Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:35:24 -0800
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
From: Stephen Fryer <sfryer@prcn.org>
Subject: Re: AEL E.A. Wallis Budge  -  Fact or folklore?

At 05:34 PM 97/03/23 +0000, you wrote:

>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.
>
I have quite a number of Budge's books in cheap modern reprint, and while
they contain much that is dated, they also contain much information that is
useful and difficult or expensive to come by elsewhere.  Certainly, I would
not want to trust his transliterations or translations, though the
hieroglyphic texts are usable.  I have the distinct impression from both his
grammar book and from his translations that he had only a very rough
understanding of Egyptian verbs.  In general his translations seem to get
the general idea right, though frequently details and nuances are totally
lost.  Even at my state of learning (or ignorance, rather) this is quite
evident.

By all means use Budge as a supplement to something more modern (and
preferably more modern than Gardiner too, e.g. Hoch), but taken magno cum
grano salis (keep a large sack of salt handy).

For those looking for something cheaper that Gardiner that will provide some
grammatical basics, exercises and reading material,  Mercer's _Egyptian
Hieroglyphic Grammar_ is still available from Ares.  This is the same
vintage as the original Gardiner (1926) and has a similar approach to and
understanding of the verbal system.  I still think of it as an abbreviated
version of Gardiner - not totally reliable and up-to-date, but vastly
superior to Budge.

Stephen Fryer
Lund Computer Services
Lund, BC  V0N 2G0
Canada

*****************************
The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
*****************************

==============================================================================

From: "M. A. R. Barker" <barke002@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re'
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 97 18:16:38 -0600

Dear Geoff,

> Naw, you could not possibly be that old!  When Budge was a PUP??????
> Please!  You must be ancient! ;-)

Hah! I *do* tend to exaggerate -- for amusement's sake, only! ;-) I am 
chronologically 68, but I am rather crippled, bald, and look 20 years older. 
Indeed, I have always looked older than my age. I could get a drink in any bar 
in Seattle when I was 16, without any bartender asking for proof of my age. When
people meet me now, they ask, "And so tell us, old fellow, who *was* Pharoah in 
your time?" ...  ;-)


> > > nn n nTr.ty m sxr pn; wn.w.t=sn <q.w m X3.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? 

I am still a leetle dubious about the use of all these "appositions" and 
"aorists," as you have called them, The translation given by Dr. Darnell doesn't
seem to bear out such a large number of occurrences of these formations. May I  
quote Susanne Binder's article here? "The Hereafter: Ancient Egyptian Beliefs 
with Special Reference to the Amduat." In: The Bulletin of the Australian Centre
for Egyptology, vol. 6, 1996, 7-30: 

     "The composition is not the text of a ritual performed at the funeral.
     [Winfried] Barta opposes earlier theories held by the French scholar Paul
     Barguet, who maintains that he 'Amduat' _is_ the royal funerary ritual, or
     that the 'Book of Gates' _is_ the ritual for the royal succession.

     Neither does the 'Amduat' belong to the genre of a s3Xw, "ritual
     recitations/ Verklaerungen," as do some other New Kingdom Netherworld 
     books. Examples for this are the 'Litany of Re,' 'The Book of the Night,'
     'The Book of Day,' and 'The Book of the Heavenly Cow,' which contain hymns
     of praise to the sun-god and their recitation aims at securing the blessed
     status of the deceased. ..."

In other words, if one must translate so many utterances with "aorists" (i.e. 
"Let Re...," "May Re...," "if Re...," "would that Re..." etc.), then we have a 
completely different type of book than the one Dr. Darnell seems to see. He has 
produced a translation that is a *descriptive* text: a book that describes the 
Amduat and its inhabitants in fairly straightforward, narrative terms. The 
pictures show scenes and beings whom the authors conceive of as "real" and 
"factual." The text describes what hey are doing. The tone of the Amduat book 
thus is more that of a guidebook than an invocation, although some sections can 
certainly be argued as being the latter.

Is it possible that the Ramesside scribes used a "curtailed" form of the 
"present" tense: something always true or perhaps always religiously and 
mythologically true? This could also have been done for a variety of other 
reasons, such as saving time and space in carving long texts upon the tomb 
walls, somewhat similar to American businesses that write "nite," "blvd." "co.,"
etc. instead of spelling everything out. I'm still trying to think of an analogy
for abbreviated *grammatical* and/or *syntactic* formations in English; I may  
come up with one sooner or later, but I think my point is clear (but possibly 
wrong?).

> Yes, there seems to be nuance, but if Rosmorduc (quoting from Polotsky) is
> right, then it is simply an aorist.

The term "aorist" should be carefully defined, language by language. The term 
"aorist" is language-specific and not necessarily "made in heaven!"

> 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.

The scribes did not put in periods and equals signs! Those are our doing!  ;-)

> My style is to correct things a bit more, making them into more ideal 
Egyptian.  

I understand your objectives and agree.

> 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. 

Understood. Your way is excellent for pedagogical purposes. Dr. Darnell puts 
missing consonants into brackets to show what *ought* to have been written. He 
doesn't "do the dots" with the same meticulous care you have used, however. 

> Well, let's just talk about it off list, unless there is ample enough
> interest on list to warrant discussion here.

Suits me. I'll end this thread unless people indicate they want to say something
and want a response.

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.  ;-)

Send me offprints when your articles are published, please! I promise to read 
them carefully. This area interests me greatly.

Regards,

Phil


==============================================================================

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:00:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL The Htp sentences Interpretation?

Hello,

I guess we have been given the "go-ahead" for more discussion of the
meanings behind these sentences.  I have lost the texts that were
extracted from Darnell's dissertation, so if Phil can send them to me
again, I would appreciate it.  For now, let me attempt to explain my
personal understanding of the text from the tomb of Nefertari:

3sjr Htp m r<w : r<w pw Htp m 3sjr   

"Osiris is at rest in Re: it is Re who is at rest in Osiris."

"Htp" can mean many different things in Egyptian.  The meanings range from
"be at peace" to "be content" to "be satisfied" to "be at rest", to "set" 
(of a celestial body).  This text may be purposely ambiguous, and could be
making a pun on the fact that Re, as the physical sun, "sets" in the
western horizon, which is conceived of as the entrance into another world
where the spirits of the dead, both human and divine reside, and his being
"content", as a personified god who wishes for thw wellfare of his
creation, satisfied, and/or happy when he is united with Osiris, who is
the being of greatest importance in the West and the realm of the spirits.

A very important concept of Egyptian religion, possibly the most important
one at the core of their faith was that there are two worlds, and that
these worlds must interact with one another for the maintenance of order
and life in the universe.  There is the world which is above the earth,
which is contained within the upper sky, and the world below the earth
which is contained within the lower sky.  The entire universe as they knew
it was something like a bubble which is suspended in an infinite dark
water, the abyss, the part of existence which lies outside of creation,
the chaos from which order originated.  For more information on the
cosmological ideas of the Egyptians I refer you to James Allen's wonderful
book, _Genesis in Ancient Egypt : The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian
Creation Accounts_, Yale Egyptological Studies 2, New Haven, Connecticut,
1988.

There is a delicate balance between the forces of chaos and the forces of
order, and that balance is maintained by the creator god who is usually
associated with the sun, initially as Atum, then as Re, and then as Horus,
the incarnation of divine kingship.  The maintenance of order and life is
effected by a type of cross-pollination or recharging back and forth
between the world which lies above the earth and that which lies below it. 
The gods are the only beings who can freely travel between the two worlds
without great difficulty and personal danger, yet even they do so at some
risk. 

Many of the deities are stellar beings, which traverse the firmament of
both skies.  The stars on the ecliptic live in the upper sky for most of
the year but they must descend into the lower sky for part of the year as
well.  The Sun and moon also traverse these worlds, rising in the east and
setting in the west, making a voyage back to the Eastern horizon through
the other world. 

Various beings inhabit the other world, the most important of which are
Sokar and Osiris.  Sokar is the deity who presides over the central cavern
of the underworld, which is called Imemhet. (Consult the Amduat, the Book
of What is Within the Duat) Osiris was the god of the upper world who died
and resumed his life in the the other world, and he is now the focal point
of the cavern of Sokar.  Sokar is the incarnation of the latent life
potential which emanates from the underworld, and Osiris is a kind of
connection between the world of the living and the potential life that
lies at the bottom of the world of the dead.  It is within the secret
Shetjayet shrine of Sokar which rests on his Henubarque that the body of
Osiris is placed almost like a battery waiting to be recharged so that the
fertility and life of the land can be restored. 

It is from Osiris that all the livelihood of the land depends.  It is from
him that Horus, the personification of Kingship, the savior who
reestablishes order is continually re-engendered through the magic of Isis
and her helper sister Nephthys. It is also from his body that the waters
of the inundation of the Nile emanate at the appointed time of Year and
replenish the land and bring forth all of its bounty.

Meanwhile Re is the ever-present creator of the Universe who presides over
the world of the living.  He is a very old deity, being the first deity to
emerge from chaos.  Therefore, he is also in need of constant
revitalization.  Every day he is reborn in the East from the womb of Nut,
the personification of the sky.  Then, every evening he grows old and dies
in the West reentering the world of the dead to make his journey through
the caverns and regenerate himself for the following day.

This regeneration takes place in the cavern of Imemhet where the power of
Sokar, in the amalgam of Sokar-Osiris, the Osiris who resides at the
bottom of the created world rests.  Re is conceived of as a falcon who is
the Ba (soul) of the being at the bottom of the pit.  Just as the Ba of
the deceased has to return to its body every night and rest in order to be
recharged for its next day of eternal life, so the divine Ba has to to
return to ITS body, which lies at the bottom of creation.  Therefore,
every night the Ba of the creator makes its way back to the body of
Osiris, and enters it so that the forces of life can be regenerated for
the entire universe with the help of Isis, the female creative principle, 
of course.

This, I believe is the core meaning of the above text.  Darnell has
pointed out to me the existence of a Third Intermediate Period
mythological papyrus which shows an illustration of the body of Osiris
lying on his bier, and in the place of the god's genitals is a picture of
the Akhet sign the horizon with the sun resting in between two mountains. 
(I have ordered his disseration so that I will be able to examine this
vignette and possibly incorporate its significance into work upon which I
am presently laboring.  I would give the citation of where to find it if I
knew that information presently.) 

This is an eloquent image of how Re comes to "Htp m 3sjr", and of course,
Osiris then comes to "Htp m R<w", for the two of them are periodically
reunited and the one recharges the other, allowing the life of the
universe to continue in its proper order.  Then Isis can mate with her
revived husband and regenerate Horus and the powers of creation.  This
event was probably the central element in the Sokar-Osiris Feast during
the month of Khoiahk, and a beautiful illustrations of it can be found on
either side of the Sokar Chapel of Sety I in his Abydos temple, as well as
in various Sokar-Osiris chapels of later temples such as those of Hibis,
Edfu, Dendara, etc.  I have a forthcoming publication on the iconography
of the Sokar Complex of Sety I at Abydos which will appear in the next
Yale Egyptological Studies volume within the next year.

Now, the reason that these texts are placed in the tombs of deceased
rulers is that each king was the incarnation of Horus, who was the
offspring of Osiris, and the life of the land.  When the king, or, for
that matter any person, died, he hoped to become an "Osiris" and hence
partake of the revitalization that occurs in the inner caverns of the
underworld.  

The imagery and the texts which accompany such burials are all designed to
work as magical spells which will identify the sleeping body of the
deceased with that of the all-important "battery" which Re must
necessarily come back to recharge in the night. In this fashion the
deceased hoped to be revived from death and be allowed to pursue a new
existence and remain a part of the created world eternally.  Thus, it was
absolutely essential that his/her body be preserved and hidden deep within
the earth, that other world through which the sun passes at night.  The
sun would revitalize him/her, and his/her Ba would then be freed to travel
with the celestial bodies who moved freely from one world into the next
and then back again. 

Yours, Geoffrey Graham
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:30:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL Aorist

Dear Phil,

Hi!

> In other words, if one must translate so many utterances with "aorists" (i.e. 
> "Let Re...," "May Re...," "if Re...," "would that Re..." etc.), then we have a 

Phil, you have misinterpreted the meaning of "aorist".  "Aorist" means the
general timeless tense, In English we say "he eats", it means he generally
eats, as opposed to "he is eating".  It describes an action which does not
necessarily have a beginning or an end, but one which is continuous, or at
least repetitive.

The translations you were describing are subjunctive.  I beleived that
subjunctive had been a possibility for the forms a couple of posts ago,
however the point has been clarified since then by James Hoch and Serge
Rosmorduc, who have cited Polotsky's idea that "noun sDm=f" represents the
Egyptian aorist.

> Is it possible that the Ramesside scribes used a "curtailed" form of the 
> "present" tense: something always true or perhaps always religiously and 
> mythologically true? This could also have been done for a variety of other 

Yes, apparently that is what it is.

> The term "aorist" should be carefully defined, language by language. The term 
> "aorist" is language-specific and not necessarily "made in heaven!"

Well, I am only aware of its usage to describe Coptic, Egyptian, and
Turkish, in all of which cases it designates the general case tense.  I do
not question that there might be other interpretations of "aorist" in
other language studies, but the ones that I know only have a single
definition. 

Yours, Geoff

==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:25:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL phonetic value of Osiris



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:16:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <sokar@pantheon.yale.edu>
To: ael@pantheon.yale.edu
Subject: phonetic value of Osiris

Dear Patrick,

A list colleague has sent me this reference to an article which I had
forgotten about, having read it long ago.  It basically supports my
previous assertion that the name Osiris was originally read "3sjr".

Yoshi Muchiki, "On the translation of the name Osiris", JEA 76 (1990),
pp.191-194.

Geoff


==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 06:38:42 +1100
From: Michael Dyall-Smith <Michael_Dyall-Smith@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: AEL phonetic value of Os
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk

        Reply to:   RE>AEL phonetic value of Osiris

Not sure if this has been added, but a year after this study noted by
Geoff:

> Yoshi Muchiki, "On the translation of the name Osiris",
>  JEA 76 (1990),pp.191-194.

Yoshi Muchiki put a little note in JEA to say that David Lorton had published
something earlier [ VA 1 (1985), 124f., n.27c] also suggesting the name be
read As-ir. 
  I think there was also a hostile response to this interpretation, but
I can't remember where.

Mike Dyall-Smith,
Melbourne
--------------------------------------
Date: 26/3/97 6:23 AM
To: Michael Dyall-Smith
From: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:16:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <sokar@pantheon.yale.edu>
To: ael@pantheon.yale.edu
Subject: phonetic value of Osiris

Dear Patrick,

A list colleague has sent me this reference to an article which I had
forgotten about, having read it long ago.  It basically supports my
previous assertion that the name Osiris was originally read "3sjr".

Yoshi Muchiki, "On the translation of the name Osiris", JEA 76 (1990),
pp.191-194.

Geoff



------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;26 Mar 1997 06:22:56 +1100
Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
 (PMDF V5.0-7 #17781) id <01IGY5M1DGKM000C4H@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> for
 Michael_Dyall-Smith@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 06:22:28 +1000
Received: from rostau.demon.co.uk ([194.222.22.205]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net
 id aa0604968; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from relay-10.mail.demon.net by rostau.demon.co.uk with SMTP id
 AA859313720 ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:15:20 +0000
Received: from relay-9.mail.demon.net by mailstore for
 AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk id 859310764:09:26981:7; Tue,
 25 Mar 1997 17:26:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail-relay1.cis.yale.edu ([130.132.21.199])
 by relay-10.mail.demon.net  id aa1013754; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from minerva.cis.yale.edu
 (sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu [130.132.143.250]) by mail-relay1.cis.yale.edu
 (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA27669 for <AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk>;
 Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:23:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (sokar@localhost)
 by minerva.cis.yale.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01435 for
 <AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:25:49 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:25:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
Subject: AEL phonetic value of Osiris
Sender: Ancient Egyptian Language List <AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk>
X-Sender: sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Reply-to: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Message-id: <Pine.GSO.3.94.970325122507.23216E-100000@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT



==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:21:00 -0500 (EST)
From: EHAshment@aol.com
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL Colorful Hieroglyphics



Hornung, Erik.  1992.  _Idea into Image:  Essays on Ancient Egyptian 
Thought_.  Translated by Elizabeth Bredeck.  Timken Publishers.

      Unlike other writing systems, hieroglyphs assign color, or a 
combination of colors, to every sign; this tendency underscores the close 
relationship of Egyptian writing to the visual arts.  Hieroglyphs are not 
pure graphemes; they are also pictures of reality, and as such they could 
reflect in some way the colors of the world they represent.  Each sign in 
the system therefore has both a set shape and a particular color.  The 
Egyptians used only red, yellow, green, blue, white, and black.  They did 
not mix these colors to create new colors, nor did they pay attention to 
such nuances as the difference between light and dark shades.  Plants and 
objects made of plant matter are always green in the hieroglyphic system, 
body parts and wooden objects red, the sky blue, and the earth black.  In 
some cases the choice derives from an objects' natural color; in others 
it does not.  The color of many bird signs does not correspond to the 
bird's actual appearance; similarly, black is used for waves, blue for 
clay or clay bricks, and blue or green for the horns of hoofed animals.
      Color can express something about the fundamental character of an 
object.  The Egyptian language itself suggests this symbolic potential; 
the word for "color" can be used as a synonym for "essence" or 
"character."  The red used in the written character for the "evil" bird 
(sparrow) has decidedly negative connotations.  Red also evokes the 
association "blood," as when it is used with the sign for a butcher knife 
of stone or metal.  Aside from its symbolic possibilities, coloration 
offers a practical way to differentiate between signs.  Red distinguishes 
the sparrow from the swallow, for instance, since the outline of both 
birds is often identical.  Colorations also helps distinguish between the 
two signs based on the shape of the male head.  In the drawing of 
hieroglyphs, the sign showing the head in profile is red, while the 
frontal head is yellow.  In this case, color has no symbolic value; it 
merely enables the Egyptians to use the same body part for two distinct 
characters.
      In some cases simplicity in the shape and color of hieroglyphs 
produces limitations in the inventory of the signs.  There are none to 
suggest the magnificence and variety of Egyptian gardens.  Differences 
between individual flowers and fruits seem to have mattered little, and 
of the many fruits and vegetables known to the Egyptians, only the 
cucumber, fig, and wine grape appear as signs.  Although they were 
familiar with a variety of different leaf shapes, they included only the 
lotus leaf in their writing system (26ff.).

*********


Edward H. Ashment (Ed)
EHAshment@aol.com




==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:20:44 -0500 (EST)
From: EHAshment@aol.com
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL wsir Htp m ra, ra pw Htp m wsir


Assmann observes that the vignettes tend to be the canonical parts of 
Egyptian writings.  The texts are interpretations of the vignettes, 
designed to 'enrich the meaning and to adapt the rite to specific 
theological and mythological contexts' (Jan Assmann, Semiosis and 
Interpretation in Ancient Egypt, in _Interpretation in Religion_, edited 
by Shlomo Biderman and Ben-Ami Scharfstein [Leiden:  E. J. Brill, 1992], 
97ff.).  In that regard, Bleeker observes that 'the illustrations of the 
texts are no artistic extras, but form an essential part of the texts, 
and sometimes even the main part' (C. J. Bleeker, _The Rainbow:  A 
Collection of Studies in the Science of Religion_, Studies in the History 
of Religions, vol. 30 [Leiden:  E. J. Brill, 1975], 100).

Accordingly the ram-headed (netherworldy Re), mummiform (Osiris) deity 
attended by Nephthys and Isis in Nefertiri's tomb would be the canonical 
element; and the clauses, wsir Htp m ra and ra pw Htp m wsir, would be 
its interpretation.  (Assmann notes that interpretations could 'vary from 
temple to temple, from god to god, and from feast to feast' [1992, 99].)

It is important to keep in mind that those of us brought up in a western, 
monotheistic tradition may have a difficult time understanding Egyptian 
polytheism.  Assmann rightly points out that 'polytheism' actually is an 
inappropriate description, 'because it is formed from the point of view 
of monotheism and does not serve as an element of self-definition for the 
religions that are classified as "polytheistic".  These religions are not 
concerned with the plurality of gods in the same way as monotheism is 
concerned with the oneness of the divine.  Second, because in primary 
religions, questions of religious pragmatics, of sacrifice, ritual and 
taboo, normally have priority over questions of "-theism", of the 
conceptions of god and of religious semantics.  Theology, however, 
belongs within the context of religions that are primarily concerned with 
the conception of god, i.e. monotheistic religions' (Jan Assmann, 
_Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom:  Re, Amun and the Crisis of 
Polytheism_ [London:  Kegan Paul International, 1995, xi).  

Acknowledging the importance of Hornung's _Der Eine und die Vielen_ 
(translated into English as _Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt_) in 
dismantling earlier theological models of Egyptian religion, Assmann 
reminds us not to be blinded to 'the vital significance of the attempt to 
articulate concepts of the unity of god and to harness this conception 
(or experience) with the ultimately indispensable reality of polytheism 
in Egyptian religion during these centuries [i.e., the NK].  This problem 
does not arise from our own "monotheistic" position, which makes it 
difficult for us to understand polytheistic cosmology, but confronts us 
in the texts themselves:  it is explicit, central and cannot be ignored.  
It is the dominant theme of the theological discourse which establishes 
the contours of Egyptian cosmology at the same time as determining the 
nature of the divine' (1995, 2f.).

Hornung examines the image in Nefertiti's tomb in the context of his 
discussion of Egyptian polytheism.  He writes:

'in his daily descent into the realm of the dead the sun god Re must also 
become "Osiris," for he dies and appears in the underworld as a "corpse." 
 But in this case the Egyptians imagine that there is a true union.  
Unlike the rest of the deceased, Re does not assume the title "Osiris"; 
instead he incorporates the ruler of the dead into his own being so 
profoundly that both have one body and can "speak with one mouth."  
Osiris does indeed seem to be absorbed into Re, and becomes the night 
sun, which awakens the underworld dwellers from the sleep of death.'  For 
Hornung, 'This daily reenacted union of two gods, the duration of which 
is clearly defined, is a different phenomenon from the syncretistic 
combination Amon-Re' (Erik Hornung, _Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: 
 The One and the Many_, translated by John Baines [Ithica:  Cornell 
University Press, 1982], 96).  Assmann (1995, 28) refers to this union as 
'the most secret arcanum known to the mysteries of the solar journey'. 
(See also ibid., 137.)

I hope this information is of some value to members of the list.  If not, 
please let me know (in small flames, preferably).



Edward H. Ashment (Ed)
EHAshment@aol.com




==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:31:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Phil was kind enough to send back the examples he pulled from Darnell's
dissertation.  As promised, I will try to discuss an interpretation of
their meaning in the context of Egyptian religion.

nn-n ntr.ty m sxr pn wn.w.t=sn <q.w m X3.w.t=sn

"These two goddesses are in this their custom of their hours having
entered into their bodies." 

It would be nice to see the accompanying illustration so that one could
make more sense out of the text.  The two goddesses are almost assuredly
Isis and Nephthys who reassemble and revive the body of Osiris.  I have
decided to divide the phrases slightly differently than Darnell did.  I
see a direct genitive expressed in "sxr pn wn.w.t=sn", rather than
Darnell's interpretation that "wn.w.t=sn" belongs to the following phrase.

My interpretation of "this the custom of their hours" is that of the
nightly vigil over the body of the god, which is well known from the
proceedings of the Sokar-Osiris Feast in the month of Khoiahk.  During one
particular night of which, the priesthood spent the entire night reciting
magical texts and performing rites over the image of the body of Osiris
which was constructed out of earth filled with grain seeds, they watered
it and waited for it to sprout (yes, like a Chia Pet!!).  You can see
actual examples of such "corn Osirises" from the tomb of Tutankhamun, in
which case the sprouting grain is still there, or the one from the tomb of
Horemheb where the sprouts are now gone, but you can see all the little
holes that were intended to let the young shoots pop out.  

Another illustration that goes well with the apparent context of this text
is the vignette to Chapter 151 of the Book of the Dead, in which we see
Isis and Nephthys kneeling at either end of the body of the deceased while
Anubis works on him.  The goddesses wear the head-coverings of bakers and
millers, and seem to be in a posture as if they were grinding grain, but
their millstones are Shen signs, symbols of protection and the circuit of
the universe.  A similar scene can be seen in the vignette to Chapter 182
of the Book of the Dead, where the goddesses stand with upraised arms at
either end of the bier of the deceased and the entire scene is surrounded
by protective deities. 

Many of these same deities in similar attitude (shaking lizards and
snakes) can be seen surrounding the "engendering"  scene on the South wall
of the Sokar Chapel at Sety I's temple at Abydos.  This action may have a
double function: on the one hand it represents the warding off of evil and
protection of the body of the deity, but on the other hand, it may also
represent ritual actions designed to increase abundance and fertility,
especially since the lizard represented the word "many" in the
hieroglyphic script.  I go into this in much greater detail in my paper
soon to be published, as mentioned in a previous post.  Meanwhile, I have
strayed far from the point of THIS post, which is an interpretation of the
meanings behind these texts.

I am not sure exactly why we have "X3.w.t=sn" and not "X3.t=f" "his body",
however, since the text is lifted from its context, it is difficult to say
exactly what is going on.

b3 R<w Dwj=f r=sn; sn m33=sn HD.w.t jtn=f

"The Ba of Re calls to them, and as for them, they see the brilliance of
his disk."

As for this piece, it is hard to say exactly without knowing the context
or the accompanying illustrations.  I think, however, that it is rather
straight forward.

b3.w=s(n) <pj=sn m (H)3t-<=f m Hr.y; sn mn.w m 3s.t=sn n(.y.t) b3/3x

"Their Bas fly upward before him, while they remain in their place of the
Ba/Akh." 

The same is true of this piece of text.  Are we still dealing with the two
goddesses or do we see other beings in this situation?

sn.ty Xnm=sn sw; sn r=sn x<j=sn tp.y=f m irw-f n.y b3 x<.y

"The two sisters join him; as for them, indeed, they shine upon him in
his form of a shining Ba."

As you can see, I have decided on another division of the words from that
proposed by Darnell.  I just do not think that there should be two objects
of the verb "Xnm", therefore, I have opted to make the first one its
object, while relegating the second one to the following idea.  

"Xnm" is most often used as "joining" in the sense of "putting" or
"fitting together"  rather than "joining" in a conjugal or sexual sense. 
It is true that in the ritual of "Xnm m jtn" the figure of the god of a
temple was taken to the roof in order to be united with the sun god at the
heliacal rising of that deity's respective star, however here, since we
seem to be talking about the body of Osiris, unless, once again, I am not
sure enough of the context of the text, indicating that a more
"constructional" meaning should be implied.  

Though, on the other hand, since what they do next is to "shine upon him",
then maybe we have an example of just such an activity, in which the
astral forms of the two goddesses are giving their light to him for the
purposes of his resurrection.  I have not been able to locate a particular
example, however a common vignette painted on coffins and cartonnages of
mummies from the Third Intermediate Period on represents rays of light
falling onto the body of the deceased.  These rays, however, usually
emanate from a solar disk or the upside-down head of a falcon, and probably
indicate a revitalizing action on the part of Re, rather than on the
part of these goddesses.

Hrw prj=f m X3.t jt=f Hkn=f n pn wtT sw sn.ty=fy Xnm=sn X3.t=f

"Horus emerges from the body of his father, that he might adore this one
who has begotten him as the two sisters join his body."

You will notice that I have opted to stick with a subjunctive
interpretation of the verb "Hkn".  It may not make a whole lot of
difference in the long run, however, it seems to me that this is the
logical progression of the line of text, and it would not at all be
uncommon to expect such grammar.  It refers to one of the purposes for
which Horus is engendered in the first place.  He has to be engendered so
that there will be a successor to the throne of the universe, and so that
he can do proper honor to his father and avenge his death.  And, now that
Horus has come into being, he will be expected to take an active role in
the joining, and treatment of his father's body.  The successor king must
always bury the body of his predecessor, and it is through this action
that his legitimacy is established.

I might add in passing that in both of the "engendering" scenes in the
Sokar Chapel at Abydos, Horus is present and actively participates in the
action.  To me this can indicate one of two possibilities: Horus is a
universal principal and is therefore timeless and the fact that he
participates in his own engenering is irrelevant, OR the scenes in
question do not actually represent an engendering of Horus, but the
resurrection of Osiris, the restoration of his functions, and the
engendering of the future fertility and prosperity of the universe.  No
where in the accompanying texts are we told that the scene represents the
engendering of Horus. 

The falcon that hovers over the phallus of the god in the scene on the
southern wall is labeled as "Isis", and it is clear that she is intended
to mate with the deity.  There are however other circumstances under which
a falcon can be depicted hovering over a body, one of which is visible in
the vignette to Chapter 89 of the Book of the Dead, where we see the Ba of
the deceased return to its body.  

Another such scene involving divine personages can be seen in the temple
of Opet at Karnak on its northern wall. Here, an ithyphallic falcon with
the head and crown of Amun or Min hovers over the naked body of Osiris on
his bier, with Isis and Nephthys in attendance.  The mythical location of
the action appears to be in an underworld or chaos context because at
both ends of the scene the gods and goddesses of the Ogdoad of Hermopolis
are depicted.  I would suggest that this scene represents the annual
return of Amun-Re of Karnak to the Western Bank where he visited the
temple of Medinet Habu, the location of the the supposed burial of the
Ogdoad.  Furthermore, I believe that the scene represents the reunion of
the Solar Ba with the corpse of Osiris, as I described in my previous post
about the Nefertari text.

Well, I am sorry for straying so far from the topic of the list, but I
hope that some of you will have been interested in my thoughts.

Yours, Geoff Graham
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:03:50 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL I Do  *Not*  Understand

I am confused about the particle of negation.  I am looking at a text 
from CXXVth Chapter of the Book of the Dead.

In Line 3 I see:

"n n Xri"  (do not cast me down)

Line 4:

"n n srtn bai(n)i"  (do not bring forward my wickedness)

Line 5

Also begins with the admonition "n n"

But Line 6 says:

"...n shni ntr n yw spi hr-tn" (not have I cursed (the) god, not has 
come my moment (of indictment) before you)

I realize this is basic stuff, but I honestly don't know why "n n" or 
just "n".  Does it have something to do with the fact the individual is 
addressing more than one person (in this case the gods) and therefore 
"n n"? Is it when he talks about himself, he just uses "n", being in the 
singular?

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

From: "M. A. R. Barker" <barke002@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 18:36:27 -0600

Dear Geoff,

Wrong again, Phil! Not p. "350" but *360"!!! Brain she not work too good...

Apologies, 

Phil


==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:31:41 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Graham wrote:
> 
> Phil was kind enough to send back the examples he pulled from Darnell's
> dissertation.  As promised, I will try to discuss an interpretation of
> their meaning in the context of Egyptian religion.
> 
> nn-n ntr.ty m sxr pn wn.w.t=sn <q.w m X3.w.t=sn
> 
> "These two goddesses are in this their custom of their hours having
> entered into their bodies."

Have I missed something here?  How does it indicate there were "two"?

> 
> It would be nice to see the accompanying illustration so that one could
> make more sense out of the text.  The two goddesses are almost assuredly
> Isis and Nephthys who reassemble and revive the body of Osiris. rather
> straight forward.

If it's actually "two" then it's Isis and Nephthys.  But if it's not 
limited to two, then other goddesses who preceed the sisters in the 
narrative are more associated with "hours" than they are.  To get a good 
overview of all this, including illustrations with accompanying texts, 
we could rely on our much-maligned friend, Budge, in his "From Fetish To 
God In Ancient Egypt".  At the point of the 10th Gate he writes:  "But 
Afu has other helpers, namely the gods of 'the stars that never set, and 
of the groups of stars which are seen in the eastern sky before sunrise. 
 With them are the star-goddesses of the twelve hours, and the gods of 
the great constellations, and the Ape-god of Syria.  Beyond these is the 
Eye of Horus, or Ra, on a stand, waiting to be united to the face of the 
solar disk."

After that, in the 11th Gate, all of the above plus a few others 
"arrange themselves on both sides of the Boat of Afu, and with loud 
cries of joy and hymns of praise they escort the god" to Gate 12, his 
final destination.  At that juncture "the doors close and the gods and 
souls who are once more left in the darkness of the Duat lament 
bitterly".

Now "by the doors stand the cobras of Isis and Nephthys" and "The beetle 
of Khepri is in the boat and is pushing toward the solar disk, and Isis 
and Nephthys are supporting him with their hands".

> 
> b3.w=s(n) <pj=sn m (H)3t-<=f m Hr.y; sn mn.w m 3s.t=sn n(.y.t) b3/3x
> 
> "Their Bas fly upward before him, while they remain in their place of the
> Ba/Akh."
> 
> The same is true of this piece of text.  Are we still dealing with the two
> goddesses or do we see other beings in this situation?

I was under the impression the examples were in context!  Anyway, back 
to "they remaining in their place of the ba/akh".  The more I look at 
this, I wonder if it shouldn't be "they maintaining their positions in 
(conjunction with)(or in support of) the ba/akh" and not necessarily 
implying that they were left behind in the Duat.  Otherwise, the passage 
would probably not be in reference to the Two Sisters, who were beyond 
the 12th Gate and united themselves with Ra as shown below:
> 
> sn.ty Xnm=sn sw; sn r=sn x<j=sn tp.y=f m irw-f n.y b3 x<.y
> 
> "The two sisters join him; as for them, indeed, they shine upon him in
> his form of a shining Ba."

(snip some good stuff)

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:59:24 -0800
From: Stephen Fryer <sfryer@prcn.org>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL wsir Htp m ra, ra pw Htp m wsir

EHAshment@aol.com wrote:
> Hornung examines the image in Nefertiti's tomb in the context of his
> discussion of Egyptian polytheism.  He writes:
> 
> 'in his daily descent into the realm of the dead the sun god Re must also
> become "Osiris," for he dies and appears in the underworld as a "corpse."
>  But in this case the Egyptians imagine that there is a true union.
> Unlike the rest of the deceased, Re does not assume the title "Osiris";
> instead he incorporates the ruler of the dead into his own being so
> profoundly that both have one body and can "speak with one mouth."
> Osiris does indeed seem to be absorbed into Re, and becomes the night
> sun, which awakens the underworld dwellers from the sleep of death.'  For
> Hornung, 'This daily reenacted union of two gods, the duration of which
> is clearly defined, is a different phenomenon from the syncretistic
> combination Amon-Re' (Erik Hornung, _Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt:
>  The One and the Many_, translated by John Baines [Ithica:  Cornell
> University Press, 1982], 96).  Assmann (1995, 28) refers to this union as
> 'the most secret arcanum known to the mysteries of the solar journey'.
> (See also ibid., 137.)
> 
> I hope this information is of some value to members of the list.  If not,
> please let me know (in small flames, preferably).

Having only the text from these scenes without the vignettes that they
belong to is, as you point out, to miss a considerable portion of the
meaning.

>From the text, I had got the impression that the first sentence was a
caption, and just possibly the second was an explanation of the first,
which was perhaps felt to be so obscure as to clarification.

It had also occurred to me that perhaps what was referred to was Re
becoming Osiris at sunset, travelling through the underworld, and
transforming into Re at sunrise (seen as Osiris setting).  However, the
vignette accompanying this passage would need to be seen to tell if this
seemed a reasonable interpretation of what was intended.

Stephen Fryer
Lund Computer Services
Lund, BC

***************************************************
The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
***************************************************
==============================================================================

From: "M. A. R. Barker" <barke002@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 18:32:48 -0600

Dear Geoff,

Ouch. I see I have made you work very hard and possibly for nothing! I thought I
indicated in my first letter that the first quotation is indeed from the Second 
shrine of Tutankhamun: Darnell, p. 215. The other quotations I noted were from 
p. 350, where Darnell is dealing with another text entirely: the "enigmatic" 
text on the ceiling of corridor G og the Tomb of Ramesses VI. Moreover, Darnell 
is *quoting* from two other books: Hornung's "Das Buch des Anbetung des Re im 
Westen," and then from Piankoff, "La creation du disque solaire." 

I didn't think we would need the sources of these texts, other than to note 
their location in Darnell's book, where complete citations can be found. The 
texts I sent were thus just snippets, put in for the purpose of asking 
grammatical questions  and not expecting that we would need more definition.

Regards,

Phil


==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:07:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Hi, Maryanne,

Thanks for the interesting input.  In certain measure you are really
right, as will be seen below.

> > nn-n ntr.ty m sxr pn wn.w.t=sn <q.w m X3.w.t=sn
> > 
> > "These two goddesses are in this their custom of their hours having
> > entered into their bodies."
> 
> Have I missed something here?  How does it indicate there were "two"?

Darnell, originally transcribed the first word as "ntryt", I believe, and
I used Phil's recent messages and checked on the original in line drawing
on figure 42 of _The Shrines of Tutankhamun_ by A. Piankoff.  The text
accompanies a series of six hour goddesses.  The text is written in
cryptographic hieroglyphs, and the word is rendered with the following
signs:

{red crown}{tether}{locust}{sprig of plants}{sprig of plants}{tether}

These signs would come together to indicate "ntryt", which might be an
acceptable writing of "nTr.w.t" "goddesses" (plural!).

They clearly are not Isis and Nephthys.  You were quite right.  Now it is
so many posts back, and I do not have records, so I cannot remember if it
was I who interpreted the writing as "two goddesses" first, or whether
Darnell had translated it that way.  Moreover, the entire tableau of this
wall of the shrine shows the solar disk with the ram-headed Ba inside it
being conducted into the underworld and moved along past various beings.

> > b3.w=s(n) <pj=sn m (H)3t-<=f m Hr.y; sn mn.w m 3s.t=sn n(.y.t) b3/3x

> I was under the impression the examples were in context!  

No, Phil drew out sentences at random for grammatical analysis.

Anyway, back 
> to "they remaining in their place of the ba/akh".  The more I look at 
> this, I wonder if it shouldn't be "they maintaining their positions in 
> (conjunction with)(or in support of) the ba/akh" and not necessarily 
> implying that they were left behind in the Duat.  Otherwise, the passage 
> would probably not be in reference to the Two Sisters, who were beyond 
> the 12th Gate and united themselves with Ra as shown below:

I think this is an excellent idea.  It makes good sense, and the grammar
can support it.  In that case, we should interpret the "n" as the
preposition and not the genitive "n.y".  Here is an example of the
pitfalls of the reconstructive transliteration which I employed.  My
transliteration reflected MY interpretation of the grammar at the time
that I looked at the text, and this was based mostly upon how Darnell
seemed to be translating the text.  However, when the meaning is still not
clear, and the interpretive work is not necessarily yet over, it is
possibly better to leave the text in its original form until the process
of translation and interpretation has been completed.  In the future, when
we are dealing with texts that are questionable, I will try to refrain
from changing the transliteration until I give MY particular
interpretation, rather than editing the original line.  Of course,
Darnell's interpretation is ALSO tenable, and I am not saying that I would
fault him for it.  It is ONE of various possible translations.

> > sn.ty Xnm=sn sw; sn r=sn x<j=sn tp.y=f m irw-f n.y b3 x<.y
> > 
> > "The two sisters join him; as for them, indeed, they shine upon him in
> > his form of a shining Ba."

Unfortunately I have not been able to locate the original for this one.


Yours, Geoff
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:16:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Hi, Maryanne,

> Since these goddesses are also star-deities, I wonder if there is a
> possibility the scribe didn't know the proper spelling of "nn", meaning
> to "rise or to shine as a celestial body"--like Nenit the goddess of the
> first hour of the day.  
>   So maybe the passage was intended to start out "Rise
> (or shine or appear or manifest) the goddesses in their customary 
> arrangement."

The text in question represents the word as:

{star}{tether}{sun disk}{plural strokes}

Whatever the intended word, it clearly was conceived of as a feminine
plural, but because it is written in cryptography, it is a bit difficult
to say.  I think that "wn.w.t" is perhaps the most likely meaning.

Geoff
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

P.S. To all of you who have been writing messages, either to me personally
or on the list, thank you, and I DO intend to answer you eventually, but
this is the very peak of my week, and I will have little time for a while.
I will do the best that I can to respond.


==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:55:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Ouellet Brigitte <ouellebr@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA>
To: group discussion <AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk>
Subject: AEL Wsir m Htp Ra, Ra pw Htp m Wsir


About Wsir m Htp Ra, Ra pw Htp m Wsir,

Just to add up a small contribution... The vignette wich goes with the
text has been also published in:

A. Belluccio (1993), =ABLe mythe du Phenix a la lumiere de la
consubstantialite royale du pere et du fils=BB, dans Atti VI Congresso
II: fig. 1 et 2 p. 37 reproductions de la tombe de Ramses VI (KV#9).

I found that this vignette was a pretty good example to show
students the interrelation of text, art and religion. Have been reading
the commentaries on this text for a while but I just make the
connection with the "image". Such exercice is a good practice for
begginers to developp the figurative aspect of the EAL.

Thanks to all for this most interesting discussion      =20

Brigitte Ouellet=20
Sciences de la religion
Faculte de theologie
Universite de Montreal

==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:55:19 -0500 (EST)
From: EHAshment@aol.com
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books


On 26 March 1997, Marianne Luban wrote:

>> nn-n ntr.ty m sxr pn wn.w.t=sn <q.w m X3.w.t=sn
>> 
>> "These two goddesses are in this their custom of their hours having
>> entered into their bodies."
>
>Have I missed something here?  How does it indicate there were "two"?

-ty would be the dual ending.  See Gardiner's Gr., section 72.



Edward H. Ashment (Ed)
EHAshment@aol.com




==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:40:43 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Graham wrote:
> 
> Hi, Maryanne,
> 
> > Since these goddesses are also star-deities, I wonder if there is a
> > possibility the scribe didn't know the proper spelling of "nn", meaning
> > to "rise or to shine as a celestial body"--like Nenit the goddess of the
> > first hour of the day.
> >   So maybe the passage was intended to start out "Rise
> > (or shine or appear or manifest) the goddesses in their customary
> > arrangement."
> 
> The text in question represents the word as:
> 
> {star}{tether}{sun disk}{plural strokes}
> 
> Whatever the intended word, it clearly was conceived of as a feminine
> plural, but because it is written in cryptography, it is a bit difficult
> to say.  I think that "wn.w.t" is perhaps the most likely meaning.

Hi Geoff,

I don't think we're talking about the same word.  I am referring to the 
"nn.n" at the very start of the example "nn.n ntryt m sHr pn; wnw.t=sn 
<q.w m H3w.t=sn"

I can't tell you how much I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss 
this with you!

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:03:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL wsir Htp m ra, ra pw Htp m wsir

Hi, Stephen,

> It had also occurred to me that perhaps what was referred to was Re
> becoming Osiris at sunset, travelling through the underworld, and
> transforming into Re at sunrise (seen as Osiris setting).  However, the
> vignette accompanying this passage would need to be seen to tell if this
> seemed a reasonable interpretation of what was intended.

Appearance of the scene in Nefertari's tomb from which the text was
extracted:

The vignette shows a mummiform deity, facing to the right, with a ram's
head crowned by a sun disk, and ceintured by a knotted band, standing on a
Maat pedestal.  To his right is Isis with her hands extended to support
him, while Nephthys makes the same gestures to his left, behind him.
These goddesses wear the baker's head-gear tied with a fillet, and are
crowned by their respective name signs, wearing red metjam dresses with
knotted ceintures tied around them.  The god is labeled as "Re".  Behind
the god, in the space between him and Nephtys's legs is the first part of
the inscription: "3sjr Htp m r<w", while the second part is in the
corresponding location in front of him: "r<w pw Htp m 3sjr".  Behind Isis
is the inscription: "z3 <nx Dd w3s snb nb H3=s nb": "all protection,
life, stability, dominion, and health are around her".  The entire scene
is framed with a heaven sign above it supported on either side by
was-scepters.  Interestingly, Isis' right hand has been lowered
asymetrically with respect to the correpsonding left hand of Nephthys,
possibly in order ofr it not to rest on the genitals of the god, though
this kind of prudishness does not seem to be all that Egyptian.

I hope this will help.  If you want to see it for yourself, you might look
at Page 94 of _Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt_ by Erik Hornung.

Yours, Geoff
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:05:12 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL Affirmative Again

In Lesson XIX of Gardiner's "Grammar" he discusses the particle "is".  
Gardiner claims here that "is" has the capability of being used to say 
"lo", "behold" and "indeed".  He also says "In Late Egyptian 'is' is 
often employed like "ist" at the beginning of a sentence; however in the 
sporadic examples of this found as early as Dynasty XVIII 'is' is 
possibly an interrogative particle."  Later he admits (page 402 (2) that 
he isn't so sure about this.  On this same page Gardiner reiterates that 
"is" has the meaning of "indeed" and "verily".

What is plainly happening is that poor Gardiner cannot quite bring 
himself to say "Dash it all, the term probably has the value of YES."  
Why is also obvious.  God forbid, if one should transliterate it 
"ys"--then what have you got?  That might present a linguistic problem. 
 So Gardiner "didn't go there" as we say today.

Another example of shying away from the obvious is presented by Budge 
(B-word to some but I have found him not a bad teacher).  He translates: 
 "is sr pf n Sa spr r (Aneb-hedet?) m wX" or "Behold, that prince of 
Sais (who) went forth to Memphis in the night".

So far not so bad, but then:  "is pf3 pw dd n sdm" or "Behold, that 
which is said to the listener(s)"

LOL!  What is wrong with this picture?  My English dictionaries (and 
yours) give "lo" and "behold" as meaning "look!", "see!".  Maybe I'm 
dense but I fail to comprehend how one can "see" or "behold" anything 
that is being *said* (unless one can read lips).

"is" is "yes" pure and simple.  It is no different from "indeed" or 
"verily".  Both of these last two could be used as an affirmative 
response in English, except it would be deemed old-fashioned to employ 
such affirmatives.  The ancient Egyptians didn't know this.  It was all 
"yes" to them, whether at the start of a phrase or in the middle.  They 
didn't create so many synonyms for this concept.  Here's an illustration 
of what I mean:  In English we might say "He does, indeed, go to the 
cinema" (kind of a clumsy sentence).  But a German could say "Er geht ja 
zum Kino".  Ja is "yes", even so it's an emphatic here.

Gardiner says that "is" and "ist" are the same thing, but he seems a bit 
vague about it.  I think it's not true.  "ist", despite it's similarity 
to "is" is something different.  Yes, they are both often employed as 
emphatics.  The best way I can describe "ist" is to compare it with the 
French "c'est" as in "C'est lui" (it is he).  At the beginning of the 
Egyptian sentence that is rather straightforward.  Otherwise, it's a bit 
unusual to our western eye--unless we are accustomed to Dr. Seuss--"Sam 
I am" (Green Eggs and Ham).  If the difference between "is and "ist" 
confused people, even Gardiner, it's easy to understand why.  In point 
of fact, it doesn't much matter.  There is not much difference, really, 
in the gist of a sentence between "It is your house that is standing in 
your garden" and "Indeed, your house stands in your garden--Gardiner!"

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:43:51 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL Lo and Behold

"Mk wi!"  In this fashion I say "Behold, it is I (again!).  Just in case 
someone wondered, as I didn't like "ist" as "behold", what would I say 
in such an event.  "m<" has been shown to be "behold".  It's all brought 
out in Gardiner, page 178-179.  It's another emphatic, intended to be 
pictorial.  "mk" seems to be the usual way of addressing a singualr 
person, but it changes accordingly ("mt" when addressing a lady or "mtn" 
when talking to several persons).  If "Mk wi!" (Behold, here I am) 
doesn't seem to fit in with this, remember that is really "See you, 
it is I" or even more grammatically similar "Me voici" in the French.

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:41:55 -0800
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
From: Stephen Fryer <sfryer@prcn.org>
Subject: Re: AEL Wsir m Htp Ra, Ra pw Htp m Wsir

At 10:55 AM 97/03/26 -0500, you wrote:
>
>About Wsir m Htp Ra, Ra pw Htp m Wsir,
>
>I found that this vignette was a pretty good example to show
>students the interrelation of text, art and religion. Have been reading
>the commentaries on this text for a while but I just make the
>connection with the "image". Such exercice is a good practice for
>begginers to developp the figurative aspect of the EAL.

For those who are (as I was) wondering what this vignette looks like, I
scanned the picture out of Hornung's _Valley of the Kings: Horizon of
Eternity_ (Eng. tr. of _Tal der Koenigen_), p.129 and made it available at
http://pr.mala.bc.ca/~fryersj/Egyptian/small.gif
His commentary on this is on pp. 121-2.

It is a lot more informative tho have the vignette in front of me, not just
the transliteration of the text!

Stephen Fryer
Lund Computer Services
Lund, BC  V0N 2G0
Canada

*****************************
The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
*****************************

==============================================================================

From: "Hugn T. Anthony" <hanthony@erie.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:26:38 -0500
Subject: AEL Please someone help me.
CC: James@moose.erie.net

   
     I'm only an eigth grader but I would really like to learn
hieroglyphics and this is the first site that I have visited that
actually spends time to discuss this language, and you know
what they say, learn young grow old wise.So if anyone can
maybe send me some basic text to get me started I would really
be greatful.
==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 07:49:57 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL More On "Ist"

I wrote:
> 
> In Lesson XIX of Gardiner's "Grammar" he discusses the particle "is".
> Gardiner claims here that "is" has the capability of being used to say
> "lo", "behold" and "indeed".  He also says "In Late Egyptian 'is' is
> often employed like "ist" at the beginning of a sentence; however in the 
> sporadic examples of this found as early as Dynasty XVIII 'is' is
> possibly an interrogative particle."  Later he admits (page 402 (2) that
> he isn't so sure about this.  On this same page Gardiner reiterates that
> "is" has the meaning of "indeed" and "verily".(snip)
> 
> "is" is "yes" pure and simple.  It is no different from "indeed" or
> "verily".  Both of these last two could be used as an affirmative
> response in English, except it would be deemed old-fashioned to employ
> such affirmatives.  The ancient Egyptians didn't know this.  It was all
> "yes" to them, whether at the start of a phrase or in the middle.  They
> didn't create so many synonyms for this concept.  Here's an illustration
> of what I mean:  In English we might say "He does, indeed, go to the
> cinema" (kind of a clumsy sentence).  But a German could say "Er geht ja
> zum Kino".  Ja is "yes", even so it's an emphatic here.
> 
> Gardiner says that "is" and "ist" are the same thing, but he seems a bit
> vague about it.  I think it's not true.  "ist", despite it's similarity
> to "is" is something different.  Yes, they are both often employed as
> emphatics.  The best way I can describe "ist" is to compare it with the
> French "c'est" as in "C'est lui" (it is he).  At the beginning of the
> Egyptian sentence that is rather straightforward.  Otherwise, it's a bit
> unusual to our western eye--unless we are accustomed to Dr. Seuss--"Sam
> I am" (Green Eggs and Ham).  If the difference between "is and "ist"
> confused people, even Gardiner, it's easy to understand why.  In point
> of fact, it doesn't much matter.  There is not much difference, really,
> in the gist of a sentence between "It is your house that is standing in
> your garden" and "Indeed, your house stands in your garden--Gardiner!"
> 

I think I should clarify something about "ist".  Perhaps I made it seem 
some form of the verb "to be" in the third person or "it is".  No!  It's 
an emphatic only.  Since I wrote about it yesterday I thought of an even 
better example to illustrate it:  It can be found in that nostalgic old 
song "Danny Boy" when the tenor sings "It's I'll be heeeerre...." Before 
I knew about "is" and "ist", I never questioned that seemingly odd way 
of saying "Indeed, I'll be here" because it sounded not only Irish, but 
somehow right.  And it is a very old way of emphatically saying things, 
not only in Ireland.

Although "in" is most often employed as the interrogative particle, 
sometimes "is" is employed.  Gardiner gives this example on page 402:
"is bn sm ssmt m-s3 ssmt" which he translates as "Will not horse go 
after horse?"  This, of course, implies "following" (not some other 
activity).  Yet it must more correctly, if not more gracefully, be 
translated as "True (it's) not horse goes after horse?"  This seems an 
odd way of asking a question to us, but it's very oriental and I have 
heard modern Egyptians ask questions using much the same construction.

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:37:53 -0800
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
From: Stephen Fryer <sfryer@prcn.org>
Subject: Re: AEL Lo and Behold

At 06:43 PM 97/03/26 -0600, you wrote:
>"Mk wi!"  In this fashion I say "Behold, it is I (again!).  Just in case 
>someone wondered, as I didn't like "ist" as "behold", what would I say 
>in such an event.  "m<" has been shown to be "behold".  It's all brought 
>out in Gardiner, page 178-179.  It's another emphatic, intended to be 
>pictorial.  "mk" seems to be the usual way of addressing a singualr 
>person, but it changes accordingly ("mt" when addressing a lady or "mtn" 
>when talking to several persons).  If "Mk wi!" (Behold, here I am) 
>doesn't seem to fit in with this, remember that is really "See you, 
>it is I" or even more grammatically similar "Me voici" in the French.

"Mk wy" seems to me to translate fairly literally as "See me."  The arm sign
usually used in writing this was originally the variety which conveys the
consonants "mj," so the word is properly mj.k, with the pronominal suffix
endings.  The Egyptians seem to have been somewhat sloppy about singular and
plural agreement, and I think that in this case the plural form mj.tn may
only have been used to emphasize the plurality of your listeners.

mj.k wy ii.kw  Look at me, I have arrived.  or See me, I am here.


Stephen Fryer
Lund Computer Services
Lund, BC  V0N 2G0
Canada

*****************************
The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
*****************************

==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:57:24 -0500 (EST)
From: <kadishg@binghamton.edu>
To: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
cc: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

    I have been following the AEL discussions with considerable interest,
although entering the discussion only rarely. I think, as Mr. Graham
points out, that AEL is better for those learning the language than ANE
(which is diverse and often very specialized). I find myself somewhat
unclear, however, about the level of competence of some of the active
participants. I cannot tell, for example, whether some of the people
attempting to deal with funerary texts are quite advanced or merely
jumping the gun according to their interests. My own opinion is that
mortuary texts such as the Book of the Dead, while quite fascinating and
posing an almost irresistible lure, are for people who have already cut
their teeth on Middle Egyptian historical and literary texts (having gone
thru much, if not all, of Gardiner or, better, Hoch). I could even see a
case for trying some Coffin Texts before moving on to BD.
     I am not at all reluctant to try to be helpful where I can, within
the boundaries of available time, but I could use some guidance as to
where folks are in this fascinating pursuit. -- Gerry Kadish  

Gerald E. Kadish
Professor of History and Near Eastern Studies
Department of History
Binghamton University (SUNY)
Binghamton, NY 13902-6000
(607) 777-2488
e-mail: kadishg@binghamton.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 11:13:54 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Graham wrote:
> 
> Hi, Maryanne,
> 
> > I don't think we're talking about the same word.  I am referring to the
> > "nn.n" at the very start of the example "nn.n ntryt m sHr pn; wnw.t=sn
> > <q.w m H3w.t=sn"
> 
> Oh, I see.  No, that word should definitely be "nn n(.y)" "these of"
> meaning simply "these".  In this text, it is represented by three {red
> crown} signs.  It apparently occurs frequently in said text.  The passage
> we have been examining is just one little part of the whole.
> 
> Were you thinking that they might represent a Late Egyptian writing of the
> question word "jn" which so often gets garbled as "nn"?  I would tend to
> doubt that that sort of Late Egyptian scribal corruption would be executed
> on an object of such profound religious significance.

I must apologize for the way my server makes a mess of the quoted 
material.  It bothers me, too.  But no, I wasn't referring to the 
interrogative particle "in".  I meant a verb "nn" written *double pot, 
determinative solar disc with rays*.  It appears to mean "to rise(of a 
celestial body) to shine.  This is the element of the name of Nenit, the 
goddess of the first hour of the day.  It also has to do with "nn", the 
winters solstice, which, incidentally, it written out with a picture of 
Isis and Nephthys adoring the radiant disc below which is an "ankh".  
Sometimes there are three *pots* involved in this concept of "rise and 
shine", but *three red crowns* I don't know about, so you are doubtless 
correct.  The only odd thing is, when I looked up those crowns as "nn.n" 
so that I could see what you meant, I saw that the *crowns* as a 
demonstrative particle are also variously written with those same 
*pots*!  Isn't it unsual for a demonstrative particle to begin a phrase 
before the subject?  What is the position of that "nn.n" in the rest of 
the text?

(snip of statement with which I agree wholeheartedly).

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:37:56 -0800
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
From: Stephen Fryer <sfryer@prcn.org>
Subject: Re: AEL Affirmative Again

Rather than emphatic, perhaps js and jst are better regarded as continuative.

I note that js is used as an enclitic, whereas jst is non-enclitic.  The
Egyptians must have felt there was some difference between them to use them
in  different ways.

Do you imply some historical-linguistic connection between js and English
yes?  Or was your intention simply to suggest that Gardiner, etc. avoided
this translation to avoid accusations of making such a connection?  I find
the former to be wildly implausible.

Stephen Fryer
Lund Computer Services
Lund, BC  V0N 2G0
Canada

*****************************
The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
*****************************

==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:37:58 -0800
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
From: Stephen Fryer <sfryer@prcn.org>
Subject: Re: AEL Please someone help me.

At 06:26 PM 97/03/26 -0500, you wrote:
>   
>     I'm only an eigth grader but I would really like to learn
>hieroglyphics and this is the first site that I have visited that
>actually spends time to discuss this language, and you know
>what they say, learn young grow old wise.So if anyone can
>maybe send me some basic text to get me started I would really
>be greatful.

Welcome!  I was once a seventh grader who was interested in Hieroglyphics
and was recently (35 years later) kidded by one of my former fellow students
for having tried to teach the other grade sevens hieroglyphics.  So, welcome
to the club!

As for finding information on Hieroglyphics, I presume you have ransacked
your school and public libraries for information, as I did.  There are a
couple of useful sites on the Web that teach an introduction to Hieroglyphics.

Serge Rosmorduc has an excellent and interesting site at
      http://www.iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/EgyptienE.html
(Serge: are you going to continue with this valuable project?)

There is a site which is gradually developing lessons on reading
hieroglyphics at
     http://www.netvision.be/egyptologica/e_hiero.htm

Also, I have been, mostly for my own education, putting together some (VERY)
simple reading lessons in Egyptian at
     http://pr.mala.bc.ca/~fryersj/Egyptian/Main.html

I hope this small amount of information helps.  And of course, don't
hesitate to ask any questions about Egyptian here on this list!

Best wishes in your quest.

Stephen Fryer
Lund Computer Services
Lund, BC  V0N 2G0
Canada

*****************************
The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
*****************************

==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:35:11 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Affirmative Again

Stephen Fryer wrote:
> 
> Rather than emphatic, perhaps js and jst are better regarded as continuative.
> 
> I note that js is used as an enclitic, whereas jst is non-enclitic.  The
> Egyptians must have felt there was some difference between them to use them
> in  different ways.
> 
> Do you imply some historical-linguistic connection between js and English
> yes?  Or was your intention simply to suggest that Gardiner, etc. avoided
> this translation to avoid accusations of making such a connection?  I find
> the former to be wildly implausible.

Dear Stephen,

What I think doesn't matter at all.  But, yes, I think Gardiner was 
careful lest someone say just what you have said.  But before you 
dismiss all such avenue of thought as beyond the bounds of reason, may I 
ask you how you think these two terms came into the English 
language--ebony and ibis?  They are both Egyptian words, the latter 
Hellenized a bit. The diffusion of language can be a strange and 
unaccountable thing.  And that is all I intend to say about that.

Just a note, though.  On a language discussion list such as this one, it 
will be unavoidable to make some comparisons between Egyptian and 
English and other tongues.  That is the only means at our disposal to 
explain what we think about the meaning of Egyptian terms and 
their combinations.  Gardiner, for example, employs a good deal of 
French in his "Grammar" to illustrate his points.  This doesn't 
necessarily mean he thought Egyptian and French were so much alike.  
French was simply a language with which he was familiar and he assumed a 
like familiarity among those utilizing his book.  So, where English 
failed, French usually took up the slack.  It seems to work in the 
"Grammar" to good effect.

Marianne Luban 


> 
> Stephen Fryer
> Lund Computer Services
> Lund, BC  V0N 2G0
> Canada
> 
> *****************************
> The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
> *****************************
==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:55:11 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Lo and Behold

Stephen Fryer wrote:
> 
> At 06:43 PM 97/03/26 -0600, you wrote:
> >"Mk wi!"  In this fashion I say "Behold, it is I (again!).  Just in case
> >someone wondered, as I didn't like "ist" as "behold", what would I say
> >in such an event.  "m<" has been shown to be "behold".  It's all brought
> >out in Gardiner, page 178-179.  It's another emphatic, intended to be
> >pictorial.  "mk" seems to be the usual way of addressing a singualr
> >person, but it changes accordingly ("mt" when addressing a lady or "mtn"
> >when talking to several persons).  If "Mk wi!" (Behold, here I am)
> >doesn't seem to fit in with this, remember that is really "See you,
> >it is I" or even more grammatically similar "Me voici" in the French.

Stephen:
> "Mk wy" seems to me to translate fairly literally as "See me." 

Well, don't forget that the "k" on the end of "mk" amounts to "you see"
or "see you", which, to me, adds up to "behold", an imperative.

> The arm sign
> usually used in writing this was originally the variety which conveys the
> consonants "mj," so the word is properly mj.k, with the pronominal suffix
> endings.  The Egyptians seem to have been somewhat sloppy about singular and
> plural agreement, and I think that in this case the plural form mj.tn may
> only have been used to emphasize the plurality of your listeners.

Although I am not capable of agreeing with you about the "mj", you are 
entirely right in your last statement.
> 
> mj.k wy ii.kw  Look at me, I have arrived.  or See me, I am here.
> 
> Stephen Fryer

How about "ii.kwi" or maybe "ii.ni"?

> *****************************
> The more answers I find, the more questions I have.
> *****************************

I'm right with you there.

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:52:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Ouellet Brigitte <ouellebr@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA>
To: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
cc: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL It is Osiris who sets as Re'

> 
> > > 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.  ;-)

Dear Geoff,

I for one would be glad if you could go on with this interesting 
discussion. I can understand that the religious discussion is'nt the goal
of this list. However, it may be point out that if we are talking about
egyptian language we can'nt limit a language strictly to grammatical and
syntaxic facts without reducing it to a philological problem cutting off
the thoughts that organized it. In doing that I feel we are loosing alot
and saying in someway, these thoughts are'nt important to understand the
language-writing etc. :)

This rises another important issue that never really was talked about here
and that puzzle me alot. If we are to talk about ancient egyptian
language(s)- mainly middle egyptian, how can we jump just like that
translate and talk about grammar and syntax matters? In doing so we are
avoiding a very important task - interpretation. To my point of view, all
translations, every choice we make are interpretation of a text which
holds philological matters as well a a world of sens, and to validate it
is to confront it in nourrishing a dynamic between the text and our own
presuppositions. Please do not missunderstand me here, I'm just pointing
out that in the process of translation we are in the process of
interpretation and as such, there are various moments to considere. In
considering only parts of them we somehow tend only to parts of the task
and attain a partial meaning. But maybe I'm wrong...

Having to teach new begginners at the present, coming from anthropology,
ethnolinguistic, history and art, I found out that in including in the
process a discussion regarding whatever thoughts the text translated
holds, is a very good pedagocical method which reveals the richness
behind. 

If it should be decided that the discussion proposed on the text should be
done elswhere. Please include me.

Best regards,
Brigitte
Ouellebr@MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA 

 > > Yours, Geoff
> sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu
> 

==============================================================================

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:10:47 +0000
From: Mark Wilson <weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL Translation + Interpretation

Ouellet Brigitte wrote:
 
> I for one would be glad if you could go on with this interesting
> discussion. I can understand that the religious discussion is'nt the 
> goal  of this list. However, it may be point out that if we are 
> talking about
> egyptian language we can'nt limit a language strictly to grammatical 
> and  syntaxic facts without reducing it to a philological problem 
> cutting off  the thoughts that organized it. 

As stated in the list's welcome message, "the primary focus of the list 
is the scholarly discussion of the ancient Egyptian languages and 
ancient Egyptian *texts*." (Emphasis added).

This means that a discussion of the interpretation of texts *is* okay on 
the list, provided that such a discussion is clearly related to actual 
Ancient Egyptian texts. The discussion must be conducted in a 
(reasonably) scholarly manner with clear and sensible reasoning used. 

I would like to point out, just so that we are clear about it from the 
outset, that the pursuit of any religious, political, racist, New Age, 
or otherwise strange agenda in the discussion is not considered suitable
for the list.

> Having to teach new begginners at the present, coming from 
> anthropology,
> ethnolinguistic, history and art, I found out that in including in the
> process a discussion regarding whatever thoughts the text translated
> holds, is a very good pedagocical method which reveals the richness
> behind.
> 
> If it should be decided that the discussion proposed on the text 
> should be done elswhere. Please include me.

After all, the reason we translate the texts is to find out what they 
say. The difficulty is often that simply that finding out what they say 
is not always sufficient to for us to *understand* the meaning.

My own personal view is that I too find this discussion to be of great
interest and importance.


Regards to all,

Mark Wilson
weneg@rostau.demon.co.uk
==============================================================================

From: "M. A. R. Barker" <barke002@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Translation + Interpretation
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 97 17:16:39 -0600

Dear Colleagues,

I tend to be more of a "language-and-culture" person than a theoretical 
linguist. I would be be very happy to see discussions of what some of our 
Egyptian texts *mean,* as well as how one classifies various verb forms (though 
I admit this interests me too).

I think we're all on track so far. I don't see very many of our Listeros trying 
to convert us to strange religious, social, etc. theories -- thank heaven! The 
web has enough places for those folks to push their respective wheelbarrows!

> Ouellet Brigitte wrote:

> As stated in the list's welcome message, "the primary focus of the list 
> is the scholarly discussion of the ancient Egyptian languages and 
> ancient Egyptian *texts*." (Emphasis added).
> 
> This means that a discussion of the interpretation of texts *is* okay on 
> the list, provided that such a discussion is clearly related to actual 
> Ancient Egyptian texts. The discussion must be conducted in a 
> (reasonably) scholarly manner with clear and sensible reasoning used. 

Perfect.

> I would like to point out, just so that we are clear about it from the 
> outset, that the pursuit of any religious, political, racist, New Age, 
> or otherwise strange agenda in the discussion is not considered suitable
> for the list.

Also perfect.

Phil



==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:36:24 -0500 (EST)
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
From: "Mr. Timothy T. Dickens" <ttd3@columbia.edu>
Subject: AEL 'SB3, SEBA' and the Greek word 'Sophia'
Cc: belcherr@amcmail.atlm.peachnet.edu, jeaton@amc1500.atlm.peachnet.edu

[Moderator's note: Timothy's question is very much on the edge of the
 scope of the list. Please reply to him directly.

 Timothy, could you please reduce the size of your signature when posting
 to the list. Some people pay according to the bandwidth used and don't
 want to pay to keep receiving the same 20 line signature...thanks.
]

Dear friends and family,

        I am doing some research on the connection between Greek and
Egyptian words, and I have a question with the Egyptian word SB3, SEBA.  

        According to a source that I am now reading, I understand that this
word means "to educate" or "to learn" in Pharonic Egyptian, from the text of
the Pyramids (12, 9). 

If this is correct and, if the letter 'B' in this word can be pronounced as
a 'PH,' I am wondering if the word SB3, SEBA can be understood or thought of
as the Greek equilivent 'SOPHOS' meaning 'wise?'  Does anyone on this list
have any insights into this question?

Thanks
Peace and Love,
Timothy T. Dickens
Smyrna, GA

MDick39708@gnn.com   Home
ttd3@Columbia.edu    School

Please visit my website at:
		http://members.gnn.com/mdick39708/timspge.htm

Near Eastern specialist and Egyptologist. . .are too aware of the
isolationism often seen in traditional classics--or more precisely in
studies of Greek civilization--with its emphasis on the events of a
relatively short period, primarily in a particular exemplar of a single
group of cultures.  Studies that appear to see fifth-century B.C.E Athens as
the defining experience of all civilization puzzle those whose interest lie
in other areas of the Mediterranean antiquity, and still more those
concerned with other regions of the world.

				"On The Aims And Methods of Black Athena"
				by John Baines in Black Athena Revisited

==============================================================================

Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:31:38 -0500
From:	James_Hoch@mail.campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch)
Subject: AEL I Do  *Not*  Understand
To:	AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk

The problem is Budge's translation, which is very misleading (and
inconsistent). 

The first negation you encountered was nn. Nn negates nominals, as a general
rule.  Nn sDm.f uses the prospective sDm.f and it forms the negation of the
future: nn sDm.f "he will not hear."

The other negative word n is used with sDm.f and sDm.n.f to form the negations
n sDm.f (past action) "he did not hear" and n sDm.n.f (present action) "he
does not hear", or "he cannot hear."

The examples were:
1) nn Xr.i "I will not fall down..."

2) nn sAr.tn bin.i n nTr pn "You will not raise up (any) badness of mine to
this god"

3) nn iwt sp.i Hr.tn "An incident (i.e. misconduct) of mine will not come out
on account of you."

Note: iwt is the prospective form of the verb iwi "to come, arrive" (The
speaker indicates that information about his wrongdoing will not be made
available through any actions of the divine beings whom he is addressing.)

4) n Sn.i nTr   "I did not curse a god" (The context is: You must say
"Innocent!" concerning me in the presence of Neb-r-Djer on account of the fact
that I did justice in the land of Egypt, I did not curse the god, etc. etc.)


--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CampusLife - University of Toronto          http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 21:18:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Lo and Behold

Hi,

I was going to sit this one out, as you have basically resolved it for all
intents and purposes, however, I do have some things to say about the
orthography involved in your discussion.

(Stephen)
> > The arm sign
> > usually used in writing this was originally the variety which conveys the
> > consonants "mj," so the word is properly mj.k, with the pronominal suffix
> > endings.  

(Maryanne)
> Although I am not capable of agreeing with you about the "mj", you are 
> entirely right in your last statement.

Here, in my opinion, Stephen is quite right to interpret the form as "mj". 
Middle Egyptian mixes several different {arm} hieroglyphs.  In fact, the
regular {arm} which was used to represent /</ (or /A/ as the Manuel de
Codage would express it) came to be interchangeable with many other {arm}
signs which held various different objects in their hands.  You will note
that the particle "mk" was written with either the regular {arm} or the
{arm holding a rounded loaf}.  The {arm with a rounded loaf} had the
phonetic value "mj".  In fact, in the writing of "mk", I would suggest
that it is actually the "m" which should be regarded as the phonetic
complement of "mj=k".

> > mj.k wy ii.kw  Look at me, I have arrived.  or See me, I am here.

> How about "ii.kwi" or maybe "ii.ni"?

I believe "jj.n=j" could only be interpreted as an emphasizing or
circumstantial form, and would necessitate that the real emphasis of the
sentence be laid elswhere.  Probably "mj=k wj jj.kj" would be the normal
Old Egyptian/Middle Egyptian manner of expressing "look, I have arrived".

*Footnote to my transliteration: While Middle Egyptian sometimes writes
the first person singlular stative ending as {kwj}, it is doubtful that at
any real stage of the language both the "w" and the "j" would have been
realized together.  Old Egyptian seems to have conceived of the form as
"kj" while Middle Egyptian seems to have developed "kw" with the combined
writing being a scribal convention which recognized both the then present
realization and the traditional value of the morpheme, much as in the case
of writings of {swrj} "drink" while Old Egyptian had "zwr" and Middle
Egyptian had "swj" in actuality.

However, these points are only "nit-picking", and it is not necessary to
adopt what I have proposed as any dogma to be imposed on other people's
personal choices in transliteration. The uses of "mk" and "kwj" are well
established in Egyptological custom and cannot be faulted as flawed in any
real sense.  They are convenient simplifications for the complex issues
behind the words in question.  I would no more criticize someone for
employing them than I would someone who writes "sS" for "scribe" even
though there is some evidence for this word's realization as either "zX3" 
or "zX3w".  Egyptological custom has long utilized "sS", and it is readily
understandable to anyone who has studied Egyptian for any length of time.
I will continue to use "zX3" while various others, some of my instructors
included will continue to use "sS" and it does not present either one of
us with any serious problem that the other has a different style or
interpretation of this word, so long as we both understand what the other
means.

Geoff
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 19:29:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: kadishg@binghamton.edu
cc: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>, AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Hello, Gerry,

>      I am not at all reluctant to try to be helpful where I can, within
> the boundaries of available time, but I could use some guidance as to
> where folks are in this fascinating pursuit. -- Gerry Kadish  

Your point is a valid one.  I can understand how things can get very
confusing here.  I for one am a graduate student, and have been studying
Egyptian for about 15 years of my life, but have only had formal training
for the last seven.  I do not claim to have totally mastered Egyptian, and
do not know whether I ever really will.  There are people monitoring the
list with far more experience than mine.  In this medium we are presented
with many different points of view from people of varying experience and
background.  Some people post frequently and others do not.  You will
have to learn to make your own judgments concerning what is said.  Such is
the nature of the internet.

Geoffrey Graham
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 19:56:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Graham <geoffrey.graham@yale.edu>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: AEL Texts Extracted from Mortuary Books

Hello, Maryanne,

> interrogative particle "in".  I meant a verb "nn" written *double pot, 
> determinative solar disc with rays*.  It appears to mean "to rise(of a 

I don't really think so.  The text in question is first of all written in
cryptography, which means that unusual signs are used to phonetically
render the words, so therefore, you will not find dictionary entries which
cite words thus spelled.  The only way to check on the meaning is to read
several texts written in the same type of cryptographic script to see how
such words are written.  I tend to trust Dr. Darnell's assertion that this
is a representation of "nn n" meaning "this".  His dissertation deals with
these cryptographic texts as a corpus, and I am sure that he has given the
orthograph a great deal of thought.  The use of "nn.n" may not be the best
transliteration of the intended word(s) but it is difficult to know how
separate the Egyptians would have regarded the constituant parts of the
the expression to be.  Moreover, one is presented with the question as to
whether the apparenly genitive "n" of the expression should reflect the
gender and number of the the following words.  The safest thing to do in
this case is to leave it as it was written and not attempt to over analyze
it grammatically, since, obviously the writers of the text did not see fit
to write such indicators of gender and number themselves.  I would have
suspected that "nn" when qualifying goddesses might have reflected both
plural and feminine indicators in some ideal Egyptian, however, maybe the
fact that it preceeds the noun frees it from any obligation to agree in
gender and number with the following word, much as in Arabic the perfect
form of a verb does not have to agree in number with its subject when it
preceeds it.  However, I am not really qualified to make such a judgment.
One place to look for an answer might be in Erman's grammar of Old
Egyptian.

Geoff
sokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

==============================================================================

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 22:23:40 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL Parlez Vous Egyptien?

I have a fascinating old book here, "Egypt Under the Pharaohs" by 
Heinrich Brugsch-Bey, in which I came across something that I think 
admirably illustrates how much Semitic had gotten into Egyptian speech 
and writing during the time of the Ramessides.  This is an excerpt from 
a lengthy letter from a royal scribe to his former pupil, chiding him in 
a sarcastic manner for all the Semitic he had used in a letter to him.  
Brugsch shows the Semitic by putting it into French to differentiate it.

"Thy writing has too much glane (dunno this Fr. word).  It is a cargo of 
high-flown phrases, the cargo of which may be the reward of those who 
seek it....Verily, thou art a champion (Fr), well-skilled in the work of 
a strong hand.  Pray, is there found a champion (Sem. "maher") like 
thee, to place at the head of the armee, or a seigneur, who can beat 
thee in shooting?....Thou lettest the old men see, if their eyes are 
good, how, worn out with fatigue, thy supportest thyself with thy hand. 
 Il est perdue, le chameau, le champion.  Eh bien!  Make to thyself a 
name among the champions and the knights of the land of Egypt..."

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 08:00:16 -0600
From: Saida <saida@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>
To: AEgyptian-L@rostau.demon.co.uk
Subject: AEL I Am "Beholding " With Interest

First off, thanks to James Hoch and Geoff for answering the questions of 
the week.  Just want to correct one little impression:

Graham wrote:
> (Stephen)
> > > The arm sign
> > > usually used in writing this was originally the variety which conveys the
> > > consonants "mj," so the word is properly mj.k, with the pronominal suffix
> > > endings.
> 
> (Maryanne)
> > Although I am not capable of agreeing with you about the "mj", you are
> > entirely right in your last statement.
> 
> Here, in my opinion, Stephen is quite right to interpret the form as "mj".
> Middle Egyptian mixes several different {arm} hieroglyphs.  

When I said I wasn't capable of agreeing with Stephen, I meant just 
that.  In other words, I didn't know enough about the subject to say yes 
or no.  I don't want to appear any more combatative than I really am, 
God forbid, and about ancient Egyptian I am in no position to argue with 
anybody now.  My goal in life is to be able to reach that stage ;-)  
Meanwhile, I want to reiterate how instructive I have found my short 
time on this list so far!

Marianne Luban
==============================================================================