Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 19:53:58 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3 Andren4585 wrote: > Very well, I am not an expert in English grammar like so many of you, but > I am still right in telling you where the "iw" ought to go in the phrase > > " rS iaH iw ra m Axt=f :The moon rejoices, when the sun is in > his horizon". > > and NOT before the "rS" where you had put it! It isn't merely a matter of English grammar, but of a general understanding of grammar: English grammar, French grammar, Hebrew Grammar, Egyptian grammar - all partake of an underlying general way of saying things, which we call grammar. Please consult some other sources on your insistence in putting "iw" at the beginning of a subordinate clause in Middle Egyptian (though that was indeed the practice in Late Egyptian, but that is another text-book entirely). I think you will find that you have no support. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 21:13:32 -0400 From: Don Ferruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English Grammar (Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3) > > Sir, you may know English grammar, but it is not so simple a thing > > to explain the workings of ancient Egyptian. I believe Gardiner has done a masterful job of doing exactly this, but I do not wish to argue the point with you any further. I completed every chapter of Gardiner under a well-respected professor at a major university many years ago. If you wish to continue to invent your own personal theories about Egyptian syntax, you are free to do so in a democracy, but I would like beginners reading this list to understand that is what they are. ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 19:47:56 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English Grammar (Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3) Andren4585 wrote: > "When the subject is a noun, the word "iw" occurss only in independent > statements or assertions made with a certain detachment, and in these > the presence of "iw" is much more common than its absence. Thus the > difference between "Iw r< m pt" and "r< m pt" is that, whereas the former > type of sentence gives considerable prominence and importance to the > affirmation it contains, the latter is the form of words chosen for simple, > unobtrusive > description, particularly when there has to be expressed the equivalent of an > English adverb clause, i.e. clause of time, circumstance, condition, etc." > > And then on page 40: > > "We have seen that, if the SUBJECT OF A sentence with adverbial predicate is a noun, > the effect of placing "iw" before it is to give it the importance of a more > or less independent assertion." Note that Gardiner says that "iw" may introduce a sentence ('the word "iw" occurss only in INDEPENDENT STATEMENTS' - P.35) but NOT a subordinate clause ('"r< m pt"...is the form of words chosen...when there has to be expressed the equivalent of an English adverb clause, i.e. clause of time, circumstance, condition, etc.' - p35) -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: Andren4585 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 08:28:27 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3 In a message dated 98-04-07 03:32:21 EDT, you write: << Please consult some other sources on your insistence in putting "iw" at the beginning of a subordinate clause in Middle Egyptian (though that was indeed the practice in Late Egyptian, but that is another text-book entirely). I think you will find that you have no support. >> Look in Gardiner, bottom of page 36. It says: "wbn r<, iw t3 m rSwt" How is this different from my writing: > " rS iaH iw ra m Axt=f :The moon rejoices, when the sun is in > his horizon". ?? Looks like Middle Egyptian to me. Andre Renouf ============================================================================== From: Andren4585 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 09:21:05 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3 In a message dated 98-04-07 03:32:21 EDT, you write: << It isn't merely a matter of English grammar, but of a general understanding of grammar: English grammar, French grammar, Hebrew Grammar, Egyptian grammar - all partake of an underlying general way of saying things, which we call grammar. >> I am sorry to break it to you, but the ancient Egyptians did not know the "general way of saying things" that you cling to so tenaciously. They had no rules of grammar, I am sure--only habits. I think I can say with a fair amount of certainty that, in no one text where "iw" is employed, will you find it used in a completely predictable and uniform sense. >>Please consult some other sources on your insistence in putting "iw" at the beginning of a subordinate clause in Middle Egyptian (though that was indeed the practice in Late Egyptian, but that is another text-book entirely). I think you will find that you have no support. >> What you have written here only confirms what I said above. Had there been strict rules of grammar, such changes would not likely have occurred from one phase of the language to another. Habits changed, that is all. Anyway, this whole exchange, which I see has gotten rather heated, is silly. I commend people like Gardiner for trying to impart some kind of regularity to this "iw" business so that people can try to understand it, but I want to reassure those who have by now been convinced that it is a very big deal and, if they don't comprehend *exactly* how "iw" is used they will be lost forever in learning Egyptian, that that is nonsense. The Grammar Kings here can read Egyptian, but so can people like Patrizia and myself. Once again, except for these exercises, we will not be writing in Egyptian, Old, Middle or Late. When we read the writings of the ancient ones, we must recognize what "iw" is about when we see it, and that is not so difficult, believe me. In a sense, this is rather humorous. Some individuals on this list expressed a wish that someone would help them start in Egyptian. I volunteered because, evidently, no one else was doing so at the time. Now some others are afraid that I might be "a corrupting influence" or something and appear to be very worried about these "beginners", what they should be exposed to, what not, etc. If you think you can help them better, then assist them with my blessing, but, please, do not neglect to do so or some Egyptian like myself may come along and try to help them with our old language in some unorthodox way! The last part of this is what I think is funny. Andre Renouf ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 11:01:54 -0400 From: Don Ferruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL English Grammar (Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3) Stephen Fryer wrote: > >In English grammar, it is called an "Adverbial Phrase". > > I presume you meant "Adverbial Clause" Sorry, yes, in this context it is an "Adverbial Clause". In general liguistics, it's called an "Adverbial Phrase", or "AP" for short. ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 17:23:18 +0100 From: grym@trybunal.gov.pl (Rymaszewska Grazyna) To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL Weni L10 - ? Dear ListMembers, I am completely break down by Line 10 of Weni: Sni.t(=i) xtm ip.t-nsw r Hm.t-nsw wr.t sxm.t Sps(.t) m sStA Is here Weni - together with queen - hidding a seal in the king's harem ?! Help me, please... Regards Grazyna ============================================================================== From: Andren4585 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 14:57:54 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: AEL "iw" and more "iw" (Re: AEL English Grammar ) In a message dated 98-04-07 03:32:24 EDT, you write: << Note that Gardiner says that "iw" may introduce a sentence ('the word "iw" occurss only in INDEPENDENT STATEMENTS' - P.35) but NOT a subordinate clause ('"r< m pt"...is the form of words chosen...when there has to be expressed the equivalent of an English adverb clause, i.e. clause of time, circumstance, condition, etc.' - p35) >> Dear Mr. Fryer, To show you that I feel serious about the Egyptian language even though I do like to make a joke here and there, I want to ask you something and I hope you will reply in a good spirit. Since you have told me to stick to Middle Egyptian, I've tried to look through some few texts I have in the classic language. I haven't got very many that I can actually see the glyphs to read. As I said, "Weni" does not use "iw". From the 12th dynasty I have an inscription of one Khnumhotep. In this considerable text, "iw" is used only one time--and that is to mark a quotation, "Dd-f iw rdi-n-wi"--the only time anybody is quoted in this piece. I searched through a long inscription on the obelisk of Hatshepsut, "iw" only being used three times, each time when somebody "knew" something or somebody. "iw Hnt-i rx-ti nTrr-f" (My Majesty knew his divinity), "iw-i rx-kwi ntt 3x.t pw iptt tep t3" (I know that Ipet-sut is the lightland on earth) and another on the same order. This is rather strange, don't you think? Yet I think each of these is supposed to be some sort of parenthetical, qualifying information or remark. Just look at the "Tale of the Two Brothers". It is full of "iw" here and "iw" there. I did not examine each usage to see if it occurred in an independent statement. Surely there are some independent statements in this text where "iw" does not appear at all. However, if you look at it, you will see that "iw" comes whenever there would be a period or a comma in the English translation. I think it must be considered that "iw" is used as a kind of punctuation (and I spoke of it in another post) which we understand imperfectly and that may be one of the reasons that we have so much trouble with this. If you have "The Tale of the Two Brothers", please check it out and let me know what you think. Andre Renouf ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 13:51:24 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3 Andren4585 wrote: > "wbn r<, iw t3 m rSwt" > > How is this different from my writing: > > > " rS iaH iw ra m Axt=f :The moon rejoices, when the sun is in > > his horizon". ?? OK, let's have a look at these two sentences to see how, or if, they are different. The first one "wbn ra iw tA m rSwt" is translated by Gardiner as "when the sun rises, the earth is in rejoicing." So we can divide the sentence into two parts, as follows: wbn ra iw tA m rSwt when the sun shines the earth is in rejoicing The first is a subordinate clause (it begins with a conjunction and cannot stand alone as an independent statement). The second is the main clause (it can stand by itself as an independent statement) - note that it starts with "iw". Now the second sentence "rS iaH iw ra m Axt=f" can also be divided into two clauses: rS iAH iw ra m Axt=f presumably we can translate them in parallel, since the structures are parallel (first clause without "iw"; second clause with "iw"): when the moon rejoices the sun is in his horizon If the translation of the fist sentence (by Gardiner) is correct, then I would say that the translation of the second one (by me) must be correct too. Unfortunately, that is not the meaning that we were looking for in this exercise ("The moon rejoices when the sun is in his horizon.") so there must be something wrong with the rendering into Egyptian. If you remove the "iw" from in front of the second clause (so it is no longer forced to be a main clause), you can get the meaning you were looking for. Either: rS iAh ra m Axt=f or iw rS iAh ra m Axt=f See the tables comparing the possible meanings of "ra m pt" and "iw ra m pt" in Gardiner, p.36, where the former is allowed a full range of subordinate meanings, but putting "iw" in front of it pretty much restricts it to simple statement of fact as a main clause. If Gardiner isn't clear enough on this point, here are a couple of brief quotes from a couple of other sources, which I would recommend you try to get hold of and read. "In statements of fact, the absence of 'iw' normally indicates that the clause is a subodinate clause." - Hoch, _Middle Egyptian Grammar_, 1995 "The general rule is that adverbial and pseudoverbal patterns of the type: S => Particle + NP +AP are INITIAL main sentences, whereas bare patterns of the type: S => NP + AP are NON-INITIAL clauses, either paratactically juxtaposed to the intitial predication as non-initial main clauses or controlled as subordinate clauses." - Loprieno, _Ancient Egyptian: A linguistic introduction_, 1995 -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 7 Apr 98 21:12:49 UT From: "Michael Mac Donagh" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: RE: AEL Weni L10 - ? Dear Grazyna Try the following: Sn.ti xt m ipt-nzw r Hmt-nzw wrt iAmt.s m sStA with the meaning: When proceedings were instituted in the royal harem, in secret against the Great Royal Wife Iametes ..... The implication is that there was some sort of harem conspiracy and that a charge was brought against the senior queen. Regards, Mike ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 16:08:47 -0400 From: Don Ferruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Gardiner's exercise 3 Andren4585 wrote: > ... Some individuals on this list expressed > a wish that someone would help them start in Egyptian. I volunteered > because, evidently, no one else was doing so at the time. ... If you think you > can help them better, then assist them with my blessing, but, please, do not > neglect to do ... M. Renouf, please do not misunderstand. Your efforts and intentions are well-appreciated and, in most cases, your comments are quite sound. There are a couple of points on which, even ignoring the question of whether you are correct, you are completely at odds with Gardiner. If you are open to understanding these differences, (and then being able to make up your own mind once you do understand them), I would be more than happy to continue the discussion by personal e-mail to my address above. ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 17:55:48 -0400 From: Don Ferruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Weni L10 - ? Rymaszewska Grazyna wrote: > I am completely break down by Line 10 of Weni: > > Sni.t(=i) xtm ip.t-nsw r Hm.t-nsw wr.t sxm.t Sps(.t) m sStA > > Is here Weni - together with queen - hidding a seal in > the king's harem ?! Grazyna, try breaking it apart this way: Sn(i).t(w) : (it) was inquired about x.t - (an or the) thing, matter, affair m - in ip.t-nsw - the King's harem r - concerning Hm.t-nsw wr.t - the great Queen (= the King's principal wife) sxm.t=s (with a fancy determinative for 'queen') : this is the queen's name - Sekhemtes (?) m - in sStA - secret In colloquial English: "A secret inquiry was made in the harem about Queen Sekhemtes" This is just off the top of my head. Further comments appreciated. ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 18:04:35 -0400 From: Don Ferruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL "iw" and more "iw" (Re: AEL English Grammar ) Andren4585 wrote: > However, if you look at it, you will see that "iw" > comes whenever there would be a period or a comma in the English translation. > I think it must be considered that "iw" is used as a kind of punctuation ... Your observation is a very good (and clever) one, but there is a simple explanation: "iw" can only stand in the first position of a sentence or clause. That means that what precedes it must be the end of another sentence or clause. English usually ends a sentence or clause with a period or a comma. Thus you often find "iw" where there is a period or a comma in English. ============================================================================== From: Andren4585 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:06:15 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL "iw" and more "iw" (LONG ) In a message dated 98-04-07 18:38:17 EDT, you write: << Your observation is a very good (and clever) one, but there is a simple explanation: "iw" can only stand in the first position of a sentence or clause. That means that what precedes it must be the end of another sentence or clause. English usually ends a sentence or clause with a period or a comma. Thus you often find "iw" where there is a period or a comma in English. >> What you say is true, but I think there is more to it than that. After I left the office today, I stopped at the bookstore and bought all the paperback books that contained Egyptian texts that I found there. The best ones were those that have the Egyptian, transliteration and translation all together so that one can assess the situation very quickly. Which I did. And I also went over the entire "Tale of the Two Brothers", marking each occurance of "iw". Looking at all of it with the idea that "iw" was nothing more than a kind of punctuation, I now perceive that some of what I was taught about "iw" was not correct. It has nothing to do with mood, past present or future at all! I am now prepared to talk about this in such a way (with anyone who will assist me in doing so) as to, I am hopeful, help others who are , like me, not so sharp in English grammar understand this subject. If "iw" was so important in the writing, why can it be completely absent from some texts? This is what made me suspicious. "iw" is often absent from texts because, as we know, many ancient texts, not just Egyptian, got along without punctuation. However, it looks to me like the Egyptians used "iw" when they DID want to give a text the added clarity that punctuation supplies. What is punctuation, anyway? According to my dictionary, its use is to "clarify meaning", "to interrupt from time to time", "to emphasize". I may be wrong, but it appears to me now that Egyptians found a way to do this with the "all- purpose iw". We have seen that "iw" separates phrases, marks clauses and parenthetical remarks. It marks a quotation, as I have noticed, and I believe it also stands for an exclamation point--only at the beginning of the phrase instead of after. The only thing "iw" does not appear to stand for is a "question mark". Yet often the scribe simply did not bother with any of this, just as I could be writing this post without punctuation and you could still read it--especially if you were accustomed to doing so. What happens in some of the texts that I checked? There is a little grammar by Sir E.A. Wallis Budge that contains several texts from different periods. One is called "The Funeral Stele of Panehesi" from Dynasty 19. In this not too short text, "iw" is used but once! Unless my poor overworked eyes have missed something. For some reason, the writer wanted to emphasize the phrase "The sektet boat is glad" and I believe he put a "iw" at the outset as a mark of exclamation. I think it's reasonable because of some phrases that came before. Another example from this book is very interesting because it is so long and its use of "iw" so sparing is the text from the CXXVth Chapter of the Book of the Dead, which is first a negative confession and winds up (at least here) with the "door and its posts". It starts out with a greeting to the gods, which is not the kind of thing one can put "iw" onto. But after the salutation, right away there comes "iw" as in "I, even I know you!" "iw" then does not appear again for a bit until a part which is really a kind of list. It vows: "I feed upon right and truth in my heart" and then it goes "iw" this and "iw" that--listing all the good things the person has done. Then no more "iw" for a long spell until the phrase "I saw rejoicing in those lands of the Fenkhu", which apparently is a very important disclosure because after it come mysterious things (to us) about flames and crystals. Next is a lacuna for which the translator inserts "iw", but it may not be there, so we will disregard it. Then comes a series of questions and answers about the mysterious objects and the next "iw" comes before "I uttered words over it" and some more "iw" in a short list of other things the person did. The next uses of "iw", I think, are all in exclamatory or parenthetical phrases like "Thou knowest us!", (I am silent), "I am pure from all evil!" "I am protected from the baleful acts of those who live in their days (and) not am I among them!" Then, I see that the penultimate phrases are marked with "iw"--"Is thy bread from the wadjet and they beer from the wadjet. Are brought out to thee sepulchral offerings upon earth from the wadjet.Hath decreed it he for me!" Alls well that ends well. And so it goes with other texts as well. If what I say above is not true, then what would be the explanation for these infrequent employments of "iw" in long texts? However, one manuscript that has a very frequent usage of "iw" is "The Tale of the Two Brothers". Here "in wn" is used to mark new paragraphs, so to speak, and the translator does this. It is no coincidence, either, that "iw" is employed as related above, but often as an "interruption" where we would begin a new sentence or place a comma. It is as though the scribe were indicating where the future translator should put in links like "and" or "so that". It is really quite amazing. As might be expected, not EVERY phrase begins with "iw". I'll give some examples of places were "iw" was by putting it's spot in CAPS in the translation. "He would drive his cattle to let them graze in the fields WHILE he followed behind his cattle." parenthetical? "At plowing time his brother told him: Have a team (of oxen) made ready for us for plowing, for the soil has emerged SO that it is just right for tilling." "...they went to the field carrying their (seed) and began to plow WITH their hearts exceedingly pleased about their project as (they) began to work. After many (days) following this, WHILE they were in the field, THEY needed seed." "She then fetched grease and fat, FEIGNING to become like one who was assaulted." "Now if you let him live, I'LL take my life." "Now when the sun set, HE loaded himself (with) all (sorts of) vegetables of the fields..." Sometime we must examine this text to see how these interesting constructions originate. When one starts really looking at "iw", its usage is really fascinating and a little mysterious in some texts. In most of the writings I examined, it is used more sparingly than liberally. Unfortunately, our "Weni" is considered by me unpunctuated so we cannot examine it for this purpose. Andre Renouf ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 22:56:33 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL "iw" and more "iw" Andren4585 wrote: > To show you that I feel serious about the Egyptian language even though I do > like to make a joke here and there, I want to ask you something and I hope > you will reply in a good spirit. Since you have told me to stick to Middle > Egyptian, I've tried to look through some few texts I have in the classic > language. > I haven't got very many that I can actually see the glyphs to read. As I > said, > "Weni" does not use "iw". From the 12th dynasty I have an inscription of > one Khnumhotep. In this considerable text, "iw" is used only one time--and > that is to mark a quotation, "Dd-f iw rdi-n-wi"--the only time anybody is > quoted > in this piece. I searched through a long inscription on the obelisk of > Hatshepsut, > "iw" only being used three times, each time when somebody "knew" something > or somebody. "iw Hnt-i rx-ti nTrr-f" (My Majesty knew his divinity), "iw-i > rx-kwi ntt 3x.t pw iptt tep t3" (I know that Ipet-sut is the lightland on > earth) and another on the same order. This is rather strange, don't you think? > Yet I think > each of these is supposed to be some sort of parenthetical, qualifying > information > or remark. Just look at the "Tale of the Two Brothers". It is full of "iw" > here and > "iw" there. I did not examine each usage to see if it occurred in an > independent > statement. Surely there are some independent statements in this text where > "iw" does not appear at all. However, if you look at it, you will see that > "iw" > comes whenever there would be a period or a comma in the English translation. > I think it must be considered that "iw" is used as a kind of punctuation (and > I > spoke of it in another post) which we understand imperfectly and that may be > one of the reasons that we have so much trouble with this. If you have "The > Tale of the Two Brothers", please check it out and let me know what you think. Excellent research and valid question regarding the presence or absence of "iw" - whether you can accept my answer (and whether I can explain it clearly) is another matter. First a couple of "trivial" points: 1) Weni is NOT Middle Egyptian it is Old Egyptian, and the use of "iw" with verbs didn't develop until Middle Egyptian. 2) The Tale of Two Brothers, while not quite Late Egyptian, is in many ways closer to it than to Middle Egyptian. (By the way I do have the entire text of the story in Budge's edition - unfortunately for those trying to follow his transliterations he did it as without realizing that the rules of spelling were different at that time than the earlier texts, at least for hieratic documents.) So let's skip those two, since they fall under different rules (just as Chaucer's English follows rules different from the English I'm writing now). I would also like to add to your store of available texts for study by pointing out that a large part of the text of Papyrus Westcar is available, with commentary, at http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/texts/ael/westcar/index.html . Also the complete hieratic text of The Story of the Shipwrecked Sailor, with hieroglyphic transcription of the first six pages (I'm working on it as fast as I can!) is available at http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/texts/ael/westcar/index.html . Part of the reason you see so few "iw" statements is that their range of use is limited. Statements such as "iw ra m pt" are what are called adverbial sentences - they are the only kind where "iw" is used to start a clause. Adjectival sentences ("nfr sy") and nominal sentences ("imny rn=i") are not introduced by "iw." The use of "iw" with verbs ("iw sDm=f" or "iw sDm.n=f" or "iw ii=kwi") occurs only when it is a simple statement of fact and only in first-person narrative. Also, it may be replaced by other introductory particles such as "mk" or "ix". That means that it is most likely to occur in stories or biographies rather than monumental inscriptions, and its use is likely to be somewhat limited even in tomb inscriptions. These forms would probably have been used much more widely in daily speech, but we don't have that written down usually (if you want to take a tape recorder back to the reign of Amenemhet I to check this out, I'd be delighted to know whether this speculation is true or not!). In the Old Kingdom, the verb tenses available were all "relative" tenses - relative to whatever was going on in the narration - and the forms with "iw" were developed as "absolute" tenses - relative to the person talking (like with English or Latin verbs). So their limitation to use in direct speech or quotation is not surprising. This is the case for the bit you quote from KhnumHotep "Dd=f iw rdi.n wi" The Dd=f is "stage directions" so it is "He says: I was made..." (I presume that before this there was a name list of titles, parentage, etc. and after it there followed a list of titles given to him.) Which reminds me of another usage that reduces the frequency of "iw" - only the first of a series of sentences might be introduced by "iw" with a number of following sentences (In English they would probably be treated as separate sentences, but this isn't English) depending on that one little "iw" so they don't need their own. Notice that in the Hatshepsut obelisk the instances are all first person statements relating the time of action to the speaker (HatShepsut). (The verb "rx" is rather a peculiar one, which actually means "to learn," so to express the idea "know" you have to use the stative form, which expresses the result of learning - so we have "iw=i rx=kwi" instead of "iw rx.n=f") Now the next thing you're going to ask probably is "Well why learn about 'iw' if it isn't used that much?" It is mainly because the simplest sentences to learn are those that make basic statements of fact, or description, ewhich is exactly these sentences. And since we can only learn so much at once (it would be wonderful to learn it all in one lump!) this is where we usually start. It is used quite a number of times in both the stories of the Westcar papyrus and the Story of the Shipwrecked sailor, and in both of those I can assure you it conforms to the rules I have mentioned. Hmm ... this is a rather long message now, so I'll stop here. I hope I have expressed things clearly - and please remember that, no matter what you might think, I am really a beginner too. -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: Andren4585 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:09:37 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL Weni L10 - ? In a message dated 98-04-07 18:37:44 EDT, you write: << sxm.t=s (with a fancy determinative for 'queen') : this is the queen's name - Sekhemtes (? >> No, this means "powerful woman". Andre Renouf ============================================================================== From: Andren4585 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 06:37:41 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL "iw" and more "iw" (LONG ) In a message dated 98-04-08 03:30:35 EDT, I wrote: << Looking at all of it with the idea that "iw" was nothing more than a kind of punctuation, I now perceive that some of what I was taught about "iw" was not correct. It has nothing to do with mood, past present or future at all! >> I shouldn't have said this because it gives a false impression. What I should have written was that "some" of what I was taught about "iw" was not correct, or perhaps I remembered it wrong. And "iw" is not just "always" a kind of punctuation, but only in the examples I gave afterward (or at least that's how it looks to me). There are certainly times when "iw" refers to a vaguely future time (as I have tried to point out in certain clauses). As for expressing the past mood, I should also have pointed out that the main reason "The Tale of the Two Brothers" is so full of "iw" is that it employs the pseudo-verbal "iw-f Hr sDm" or "iw-f sDmw" form and that this piece is quite different from the other examples I gave of the use of "iw". Andre Renouf ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:51:46 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: AEL Re: Correction > the complete hieratic text of The Story of the Shipwrecked Sailor, with > hieroglyphic transcription of the first six pages (I'm working on it as fast as > I can!) is available at http://www.ccer.ggl.ruu.nl/texts/ael/westcar/index.html OOPS the URL there should be: http://home.prcn.org/~sfryer/Hieratic/papyrus/index.html Sorry about that - I guess it was later than I thought! -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 11:36:15 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL "iw" and more "iw" (LONG ) Andren4585 wrote: > > In a message dated 98-04-07 18:38:17 EDT, you write: I'm afraid this message is too long to respond to EVERYTHING, so I'll just comment on a few things. (Some things are already at least partially covered in my last message) > I left the office today, I stopped at the bookstore and bought all the > paperback > books that contained Egyptian texts that I found there. The best ones were > those that have the Egyptian, transliteration and translation all together so > that one can assess the situation very quickly. I presume this basically means books by Budge. Please be aware that there are many dangers in using his work - use liberal quantities of salt! These books (and others of similar vintage) are available cheaply because they are now out of copyright, so the publisher has only the expense of printing. Areas to watch out for: 1) His transliterations are not infrequently incorrect; even where he should have had no trouble with them based on knowledge available to him. 2) His translations are generally of the type where he got the general fell of the passage and wrote that as the translation (a common practice at the time), even if he didn't understand all the words or the grammatical constructions used. Being a pretty smart fellow, his guesses were generally pretty good, but not always very accurate. 3) Something I only recently discovered - his transcriptions from hieratic are not very precise either. I had wondered about the fact that he uses two different "owl" signs, and had assumed that it had to do with the original hieratic somehow. Having had chance recently to compare the original of PtahHotep to Budge's transription, it is apparent that he made arbitrary changes sometimes. That said, his texts are usually pretty good, and are at least available to us peasants! > I now perceive that some of what I was taught about "iw" was not correct. > It has nothing to do with mood, past present or future at all! For Middle Egyptian, the basic rules of "iw" are: 1) iw without suffix pronoun only occurs at the beginning of an initial main clause and indicates that this is a statement of fact. (The particle "mk" is frequently used in similar fashion with a more emphatic effect.) 2) iw with a suffix pronoun occurs as in (1) but also to introduce a circumstantial clause - so you have to look more closely at these to see which usage this is. In the case of a subordinate clause, the iw is there simply to give something to attach the suffix to. So it has nothing in itself to do with past present or future; it does have to do with mood - marking the "indicative" mood (= simple statement of fact). > I am now prepared to talk about this in such a way (with anyone who will > assist me > in doing so) as to, I am hopeful, help others who are , like me, not so sharp > in English grammar understand this subject. I like people who are willing to admit they may be wrong - I try to be one myself. And believe me I have been through these same difficulties myself. > If "iw" was so important in the writing, why can it be completely absent from > some > texts? This is what made me suspicious. "iw" is often absent from texts > because, > as we know, many ancient texts, not just Egyptian, got along without > punctuation. > However, it looks to me like the Egyptians used "iw" when they DID want to > give a > text the added clarity that punctuation supplies. Please realize that there were a number of other possible sentence structures available to the Egyptians, to express various shades of meaning. Already in the Gardiner chapters people have lo0ked at on the list, there is another sentence type: Adjectival. This starts with an adjective, not a particle ("iw" or "mk"), as in "nfr sy" (She is good) or "nfr sDm n it" (It is good to listen to your father.) > comes "iw" as in "I, even I know you!" "iw rx=kwi tn" is simply "I know you." The emphasis is Budge's - even he translates similar constructions as simple past tense. BEWARE OF BUDGE'S TRANSLATIONS! [SNIP] If you want to discuss the specifics of this passage, it would be appropriate for another thread (though I don't know where I'll find the time!) > However, one manuscript that has a very frequent usage of "iw" is "The Tale of > the Two Brothers". Here "in wn" is used to mark new paragraphs, so to speak, > and the translator does this. Be warned that this text is teetering on the edge of being Late Egyptian so you will find many constructions here that work differently. I haven't time to read the whole thing at the moment, but will make a general comment or two. > "He would drive his cattle to let them graze in the fields WHILE he followed > behind his cattle." > "At plowing time his brother told him: Have a team (of oxen) made ready > for us for plowing, for the soil has emerged SO that it is just right for > tilling." > > "...they went to the field carrying their (seed) and began to plow WITH > their hearts exceedingly pleased about their project as (they) began > to work. After many (days) following this, WHILE they were in the field, > THEY needed seed." > > "She then fetched grease and fat, FEIGNING to become like one who > was assaulted." > > "Now if you let him live, I'LL take my life." > > "Now when the sun set, HE loaded himself (with) all (sorts of) > vegetables of the fields..." All of these are instances of subordinate clauses, and I believe that in all these cases (if I remember correctly) the "iw" has a suffix pronoun attached to it - the suffix has to have SOMETHING to be attached to. This usage led to Demotic using "iw" as a marker of subordinate clauses. On the whole, I would recommend to anyone who is SERIOUSLY interested in the whole question of "iw" especially in Middle Egyptian, that they should read Dr. James Allen's essay "Tense in Classical Egyptian" which is in the book _Essays on Egyptian Grammar_, 1986, ISBN 0-912532-900, which is available from Eisenbraun's ( http://www.eisenbrauns.com/ ) for US$12. For those who want a better understanding of how the whole of Egyptian grammar fits together, I would recommend a good MODERN textbook. The best I know of in English is _Middle Egyptian Grammar_ by Dr. James Hoch. It is also available from Eisenbraun's for US$50, or you can get it direct from the author ( James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca ). Remember, Gardiner represent the state of the art 70 years ago, Budge's grammar of 120 years ago. Much research has gone into these questions since then! -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 19:40:24 -0700 From: Stephen Fryer To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL "iw" and more "iw" Stephen Fryer wrote: > 2) The Tale of Two Brothers, while not quite Late Egyptian, is in many ways > closer to it than to Middle Egyptian. I have been gently corrected (off-list) on this point. The Tale of Two Brothers IS Late Egyptian, with all that implies for differences in grammar: "iw" introduces subordinate clauses of all kinds the old verb conjugations have been replaced by new ones -- Stephen Fryer Lund Computer Services ************************************************** The more answers I find, the more questions I have ************************************************** ============================================================================== From: Aayko Eyma To: "AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk" Subject: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 20:32:57 +-200 Don Ferruggia wrote > Hm.t-nsw wr.t - the great Queen (= the King's principal wife) sxm.t=s (with a fancy determinative for 'queen') : this is the queen's name - Sekhemtes (?) Andre Renouf wrote: << sxm.t=s (with a fancy determinative for 'queen') : this is the queen's name - Sekhemtes (? >> No, this means "powerful woman". Lichtheim has in line with Don: "When there was a secret charge in the royal harem against Queen Weret-yamtes, his majesty made me..." so pulling the wr.t with the name, not the title. And transcribing the sekhem part differently, of course. Gardiner gives he whole phrase in line with Andre: "when there was litigation in private in the king's harem against the Queen, His Majesty caused me..." so no name there. Aayko Eyma ============================================================================== Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 20:02:24 -0400 From: Don Ferruggia To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? Aayko Eyma wrote: > Lichtheim has in line with Don: > "When there was a secret charge in the royal harem > against Queen Weret-yamtes, his majesty made me..." > > Gardiner gives he whole phrase in line with Andre: > "when there was litigation in private in the king's harem against > the Queen, His Majesty caused me..." > so no name there. I don't really see a difference in meaning in these two phrases, except that Gardiner doesn't give the name of the Queen. Was Andre trying to read something like "s.t sxm.t" for "powerful woman"? "sxm.t=s" simply means "her strength", and could be a name. "wr.t-sxm.t-s" would mean "Great is her strength" and would make an even better name, but I'm not sure what Weret-yamtes means or how to get that reading from these glyphs. ============================================================================== From: Andren4585 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:07:04 EDT To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? In a message dated 98-04-10 09:15:05 EDT, you write: << Was Andre trying to read something like "s.t sxm.t" for "powerful woman"? "sxm.t=s" simply means "her strength", and could be a name. "wr.t-sxm.t-s" would mean "Great is her strength" and would make an even better name, but I'm not sure what Weret-yamtes means or how to get that reading from these glyphs. >> Somebody asked what does "sxm.t" mean and I answered correctly. However, in my text of "Weni" that I have here, I would not know how to get "sxm.t" out of it. I see " swtn Hm.t wr.(t)" or Great Chief Wife" and the name "i3mts". The spelling of the name is a bit uncertain and the "s" at the end is problematic. Andre Renouf ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:54:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? Dear All, I am sorry not to have been following what is going on on the Weni text (which I was involved in bringing to you together with Mike Dyall-Smith). However, I just noticed this thread. > > Lichtheim has in line with Don: > > "When there was a secret charge in the royal harem > > against Queen Weret-yamtes, his majesty made me..." > > > > Gardiner gives he whole phrase in line with Andre: > > "when there was litigation in private in the king's harem against > > the Queen, His Majesty caused me..." > > so no name there. > > I don't really see a difference in meaning in these two phrases, except that > Gardiner doesn't give the name of the Queen. Was Andre trying to read > something like "s.t sxm.t" for "powerful woman"? > > "sxm.t=s" simply means "her strength", and could be a name. "wr.t-sxm.t-s" > would mean "Great is her strength" and would make an even better name, but > I'm not sure what Weret-yamtes means or how to get that reading from these > glyphs. In Egyptian various objects' names come from some verb with a feminine ending added to it. 3m "grip" > 3ms "grip-it" meaning "scepter" mkj "protect" > mks "protect-it" meaning "protective case for a deed to property" Similarly there are various scepters and objects ending in s. Most people read this queens name wither as wr.t-Hts "great of her Hetes scepter" or r.t-j3m.t=s "Great of her Yamtes scepter". It is also thought that this migh just be a title and that the actual name of the queen may have been expurgated because of her crimes. Yours, Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Fri, 10 Apr 98 20:59:46 UT From: "Michael Mac Donagh" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: RE: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? With reference to the queen's name: The problem stems form the hand copy published in Urkunden. The sign used to write the name is Gardiner's sign-list number M 1. One of the values of the sign is iAm. The word iAmt means: charm, favour. So the name has a meaning in the area of 'She charms' or the like. The title Hmt-nsw-wrt is well attested as the title of the chief queen. I hope this is of some help. Regards, Mike Mac Donagh. ============================================================================== From: "Ivo Marinov" To: "AEL Email List" Subject: AEL Gardiner Exercise IV Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:31:06 +0300 Hello again, I will try to do the Gardiner exercise IV, but since I do not have the = Gardiner's "Egyptian Grammar", I will use the answers, given at = http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/gri/8gramt.html. Sorry if this is of some = confusion... (a) 1. A son is good if he listens to his father when he is a child, and = places this advice in his heart and remembers it every day; look, one = says about him that he is free from every evil. nfr sA sDm=3Df n it=3Df iw=3Df m Xrd rdi=3Df sxr pn m ib=3Df sxA=3Df sw = ra nb mk tw Hr Dd.t r=3Df Sw sw m Dw.t nb.t 2. The sun appears on the horizon and it shines in the sky. Happy are = all hearts when they see it. xai ra m Ax.t wbn=3Df m p.t ib nb m rSw.t mAA=3Dsn sw 3. How evil is a river empty of water! bin.wy itrw Sw m mw 4. Say it to the sovereign, and he in turn will say it to his = manservant. Dd=3Dk st n it.y ix Dd=3Df st n bAk=3Df 5. How great is your house! It is rich in every beautiful thing. aA.wy pr=3Dk aSA sw m x.t nb.t nfr.t 6. He does not know this excellent plan. n rx=3Df shr pn iqr 7. They send the boat to the city so that he may ferry you across in it. hAb=3Dsn pA-dp.t r niw.t DAi=3Df Tw im=3Ds (b) 1. nfr.wy pr=3Dk pn mk sw m Hr=3Di mi p.t How beautiful is this house of yours! Look, it looks to me like heaven. 2. Htp ra m anx ra nb Peace of Ra is in every day of life. 3. mk Tn Hna=3Di m bak.t Look, you (f. sing.) and I are maidservants. 4. nfr sy r sA.t=3Ds She is more beautiful than her daughter. 5. iw Dw.t Hr wA.t nb.t The evil is over all roads. 6. ix aHa=3Dn Dd=3Dn n nb=3Dn nfr Then we (will) stand up and speak to our good lord. 7. iw s nb m rSw.t sDm=3Dsn st All men are happy, when they hear it. 8. hAi=3Dk m Htp r niw.t=3Dk You go in peace down to your town. 9. iqr.wy sxr=3Dk pn Hr ib=3Di it.y nb=3Di How exellent is this plan of yours to my heart, sovereign, my lord! Ivo Marinov ============================================================================== From: "Mark Vygus" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL Fw: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:56:37 +0100 >However, in my text of "Weni" that I have here, I would not know how >to get "sxm.t" out of it. I see " swtn Hm.t wr.(t)" or Great Chief Wife" >and the name "i3mts". The spelling of the name is a bit uncertain and >the "s" at the end is problematic. > >Andre Renouf I think people are confused as to what sign is actually being used here. Is it Gardiners M1 (iAm) or S42 (sxm). My copy has S42 but it seems a lot have M1 Mark V nsw-bit@msn.com ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:10:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Graham To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Fw: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? Mark V., [Just popping in from my work overload] > I think people are confused as to what sign is actually being used here. Is > it Gardiners M1 (iAm) or S42 (sxm). > My copy has S42 but it seems a lot have M1 I have worked from a photograph of the original stone. The sign is like the lotus-bud scepter of a queen. This is probably to be read as Hts actually. I would call her wr.t-Hts "Werethetes" Therefore, or if this is only a title, then she is "one great of her lotus-bud-scepter". Geoff Graham sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu ============================================================================== Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:40:25 -0700 (PDT) To: Ancient Egyptian Language List From: reeder@sirius.com (Greg Reeder) Subject: AEL Harris Magical Papyrus ? Dear List, I have been asked to help find information and a published copy of the Harris Magical Papyrus. This papyrus is a hard one to track down. I found references for it in "The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice" by Robert K. Ritner, Oriental Institute University of Chicago, 1993 . The bibliography seems to indicate that the papyrus has only been published in Lange, Hans O., Der magische Papyrus Harris. Coppenhagen: 1927. This papyrus is not to be confused with Papyrus Harris I "The Annals of Rameses III." Any help you could give on where it is ( BM?) and recent or accessable publications would be appreciated. Best regards, Greg Greg Reeder http://www.egyptology.com reeder@sirius.com ============================================================================== From: "Nicholas,Patrizia Myall" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: AEL Gardiner.s exercise 4 Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:07:37 +0200 Dear all this is the second part of the exercise 4. 1 nfr .wy pr=k pn mk sw m Hr=i p.t mi 2 iw Htp r< m From: Mike Dyall-Smith Subject: Re: AEL AW: AEL Weni L10 - ? Geoff wrote: >In Egyptian various objects' names come from some verb with a feminine >ending added to it. >3m "grip" > 3ms "grip-it" meaning "scepter" Do you think these were these originally infinitives with suffix pronouns attached ? How do you see it having developed? >Similarly there are various scepters and objects ending in s. Most people >read this queens name wither as wr.t-Hts "great of her Hetes scepter" or >r.t-j3m.t=s "Great of her Yamtes scepter". It is also thought that this >migh just be a title and that the actual name of the queen may have been >expurgated because of her crimes. This is interesting. Can we look at the two possibilities? a) If she was the 'Great Royal Wife' then you would think she wouldn't have to anything nasty; she was the top of the heap, and her children would be chosen as successors to the throne. Perhaps she wanted to speed things up a bit if she thought her husband was a bit past it, and her son was ready. Could she have been childless and decided the only way to stay number one was to eliminate the king, or her likely replacement? Is there any other likely scenario proposed if this was the case? If Hts was then left as a lone word, could it not also be used in the meaning given by Faulkner "bring to an end, complete (a period of time)". He also cites "celebrate (a festival)". The first two would be fitting for someone who has been 'cut short' in her time, or 'finished'. A 'celebrated one' could also be possible. Both would be fill-in words (as proposed by Geoff) so as not to give the name of the queen, who is disgraced, and possibly executed by the time Weni has had his tomb wall carved. Her name would not live on. She would not be given the honourable epithet 'vindicated'. b) If wr.t was part of her name (so, only royal wife, not great royal wife), then she is 'Great of Something'. Perhaps a fill-in name, but why use that expression when a single word would suffice? Is there anything known about Hts scepters. Do they denote any particular quality or profession? If she was disgraced, would she be called 'Great of X'? I think I prefer the 'Great Royal Wife' epithet, followed by a 'She who was brought to an end' (or similar meaning) fill-in name. Comments please!! BTW, my typeset pages used Sethes published copy, which used S42. Gardiner has used the sign Hts in the dictionary but not in his sign list. Can someone give me the Manuel de Codage for it please? I will add a footnote to the appropriate typeset page. Regards, Mike Dyall-Smith ******************************** Mike Dyall-Smith, Melbourne, Australia m.dyall-smith@microbiology.unimelb.edu.au ******************************** ==============================================================================