Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 14:27:26 -0800 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List , Aayko Eyma Subject: Re: AEL book question Aayko wrote: > > Dear all, > > There is a complement to > Faulkner's dictionary around, giving > English-Egyptian. But I cannot refind > author and title....Anyone? Shennum, David, _English-Egyptian Index of Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian_, 1977 ISBM 0-89003-054-5 -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:05:58 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Gerald Kadish Subject: Re: AEL book question It's by David Shennum and titled English-Egyptian Index of Faulkner's Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. It was published by Undena Publications in Malibu and represents vol. 1 in their ARTANES series. At 09:04 PM 1/31/98 +-100, you 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 > > > > > Gerald E. Kadish Professor of History and Near Eastern Studies Department of History Binghamton University Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 (607) 777-2488 e-mail address: kadishg@binghamton.edu ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 22:43:43 +0000 Subject: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 Hello, I guess it's about time to make a start on the Weni text! You can find the hieroglyphs for this via the AEL web page (URL at the bottom of this message). 0. HAt.i-a im.i-rA Sma.w im.i iz.t zA.w nxn Hr.i-tp nxb smr wa.t.i imAx.w xr Asiri xnt.i-imn.t.i.w wni (wr) Mayor, Overseer of upper Egypt, Resident of the Palace, Guardian of Nekheb, Chief, Primary Confidant of the King, Revered One under Osiris, Foremost of the Westeners, Weni (the elder), * With so many nouns around, it's difficult to know how to string them together into good english! ;-) 1a. Dd=f: ink iAd TAz mDH xr Hm n.i tti says: As a boy I tied the head-band under the majesty of (king) Teta. 1b. iA.t(=i) [1] m im.i-rA prw-Sna.w iri.n(=i) s-HD xnt.i.w-Si prw-aAi ////////////////////////// My position (was) as overseer of the storehouse. I commanded the palace personnel. 2. /////(Xr.i-HAb.t) smsw n.i DbA.t xr Hm n.i pipi [2] Eldest of the robing room under the majesty of (king) Pepi. rDi [3] wi Hm=f m iA.t n.i.t smr s-HD Hmw.w-nTr n.i.w ni.t=f His majesty appointed me in the position of confidant of the hm-netjer priest of his necropolis. [4] sT iA.t(=i) (m) /////// Now, the position of //////// Who wants to comment or continue from here? In case you missed Geoff's original introduction to the Autobiography of Weni, here it is again to whet your hieroglyphic appetite! ------------------- Forwarded Message ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 20:46:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL The Language of Weni the Elder Hi, everyone, I am so pleased that Mike has finally gotten his fantastic website for the autobiography of Weni in place and announced it to this list. I think we have some real fun in store! This is one of my very favorite texts in the Egyptian corpus. It is this amazing story of the life of one of Egypt's most talented officials during the Old Kingdom. Weni began as a lowly palace employee and rose to the highest ranks of the land. Three things are phenomenal about his biography: 1) The man seems to have lived to the ripest of old ages! He had to be ninety if not more elderly, yet he seems to have been sharp of mind and very active to his last dying breath! Weni's nickname was "the elder" for very good reasons, indeed. Those who knew him probably could not help but marvel at his age coupled with integrity of mind, and his incessant activity up and down the Nile! He served under every king of the Sixth dynasty except for Pepi II! 2) Weni was involved in pyramid construction! So, if you ever wondered how the pyramids were built, you may find some incredible and intriguing answers, spoken from the mouth of an Egyptian himself! He went on missions to procure the building materials, off to Aswan for granite, off to Amarna (Hatnub) for alabaster, to the Wadi Hammamat for Basalt, on, and on, and on, and he was no young man to be hauling blocks of stone! The diversity of his endeavors, including military campains in Palestine, diplomatic and trading missions in Nubia, and even dealing with conspiracies of a nefarious nature in the palaces and harems of the various kings.... It just boggles the mind that anyone could have had such a colorful and successful life, and enjoyed it for so many years, year after year, until he was as old as the hills! 3) This biography is the culmination of the Old Kingdom literature that we still possess. The biography had very humble beginnings, but it was to become the most significant genre of the Egyptian repertoire. During the Archaic Period down through Dynasty IV, tomb inscriptions consisted of two types of texts. 1) lists of offerings, and 2) lists of the titles of the occupant of the tomb. Now, the offering list changed during the Old Kingdom into a prayer, known as the Invocation Offering Formula. The title lists also evolved until people began to add narrative, explaining how the person achieved his/her offices. This genre developed into the Biography. It was not, however, until Weni's that the genre had reached its fruition, from Weni on out, down through the end of Egyptian History, these texts were filled with wonderful anecdotes and history. They only presented the good sides of people, so we have to realize that they are biased history, but they are the source of much of our knowledge of life along the Nile in ancient times. Now, having said all that, let me get to the meat of this message, which is to let you know what to expect from Old Egyptian. Old Egyptian is very much like Middle Egyptian except for a few details. You will be happy to learn, however, that Weni's biography is very late Old Egyptian, and thus closer to Middle Egyptian than most other Old Kingdom texts. The shifts in perspective will be subtle, and not so confusing as to make it impossible for you to read. Phonology: Old Egyptian had very stable consonants, which did not have the kind of variations to which you may have become accustomed in Middle and Late Egyptian. The inventory of sounds was mostly the same, with a few small differences. *Old Egyptian did not yet write the /y/ phoneme, which Middle Egyptian developed as two reedstalks or dual strokes. Instead, it only had {j}. When you see {jj} (two reedstalks written side by side), it is because the sound of {j} occured twice in the word. *Old Egyptian had two /s/-phonemes. You are probably already used to my use of {z} and {s} as distinct sounds, though Middle Egyptian texts could substitute one sign for the other and both were at the time pronounced /s/. {z}, a very inept character, devised in earlier periods in Egyptology, actually represented the sound of {th} as in English "think". {s} was a simple sibilant {s}. *In Old Egyptian, the distinction between /d/ and /D/ was still carefully maintained. Middle Egyptian rdj "give" was rDj, and spd was spD, and fnd was fnD. You could not replace a {D} with a {d}. *The same was true of /t/ and /T/. One could not substitute one for the other. *Old Egyptian had not yet made a distinction between /S/ and /X/. {S} represented both, for the most part. The cow belly sign came to represent /X/ rather late. I am not saying that it never occured, but it was not originally a common alphabetic sign. However, for the purposes of keeping our words straight, just like I use {z} and {s} separately for Middle Egyptian, when it is not necessary, I also maintain the difference between {X} and {S} in Old Egyptian, as do other scholars, just for the sake of clarity, since everyone learns Middle Egyptian before Old Egyptian. Morphology: There were a few different features in the grammar, but most of them are not very daunting. We will work with them as they come along. *For one thing the indicative sDm=f, also called the perfective sDm=f was very strong. You could express the past tense with sDm=f, rather than sDm.n=f. *The most frustrating thing in an Old Kingdom text is that they had not yet developed a way of writing the first person singular pronoun suffix. This is because it was a vowel. Because Old Egyptian never wrote vowels, the ending =j, as we have come to represent it, was not expressed in writing. So, if you encounter something which makes no sense, see if putting in a =j "I/me/my" helps you to make progress. Anyway, I do not want the message to become too long. We will have so many interesting things to discuss as they come up. Be well, and enjoy. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu -- Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk http://www.rostau.demon.co.uk/AEgyptian-L/index.html ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 14:32:31 -0700 From: Al Berens To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL book question It's Sheenum's English-Egyptian dictionary. I got mine from the Oriental Institute, it's lso available from Eisenbraun's I believe. Al Berens djoser@pacbell.net ============================================================================== From: "Ricardo" To: "Mark Wilson" Subject: AEL determinative signs Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:42:41 +0100 Hi everyone! Can anyone tell me why the word "it","father", is writen with the viper sign " f "as a determinative. I noted that other few words have other determinative signs attached, who doesn't appear to have any relation with the word meaning. Why is that? What's the connection? Could this matter be discussed? Many thanks! Ricardo ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 20:09:17 -0800 From: Patrick De Smet - Rodrigues To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Ricardo wrote: > > Hi everyone! > Can anyone tell me why the word "it","father", is writen with the viper > sign " f "as a determinative. > I noted that other few words have other determinative signs attached, who > doesn't appear to have any relation with the word meaning. Why is that? > What's the connection? Could this matter be discussed? > Many thanks! > Ricardo Gardiner's Grammar (p. 43, n. 1) points to "Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte" 43, 311. The horned viper would be "a determinative with some unascertained symbolic meaning"... Yours, Patrick De Smet - Rodrigues udjat@skynet.be Udjat, Eye in the Sky ============================================================================== From: "Ricardo" To: "Mark Wilson" Subject: AEL simbolic signs Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 03:50:36 +0100 Thanks Patrick for your reply. I came to know now that the "horned viper" determinative could be a simbolic "animal personification" of the "familly chief". Could this be possible? I don't know the same could happen to the vulture sign "mwt"for the word "mother"in early times. I think it will be interesting to have a brief discussion on the determinative signs, as well a few phonetic signs, that plays a simbolic role on the word meaning. Thanks all! Ricardo ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:55:38 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Hi, Ricardo, > Can anyone tell me why the word "it","father", is writen with the viper > sign " f "as a determinative. This is not well understood, however there are writings of the word without it, and there are also writings of the plural "fathers" that employ nothing but three horned vipers with no phonetic signs at all. It remains a mystery, but it does seem to be a reality. In Old Egyptian the word tended to be written with {jt} or just {t}, and in Coptic it ends up as {eiOt}, and since both the earliest and the latest stages do not have any /f/ in them, we can probably deduce that the word never did. > I noted that other few words have other determinative signs attached, who > doesn't appear to have any relation with the word meaning. Why is that? > What's the connection? Could this matter be discussed? There are several different kinds of determinatives. Some determinatives indicate the class of word that the lexeme belongs to. (If I write my name, I put a seated man at the end to indicate that this is a name of a man.) Other determiniatives relate to the sounds which are contained in the word. These are called phonetic determinatives. Example: xn means to land/alight/come down; it is determined by a bird with its wings behind it. If I write a word which has the xn sound in it but means something else, such as xn.y.t "songstress", I will also include the alighting bird determinative because it relates to the sound xn, however, I will also put in the woman and plural strokes to show the class of word it is. Does this throw any light on the strange determinatives you were refering to? The {f} in jt, might actuallybe a phonetic determinative, but no one has yet discovered the word for the horned viper which it represents which may have sounded like jt. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:42:33 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Patrick De Smet - Rodrigues 'ecrit : > Ricardo wrote: > > > > Hi everyone! > > Can anyone tell me why the word "it","father", is writen with the viper > > sign " f "as a determinative. > > I noted that other few words have other determinative signs attached, who > > doesn't appear to have any relation with the word meaning. Why is that? > > What's the connection? Could this matter be discussed? > > Many thanks! > > Ricardo I think the vyper in 'it' might be connected to the crocodile sign that appear in the word 'ity', sovereign, wich might be akin to something like "little father". In the peasant, there is a unknown district called 'per-ffy' in most translations, which might be in fact a writting for 'per-ity'. Some people (can't remember who) view the vyper in it, not as a determinative, but as a phonetic sign. (of course, the frontier might be slim between the two: Is ankh an ideogram or a phonetic sign, for example ? As a matter of fact, it is both) 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 ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:13:04 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 Hi, Mark, Thanks for getting things going again, while I was not able to put my proper attention here. However, let's start slowly, because this is Old Egyptian, and it will take some getting used to. Let's first discuss the formula of titulary and how the inscription introduces itself to the reader. I am going to summarize the lements in Weni's titulary, and then maybe this will generate a bit of discussion. Then we can move on to the sentences which begin the narrative at a nice slow pace, so that no one is lost or gets left behind, wondering how it can be translated so quickly, and what the strange features of writing, espeically leaving out of certain elements actually means. > 0. HAt.i-a im.i-rA Sma.w im.i iz.t zA.w nxn Hr.i-tp nxb smr wa.t.i > imAx.w xr Asiri xnt.i-imn.t.i.w wni (wr) > > Mayor, Overseer of upper Egypt, Resident of the Palace, Guardian > of Nekheb, Chief, Primary Confidant of the King, Revered One under > Osiris, Foremost of the Westeners, Weni (the elder), > > * With so many nouns around, it's difficult to know how to string > them together into good english! ;-) This is a typical list of titles for the Old Kingdom. Weni talks about his titles frequently. If anyone has questions about such titles, please ask them, so we can discuss what they mean, and what duties such people actually performed. HAt.i-a (H3t.y-`) (notice that what is in Middle Egyptian /y/ is represented in Old Egyptian only by /j/. The /y/ did not come into use until the First Intermediate Period) "first one of custom" literally, and sometimes translated "Mayor", "Count", "President". It often refers to a nomarch. im.i-rA Sma.w (jm.y-r3 Sm`.w) "what is in the mouth of the narrow land" literally. jm.y-r3 is usually translated as "overseer". Sm`.w "narrow land", means the Nile Valley, and of course is Upper Egypt. So the title means "Overseer of Upper Egypt". im.i iz.t (jm.y-jz.t) "who is within the Palace". This means, a palace insider, as opposed to a palace outsider. zA.w nxn (z3.w nxn) "guardian of Hierakonpolis": this is a very ancient title and is held only by the highest of officials. Hierakonpolis was the tutelary capital of Upper Egypt, and represents the southernmost limit of the original Egypt, while Aswan and other locations were annexed as provinces early on. Mosly Viziers had this title, and there is some debate as to whether Weni ever held the vizieral office, because he ended up performing some of its most important functions before he died, and his son was mad Vizier after him. Hr.i-tp nxb (Hr.y-tp nxb) "Chief of Eileithyaspolis" or Chief of Nekheb, the city accross the river from Hierakonpolis (Falcon City, the city of Horus of the South) wherein dwelled the buzzard goddess, Nekhbet, tutelary goddess of the white crown of Upper Egypt. So, Guardian of Hierakopolis and Chief of Eileithyaspolis go together as a pair, and indicate his prime role in the administration of Upper Egypt on behalf of the king. smr wa.t.i (smr w`.t.y) "Unique Companion". This means that Weni was one of the chosen confidants of the king. Most high officials claim this title, but later it becomes so general that much of its force was lost. > imAx.w xr Asiri xnt.i-imn.t.i.w (jm3x.w xr 3sjrj xnt.y-jmn.t.y.w) "worthy one under Osiris-Khentamenthes". Most funerary inscriptions contain a phrase like this, indicating that the owner of the tomb is venerable and accepted into the kingdom of the mortuary deity. Khentamenthes is the specific mortuary god of the necropolis of Abydos where this stela was placed in Weni's tomb chapel. The name is an epithet meaning "Formost of the Westerners". wni (wr) "Weni the elder" = the man's name. So, what we see at the beginning of most mortuary inscriptions is a list of titles ending with the name of the deceased, and then.... > 1a. Dd=f: "He says". The form is probably a circumstantial sDm=f, and it comes after its subject which is the man and his string of titles. This means that this person, named with all these titles generally says the following to those who enter his chapel, and he does so with his inscription, which will follow. Be well, and have a look at what comes next. Because it is difficult, take your time, and ask lots of questions. You do not need to submit a translation to ask a question. Just see what you can make out and then ask all the questions about what seems the most difficult in the orthography and grammar. The chief problem you might encounter is that some of the connecting elements are omitted. We will discuss each bit in considerable detail so that more people can follow the translation process, and not be left behind wondering. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== From: "TISSEYRE" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:19:14 +0100 -----Message d'origine----- De : Ricardo =C0 : Mark Wilson Date : mardi 3 f=E9vrier 1998 14:43 Objet : AEL determinative signs >Hi everyone! >Can anyone tell me why the word "it","father", is writen with the viper >sign " f "as a determinative. >I noted that other few words have other determinative signs attached, w= ho >doesn't appear to have any relation with the word meaning. Why is that? >What's the connection? Could this matter be discussed? >Many thanks! >Ricardo Hi Ricardo, This is a strange point of egyptian writing. Note that it(f) can be writt= en many other ways: in "A concise dictionary of middle Egyptian" Raymond O. Faulkner notes: - it(f)(sitting man) to be pronounced it.i : (my) father (may be the sitt= ing man is a double determinative) - it (whith no determinative at all) - t(f) - t(f)(sitting man) May be (f) is only put to give "it" a "masculine" connotation (suff; pron= ) because the letter "t" is the normal ending for feminine word. Excuse me for my poor and approximative english. Thanks you all, this list is very good to improve my Ancient Eg. Language end my...english as well. Marc ============================================================================== From: "Mark Vygus" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:28:36 -0000 Hi, Thanks for starting the group off. Line 0 I translate as :- Mayor, Overseer of Upper Egypt, Councillor,Guardian of Nekhen, Chief of Nekheb, Sole Companion, one who is revered before Osiris Foremost of the Westerners, Weni Just a little different from yourself I agree with the rest I`ll send more a bit later on Mark Vygus ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:32:51 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Weni Detailed Orthography Hello, Friends, I thought, since, for once I have a little more time to give, I would go back over Weni's titles and disect them orthographically, so that beginners will be able to gain more from this new endeavor. First Title: The first title is H3t.j-`. It consists of the first two signs: the foreparts of a lion and an arm. The lion's foreparts represent the consonatal skeleton of /H3t/, while the arm represents /`/. This title contains two words in a compound H3t.j and `. The weak consonant /j/ is not written by the scribe. Weak consonants are often left out in all stages of Egyptian, particularly Old Egyptian. We do, however, know that they were present based on fuller writings and an analysis of the grammar. The first word in the expression (H3t.j) is what we call a "nisba adjective". This is a term borrowed from Arabic grammar and it indicates an adjective which is formed from a noun by adding the ending /.j/ in Old Egyptian, /.y/ in Middle and New Egyptian, and /-I/ in Arabic and other Semitic languages. The root noun is H3t which means "front". When you put the nisba ending on it (H3t.j), it becomes the adjective "frontmost/foremost". In Egyptian, as well as in Semitic and most all Afroastiatic languages, the categories of nouns and adjectives are somewhat flexible with certain rules applied. So, in this case, a noun meaning "front" has been converted into an adjective meaning "foremost", and then reconceived of as a noun meaning "foremost person". Then this noun is set into relation with another noun (`, which means several different things, in this case "custom") which follows it. The relationship here employed is called a "direct genitive" by Egyptologists, and an 'idafa by Arab grammarians. The first noun in such a group is possessed by the second noun. Thus the title literally means "formost person of custom". This is, however, awkward, and should be translated by a much simper term into English. It means the person who is regarded as the leader of some sitution. There are many titles which indicate leadership of different kinds in Egypt, but this one seems to be most prevalent when the person is a leader of a town, region, or district. Therefore, some common translations currectly used by Egyptologists for a H3t.j-` are: Count, Mayor, Nomarch, President, etc. I think I feel most partial to "Nomarch" (governor of a nome, an adminsitrative district or territory in Egypt) at the moment, but context should be the principal guide. Second Title: jm.j-r3 Sm`.w: jm.j-r3 is extremeley abbreviated in this text, and is often abbreviated in this fashion throughout the history of Egyptian. It has two signs: {m} and {r}. The weaker consonsants have all been left out. How do you know not to read this title as /mr/? Well, the only way one can know is by context. Because it is occurring in a series of titles, one has to look for a title which might be written this way. All I can tell you is that jm.j-r3 is such a common title that one has to get used to it. Literally it means "what/who/that which is in the mouth", however, its effective meaning seems to be "overseer." This title has been compared with Arabic 'amIr, meaning prince, although it has not been definitively proven that there is any etymological relationship between the words. Once again the full title is two words in a relation, the direct genitive. The second word is Sm`.w "narrow". It is written with a flowering sedge plant sign alone. This plant is the sacred symbol of Upper Egypt, which is also called Sm`.w which means "the narrow thing", because upper Egypt is an extremely narrow tract of land bordering the Nile Valley. Although "narrow" is an adjective, it can represent a noun, and this is how it comes to stand for Upper Egypt. Put the two words together in a direct genitive rlationship and you get "Overseer of Upper Egypt". The Third Title: Here the scribe seems to be playing tricks on the reader. The title consists of two signs: a bundle of reeds which are tied with a knot and an owl. The bundle of reeds stands for the sound /jz/, and the owl stands for /m/. At first glance, the title appears to be *jzm. However, like I said, there is some graphic trick at work here from which one gets jm.j-jz.t. For one thing the weak consonants of jm.j are not reperesented, and all we see from this word is the {m}. The feminine .t ending on jz.t is also not considered essential to the writing of the title, so it can be dropped so that the title will be simpler to write. Why, however, are they written in reversed order? The answer lies first of all in the meanings of the two words employed. jm.j means "who/what/that is within". It is a nisba ajective formed on the preposition m "in", which is reconceived of as a noun meaning "a person who is within". jz.t means "palace". A palace is the residence of a king. Anything which relates to a god or a king is very sacred, and is supposed to precede other words which are combined with it. This feature in Egyptian writing is called "honorific transposition". The scribe will tend to write sacred words before profane words even when the sacred word comes second in the expression. For this reason, the jz sign must come before the m sign. When you take this into consideration, and you combine these words in their relationship to one another, this time not a direct genitive, but something else, you get the meaning "person who is within the palace". This is a bit awkward, and it might be best to paraphrase it to "palace insider", or something like that. Fourth Title: z3.w nxn: z3.w means "gardian". nxn means "Hierakonpolis" (Falcon-City, the home of Horus of the South). The first word is written with a picture of a guardian, a bearded man holding a rope and a riding crop. This person is actually a shepherd or cattleheard, and he is a guardian in the sense that he watches over the animals in his charge, using the rope to restrain them and the crop to goad them as necessary. The second word is written by an oval with two strokes in it. It has been suggested that this sign has something to do with the oval shaped platform of sand on which the original temple of Horus, Excavated by Michael Hoffman at Hierakonpolis, stood. Whatever its origin, it always was the graphic writing, or at least determinative for the town of Hierakonpolis. When you put the two words together in a direct genitive, you get "Guardian of Hierakonpolis". Fifth Title: Hr.j-tp nxb: This one consists of three words in relation, written with six signs. Now, this one is a bit confusing, but allow me to attempt to explain. First of all, there is an honorific transposition in which nxb is moved to the front of the title. nxb meaning "Eileithyaspolis" or simply "Nekheb" if you cannot pronounce that, is spelled out with the first four signs. The last two signs represent the other two words. nxb was the city of Nekhbet, the white buzzard goddess of the white crown of Upper Egypt. It lay just accross the Nile from Hierakonpolis. Because it was the city of the goddess who personified the white crown which was a personal effect of the king, who was considered a god, and therefore sacred, her town was so holy that it was worthy of honorific transposition, and had to be written before the other elements in the title. The name of the city is written by four signs. The first sign is the budding sedge plant, in its form before it blooms. This sign, represented Upper Egypt like the flowering sedge plant, but its phonetic value was different: nxb. So, why do we need three more signs to represent the name of this town? Well, unfortunately, the budding sedge plant had one other phonetic value so it needs phonetic complements (signs which help in the pronunciation of a multiliteral sign) so that the reader will be positive about what word is intended. Therefore, following the budding sedge plant one finds {b} and {nw} as well as a city determinative, leaving no doubt that the word stands for the city of nxb and not some word with the same consonantal skeleton. The only sound not reiterated is /x/. But how do you get from {nxb}{b}{nw}{city} to reading this nxb? Well, once again, the budding sedge plant is SO very sacred as a symbol of kingship that it has to come first in the word, then, because the {b} is a tall sign and the {nw} is a small round sign, these signs fit better with {nw} written over {city} than they do if you have to keep them in their proper order of pronunciation. Egyptian employed graphic blocks of signs organized so that they fit nicely into imaginary sqares in the text. Order of pronunciation was sometimes sacrificed for these graphic considerations. You will, of course, next ask why do they write {nw} if the sound is simply {n}? to this I cannot really answer. I believe it is just an ancient tradition. On the other hand, possibly this city's name actually was *nwxb, right from the beginning, and this would account for it. The following two signs represent two words in relation. One is a face looking forward, and the other is a head in profile. Their phonetic values are /Hr/ and /tp/. This part of the title is actually Hr.j-tp. The weak consonant /j/ has been left out of the writing. Hr.j is a nisba adjective formed on the proposition Hr "upon/above". As a nisba adjective it means "who is upon/above". It is, once again, further re-nominalized as "person who is above". tp means "head". Together the two words mean "person who is above the head". This can be translated as "supervisor". Now, when we put this compound word tgoether with nxb in a direct genitive, we get "Supervisor of Eileithyaspolis". The Sixth title: This one consists of two words written by five signs. It is smr w`.t.j. Smr is written by the first two signs: {s} and {mr}. It means "companion". The second word is written with three signs: {harpoon in its launcher} {t} and {stroke}. The harpoon in its launcher represents the sound /w`/. w` means "one". the {t} makes it into a feminine abstaction (w`.t) meaning "singularity/solitariness/uniqueness". The stroke is a determinative indicating singularity. However, though it is not written, the intended word is a nisba adjective ending in the weak consonant /j/. With this ending the word is converted into an adjective meaning "unique/sole/solitary". Now, this adjective modifies the word before it (smr), and together we get "unique companion". OK, this is enough for now. If you are interested in what I have been explaining here, please write to the list, and say so, otherwise, I do not have time to go into such incredible detail all the time to explain all the intricacies of the hieroglyphic writing system. Be well! Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 01:43:09 +0100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Nick Myall Subject: AEL determinative signs Dear Mr Graham, what I understood is that many old egyptian words are written with the same signs (only consonants) even if they have a complety different meaning.The determinative signs help determine the word meaning.What I dont understand is your phonetic determinative explanation.How can it help to understand a word, repeating another with the same sound but different significance? thanks a lot from Patrizia Di Paolo ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:38:33 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Hello, Ms. Di Paolo, Thanks for furthering discussion of the determinatives. I believe there must be many others who have wanted to ask similar questions, and who appreciate this finally coming to discussion. > Dear Mr Graham, what I understood is that many old egyptian words are > written with the same signs (only consonants) even if they have a complety > different meaning.The determinative signs help determine the word > meaning.What I dont understand is your phonetic determinative > explanation.How can it help to understand a word, repeating another with the > same sound but different significance? The fact is that these phonetic determinatives may not have added much to the understanding of words, unless the vowel sound pronounced in the original words from which they came were similar to the vowel sounds in the words in which they served as phonetic determinatives. For example, there are certain biliteral signs which have the same consonantal skeleton superficially, however in Egyptian writing they never substituted one for the other. Example: the vagina /Hm/ and the stone drill /Hm/. Words with the vagina never substitute the stone drill in its place, and vice versa. However, I think the main reason for phonetic determinatives is that scribes tended to learn to write signs in groups rather than alone. When a certain sound combination was needed, they did not simply sit there and sound it out to themselves and decide which signs they would employ to most efficiently write the sound, but rather, they had been taught sign groups which represented syllables. So, when they learned to write /xn/ they learned the group of {x}{n}{alighting bird}, rather than being taught to sit and figure out for themselves that first they would need {x} and next they would need {n}. So what I am saying is that there was a mixture of factors which produced this situation. Probably the most important of which was that during the earliest phases of Egyptian writing the rhebus principle had been employed to sound out words, and this was originally done with multiliteral characters, and not so often with uniliteral ones. As time progressed, the uniliterals began to take over much of the functions of the multiliteral ones. However, there was a tendency because of the traditionality of writing for scribes to employ both systems in combination. Thus, because the earlier way had employed the alighting bird for /xn/, they continued to use it, while also adding the "alphabetic signs" as a reinforcement. And, moreover in the case of the example /xn/, the alighting bird has some other phonetic values as well, such as /Tn/ and /qm3/ and even (erroneously) as /p3/. Without the phonetic complements the reader might be unsure which value was intended. All of this begs the big question of why the Egyptians never abandoned the multiliteral signs and employed an alphabet. The reasons behind this are quite complex: partially tradition, partially the usefulness of single signs to represent long words, and ideograms which were very versatile. It took Semitic-speaking people to borrow and adapt the uniliteral signs before the alphabet was invented. Who knows precisely why? Yours, Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 08:21:22 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Gerald Kadish Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 To AEL Weni enthusiasts: I wonder whether you would consider giving up the translation Sole Companion for smr waty. Since any number of individials held this rank indicator at any given time, `sole' seems just a tad odd. Might i suggest something like `Privy Companion' (unless some of you think `privy' will arouse scatological humor). Rank indicators like this and rx nswt seem to say something about closer bureaucratic/social proximity to the king. -- Gerry Gerald E. Kadish Professor of History and Near Eastern Studies Department of History Binghamton University Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 (607) 777-2488 e-mail address: kadishg@binghamton.edu ============================================================================== From: "Ricardo" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:39:34 +0100 Hi, Graham, Many thanks for your explanation on the determinative signs. I'm glad that i had put a controversial question, which means that my self learning egyptian is getting improved. It's very interesting to note that egyptians had the worry in not being ambigous writing the words.They mark well the phonetics, reapeating the sounds by adding the right signs as determinatives. It's also a way to fill the space they hate to be left blank- "horror vacuum". I also think in doing that, they were amused in finding some simbolic relation between the words'meaning and the signs. I don't know if this happened in the word "mwt"-"mother", represented by the vulture sign, or "snD"-"fear", a dead(?) goose. It's an interesting subject indeed. regards, Ricardo ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 08:27:09 -0500 To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: Gerald Kadish Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 AELers: I had not seen Goeff's comments before dashing off my last note. I would prefer his `private confident' to his `unique companion', although my sense of it is that it betokens an enhanced accessibility to the royal presence, at least by implication, if not always in fact. Perhaps `private companion'. I'm open to suggestions. -- Gerry Gerald E. Kadish Professor of History and Near Eastern Studies Department of History Binghamton University Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 (607) 777-2488 e-mail address: kadishg@binghamton.edu ============================================================================== From: "Ricardo" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:10:34 +0100 Hi, Marc Thank you for your tips on the"it-f" word for "father". I found your point on the the"f" sign used as a masculin suffix pronoum, = a very plausible one. The "t" ending is part of the word root, and not a f=E9minine particle, i think. So the "f"sign could serve to mark the word gender. Nobody knows. It's possible.=20 regards, Ricardo=20 P:S:my english/portuguese is not famous also, so don't apologize ============================================================================== From: "Ricardo" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:47:47 +0100 Hi Serge, You mentioned that the"ankh" simbol is also an ideogram.Why is that? If i'm right it represents a strap(?)of a sandal ,so what's the abstract relation with the word for "life"? Thanks, Ricardo ============================================================================== From: USHorus@aol.com Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:27:33 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL In Egypt 28Feb-23Mar Dear Friends, I am more a lurker than a contributor on this list. I am a native Egyptian, having spent half my life in Egypt, and the other half in USA. I go to Egypt about twice a year. I will be in Egypt from 28-Feb to 23-Mar. I will be in Cairo about two weeks, and in Luxor for a week. If I can be of help to any of you and/or I get the opportunity to meet you, please email me privately. I am a passionate ancient Egyptian. Moustafa Gadalla http://members.aol.com/ushorus ============================================================================== From: Aayko To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL AW: AEL determinative signs Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:16:31 +-100 Hi, Geoff, >> Can anyone tell me why the word "it","father", is writen with the viper > >sign " f "as a determinative. >This is not well understood, however there are writings of the word without it, and there are also writings of the plural "fathers" that employ nothing but three horned vipers with no phonetic signs at all. It remains a mystery, but it does seem to be a reality. In Old Egyptian the word tended to be written with {jt} or just {t}, and in Coptic it ends up as {eiOt}, and since both the earliest and the latest stages do not have any /f/ in them, we can probably deduce that the word never did. >Does this throw any light on the strange determinatives you were refering to? The {f} in jt, might actuallybe a phonetic determinative, but no one has yet discovered the word for the horned viper which it represents which may have sounded like jt. ***My money would not be on a phonetic determinative. Shall I be daring? ;) Note that the word for "souverain" _jt.y_ (that in essence means "the fatherly") is likewise either normally spelled or written with a reptile glyph. In this case two crocodiles (a graphical tool, as the dualis is also .y) So we have plain 'father' written with a viper [f (fnT?)], and 'father' in 'souverain' written with a crocodile [mzH]. Two reptiles, both no phonetic relation to the word _jt_ but used for it. Can this be coincidence? Hypothesis: both animals were as totem or in cultic terms associated with fathership. Hence they could be used to convey the idea 'father', independantly or as added determinative. What do you think? The trick is to prove this. Divine crocodiles enough, but does the viper ever appear in Egypt otherwise (i.e. not as glyph)? Reptiles and amphibians are in Egyptian creation myths chthonic beings, the earliest forms of both good and bad divine powers. Yours, Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== From: Hans van Haarst To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:12:32 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 > From: Mark Wilson > To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 22:43:43 +0000 > Subject: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 > Priority: normal > Reply-to: Ancient Egyptian Language List > Hello, > > I guess it's about time to make a start on the Weni text! You can > find the hieroglyphs for this via the AEL web page (URL at the bottom > of this message). > 1a. Dd=f: ink iAd TAz mDH xr Hm n.i tti > > says: As a boy I tied the head-band under the majesty of (king) Teta. > > 1b. iA.t(=i) [1] m im.i-rA prw-Sna.w iri.n(=i) s-HD xnt.i.w-Si > prw-aAi ////////////////////////// > > My position (was) as overseer of the storehouse. I commanded the > palace personnel. > > > 2. /////(Xr.i-HAb.t) smsw n.i DbA.t xr Hm n.i pipi [2] > > Eldest of the robing room under the majesty of (king) Pepi. > > rDi [3] wi Hm=f m iA.t n.i.t smr s-HD Hmw.w-nTr n.i.w ni.t=f > > His majesty appointed me in the position of confidant of the > hm-netjer priest of his necropolis. Hello Mark, I agree with your translation. I just wondered why in line 14 iri.n(=i) was used and in line 16 rDi. According to the Standard Theory the first verbform must be the substantival sDm.n=f because there is a vedette present : xr Hm n tti. The verbform rDi is an indicative sDm=f. Translation : It was under the majesty of Teti, that I held the position ... Then follows : His majesty appointed me etc. The difficulty I have with this translation is that the putting in relief of 'under the majesty of Teti', because that was already mentioned in line 12. So I suggest to take ir.n(=i) as circumstantial sDm.n=f : After I had held the position of ..., his majesty appointed me ... In this way you get a natural flow of the story : I was still a boy, when I already held the position of ... After I had held the position of ..., his majesty appointed me as ... Any comments please. Kind regards, Hans van Haarst emailadress : hans@knor.demon.nl ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:37:26 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Hi, Ricardo, > You mentioned that the"ankh" simbol is also an ideogram.Why is that? If i'm > right it represents a strap(?)of a sandal ,so what's the abstract relation > with the word for "life"? It probably is a sandal strap, as you say. The word for this object was `nx apparently. Through the "rhebus principle" (using words which sound alike or similar to represent one another) the sandal strap was made to represent at least phonetically the word for life which also had the consonantal skeleton of `nx. Therefore, in its origin, the sign was a triliteral phonogram. However, the usage of this sign for "life" and "live" was so prevalent that it almost becomes an ideogram for "life" itself. I am not certain whether one could really call it an ideogram because the object represented is not inseparable from the meaning of "life", but rather, only had the same consonantal skeleton as that word. However, it is ubiquitously used for the meaning of "life" and could have been felt to be something like an ideogram too. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:41:27 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL smr w`.t.j and more Weni Hello, Mr. Kadish, Thank you for your excellent suggestions. > I wonder whether you would consider giving up the translation Sole > Companion for smr waty. Since any number of individials held this rank > indicator at any given time, `sole' seems just a tad odd. Might i suggest > something like `Privy Companion' (unless some of you think `privy' will > arouse scatological humor). Rank indicators like this and rx nswt seem to > say something about closer bureaucratic/social proximity to the king. I think you are quite right. The designation, "sole/unique/solitary", although prevalent in Egyptological literatute, is misleading, because, as you have pointed out, there were too many of these people for them to be truly unique or solitary. "Privy" is a bit of a stretch, but there must be some term which will make sense. It is not that these people were entirely alone in their station, but they were a select group. Could "select" or "elect" work here? On the other hand, more than one person can be "unique" without being the only ones who were companions/cohorts. "Unique" can mean "irreplaceable" and "invaluable" too, can it not? ... at least in its more positive connotations. Maybe the emphasis in the title is that these people were considered unique individuals who had a personal identity with the king rather than being relegated to facelessness. I, therfore, understand well your liking for "privy", although this word has connotations of keeping secrets, whereas, we don't know if these people were involved necessarily always in security issues. What about "personal companion"? This would indicate the personhood which these people had in the royal court, and not any sense of intrigue. Perhaps even "individual companion"? Just another suggestion. ______ Just so that I do not seem to undertake too many postings to the AEL, allow me to append a continuation of the analysis I was doing for the list below. I last finished up a detailed orthographic analysis of the titulary of Weni the Elder at the beginning of the text. Now, let us analyze his honorific designation and the introduction to what he has to say for himself. The honorific designation of Weni the Elder: jm3x.w xr 3sjrj xnt.j-jmn.t.j.w: This phrase indicates to us where the author and speaker of the text is believed to be residing at the time that his message is read by people who enter his chapel to make offerings or say prayers on his behalf, or even beg favors from him as a powerful spirit from the beyond. This is not a title of his during his lifetime, but one earned in the next life. jm3x.w: This word is written with five signs. {j}{m3}{jm3x}{x}{w}. Apparently the middle sign of the group, the {side of beef ribs} had the phonetic value of /jm3x/, which happened to correspond to the consonantal skeleton of /jm3x/ meaning "veneration/worth". All the other signs are employed as phonetic complements, which succeed in repeating all four consonants in the word plus its participial ending /w/. The second sign is a biliteral {m3}; it represents a scythe, which object must have had a name with this consonantal skeleton. By adding the final {w}, the word is transformed, much like a nisba adjective (which it could be argued that the word actually is), into an adjective meaning "worthy/venerated". xr is spelled out with uniliterals {x} and {r}. This is a preposition used mostly when relating to the approach or vicinity of divine and royal beings. It can be translated as "under", "unto", or "in the realm/vicinity of". When less sacred beings are approached, the prepositions can be either n or r, however, these were regarded as too direct or forward for approach to a divinity. So, with the preceeding word and this preposition, we now have "worthy unto" or "venerated in the realm of". 3sjrj: This is Osiris' name. There is still considerable controversy over what its actual consonantal skeleton was. Many Egyptologists will trancribe it as {wsjr}, although I believe this to be erroneous, and based on later writings of his name after certain phonetic changes had taken place. You can use either {3sjrj}, as I do, or you can opt for {wsjr} as many other Egyptologists do. Generally, people are familiar with both possible transcriptions. The word is written with three signs: {jr(.t)}{3s(.t)}{seated god}. This name is sometimes also written in differnt order as {3s(.t)}{jr(.t)}{seated god}. The order is dependent on the scribe's sense of how the signs best fit the allotted space. The {eye} sign has the value of /jr/, because an eye was jr.t in Egyptian. The {throne} sign has the value of /3s/ (and in other situations, sometimes the value of /st/) because the Egyptian word for throne was 3s.t. This is why it can be used to represent the name of Isis (3s.t) whose name is identical to the word for throne. The {seated god} sign is the determinative which shows that the word was the name of a god. Incidentally, the Coptic name of Osiris was {ousiri}, and the Coptic name for Isis was {Ese}. xnt.j: this word is a nisba adjective built on the noun xnt meaning something like "front/external face/facade". It is built from two signs: {xnt} and {t}. The final nisba ending /j/ was weak so it was not written. The first sign is a {group of water vases in a stand}. Such stands of fresh drinking water were called xnt in Egyptian, and through the rhebus principle the sign can stand for the word xnt "facade". The {t} is a phonetic complement. xnt.j is an adjective meaning "before/at the front of/foremost". jmn.t.j.w: the last word of the designation is a plural nisba adjective reconceived of as a noun. It is written by a single sign: {falcon on a plumed standard}. This sign alone was originally the nome {regional district} standard of the second Lower Egyptian nome, on the western fringe of the Delta of the Nile. It came to represent the word for "west", jmn.t. jmn.t meant "west" because jmn was the original word for "right hand", and the Egyptians regarded their country with Upper Egypt (Egypt's southern valley) at the top of the map, and thus the west was to the right. The final /t/ was a feminine ending, indicating that the direction was a feminine concept based on the word for "right-hand". When the nisba ending /j/ is added, the word was converted into the adjective "western". Then the plural ending /w/ was added, making it a plural noun, "westerners". Neither the /j/ nor the /w/ are written in this text, however, we do have fuller writings of this word, which show us that they ought to be present. xnt.j-jmn.t.j.w was the name of the necropolis guardian of Abydos. It meant "Foremost of the Westerners". This is an epithet which masks the original name of the god, which may have actually been Wepwawet or Anubis, since his form is that of a jackal, and these gods are known to be preeminent in the region. Another suggestion, I recently found in an article by Florence Friedman in JEA, is that even Wepwawet is an epithet conceiling the earlier name of the god Sed, after whom the Sed Feastival was named. However, early on, the deity behind the epithet Khentamenthes (xnt.j-jmn.t.j.w) was identified with Osiris, who was imported to the Thinite (This and Abydos) region by Dynasty V. Thus, we get Osiris-Khentamenthes in this text. Now, the whole designation of Weni is: "worthy unto Osiris-Khentamenthes". This indicates that he has been accepted as a powerful spirit worthy of offerings into the next world, that of Osiris, chief of the West. A person with this designation is no longer among the living, and can be appealed to only through offerings and proyers in the necropolis. Thus, we are told that the author and speaker of the text is talking to the reader accross the limits of the two worlds, from the world of the dead under Osiris-Khentamenthes, to the world of the living who stand in his chapel and come to beseach his help or offer food, drink, and/or prayers for his eternal life. This brings us to the function and purpose of recording one's autobiography in ancient Egypt. The earlierst texts in Egyptian tomb chapels were lists of titles of the deceased before their names, and lists of offerings which they hoped to receive. The lists of titles eventually developed into biographies, as they became more and more eleaborate, and the deceased wished to assert more reasons why they were worthy of receiving their offerings. The biography is a testament to the great deeds that a person performed on earth, so that visiters to his/her chapel might think this person truly worthy and great enough to offer food, drink, and prayers to his/her spirit. The more eleaborate the titles, and the more lofty the deeds of the individual, the more eternal veneration he/she expected to command. Weni's was the first really long autobiography which has come down to us. As an aside, let me address what became of the lists of offerings, which were parallel to the lists of titles. These offering lists were to become the Invocation Offering Formula, a prayer which was said on behalf of the deceased, the words of which could magically substitute for actual physical offerings of food, drink, clothing, and other necessities placed in the tomb. The formula began something like this: "A boon which the king gives, and ("also", OR "to", depending on the date of the text, for there was a switch in the official ideology as to whether the gods also provided the boon, or if the boon was provided to the gods on behalf of the soul of the deceased) Anubis (or various other necropolis gods) for the Ka of {deceased's name}". Then the text proceeds to list the offerings which will be given. So, back to Weni's biography, the text which follows these first statements will be designed to make us think that Weni was a beneficent, efficient, and powerful man, who must surely be well connected in the next life. Then, we are supposed to respond by reciting the offering formulas on his behalf, and maybe even bring some real offerings fo his soul. The text goes on to tell us Dd=f "he says". What follows is his life story. If there are no questions about the titles, designations, and introduction to his speech, then please proceed to consider the next couple of sentences which Mark has translated preliminarily. Perhaps, some of you would like to dissect the writings and the words for the list, explaining how one arrives at a translation. Certainly, do not hesitate to address questions when you encounter difficulties. Be well! Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== From: "Ricardo" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL determinative signs Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:53:05 +0100 Hello, Aayko You mentionned that the crocodile sign doesn't have any phonetic relation with the word "it"-"father". But beside the "mzH" sound value for the crocodile, it does have also the sound "it". Anyone please correct me if i'm not right. regards, Ricardo ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:59:25 +1100 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Linda Evans Subject: AEL AEL: Ankh symbol Dear AEL'ers, With regards to the origin of the ankh sign, you may find the following of some interest: Schwabe, Calvin W. et al., 1982. 'Egyptian beliefs about the bull's spine: An anatomical origin for the ankh', Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 24, pp. 445-479. Best wishes, Linda ____________________ Linda Evans Animal Behaviour Lab Department of Psychology Macquarie University Sydney NSW 2109 Australia ____________________ ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:03:06 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 Dear, Mr. Van Haarst, Indeed, you have some valid points for translation considerations. Addressed to Mark Wilson: > I agree with your translation. I just wondered why in line 14 iri.n(=i) was > used and in line 16 rDi. According to the Standard Theory the first verbform > must be the substantival sDm.n=f because there is a vedette present : xr Hm n > tti. The verbform rDi is an indicative sDm=f. For those on the list who have some background in Egyptian grammar, the issue is concerning how one actually translates a sDm.n=f. This is a past form of the verb in Egyptian which has only two possible forms: circumstantial (meaning that it is a dependent clause form with connotations of previous completion) or nominal/second tense (meaning that it is diminished in strength in order to emphasize a prepositional phrase contained in the sentence). Suggested emendation: > Translation : It was under the majesty of Teti, that I held the position ... > Then follows : His majesty appointed me etc. First, the text's lacuna must be restored, making the following interpretation: jrj.n(=j) s-HD-xnt.j.w-Sj prw-`3j [xr Hm n.j ttj] [It was under the Majesty of Teti] that I performed the function of Supervisor of Ground Staff of the Royal Domain. jrj.n=f is a sDm.n=f form, and must therefore be interpreted either as circumstantial or nominal. Because we do not know what is in the lacuna, it is not possible to say whether it contained a prepositional phrase, although it makes good logical sense that it might have. We could reconstruct the text as you have, and then see the sDm.n=f form of jrj as nominal, emphasizing what is in the lacuna. On the other hand, if what once was written in the broken part of the text contained another verb form, then it could be appropriate to see the form as circumstantial and simply a continuation of the sentence which began with Dd=f: Dd=f jnk j3d T3z(.w) mDH xr Hm n.j ttj j3.t(=j) m jm.j-r3 prw-Sn`.w jrj.n(=j) s-HD-xnt.j.w-Sj-prw-`3j He says: I was a boy who tied (on) the headband under the Majesty of Teti, (when) my office was Overseer of the Storehouse, (and while) I was acting as Supervisor of Resident Staff of the Royal Domain. Both interpretations are possible. One must ask, however, whether the author would have bothered to mention the Majesty of Teti twice in this passage. He only mentions his successor, Pepi I, once in that follows. On the other hand, another verb could be lost in the lacuna, making a new sentence begin within it. But wait, do I understand you correctly, is there possibly a typo in your note? ("Teti" when you meant "Pepi"?) Were you referring to the prepositional phrase of xr Hm n.j pjpj (under the Majesty of Pepi)? In that case, yes, what lies in the lacuna could be other titles all leading up to the emphasis of THIS phrase. Then you could see the sentence as: jrj.n(=j) s-HD-xnt.j.w-Sj-prw-`3j [missing titles] smsw-Db3.t xr Hm n.j pjpj It was under the Majesty of PEPI that I acted as Supervisor of Ground Staff of the Royal Domain, [missing titles], and Elder of the Robing room. This is an excellent idea, because we do not expect that a "boy" would have all these exalted functions. It is already a leap of faith to imagine him Overseeing the Storehouse as it is. > The difficulty I have with this translation is that the putting in relief of > 'under the majesty of Teti', because that was already mentioned in line 12. How are we already at Line 12 now? I am confused as can be. ;-P Perhaps we are talking about different portions of the inscription altogether? > So I suggest to take ir.n(=i) as circumstantial sDm.n=f : > After I had held the position of ..., his majesty appointed me ... Well, this, of course, is also a possibility. Our real problem is that some of the text is missing, making it difficult to judge. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine a boy who did all these things. Another factor to consider is that there is some debate as to whether a circumstantial form is allowed to preceed the main verb. > In this way you get a natural flow of the story : > I was still a boy, when I already held the position of ... > After I had held the position of ..., his majesty appointed me as ... Well, in certain respects, your interpretation is as good as any, given that some of the text is missing. My only concerns would be whether a circumstantial form can indeed preceed the main verb as in your last suggestion. I am sorry for any misunderstandings I may have had concerning the import of your message. It is very difficult to get one's bearings in this medium when we are referring to a text which is not in front of our noses at the moment when we post to the list, at least not on the screen where everyone can see it at the same time. Perhaps we should relax a little bit concerning the grammar of lines with lacunae, so that we can focus in on grammar with more adequate backing when the text is complete. Let's watch out for more sDm.n=f's so we can observe the tendencies of the author, and then come back to reevaluate what is incomplete with such knowledge under our belts. Thank your for your interesting discussion. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:24:14 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL determinative signs Hello, Mr. Eyma, Thanks for your interesting discussion. I do have some thoughts in this regard which I would like to share. > Note that the word for "souverain" _jt.y_ (that > in essence means "the fatherly") is likewise > either normally spelled or written with a > reptile glyph. In this case two crocodiles > (a graphical tool, as the dualis is also .y) > > So we have plain 'father' written with a viper > [f (fnT?)] Yes, I think so, although it usually means a "worm" rather than a viper. I wonder if the /f/ sound is also related to Hf3 "snake". I don't really know. Some people think there was a word for the horned viper which was *jt, but it is not attested anywhere to the best of my knowledge. I have searched for such a word in all the dictionaries. Interestingly, but not necessarily related at all, there is a Ptolemaic sign consisting of a snake rising from a basket with a looped handle over it which had the value of jtr.t meaning "shrine". It is not possible to say whether the snake in this symbol had anything to do with the phonetic value however. This sign also comes to represent the God Harsomtus, son of Hathor of Dendara. , and 'father' in 'souverain' written > with a crocodile [mzH]. Two reptiles, both no > phonetic relation to the word _jt_ but used > for it. Can this be coincidence? Clearly there was some word jt which could be represented by the crocodile, otherwise this writing would be unlikely. The name of the nome of Dendara was written in the Old Kingdom through Late Period with a crocodile standard. Then in the Ptolemaic Period, the crocodile is expurgated from the standard because of its Sethian overtones and it is written phonetically with a mound j3.t plus a tall loaf dj. It was surmised that this represented the sound jtdj or maybe by this period jty. However, there is also a theory that these signs in some way criptographically represented jq which is thought to be the name of the early crocodile god of the nome. I am not really in a position to judge which interpretation is the most correct, not being familiar with all the sources upon which each idea is based. However, if they represented the sound jty then we might have a relationship between this writing and the older writing, indicating that the crocodile god on this standard was named jty, and thus a possible connection between crocodiles and jt might exist. > Hypothesis: both animals were as totem > or in cultic terms associated with fathership. > Hence they could be used to convey the > idea 'father', independantly or as added > determinative. This is a hypothesis, indeed, but it might be difficult to prove it. > What do you think? > The trick is to prove this. Divine crocodiles > enough, but does the viper ever appear > in Egypt otherwise (i.e. not as glyph)? > Reptiles and amphibians are in Egyptian > creation myths chthonic beings, the > earliest forms of both good and bad > divine powers. This makes perfect sense in the Egyptian religion wherein the first form of the creator god Atum was a serpent in the abyss. Then he proceeded to generate all the gods and the universe through sexual reproduction of sorts with himself, and this is certainly the fatherly image of creation. While the imagery and the myths seem to suggest a possible conection, we still must remain cautious until a lexical proof for the theory comes to light and makes it absolutely clear that this thinking is not presumptuous. The best piece of evidence that I can presently think of is that "fathers/ancestors" could be written with three horned viper signs in the 18th Dynasty. However, this in itself does not definitively prove that a horned viper actually had a phonetic value of jt. It only proves that the horned viper was considered in some way relevant to the word for "father", not necessarily phonetically, but by some idea familiar to the Egyptians who employed it in this fashion. Some people on this list might remember that Pat Ryan once proposed that the reason for the sign's inclusion in the word jt had to do with an alternation between two words for father in two different dialects: jt and jf. He thought of this because in Afroasiatic languages two words for "father" are often found: one 't and the other 'p. While much of the time I have disagreed with some of Mr. Ryan's suggestions about Egyptian, I did find this idea to be slightly interesting. I am not saying that I endorse it as the solution to the problem, but it might possibly be worth consideration. This idea does not, however explain writings like {fff} for "fathers/ancestors", or does it? Another unrelated writing of "father" in New Kingdom and later Egyptian is with a loaf of bread sitting in a bowl. The Egyptian word for bread was elswhere written {t}, and most people add a final weak consonant or a {3} to this in their transliterations. However, since the word for "father" in the Old Kingdom could often be written with {t} alone, one has to wonder if this word for "bread", written with {t} might not actually have been *jt too. This has nothing to do with the presence of the viper in the usual writings, but it might tend to make one think that the word never contained /f/ in it at all in any phonetic sense. There is also the word for barley jt, but this one has been shown to have originally been wt. /w/ and /j/ often do alternate in Egyptian, just as /'/ and /w/ do in Arabic, and /y/ and /w/ do when looking at cognate words between more than one Semitic language, for instance Hebrew yrH "moon" versus Ethiopic wrH "moon", which incidentally are both related to Egyptian j`H "moon" and there is a w`H variant even for the moon sign in Egyptian too, although it has been suggested that the w`H bean is the real origin, though since both look like a crescent, there could still be some relationship. Also, older wp.t "brow" later developed into jp.t "head" which came out in Coptic as {ape}, but I am straying from the point. The point I was going to make was that this word for bread jt, which was written by {t} and could at some point in history also be used as a sign for "father", probably originated in the word for "barley", which originated in wt rather than jt. However, both words, "barley" and 'father' come down to us in Coptic as {eiOt} pronounced /yOt/, and hence the graphic relationship or the two ideas from at least as early as the 18th dynasty is made significant phonetically. OK, enough for now. Be well. Geoffrey Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:13:33 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Ricardo 'ecrit : > Hi Serge, > > You mentioned that the"ankh" simbol is also an ideogram.Why is that? If i'm > right it represents a strap(?)of a sandal ,so what's the abstract relation > with the word for "life"? > > Thanks, > > Ricardo It's a question of definition. For me, an ideogram is basically a sign which stands for a word, without regard for its origin. When I say that ankh becomes an ideogram for life, I mean that the sign becomes so connected with the word to live that - it can stand, on his own, without phonetical complement, for the word "life". - it is also used in representations as a sign to represent life. In contrast, when writing words linked to knots and the like, which might be closer to the "etymology" of the sign (a sandal knot), the sign is used like an ordinary consonnantic sign. What we have here is that a sign which was at first phonetic became partly specialised. The main point I wanted to make was that the frontier between the sign classes we make (phonetic, determinative, ideograms) are not clear cut. regards Serge ============================================================================== From: Tokapu@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:50:52 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Friends, On this question of determinatives, I have wondered for a long time if some of this confusion could be explained by Egyptian having been an "inflected" language like Chinese. Are we just missing cues for the changes in pitch and tone, rising or falling accents? Is there any evidence that this might be? Ramona Wheeler ============================================================================== From: Tokapu@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:08:12 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AEL: Ankh symbol Friends, Considering that the bull, symbolized by the white Apis bull and all its rituals, represented mystery the magical vessel of flesh which could contain a divine soul, this is a very believable source for the ankh determinative and its relationship to biological life. The bull has been symbol of this in the ANE region, indeed, further, for many thousands of years. Ramona Wheeler ============================================================================== From: Tokapu@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:47:36 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs In a message dated 2/5/98 1:17:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, flip@esoterica.pt writes: << I also think in doing that, they were amused in finding some simbolic relation between the words'meaning and the signs. I don't know if this happened in the word "mwt"-"mother", represented by the vulture sign, or "snD"-"fear", a dead(?) goose. >> It is my understanding that the use of the vulture as "Mother" dates back to the Neolithic, when the vulture was one of the symbolic representations of The World Mother for the entire ANE region. Her symbols are painted on the walls of Jericho and Catal Huyuk, and she carried the same meaning as Kali in Hindu religion, "Black Time" our Beloved Mother. As for geese and "fear," geese are "guard dog" animals, and the noise they make when alarmed is considerable. Ramona Wheeler ============================================================================== From: Tokapu@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:05:01 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL smr w`.t.j and more Weni In a message dated 2/5/98 6:38:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, geoffrey.graham@yale.edu writes: << I think you are quite right. The designation, "sole/unique/solitary", although prevalent in Egyptological literatute, is misleading, because, as you have pointed out, there were too many of these people for them to be truly unique or solitary. >> Friends, This might actually be misleading also. The Egyptians were greatly concerned with the uniqeness of individual identity. Horus, as the Face of Heaven, was the supreme example of the paradox of each soul being unique in exactly the same way. The idea that several people could be considered unique enough as personalities to be considered worthy of the Pharaoh's friendship is not really that out of line with their general culture and world view. Ramona Wheeler ============================================================================== From: USHorus@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:51:46 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL determinative signs Aayko wrote, >Hypothesis: both animals were as totem or in cultic terms associated with fathership. Hence they could be used to convey the idea 'father', independently or as added determinative. >> Is it possible that we are dealing with different meanings of the word 'father'? Modern-day Egyptians (I believe like their ancestors), use the word 'father' a lot for older people, as a sign of respect and adoration. On a personal note, I knew that I was aging, when Egyptians, on the streets and in the shops, started calling me 'father'. :-) Another aspect of the word 'father' in ancient Egypt, is related to the holy/virgin/pure/spiritual birth of the Egyptian king. The ancient myth tells us that Aset(Isis) conceived her son, Heru(Horus) after her husband's (Asar/Osiris) death. The cosmic force responsible for her impregnation was MeSSeh, the crocodile star, as per Spell 148 of the Coffin Texts: "The crocodile star (MeSSeh) strikes...Aset(Isis) wakes pregnant with the seed of Asar(Osiris)". Moustafa Gadalla ushorus@aol.com http://members.aol.com/ushorus ============================================================================== From: USHorus@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:15:35 EST To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEl determinative signs Geoffrey wrote, >All of this begs the big question of why the Egyptians never abandoned the multiliteral signs and employed an alphabet. The reasons behind this are quite complex: partially tradition, partially the usefulness of single signs to represent long words, and ideograms which were very versatile. >> Is it also possible that the ancient Egyptian language was a picture of reality? The word was very powerful because the word was an image. Every picture was potentially animate. A common expression, in our times, is that a picture is worth a thousand words. The same applies to the pictorial hieroglyphs, which not only had an overt phonetic script, but a more hermetic symbolism, which conveyed the subtler metaphysical realities of the universe. As such, it evoked an idea or concept in its entirety. The Sacred Script (Hieroglyph) was developed and maintained for much higher causes than we can relate to, in our "modern" era. They also devised hieratic and demotic scripts for other common uses. Moustafa Gadalla ushorus@aol.com http://members.aol.com/ushorus ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:30:25 -0500 (EST) From: Ogden Goelet To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Privy particles February 6, 1998 Dear AEL-ers, I would like to add to the remarks of Gerry Kadish concerning waty as "privy." I would like to point out that a constant motif of Weni's inscription is that Weni achieved great honors and powers far beyond his ostensible titles and positions. Many of his remarks might well be translated in the following manner: "I did such-and-such . . . even though my rank was . . ." For reasons such as this, the title smr waty emphasized not some much Weni's uniqueness, but rather his closeness to the monarch. Incidentally, Weni's inscription provides an object lesson in why we should always take Egyptian titularies with a boulder of salt. Consider Monthuemhat, who was virtually the king of the southern part of Egypt, during the TIP / early Dyn. 26, and yet was only the Fourth Priest of Amun. Ogden Goelet ***************************************** * "The more I learn, the more I forget" * ***************************************** (with apologies to Stephen Fryer) ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:14:18 -0800 (PST) To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: reeder@sirius.com (Greg Reeder) Subject: Re: AEL : Ankh symbol The ankh sign may have a connection to the penis sheath worn by the king during the Heb Sed ritual. See for instance Florence D. Friedman "The Underground Relief Panels of King Djoser" JARCE Vol. XXXII 1995, Fig.17 (Northern Panel Under South Tomb) where the sheath looks very much like an ankh. And p. 26 note 151 that notes work by John Baines, "Ankh-sign, Belt and Penis Sheath," SAK 3 (1975), 1-24. Greg Reeder http://www.egyptology.com reeder@sirius.com ============================================================================== From: Hans van Haarst To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:34:44 +0000 Subject: AEL Weni P2 L3-L8 Hello to all Wenilovers L3 : rDi wi Hm=f m zAb r nxn His majesty appointed me Judge, ' Mouth of Hierakonpolis ' This zAb r nxn is determined by a sitting man , so i think that the title zAb (judge) is meant and r nxn is an apposition : Mouth of Hierakonpolis. Another possiblity is to read zAb iry nxn : judge over Hierakonpolis. L4 : ib=f mH(.w) im(=i) r bAk=f nb because his heart was more filled with me than with any other of his servants. The stative is used here to express the fact that his majesty's heart was and still is full of Weni. That is the perfective aspect of the stative : the action is completed, but the result of the action continues. L5 : sDm(=i) xt wa.k(wi) Hna tAyty zAb TAty m sStA nb I listened to (legal ? ) matters, being alone with the Chief-judge (?), the vizier, concerning every secret This title tAyty zAb is unknown to me. tAyty is a nisbah meaning : he of the curtain. The combination tAyty TAty zAb occurs in Wadi Hammamat 113,3 ( de Buck Readingbook page 75 line 12 ). Perhaps zAb is a determinative to suggest the legal status of the function. As far as I know there were no professional judges in the time of Pepi II. When needed a committee was formed of priests and officials to administer justice. In some cases this committee was presided by the vizier. There were two viziers, one for Upper Egypt and one for Lower Egypt. So the case had to be really important I think for the vizier ( he was the substitute of the Farao ) to preside. Maybe TAty is here an apposition to tAyty zAb : the tayty-judge, the vizier. Weni was so important that he was alone with the vizier in his function of tAyty-judge. L6 : [ x.t nb.t] Xnm.t m rn n nsw.t n ipA.t nsw.t n Hw.t-wr.t 6 and [every case] connected with the name of the king, with the royal harem and the 6 great houses. The x.t nb.t comes from Osing : Zur Syntax der Biografie des Wnj ( Orientalia 11 p. 165 ). The 6 great houses are related to the royal court, but I don't know how. x.t nb.t is followed by the ( imperfective ? ) passive participle of the verb Xnm. The morpheme .t is written because x.t is a feminine substantive. L7 : n mH ib n Hm=f im(=i) r sr=f nb because the heart of his majesty was more filled with me than with any other courtier L8 : r saH=f nb r bAk=f nb official or servant of his. In Urk. I, p.84 there is a passage : n mrr wi Hm=f r bAk=f nb n ir.t=i Hss.t=f ra nb 'because His Majesty loved me more than any other of his servants because i did everyday that what he usually praised.' So the preposition n can be followed by the nominal sDm=f ( mrr ) and by the infinitive ( ir.t=i ). In our L7 n is followed by what i think is the infinitive of mH. There are a lot of questions on my part concerning these lines, so i hope that many listmembers will partake in this discussion to clarify the things i don't know. Kind regards, Hans van Haarst emailadress : hans@knor.demon.nl ============================================================================== From: Hans van Haarst To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:34:44 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:03:06 -0500 (EST) > From: Graham > To: Ancient Egyptian Language List > Subject: Re: AEL Weni p1, 0-2 > Reply-to: Ancient Egyptian Language List > But wait, do I understand you correctly, is there possibly a typo in your > note? ("Teti" when you meant "Pepi"?) Were you referring to the > prepositional phrase of xr Hm n.j pjpj (under the Majesty of Pepi)? In > that case, yes, what lies in the lacuna could be other titles all leading > up to the emphasis of THIS phrase. Dear Geoff, I am sorry about the misunderstanding. I made an error by typing titi instead of pipi. That is what you get when you do not carefully reread what you have written. So forget my proposition of an initial circumstantial sDm.n=f and consider iri.n=f to be the substantival sDm.n=f form with xr Hm n pipi ( yes I typed it correctly at last ;-)) as the vedette. Kind regards, Hans van Haarst emailadress : hans@knor.demon.nl ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 20:17:59 -0800 From: Patrick De Smet - Rodrigues To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEl determinative signs USHorus@aol.com wrote: > > Geoffrey wrote, > >All of this begs the big question of why the Egyptians never abandoned the > multiliteral signs and employed an alphabet. The reasons behind this are > quite complex: partially tradition, partially the usefulness of single signs > to represent long words, and ideograms which were very versatile. > >> > > Is it also possible that the ancient Egyptian language was a picture of > reality? The word was very powerful because the word was an image. Every > picture was potentially animate. > A common expression, in our times, is that a picture is worth a thousand > words. The same applies to the pictorial hieroglyphs, which not only had an > overt phonetic script, but a more hermetic symbolism, which conveyed the > subtler metaphysical realities of the universe. As such, it evoked an idea or > concept in its entirety. > > The Sacred Script (Hieroglyph) was developed and maintained for much higher > causes than we can relate to, in our "modern" era. > > They also devised hieratic and demotic scripts for other common uses. > > Moustafa Gadalla > ushorus@aol.com > http://members.aol.com/ushorus I certainly agree with Moustafa about the "power" of hieroglyphic signs. Evidence for this? 1. In a number of sixth dynasty pyramids certain - possibly malignant - signs (like snakes, other wild animals, but even some human figures) have been made inoffensive by the artists: they are "cut" in two pieces (/). Even the very frequent horned viper in its use for the =f ending is. The reason for this: most Pyramid Texts had a strong magical power (they consist mainly of 'spells') not only whilst they were recited but also whilst/after they were written. They were conceived to become "alive" together with the deceased king in the hereafter. Any sign representing an animal or human being could thus become dangerous, attack, bite or kill the king in the netherworld; to avoid these mishaps these signs (and only these) had to be made "harmless". 2. In a number of temple wall reliefs the carved out "scenes" can be "read" as a hieroglyphic text, and (at least certain parts of) the accompanying hieroglyphic texts can be "viewed" as ritual scenes. There is almost no distinction between them. Indeed, certain hieroglyphics can be very detailed and represent a miniature ritual scene by themselves. Patrick De Smet - Rodrigues udjat@skynet.be Udjat, Eye in the Sky (see what I mean?) ============================================================================== From: Hans van Haarst To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:39:53 +0000 Subject: Re: AEL Weni Detailed Orthography > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:32:51 -0500 (EST) > From: Graham > To: Ancient Egyptian Language List > Subject: AEL Weni Detailed Orthography > Reply-to: Ancient Egyptian Language List > Hello, Friends, > > I thought, since, for once I have a little more time to give, I would go > back over Weni's titles and disect them orthographically, so that > beginners will be able to gain more from this new endeavor. > > > Once again the full title is two words in a relation, the direct genitive. > The second word is Sm`.w "narrow". It is written with a flowering sedge > plant sign alone. This plant is the sacred symbol of Upper Egypt, which is > also called Sm`.w which means "the narrow thing", because upper Egypt is > an extremely narrow tract of land bordering the Nile Valley. Although > "narrow" is an adjective, it can represent a noun, and this is how it > comes to stand for Upper Egypt. Dear Geoff, Thank you very much for the extensive covering of the titles of Weni. It is a great help. I have two questions concerning Weni. Can you give tell me more about the word Sma.w. I can not find any reference in the dictionary. Secondly i have a general question about the offerings that took place in the chapel of a deceased. The Htp-di-nsw prayer was very often present carved on the stela next to or interwoven with the autobiography. Was it always the purpose of this prayer to be read aloud by the visitors ? I thought that the being there of this prayer was enough, because it was thought to perform its duty by magic. On the other hand there are also stelae, which have a so called ' Appeal to the living ' on them. There the visitor is asked by the deceased to actually recite the Htp-di-nsw prayer. A nice example is the stela of Sebekhotep. ( in H. Brunner : Hieroglyphische Chrestomathie, plate 11 ) . Kind regards, Hans van Haarst emailadress : hans@knor.demon.nl ==============================================================================