Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:00:16 -0600 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Re: Affirmative sgoodman@netvision.net.il wrote: > > ** Reply to note from Saida Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:48:28 -0600 > > > > Gardiner suggested "tiw" as "yes" and "nn" for "no". I would suggest > > *double reed, measuring cord* (yyw), which my dictionary tentatively > > defines as "certainly(?)"--to be pronounced as "ayu" or "aywa". "Aywa" > > is still used as the affirmative response in Egypt today. Most other > > Arabic-speaking nations used to use another Arabic affirmative response > > "na'am", but, for all I know, the Egyptian "yes" may have caught on due > > to Egyptian films, TV, etc. S Goodman: > > Arabic "ay-wa" is a compound. "Wa" also appears as the conjuction "and". > One can also say "ay-na'am", where the basic meaning of "na'am" is > "pleasant". Both are pretty colloquial. Neither form is from Eqyptian, and > neither is peculiar to Egyptian speech; I hear them here frequently. Probably for the reason I gave above: Once it was thus: "aywa" was used for the affirmative in Egypt only. In Egypt, Syria and Iraq "na'am" was used and Iraq also had a term "belli". A book I have here from 1951 "Colloquial Arabic" confirms this. That the adv. "aywa" is compound is a bit of news to me. For the conjunction "and" to be represented there doesn't make much sense. Are you sure about this? Certainly, "na'am" is Semitic but it is seen in Egyptian, too, as either a loan word or a cognate. Whether it was ever used as an affirmative response in ancient Egyptian, I have no idea. Since "aywa" was once peculiar to Egypt for "yes", I think it is a bit hasty to dismiss it out of hand as having nothing to do with "yyw". Coptic has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the *double reed* must very often have had the value of "ay". Still, even if "aywa" and "yyw" are unrelated, I still stand by what I think about "yyw" as "yes". Marianne Wells ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:03:31 +0000 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL The Color of Hieroglyphs In article <199703141928.LAA21877@mailhub.Stanford.EDU>, Tom Hare typed: >Regarding Marc Line's question about the colors used for hieroglyphs: > >You might want to check out William Stevenson Smith's 1946 book, _A History >of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom_ (Boston, 2nd ed., >1949) if you can find it. Thanks Tom. If I can't find it myself, as we say here, "I know a man who can." :) >I believe there is an appendix in the back with >detailed information about the colors used for glyphs in two or three >important tombs. The list is arranged according to Gardiner's sign list, >and indicates whether the glyph in question is wholly in one color, or >outlined in one and filled in with another, or otherwise detailed. There >are only a few black and white line drawings accompanying the list, but it >may be of help as regards Old Kingdom practice. For later on in Egyptian >history, it seems as though you're getting lots of suggestions already. It sounds as if this is exactly the kind of information I am looking for and I thank you for taking the time to point me in the direction of it. I must say that I am impressed with the willingness of list members to be helpful in this regard. As is often the case, the more one learns, the more awareness one has of one's ignorance. Thanks to you and again, to all here who have contributed to the alleviation of my ignorance. Best regards Marc ============================================================================== From: sgoodman@netvision.net.il To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:23:34 +0200 Subject: Re: AEL Re: Affirmative [Moderator's note: We seem to be wandering off into comparative linguistics again. As far as any on-list continuation of this thread is concerned, please be sure that Ancient Egyptian remains is the central theme!] ** Reply to note from Saida Sun, 16 Mar 1997 19:00:16 -0600 > > sgoodman@netvision.net.il wrote: > > > > ** Reply to note from Saida Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:48:28 -0600 > > > > > > > Gardiner suggested "tiw" as "yes" and "nn" for "no". I would suggest > > > *double reed, measuring cord* (yyw), which my dictionary tentatively > > > defines as "certainly(?)"--to be pronounced as "ayu" or "aywa". "Aywa" > > > is still used as the affirmative response in Egypt today. Most other > > > Arabic-speaking nations used to use another Arabic affirmative response > > > "na'am", but, for all I know, the Egyptian "yes" may have caught on due > > > to Egyptian films, TV, etc. > > S Goodman: > > > > Arabic "ay-wa" is a compound. "Wa" also appears as the conjuction "and". > > One can also say "ay-na'am", where the basic meaning of "na'am" is > > "pleasant". Both are pretty colloquial. Neither form is from Eqyptian, and > > neither is peculiar to Egyptian speech; I hear them here frequently. > > Probably for the reason I gave above: Once it was thus: "aywa" was > used for the affirmative in Egypt only. In Egypt, Syria and Iraq > "na'am" was used and Iraq also had a term "belli". A book I have here > from 1951 "Colloquial Arabic" confirms this. That the adv. "aywa" is > compound is a bit of news to me. For the conjunction "and" to be > represented there doesn't make much sense. Are you sure about this? > Certainly, "na'am" is Semitic but it is seen in Egyptian, too, as either > a loan word or a cognate. Whether it was ever used as an affirmative > response in ancient Egyptian, I have no idea. Since "aywa" was once > peculiar to Egypt for "yes", I think it is a bit hasty to dismiss it out > of hand as having nothing to do with "yyw". Coptic has demonstrated > beyond a doubt that the *double reed* must very often have had the value > of "ay". Still, even if "aywa" and "yyw" are unrelated, I still stand > by what I think about "yyw" as "yes". "Ay-na'am" = "Ay-wa" = a stronger affirmation than either without the "wa". "Wa", written with the single letter WAW, means "and", as I said. It also appears in other functions. In your travels in the Arabic-speaking world, you have almost surely heard someone exclaim "Wallah!": this is also a compound, made up of our friend "Wa" with "Allah". You and I might exclaim instead something like "Oh, God!", it's the same thing. Yes, it is hard to see the conjunction in either of these idioms; this demonstrates the danger of word-for-word translation. Perhaps you can think of another basic meaning to assign to "Wa" that would be more satisfying to a speaker of IE; that would be constructive. "Na'am" is Hebrew too, though it isn't used as affirmation, as it is in Arabic. If you would like Biblical references, I will try to find a concordance and list some for you. The Hebrew conjunction (also written with the same single letter, VAV) has a more restricted meaning than the Arabic, but it can do things that a speaker of IE would never associate with "and". "Ay" also has a Hebrew cognate, which also appears *only* in compounds, where it carries a meaning like "something" approximately (sorry, I can't do better than that). If Coptic has "ay" for "yes", you might consider relating Egyptian with Scottish English. (Sorry, I couldn't resist it; but only geography makes the idea more far-fetched than the Egyptian-source notion.) Before you commit yourself too deeply to the proposition that these words are all part of the admitted Egyptian heritage of this part of the Middle East, you might check for cognates in other Semitic languages, further east, that had less contact with Egypt. That there was such contact is clear; also that it was bidirectional, as can be seen from Erman's book "Life in Ancient Egypt", which has an entire chapter on load words into Egyptian from Hebrew (not a single one of which, in my Dover edition anyway, is spelled correctly). I think you will find that "Ay-wa" did not get into Arabic from AEL. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Stan Goodman % % Qiryat Tiv'on % % ISRAEL % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ============================================================================== From: "Mark Wilson" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:15:37 +0000 Subject: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Dear list, I spotted an interesting little inscription on p50 of the recently mentioned Tomb of Nefertari book: a) wsir htp m re' It is Osiris who sets as Re' b) re' pw htp m wsir It is Re' who sets as Osiris At first I thought this was fairly simple, but the more I thought about it, the less I seemed to understand what was going on here. A few questions come to mind: 1. Why is it SVO and not VSO? Is it because it can be seen as the answer to a question enquiring *who* it is that sets as Re'? 2. Could you write "htp wsir m re'" for "Osiris sets as Re'"? 3. In b) the m is written with Gardiner Aa15. Is there any particular reason for this? 4. In a) why is the pw omitted? Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks, Mark Wilson weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:32:26 +0000 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' In article <858813883.0512144.0@rostau.demon.co.uk>, Mark Wilson typed: >Dear list, > >I spotted an interesting little inscription on p50 of the recently >mentioned Tomb of Nefertari book: > >a) wsir htp m re' It is Osiris who sets as Re' >b) re' pw htp m wsir It is Re' who sets as Osiris > > >At first I thought this was fairly simple, but the more I thought >about it, the less I seemed to understand what was going on here. >A few questions come to mind: > >1. Why is it SVO and not VSO? Is it because it can be seen as the > answer to a question enquiring *who* it is that sets as Re'? >2. Could you write "htp wsir m re'" for "Osiris sets as Re'"? >3. In b) the m is written with Gardiner Aa15. Is there any particular > reason for this? >4. In a) why is the pw omitted? > > >Can anyone shed any light on this? Hi Mark In the hope that the light not cast a shadow in a dark pit..... :) I've puzzled over this one myself. I can't really say much except that I reckon the answers to your questions are in the minefield that is Lesson XI of Gardiner, 126-131. In the end, after realising that I was wading through cold treacle, I decided that it was, in a sense, a cyclic statement composed of two parts. The author notes that there is implicit union of the Gods Re and Osiris, sure, but it seems to be saying something like: Osiris sets as Re [who] sets as Osiris or Osiris sets as Re [whilst or and] Re, he sets as Osiris So the doubtless embarrassing stab at answering your questions is 1. See Lesson XI on logical subject and logical predicate. 2. Not if my limited understanding is correct. 3. I concluded that it was for aesthetic reasons, space constraints. 4. Because as the first part of the "cycle", the logical subject, Osiris, needs no emphasis but in the second part, Re has been reduced somewhat requiring the use of pw as a logical subject in a supportive role. Well it's late and this is probably total rubbish so caveat emptor. Eager to learn the _real_ reasons for it, I await informed opinions with considerable interest. Cheers all Marc ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 21:16:01 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Hi, Mark, I hope I can be of some help. > a) wsir htp m re' It is Osiris who sets as Re' > b) re' pw htp m wsir It is Re' who sets as Osiris > 1. Why is it SVO and not VSO? Is it because it can be seen as the > answer to a question enquiring *who* it is that sets as Re'? The first sentence possibly uses the stative form of the verb. This is Gardiner's "old perfective", and can be found in his Chapter XXII. 3sjr Htp.(w) m r 2. Could you write "htp wsir m re'" for "Osiris sets as Re'"? That would mean "May Osiris set/be content into/with Re." OR "It is in/with Re that Re sets/is at peace." There may be a few other options as well. > 3. In b) the m is written with Gardiner Aa15. Is there any particular > reason for this? Not really. In the New Kingdom this sign became pretty much interchangeable with the owl sign, and it probably was felt to fill the space of the inscription in a more satisfying manner. The reason for the sign's having taken on this value is that it was used for two phonetic values: /gs/ and /jm/. The latter value has an /m/ in it, and may have sometimes been pronounced simply as /m/ in certain words. > 4. In a) why is the pw omitted? pw is the copula, and it forms the main sentence in (b). r To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Mark Wilson wrote: > > Dear list, > > I spotted an interesting little inscription on p50 of the recently > mentioned Tomb of Nefertari book: > > a) wsir htp m re' It is Osiris who sets as Re' > b) re' pw htp m wsir It is Re' who sets as Osiris > > At first I thought this was fairly simple, but the more I thought > about it, the less I seemed to understand what was going on here. > A few questions come to mind: > > 1. Why is it SVO and not VSO? Is it because it can be seen as the > answer to a question enquiring *who* it is that sets as Re'? > 2. Could you write "htp wsir m re'" for "Osiris sets as Re'"? Probably, but it might change the grammar and intent of the message, making it more like "Osiris (is) setting as Re" and less straightforward and meaningful than the other way. > 3. In b) the m is written with Gardiner Aa15. Is there any particular > reason for this? Good question! My dictionary gives the preposition "m" as being spelled variously but gives no clue as to which of the several prepositions represented by "m" might be most often spelled with what glyph(s). I, too, wish someone who knows would elaborate on this. > 4. In a) why is the pw omitted? This makes sense to me. Since "pw" is a demonstrative particle meaning "this" it is probably used in line b) with the intent of being read as "it is this (same) Re who sets as Osiris". Since it has come to my attention that there is someone on the Internet writing under the name of Maria Wells, I have decided it may be a cause for confusion for me to sign myself with my married name of Marianne Wells and go back to using my old name of Marianne Luban. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:34:57 -0500 (EST) From: EHAshment@aol.com To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' On 19 March 1997, Mark Wilson wrote: >I spotted an interesting little inscription on p50 of the recently >mentioned Tomb of Nefertari book: > >a) wsir htp m re' It is Osiris who sets as Re' >b) re' pw htp m wsir It is Re' who sets as Osiris Here is some grist for the mill: Hornung (_Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt_, translated by John Baines [1982], 93), using these captions as an illustration of syncretism, writes: 'A well-known relief in the tomb of Nofretiri is virtually an illustration of this idea (Plate I). It shows a ram-headed mummy between Isis and Nephthys captioned "This is Re when he has come to rest (htp) in Osiris" and "This is Osiris when he has come to rest in Re; it is thus deliberately left open which god has come to rest in the other.' (In his original book, Hornung translates these clauses: 'Re ist es, wenn er in Osiris eingegangen (htp) ist' and 'Osiris ist es, wenn er in Re eingegangen' [_Der Eine und die Vielen_ (1973), 85]. In a footnote, Hornung refers to his study, _Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen_, in part II (1976) of which he more tightly translates the captions: 'Osiris, der in Re eingegangen ist' and 'Re ist es, der in Osiris eingegangen ist' (53). He notes that the latter comes from the Litany of Re (Part I [1975]:178). Edward H. Ashment (Ed) EHAshment@aol.com ============================================================================== To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: David Maclennan Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Date: 21 Mar 1997 08:05:59 +1200 In , Marc Line wrote: >In article <858813883.0512144.0@rostau.demon.co.uk>, Mark Wilson >>1. Why is it SVO and not VSO? Er, excuse my ignorance, but what do the acronyms SVO and VSO mean?? David ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:00:12 -0500 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Subject: AEL Ancient language pedagogy Readers of this list who are not also members of ANE may have missed the discussion of Akkadian teaching materials which has been going on over the last couple of days, including some comments on pedagogy relevant to the dscussion here. You'll find it archived at: http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/ANE-DIGEST/1997/v1997.n071 et seq. -Chuck Jones- cejo@midway.uchicago.edu ============================================================================== From: "M. A. R. Barker" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Date: Thu, 20 Mar 97 16:54:04 -0600 Dear Mark, I can accept Geoff's explanation for your bit from Nefertari. I do admit to confusion, however, with sentenceintroducing subjects. I can offer you a few more examples. Here's one fromt he second shrine of Tutankhamun, quoted from C. Darnell's dissertation, "The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: ... " (Chicago, 1995). (With many thanks and muh admiration!)) nn.n ntryt m sHr pn; wnw.t=sn both also appear to be the subjects of the verbs of their respective clauses. Dr. Darnell has translated all of these clauses with essentially the English present general tense (i.e. not "subjunctive," "conditional," "aorist," or whatever one chooses to call it). I admit to puzzlement. Here's another: sn.ty Hnm=sn sw; sn r=sn X<=sn tp.w=f m irw-f n b3 x Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' At 04:54 PM 97/03/20 -0600, you wrote: >Dear Mark, > >I can accept Geoff's explanation for your bit from Nefertari. I do admit to >confusion, however, with sentenceintroducing subjects. >I can adduce many similar grammatical structures from Dr. Darnell's book. I hope >someone can explain! One possible explanation is "fronting," i.e. some part of the sentence (usually the subject) is moved out ot its normal order in the sentence for "emphasis." English doesn't really do this sort of thing; French has a more analogous form of expression: Moi, je n'aime pas les haricots I don't like beans (but with strong emphasis on "I") English might use something awkward like "As fo me..." Of course, there might also be some argument that this reflected a trend away from VSO to SVO structure. And it wouldn't surprise me if someone were to claim that the real underlying sentence structure was SVO all the time (this argument appears to be going on in Hebrew grammar). Me, I'll stick with fronting in VSO sentences for now (damn the Chomsky, full speed ahead!) Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:21:19 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' At 08:05 AM 97/03/21 +1200, you wrote: >In , Marc Line wrote: >>In article <858813883.0512144.0@rostau.demon.co.uk>, Mark Wilson >>>1. Why is it SVO and not VSO? > >Er, excuse my ignorance, but what do the acronyms SVO and VSO mean?? > They refer to the order of functional sections in a sentence. S = subject V = verb O = object So SVO is a word-order Subject - Verb - Object ("He hit him") And VSO is Verb - Subject - Object ("Hit he him") The VSO order is generally given as the basic pattern of the Egyptian sentence: sDm sS sxr pn hears the scribe plan this V S O Hope that clarifies things (it has been known for explanation to make things less clear). Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:27:48 -0800 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Ancient language pedagogy At 01:00 PM 97/03/20 -0500, you wrote: >Readers of this list who are not also members of ANE may have missed the >discussion of Akkadian teaching materials which has been going on over the >last couple of days, including some comments on pedagogy relevant to the >dscussion here. I have indeed been watching this with some interest, though I hvae refrained from throwing in my two-cents'-worth. One thing that I have learned as a student, parent and teacher (of adults - but not languages) is that different people learn in different ways. What works perfectly for one person may be a miserable failure for another. This also applies to teaching styles. I know that I have a style of language learning that would probably seem odd to a lot of people - I translate as much of my own internal dialog as I can into the language I'm learning. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== From: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 07:55:58 -0800 (PST) To: Stephen Fryer cc: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Ancient language pedagogy i translate a lot of my own internal dialogue as well. indeed, i remember trying to render the beatles' yesterday into latin when i was at the earlier stages of that. the dialogue on ane has been a little disappointing, however, since there has not been a lot of discussion on *pedagogy* proper. rather some people have mostly asked for and received responses on books available for self-teaching and the like. in ancient egyptian i would say that pedagogy has taken a great step forward with the introduction of hoch's grammar...if only the same could happen for akkadian. chris hoffman ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 10:06:55 -0600 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' M. A. R. Barker wrote: > > Dear Mark, > > I can accept Geoff's explanation for your bit from Nefertari. I do admit to > confusion, however, with sentenceintroducing subjects. I can offer you a few > more examples. Here's one fromt he second shrine of Tutankhamun, quoted from C. > Darnell's dissertation, "The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian > Unity: ... " (Chicago, 1995). (With many thanks and muh admiration!)) > > nn.n ntryt m sHr pn; wnw.t=sn b3 R< Dwi=f r=sn; sn m33=sn HDw.t iTn=f > b3.w=s(n) (vol. 1, p. 215; similar data available from Piankoff, "Les > chapelles de Tout-Ankh-Amun) > > Dr. Darnell translates the above passage as: > > "These goddesses are in this fashion; their hours having entered into their > corpses. > The _ba_ of Re calls to them (or 'as Re, he calling to them'), > And they see the light of his disk. > Their _bas_ travel after him above, they remaining in their place of the > ba/akh." > > wnw.t=sn "their hours" appears to precede the verb: 'q.w. b3 R< and b3.w=s > both also appear to be the subjects of the verbs of their respective clauses. > Dr. Darnell has translated all of these clauses with essentially the English > present general tense (i.e. not "subjunctive," "conditional," "aorist," or > whatever one chooses to call it). I admit to puzzlement. Thanks for giving these examples. I can't understand the puzzlement here but, in the next instance... > > Here's another: > > sn.ty Hnm=sn sw; sn r=sn X<=sn tp.w=f m irw-f n b3 x > The Two Sisters unite with him; they appear in glory above him in his > form of gloriously appearing 'ba.' > > Here sn.ty appears before its vern, Hnm=sn, which also displays a "returning > pronoun referring (apparently) to sn.ty. Note also the formation sn r=sn "they > to them(selves)?" Emphatic? This precedes the presumed subject, which displays a > "returning pronoun." It's difficult to "walk like an Egyptian" but even more difficult to think like one sometimes. "sn r sen is most likely not "they to them(selves)" What it could possibly be is this: "wa n wa" (one on one or one to another) or "wa hr wa" (one on top of the other) is the way the Egyptians seemed to say what was occurring vis a vis or in order, but did they have another way of expressing this, too? "sn r sn" may be a way of saying "them toward them" (facing one another). In other words, the goddesses were coming toward one another, each being the object(ive) of the other. It is a little different from the English "they keep themselves to themselves" but on that order. > > And another from the same page: > > Hr pr=f m H3.t it=f; Hkn=f n pn wtt sw. sn.ty=fy Hnm=sn H3t=f > > Horus emerges from the body of his father. he adoring this one who > engendered him. His Two Sisters unite with his body. > > Here, again, one finds an apparent subject (Hr "Horus") preceding the verb, > which has a "returning pronoun: pr=f.) The "Two Sisters" similarly precede their > verb (Hnm=sn), which also has a returning pronoun -- though by this period in > history , not a feminine nor a dual! Is it "Horus takes himself out" and the sisters "unite themselves"? > > I can adduce many similar grammatical structures from Dr. Darnell's book. I hope > someone can explain! > Well, I can't. Let's just say I've added my questions. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 11:47:42 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Hey Stephen, > One possible explanation is "fronting," i.e. some part of the sentence > (usually the subject) is moved out ot its normal order in the sentence for > "emphasis." English doesn't really do this sort of thing; French has a more > analogous form of expression: > Moi, je n'aime pas les haricots > I don't like beans (but with strong emphasis on "I") > English might use something awkward like "As fo me..." Yes, that is exactly what it is. I was about to answer that posting, but I decided to read on and see what others had said first. I usually call it "apposition". The important distinction is that in these sentences the verb form IS actually a sJm=f and bears a pronoun suffix which is an equivalent to the subject at the head of the sentence. > Of course, there might also be some argument that this reflected a trend > away from VSO to SVO structure. And it wouldn't surprise me if someone were > to claim that the real underlying sentence structure was SVO all the time > (this argument appears to be going on in Hebrew grammar). Me, I'll stick > with fronting in VSO sentences for now (damn the Chomsky, full speed ahead!) Actually these might also be two separate phenomena, though they appear the same superficially. The reason I say this is because, even though in Coptic, the sentence order had already been entirely modified to SVO, apposition was still extremely common. Yours, Geoff ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 11:57:43 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Hi, Patrick, > I was aware that js.t, Isis, is believed by some to have originally been > *3s.t but was unaware that anyone had proposed that Osiris represents an > original *3sjr. In view of Coptic Ousire and Aramaic ?wSry, this seems > very speculative. What is the proof for this reading? Well, I am not sure if there is any proof for it, since this name is never written out for us phonetically in the Old Kingdom, but the throne sign did have the phonetic value of /3s/ originally, and it later became /st/ because of it's common use in the feminine noun 3s.t "throne" which was losing it's first phoneme. It just seems logical, since the throne sign was always originally used to write the name, that the original phonetics would have been 3sjr. And there are other examples of /3/ becoming /3/, such as 3Dj.t "cobra" becoming "wJy.t" and 3 "region" becoming /w/. I could be wrong, of course, but I really find it odd that the original writing of the word would have been so different from the values of the signs employed. Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:06:20 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Hi, Phil, First of all, what are you doing with Darnell's dissertation? I really need that. Did you get it from UMI? It will be crucial to me once I begin my disseration, since I plan to work on a related subject. You found some really neat sentences, and I decided to come back to your posting to talk about some of them. Don't be upset with me but I have to correct your transliteration simply because it is too difficult to understand which h's you are refering to. The regular h is h; the dotten h is H; the contac-lens h is x; and the underscore h is X. nn n nTr.ty m sxr pn; wn.w.t=sn "As for their Ba's, they flew upward after him." The second sentence uses the stative. "They were remaining in their place of the Ba (or Akh)." sn.ty Xnm=sn sw sn r=sn; X To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Corrections to Shrines Sentences Hi, Well that's what I get for thinking out loud, instead of working on this a while before sending it! I made a few blatant errors in my sDm=f's. Let me correct myself: b3.w=s(n) To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' >>>>> "M" == M A R Barker writes: M> Here, again, one finds an apparent subject (Hr "Horus") M> preceding the verb, which has a "returning pronoun: pr=f.) The M> "Two Sisters" similarly precede their verb (Hnm=sn), which also M> has a returning pronoun -- though by this period in history , M> not a feminine nor a dual! M> I can adduce many similar grammatical structures from M> Dr. Darnell's book. I hope someone can explain! According to Polotsky, this is an "aorist". It's a verbal form which indicates repeated and usual acts. The form is either iw X sDm=f or in some cases X sDm=f if you write *iw ra wbn=f m pt hrw nb iw mean that the sun rises in the sun every day. Should you want to say "The sun is rising right now", it would be : *iw ra Hr wbn m tA wnw.t (scuse for my bad middle egyptian :-)) regards, Serge -- Serge Rosmorduc, (rosmord@iut.univ-paris8.fr) 5, rue Beranger 92240 Malakoff tel 01 48 70 37 13 fax 01 48 70 86 49 http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 17:51:41 -0500 From: James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Hello, There has been quite a bit of discussion and most things have now been worked out. Perhaps I could add a few comments. The examples that have been cited fall into 2 main sentence types (items in parentheses are optional): 1) (iw) Topic Predicate=Subject (+Object Adverbial modifiers) 2) (iw) Topic Stative Type 1 is a variation on the iw Predicate=Subject (iw sDm.f or basic statement of fact). One also finds iw Topic Predicate=Subject (iw TOPIC sDm.f). The particle iw is normal, but not required as long as there is a noun at the head of the sentence (TOPIC sDm.f)--the examples cited in previous posts lack the particle iw. (The verb form that occurs in this construction cannot start a sentence, and it depends on either the particles iw or mk (etc.) or else a noun. Topic refers to what the speaker is talking about, without necessarily being the subject of the sentence. "Fronting" is a good description of what happens in this sentence type. In this sentence type, the verb requires a grammatical subject, which is, of course, a suffix pronoun. For this reason it is better to call the fronted noun the "topic" and the suffix pronoun the "subject". (Footnote: there are conjugated verb forms that can begin a sentence, but these are not statements of fact. I believe that it was Geoff who pointed out that one possibility is a wish and that the other is a sentence type that tends to highlight conditions/circumstances surrounding actions.) Type 2 is in the category of "non-verbal sentence with adverbial predicate/comment" (iw.f m pr), except that in place of a prepositional phrase we have a stative form. The particle iw is normal, but not required. Fronting is not involved here since this is the normal word order ([iw] TOPIC COMMENT). The relationship between the "topic" and the stative is not exactly a "subject"-"predicate" relationship, but stative forms differ depending on the gender and number of the antecedent. In this construction, I prefer to call the antecedent the "Topic" and the stative form the "Adverbial Comment". (Comment is what the speaker says about the Topic.) I realize that some on the AEL think that there are too many adverbials in Egyptian, but we can demonstrate that the stative fits into the category "adverb" (whatever that is)--but let's save this part of the discussion for a later date. Best wishes, James Hoch -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================================== From: "M. A. R. Barker" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Date: Fri, 21 Mar 97 10:38:14 -0600 Dear Mark and listers, > >I can accept Geoff's explanation for your bit from Nefertari. I do admit to > >confusion, however, with sentenceintroducing subjects. > One possible explanation is "fronting," i.e. some part of the sentence > (usually the subject) is moved out ot its normal order in the sentence for > "emphasis." English doesn't really do this sort of thing; French has a more > analogous form of expression: > Moi, je n'aime pas les haricots > I don't like beans (but with strong emphasis on "I") > English might use something awkward like "As fo me..." Having lived in Montreal, Canada, for many years, I know about fronting: "Me, I like that." The emphasis is laid on the *identification* of the subject in contradistinction to other possible persons in the discourse. You are quite correct. However, judging from the relative temporal closeness of the Nefertari text and the royal tomb inscriptions I quoted, we may be seeing a syntactic pattern of SVO, which differs from the common earlier pattern of VSO, as has been postulated. We may also be looking at some sort of special "liturgical" text usage, which differs stylistically from historical, biographical, etc. texts. Just as in English, one never says "Hearken unto me!" any more, unless one is reading from the Bible or other strongly styled "mediaeval" text, Egyptian may have had stylistic devices to indicate that these funerary texts were "sacred." Experts? Me, I hope somebody can say how common this SVO usage is, whether it represents "stative" (or some other) well-known syntactic pattern, whether it is "later" Egyptian versus "earlier" Egyptian, whether it is "liturgical" versus "standard prose" structuring, or what! Phil ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 01:56:51 -0500 (EST) From: NebetHet@aol.com To: EHAshment@aol.com, AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Em hotep (in peace!) It is actually fairly common in ancient Egyptian liturgies to see a "complementary" or "dual" reference to something, such as this "Ra sets in Osiris/Osiris sets in Ra" phrasing. One set of phrases that immediately comes to mind is taken from the rites of the House of the Morning at the temple of Horus at Edfu, beginning with "My natron is the natron of Horus, and vice versa." The phrasing "vice-versa" was written into the translation by Moret...however, it demonstrates a parallel structure where X is Y as well as Y being X. As ancient Egyptian philosophy revolves around sets of complementary opposites as well as "duals" (there is even a construction for the dual in the language: "-wy" as in "Tawy" (Two Lands) (yes, I know, I'm not using Manuel de Codage...but I believe that of which I speak will be fairly obvious). Just something I thought would be useful in understanding this construction, both from the linguistic standpoint and from a metaphorical one. Rev. Tamara Siuda ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 12:41:06 -0600 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Chariot of the God I am trying to assemble a chariot from Egyptian "parts". As someone who has studied Egyptian purely for the love of it, I am not too good at writing out the terms using the philological symbols, but, until I get more familiar with them, I'll have to write some words in approximate transliteration. If anybody wants to correct me as to how they are acceptably written, please do so. I would appreciate any input on the "parts" and my conjectures about them and any additions you can supply. sbat--"the star-shaped part" or "spoke" arq--this is either the reins or the harness st shps-t--can there have been a "passenger seat" of wood or wicker in some chariots? intgfgf-t--this is a harness part, which I judge to be "clasps" or "buckles" nuh--traces or harness tbt--the base of the car? tchbu--the wicker- work on the bottom or sides a'a or a'aunt--the pole hau--from "to fly". If this were a modern vehicle then maybe it would be the "fly-wheel" ;-) But, as I know no other word for "wheels", perhaps this is what it means. A Hittite chariot is called a "tuprat". Other chariot words are "a'agarti" from Hebrew and "autcharu", which is either the whole vehicle or some part(s). "Urrit" is a chariot and "bari" is probably a car made entirely of wicker. The chariot term "m'rkabtit" is Semitic and "m'rkarbuti" is a painted chariot. The Egyptian charioteer is the "katan" or "auratchar". If you look at these terms closely, you will see the elements "kab", "kar" and "char". The "kab" part may have to do with the cedar of Byblos (Keben). A boat built from this material was called a "kbn-t". Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 18:50:59 -0600 From: Saida To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' M. A. R. Barker wrote: > > Dear Mark, > > I can accept Geoff's explanation for your bit from Nefertari. I do admit to > confusion, however, with sentenceintroducing subjects. I can offer you a few > more examples. Here's one fromt he second shrine of Tutankhamun, quoted from C. > Darnell's dissertation, "The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian > Unity: ... " (Chicago, 1995). (With many thanks and muh admiration!)) > > nn.n ntryt m sHr pn; wnw.t=sn b3 R< Dwi=f r=sn; sn m33=sn HDw.t iTn=f > b3.w=s(n) (vol. 1, p. 215; similar data available from Piankoff, "Les > chapelles de Tout-Ankh-Amun) > > Dr. Darnell translates the above passage as: > > "These goddesses are in this fashion; their hours having entered into their > corpses. > The _ba_ of Re calls to them (or 'as Re, he calling to them'), > And they see the light of his disk. > Their _bas_ travel after him above, they remaining in their place of the > ba/akh." > > wnw.t=sn "their hours" appears to precede the verb: 'q.w. b3 R< and b3.w=s > both also appear to be the subjects of the verbs of their respective clauses. > Dr. Darnell has translated all of these clauses with essentially the English > present general tense (i.e. not "subjunctive," "conditional," "aorist," or > whatever one chooses to call it). I admit to puzzlement. Thanks to Phil Barker's examples from translations of C. Darnell, there has been something interesting to think about on an otherwise dull Saturday. I have discussed this with him, also, and this is the jist of what I suggested and he will possibly put his comments on the list as well. I don't think the beginning of the first example makes much sense--at least in Darnell's translation. If Darnell's reading is correct, this would be my offering of a better way to say: "nn.n ntryt m sHr pn; wnw.t=sn > wnw.t=sn "their hours" appears to precede the verb. But can the verb representing "enter" still be grammatically correct in this context? Another point, which could mean something or nothing is "they remaining in the place of the ba/akh". If the goddesses were Isis and Nephthys, would they remain in the Duat, which I take is the meaning of "the place of the ba/akh"? The Two Sisters , in the Twelfth gate, when the journey of Ra is complete, support the god with their arms in the heavens. Then Nut receives Ra and a new day dawns. Marianne Luban ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 23:27:25 -0800 To: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu From: Stephen Fryer Subject: Re: AEL Ancient language pedagogy Cc: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk At 07:55 AM 97/03/21 -0800, you wrote: >i translate a lot of my own internal dialogue as well. indeed, i remember >trying to render the beatles' yesterday into latin when i was at the >earlier stages of that. It is interesting to hear that someone else does this. I was particularly wondering whether you felt that this helped you to learn the language, not only at the time, but for long-term retention. I do know that none of those I have met who were in my Latin classes 30 years ago can read Latin now; I can, though not as well, despite years of disuse. > >the dialogue on ane has been a little disappointing, however, since there >has not been a lot of discussion on *pedagogy* proper. rather some people >have mostly asked for and received responses on books available for >self-teaching and the like. > >in ancient egyptian i would say that pedagogy has taken a great step >forward with the introduction of hoch's grammar...if only the same could >happen for akkadian. > I'm afraid that Dr. Hoch's book is, in my opinion, while I find it excellent, and much easier to learn from than Gardiner, not perfect either. I have expressed a number of my criticisms to him, which he acknowledged as valid for those working without a teacher. I think one major stumbling-block in writing text-books for Egyptian or Akkadian or Biblical Hebrew (or ....) is that the authors are actually attempting to write to very distinct types of book in one. My experiences in the computer field have led me to the conclusion that there are two mutually exclusive types of instructional books - those one can learn a new topic from, and those one can use as references when the basics are already in place. I think that the attempt to combine these two functions in one volume is doomed to failure; unfortunately many of the academic text books do attempt just that - both Gardiner and Hoch (also Englund) have to a greater or lesser degree fallen into this problem. Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services Lund, BC V0N 2G0 Canada ***************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have. ***************************** ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:34:00 +0000 To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: Marc Line Subject: AEL E.A. Wallis Budge - Fact or folklore? Dear List Members One thing which is puzzling to the relative beginner trying to learn the interpretation of hieroglyphs is the oft stated denigration of the works of Budge. The Dover reprints of Budge's publications, being readily available at modest cost, often represent the first source material with which a student works. When that student later learns that there is a general consensus that Budge's translations and/or interpretations leave much to be desired, he/she is left with a sense of uncertainty as to whether or not what has already been learned has any value. I wonder, therefore, if any members would be able to clarify the position in respect of Budge's works and to give examples of the errors in his texts which have led to the generally held opinion that as an authority on translation, he is to be considered secondary to Gardiner, Faulkner, Erman etc. Thanks and regards Marc Line ============================================================================== From: "M. A. R. Barker" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Date: Sun, 23 Mar 97 17:16:15 -0600 Dear Geoff, > First of all, what are you doing with Darnell's dissertation? I really > need that. Did you get it from UMI? It will be crucial to me once I > begin my disseration, since I plan to work on a related subject. Yup, got it from UMI. I found his name originally in a letter to me from Professor Hornung; then I saw the dissertation in a list sent by Chuck Jones to the ANE list. I had UMI on the phone instanter! They are good about printing and sending xeroxes of dissertations. Costs about $46.00 if you're an academic. I can't speak for non-academic prices. Call UMI at 1-800-521-0600. Ask for their dissertation department. I went through Dr. Darnell's bibliography with my usual fine-toothed teeth and found a listing for "The Verb in the Underworld Books," by A. Baumann; Ph.D. dissertation in progress, U. of Chicago. I am salivating in anticipation! Also a mile of other citations, most of which are either out of print or so rare that it would be more likely for me to find an original Egyptian papyrus than to find some of them! But I try. > You found some really neat sentences, and I decided to come back to your > posting to talk about some of them. Don't be upset with me but I have to > correct your transliteration simply because it is too difficult to > understand which h's you are refering to. > The regular h is h; > the dotten h is H; > the contac-lens h is x; > and the underscore h is X. I have no problem with you correcting me. Thank you! Remember that I started when old Budge was a pup! Then I went over to Gardiner. Now I'm trying to learn more newfangled stuff. I also had to contend with some of Dr. Darnell's transliterations, which do not quite seem to agree with the Manuel de Codage or other schemes in all their details. He didn't get the periods in all the places where you have them in your example that follows. I assume he is using some still-different variant of the transliteration scheme? > nn n nTr.ty m sxr pn; wn.w.t=sn > These goddesses are in this manner; their hours having entered > into their corpses. > > "nn n nTr.ty m sxr pn" is a nominal sentence with adverbial predicate. > The rest is its own sentence with the verb being " stative form. Therefore, the subject had to be introduced first. This is > why Darnell translated it "having entered" which means "being in the state > that one is in when one has entered". This is the meaning of "stative". > It describes the state of the subject once the action of the verb has > taken place. I had figured this out. I was more concerned with the "apposition" so common in many of these Netherworld book texts. Why would this formation occur so frequently? In some of Dr. Darnell's translations the semantics of this are quite cloudy to me. I can understand what you are saying about this type of utterance being in "apposition," but I keep getting the impression that there is something more --- semantic? an historical linguistic shift? what? -- going on here. Linguistic change is not uncommon, and when compares Middle Egyptian with later Ramesside texts, like these Netherworld Books, is it not possible (even likely) that formations have changed a bit, or that the connotations of formations have shifted? In English we have lexical, morphological, etc. shifts at much less time-depth than is found between Middle and Ramesside Egyptian: e.g. off the top of my bald skull, the use of "gotten" in American English, versus British "got" (or other structure). > > b3 R > The _ba_ of Re calls to them (or 'as Re, he calling to them'), and they > see the light of his disk. > > Both sentences use apposition. Literally they say: > > "As for the Ba of Re, it calls upon them. As for them, they see the > illuminations of his disk. > > This emphasis of *them* in the second sentence is in order to shift > attention from the Ba of Re, who acted in the first sentence toward a > response that the indirect object of that sentece made. You're making sense. Have a look at other examples in the Netherworld books and see if they are similar. It may be all too easy to translate Darnell's examples in this way, while still maintaining our approved and expected grammatical analysis intact. But is this necessarily so? If we consider other factors -- historical change, liturgical language versus non-liturgical styles, etc. etc., might we not come to different and also interesting conclusions? > > b3.w=s(n) > Their _bas_ travel after him above, they remaining in their place of the > ba/akh." > > The first sentence has apposition> > > "As for their Ba's, they flew upward after him." > > The second sentence uses the stative. > > "They were remaining in their place of the Ba (or Akh)." > > sn.ty Xnm=sn sw sn r=sn; X > The Two Sisters unite with him; they appear in glory above him in his form > of gloriously appearing 'ba.' > > The first sentece uses apposition twice. > > "The two sisters unite him, themselves unto them." (This does seem to be > strange, but I'd have to see the original to make sure of it. What you > typed would seem to indicate this kind of literal translation, though it > probably means basically what Darnell has given.) I checked. My typing is essentially what Dr. Darnell wrote, plus or minus the $%^&* transliteration! > X > The second sentence employs a straight sJm=f, indicating that it could be > subjunctive: > > "Let them shine above him in his form of a shining Ba!" > > OR emphasizing: > > "It is above him in his form of a shining Ba that they shine." > > OR circumstantial to the first sentence: > > "as they shine above him in his form of a shining Ba." > > I do not know why Darnell has opted for his translation of the sJm=f as a > normal present tense. Maybe his intention was to de-emphasize the > circumstantial sDm=f as something like: > > "and they shine above him in his form of a shining Ba." > > Hrw prj=f m X3.t it=f, Hkn=f n pn wtT sw, sn.ty=f Xnm=sn X3.t=f > > Horus emerges from the body of his father, he adoring this one who > engendered him. His Two Sisters unite with his body. > > This sentence begins with an apposition. > > "As for Horus," > > Then we get a sDm=f which could be subjunctive: > > "let him emerge from the body of his father" > > OR emphasizing: > > "It is from his father's body that he emerges" > > The next part is a circumstantial sDm=f clause. > > Hkn=f n pn wtT sw, > > "as he adores this (one) who begot him" > > And, yet another circumstantial clause: > > sn.ty=f Xnm=sn X3.t=f > > "as his two sisters join his body." > > I hope this will help to clarifythe grammar for you. The subject is very > interesting. It would take days of communication to discuss all the > religious implications. I wish we could have those "days" of discourse! Thanks so much, Geoff. Have you also seen Dr. Hoch's insightful answer? You people are a godsend to puzzled old students like me! Best regards, Phil ============================================================================== From: "M. A. R. Barker" To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Ancient language pedagogy Date: Sun, 23 Mar 97 17:51:07 -0600 Dear Stephen and Cuibono, I've been a language pedagogue for over 30 years, but I feared to get "off- topic" and get richly and righteously "flamed." I'll try to be brief and then drop this thread. > >i translate a lot of my own internal dialogue as well. indeed, i remember > >trying to render the beatles' yesterday into latin when i was at the > >earlier stages of that. I have always conversed with myself in languages I am learning. It *does* help. In the case of Egyptian, it is almost impossible because of cultural, technological, etc. differences: just how does one say "How much is the tram fare?" in Egyptian? All right, one tries, makes do, and is probably incorrect and/or unidiomatic most of the time. But "talking to oneself" is a useful strategy. I alays advised my students to use it as often as they could. > It is interesting to hear that someone else does this. I was particularly > wondering whether you felt that this helped you to learn the language, not > only at the time, but for long-term retention. I do know that none of those > I have met who were in my Latin classes 30 years ago can read Latin now; I > can, though not as well, despite years of disuse. Talking to myself helped me retain vocabulary, use formations, and hunt out useful vocabulary. My languages disappear -- until I need them. I forgot my Greek and have never been able to get it back. The year of intensive Mandarin Chinese I had is similarly history. But when I got off the airplane in Merida, Yucatan, my Spanish all came back to me, and by the time we arrived at the hotel, I was chattering away with the taxi-driver like a magpie. (All wrong, maybe, but at least communicating.) I wandered all over with my little tape-recorder, getting samples of Yucatec Maya, Chol, Nahuatl, Zapotec, Mixtec, and a half dozen other fun languages. > >in ancient egyptian i would say that pedagogy has taken a great step > >forward with the introduction of hoch's grammar...if only the same could > >happen for akkadian. > > > I'm afraid that Dr. Hoch's book is, in my opinion, while I find it > excellent, and much easier to learn from than Gardiner, not perfect either. > I have expressed a number of my criticisms to him, which he acknowledged as > valid for those working without a teacher. There are criticisms, no doubt, but all in all, he has produced a *very* useful text. I only wish he'd send out his classroom exercises (and a key) for us Listeros to use! > I think one major stumbling-block in writing text-books for Egyptian or > Akkadian or Biblical Hebrew (or ....) is that the authors are actually > attempting to write to very distinct types of book in one. My experiences > in the computer field have led me to the conclusion that there are two > mutually exclusive types of instructional books - those one can learn a new > topic from, and those one can use as references when the basics are already > in place. I think that the attempt to combine these two functions in one > volume is doomed to failure; unfortunately many of the academic text books > do attempt just that - both Gardiner and Hoch (also Englund) have to a > greater or lesser degree fallen into this problem. Agreed: this is the "reference grammar" versus the "teaching textbook" problem. I recall when I published my "A Course in Baluchi," some reviewer complained that I had not included a table of allophones and technical linguistic descriptions of the sounds, the morphology, and the rest. These things would have been a waste of paper for the college-level students for whom my book was intended! If I had it to do over again, I would probably divide the book into two distinct sections: a reference grammar, *plus* separate teaching units. The first part would be technical and include variants, less common structures and usage, and perhaps some relevant theory. The latter part would be aimed at English-speaking college students: pronunciations in terms of English phonology (with explanations of American and British differences where relevant), grammar in terms of commonly underswtood ideas without jargon, and *lots* of exercises in a variety of formats, a complete vocabulary of all texts (English - target- language and target-language - English). Cultural dialogues, pictures, poetry and prose -- lots of fun stuff. I know there'll be differences of opinion, and some will insist that "translation of texts" is the only sound way to fly, but, as the old farmer said, "Them's my sediments." Regards, Phil Barker ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 21:34:08 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Hello, Dr. Hoch, It is nice to see that you are back among the living on AEL! ;-) > 1) (iw) Topic Predicate=Subject (+Object Adverbial modifiers) > 2) (iw) Topic Stative Can you please clarify one thing in your response to these sentences: when you speak of the noun taking the place of {jw=f} (here, I use brackets to indicate the full pardigm), do you mean to say that the sDm=f in question is then an indicative or its equivalent? (I am aware of the theory that these sDm=f's are actually circumstantial but that the presence of jw makes them best translated as a regular indicative form in English.) The only reason I ask you this is that I have had to get my Polotskian information through relatively indirect channels since Polotsky was tought only cursorily during much of my early instruction, my instructors preferring to refer us to various articles rather than spending a whole lot of time on the grammatical issues in class. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk From: sthollis@baldcom.net (Susan T. Hollis) Subject: Re: AEL Ancient language pedagogy In response to the following, I agree heartily and think we should identify for ourselves and for our students at appropriate levels which books are for learning purposes (1st and maybe 2nd year) and which one might use for reference after basically learning the language. As one who teaches adult learners and does not meet them in a regular classroom situation, thus having them essentially working at a distance with me and on their own, this is a critical issue. Thoughts on any of the ancient languages and texts for either purpose are welcome. >I think one major stumbling-block in writing text-books for Egyptian or >Akkadian or Biblical Hebrew (or ....) is that the authors are actually >attempting to write to very distinct types of book in one. My experiences >in the computer field have led me to the conclusion that there are two >mutually exclusive types of instructional books - those one can learn a new >topic from, and those one can use as references when the basics are already >in place. I think that the attempt to combine these two functions in one >volume is doomed to failure; unfortunately many of the academic text books >do attempt just that - both Gardiner and Hoch (also Englund) have to a >greater or lesser degree fallen into this problem. > Susan Tower Hollis 48-A Ponderosa Drive Syracuse, NY 13215-1607 315/428-8073 sthollis@baldcom.net ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:21:05 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re' Hi, Phil, > Yup, got it from UMI. I found his name originally in a letter to me from Thank you for the information. I had already planned to contact UMI for this paper. > I have no problem with you correcting me. Thank you! Remember that I started > when old Budge was a pup! Then I went over to Gardiner. Now I'm trying to learn Naw, you could not possibly be that old! When Budge was a PUP?????? Please! You must be ancient! ;-) > > nn n nTr.ty m sxr pn; wn.w.t=sn I had figured this out. I was more concerned with the "apposition" so common in > many of these Netherworld book texts. Why would this formation occur so > frequently? Well, Hoch has explained it, and Rosmorduc has thown good light on it too. Thanks to both of them! > I can understand what you are saying about this type of > utterance being in "apposition," but I keep getting the impression that there is > something more --- semantic? Yes, there seems to be nuance, but if Rosmorduc (quoting from Polotsky) is right, then it is simply an aorist. > I checked. My typing is essentially what Dr. Darnell wrote, plus or minus the > $%^&* transliteration! Every scholar develops his/her own transliteration style, and we just have to get used to that. We may not necessarily agree with how they do it, but as long as we can make sense out of it, it is not really so terribly important. Darnell is probably being careful to represent how the text was actually written by the scribe. My style is to correct things a bit more, making them into more ideal Egyptian. There are merits to both approaches. If you want to know exactly how the scribe wrote each word, regardless of the grammatical information or standard form of the words, then his is the best approach. If you wish to make more grammatical sense and be able to see the text in its purest form, then my approach will serve you better. Depending on the purposes for the transliteration, I may even take a different approach than my usual one. In this case, I felt that corrected Egyptian would be more useful to more of the list viewers. The only pitfall that might present itself is that I might misinterpret something and lose meaning that might otherwise still have been salvageable from the transcription provided. However, given that he had translated the text, I was able to see which forms he believed he had seen in it, and therefore be relatively confident that my transcription had not gone terribly awry. As for his use or non-use of dots between the separate parts of words, not all Egyptologists use the pointing system in the same way. I point off some things that other scholars would not bother with. Since this list is a learning space, I figure that as much grammatical information as possible serves the readers better. This is why I am conscientious about pointing off feminine and plural endings, and writing in the missing week consonants, so that the words have their most complete and discernable forms, and people will be able to see them vividly. > > I hope this will help to clarifythe grammar for you. The subject is very > > interesting. It would take days of communication to discuss all the > > religious implications. > > I wish we could have those "days" of discourse! Well, let's just talk about it off list, unless there is ample enough interest on list to warrant discussion here. I am planning to write a disseration which in certain respects is related to the material included in this discussion, however, I have only just begun to do the ground-work, and am not sure that I want to disclose all of my thoughts on it over the internet just yet. Maybe after I have finished my course work and have had the topic approved, and have certain articles which are already in the works come into print, then I might be ready. ;-) Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:55:00 -0500 (EST) From: Graham To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL E.A. Wallis Budge - Fact or folklore? Hello, Marc, At the risk of going somewhat off topic, let me attempt to answer your query. > I wonder, therefore, if any members would be able to clarify the > position in respect of Budge's works and to give examples of the errors > in his texts which have led to the generally held opinion that as an > authority on translation, he is to be considered secondary to Gardiner, > Faulkner, Erman etc. That is a monumental task which you are asking. However, let me answer you partially off the top of my head. Budge, is by no means to be thrown completely out the window. There is some value in some of his work, and I will admit to using some of his publications for beginning source material, however, I always check up on everything that I get from him. Someone desperately needs to redo some of his work because there really are no reference works which can give you so much information about the iconography, attributes, and epithets of deities as certain of his books on religion. Yes, he is often wrong, and yes, he usually forgets to mention the sources of his information, but one can still find out certain important information by looking at what he has had to say. Budge was first of all of an era that had a very sketchy understanding of Egyptian, and many of his errors were not uncommon in his day. However, he has a tendency, much like Herodotus, to diverge into unsubstantiated anecdote and make wild comparisons between things without substantial basis. Much of this meandering into fantasy is in the tradition of _The Golden Bough_, and represents the 19th century's fascination with oddities and evolutionary environmental determinism. When Budge spins a wild yarn about how the mists rising from the Nile in the morning were interpreted as the serpent Apep, or that there used to be giant serpents in a jungle along the Nile during the Predynastic period, you just have to laugh. What else can you do? The complex symbolism of the human imagination simply escapes him, and he has to find explanations that derive from nature, even when they verge upon the ridiculous. His philology is so outdated that it is almost worthless at times. There are various signs that he did not seem to be able to differentiate from one another, for just one instance, let me refer to the difference between the two penis signs: the ejaculating penis represented b3H, while the regular penis represented mD. Budge renders both signs as met. This is the Demotic value of the latter reading. Also, he did not seem to understand the use of phonetic compliments. If a sign representing m3 is preceded by m and followed by 3, then the reading should be m3, but Budge will represent this as mma. Moreover, he had virtually no idea about the Egyptian verbal system, and you cannot trust his translations. Even when he has published texts in the hieroglyphs, you need to check the original sources, if he even bothers to mention what the source is, because he frequently mis-transcribes texts terribly. I cannot go into all of the problems of Budge's work here, nor do I really have a complete catalog of them, but I would recommend that you leave Budge for the time being and focus your attention on more recent scholarship until such time as you are comfortable enough with Egyptology to be able to discern his good points from his bad ones. Yours, Geoff sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ==============================================================================