Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:46:28 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 AEL page 4, line 7: aHa.n Dd.n Ddi Dd.w.t=f m HkA Geoff said (responding to Nancy): >Correct. Let me just put a more literal version for >those who need it: >"Then Djedi said his sayings in magic" What form is Dd.w.t ("sayings")? Presumably derived from the verb, Dd, to say/speak. It must be nominal but can't be the infinitive (which doesn't have a t ending as far as I can see). A passive participle ("what he said")? It also seems a bit repetitious, the same verb used twice, along with a similarly sounding persons name (Ddi). Was this word-play? Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:49:53 +0000 Subject: AEL Westcar update The westcar material has once again been updated. There is now a vocabulary for AEL page 3 and half of page 4. In addition, Mike has added some extra information in the introduction for newcommers. Click on 'Purpose' from the main westcar page. Some of you may have noticed that as of yesterday we are taking the westcar material from the CCER web site rather than from the AEL website itself. Hans van den Berg of CCER has very kindly allowed us to use space on the CCER server for storing material related to the AEL list. This is necessary to allow us to continue to add and upgrading the material as the AEL site was already 60% full with the material that we already have. This should make little difference to users of the AEL home page, as you will be automatically taken to the appropriate section of the CCER server when you click on the 'Khufu and the magician' link from the AEL page. As before, there is the possibility to download everything in one go for offline viewing. This option has now moved to the main westcar page. There is one difference with the offline verion compared to how it was before. It is now in the form of a .sit file which is a StuffIt archive. This enables us to automate the cross-platform support enabling PC and MAC users to access the files. You'll need StuffIt expander, or similar program to expand the westcar.sit file once downloaded. A small problem has been noted for PC users expanding this file with StuffIt expander 1.0. Once the files have been expanded, the main westcar page is saved in a file called index.html. If you can't find this file, but you do have an index.txt rename index.txt to index.html (or index.htm if you use Windows 3). Finally, you should now have a directory (folder) called WESTCAR.PIC. If you find that you have WESTCAR_ instead, simply rename WESTCAR_ to WESTCAR.PIC and you're ready to go! Thanks to Mike Dyall-Smith for continuing to prepare the material for us, and also to CCER for the generous donation of web server space to this project. Regards to all on the list, -- Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/ ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 Hi, Mike, you asked: > >"Then Djedi said his sayings in magic" > > What form is Dd.w.t ("sayings")? Presumably derived from the verb, Dd, to > say/speak. It must be nominal but can't be the infinitive (which doesn't have > a t ending as far as I can see). A passive participle ("what he said")? It > also seems a bit repetitious, the same verb used twice, along with a similarly > sounding persons name (Ddi). Was this word-play? It is an imperfective passive participal in the feminine plural. The generic was refered to in Egyptian using the feminine gender. If it were perfective we would expect a reduplication of /d/s as in in Ddd.w.t. Biliteral verbs behave in this anomalous fashion with reduplication in the perfective. Imperfective means that the action was continuous or repeated. "what he habitually said/says" = "his sayings". Look in Gardiner under "participles." I might also have wanted to point out that m in m Hk3=f is probably best interpreted as the partitive m, meaning "out of" rather than "in". Let me modify the phrase to "his sayings from magic". Though, you will notice that this does not make a very big difference in the English this time around. Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:28:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Question on "Hr Hbb" Hi, Nancy, > >> wn in p3 smn ' h' Hr Hb3b3 Then the goose stood and waddled > >Excellent. < > Wow! I wasn't too sure at all about Hr as "and", despite Faulkner's > assurance; still, it was the only way to make sense. Yes, we have to translate it that way in this instance. Because technically Hr is a preposition, what would that tell us about Hb3b3? What form is Hbb and what kind of construction would you call this usage? Why do you think it occurs here like this? Where is the subject? It is not a trick question, but it is good for your Egyptian grammar to know the answer. ;-) Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:24:17 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 Dear Geoff and Osirians: Graham wrote: > > > It is an imperfective passive participal in the feminine plural. The > > generic was refered to in Egyptian using the feminine gender. If it > were > perfective we would expect a reduplication of /d/s as in in Ddd.w.t. > Biliteral verbs behave in this anomalous fashion with reduplication in > the > perfective. Imperfective means that the action was continuous or > repeated. "what he habitually said/says" = "his sayings". Look in > Gardiner under "participles." > My only comment is that imperfective aspect is not habitual aspect, which is a separate category. I agree that the verb is an imperfective (-w) passive participle but would prefer the translation: "what was being said" with m of equivalence, yielding "what was being said was a magic spell". > 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, 21 Jul 1997 21:40:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL After the lacuna Hi, Because I am away from my regular server, I cannot look at the web page to see exactly where we are there. I can however say that I am beginning at De Buck's Page 82, line 8, the resumption after the lacuna in the text. Just so no one struggles too much the first bit is the end of a lost sentence and the next sentence does not begin util after 'H'.n. Hr s3=f [nwH]*=f xr r t3 *This word is written with a piece of cordage and a stroke, and its reading is uncertain. I have hazzarded an educated guess because of context. 'H'.n Dd.n p3[y=f nb]* xwfw m'3-xrw *I am filling in the lacuna with another educated guess, given the {p3} and the {falcon on standard} determinative. "jt.y" or several other kingly titles might also fill the space nicely. p3- jr=f Dd jw=k rx.tj tnw n3-n-jp3.w.t n.t wn.t n.t DHwty Dd-ij Ddj Hzj.tj n rx=j tnw jr.y jt.y 'nx.w wD3.w snb.w nb=j jw=j sw.t rx=kw mw nty st jm Dd-jn Hm=f jw jr=f tn Dd-jn Ddj pn jw 'fd.t jm n.t ds m '.t sjp.t.y rn=s m jwnw mk st m t3-'fd.t Dd-jn Hm=f j-zj jnj n=j sy Dd-jn Ddj jt.y 'nx.w wD3.w snb.w nb=j mk nn jnk js jnn n=k sy Dd-jn Hm=f jn-mj jr=f jnj=f n=j sy Dd-jn Ddj jn smsw n.y p3-Xrd.w xmt* nty m X.t n.y rd-Dd.t jnj=f n=k sy *This word, comprising the numeral "three", begins page 83 of De Buck. I think this is a nice chunk to chew on. I hope someone will give it a go. Enjoy! Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:02:22 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL More Translation Nancy2 R Tomasheski wrote: > >> wn in p3 smn 'h' Hr Hb3b3 Then the goose stood and waddled > >Excellent. < > Wow! I wasn't too sure at all about Hr as "and", despite > Faulkner's > assurance; still, it was the only way to make sense. I don't think that Hr means "and" here, I believe it is usually used that way to connect nouns, similar to the English "We had wind on top of rain." In this case you need to take the whole phrase Hr Hb3b3 together as a progressive tense (Hr + infinitive) so it would be "waddling" ("hobbling" almost sounds like it). The part smn 'H' is subject+stative with a rough meaning of "the goose (as a result of getting up) was standing". The whole sentence more literally comes out as "It came about the goose was standing waddling." However that would be atrocious English for what is meant. In English, with our inordinate love of conjunctions, we would probably express it as "Then the goose stood up and waddled." > >> xr m nxt spr-f w' r w' And further, when one arrived at the > other . . . > >Yes, this part does get difficult but you have done very well. > First change your "nxt" to "xt", then try: "After he had arrived, one > to > the other..." < > > I almost wonder if the =f does not refer to Djedi, and the spr > is > not in some fashion causative (analyzed as "s-prj"), meaning: "After > he > (Djedi) had caused one to go toward the other..." Is this plausible? > < > I ignored the f of spr-f because I didn't like it. But I think > you > are probably right that it refers to Djedi. Perhaps the general sense > is > something like: "After he [Djedi] had brought the two parts together", > which of course we cannot use since it is completely different than > what > the Egyptian actually _says_. Your suggestion matches better, and is > certainly plausible! Much of the fun of the language for me is in our > lack of certainty about any given interpretation and the debate and > wonderful variety of interpretations from people with different > perspectives. I think the =f is referring back to the goose. So a literal trnslation might be "After it arrived, one part to the other." But English would probably want to say something like "After the pieces reached each other." -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:13:54 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 Michael Dyall-Smith wrote: > AEL page 4, line 7: > aHa.n Dd.n Ddi Dd.w.t=f m HkA > Geoff said (responding to Nancy): > >Correct. Let me just put a more literal version for > >those who need it: > >"Then Djedi said his sayings in magic" > > What form is Dd.w.t ("sayings")? Presumably derived from the verb, Dd, > to > say/speak. It must be nominal but can't be the infinitive (which > doesn't have > a t ending as far as I can see). A passive participle ("what he > said")? It > also seems a bit repetitious, the same verb used twice, along with a > similarly > sounding persons name (Ddi). Was this word-play? This same expression occurs in the section of Westcar about the boating party: aHa.n Dd.n Xr-Hb DADAmanx Dd.wt m HkA.w Then Djadja-m-ankh said his say of magics I rather like to use "of" here rather than "in" as a translation, because "in " sort of implies in English that he was using a special language, which isn't necessarily the case. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 21:15:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) Hi, all, I am picking up where Nancy left off, just to keep things rolling. I would love it if others would jump in to explain grammatical points from time to time. Let's hear from some lurkers if possible. You don't even have to do this with blindfolds! That goose is a sitting duck to the sighted! 'H'.n p3-smn 'H'.w Hr g3g3 Then the goose got up and cackled! What form is 'H'.w? Why would they use that form instead of a sDm.n=f? What form is g3g3? Where is the subject of g3g3? 'H'.n rdj.n=f jnj=tw n=f xt'3 Then he caused a wood-foul* to be brought to him. *xt-'3 seems to be another kind of goose, but because the ideogram {xt} occurs in it, I am taking a little lexical license. Identify the verb forms in this sentence. How would you analyze what is going on? What alternative translation would also work here? jrj=tw r=f m mj.t.y.t The same thing was done to it. What is the Egyptian subject of this sentence? What other translation might be possible if any? 'H'.n rdj.n Hm=f jnj=tw n=f jH Then His Majesty caused an ox to be brought to him, Identify the verbs and their forms. What is the subject? What is the object? What is the indirect object? Explain the word order if you can. *** extra brownie points!!! s-xr.w tp=f r t3 Its head was felled to the ground. What is the subject of this sentence? What form does the verb take? What class of verb is it? 'H'.n Dd.n Ddj Dd.w.t=f m Hk3 Then Djedi said his words* of magic. *"things which are habitually said" can equal "utterances" or "words". 'H'.n p3-jH 'H'.w Then the ox got up! What form is 'H'.w? Why would it not have been a sDm.n=f for instance? Why would the subjcect come first in this sentence? I hope that this will provoke a few of you to hazzard some answers to these questions. Maybe you also have other questions which will be good for the rest of us. A gold tomato to whoever* can answer all these questions! ;-P *I debated about "whomever" but I thought that might be just a little too much grammar for one post! I know that Americans do not use it anymore, do Brits? People might laugh at it here I think. Funny thing how grammar changes, eh? Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:48:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL More Translation Hi, Stephen, Thanks for the great comments. > > >> wn in p3 smn 'h' Hr Hb3b3 Then the goose stood and waddled > I don't think that Hr means "and" here, I believe it is usually used > that way to connect nouns, similar to the English "We had wind on top of > rain." In this case you need to take the whole phrase Hr Hb3b3 together > as a progressive tense (Hr + infinitive) so it would be "waddling" > ("hobbling" almost sounds like it). The part smn 'H' is subject+stative > with a rough meaning of "the goose (as a result of getting up) was > standing". The whole sentence more literally comes out as "It came > about the goose was standing waddling." However that would be atrocious > English for what is meant. In English, with our inordinate love of > conjunctions, we would probably express it as "Then the goose stood up > and waddled." p3-smn 'H'(.w): Yes, Stephen, this is quite correct. However, the stative form of 'H' need not be translated as a literal stative. In Egyptian 'H' is classed as a "verb of motion". ("get up" involves motion from one position to another) The stative is used as the normal "past tense" for verbs of motion. "The goose got up" does the trick. Also, while technically you are right about the pseudo-verbal construction representing a gerundive ("standing"), in many cases it seems better to just translate it as a regular past tense in the English. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, Egyptian grammar was evolving to a more analytical structure and the pseudo-verbal construction ended up basically taking over the role of the sDm=f in later stages of the language. Literally the Egyptian is saying: "Then the goose came to be standing (and) waddling." Yet, of course, for all practical purposes, the sentence really means: "Then the goose got up and waddled." I thought it would be a good opportunity to introduce these particular points about the stative and the pseudo-verbal construction. Notice, also that they are often used in tandem. One can continue the other. This text makes especially good use of this feature, not having to repeat the subject for the Hr Hb3b3. This is the real reason why English requires an "and" at this juncture. The Egyptian expresses no separate subject for Hb3b3. It is not that Hr is translated as "and" but that there is a blank space between the bound units "p3-smn 'H'.w" AND "Hr-Hb3b3". English requires a conjunction to connect the two while Egyptian did not. > > >> xr m nxt spr-f w' r w' And further, when one arrived at the > > other . . . > I think the =f is referring back to the goose. So a literal trnslation > might be "After it arrived, one part to the other." But English would > probably want to say something like "After the pieces reached each > other." Yes, this was also my first rendition of the sentence. One does not particularly expect a special causative form of prj to happen here, yet you have to admit that it helps to explain the =f. I think your explanation is probably the more likely, but it still is awkward, isn't it? Another approach (quite in sync with yours) would be to assume that w' r w', literally "one to one", possibly also "one to the other", could be taken a step further to represent the idiom "back together". "afterwards he came back together." i.e. (re-assembled (himself)). Aren't different languages amusing? ;-) Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:45:17 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) Dear Geoff and Osirians: > > 'H'.n p3-smn 'H'.w Hr g3g3 > Then the goose got up and cackled! > This phrase, Hr g3g3, and the phrase we just looked at, Hr Hb3b3, perfectly illustrate why I suggest that Hr + verb should be translated as "about to ...." or "begins to ....": "then the goose, standing, began to cackle"; "...stood up (and) began to waddle". Though Geoff will probably prefer to classify 'H'.w as an "old perfective", it appears to me to be better classified as an imperfective (-w) participle. 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, 22 Jul 1997 10:09:35 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: Re: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk aHa.n Dd.n Ddi Dd.w.t=f m HkA Ddt.f: Mike is right on in noting this as a nominal form. And his suggestion as passive participle works well, except for the fact that the suffix .f is attached. In class I tell my students (over and over) that the participles and the relative verb forms are "cousins." The participles are the single cousins, and the relative verb forms are the "married" cousins, since they conjugate. Here we seem to have the married variety. (In other words, in Egyptian one used the participle when one did not want or need to indicate the subject--and one used the relative forms precisely when the subject was needed.) The point that it is redundant is true, but in the ancient NE generally, there is a rhetorical device known to modern scholars as "cognate accusative"--the writer uses the same verbal root for the verbal action and for the action performed. We don't find "she sang her song" as a very clever phrasing, but the general pattern was much liked in the ANE. This phenomenon is also very well attested in the Hebrew scriptures. with best wishes, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:51:23 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 James Hoch wrote: > > aHa.n Dd.n Ddi Dd.w.t=f m HkA > > Ddt.f: Mike is right on in noting this as a nominal form. I sometimes wonder with the some of the nominal verb forms whether the Egyptians felt them as verb forms or as just nouns. We do that in English too. >In class I tell my students (over and over) that the participles > and the relative verb forms are "cousins." The participles are the single > cousins, and the relative verb forms are the "married" cousins, since they > conjugate. Here we seem to have the married variety. (In other words, in > Egyptian one used the participle when one did not want or need to indicate > the subject--and one used the relative forms precisely when the subject > was needed.) I think this is an excellent way of making it stick in people's memories. I find that sometimes a slightly silly explanation works where a more rational one does not. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:04:19 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, L To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: RE>>AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 Dear Teachers, I loved James' method of working out participles from relative forms, and I would like to collect any similar 'mnemonics'. I have a mnemonic for the 'alphabet' as part of my 'Scribe of KMT' hypercard program, and I know how useful they can be. So, off list or on, could any teachers send me their mnemonics for grammar. Thanks, Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au -------------------------------------- Date: 7/23/97 4:36 To: Michael Dyall-Smith From: Ancient Egyptian Language List aHa.n Dd.n Ddi Dd.w.t=f m HkA Ddt.f: Mike is right on in noting this as a nominal form. And his suggestion as passive participle works well, except for the fact that the suffix .f is attached. In class I tell my students (over and over) that the participles and the relative verb forms are "cousins." The participles are the single cousins, and the relative verb forms are the "married" cousins, since they conjugate. Here we seem to have the married variety. (In other words, in Egyptian one used the participle when one did not want or need to indicate the subject--and one used the relative forms precisely when the subject was needed.) The point that it is redundant is true, but in the ancient NE generally, there is a rhetorical device known to modern scholars as "cognate accusative"--the writer uses the same verbal root for the verbal action and for the action performed. We don't find "she sang her song" as a very clever phrasing, but the general pattern was much liked in the ANE. This phenomenon is also very well attested in the Hebrew scriptures. with best wishes, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;23 Jul 1997 04:36:18 +1100 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net) by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.1-8 #17781) with SMTP id <01ILKALCK7Z6000U3A@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> for Michael_Dyall-Smith@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 04:36:12 +1000 Received: from rostau.demon.co.uk ([194.222.22.205]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1027104; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:07 +0100 (BST) Received: from relay-12.mail.demon.net by rostau.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA869591172 ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:06:12 +0100 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore for AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk id 869577245:05:07858:0; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:14:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from bureau-de-poste.utcc.utoronto.ca ([128.100.132.11]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1224312; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:13 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca ([128.100.209.2]) by bureau-de-poste.utcc.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <796419(8)>; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:13:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:09:35 -0400 From: James Hoch Subject: Re: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7 Sender: Ancient Egyptian Language List To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Reply-to: Ancient Egyptian Language List Message-id: <21078445.ensmtp@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca> Organization: CampusLife - University of Toronto MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Priority: normal ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:09:45 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) On 21 Jul 97 at 21:15, Graham wrote: > Let's hear from some lurkers if possible. You don't even > have to do this with blindfolds! That goose is a sitting duck to the > sighted! It's been a while since I had a go at anything on-list, so here's my attempt to answer some of Geoff's questions. I won't spoil the fun by attempting them all, so here goes... > 'H'.n p3-smn 'H'.w Hr g3g3 > Then the goose got up and cackled! > > What form is 'H'.w? It's the stative (aka old perfective / pseudo-participle). > Why would they use that form instead of a sDm.n=f? They used this form with verbs of motion. It gives a feeling of an action being completed. > What form is g3g3? > > Where is the subject of g3g3? I think it's p3-smn. On the other hand, if Hr g3g3 is a kind of progressive participle, does it have a subject at all? Then again, could it be a gerund? If we say "Then the goose stood up cackling", Hr g3g3 would be a preposition plus noun which is adverbial in egyptian. Indeed, "cackling" in this context would be adverbial in english too (I think). > 'H'.n rdj.n=f jnj=tw n=f xt'3 > Then he caused a wood-foul* to be brought to him. > > *xt-'3 seems to be another kind of goose, but because the ideogram {xt} > occurs in it, I am taking a little lexical license. > > Identify the verb forms in this sentence. rdj.n=f is the past tense circumstantial sDm.n=f jnj=tw is a passive circumstantial present tense. > How would you analyze what is going on? This is a good question. ;-) If it's not too rediculous a question, would it be possible to consider the whole of jnj=tw n=f xt'3 to be the object of rdj.n ? > What alternative translation would also work here? Then he had a wood-faul brought to him. > jrj=tw r=f m mj.t.y.t > The same thing was done to it. > > What is the Egyptian subject of this sentence? I think it's tw because it really means "One does likewise to it". > What other translation might be possible if any? > Right, I'll stop there. Maybe someone else would like to have ago at the remaining questions. > 'H'.n rdj.n Hm=f jnj=tw n=f jH > Then His Majesty caused an ox to be brought to him, > > Identify the verbs and their forms. > > What is the subject? > > What is the object? > > What is the indirect object? > > Explain the word order if you can. *** extra brownie points!!! > > s-xr.w tp=f r t3 > Its head was felled to the ground. > > What is the subject of this sentence? > > What form does the verb take? > > What class of verb is it? > > 'H'.n Dd.n Ddj Dd.w.t=f m Hk3 > Then Djedi said his words* of magic. > > *"things which are habitually said" can equal "utterances" or "words". > > 'H'.n p3-jH 'H'.w > Then the ox got up! > > What form is 'H'.w? > > Why would it not have been a sDm.n=f for instance? > > Why would the subjcect come first in this sentence? > > I hope that this will provoke a few of you to hazzard some answers to > these questions. Maybe you also have other questions which will be good > for the rest of us. A gold tomato to whoever* can answer all these > questions! ;-P > > *I debated about "whomever" but I thought that might be just a little too > much grammar for one post! I know that Americans do not use it anymore, do > Brits? People might laugh at it here I think. Funny thing how grammar > changes, eh? > > Yours, Geoff Graham > sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu > > -- Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/ ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:28:12 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: RE>>AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) >From Mark's post: Isn't gAgA an infinitive? So does it need a subject at all? > What form is g3g3? > > Where is the subject of g3g3? I think it's p3-smn. On the other hand, if Hr g3g3 is a kind of progressive participle, does it have a subject at all? Mike Dyall-Smith -------------------------------------- Date: 7/24/97 6:50 To: Michael Dyall-Smith From: Ancient Egyptian Language List On 21 Jul 97 at 21:15, Graham wrote: > Let's hear from some lurkers if possible. You don't even > have to do this with blindfolds! That goose is a sitting duck to the > sighted! It's been a while since I had a go at anything on-list, so here's my attempt to answer some of Geoff's questions. I won't spoil the fun by attempting them all, so here goes... > 'H'.n p3-smn 'H'.w Hr g3g3 > Then the goose got up and cackled! > > What form is 'H'.w? It's the stative (aka old perfective / pseudo-participle). > Why would they use that form instead of a sDm.n=f? They used this form with verbs of motion. It gives a feeling of an action being completed. > What form is g3g3? > > Where is the subject of g3g3? I think it's p3-smn. On the other hand, if Hr g3g3 is a kind of progressive participle, does it have a subject at all? Then again, could it be a gerund? If we say "Then the goose stood up cackling", Hr g3g3 would be a preposition plus noun which is adverbial in egyptian. Indeed, "cackling" in this context would be adverbial in english too (I think). > 'H'.n rdj.n=f jnj=tw n=f xt'3 > Then he caused a wood-foul* to be brought to him. > > *xt-'3 seems to be another kind of goose, but because the ideogram {xt} > occurs in it, I am taking a little lexical license. > > Identify the verb forms in this sentence. rdj.n=f is the past tense circumstantial sDm.n=f jnj=tw is a passive circumstantial present tense. > How would you analyze what is going on? This is a good question. ;-) If it's not too rediculous a question, would it be possible to consider the whole of jnj=tw n=f xt'3 to be the object of rdj.n ? > What alternative translation would also work here? Then he had a wood-faul brought to him. > jrj=tw r=f m mj.t.y.t > The same thing was done to it. > > What is the Egyptian subject of this sentence? I think it's tw because it really means "One does likewise to it". > What other translation might be possible if any? > Right, I'll stop there. Maybe someone else would like to have ago at the remaining questions. > 'H'.n rdj.n Hm=f jnj=tw n=f jH > Then His Majesty caused an ox to be brought to him, > > Identify the verbs and their forms. > > What is the subject? > > What is the object? > > What is the indirect object? > > Explain the word order if you can. *** extra brownie points!!! > > s-xr.w tp=f r t3 > Its head was felled to the ground. > > What is the subject of this sentence? > > What form does the verb take? > > What class of verb is it? > > 'H'.n Dd.n Ddj Dd.w.t=f m Hk3 > Then Djedi said his words* of magic. > > *"things which are habitually said" can equal "utterances" or "words". > > 'H'.n p3-jH 'H'.w > Then the ox got up! > > What form is 'H'.w? > > Why would it not have been a sDm.n=f for instance? > > Why would the subjcect come first in this sentence? > > I hope that this will provoke a few of you to hazzard some answers to > these questions. Maybe you also have other questions which will be good > for the rest of us. A gold tomato to whoever* can answer all these > questions! ;-P > > *I debated about "whomever" but I thought that might be just a little too > much grammar for one post! I know that Americans do not use it anymore, do > Brits? People might laugh at it here I think. Funny thing how grammar > changes, eh? > > Yours, Geoff Graham > sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu > > -- Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/ ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;24 Jul 1997 06:49:43 +1100 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net) by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.1-8 #17781) with SMTP id <01ILLTJ2U12Q000W77@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> for Michael_Dyall-Smith@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 06:49:37 +1000 Received: from rostau.demon.co.uk ([194.222.22.205]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1413013; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from rostau.demon.co.uk by rostau.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA869688585 ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:09:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:09:45 +0000 From: Mark Wilson Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) Sender: Ancient Egyptian Language List To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Reply-to: Ancient Egyptian Language List Message-id: <869688595.1413013.0@rostau.demon.co.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal Comments: Authenticated sender is ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:37:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) Hi, Mark, It is nice to hear from you again. > > 'H'.n p3-smn 'H'.w Hr g3g3 > > Then the goose got up and cackled! > > > > What form is 'H'.w? > > It's the stative (aka old perfective / pseudo-participle). Right. > > Why would they use that form instead of a sDm.n=f? > > They used this form with verbs of motion. It gives a feeling of an > action being completed. Yes, it was the preferred form for the PAST tense of verbs of motion. > > What form is g3g3? > > > > Where is the subject of g3g3? > > I think it's p3-smn. On the other hand, if Hr g3g3 is a kind of > progressive participle, does it have a subject at all? Then again, > could it be a gerund? If we say "Then the goose stood up cackling", > Hr g3g3 would be a preposition plus noun which is adverbial in > egyptian. Indeed, "cackling" in this context would be adverbial in > english too (I think). Yes, it is a bit ambiguous. Assuming that, since what we have is the pseudo-verbal construction, then we are treating it something like a "verb" and p3-smn is the subject. > > 'H'.n rdj.n=f jnj=tw n=f xt'3 > > Then he caused a wood-foul* to be brought to him. > > > > *xt-'3 seems to be another kind of goose, but because the ideogram {xt} > > occurs in it, I am taking a little lexical license. > > > > Identify the verb forms in this sentence. > > rdj.n=f is the past tense circumstantial sDm.n=f Right. It is goverend by 'H'.n, which technically is a verb too. It is circumstantial because it is subordinate. > jnj=tw is a passive circumstantial present tense. No, actually, jnj=tw is a subjunctive sDm=f. While we translate it "passively" and in certain cases this is the only way it can be translated into English, the suffix =tw does represent a person, the indefinite, generic person "one". Literally it says "that one might bring". The reason it necessarily has to be subjunctive is that it is governed by rdj.n=f. Does this make sense to you now? > > How would you analyze what is going on? > > This is a good question. ;-) If it's not too rediculous a question, > would it be possible to consider the whole of jnj=tw n=f xt'3 to be > the object of rdj.n ? No, that is not ridiculous at all. I think it is. This was the point of the question. I wanted to show how 'H'.n necessitated that the next verb be circumstantial, and how rdj.n=f necessitated that the next verb be subjunctive. There are certain patterns which one finds repeating themselves in Egyptian all the time. If one can learn a few basic rules, then one will have an easier time identifying the functions of verbs in sentences an therefore be able to translate all the more efficiently. > > What alternative translation would also work here? > > Then he had a wood-faul brought to him. Yes, this works. What I was looking for was a sentence which utilized the literal translation of =tw. "Then he caused that one bring him a wood-foul." > > jrj=tw r=f m mj.t.y.t > > The same thing was done to it. > > > > What is the Egyptian subject of this sentence? > > I think it's tw because it really means "One does likewise to it". Yes, see you DID already know this! Great, Mark! Thanks. Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:07:47 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: RE>>AEL Grammar the head on I'm skipping a line after the end of Mark's contribution (because I need more time to think over the questions!) and going straight to AEL p4, line 13 (=de Buck, p 82, line 4) > > s-xr.w tp=f r t3 > Its head was felled to the ground. > What is the subject of this sentence? This is a passive construction. The subject (patient) is tp=f (the head). > What form does the verb take? The sDm.w=f passive (aka perfect passive). An verb form common in early egyptian. > What class of verb is it? caus. 2-lit. (causative of a 2-lit verb) Mike Dyall-Smith Melbourne mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:04:21 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Graham wrote: > De Buck's Page 82, line 8, the resumption after the lacuna in the > text. > Hr s3=f [nwH]*=f xr r t3 > > *This word is written with a piece of cordage and a stroke, and its > reading is uncertain. I have hazzarded an educated guess because of > context. This obviously is the tail-end of a description of Djedi performing the lion-taming trick that Hardedef had mentioned, back on the first page. As for a transliteration of the ideogram (which was used also on th first page, in an exact parallel statement to this), Faulkner probably wisely doesn't attempt any, just giving the meaning from context as "leash". So, with a little emendation: [the lion walked] behind him with its leash fallen to the ground. Although if I was describing the scene in English I would probably say "with its leash trailing on the ground." > 'H'.n Dd.n p3[y=f nb]* xwfw m'3-xrw > > *I am filling in the lacuna with another educated guess, given the > {p3} and the {falcon on standard} determinative. "jt.y" or several > other kingly titles might also fill the space nicely. I can't accept Geoff's proposed emendation, since I don't believe that the Late-Egyptian possessive adjectives are used anywhere else in this text, so I would rule out the use of p3y=f. I did look through the rest of the Westcar text, and couldn't find a similar phrasing anywhere, so I prefer to just leave it blank (see following NOTE for a side issue). So I translate it as: Then ... Khufu, of blessed memory, said NOTE: While checking throught the rest of the Westcar text, I also looked at the story of Baufre ("The Boating Party") which precedes the story we're working on. I was struck by the very different phraseology used in addressing the king (Sneferu), which seems much less formal in the boating party story, usually a simp;e "Your Majesty" (Hm=k) and reference to the king as part of the narrative usually seems to refer to him as "His Majesty" (Hm=f), except in the opening and closing which refers to "The King of Upper nad Lower Egypt" (n-sw-bit). The phrase l.p.h. is only used when mention is made of the palace. This is a marked contrast with the frequently repeated "Sovereign, l.p.h., my Lord" in the story of Djedi. There are however parallels in the phrasing used when telling about an act of magic: 'H'.n Dd.n .... Dd.wt=f m Hk3.w (with the appropriate subject in the blank (sometimes the name, sometimes just =f) So this brings up the question of whether these stories were written separately originally and put together for the purpose of creating a narrative frame to lead up to the story of the divine birth of the kings of the Fifth Dynasty, or whether this reflects something of the varying court protocol according to rank (since Djadja-em-ankh did have a prestigious court title, whereas Djedi is described simply as nDs ("commoner"). Comments? > p3 jr=f Dd jw=k rx.tj tnw n3-n-jp3.w.t n.t wn.t n.t DHwty A couple of changes to the transliteration here: replace jr=f with jrf replace jp3.w.t with jp.wt jrf is a particle which is frequently untranslated and means someting like "now then" I translate it as: Now what about what they say about you knowing the number (layout? plans?) of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth? Well, that's all I have time for this morning - I do have some thoughts on some of the rest of this, though. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT) To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL bocchoris the above named fellow supposedly received a prophecy from a lamb that the assyrians were coming to wreak havoc. can anyone tell me the sources? chris hoffman ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:06:34 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Stephen Fryer wrote: > > De Buck's Page 82, line 8, the resumption after the lacuna in the > > text. > Well, that's all I have time for this morning - I do have some > thoughts > on some of the rest of this, though. Actually I did a translit and translation of most of this in a private message a while ago. I'm going to be lazy and just paste that in here: The transliteration of that section of text: aHa.n Dd.n pA --- xfw mAa xrw pA irf Dd iw=k rx=ti tnw nA n ip.(w)t n.(w)t wn.t n.t DHwty Dd.in Ddi Hs=ti n rx=i tnw iry itiy anx=w wD=w snb=w nb=i iw=i swt rx=kw bw nty st im Dd.in Hm=f iw irf tn Dd.in Ddi pn iw afd.t im n.t ds m a.t s.ip.ty rn=s m iwnw m tA afd.t A rough translation: So the --- Khwfw, bless Him, said "So what about what is said that you know the number(1) of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth?" And Djedi said "Please, Sovereign, live long and prosper, my Lord, I don't know the number of them. However, I do know where it is."(2) And His Majesty said "So where is it?!"(3) And Djedi-san said "There is a box of flint there in the room labeled Records in On. In the box!"(4) (1) I'm translating tnw as simply number here provisionally, though it probably meant considerably more. Its determinatives are the scroll and plural strokes. (2) This is the usual expression for "where N is" - bw nty N im tnw N would be decidedly unusual - and see note 3 below (3) The interrogative "where" is tn with a road sign as determinative. At this point I have a feeling that Khwfw was probably starting to get a little impatient, so I added an exclamation mark as well as a question mark. (4) In the official AEL version there is some material added here that isn't in the papyrus. DeBuck has it marked in brackets "See it is....". I preferred to leave it out, because Djedi left it out - he was in rather a hurry because Khwfw's look was getting blacker with every extra syllable he spoke. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 06:59:59 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: RE>>AEL After the lacuna AEL p4, L18 (De Buck's Page 82, line 8), the resumption after the lacuna in the text. > Hr s3=f [nwH]*=f xr r t3 [the lion walked] behind him with its leash *fallen* to the ground. Looking at verb xr, should it be in the stative form. If so, then should the transliteration would be xr.w? Mike Dyall-Smith mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:27:33 +1100 From: Michael Dyall-Smith Subject: AEL WESTCAR P4 VOCAB To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Reply to: WESTCAR P4 VOCAB The vocab for AEL page 4 of westcar is now complete on the web site. You may need to reload from your browser to get the new lines and vocab loaded properly. Any problems, errors or comments, please tell me. Regards, Mike Dyall-Smith mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:30:22 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on Dear Michael: Wouldn't it be a little smoother to say: "His head was being caused to fall to the earth". Pat Michael Dyall-Smith wrote: > Reply to: RE>>AEL Grammar the head on > > I'm skipping a line after the end of Mark's contribution (because I > need more > time to think over the questions!) and going straight to AEL p4, line > 13 (=de > Buck, p 82, line 4) > > > > s-xr.w tp=f r t3 > > Its head was felled to the ground. > > What is the subject of this sentence? > This is a passive construction. The subject (patient) is tp=f (the > head). > > What form does the verb take? > The sDm.w=f passive (aka perfect passive). An verb form common in > early > egyptian. > > What class of verb is it? > caus. 2-lit. (causative of a 2-lit verb) > > Mike Dyall-Smith > Melbourne > mikeds@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au -- 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: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:23:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL bocchoris Chris, > the above named fellow supposedly received a prophecy from a lamb that the > assyrians were coming to wreak havoc. can anyone tell me the sources? It is in the "Demotic Chronical", which is a series of prophesies delivered by various gods, but which of course was written after the facts! ;-) I wish I could direct you to a text publication but you will have to look it up for yourself. Sorry. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:47:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Hi, Mike, > AEL p4, L18 (De Buck's Page 82, line 8), the resumption after the lacuna in > the text. > > Hr s3=f [nwH]*=f xr r t3 > [the lion walked] behind him with its leash *fallen* to the ground. > > Looking at verb xr, should it be in the stative form. If so, then should the > transliteration would be xr.w? Yes! You are quite right. I have anlayzed it as stative, but not written the suffix. To follow my usual practice, I probably should have. But if I am too consistent then maybe you will all stop trying to anlayze things for yourselves! ;-P "When Geoff puts a .w there then we know it has to be stative, right?" Well, let me just warn you that there are other reasons for .w's obviously! ;-P Hmmm, if I really wanted to be consistent with myself, which might be a hard trick ;-), then I would have to make my stative endings as .j because this is the Old Kingdom realization of the stative, and I always go for the "original" forms. Why not just convert all this degenerate Middle Egyptian into idealized Old Egyptian anyway! Hahahahaah!!! ;-P Well, we all have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:32:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Hi, Stephen, Thanks for the translation, but leave my transliteration alone!!! ;-P > > Hr s3=f [nwH]*=f xr r t3 > > *This word is written with a piece of cordage and a stroke, and its > > reading is uncertain. I have hazzarded an educated guess because of > > context. [snips] > first page, in an exact parallel statement to this), Faulkner probably > wisely doesn't attempt any, just giving the meaning from context as > "leash". Yes, my proposition of nwH, which one need not accept necessarily, is based on this words meaning of "cord/rope". > [the lion walked] behind him with its leash fallen to the ground. > Although if I was describing the scene in English I would probably say > "with its leash trailing on the ground." Sounds good to me. > > 'H'.n Dd.n p3[y=f nb]* xwfw m'3-xrw > I can't accept Geoff's proposed emendation, since I don't believe that > the Late-Egyptian possessive adjectives are used anywhere else in this > text, so I would rule out the use of p3y=f. I did look through the rest > of the Westcar text, and couldn't find a similar phrasing anywhere, so I > prefer to just leave it blank (see following NOTE for a side issue). So > I translate it as: Fine, you need not accept it. It is however one solution. There unfortunately are not many choices of words which would begin with these signs. > Then ... Khufu, of blessed memory, said This works fine too. [snip of observations on different style in different episodes] > This is a marked contrast with the frequently repeated "Sovereign, > l.p.h., my Lord" in the story of Djedi. > There are however parallels in the phrasing used when telling about an > act of magic: > 'H'.n Dd.n .... Dd.wt=f m Hk3.w (with the appropriate subject in the > blank (sometimes the name, sometimes just =f) > So this brings up the question of whether these stories were written > separately originally and put together for the purpose of creating a > narrative frame to lead up to the story of the divine birth of the kings > of the Fifth Dynasty, or whether this reflects something of the varying > court protocol according to rank (since Djadja-em-ankh did have a > prestigious court title, whereas Djedi is described simply as nDs > ("commoner"). > Comments? It could just as well relate to the attitude that each royal son telling a story had toward kingship based on HIS rank in the hierarchy. Your guess is as good as mine, certainly. > > p3 jr=f Dd jw=k rx.tj tnw n3-n-jp3.w.t n.t wn.t n.t DHwty > > A couple of changes to the transliteration here: > replace jr=f with jrf > replace jp3.w.t with jp.wt > jrf is a particle which is frequently untranslated and means someting > like "now then" Yes, jr=f is a particle, but it does not change the fact that it orginates in jr + f. Middle Egyptian can still use jr=k as a particle too, and it is not translated into English there either. The use of dividing points is all a matter of personal style... I have given up, for instance on writing mj=k, mj=T, and mj=Tn for what various other scholars analyze as mk, mT, and mTn "look/behold". The point is only a matter of how much of the original information do YOU as an individual scholar choose to preserve in your transliteration. I tend to aim for a high level of historical information in my transliterations, others do not. I would not tell you you were wrong for writing jrf, or not pointing your feminine t's off or dashing your causative s's off. My purpose here is simply to use a transliteration which will provide the maximum amount of grammatical and lexical information. And this is especially important because this list is devoted to learning and instruction. Similarly, my tranliteration of jp3.w.t reflects the orginal word jp3.t "harim/private-quarters/secret-rooms". By the New Kingdom this {3} had mostly ceased to be written but it was a part of the root word. Therefore, I choose to represent it. Writing jp3.t distinguishes the word from various other words which have the form jp.t and mean different things altogether. It is just like writing jrj.t for "making" while jr.t for "eye" or jnj.t for "bringing" while jn.t for "valley". (And I am sure you know of Egyptologists who make no such distinctions in their transliterations!) This transliteration method gives the reader a visual cue as to what word the transliterator intended to represent. Even if the spelling does not represent the exact pronunciation of the period at which the text was written, this is not the issue... at least not in this forum. If we were talking about the phonology of the texts rather than the meaning and grammar, we would want to take the opposite approach and only represent exactly what the scribe wrote down. Transliterations are tools by which we convey information to ourselves. The more detail one can put into one's transliterations the more powerful a communication tool they can be for other scholars to read and immediately comprehend, without so much hesitation and debate as to which word the transliterator was intending to write. When people are learning a new language, they will want to learn the complete forms of the words right from the start. It is easier to recognize something with subtracted information than it is when a form pops up with additional information, and you have no means of explaining why. This is why I think it is so important to learn third-weak roots with their final radicals. If you don't learn them this way, you will constantly wonder about the class of any apparently biliteral verb... "was that one biliteral or third weak... I just can't remember!" Sorry for the little lecture, but criticizing my transliterations pushes my bottons, so watch out!!!! ;-) p3 jr=f Dd jw=k rx.tj tnw n3-n-jp3.w.t n.t wn.t n.t DHwty I translate it as: > Now what about what they say about you knowing the number (layout? > plans?) of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth? Fine. Now for a question: What is p3? What is strange about how it is used in this sentence? Any explanations? Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 00:39:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Grammar the head on Hi, Mike, > > s-xr.w tp=f r t3 > > Its head was felled to the ground. [about s-xr] > > What class of verb is it? > caus. 2-lit. (causative of a 2-lit verb) Yes. For those of you who do not already know it. In Middle Egyptian one could make a causative out of various verbs (not necessarily all verbs) by putting a prefix s- onto the front of them. xr "fall" > s-xr "fell/cause to fall" mn "endure/remain" > s-mn "establish/cause to remain/endure" mnx "become effective" > s-mnx "make effective" Dd "say" > s-Dd "tell/relate/recount" Got it? Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 01:31:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Hi, Stephen, I see you have been working hard and fast. What follows is an interlinear collation of Stephen's translation. I had to do it in order to be able to comment. Since Stephen has translated this whole section correctly anyway, I will just add my own more literal translation as a variant. There is no really significant difference though. > aHa.n Dd.n pA --- xfw mAa xrw > So the --- Khwfw, bless Him, said Then [...] Khufu the vindicated said; > pA irf Dd > "So what about what is said "(And), as for what is said > iw=k rx=ti tnw nA n ip.(w)t n.(w)t wn.t n.t DHwty > that you know the number of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of > Thoth?" that you know the number of the non-public-rooms of the structure of Thoth...?" > Dd.in Ddi > And Djedi said Then Djedi said; > Hs=ti n rx=i tnw iry itiy anx=w wD=w snb=w nb=i > "Please, Sovereign, live long and prosper, my Lord, I don't know the > number of them. "Please*, I don't know the appropriate number, Sovereign, to whom life, prosperity**, and health, my Lord." *Here, I would transliterate Hzj.tj. The verb is third-weak and the {s} is from original {z}. **I would also used wD3.w. There is a final {3} in the root. Yours is just fine as you have it of course, but I just thought I'd give you a dose of your own medicine! ;-P) > iw=i swt rx=kw bw nty st im > However, I do know where it is." "I do however know the place in which it is." > Dd.in Hm=f > And His Majesty said Then His Majesty said; > iw irf tn > "So where is it?!" "As for it, where is it?" > Dd.in Ddi pn > And Djedi-san said Then this Djedi said; > iw afd.t im n.t ds m a.t s.ip.ty rn=s m iwnw > "There is a box of flint there in the room labeled Records in On. "There is a box of flint there in a room the name/reputation of which is recorded/famed in Heliopolis. > m tA afd.t > In the box!" (See it is)* in the box." *Adding back in De Buck's "mk st" Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 07:57:33 +0000 From: "Patrick C. Ryan" To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Dear Geoff: I, for one, appreciate transcriptions that reflect WHAT IS WRITTEN not what sometime theorizes might have been there, or was there at an earlier date, Pat Graham wrote: > Hi, Mike, > > > AEL p4, L18 (De Buck's Page 82, line 8), the resumption after the > lacuna in > > the text. > > > Hr s3=f [nwH]*=f xr r t3 > > [the lion walked] behind him with its leash *fallen* to the ground. > > > > Looking at verb xr, should it be in the stative form. If so, then > should the > > transliteration would be xr.w? > > Yes! You are quite right. I have anlayzed it as stative, but not > written > the suffix. To follow my usual practice, I probably should have. But > if > I am too consistent then maybe you will all stop trying to anlayze > things > for yourselves! ;-P "When Geoff puts a .w there then we know it has to > be > stative, right?" Well, let me just warn you that there are other > reasons > for .w's obviously! ;-P Hmmm, if I really wanted to be consistent > with > myself, which might be a hard trick ;-), then I would have to make my > stative endings as .j because this is the Old Kingdom realization of > the > stative, and I always go for the "original" forms. Why not just > convert all this degenerate Middle Egyptian into idealized Old > Egyptian anyway! Hahahahaah!!! ;-P Well, we all have to draw the line > > somewhere, don't we? > > Yours, 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: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:15:58 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Graham wrote: > What follows is an interlinear collation of Stephen's translation. I had > to do it in order to be able to comment. Since Stephen has translated > this whole section correctly anyway, I will just add my own more literal > translation as a variant. There is no really significant difference > though. I should explain that I originally wrote it in non-interlinear fashion so I could format it to make clear the structure of the text as I understood it - not to make Geoff work harder!. Likewise, for the purpose for which it was originally written I didn't (though you probably know I usually do) write a literal translation. I wanted to give more of a feel for the way the conversation was going. > *Adding back in De Buck's "mk st" As I commented - I don't see any necessity for adding in the "mk st." Although it does make it into a complete sentence, I doubt whather the Egyptians paid more attention to avaoiding sentence fragments in actual conversation than any other language does (or did). Not a critical point in any case. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:15:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Transliteration Wars ;-P Hi, Transliteration is a touchy subject because every Egyptologist has his or her own personal style or styles. Different types of transliteration are appropriate for different types of uses and venues. When one is doing a translation one usually starts by translilterating. For most people the first draft of a transliteration should be somewhat non-commital on any ambiguous points so that the translator can come back to the text and re-think it. Different people will find different things ambiguous and difficult. Therefore, even if we all could agree on a single transliteration system still all of our transliterations would be different because each tranliteration is a picture of what the individual who wrote it sees in a text. We don't all see the same things in precisedly the same way. So, there is really no point in arguing about what transliteration system or approach is the best one to use, especially when arguing it about someone else's practices. If you don't like the way someone else has transliterated something then transliterate it again yourself the way you would have it. However, no purpose is served in criticizing one another for their transliteration styles. Like it or not there will always be scholars who have a markedly different approach to transliteration than you do. The degree that a person chooses to follow the exact letter of an ancient scribe or that they choose to normalize or "improve" a text is dependent on that person's purposes. Now, I know it may seem like some kind of heresy to "tamper" with a text, however there are times when the scribe has written soemthing horrendoulsy ambiguous and confusing for a word that any Egyptologist would know were it spelled in its standard fashion. What do you do in cases like these? This is a judgment call that we all have to make from time to time. If a scribe writes Dd.tw=f for what is clearly Dd=f or stm.t for what is clearly sDm.tj, what are you going to do? First you have to decide what the purpose of your transliteration is. If it is in order to show how Egyptian was pronounced in the 21st dynasty, then spell these words as they appear. If it is to show someone the meaning of the text, then you might want to think about "correcting" the scribes orthography to the point that the meaning becomes most obvious to the most people. My personal attitude is that since people are ostensibly learning Egyptian here, they might as well learn the original forms of words rather than corruptions thereof. There will of course be people here who do not share my opinion in this matter. To those people, I suggest that they transliterate as they feel to do so for themselves. If you don't like the way I transliterate something, then just do it again in your way. There is no point in arguing about it. In fact, both approaches can be very valuable. it would almost make sense for the purposes of this list to transliterate everything twice... once the way it appears, and then the way that reflects the "authority-record" for each word. You will notice, I hope, that throughout the time I have participated on this list, I have been respectful and encouraging of people regardless of how they transliterate. Many people do not transliterate anything like I would do so myself, but I do not waste time harrassing them about what they "should" and "should not" do. First of all this would just make them feel abused for ahving posted something to the list. Secondly, in most cases there are logical reasons behind their way of transcribing the text, and who am I to judge them for seeing things the way they do? I just hope that people can at least cut me the same slack. It is not as if every Egyptologist is supposed to imitate Sir Allan Gardiner to the letter... A lot of other great scholars have worked on this material and many of them would be horrified if they had to use Gardinerian transliteration! What would the Germans do for instance? ;-P I guess my transliteration is more like the GErman scholars than it is like the average Anglophones. Yours, all miffed and rumpled, boohoo :-(, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:18:45 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL After the lacuna Graham wrote: > Fine, you need not accept it. It is however one solution. There > unfortunately are not many choices of words which would begin with > these signs. Agreed - that is why I went looking for something else that would fit this pattern, and having come up empty, prefer to not guess. Speaking of filling in the blanks, I wonder how much of the text that fell in the lake people can reconstruct - might be a good exercise for some of the people here. > [snip of observations on different style in different episodes] > > This is a marked contrast with the frequently repeated > "Sovereign, > > l.p.h., my Lord" in the story of Djedi. > > There are however parallels in the phrasing used when telling > about an > > act of magic: > > 'H'.n Dd.n .... Dd.wt=f m Hk3.w (with the appropriate subject > in the > > blank (sometimes the name, sometimes just =f) > > So this brings up the question of whether these stories were > written > > separately originally and put together for the purpose of creating a > > narrative frame to lead up to the story of the divine birth of the > kings > > of the Fifth Dynasty, or whether this reflects something of the > varying > > court protocol according to rank (since Djadja-em-ankh did have a > > prestigious court title, whereas Djedi is described simply as nDs > > ("commoner"). > > Comments? > > It could just as well relate to the attitude that each royal son > telling a > story had toward kingship based on HIS rank in the hierarchy. Your > guess > is as good as mine, certainly. The trouble with this stuff is that there are so many interesting things to see, for which we'll probably never really know the reason! > Transliterations are tools by which we convey information to > ourselves. In this case, I think it's more a matter of conveying information to other people. > The more detail one can put into one's transliterations the more > powerful > a communication tool they can be for other scholars to read and > immediately comprehend, without so much hesitation and debate as to > which > word the transliterator was intending to write. > > When people are learning a new language, they will want to learn the > complete forms of the words right from the start. It is easier to > recognize something with subtracted information than it is when a form > pops up with additional information, and you have no means of > explaining > why. This is why I think it is so important to learn third-weak roots > with their final radicals. If you don't learn them this way, you will > constantly wonder about the class of any apparently biliteral verb... > "was > that one biliteral or third weak... I just can't remember!" > > Sorry for the little lecture, but criticizing my transliterations pushes > my buttons, so watch out!!!! ;-) Sorry. I didn't realize the transliterations were that important to you - given a choice in the matter I much prefer working from the hieroglyphic text since there is a considerable amount of information that gets lost from any transcription. And I was certainly not trying to say that your transliteration was wrong, just potentially misleading to some people. In the case of people learning the language, I think it is necessary to take into account what their reference materials are likely to provide them. In the case of ip3.w.t, looking it up that way in Faulkner gives something different from what they will find if they look up ip.wt <= ipt. I think the tendency to archaism (you say you were a member of Dynasty XXVI in a former life?) in your transliterations is a source of confusion for some people. For myself, seeing irf (for some reason I always want to pronounce it "arf") transliterated as ir=f brings in all sorts of interesting ideas about etymology, relationship to other particles, etc., but not everyone has my level of knowledge or my interests. As for sticking the last consonant on weak verbs, this IS useful, though it needs to be done with some care that you don't stick it in where it shouldn't be through having mistaken the verb in question (probably a rare event, but we should all be cautious). It basically comes down to a question of pragmatics. > p3 jr=f Dd jw=k rx.tj tnw n3-n-jp3.w.t n.t wn.t n.t DHwty > Now for a question: What is p3? What is strange about how it is used in > this sentence? Any explanations? Well it looks to me like a demonstrative that modifies Dd, which is a noun "a saying" ultimately derived from Dd "say." So it would be "this saying." The enclitic particle gets inserted between them though, since it likes to be, if possible, the second place in a sentence. The most common enclitic we have in English is "however," and the effect of the sentence is similar to "This, however, saying." -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:17:59 -0400 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: AEL Re(2): AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk geoffrey.graham@yale.edu,Internet writes: No, actually, jnj=tw is a subjunctive sDm=f. While we translate it "passively" and in certain cases this is the only way it can be translated into English, the suffix =tw does represent a person, the indefinite, generic person "one". Literally it says "that one might bring". The reason it necessarily has to be subjunctive is that it is governed by rdj.n=f. Since xnr is perfectly positioned to be the subject, we do not need to revert to the original meaning of tw as "one." We do this when there is no other subject. Hr HbAbA I think the interpretation as an adverbial phrase is the simplest and is very typical of Egyptian sentence structure--even if it suffers slightly in logic. However, aHa here may have the sense of being upright/on the feet (as opposed to on its side). James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:46:20 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re(2): AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-) James Hoch wrote: > No, actually, jnj=tw is a subjunctive sDm=f. Perhaps you could clear up for me where subjunctive fits in the scheme of the Egyptian verb. Am I correct that it is a function of the prospective form, rather than a separate form (unlike Latin, for example, where subjunctive is a sepearate verb form)? I would also tend to see the w in this word as merely indicating that the t is pronounced (anticipating Late-Egyptian spelling rules a little - there do appear to be a number of instances of this in this text) - int rather than in=tw? -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ==============================================================================