Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:05:06 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Aayko wrote: > ***But what if you have two adjectival sentences? > "How beautifull my house is because my wife is > beautifull"? What would that be? > nfr.wy pr=i... nfr Hm.t=i > Is there at least a decent conjuction present > then? I'm not sure such a situation ever arises. I suppose one MIGHT say something like nfr-wy pr=i Hr nfr Hmt=i. > And: WHY only iw with adverbial > predicates. There must be some sort of logic > behind it? > > You see, I have not yet reached > your state of Zen Mastership yet ;) I don't know why. I just have to accept that the Egyptians in their wisdon did it that way. > Problem remains that my modern Dutch book > says iw is 'now'. It says further this: > > iw + verbal sentence or noun ->independant > sentence (usually...) -> "now..." Perhaps "Truly..." The contrast seems to be with sentences lacking iw, which (at least verbal sentences) have a modal flavour (hypothetical, uncertain, or future) to them. > iw= + pronomen ->dependant sentence, > IF sentence applies to past -> "while.." > > iw= + pronomen ->independant sentence > IF sentence applies to non-past > > Brunner seems to agree here. Still > leaving the problem of recognizing > between the two latter, as you say: > > >Also muddying the issue are those subordinate clauses which start with > iw=[SUFFIX], where all the iw is doing is giving the suffix something to lean > on. I remember getting very confused the first time I tried to translate such a > sentence, having paid insufficient attention to this detail. (The sentence was: > nfr sA sDm=f n it=f iw=f m Xrd) > > *** By chance I knew all the seperate words > by heart (I think), but.... > "Perfect is the son who listened to > his father when he was a child" ? > > applying the above 'past' rule here. I'm afraid the "past" rule doesn't seem to work very well. Literally: good son, he listens to his father, he in child which I translate (once I realized the last part wasn't an independent sentence anyway!) as: Good is the son who listens to his father while he is a child. The main sentence gives the starting point for the time of the sentence, only non-verbal sentences like this don't give you any help. However it looks like a general ("gnomic") assertion, which is present tense in English. The sDm=f is present tense relative to the main sentence, so present tense again. And the last clause is non-verbal again so no tense specified - and it makes sense to make it also a gnomic present tense. I think your translation would become nfr sA sDm.n=f n it=f iw=f m Xrd if translated back into Egyptian. > >This usage of nfr.wy is an exclamation ("Wie shoen ist mein haus!"); if you > check the Beinlich list you will find an entry for .wy as "admirativ partikel"; > similiter: Faulkner, p.56 and Gardiner, par.49. > > ***Brunner mentions the > admirative particle, iw, but > as a *seperate* word, not suffix : > > nfr wj sw = "how beautifull it is!" > > Is this a mistake? Outdated? > So if we interprete it as a particle > it comes seperate (Brunner), if we > interprete it as a dualis it comes as > suffix (which seems the modern opinion). > And no way to know how the > Egyptians saw it, I guess? That is the problem - it looks exactly like a dual form. How you transliterate it (nfr.wy, or nfr-wy, or nfr wy) is a moot point; but it is still translated as "how..." And as you mention, this usage only applies to predicate adjectives. > ** > Not to mention cuneiform, which possibly is > even more awfull as hieroglyphs. ;0 Certainly not as pretty! -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 07:22:06 -0500 () From: Robyn Adams Gillam To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Rosetta Stone tranlation/transliteration The Rosetta Stone by Carol Andrews and Stephen Quirke (London: BMP pubs. 1988) Best Wishes, Robyn Gillam Classical Studies York University Toronto, Canada On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, USHorus wrote: > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:38:37 EST > From: USHorus > Reply-To: Ancient Egyptian Language List > To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk > Subject: AEL Rosetta Stone tranlation/transliteration > > Hello, > > Can someone tell me where I can find the translation/transliteration of the > lines on the Rosetta Stone, character for character? > > Thanks, > > Moustafa Gadalla > ushorus@aol.com > ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 07:51:34 +1100 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Mike Dyall-Smith Subject: AEL My wife is like a house ;-) >Aayko wrote: >> ***But what if you have two adjectival sentences? >> "How beautifull my house is because my wife is beautifull"? What would >>that be? >> nfr.wy pr=i... nfr Hm.t=i >> Is there at least a decent conjuction present then? >Stephen Fryer >I'm not sure such a situation ever arises. I suppose one MIGHT say something >like nfr-wy pr=i Hr nfr Hmt=i. Dear Aayko/Stephen: OK, here is my two-bits worth. If you were wanting to say that your house (really your estate, in case the egyptian definition specifically referred to the walls and roof) was beautiful BECAUSE your wife was beautiful (and, by implication, in the house at the time), then I think the first part of the sentence would be linked to the second part by a preposition (Hr, or Hr-ntt) as Stephen suggested, but the stative of the adjective-verb would be used in the second clause. The construction of the second part would then conform to the stative format; subject, verb+suffix: "nfr.wy pr=i Hr-ntt Hm.t=i nfr.ti" [ref: Loprieno. Ancient Egyptian. p112-] Regards, Mike Dyall-Smith ************************************* Mike Dyall-Smith, Ph.D. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne, 3052 Australia Tel: +(613) 9344-5693 Fax: +(613) 9347-1540 e-m: m.dyall-smith@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au web: www.microbiol.unimelb.edu.au/mds/ ************************************* ============================================================================== From: MWhealton Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:19:53 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review In a message dated 98-01-26 07:35:43 EST, Ayko and Stephen write: << > Is this a mistake? Outdated? > So if we interprete it as a particle > it comes seperate (Brunner), if we > interprete it as a dualis it comes as > suffix (which seems the modern opinion). > And no way to know how the > Egyptians saw it, I guess? That is the problem - it looks exactly like a dual form. How you transliterate it (nfr.wy, or nfr-wy, or nfr wy) is a moot point; but it is still translated as "how..." And as you mention, this usage only applies to predicate adjectives. >> Arabic also uses duals as intensifiers: 'ahlan wa sahlan' (a way to say 'welcome') with the (stronger) reply: ahlain ('twice welcome!') (Very welcome!) (the ain ending is a dual form (here in the accusative, which is used in Arabic to produce adverbs from adjectives or nouns) and 'marHaba' (also 'welcome') with the reply, 'marHabtain' ('Twice welcome!') and SaHtain! ('To Your Health!') So to Arabic speakers the 'wy' dual as an intensifier in Egyptian isn't unnatural at all. Regards, Matt ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:48:32 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review My personnal two centimes :-) Stephen Fryer 'ecrit : > Aayko wrote: > > > > ***But what if you have two adjectival sentences? > > "How beautifull my house is because my wife is > > beautifull"? What would that be? > > nfr.wy pr=i... nfr Hm.t=i > > Is there at least a decent conjuction present > > then? > > I'm not sure such a situation ever arises. I suppose one MIGHT say something > like nfr-wy pr=i Hr nfr Hmt=i. > > > And: WHY only iw with adverbial > > predicates. There must be some sort of logic > > behind it? > ************************************************** IMHO, The adjectival predicate (also known as "nfr sw" construction) asserts a more or less permanent propriety of the subject, like the sentence with nominal predicate. compare : iw=f m nTr => temporary position nTr pw => inherent, permanent quality nfr sw => inherent quality (like spanish "ser") iw=f nfr.w => lit. 'he has become perfect', 'he is perfect now'. nfr=s => adjective verb, can be circumstancial. Permanent qualities are not very liable to appear in a subordinate clause, esp. a temporal one. I mean, if I write he is happy WHEN his wife is beautiful, if his wife is inherently beautiful, the "WHEN" has no real reason to exist. So if you find : * Aw ib=f nfr Hmt=f nfr won't be the adjective, but the adjective-verb in the circumstantial form. One possible explanation of iw (I will try to send references later) is that it "anchors" the sentence in the reference timeframe of the discourse. Hence both its use as an initial marker in middle Egyptian, essentially for verbal and adverbial clauses, and its later use as a subordinate marker in Late Egyptian. (I think it is discussed in YES 1) regards, -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 66, rue Alexandre Dumas 75011 Paris tel 01 48 70 37 09 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://webperso.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== From: USHorus Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:12:24 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: My wife is like a house ;-) Dear ALL, As a native Egyptian, I offer the following point that may be of interest when dealing with the ancient Egyptian language and culture. It was (and still is, in the countryside of Egypt) improper to speak directly about a person's wife or mention her name. A wife was (and still is in many parts of Egypt) referred to as 'the home' of her husband. The netert Hathor is actually Het-Heru, meaning 'the home (or house) of Heru (Horus)'. The phrase, 'when he was housed' actually means 'when he got married'. It is very difficult to translate even the Arabic meaning of the word 'home' or 'house'. You should consider the spiritual/emotional meaning of a house/home, and not its structural components (walls, ceiling...etc) Hope that helps some. Moustafa Gadalla http://members.aol.com/ushorus ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:23:49 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Re: My wife is like a house ;-) USHorus wrote: > As a native Egyptian, I offer the following point that may be of interest when > dealing with the ancient Egyptian language and culture. > > It was (and still is, in the countryside of Egypt) improper to speak directly > about a person's wife or mention her name. A wife was (and still is in many > parts of Egypt) referred to as 'the home' of her husband. I think you are projecting muslim attitudes back to ancient Egypt. They don't fit the evidence. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:01:38 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review MWhealton wrote: > That is the problem - it looks exactly like a dual form. How you > transliterate > it (nfr.wy, or nfr-wy, or nfr wy) is a moot point; but it is still translated > as > "how..." And as you mention, this usage only applies to predicate > adjectives. > Arabic also uses duals as intensifiers: [SNIPPED EXAMPLES] > So to Arabic speakers the 'wy' dual as an intensifier in Egyptian isn't > unnatural at all. I was trying to find some examples of Egyptian using duals as intensifiers, but couldn't find any (I know I have come across them, just couldn't come up with one at the moment). That is a slightly different usage from this, which only occurs with predicate adjectives, and has an exclamatory force, rather than intensifying: nfr-wy pr=k "How beautiful your house is!" rather than "Your house is very beautiful." Use of dual (and other numbers) as intensifiers is common in many languages: cead mille failte "a hundred thousand welcomes" (Gaelic) -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:54:13 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL My wife is like a house ;-) Mike Dyall-Smith wrote: > >Stephen Fryer > >I'm not sure such a situation ever arises. I suppose one MIGHT say something > >like nfr-wy pr=i Hr nfr Hmt=i. > > Dear Aayko/Stephen: > > OK, here is my two-bits worth. If you were wanting to say that your house > (really your estate, in case the egyptian definition specifically referred > to the walls and roof) was beautiful BECAUSE your wife was beautiful (and, > by implication, in the house at the time), then I think the first part of > the sentence would be linked to the second part by a preposition (Hr, or > Hr-ntt) as Stephen suggested, but the stative of the adjective-verb would > be used in the second clause. The construction of the second part would > then conform to the stative format; subject, verb+suffix: > "nfr.wy pr=i Hr-ntt Hm.t=i nfr.ti" > > [ref: Loprieno. Ancient Egyptian. p112-] Theoretically, this is correct. Now I just want to see the actual inscription (complete with provenance, etc. of course!) ;-> -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:17:36 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Serge Rosmorduc wrote: > One possible explanation of iw (I will try to send references later) > is that it "anchors" the sentence in the reference timeframe of the > discourse. Hence both its use as an initial marker in middle Egyptian, > essentially for verbal and adverbial clauses, and its later use as a > subordinate marker in Late Egyptian. > (I think it is discussed in YES 1) This idea is indeed discussed by James P. Allen in "Tense in Classical Egyptian" in _Essays on Egyptian Grammar_ (Yale Egyptological Studies 1), 1986. Thomas Ritter has also discussed the use of iw in relation to other particles: RITTER, Thomas, On Particles in Middle Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia 2 (1992), 127-137. ABSTRACT********************************************** >From the viewpoint of pragmatics and semantics, at least five different groups of particles, termed here E(xtra)-C(lausal) C(onstituents), can be distinguished in Egyptian. (1) ECC's indicating the commitment of the speaker to the truth value of the proposition. (1a) He assigns the truth value "true" to the proposition and assures the addressee of the truth (iw). (1b) He assigns the truth value "false" to the proposition (n, nn, n-sp). (1c) He expresses uncertainty as to the truth value of the proposition (cmwn). (1d) He inquires about the truth value of the proposition (in, in-iw). (1e) The speaker wishes the proposition to be true (ix, HA). (2) ECC's indicating the text relation: (a) posterior (aHa.n); (b) circumstantial (m, iw, ti, ck); (c) anterior (m-xt, m-cA); (d) contingent (xr, kA); (e) causal (Hr/r/Dr ntt, Hr, n, n-aAt-nt, n-wr-n); (f) final (r, n-mrwt); (g) relative (nti, iwti); (h) conditional (ir, m, mi). (3) ECC's acting as tense converters: past (wn) or future (wnn). (4) ECC's indicating background/foreground: foreground level above the unmarked foreground constructions (mk) versus background level in narrative texts that is vital for the understanding of the discourse (isT). (5) ECC's indicating the pragmatic function of a constituent, either assigning the function of Topic (ir) or of Focus (in). *************************************************************** There currently seems to be considerable debate on the subject, especially between a semantic approach (Ritter) and a grammatical approach (Allen). Possibly the truth is both and neither? I tend to use the concept that Allen proposes, though I am mindful of the implications of Ritter's paper. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:01:30 +1100 To: Ancient Egyptian Language From: Mike Dyall-Smith Subject: AEL 'iw' according to Ritter, Loprieno [Continuing the discussion of Serge and Stephen] Who would have thought such a little word could generate so much heat! The nature of 'iw' is a hotly debated topic and its perceived function differs somewhat between standard theorists (which rest heavily on Polotsky's work) and the more recent group of egyptologists (exx. Loprieno, Ritter, Collier) that rest on general linguistics (functional grammar, x-bar theory etc.). Just to add a description of ECC's from Thomas Ritters paper (LingAeg 2 (1992):127-137): The polotsky and alternative views about 'iw' can be stated as: "(1) The particle is part of the minimal sentence, an Intra-Clausal Constituent which functions as the Theme of this sentence. (2) The particle stands outside the minimal sentence itself, it is an Extra-Clausal Constituent. According to the protagonists of group (1), the particle 'iw' is a substantive functioning as the Theme of the sentence." Ritter goes on to show that by general linguistics the particle 'iw' cannot be so important in a sentence to be considered the Theme, so it must be something else. X-bar theory (a branch of transformational grammar) offers a productive solution to this problem and shows that 'iw' fits the category of a complementiser; in this case a particle added to a sentence which can change the meaning in certain ways. One description (S.C. Dik) is as follows: "these are operators capturing the grammatical means by which the speaker can express his personal evaluation of or attitude towards the propositional content." [of the sentence]. Loprieno, in his recent book, 'Ancient egyptian; a linguistic introduction' discusses these issues at length but uses a lot of the linguistic terminology. Which is one reason why it is almost impenetrable to the casual reader who has only a limited vocabulary in the field of modern linguistics. This is unfortunate for us, but he freely admits it wasn't written for a wide audience; he specifically targeted general linguists (as stated in the preface), in the hope of attracting them into ancient egyptian as a fertile area of study. Now, to extract some of what Loprieno says about 'iw' (pp. 166-). "The most important and complex proclitic particle is 'iw'.... Its semantic scope can be defined as an overt assertion of truth ("truly", "indeed"...)...; pragmatically, it relates the event described in the verbal or adverbial sentence to the speaker's situation or personal experience - without necessarily implying his direct involvement..." "When compared with other initial particles, however, the complexity of 'iw' becomes apparent when we consider its other uses, which will play a key role in conditioning its functional development in later Egyptian...." "Unlike other particles, 'iw' can also function as mere morphological carrier of the subject pronoun in a bare sentence, ... ie. as a semantically and syntactically neutral morpheme which only serves to support the subject of a subordinate adverbial clause." In the preceding section, Loprieno gives an account of initial versus non-initial clauses (section 6.4.1, page 162-), in which the role of initial particles is discussed. "It is important to appreciate the difference between "initiality" as a property of DISCOURSE and "independence" versus "subordination" as syntactic features of the CLAUSE." Basically Loprieno puts forward the view that 'iw' can be used to open a discourse, and so occurs in the opening sentence of a discourse, but not in subsequent parts of it except for its use as a suffix pronoun holder. Particles like 'iw' and 'mk' are ideal examples of what contemporary X-bar theory calls "complementizers" (ie. constituents added to a bare sentence in order to generate a specific clausal unit; see Ritter's article cited by Stephen). I hope all this stuff hasn't put off people asking questions. As you can see there are certainly people willing to try and answer them. You may not like any of the responses but at least some of the current theories can be 'dusted off' and examined. Don't be too concerned if it all seems too complex; there is some truth in the suggestion that no matter which of the current grammatical frameworks you follow, the translations you end up with will probably not differ greatly. Regards, Mike Dyall-Smith ******************************** Mike Dyall-Smith, Melbourne, Australia m.dyall-smith@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au ******************************** ============================================================================== From: imarinov@lnd.internet-bg.bg (Ivo Marinov) To: "AEL Email List" Subject: Re: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:32:44 +0200 Hello Stephen, Thanks for your help. I think I'm ready to give another try on this exercise now. I hope my answers are more close to the truth this time. 1. iw=f r smr He will be Friend of the King. 2. iw Hm=f m Hr-ib=sn His majesty is/was surrounded by them. 3. iw Hm=f m tp n mSa=f His majesty is in front of his army. 4. iw it im Hna bdt Barley is there, together with emmer. 5. iw xrw Haw m Xr.y.t-nTr Sound of rejoicing is (heard) in the cemetery (?). 6. iw wdp.w nb Hr ir.w.t=f All household servants are/were doing his task. 7. iw Xnw m sgr ib.w m gmw The residence is silent, because the hearts are in mourning. 8. iw=i r Smt I will go. 9. iw mSa pn n nswt Hr mAA This army of the king is/was watching. 10. iw=f r iTi.t tA.w rs.y.w He will take the Southern lands. 11. iw Hm.w aSA Hr qd=f Many artisans are/were involved in its building. 12. iw=f Hr wnm t 500 He eats five hundred loaves of bread. 13. iw=i r wHm Hb.w=k I will repeat the festivals in your honor (?). Best regards, Ivo ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:38:11 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL 'iw' according to Ritter, Loprieno Mike Dyall-Smith wrote: > > [Continuing the discussion of Serge and Stephen] > > Who would have thought such a little word could generate so much > heat! The nature of 'iw' is a hotly debated topic and its perceived > function differs somewhat between standard theorists (which rest heavily on > Polotsky's work) and the more recent group of egyptologists (exx. Loprieno, > Ritter, Collier) that rest on general linguistics (functional grammar, > x-bar theory etc.). One of the functions of iw, in J P Allen's analysis, and which is of practical importance is in introducing "absolute tenses" into the discussion of verbs. Egyptian verbs did not go in for the sort of absolute tenses that us speakers of west European languages are so used to. Rather, the tenses are purely relative to the time within the sentence in which they occur. There is no reference to the time of the speaker. Using iw with these verb forms makes the tense of the verb relative to that of the speaker. So verb forms with iw can be treated like our European tenses; those without are much less definite in terms of absolute time. This needs to be taken into account when translating verbal sentences. In non-verbal sentences (which is what we have been covering so far), things are less clear, since there is no verb, and therefore no indication of tense. Treat then as being in the speaker's present - since there are other ways of indicating future, etc. in such sentences and clauses. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:49:23 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL (Fwd) Adverbial Sentences - Review Ivo Marinov wrote: > Thanks for your help. I think I'm ready to give another try on this exercise > now. I hope my answers are more close to the truth this time. These all seem like good translations to me. There are a couple of places where the nuances of meaning in English might be a little problem, but I don't think that has anything to do with your understanding of the Egyptian (and since I don't know Bulgarian at all, who am I to criticize?). > 1. iw=f r smr > He will be Friend of the King. A term which corresponds more with the ordinary meaning of the word friend is 'q-ib ("one who enters the heart/ feelings") > 2. iw Hm=f m Hr-ib=sn > His majesty is/was surrounded by them. > 3. iw Hm=f m tp n mSa=f > His majesty is in front of his army. The meaning is right. English uses the same idiom as Egyptian and has "at the head of his army." > 4. iw it im Hna bdt > Barley is there, together with emmer. > 5. iw xrw Haw m Xr.y.t-nTr > Sound of rejoicing is (heard) in the cemetery (?). The phrase for "cemetery" is literally "the land under the (control of ) the gods." I'm not sure whather it refers to the cemetary or the land where the dead live. > 6. iw wdp.w nb Hr ir.w.t=f > All household servants are/were doing his task. > 7. iw Xnw m sgr ib.w m gmw > The residence is silent, because the hearts are in mourning. I've never been sure myself whether to treat the second part of this (and the following clauses) as subordinate circumstantial clauses, or parallel clauses depending on the iw at the beginning. Which would make this: "The residence is quiet. The hearts are in mourning." Just to add to the confusion :-) > 8. iw=i r Smt > I will go. > 9. iw mSa pn n nswt Hr mAA > This army of the king is/was watching. > 10. iw=f r iTi.t tA.w rs.y.w > He will take the Southern lands. > 11. iw Hm.w aSA Hr qd=f > Many artisans are/were involved in its building. > 12. iw=f Hr wnm t 500 > He eats five hundred loaves of bread. > 13. iw=i r wHm Hb.w=k > I will repeat the festivals in your honor (?). I think the meaning you give here is excellent. Usually people just translate as "your festivals." -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: USHorus@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:17:15 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Re: My wife is like a house ;-) Stephen Fryer wrote, >I think you are projecting muslim attitudes back to ancient Egypt >> You are 180 degrees off. Even though I was born Moslem, I don't have a Moslem bone (so to speak) in my body. The Egyptological community needs dedicated people like the members of this AEL, to help understand the ancient Egyptian culture/civilization/history. However, without understanding the state of mind of the people, it is impossible to interpret their language. The present-day Egyptians can provide some clues about their ancient ancestors. People in the Egyptian countryside, who hold more to old traditions, can provide even better clues. Certain things don't die. The Egyptian colloquial Arabic has many ancient Egyptian words. El-Daraweesh and El Sufis still hold to many ancient traditions. To put a shoe on the other foot, what if an ancient Egyptian read some of our letters with expressions such as, 1. He opened a can of worms. 2. He bent over backwards for her. 3. He has an ax to grind against him. Do you think that even a modern-day Egyptian will make sense of the literal translation of the above sentences? Moustafa Gadalla http://members.aol.com/ushorus ============================================================================== From: "Tom Sobota" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: My wife is like a house ;-) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 01:13:00 PST Moustafa, Interesting what you say. In Spain also, certainly due to arabic influence, the verb "casar", "to marry" comes from "casa", "house, home". Bye Tom >The netert Hathor is actually Het-Heru, meaning 'the home (or house) of Heru >(Horus)'. The phrase, 'when he was housed' actually means 'when he got >married'. > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:52:27 +1100 To: Ancient Egyptian Language From: Mike Dyall-Smith Dear Westcar-philes, I am still trying to come to terms with that tricky sentence that straddles the last two pages: iri.w is irr=T pA iy.t Hr-im=i iw=i Hr snsn wTs.t I sent off our discussion to Antonio Loprieno who was quite willing to share his opinion of this section. He is currently on study leave in Germany, so I am glad he found time to answer me. Now, this may 'put the cat among the pigeons'; he has a different transliteration to Geoff's, one which alters the syntax. He takes the initial 'eye' sign not as a form of the verb 'iri' but as an initial particle 'ir'. I have questioned him on this but have no reply yet. De Buck clearly gives the hieroglyphic transcription as an eye sign, but perhaps the hieratic is unclear. Can anyone give an opinion on the original hieratic for this word??? Regards, Mike Dyall-Smith Below the line is Antonio's response to me, and which I quote with his permission. ------------------------------------------------ [e-mail to MDS, Mon, 19 Jan 1998] "Dear Mike, The sentence you mention is relatively plain. The first portion of it is an extraposed clause introduced by jr. We usually translate it with "if," but we should not forget that, from the point of view of Egyptian grammar, it is still considered, in Middle Egyptian (things are a little more complex in Late Egyptian), a left-extraposition: "as for," or the like. Thus, "if you come to me," "should you come to me," or the like should do the job. Now to the second portion of the sentence. This is of course a main clause, an "apodosis" which--unlike the "apodosis" in English hypothetical clauses, where the use of a special mood, the conditional, reserves this type of main clause to the particular semantic environment of hypothesis--conveys no formal features of its function as main clause counterpart to an if-clause. It displays a regular pseudoverbal construction with Hr, lit. "I am becoming involved in treason." In English, of course, we are required to use the specific mood of hypothetical main clauses, i.e. the conditional: "I would be/become involved in treason." In Egyptian, on the contrary, the hypothetical meaning is conveyed solely by the syntactic fact that this main clause is preceded by an extraposed clause introduced by jr. If we want the particle js to be also appropriately conveyed in our translation, a rendering with "indeed" would be appropriate: "Should you indeed come to me, then I would become involved in treason." Does this make sense? Best to you and all the colleagues, Antonio" ----------------------------------------------------- ******************************** Mike Dyall-Smith, Melbourne, Australia m.dyall-smith@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au ******************************** ============================================================================== From: Aayko To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL book question Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:04:05 +-100 Dear all, There is a complement to Faulkner's dictionary around, giving English-Egyptian. But I cannot refind author and title....Anyone? Thanks, Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 14:41:53 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL book question Hi, Aayko, > There is a complement to > Faulkner's dictionary around, giving > English-Egyptian. But I cannot refind > author and title....Anyone? David Shennum, _English-Egyptian Index of Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian_, Undena, Malibu, 1977 Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== From: "YED" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL book question Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:45:48 +0100 Aayko wrote : > Dear all, > > There is a complement to > Faulkner's dictionary around, giving > English-Egyptian. But I cannot refind > author and title....Anyone? > > Thanks, > Aayko Eyma > David Shennum English-Egyptian index of Faulkner's concise dictionary of Middle Egyptian Undena publications - Malibu 1977 Undena Publications P.O. Box 97, Malibu, CA 90265 amicalement, Yves Dupont - Lyon Croix-Rousse - France nouvelles coordonnees : y-dupont@formations.net http://www.formations.net/y-dupont/ ============================================================================== From: "Mark Vygus" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL book question Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:44:59 -0000 David Shennum English-Egyptian Index of Faulkner`s concise Dictionary of middle Egyptian Undena Publications - Malibu - 1977 ISBN 0-89003-054-5 ==============================================================================