "tribute" jx {a} "which?" jwf {af} "flesh/meat" jhj {aha} "yes" jhm {ahom} "sigh" jr {e}, {ero=} "toward" jpjp {epEp} "Epiphi" (month name) jrp {Erp} "wine" jrT.t {erOte} "milk" jr.y {erEu} "companion" j3w {eoou} "glory" je} "vegetable" jj.t {ei} "come" ({ei}= /'I/) jbj.t {eibe} and {obe} "thirst" ({ei}= /'I/) jnj.t {eine} "bring" ({ei}= /'I/) js {eis} "behold" ({ei}= /'I/) jwdn {eitn} "ground" ({ei}= /'I/) j} "rob" > I suggest you look at Cerny, pp. 44-49. There are many IMPORTANT ones: > e.g. eio:, wash = i'; eibe, thirst = ib(i); eine, bring = in(i); eipn, > this = ipn; eire, make = ir(i); eis, behold = is. Except for {eiO} none of your other examples represent a /y/, but mereley the vowel /I/ and most likely after the glottal stop. Yes, I am sure he has found some because such words do exist, but they are not nearly as common as the other type of evidence. Here are a few that I found in my previous endeavor: j3b.t.y {eiebt} "east" jr.t {eia} "eye" j I would like to see this proved rather than merely asserted. There is no need to become antagonistic. If we do not agree it is really OK, is it not? I am tryig to comply with your desire for evidence in this post. You might also want to read a bit of the recent work in some of the articles and books I cited last time to Marianne. > 3H.t is not the precursor of eio:he; rather it is iH.t, field (Budge I, > 75; W$BB(J, mistakenly under 'H; Faulkner in iHt.t, land tax). jH.t only occurs in late contexts and is probably derived from In fact, we can find more examples of {3} having become {ei} in > > Coptic than we can of its having become a glottal stop. > > Could you offer some examples? OK, here are a few more: 3bw {eiEb} "Elephantine" 3s {iOs} "hasten" 3x.w {eiah} "ray of light" <3 {aiai} "become great" ai} "become numerous" h3 {hai} "husband" wD3 {ouai} "become saved" (from "become whole") I just don't have time to look them all up, but I know Erman gave a good list of them, I believe it was in his _Aegyptische Grammatik_. > While this is undoubtedly true for 3 it is absolutely NOT true for i! Why do you assert that? I see more evidence for its having fallen than evidence for its survival, but just show me my error, and I will be happily convinced. As I mentioned to Marianne, I really wanted to believe that {j} represented /y/ during most of my life's studies of Egyptian, but I just have not been able to keep myself convinced that this was true having studied all stages of Egyptian now, and having read a good deal of the literature on the subject. I realize that it is very difficult to accept. I racked my brains over this very question for many years, and ultimately had to give in. You will of course have to find your own way in the matter, and you are of course also quite entitled to your opinions. You should be heartened to know that you are not alone in your opinions in this matter. There are still a few Egyptologists who think as you do, but they are becoming rarer as time passes. This does not of course mean that they are necessarily wrong, and I do not suggest that you ARE wrong. I only do not personlly aggree anymore. So, no hard feelings need be intended in the least. Enjoy your quest for the truth! Yours, Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:46:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Luxor3@aol.com To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Value of {j}: /'/ or /y/? What does this message mean...I've not received one like it on this list before. LMKordus ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:01:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Luxor3@aol.com To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Why are these messages appearing all of a sudden? ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:05:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Luxor3@aol.com To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Value of {j}: /'/ or /y/? Why this message? ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:46:18 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL Hieroglyphic text of Hatshepsut's Obelisk. Hi Mark You asked: >One interesting thing is that the >North face inscription appears to have a non-Gardiner sign in line 4. >Maybe someone on the list can identify it? The "cowrie shell" which Al refers to seems to be the Gardiner F44, described as "leg bone with adjoining meat." It has a phonetic value of iwa and in line 4 of the North face of the Hatshepsut Obelisk is used in the sequence m isw which means, "in return... / (as payment for...)." Resisting the temptation to go further. I hope this helps Best regards Marc X ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 02:33:51 -0500 (CDT) To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: mjj@netins.net (Mary Jo Jackel) Subject: Re: AEL Hieroglyphic text of Hatshepsut's Obelisk. Mark, The sign in line four on the north side of Hatshepsut's Obelisk at Karnak looks to me like Gardiner's F44 (isw or iwa ?). Am I mistaken? ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 03:11:12 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Dear Graham: Thank you for your comments. I have interwoven a few additional comments where applicable. Graham wrote: > > > An areal phenomenon that did affect Egyptian particularly decisively is > > the differentiation of consonants into two classes: those before a/e; > > and those before o. The consonants before -o developed in many AA > > languages into emphatics, which are variations of "retroflex" > > articulations known to us from South Indian languages most familiarly. > > Yes, this is true. Egyptian did have its emphatic consonants though. > > > Thus, Egyptian d represents AA t(h)/t(')a/e while Egyptian t represents > > AA t(h)/t(')o; the contrast between aspiration (h) and glottalization > > (') was neutralized in Egyptian. > > There is still debate about the exact nature of the distinction. Some > would say it is a matter of aspiration and others would maintian that it > is a matter of emphaticness. I believe in the emphatic values personally. > I am not suggesting that Egyptian DID have "emphatic" consonants only that consonants before a/e and before o diverged in development ANALAGOUS to the differentiation of plain and "emphatic" consonants in other languages. Actually, I think Egyptian d was phonetically /t/ while Egyptian t eventually developed into /th/. > > This is the explanation for the pair 3 and r, both representing AA > > /r(h)/. Egyptian 3 represents AA r(h)a/e, a trilled r, produced in the > > front of the mouth. Egyptian r represents AA r(h)o, a flap r, produced > > in the back of the mouth. > > Yes, this has been suggested. Pierre Lacau also believed that the pair > was between {3} and {j} with {3} representing the glottal stop as a stong > click while {j} represented it with a light click. As you know I do not > particularly agree with him. {3} was indeed probably a front articulated > consonant, and might have been trilled as you suggest. The only problem I > see with this argument is that it would more likely have remained while > {r} would have been the more likely candidate for extinction in this > scenario. > I do not believe that the glottal stop (?) existed in earliest Egyptian since AA ?/h/(I?(J/H all fell together in oldest Egyptian i (when from Ca/e) and h (when from Co). I believe that 3 eventually became simple aspiration (trilled "r" minus the trill, leaving simple aspiration). It is for this reason that the ligature i3 was for i:. 3 became the simple designation for a long foreign vowel. See, e.g. Albright p. 38, where the a: of (I?(Jakka: is rendered by k3. Egyptian ', originally the o-variety of /ts/ (against D = tsa/e), did eventually become the glottal stop (?). After the demise of 3 as a trilled r, Egyptian r was trilled. > > However, unless from a dialect where ra/e had become ro, Egyptian 3 can > > NEVER represent /l/. > > This sounds interesting. Can you elaborate it further? I am not sure I > follow you. I mean present an example or two that will demonstrate the > point, because I am not sure I get it. I would like to though. A good example is the word we have briefly discussed: i3r(r).t, grape(-vine). For etymological reasons, I presume the original form to have been *i3r.t, and Budge preserves spellings in this form (I, p. 21). This would also constitute the "traditional" spelling. In some important dialect, the word was unetymologically pronounced *irr.t; and the scribes, always at pains to preserve the old with the new, wrote i3rr.t, simultaneously preserving the earlier traditional spelling and the contemporaneous phonetic reality. The Coptic dialect from which we have the transcription represents r as l. > > Another ligature that contains the reflexes of a palatalized n is > > Egyptian nn (wave-wave or two drooping stems), which represents not *nVn > > but *iVn(i). > > Interesting. How did you come to this conclusion though? I am > interested. Since we have such a wonderful corpus of Egyptian vocabulary, and since Egyptian is related to IE through Nostratic, I assume that -- oftener than not --- an Egyptian word will have an IE cognate. In this case, a group of IE words of the form *el(ei)-, meaning 'bend' ('droop'), seems indicated as the cognate. From a base *eli:/i-, we have derivatives meaning 'weak', and 'rest', 'sink down'. Actually, I miswrote above. The n is not palatalized but originally aspirated, producing l in IE BUT n in Egyptian (from ?a-n(h)o-(I?(Je). As for the reading *in for nn, I believe that the jar was also originally read in(w) so that alternate spellings with or supplemented by the jar indicate an original reading of *in. If nni(i) occurred in Coptic (and I do not see it in Crumm), I would expect something like *eini or *ani. > > > As for the use of 3 and i to represent initials in later Egyptian > > transcriptions of foreign names, 3 would have been suited to represent > > ?V since it probably sounded like 0V to unfamiliar listeners; Semitic > > words that began with y or (I?(J would have been represented by i. What > > would be important in the context of Hebrew transcriptions would be to > > determine whether the Hebrew word etymologically began with ? or y/(I?(J. > > As for this last idea, it will be necessary to discern between the two > systems employed for syllabic orthography. What you are saying does not > seem to be applicable to the Middle Kingdom system since that system used > {3} for /r/ and /l/, Rather than indicating a dual employment of 3 for /r/ and /l/, what this probably means is that there were two pronunciations of the foreign name, one with /r/ and another with /l/. Egyptian became familiar with the r-version. but it might apply to the New Kingdom system. > However, by the New Kingdom the value of {3} may well have been > considerably altered. We should never forget the great spans of time encompassed by the Egyptian language, and the inevitability of change. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:19:40 +0100 (NFT) From: Dr X Subject: Re: AEL Re'hotep To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Hi Marianne and Marc, first of all thanks for paying attention to my question. Also the photograph I have is not very clear but clear enough to distinguish 'medium-size' details. Marc reported in a previous message the sequence of glyphs in the six registers. There are a couple of amendments I would like to do at the description he makes. > RIGHT SHOULDER > Register 1: > G36 U1-O28 W24-O49 (Aa14) G36 O22 T7 S29-S44 Aa14 looks more like Aa17 but the bottom has a triangular shape The register starts then with 'wr-m3 Register 2: > (M40)-A19 (Aa14) G36 N37/39 Q3-O49 N35 G1/4 M40 is the actual one as the protruding part is not in the middle but slightly below A19 could be A20 - the stick seems to be bifurcated at the bottom Aa14 the same as above In this register I couldn't group even two glyphs. Aaaargh. > Register 3: > X1-M23 G38/39 N35 F32 X1 I9 D21 D36 R4 X1-Q3 X1-M23 G38 and perhaps N35 could be 'The king's son' (with reference to his being high priest) [and it is not followed by a classical head meaning 'tp' first among the king's sons.] ... got stuck...anf finally Rahotep, his name! > LEFT SHOULDER > Register 1: > G36 N35 Q3-X1:(O49) G17 D21 (M17)-(A9) V13 X1 no clue > Register 2: > (G17) D21 N37/39 D36 (A12) U23/27-X1:U1-(N34) I confirm it's a G17 and the whole could be Mr (m)S3w i.e. commander of the army or a title of the high priest of Mendes. The first seems to me to be more appropriate because right below U23/27 is in fact S42 (xrp controller) and N34 looks like M36 [I found 'ma Der (sickle and basket) as a form of Osiris on Budge's dictionary] As a matter of fact this supposition is disputable because the owl and the mouth [mr]is followed by a pond (S) and an arm (<) instead of a vulture (3). In the last cluster of glyphs the glyph xrp (S24) is separated by Dr(basket - here it is very long but on top there is something and this should exclude its being metal) by t (loaf of bread) and ma (sickle) As you can see I'm still fumbling in the dark also because I don't know how different I should expect Old Egyptian from Middle Egyptian. BTW the statues are from the IV dynasty not the V as I wrote in my first message. Regards Giorgio ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:54:17 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Value of {j} VERY LONG! Dear Graham: As usual, I will intersperse remarks where (I hope) appropriate. > > Nor does i + "spray of leaves". The reason is straightforwardly simple: > > i BY ITSELF had the reading of /j(a)/. Unless a Volksetymologie > > indicated that another word was a compound of i ("say") with some second > > element, there would be no reason to use the "man with hand to mouth" > > determinative. > > Yes there is a good reason, and that is that in the syllabic orthography > most of the signs employed came in pairs or groups, and this helped to > indicate to Egyptian readers that they were reading a foreign word rather > than a native Egyptian one. You will note that the syllabic orthography > also had a few other group writings that can be said technically to begin > with {j} and these probably represented /'/ with different vowels after > it. See Albright's book which I mentioned in my previous post. He > explains it quite well there. I have Albright's "The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography" in my library. But we are here at cross-purposes. I thought you were speaking generally about the combination. As for the specific employment of 'reed-leaf' plus 'man with hand to mouth' in later syllabic spellings of foreign words, I have a different idea of the reason. As Coptic shows, initial i sometimes appears as a-. Rather than assume this represents ?a-, I believe it represents a final syllabic residue of an original /ya/ which can, without the stress-accent, be reduced to /i:/ and finally to /a/. It is interesting to notice that in all the cases mentioned by Albright (pp. 33-34), every example of Semitic ?a is the first syllable of a word of three or more syllables (one exception), a position in which we would expect a Murmelvokal in a Semitic language. This reduced realization of /ja/ is probably due to the semi-enclitic nature of i(n), say. i(man with hand to mouth) also is O! In the context of AA, it will certainly not be strange to believe this was vocalized as /ja/ (cf. Arabic ya). The other combination of the reed-leaf (with vulture) indicates ya(:) or i:, suggesting to me that the operative principle is the transparent relationship between y and i, and requiring no glottal stop for explanation. With the combination reed-leaf + chick, we have the diphthong a-u which results in Semitic u or o. And certainly all the doubled reed-leaves incorporate the element /j/, i.e. y-. My view is that ' was a glottal stop by Middle Egyptian times which was reserved for rendering Semitic (I?(J while Semitic ? could not be directly represented. > > But very important exceptions: i(i), come = Coptic ei! > > {ei} was prounounced as a vowel. So this is not the best possible > example. IEists are constantly at loggerheads over the phonetic status of i/y. My view is that Coptic ei represents y that in certain phonetic environments was realized as i. There is not credible evidence to suggest an initial ? in this word. > > Why do you assert this so strongly when more examples can be found that > either ignore it altogether or indicate that it had been a glottal stop? > Just from a cursory glance at my dictionaries, I was able to come up with > this rather long list of words which derive from lexemes beginning with > {j} and which do NOT indicate any value of /y/. I also found a few which > do, and I will list them in a separate group below. This list does not > even take into account words which had {j} in positions other than > initial. I simply did not have enough time to search them out just now. > > jrj=f {aaf} "do it" > jrj.t {eire} "do" (The initial sound is a glottal stop followed by the > vowel /I/!) > jw {e} circumstantializing morpheme > jbw {abE} "cord" > jbT.t {abO} "net" > jtmw {AOm} "Atum" > jwty {at} "without" > j3r.t {eloole} "grape" > jmn {amoun} "Amun" > jmnt.t {amnte} "Hades" (coming from "west") > jnk {anok} "I" > jnq {ankoki} "embrace" > jnn {anon} "we" > jp.t {ape} "head" (coming from "brow") > jp3 {apei} "red dye" > jp=s {aps} "number" > jpt {apot} "cup" > js {aas} "old" > jsw {asou} "exchange value" > jzj {asai} "be light of weight" > jsw.wy {asoui} "purse"/"scrotum" > j3d.t {ate} "filet" > jwn {auon} "color" > jn.w {auan} "tribute" > jx {a} "which?" > jwf {af} "flesh/meat" > jhj {aha} "yes" > jhm {ahom} "sigh" > jr {e}, {ero=} "toward" > jpjp {epEp} "Epiphi" (month name) > jrp {Erp} "wine" > jrT.t {erOte} "milk" > jr.y {erEu} "companion" > j3w {eoou} "glory" > j jwjw {Eu} "dog" > j3q.t {Ee} "vegetable" > jj.t {ei} "come" ({ei}= /'I/) > jbj.t {eibe} and {obe} "thirst" ({ei}= /'I/) > jnj.t {eine} "bring" ({ei}= /'I/) > js {eis} "behold" ({ei}= /'I/) > jwdn {eitn} "ground" ({ei}= /'I/) > j jbn {obn} "alum" > jbH {obhe} "tooth" > jzr {osi} "tamarisk" > jd.t {oote} "vulva" > jHw {oohe} "heard of cattle" > j3w.t {Oe} "old age" > jwr {OO} "conceive/become pregnant" > j3kb {Okm} "be sad/mourn" > jwnw {On} "Heliopollis" > jnr {One} "stone" > jnq {Onk} "embrace" > jp {Op} "count" > jsq {Osk} "hesitate" > jtH {Oth} "drag" > j jt3 {O} "rob" > Many basic response is that all of these words had an original realization of /ja-/, which was reduced to /i:-/ and finally to /a/. No glottal stop needs to be reconstructed. The step from /j/ to /i/ will be easily made by any IEist or AAist. From your list, it is also to be seen that y combined with w (*aw) to produce o and o:, and by metathesis ya became ay -> ai -> e/e:. > > I suggest you look at Cerny, pp. 44-49. There are many IMPORTANT ones: > > e.g. eio:, wash = i'; eibe, thirst = ib(i); eine, bring = in(i); eipn, > > this = ipn; eire, make = ir(i); eis, behold = is. > > Except for {eiO} none of your other examples represent a /y/, but mereley > the vowel /I/ and most likely after the glottal stop. I do not see any likelihood of a glottal stop. Also, since we know ei COULD be consonantal, what is to prevent us from interpreting eis as /y6s/ rather than /i:s/? > > Yes, I am sure he has found some because such words do exist, but they are > not nearly as common as the other type of evidence. > > Here are a few that I found in my previous endeavor: > > j3b.t.y {eiebt} "east" > jr.t {eia} "eye" > j j3b {eiEb} "fingernail" > jp.t {eiope} "work" > jtr.w {eioor} "canal" > jtr.w {eiero} "river" > jt {eiOt} "barley" > jt {eiOt} "father" > j3d.t {eiOte} "dew" > j it is {ooh}) > > I am sure there are a few more, but they just are NOT common as far as I > can tell. I challenge you or anyone else to make this list anywhere near > as long as the evidence stacking up against the case for {j} having > represented /y/. That is sporting but the mere fact that the reed-leaf DOES show up as /j/ is decisive for me when the non-/j/ examples can be readily explained as reductions of /j/ to /i~i:/ or combinations of the extreme reduced form (au -> o/o:) or metatheses (ai -> e/e:). If the reed-leaf WERE ?, we would not have forms like eio: at all! How can you explain /j/ from /?/ ---? > > > I would like to see this proved rather than merely asserted. > > There is no need to become antagonistic. Sorry, I did not mean to sound antagonistic. I will phrase my questions more circumspectly. If we do not agree it is really > OK, is it not? Sure, c'est la vie. De gustibus non est disputandum. I am tryig to comply with your desire for evidence in this > post. You might also want to read a bit of the recent work in some of the > articles and books I cited last time to Marianne. > > > 3H.t is not the precursor of eio:he; rather it is iH.t, field (Budge I, > > 75; --- > > jH.t only occurs in late contexts and is probably derived from another word for a kind of field, because / difficult to pronounce, and the tendency was to change it to {j}. Here, I would also like to see an example or two. I am not aware that ' became i ever. But for the word we have been discussing, let me expand that I believe the biliteral T24 (fishing-net) conceals a medial -w-, so that the correct reading for 'field' is *iwH, corresponding to IE yeu-gh- and Latin jugum. The alternate reading, 'H, I also emend to *'wH, and connect with IE t(h)eugh- in Greek te$Bk(Jhos, equipment, gear. Here, in my opinion, is an example of *yauHath -> yo:He. There > is still debate on this word, yes, you are right. Some have > suggested that it came from but am not convinced really. The reason the inclusion of Nostratic is so important is that it can help to resolve questions like this which can never be finally resolved based on internal Egyptian evidence alone. Egyptologists have a simple choice: to wrestle conundra like this with no eventual consensus, or to accept ALL the evidence, and increase the probability of a correct guesstimate. 3H.t is the really common word throughout > the history of the language. > I do not dispute the reality of importance of 3H.t; in fact, I can provide a cognate for it also. If you can accept that N23 (irrigation canal) is a mater lectionis for a medial -i-, and we emend 3H to *3iH, we have the IE reik(h)-, split, furrow. > > In fact, we can find more examples of {3} having become {ei} in > > > Coptic than we can of its having become a glottal stop. > > > > Could you offer some examples? > > OK, here are a few more: > > 3bw {eiEb} "Elephantine" > 3s {iOs} "hasten" (*3iz; see below) > 3x.w {eiah} "ray of light" (earlier i3x.w) > <3 {aiai} "become great" WEAK > ai} "become numerous" (WEAK in Coptic) > h3 {hai} "husband" (It is hi(i) not h3!) > wD3 {ouai} "become saved" (from "become whole") (WEAK in Coptic) I do not believe this list indicates 3 becoming i; rather, several of your examples are weak verbs, e.g. '3, become great, is normally considered to be '3i; that surely accounts for the final Coptic -i. One seems a simple oversight. In view of the earlier i3x.w, 3x.w is not convincing. 3s will be problematical because I reconstruct it as *3is based on the following reasons: 1) the existence of IE reis- (Pokorny, p. 330) meaning 'hurry, flow'; 2) the presence of the determinative V2 (bolt with cord), which I consider to be indicating the medial -i- through the association of the sign (which I consider to be depicting a rod with a loosened curl of wood) and IE reis-, 'loosen, rip off'. I know this will not be particularly convincing if you do not accept the Nostratic connection of Egyptian (AA) and IE. For 3bw, elephant, I know you will acknowledge the intermingling of U23 (chisel) and R15 (spear-standard), which, of course, is properly read i3b. In fact, according to Gardiner (p. 518), the reading for 'chisel' comes from an interpretation of the various spellings for 3bDw in the Pyramid texts. Well, we have the usual dog chasing the usual tail. My reasons for preferring the reading *ibw for elephant are as follows: 1) the existence if Old Indian ibha-H, elephant; 2) the existence of aibh-, sharp (corresponding to 'chisel', or better 'hair-pin?'); 3) the existence of eibh-, family (corresponding to 3b.t [for *ibt]). As you can see, the IE data points to ?Vy-. Now, in my opinion, so does eie:b because I interpret the e: to be a result from *ei. So, my reconstruction for *3b, elephant, will have to be *iib, from *(I?(Ja(I?(J ep(')fe, while for 'family' the underlying form is ?a(I?(Jep(')fo (again *iib) and for *'needle', ?a(I?(Jep(')fe (*again iib). Without going into tedious length, I believe 3b, brand, is properly *i3b; 3b, desire, is properly 3(^)b; 3bii, panther, is properly *3(^)ib; and 3bd, month, is properly *3ib. > > I just don't have time to look them all up, but I know Erman gave a good > list of them, I believe it was in his _Aegyptische Grammatik_. > > > While this is undoubtedly true for 3 it is absolutely NOT true for i! > > Why do you assert that? I see more evidence for its having fallen than > evidence for its survival, but just show me my error, and I will be > happily convinced. As I mentioned to Marianne, I really wanted to believe > that {j} represented /y/ during most of my life's studies of Egyptian, but > I just have not been able to keep myself convinced that this was true > having studied all stages of Egyptian now, and having read a good deal of > the literature on the subject. I realize that it is very difficult to > accept. I racked my brains over this very question for many years, and > ultimately had to give in. You will of course have to find your own way > in the matter, and you are of course also quite entitled to your opinions. I, too, would rather agree than disagree. I do not know if what I have written will sway you to look at your former position or not but, at least, it may be food for thought. > > You should be heartened to know that you are not alone in your opinions in > this matter. There are still a few Egyptologists who think as you do, but > they are becoming rarer as time passes. This does not of course mean that > they are necessarily wrong, and I do not suggest that you ARE wrong. I > only do not personlly agree anymore. So, no hard feelings need be > intended in the least. I have no hard feelings, and I appreciate your open-minded approach to what I know is a very minority view. > > Enjoy your quest for the truth! Thank you for that kind thought. We are all dim candles in a very dark passage. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:49:23 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: AEL Obelisk inscription To: to AEL REGARDING Obelisk inscription I find several discrepancies between the text published by Budge and that typeset by Al Berens. For example, in the West face text, the Horus name has three kA signs. There are many others. Can you give a source of your version? Budge gives a scraped out blanks for the sign in line 4 of the North face text. Is it damaged? Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:14:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop Hi, Marianne, (First a quick note to other people monitoring: If you are not interested in phonology, just ignore messages on this subject. Phonology is however one aspect of AEL, and some people do find it relevant.) > About both "l" and "r" being represented by {3}--which I have a problem > with-- No, I don't think it represented more than one sound, but that etymologically it can relate to more than one sound. And, there are various different opinions on exactly which sound it did originally represent. > I am not so sure we will ever solve these phonological riddles. That's > why, whenever I see an Egyptian mummy, I feel like banging on the glass > case and demanding, "Don't just lie there--say something!" ;-0 Helmut Satzinger, at the beginning of his article which I cited two posts earlier, starts out with an anecdote on how a real live Egyptian vulture came and landed near him once, and he kept hoping that it would let out its cry so that once and for all he might hear what this bird sounded like! Unfortunately it never made a peep. However, knowing that Egyptian did employ names for animals based on the sounds they made, such as mjw for cat, and b3 for ram, etc., maybe if we can find an expert on carnivorous birds.... possibly even a recording of the call of the percnopterus vulture, it would sound something like "3a3a3a3a3a3a3a33A3AAA!!!!!" :-P In the past I have preposed (to myself alone) a few other possible values for the sign which I have not mentioned, mostly because I have found reasons which would conflict with these values, however I will throw them out as food for thought: // as in "sing", // as in Arabic "ghayn", or the "click" of the Hottentots of South Africa. All of these suggestions have their pitfalls however. > The cartouches are very late, true, but perhaps not entirely irrelevant. > What they are is just a continuum of what was already occurring as far > back as the time of Thutmose III--the writing of foreign places and > terms employing the {3} as an "aleph" or other indicated vowel. So this > is what I question. This is where my problem with {3} lies: At what > point (between appr. which dynasties) did {3} cease to be a strong "r" > or "l"? Can someone just show me one or two examples of words in which > {3} can definitely be seen to represent either "r" or "l"? That's all I > need to help me get started understanding what's going on. However, > something along these lines won't help: Well, of course you are right that the Ptolemaic hierogpyphs fit right into the Egyptian tradition, but I think Egyptian had evolved for so long by then that not even the native speakers were at the time aware of the original value of {3} anymore. In Dynasty XIX, the Late Egyptian texts begin to write words such as h3b "send" as {hb}. They also begin adding {jj} to the ends of sylables with {3}. This seems to indicate that by this time, the sound had become vocallic and/or become a /y/ in certain cases. They also, once in a while, will substitute {j} for initial {3}. > b3q (bright, white)--Semitic "baraq" (shining) > (however "b3q" was usually not written with the *vulture* but another > sign. I have seen it written with an /r/ as well) There is an Akhmimic Coptic dialectal word {bOlk} which Werner Vycichl proposes to derive from this word as a secondary meaning. It means "become angry". He has his argument for how this word came to mean that, but I am not so sure. > bk3 (morning)--Semitic "bakir" or "boker" of the same meaning > > k3m (vineyard)--Semitic "karm" or "kerem" of the same meaning It has been suggested that these two words were early borrowings from a Semitic language. > I suppose what I need is to see some proof that {3}, at the beginning of > a word or place or person's name can be seen to represent "r" or "l". > Because I believe that the initial letter or glyph is least likely to > see any distortion (just as the first "r" in the word "rare" in British > English is strong, the second second sort of disappears). Once I see > this, I'll shut up and meekly accept the truth :-> There are various proposed etymologies for words containing medial and final /l/ deriving from {3} in Coptic, but I have only been able to locate one single word with an initial /l/ that probably derives from initial {3}: {lOb} from 3bx "burn". The phonetic rules will hold up since Egyptian {x} most often became Coptic {}. Possibly there just isn't any evidence that will be found to have survived. On the other hand, there could be other instances of initial /l/ deriving from {3} but no one has yet recognized them since the general rule has been shown to indicate that this phoneme must have disappeared, so no one has been particularly looking for them. It would be nice to see if any Egyptian words with initial {3} were transcribed into Akkadian during the Old and Middle Kingdoms. I would guess that some must have been, but do not know where to look for the evidence. Let me consult my notes on the subject and see if I have anything in them. Well, I could not find anything too interesting on that, but I did find the following as per James Allen: (Note that my copying of these notes is subject to error and I may be misquoting my professor inadvertantly. Also, these notes only present general impressions based on the work of many people, and are not replete with many specific examples.) Reconstructing from Coptic alone, no distinction can be found between {3} and {j} because both seem to hold the places of vowels and in certain instances represent the glottal stop. By the New Kingdom {3} had already become indistinguishable from {j} as /"zero"/, /'/, or /y/. {3} generally became /y/ after stressed vowels: s3 "back" > {soi}; Hqr.tj "hungry" > {hkoeit} Egyptian sources indicate that {3} had been /'/ but Protosemitic would indicate that it had been /'/ and /l/ becoming //. By Middle Egyptian, there was a distinction between {j} =/'/ and {jj} =/y/. {j} was used to transcribe Semitic words with /'/ as early as Dynasty IV. One possible solution to the problem is that {j} could have represented the combined sound /'I/ (a long /i/ resting on the glottal stop). Possible scenario: Proto-language had {j} as /l/, by Proto-Egyptian it had become /y/, by the Old kingdom it had a bivalence as /y/ and /'/. By the Middle Kingdom it had become /'/ and the separate sign group {jj} was invented to represent /y/. However, most of the examples of {jj} have been shown by Wolfgang Schenkel (_Frue mittelaegyptischen Studien_) to originate in {w}, which leaves us with very few instances of original {j} ever having represented /y/ in the Middle Kingdom or later. Another clue from Coptic is found in the different vocallic quality of words containing {3}, {j}, and {<}: both {3} and {j} will produce the reduplicating vowels {oo}, while words containing {<} will produce the reduplicating vowels {aa} usually. Semitic sources suggest that {3} had been /r/ or /l/. {3} was usually used to transcribe Semitic /r/. {3} became vocalic in most syllable final positions. However, within Egyptian {3} frequently alternates with {n}, tending to indicate its value as more like /l/. Middle Egyptian H3g "become sweet" > Late Egyptian Hng > Coptic {hlo} for example. Proposed pair: {3} = dark /l/, while /n/ could sometimes represent light /l/, OR {j} was originally light /l/. In some rare instances {3} also alternated with {r}. Proposed pair: {3} = heavily trilled /r/ or uvular /r/, while {r} = a tap. /l/ seems to have been an alophonic variant for both /n/ and /r/. Vycichl has noted that the West Dakhla dialect of Arabic has no /l/ but employs /n/. The Coptic evidence shows original {n} usually remaining /n/, but in various instances becoming /l/. It also shows original {r} becoming /'/, /"zero"/, /y/, /r/, and /l/. I wish I could find more but I just didn't get enough written down during the course. Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== From: WBQT03C@prodigy.com (MS SAIDA ISMI) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:00:59, -0500 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: Rahotep Dear Mark, It's me, Marianne! My other server is down so could you kindly post this to the list for me? Dr X wrote: > > Hello everybody, > I am writing to ask if anybody can give me a clue about the >>inscription > that appears over the shoulders of the well-known couple of statues > representing a certain Re'hotep and his wife (Vth dynasty). I am not > an egyptologist and therefore I got stuck after the first five >hieroglyphs > that should read "wr ma 'inw" i.e. 'great priest of Heliopolis'. >What > about the rest? Any help is welcome. > Thanks > Giorgio Dear Giorgio, I don't blame you for giving up because this one is not easy! Perhaps you have received other help by now. I hope so. Marc Line tried to identify the glyphs as numbered by Gardiner and Phil Rychel kindly sent me a picture of Rahotep and his wife, Nofret, with glyphs so clear that a blind man could make them out. That is, they are crystal clear to anyone who can easily read Egyptian! Anyway, I am able to help some now. According to various sources I have here, this Rahotep of the elegant mustache was not only a priest but in charge of fisheries, expeditions and construction. I can't see all this in the inscription but, of course, I could be missing a lot! Here is what I get: Row 1 right to left: wr ma iwn You were right--this is the title of the High Priest of Helioplis (On) Next, I am in trouble because I cannot find the glyph that occurs twice in the text in any of my books. It looks like a flat, thin surface with a ` sticking up out of it. On the whole the sign reminds me of a carpenter's plane. It is followed by G36, the "wr" swallow. Then comes O22 (what I call McDonald's Golden Arches) and what seems to be T7 or an "axe" and, finally, /s/ and "3ms", the scepter, S44. All I can make out of the last part of Row 1 is that perhaps the "arches" represent "sH" (counsel) and that Rahotep was an advisor to the Crown. Row 2: is wr (that glyph I can't find) wr she pn (last glyph G4(long-legged buzzard) This can be "truly great one (superintendant?) of this Lake District (Lake Moeris). Possibly G4 refers to the nome??? Row 3: Swtn sa n khat-f R htp King's son of his body, Rahotep Line 4: wr n pt mr s-k3t th-t Great one in (Pet (a district of Heliopolis)?) superintendant (over) (all those who) work in the temple?) I can't figure out /s/ here. Either it's a causative prefix with A9 (man steadying basket on head) "k3t" or it means "person" (without determinative) or it's an abbreviation for "go" as in "who go to work in the temple". Line Row 5: mr < mesh To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:25:12 +0000 Subject: AEL Administrative Just a quick note that the list server will not be operating on friday and saturday, so don't worry if things seem a bit quite! Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:25:12 +0000 Subject: AEL Phonology thread closed I feel it is probably time to end the current discussions of phonology. It's not that this isn't an interesting subject, but I feel that we should not burden the list with too much material which will only interest a small minority of list members. I would like to remind everyone that the primary purpose of the list is to assist in the learning of the Ancient Egyptian language. Thanks, Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 23:53:49 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Pronunciation of sDm=f At 04:30 PM 97/04/28 -0400, you wrote: >> Anyway, a partial table of my conclusions (representing vowels by a >> conventional "e"): >> >> Circumstantial Prospective Second Tense >> >> 3-lit. sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f >> *seDemef *seDmef *seDemef >> >> 3-weak mr=f mry=f mrr=f >> *mere(y)f *meryef *mereref >> >> 2-gem. qbb=f qb=f qbb=f >> *qebebef *qebbef *qebebef > >I would point out here that your scheme is NOT in conflict with Ray's, >since you have not attempted to give vowel quality or duration. Actually, he disagrees with me in at least the Circumstantial forms. He treats all the forms as *seDmef whereas my results gave *seDemef; regardless of thequality and quantity of the vowels, the vowels (and syllables) just don't match. If you want my best guess as to quantity, it would be (E = long vowel) *seDEmef (*seDemsen for the heavy suffixes). >I especially like the way you have handled the circumstantial which goes a >long way toward explaining the lack of gemination and non-appearance of >the weak consonant in 3rd weak verbs! Very nice! As I said, this was worked out from 2-gem. verbs originally. Then I tried to predict what would be expected to happen to 3-weak verbs, and found that they fit surprisingly well, which gave me some support for my hypothesis. There are still many holes and problems with it though! The scheme for vowel lengths you proposed is based on the rules: 1 - Open syllable: long vowel 2 - Closed syllable: short vowel Loprieno would add: 3 - Accented closed syllable: MAY be long and I would suspect that: 4 - Unaccented open syllable: MAY be short. Some of the things that I have seen suggest to me that besides the standard six vowels of the accepted scheme, the was a short neutral vowel (schewa). At least being able to invoke such a thing would help explain a lot of things (although Loprieno doesn't have it in his vowel scheme for Old/Middle Egyptian). Yes the infinitive was probably *sEDem, though my pick for vowel quality would be A in both cases. And you may right that adding a suffix caused a loss of the second stem vowel (we need to invoke a stage with schewa somewhere here) to produce seDmef - this however would make me expect to see a contrast in spelling between the absolute infinitive, and the one with a suffix in 2-gem verbs (inf. *qbb vs. inf.+suff. *qbf). Do you know of any instances of this? A problem I am still having with this, is my finding that sDm.n.f appears to be *seDmenef, where everyone else claims it was *seDemnef. If I am right, I then have the problem of figuring out why the 3-inf. verbs don't behave as I would expect. If I am wrong, then I have to figure out why 2-gem. verbs don't behave as expected for that scheme. So, whichever it is, I have a difficulty! I have other comments but this message is quite long and unwieldy enough already! Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:19:35 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop At 12:22 PM 97/04/29 -0500, you wrote: >Thank you for your encouragement and the bibliography you included. >Hoepefully, I will be able to get hold of some of these titles and, >yesterday, I was compelled to order A. Loprieno's book, which I meant >to do for some time. Since Geoff hadn't included Loprieno's book, I was going to suggest it as an excellent starting point before getting into the heavy stuff by Schenkel and Osing and... >About both "l" and "r" being represented by {3}--which I have a problem >with--I came across something in my "archives" that I thought you and >other list members might be interested in. It was written on another >list by Joan Stanley-Baker: " Native Japanese speakers have a singular >admixture (of "r" and "l") in their phonetic system (r/la, r/li, r/lu, >r/le, r/lo) where it is neither purely r or l, and different speakers >stress one or the other. But when HEARING and repeating English they >tend to veer toward the r sound, (frequent-ry)." In both Japanese and Chinese, while the PHONETIC differences between l and r exist, they are not PHONEMIC, that is they make no difference to the meaning of words which you say. Like the Japanese lady who when having a name spelled out for her asked "Is that R as in London or L as in Rome." When speaking Japanese I have to remember to use a sound somewhere halfway between l and r (in terms of what the mouth is doing the two are fairly similar). >I suppose what I need is to see some proof that {3}, at the beginning of >a word or place or person's name can be seen to represent "r" or "l". >Because I believe that the initial letter or glyph is least likely to >see any distortion (just as the first "r" in the word "rare" in British >English is strong, the second second sort of disappears). Once I see >this, I'll shut up and meekly accept the truth :-> The best thing I can suggest is to write to James Hoch directly, since he was fairly instrumental in establishing this change (which by the way seems to have happened over a period of time, but had pretty much completed at the opening of Dyn.XVIII, I think). His e-mail address is: James Hoch Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:01:38 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Egyptian Liquids and the Glottal Stop At 12:22 PM 97/04/29 -0500, you wrote: >Thank you for your encouragement and the bibliography you included. >Hoepefully, I will be able to get hold of some of these titles and, >yesterday, I was compelled to order A. Loprieno's book, which I meant >to do for some time. Since Geoff hadn't included Loprieno's book, I was going to suggest it as an excellent starting point before getting into the heavy stuff by Schenkel and Osing and... >About both "l" and "r" being represented by {3}--which I have a problem >with--I came across something in my "archives" that I thought you and >other list members might be interested in. It was written on another >list by Joan Stanley-Baker: " Native Japanese speakers have a singular >admixture (of "r" and "l") in their phonetic system (r/la, r/li, r/lu, >r/le, r/lo) where it is neither purely r or l, and different speakers >stress one or the other. But when HEARING and repeating English they >tend to veer toward the r sound, (frequent-ry)." In both Japanese and Chinese, while the PHONETIC differences between l and r exist, they are not PHONEMIC, that is they make no difference to the meaning of words which you say. Like the Japanese lady who when having a name spelled out for her asked "Is that R as in London or L as in Rome." When speaking Japanese I have to remember to use a sound somewhere halfway between l and r (in terms of what the mouth is doing the two are fairly similar). >I suppose what I need is to see some proof that {3}, at the beginning of >a word or place or person's name can be seen to represent "r" or "l". >Because I believe that the initial letter or glyph is least likely to >see any distortion (just as the first "r" in the word "rare" in British >English is strong, the second second sort of disappears). Once I see >this, I'll shut up and meekly accept the truth :-> The best thing I can suggest is to write to James Hoch directly, since he was fairly instrumental in establishing this change (which by the way seems to have happened over a period of time, but had pretty much completed at the opening of Dyn.XVIII, I think). His e-mail address is: James Hoch Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:01:35 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Pronunciation of sDm=f At 04:30 PM 97/04/28 -0400, you wrote: >> Anyway, a partial table of my conclusions (representing vowels by a >> conventional "e"): >> >> Circumstantial Prospective Second Tense >> >> 3-lit. sDm=f sDm=f sDm=f >> *seDemef *seDmef *seDemef >> >> 3-weak mr=f mry=f mrr=f >> *mere(y)f *meryef *mereref >> >> 2-gem. qbb=f qb=f qbb=f >> *qebebef *qebbef *qebebef > >I would point out here that your scheme is NOT in conflict with Ray's, >since you have not attempted to give vowel quality or duration. Actually, he disagrees with me in at least the Circumstantial forms. He treats all the forms as *seDmef whereas my results gave *seDemef; regardless of thequality and quantity of the vowels, the vowels (and syllables) just don't match. If you want my best guess as to quantity, it would be (E = long vowel) *seDEmef (*seDemsen for the heavy suffixes). >I especially like the way you have handled the circumstantial which goes a >long way toward explaining the lack of gemination and non-appearance of >the weak consonant in 3rd weak verbs! Very nice! As I said, this was worked out from 2-gem. verbs originally. Then I tried to predict what would be expected to happen to 3-weak verbs, and found that they fit surprisingly well, which gave me some support for my hypothesis. There are still many holes and problems with it though! The scheme for vowel lengths you proposed is based on the rules: 1 - Open syllable: long vowel 2 - Closed syllable: short vowel Loprieno would add: 3 - Accented closed syllable: MAY be long and I would suspect that: 4 - Unaccented open syllable: MAY be short. Some of the things that I have seen suggest to me that besides the standard six vowels of the accepted scheme, the was a short neutral vowel (schewa). At least being able to invoke such a thing would help explain a lot of things (although Loprieno doesn't have it in his vowel scheme for Old/Middle Egyptian). Yes the infinitive was probably *sEDem, though my pick for vowel quality would be A in both cases. And you may right that adding a suffix caused a loss of the second stem vowel (we need to invoke a stage with schewa somewhere here) to produce seDmef - this however would make me expect to see a contrast in spelling between the absolute infinitive, and the one with a suffix in 2-gem verbs (inf. *qbb vs. inf.+suff. *qbf). Do you know of any instances of this? A problem I am still having with this, is my finding that sDm.n.f appears to be *seDmenef, where everyone else claims it was *seDemnef. If I am right, I then have the problem of figuring out why the 3-inf. verbs don't behave as I would expect. If I am wrong, then I have to figure out why 2-gem. verbs don't behave as expected for that scheme. So, whichever it is, I have a difficulty! I have other comments but this message is quite long and unwieldy enough already! Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:59:17 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Phonology thread closed Mark Wilson wrote: > > I feel it is probably time to end the current discussions of > phonology. It's not that this isn't an interesting subject, but I feel > that we should not burden the list with too much material which will > only interest a small minority of list members. > > I would like to remind everyone that the primary purpose of the list > is to assist in the learning of the Ancient Egyptian language. Dear Mark, While I am sure your purpose is to keep the AEL-list in good order so that it does not become chaotic or serve as a forum for views that have nothing to do with the ancient Egyptian language, I would wish, at this time, now that the list is off and running, that we could manage to expand our horizons a little. Closing the thread on phonology is not going to help anybody learn Egyptian more easily and it is rather difficult to determine how many list members are interested in such a subject as opposed to those who find it boring. Obviously, I am one of those who thinks it fascinating. On the other hand, I find the "grammar" aspect of Egyptian philology rather dull and would like to avoid it, but, if I want to learn Egyptian, I know I had best pay attention. By the same token, one really cannot avoid phonology if one wants to have an understanding of the Egyptian language. Just because it seems not to be as "exactly" understood as the grammatical part, it is still Egyptian philology. I'm afraid that, without an understanding of how Egyptian might have been pronounced, one might, rather than be studying what was once a viable language, be learning a sort of "mathematics"--l+r+n=? Awhile back a thread discussing the possible meanings of foreign words in an Egyptian text was closed down as "off topic". I said nothing at the time, but my feeling was this: After a certain point in Egyptian history, one can no longer separate foreign (particularly Semitic words)from the Egyptian language. They now *are* a part of the language, just as French became a part of English after 1066 AD, and need to be accounted for the same as any other older Egyptian term. Also, the relation of Coptic (the final stage of Egyptian) to Middle Egyptian is also a very important topic. The plain truth is--without foreign words and Coptic as guidelines, we would probably have no idea today what the Egyptian language was all about and there would be nothing to study. My feeling is very strongly this: For the AEL to be a list devoted to the discussing and learning of ancient Egyptian, all things relevant to this language must be allowed on the list. As with any other list, how many people will actually be interested in reading the daily posts cannot be a consideration. This is an unknown quantity and worrying about it serves no purpose. On the lists to which I am subscribed, I do not read all the posts that arrive in my mailbox each day--only those with headings that interest me. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop me from starting a thread on a topic more to my liking and see what happens. It seldom happens on a mailing list that only the same topic is being discussed in a given day, but more than one concurrently. I suppose I am saying I don't see why this can't occur on the AEL as well. I like trying to decipher Egyptian writings as much as anybody, but I would not like to do it everyday. Nor would I like to see just the decipherments of others every day. More than a discussion list, that would tend to strike me as a sort of correspondence school where everyone must pay attention to the daily lesson and nothing else! As has been mentioned, all the same people aren't encouraged to translate the texts every time, anyway. My wish is that there could be less concern about what is exactly being written on the list each day (within reasonable limits!) and more emphasis placed on the fact that people from different parts of the world are actually participating and communicating whatever they find interesting about the Egyptian language. If threads are closed down arbitrarily, the unfortunate result may be that list members who want to write something may feel uncertain about whether their communication will be welcome or even considered on topic and just not post at all. And so, I think we would be better off to err on the side of indulgence than to give people the idea they may be "burdening" the list. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:35:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Rahotep Statue (LONG) Hi, I just found a photo of the Rahotep statue but there is a shadow accross the left hand side making it difficult for me to read the glyphs there. The prinicpal problem people are encountering with the text is that it is very early Old Kingdom, transitional between the reigns of Huny and Snofru. For parallels one would have to look at the tombs of Hesyre, Metjen, and Khaibausokar. I believe that since Rahotep and Nofret's mastaba was at Meidum near to the pyramid which most likey was begun for Huny, this man was a son of Huny, and not a son of Snofru. The following is what I see: Left Hand Side of Statue: wr m3(.w) jwnw w<(.t.y) Unique Chief of Seers of Heliopolis, The first sign is the {swallow} and represents /wr/ meaning "great", best translated as "Chief" in titles of this sort. The next sign is the {scythe} representing /m3/. This title is well attested as "wr-m3.w", and it means the High Priest of Re-Atum as he was designated in Heliopolis. The next sign is the {jwn-pillar} representing /jwn/, the next sign is the {nu-pot} representing /jn/ or /nw/ or /jnw/, and can be a phonetic enhancement of /jwn/ or indicate with the previous sign the reading /jwnw/ which is how most Egyptologists read the name of Heliopolis. The next sign is the city determinative of this word. The next sign is the {harpoon with its rope} and represents the sound /w To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 01:53:20 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Phonology thread closed Marianne Luban wrote: > subject as opposed to those who find it boring. Obviously, I am one of > those who thinks it fascinating. On the other hand, I find the > "grammar" aspect of Egyptian philology rather dull and would like to > avoid it, but, if I want to learn Egyptian, I know I had best pay > attention. Well, I have to admit I'm more of grammar person myself, but that's not the point. The point is that some of these discussions, particularly where proto-languages are concerned, are a matter of much debate and controversy. It is often the case that after much talk, very little progress is made. > Awhile back a thread discussing the possible meanings of foreign words > in an Egyptian text was closed down as "off topic". I said nothing at > the time, but my feeling was this: At that time, the general feeling (among those who commented to me privately) was that the closing of that thread was the right thing to do. This time, I've received a 50/50 split of opinions for and against the decision. I must admit, I was in 2 minds about it myself, but in the end I thought it would be for the best. > Egyptian is also a very important topic. The plain truth is--without > foreign words and Coptic as guidelines, we would probably have no idea > today what the Egyptian language was all about and there would be > nothing to study. Indeed, but I would like to concentrate on learning about what is known rather than getting too distracted with maybes and what ifs. > interesting about the Egyptian language. If threads are closed down > arbitrarily, the unfortunate result may be that list members who want to > write something may feel uncertain about whether their communication > will be welcome or even considered on topic and just not post at all. I think I have been reasonably consistent in trying to make it clear what is on-topic and what isn't. In general, you are not the only one to have expressed concern at the closing of this thread. On the other hand, there are those who support the decision. So what to do? I would like to say that I do appreciate the amicable and sensible way that the discussion has been conducted. The closing of the thread was in no way intended to reflect badly on the participants. It's simply a matter of trying to avoid things getting out of hand. I'm not saying that phonology can never be discussed on AEL, but it would be preferable if it didn't dominate the list. Over the last few days, out of a total of 37 messages 26 were related to phonology, and only 11 were given to all the other threads put together. Regards, Mark Wilson. ============================================================================== From: Gaye@arc.econ.su.oz.au To: Ancient Egyptian Language List , Ancient Egyptian Language List Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:46:27 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Rahotep Statue I have studied this statue for my dissertation, but all my files are at home. I'll post to the list tonight or tomorrow. Gaye Wilson PhD Student Macquarie University Sydney, Australia gaye@arc.econ.su.oz.au ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 19:52:22 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: "Mr. Timothy T. Dickens" Subject: Re: AEL Rahotep Statue (LONG) Hi Geoff, Interesting reply you sent to the list! You are truly a thoroughly scholar. A trait to be truly emulated! Tim Dickens (Writing from my office at Atlanta Metro. Finally, E-mail and the internet in my school office!) Hotep (peace) ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:32:39 -0700 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Phonology thread closed At 07:25 PM 97/04/30 +0000, you wrote: >I feel it is probably time to end the current discussions of >phonology. It's not that this isn't an interesting subject, but I feel >that we should not burden the list with too much material which will >only interest a small minority of list members. > >I would like to remind everyone that the primary purpose of the list >is to assist in the learning of the Ancient Egyptian language. > Which phonology thread? There are at least two on-going at the moment. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 23:08:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Suredesign@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Hieroglyphic text of Hatshepsut's Obelisk. I have re-examined the sign in the slide and I would have to agree it is Gardiner's F44. It has that look to it and would make sense in the translation as well. Sorry for any confusion, it's my first encounter with that particular sign. Al Berens ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:01:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Tying up phonology discussion Hi, Mark Wilson has given me permission to make one last post tying up the Discussion of the phonology of {j}. I felt that I needed to acknowledge Pat's last posting on the subject. Pat has actually dicovered the one really good argument for {j}'s having had a value of /y/. One actually cannot look at the issue without considering the possibility that /ya/ can very feasibly become /i/ which in turn in Coptic would necessarily become /a/. I am not saying that the issue is settled by any means, however this possibility still is a valid one. In fact there may have been a continuum between /y/ and /'/ since /y/ is essentially the palatalization of /'/, and /'/ the glottalization of /y/ as it were. Given Egyptian's propensity toward prepalatalization one would however expect the movement to have tended to have been from /'/ toward /y/ instead, but one just cannot say, since languages have many different phonological rules at work at once. Possibly Egyptian prepalatalization was conditioned by position in the syllable as well as the nature of the vowels and adjacent consonants which might exert some particular draw in a direction contrary to what might be expected. In summary, it is perfectly reasonable to think of {j} as eather /y/ or /'/. Both points of view have certain evidence to support them. Egyptologists are still divided on the issue, and one is not necessarily forced to take a firm stand on either side. This was afterall the reason that some scholars have odopted the combined character of {} ({i} with the glottal stop mark over it) to represent the phoneme. This way both possibilities are accounted for. I think we have exhausted the issue on list for now, and until some new evidence comes forward, there is not much more to say. This can also be said of the question concerning {3} which also remains relatively inscrutable. So I think we can drop it for now. Thank you, Marianne, Stephen, Pat, and any others who have contributed to the discussion. However, as for the discussion of the vocalization of the sDm=f and sDm.n=f, I think there is still room for more discussion, especially since the issue is an intersection between phonology and morphology, and may have its roots in exaclty how the forms are to be grammatically analyzed. So, I end this post with a request that this other thread be allowed to continue so long as it continues to throw some light onto Egyptian grammar. I am sorry if the phonological threads have not been of great interest to some of the subscribers, but I still think that it is important that, as students of Egyptian, we all be exposed to some of these rather basic questions with regard to how Egyptian was realized. There will undoubtedly be future threads on the subject as new issues come up. If the subject does not interest you, then simply ignore such posts, and start new ones that are more in tune with your own interests in the language. The only reason that the list has been dominated entirely by these phonological issues of late is that no one else with different interests has taken the intitiative to discuss anything else. I hope that more people will make postings and bring real questions to the table. We still have various texts untranslated and there is much that we can do yet here, if only someone chooses to speak up. Yours, Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 10:45:39 -0500 From: Saida To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Rahotep Statue (LONG) Graham wrote: (snipped some) > wr Sp n.y Hrw > Chief of the Navel of Horus, > > Strange as this title may seem, it seems to be the best reading. We see > "wr" "chief", {S} which in the Old Kingdom did double duty for sounds that > in Middle Egyptian diverged (/S/ and /X/). Next we see {p}, then a > {circle} determinative. The word in Middle Egyptian was "Xp3" coming from > Old Egyptian "Xpn/Spn" "navel". It would not have been necessary to write > the {n} in such an inscription because Old Egyptian seldom (asside from > the Pyramid Texts) gave full writings of words. Next comes {n}, > indicating the genitive "n.y". Geoff, my picture clearly shows the "circle" you refer to as being the det. of a place and perhaps you could not see this well in your picture. So the /p/ preceding this sign must refer to "Pe" or the Buto of the Delta. Before that you got "wr Sp", which I think cannot be right under the circumstances. I propose that the two glyphs above "Pe" might be "wrSh" or "watcher". Now it gets confusing: There are some tutelary gods of Pe or Buto called the "Urshu Pu" (Pu being another reading of Pe). How to connect Rahotep with this I don't know--unless he was the human embodiment of such ephemeral beings. The next sign /n/, as you thought, seems to refer to the bird sign below it. > Next comes a bird, probably the {falcon} > because no other bird makes any sense here, though one would like for its > breast to be a bit more puffy. Yes, it does look rather deflated. The bird is either the falcon or perhaps Gardiner G4, the long-legged buzzard (Buteo ferox)--or it's just G1, the vulture, sometimes interchangeable with G4. Now all this certainly could be "of Horus", as you suggest. Each year there used to be a fight between the inhabitants of Pe and Dep (evidently two divisions of Buto) over some head of Horus,I think. So it might be "Pe of Horus". Or n+ bird may be just "n3" (this) referring to the next row of glyphs, a prefix to the " z3-n.y-sw.t n.y X.t=f" below. > > z3-n.y-sw.t n.y X.t=f > Bodily Royal Son, > > This title is very standard. It literally says "King's son of his body". > > The Left Side of the Statue: > > wr n.y p(j){t} > Chief of Pe > > The first sign is the {swallow} /wr/ "chief", the second is {n} = "n.y" > "of", the next is {p}, then {t} which is probably not semantic, because it > does not usually occur in the name of this city, then the {city} > determinative. Some would insert a /j/ on the end of this name. The > title means "chief of Pe". Pe was the ancient capital of Lower Egypt and > the birth place of Horus. It was extremely important to Old Kingdom > ideology. In Herodotus's day it was called Buto. This designation comes > from its sister city accross the river which was anciently called Dep, but > the principal temple there was to Wadjyt, the protectress of Lower Egypt. > Its temple was called "pr-w3D.w.t" meaning "domain of Wadjyt" and this > word came to be "putO" by the Late period. Yes, obviously Rahotep was very big in this place! > > jm.y-r3 s-k3j.t > Overseer of Causing Work > > We see {m} and {r} which together represented an abreviation for the title > "jm.y-r3" "Overseer". Then we see {s}, then the {man with basket on head} > which could stand for "k3j.t" "work" or "f3j.t" "carry". Because this > title is common, we can guess that it is the former. The {s} seems, > however to make it causative. "s-k3j.t" would mean "cause to work". This > kind of title, usually "jm.y-r3 k3j.t" (without the {s}) is typical of > high persons because they became directors of construction projects. > > Tt > Vizier (?) > > We see {tether} and {t-loaf}. The title of vizier "T3.t.y" is known from > Later Old Kingdom times, but the title "Tt" is attested as early as > Dynasty I. Most Egyptologists believe it is the older way to write > "T3.t.y" but no one is sure. A vizier was the king's right hand, and > would have been the highest office in the line asside from the kingship > itself. I was confused by "Tt" as well. There is another spelling with *the wild duck* representing "T3", which is "T-t" or "governor in chief", a very high position, indeed. Although, if this is the word here, there ought to be a little more information given after, I think. > > jm.y-r3 mS< > Overseer of Expeditions > > We see "jm.y-r3" written as above. Then we see {S}, {<}, and the {mS<} > determinative. As usual, it was not necessary to write all consonants in > words at this period, so the only possible reading that makes sense is > "mS<" "expedition". In later times this became a military title and can > be translated "general", however one should be cautious because many > "jm.y-r3 mS<"s lead peaceful expeditions on mining, trade, and other > ventures as well. > > sxm tm3 > Controller of the Strong-Arm > > The next sign is the {sekhem-scepter} /sxm/ "controller". Gardiner indicates that the "scepter" (S42) is possibly always to be read "hrp" in titles, so maybe it should be "hrp tm3"?? > Then we see {t} > {m3} and a {knife blade}. The Stong-Arm "tm3" was a mythical reference to > Horus's might. Clearly it represents an actual weapon in this case. The > title might indicate a military rank, or that he kept the weapons of the > king for him. I like this, but the "strong arm" you refer to is spelled "Tm3<" in my book and refers to Horus as the "stabber (of Seth)".?? In our text here, the glyph after the "tm3" looks for all the world to me like a quiver full of arrows. However, it bothers me the way the /t/ is put directly over the "m3" sign. Isn't this kind of unsual? It seems to me that, in words that start "tm3", the /t/ is usually stuck right into the niche above where "weapon blade" juts outward. This leads me to believe that the "m3" perhaps should be read before the /t/ and could indicate "m3-t", "something new", the newness referring to whatever is indicated by that last glyph (quiver of arrows?) When one sees a sign like A12, a kneeling soldier with bow and quiver (the arrows in the quiver seen better in Budge) indicating "army" or "soldiers of any kind", this gave me the idea that maybe "m3-t" and the quiver was some way of referring to "new recruits". > > z3-n.y-sw.t n.y X.t=f > Bodily Royal Son > > Same as before. > > r<-Htp(.j) > Rahotep > > Same as before. > > Well, this is the best I could do with this text. However, had I not read > some Third Dynasty texts last year, and a few this year too, I would never > have been able to do this at all. I may be quite wrong in some of my > interpretations. For one thing I can barely see the signs on the left > side because of the shadow of the statue which is cast over it. Other > suggestions are welcome. Correct me if I am clearly mistaken anywhere in > the above. You did extremely well with this difficult text which is good for a headache, if you ask me! Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 20:47:48 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Phonology thread closed Mark Wilson wrote: > > Marianne Luban wrote: > > > subject as opposed to those who find it boring. Obviously, I am one of > > those who thinks it fascinating. On the other hand, I find the > > "grammar" aspect of Egyptian philology rather dull and would like to > > avoid it, but, if I want to learn Egyptian, I know I had best pay > > attention. > > Well, I have to admit I'm more of grammar person myself, but that's > not the point. The point is that some of these discussions, > particularly where proto-languages are concerned, are a matter of much > debate and controversy. It is often the case that after much talk, > very little progress is made. > > > Awhile back a thread discussing the possible meanings of foreign words > > in an Egyptian text was closed down as "off topic". I said nothing at > > the time, but my feeling was this: > > At that time, the general feeling (among those who commented to me > privately) was that the closing of that thread was the right thing to > do. This time, I've received a 50/50 split of opinions for and > against the decision. I must admit, I was in 2 minds about it myself, > but in the end I thought it would be for the best. > > > Egyptian is also a very important topic. The plain truth is--without > > foreign words and Coptic as guidelines, we would probably have no idea > > today what the Egyptian language was all about and there would be > > nothing to study. > > Indeed, but I would like to concentrate on learning about what is > known rather than getting too distracted with maybes and what ifs. > > > interesting about the Egyptian language. If threads are closed down > > arbitrarily, the unfortunate result may be that list members who want to > > write something may feel uncertain about whether their communication > > will be welcome or even considered on topic and just not post at all. > > I think I have been reasonably consistent in trying to make it clear > what is on-topic and what isn't. In general, you are not the only one > to have expressed concern at the closing of this thread. On the other > hand, there are those who support the decision. So what to do? > > I would like to say that I do appreciate the amicable and sensible > way that the discussion has been conducted. The closing of the thread > was in no way intended to reflect badly on the participants. It's > simply a matter of trying to avoid things getting out of hand. > > I'm not saying that phonology can never be discussed on AEL, but it > would be preferable if it didn't dominate the list. Over the last > few days, out of a total of 37 messages 26 were related to > phonology, and only 11 were given to all the other threads put > together. > > Regards, > > Mark Wilson. Dear Mark: Since I am interested in all aspects of Egyptian --- and really consider myself a "grammar" person, I do not mind moving on to other things. Geoff and I and anyone else interested can pursue our other interests off-list. I do want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to have been permitted to voice some views which I know are presently very controversial. A couple of AEListers have corresponded with me already off-list so I feel I am very much in your debt. Thank you. Pat -- PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA WEBPAGE: ************************************** 'Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu, geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138) ************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 12:05:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL sDm=f's and sDm.n=f's Hello, Stephen, I have been waiting for anyone to decide that it is time to return to grammar and translation now, but this just is not happening, and because I think the sDm=f issue is quite a separate one from the minute phonological questions of the {3} and {j} threads, I figured that I might as well respond to your very interesting comments on the reconstruction of the sDm.n=f. I hope that the list will find this question interesting. I have been searching for other examples of survivals of the sDm=f down into Coptic. Of course, Coptic still had about twelve suffix conjugated verboids (terminology of Bently Layton). Here is the list: Noun Subject Suff.-Pron. Subj. From Egyptian _________________________________________________________________________ naa-p-hOb "the thing is great" naa=f "it is great" wnn <3j=f nane-p-hOb "the thing is good" nanou=f "it is good" wnn e-p-hOb "the thing is many" naO=f "it is many" wnn e-p-hOb "the thing is ugly" neO=f "it is ugly" wnn g3w=f ounte-p-hOb "the thing has" ounta=f "it has" wn m dj=f mnte-p-hOb "the thing doesn't have" mnta=f "it doesn't have" nj wn m dj=f pee-p-hOb "the thing said" pea=f "it said" p3 j-Dd=f hne-p-hOb "the thing likes" hna=f "it likes" Hn=f ___________ nesbOO=f "it is educated" wnn s-b3j=f ___________ naeiat=f "it is blessed" wnn <3j jr.t=f First of all, one has to establish what the relationship between the suffix conjugated verboid and the sDm=f actually is. Certain examples from this list stand out as clearly having nothing to do with a real sDm=f. Now, ountaf and mntaf are of no help, because they are prepositional in origin, rather than sDm=f's. Peaf can be of little help because Dd has lost its final consonant in this example. Naeiatf will not help because it has a noun intervening between the verb and the suffix. We want nefr- to help us, but unfortuanately I can't find any examples of the suffix pronoun on it. However, the rest of them are very interesting. Indeed all of them seem to be built on wnn the verb "be", which would have been the main sDm=f, and what follows is some how adjectival. Yet, what does it mean that these adjectives then take the suffix pronoun on them? Are they not indeed some survival of the adjective verb, which ought to be a sDm=f??? They seem to indicate that a final vowel between the root and the suffix was an accented long vowel. Before nouns, this vowel seems not to have been long, though. And, if one follows the rules of vocalic equivalence between Coptic and the older language, it seems pretty evident that a long /A/ is what is represented in most cases. Coptic /O/ comes from /A/, and when /O/ comes after /n/ it always becomes /U/. The next question is what kind of sDm=f would one expect to follow the auxiliary wn? Normally, wn would have converted a sDm=f into a preterite past. However, these constructions seem to translate as present. Then, if one remembers that all the Egyptian adjective verbs originally meant to become/obtain the quality of the adjective, then I think we might have our answer. If one, in the present moment, is "becoming beautiful", then that means that they are not beautiful yet. In order to make the sentence, "she is beautiful" one would have to convert this "becoming" in to the past. "she has (already) become beautiful" would be more or less equivalent to "she is beautiful." So, my suggestion is that the suffix conjugated verboids of Coptic are by and large preterite converted sDm=f's of adjective verbs. Now which sDm=f is it precisely? According to the evidence used by Ray, the sDm=f with a final long /A/ should be the prospective sDm=f. He got to this point by examining the t-causative verbs in Coptic. Here are a few examples: taouo "send" (dj jw "cause to come") tanho "nourish" (dj o "increase" (dj Actually, he disagrees with me in at least the Circumstantial forms. He > treats all the forms as *seDmef whereas my results gave *seDemef; regardless > of thequality and quantity of the vowels, the vowels (and syllables) just > don't match. If you want my best guess as to quantity, it would be (E = > long vowel) *seDEmef (*seDemsen for the heavy suffixes). Well, I think that your appraoch is more satisfactory than his, but one might want to take at least part of his vowel quality and length nonetheless. > A problem I am still having with this, is my finding that sDm.n.f appears to > be *seDmenef, where everyone else claims it was *seDemnef. If I am right, I > then have the problem of figuring out why the 3-inf. verbs don't behave as I > would expect. If I am wrong, then I have to figure out why 2-gem. verbs > don't behave as expected for that scheme. So, whichever it is, I have a > difficulty! What if there were actually vowels in both places, but that for some reason one of them predominated in one case and another in the other for some reasons which are not at first obvious? *mere'enef *qebebenef "it loved" "it was cool" The reason is that if you take the {j} to be a glotal stop as I do, then you would end up with two short vowels in rapid succession, separated by a rather weak sound. This might create a dyphthong if the vowels were different, or a single vowel if the vowels were the same. If you consider the {j} to be /y/ you have a bit more of a problem. So, *mere'enef could have tended to collapse into *merenef, while *qebebenef would have had the two similar consonants gravitate toward one another into *qebbenef However, if one analyzes the sDm.n=f in the traditional way, then your suggestion would not be as likely, unless you allow for the presence of case endings. If jw sDm=f originally meant "the case is his hearing" which became "he hears" (this is the usual interpretation offered, by the way), then if one analyzes the sDm.n=f in the same way, one gets jw sDm.n=f meaning "the case is hearing to him" which became "he has heard". The secret lies in the interpretation of the n as the proposition "to", which is how Egyptian would express "having". ("to him" meant "he has/had".) So just like the English and other European idioms, the idea of "he HAS heard" was the way that Egyptian also expressed its past. Now, when we look at the phonology of n=f we find Coptic 'naf". So we want infinitive plus the antecedent of "naf". You agree that the infinitive was *seDem (consonant, vowel, consonant, vowel, osnsonant, with the nature of the vowels not specified). We want "* seDem + nef". Unless you believe that the infinitive had a final vowel, such as a case ending, and that the case ending were rather accented, there is no real room for an interpretation of the sDm.n=f as **seDmenef, assuming that the traditional interpretation of the grammar is correct. However, it may be that the tradition is mistaken, and maybe you will discover a reason why. Yours, Geoff Graham soakr@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 13:55:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Rahotep Corrections Hi, I have been talking with Marianne who has a much clearer copy of the photograph. Between her better photograph and my Woerterbuch, I have been able to revise my translation: wr-m3.w jwnw w<.t.y Unique Chief of Seers of Heliopolis wr zH mDH.w 3ms Chief of the Shrine, Manager of the Scepter js w<.t.y wrS pj n Hrw Unique Ancient(one) who guards Pe for Horus z3-n.y-sw.t n.y X.t=f r<-Htp.j Bodily Royal Son, Rahotep wr n.y pj{.t} Chief of Pe (feminine t still makes no sense.) jm.y-r3 s-k3j.t Tt Overseer of construction and Vizier (or local leader) jm.y-r3 mS< xrp tm3 Overseer of the Army, Controller of Squadrons z3-n.y-sw.t n.y X.t=f r<-Htp.j Bodily Royal Son, Rahotep The real changes are: - grouping of wr + S = wrS, and realization that the circle after the {p} was actually a city sign. - realizing that js was not the adjective, but a noun. - I still don't have an explantion for th intrusive {t} in pj!!! - Marianne reminded me that the sxm scepter should be read xrp in titles according to Gardiner. - I found tm3 in the Woerterbuch as an Old Kingdom word for "squadron" (Soldatsrotte) with this same determinative. Finally I am satisfied except for that one little {t} which bothers me still. Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 20:16:14 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Back to Westacr, ll. 11 ff. To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Hello all, Now we can't just leave old Hardedef and company stranded in Djed-snofru! So let's finish off page one. Line 11: HHy was recognized as an infinitive, but what is peculiar about its form? Line 14: aHa.n sspd(w) aHaw n sA nsw Hr-dd.f Subject of sspd(w) is aHaw "ships". The normal construction is aHa.n sDm.n.f (the construction aHa.n sDm.f also occurs, but is quite rare). Note that sspd(w) is the PASSIVE equivalent to sDm.n.f (prior time). Line 16: Did anyone address the form of mni. Note the word order: we have NOUN VERB-form. 16-17: snDm.n.f m qniw... This clause is subordinate to the main clause, which precedes it: "having taken a seat (etc.)..." Line 18: what form is gnX (and note the word order) More word plays, as poor as they may be: line 14 ??? lines 17-18: what was the carrying poles made of and what did Hardedef do before he was carried off? By the way, hbny (line 17) has worked its way even into English via a no-doubt circuitous route. Best wishes, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==============================================================================