PAGE1 COMMENTARY LINES 13-18

[home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P1]

Commentary for pWestcar, AEL Page 1, lines 13 - 18.


[next] [top]
LINE 13:

Dd.in Hm=f; "Ds=k, ir=f, Hrw-dd=f, zA=i, ini.t=k n=i sw!"

[Stephen Fryer, 18 April, 1997 ('AEL PWestcar lines 13-15')]

Dd-in Hm-f :Ds-k irf Hr-ddf sA-i ini-t(w)-k n-i sw
This would seem to mean: "Then His Majesty said,'You, yourself, shall bring him to me, Hardedef, my son.'" The problem I have is figuring out what form "ini-t(w)-k" is. My best guess is that it is a prospective form (ini-t-k), with the w being stuck in, as in Late Egyptian (I understand), to indicate that the "t" is not silent. This would be sort of a command, only rather than imperative, "fetch him," the king makes what almost a statement of fact about the future "you will fetch him." Comments would be most welcome on this!
[James Hoch, 18 April 1997]

This [line] is difficult until you know what it is. It is also a construction that some of you will not have seen yet. But, as a bit of a hint to those who may be able to solve the problem, the form written *in.tw.k is NOT a passive form, and should have been written int.k. (O.K., this is heading towards a Late Egyptian style spelling [although Late Egyptian writing had not been developed at this time]). In later texts, one writes tw in order to let the reader know that there is a pronounced t (as so many were silent by this time). The pronounced "t" in this form is, however, a sign of very good Middle Egyptian.

[Geoffrey Graham, 18 April, 1997 ('RE>AEL Westcar translation lines 13-19'), responding to Chris]

....there is no reason why it could not be [posed as a question] actually. Your question about jnj.tw=k is a very good one, which I am glad that you bring up. I believe that that {w} is not semantic, and simply reflects the fact that the {t} should be pronounced hard, giving [jnj.t=k]. The prospective form of the verb "jnj" has this one little irregularity, that it produces an unexpected {t}, very much like the verbs "jw" and "jj", which both mean "come". In Late Egyptian and Demotic, because many final {t}s had become silent, they used the combinations {tw} and {tj} to represent instances where the {t} was to be pronounced rather than being silent. I am not sure, because this text is relatively early, but I suspect that this could be an instance of such.
Given your desire to translate this sentence as a question, let me just offer the following translation in accordance with that: Dd.jn Hm=f Ds=k Hrw-dd=f z3=j jnj.t=k n=j sw
"Then His Majesty said; "Then, as for yourself, Hardedef, my son, will you bring him him to me?"
Alternately if it is not a question:
"Then His Majesty said; "Then as for yourself, Hardedef, my son, may you bring him to me!"

In these translations, I have translated the "jr=f" as "then" though it is some particle, maybe something like "indeed", but this sounds a bit stilted. It could be an "as for him" possibly refering in some way to Djedi, yet Egyptian seems to throw in "jr=f" very often, even when it seems to have no specific referent.

My writing "as for" does not come from any particular words written in the Egyptian, but rather because of the extraposition of "Ds=k jr=f Hrw-dd=f z3=j" before the verb. This "as for" is just a stylistic way of introducing the subject in English, and is probably not entirely necessary.

A cleaner translation incorporating the "jr=f" as a real thought and taking out the "as for"s might be:
"Then His Majesty said; "As for him, Hardedef, my son, may you bring him to me yourself." (OR "will you bring him to me yourself?")

The "as for" here is a translation of the "jr=f". I have put it at the beginning because I think it is enclitic, meaning that it always takes second position, though in English we would probably put it first. This last translation involves changing the word order considerably though. And, since the author decided to extrapose certain words the true emphasis is probably on the "yourself". This is why putting it at the end might make particular sense for the English, since putting a word at the end often emphasizes it in our language, much like putting a word at the beginning did so in Egyptian.
[James Hoch, 19 April, 1997 ("AEL PWestcar lines 13-15')]

Stephen has got it right about intw.k It is a prospective form, and it is either a request or a statement of expected action: You, yourself, Hardedef, my son, are to bring him to me." In other contexts the prospective may be translated, "should, ought, are supposed to (do), might, may," and even "must" on the odd occasion. The prospective is sometimes used with a meaning close to the future, but the force is not quite that of a statement of fact (which uses a different construction).
[Serge Rosmorduc, 19 April, 1997 ('AEL PWestcar lines 13-15')]

The prospective form of ini is int. What we have there is probably a cleft sentence with a prospective form :
in A sDm=f
"It is A who will hear"
If I remember well, the sDm=f used there is an old form of the prospective (prospective sDmw=f, but I'm a bit unsure of this). In this case, the "in" of the cleft sentence has disapeared, which occurs from time to time. In particular, funerary inscriptions often display the text : Mister so-and-so Dd (note, NOT Dd=f). And the easiest way to give it a grammatical status is to suppose it is a cleft sentence without "in", and so it means 'It is Mister so-and-so who says : ...'

In this particular case, the meaning is excellent :
"It is you yourself, royal prince Hardedef, who will fetch him"
(BTW, "ini"'s usual translation as "bring" is not always perfect. "ini" is often : 'go and bring back')
[James Hoch]

Serge raises an interesting point about the construction known as the "participial statement." This construction begins with the particle in, which is followed by a noun to yield "It is so and so" the rest of the statement consists of a participle or for the future time, the 2nd prospective. The whole meaning, "It is So-and-so who did/does/will do..."

Two problems with that approach here:
1) The 1st prospective of ini "to bring" is int, which we have here. The 2nd prospective form is, as Serge mentions, in(w). This makes me think that Stephen's rendering is correct.
2) In place of the particle in + noun, we also find the independent pronoun series (which seems to have connections to the particle in, itself). The normal way to have said: "It is you, yourself who will bring him to me" would be to begin ntk, Ds.k..., in(w).k n.i sw.
The "participial statement" construction is used correctly later in this papyrus--which is probably why the scribe bent over backwards to let you know that there was a t in the form.
As for the use of aHa, I think Serge is on the right track. It introduces a new step in the narrative structure. But note that it occurs extremely frequently in some texts, such as the Shipwrecked Sailor, and we should keep our minds open and see how it is actually used.

[prev] [next] [top]
LINE 14:

aHa.n s-spDd aHa.w n zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f.

[Stephen Fryer, 18 April, continued]

aHa-n sspd aHaw n n-sw sA Hr-ddf
"And so ships were made ready for Prince Hardedef." "aHa-n sDm" is a form of past tense used in narratives, with I believe a sort of continuative idea, which is why I start out my translation with "And so..." Perhaps James or Geoff or Serge would like to comment on this? I'm not sure whether to transliterate the ships as "aHaw-w".
[James Hoch, 18 April 1997]

[this line] Contains a somewhat tricky sentence. The grammar is dead easy, but not if you have been learning from Gardiner. Remember that the expected construction is aHa.n sDm.n.f (with a sDm.n.f not sDm.f). The construction aHa.n sDm.f is attested, but rare. What we have here is not really rare--just often overlooked.
[Geoffrey Graham, 18 April, 1997 ('RE>AEL Westcar translation lines 13-19')]

.... since "spDd" meant "become sharp" and the causative {s} would have converted it to "make sharp", ... this word, which seems usually to mean "prepare". (8 May '97)The original word was spDd plus a causative s. Later the /D/ seems to have fallen out. The [determinative] sign is a thorn. It means "sharp" and is well related to the word, since "sharpen" was "preparing" when applied to weaponry. Interestingly the term is frequent with preparing weapons for war.
Also, while the first "aHa.n" does indeed come from the verb to stand, it had become an auxiliary and is best translated "then". Literally it is something like "(it) stood (that)", but of this I am not entirely sure, having long ago opted to just see it as a temporal modification of sentences.

aHa.n s-sp(D)d(.w) aHa.w n zA-n.y-sw.t Hrw-dd=f
Then ships were prepared for the royal son, Hardedef.
[James Hoch, 19 April 1997 ('AEL PWestcar lines 13-15')]

aHa.n sspd aHaw... The verb form of sspd has not yet been correctly identified. Stephen has, however, translated it perfectly. Any ideas?
Stephen's question about the transliteration of the word for ships [aHaw] is one often asked by students--the word does seem to end in w in the singular, and here they are using it as plural (as we can tell by the use of the plural article later). Egyptologists generally hedge our bets and just transliterate aHaw in both cases. At this stage, however, it is probably best to err on the side of completeness.

[Stephen Fryer, responding to James query about the form of the verb sspd]

Well it is fairly obviously a passive construction. The two passive constructions using the auxiliary "aHa" are given as "aHa.n sDm.(w).f", which uses the circumstantial perfect passive, and "aHa.n.f rdi.(w)", which uses the stative. In this case the subject is "attached" to the verb "sspd" rather than the auxiliary. So the verb form in question must be a passive circumstantial form. There may be a better way of approaching the problem, but that was my best bet. I notice Gertie Englund gives a handy table of compund verb forms, which agrees with the conclusion I came to after considerable reading.
[ed. note: G. Englund, Middle Egyptian An Introduction, Uppsala Univ. 1988, ISBN 9150606603]
[ed., passive verb constructions are discussed in Loprieno, p84, section 4.6.3.3 part a]
[James Hoch, 24 April, 97, responding to Stephen Fryer, regarding the form of the verb sspd]

This is correct. The past, passive circumstantial form is usually referred to as the "sDm(w).f passive," but Stephen's terminology is probably better.
[6 May, 1997, James added] aHa.n sspd(w) aHaw n sA nsw Hr-dd.f
Subject of sspd(w) is aHaw "ships". The normal construction is aHa.n sDm.n.f (the construction aHa.n
sDm.f also occurs, but is quite rare). Note that sspd(w) is the PASSIVE equivalent to sDm.n.f (prior time).
[9 May, 1997, James elaborated] One normally expects the construction aHa.n sDm.n.f (with a past-time form--o.k., the construction aHa.n sDm.f [with relative present form] is attested, but it is quite rare). There is no "n" on sspd!
Another thing is to identify the subject, here it must be aHaw "ships" since it follows the verb (normal place for the subject) and the subject is then followed by a dative phrase.
TWO bells should be sounding in your head at this point. 1) ships do not prepare things, but are prepared; 2) the form does not have the "n" of the past time sDm.n.f in a place that you expect to refer to past time (this is an important clue in analysing the form). This form is the passive, past tense equivalent to the circumstantial sDm.n.f. The name of the form is the sDm(w).f passive. The "w" is put in parentheses because it is almost never written.
What learners need to remember that
A) it is PASSIVE--but does NOT use the passive marker tw
B) that it is PAST--but does NOT use the past-time marker n
The form is not at all rare, and you will see a number of them in P. Westcar.

[prev] [next] [top]

LINE 15:

S3s pw jrj.n=f m xnt X(n)ty.t r Dd-snfrw, mAa-xrw. (G.Graham)

or
SAs pw iri-n-f m xnt<X>yt r Dd-snfrw-mAa-Hrw (S. Fryer)

I think this means (rather literally): "He journeyed in (a southerly voyage?) to Djed-Snofru-the-Justified" The problem is that while the term "xntyt" means a voyage upstream (South), there is a sign in the middle of it which doesn't appear to belong there, and which I can only account for as a transcription error, either by the ancient scribes or the modern ones - it would be interesting to see the original hieratic. If the ancient scribes stuck it in, does anyone have any idea why they might have made such a spelling error, other that general ignorance and stupidity? If my emendation is correct then a smoother translation might be: "He journeyed south by boat to Djed-Snefru."
[ed., note the construction sDm pw iri.n=f was discussed in page 1 line 1, ie. infinitive pw relative form].
[Geoffrey Graham, 18 April, 1997 ('RE>AEL Westcar translation lines 13-19')]

S3s pw jrj.m=f m xnt Xnty.t r Dd-snfrw m3<-xrw
This part is hard, because I think the scribe left something out in Xtyt. I think he meant to write Xntyt meaning "navigating", but I am not certain. Maybe others will have different suggestions. There is also the main verb which is "xnt" which means "go upstream/southward".
"What he did was travel, going upstream, navigating toward Djed-Snofru-the-justified."
[James Hoch, 19 April 1997 ('AEL PWestcar lines 13-15')]

The writing of xntyt with the intrusive X sign is attested elsewhere, and probably originates from xnty-Xty, as Geoff proposed. What is it here? Geoff holds it to be an infinitive. Why? (I think he is right.) Stephen took it as a derived noun--and his translation clearly shows how it would function in this sentence. This interpretation works just as well.
[Stephen Fryer, responding to James query about the form xntyt with intrusive X]

I think I'll have to defend my interpretation as a noun rather than an infinitive - I have difficulty seeing this spelling as being an infinitive of a 4th weak verb "xnti". If it were the infinitive, I would expect that it would be "xntt" rather than "xntyt". The strange spelling of the word here makes this a little more uncertain with the insertion of an apparently intrusive "X" and the use of "ti" rather than "t". The vocabulary of "Middle Egyptian Grammar" gives the phrase "m xntyt" the meaning "southward". Faulkner also gives "xntyt" (with the "ti" for "t") the meaning "southward voyage", but then confuses the issue by adding a further comment on a use as the infinitive of "xnti". Under "xnti" ("sail upstream") he lists the phrase "m xntyt" as "upstream" or "southwards". In none of this does Faulkner mention this specific instance. So, to me it doesn't look to have the form of an infinitive, and it works well as a noun in an adverbial prepositional phrase.
[James Hoch, 24 April 1997, responding to S. Fryer regarding xntyt with intrusive X]

Perfectly good argument--a lot of merit to this. The point here is that the infinitive, being a noun meaning "travelling upstream", is not far removed from a derived noun meaning "upstream trip." In other words, whichever approach one takes, there is little difference in meaning, and indeed little difference in grammar. I have an open mind on this one--as apparently did Faulkner!

[prev] [next] [top]

LINE 16:

xr-m-xt nA n aHa.w mni.w r mry.t

[James Hoch, 6 May, 1997]

Did anyone address the form of mni. Note the word order: we have NOUN VERB-form.
[Mark Line, 19 May 1997]

"mni" is the 3rd weak verb meaning "to moor" (though Gardiner suggests that it is a 4th weak verb "m(i)ni"
[G. Graham, replying to Mark Line regarding mni being given as m(i)ni by Gardiner in his Grammar]

This is mostly because in Coptic it comes out as {moone} which indicates a medial glottal stop between the vowels. He is probably right.
[Marc Line, 19 May 1997 ("RE>AEL Westcar - Part 1 - Line 16 - mni")]

So what is the verb form of mni? The word order gives the clue. The normal order in Egyptian is VERB => SUBJECT => OBJECT. Here, in the terms which we would apply to English we have SUBJECT => VERB => OBJECT, or to borrow Dr Hoch's more correct and rather appealing terminology, TOPIC => COMMENT. The Topic is "these/the ships" and the Comment is "moor at shore/bank." Topic before Comment is an indication of the Stative form, Gardiner'. "Old Perfective or Pseudo-Participle". So, mni is here used in the Stative form and has a meaning which focusses on the end-state of the action "to moor", i.e it has the meaning "in the state of having been moored". The translation of the phrase, then, should probably be:

"Now later, (when) the ships had been moored at the bank..."

[James Hoch, 22 May, 1997]

Marc was absolutely correct about the importance of word order here (nA n aHaw mni(w)...), with the topic coming first (the nominal thing that the speaker is talking about) before the verbal form (acting as comment--i.e. the point that the speaker makes about the topic). There is one clarification, however. This is not really a verbal statement of fact (in that case, the word order would have been VERB SUBJECT, as Marc pointed out). (Well, there can be a case of TOPIC [VERB +SUBJECT], in which the group [VERB + SUBJECT] functions as the Comment, but that is a variation, and the subject is required.

The stative (also called "old perfective," and "pseudo-participle") fits the category of "adverb," and thus this is the same pattern as iw.f m pr "He" (is) "in the house," in which the prepositional phrase m pr "in the house" serves as (adverbial) comment. This may seem strange to some at this point, but make a mental note of this, and in the course of reading Westcar, it will become quite clear that stative verb forms belong to the category identified as "adverbial."

Second point: the basic VERB SUBJECT is a predicate-subject relationship--and in Egyptian does not differ TOO drastically from that found in English, French, German, etc. The relationship between nominal element and a following stative form is not the same. The stative form used varies depending on the number and gender of the noun that comes before it. In other words, the relation is more that of antecedent modifier.

I hope that this does not muddy the waters, because Marc's basic points were correct and his approach precisely the type that one needs to really read Egyptian

[prev] [next] [top]

LINE 16-17 : (S. Fryer contd)

.. S3s pw jrj.n=f m Hr.t.y s-nDm=f m qnjw n hbny

[James Hoch, 8 May 97]

Hrty This is an infinitive, the consonant y theoretically being a weak consonant (like verbs ending in i [3rd weak verbs], which normally have infinitives ending in t ), but verbs ending in y seem very often to NOT have a t ending.
[Geoffrey Graham, 9 May 1997 ('RE>AEL Westcar ll. 17-18')]

I would suggest that Hrty might not be a verb since we already have s-nDm as the verb, but rather an adverb. Had it been the verb, we would want it to be *Hrj.t, but we have Hrty (is it *Hr.y.t.y?). I think it could be like Coptic {ehrai} and mean "upward". I might be quite wrong. On the other hand, Hrty could conceivably be a corrupted spelling of Hrj.t, could it not?
[S. Fryer, 9 May, 1997]

Let's see, first of all, Faulkner gives Hrty as a 4-inf. verb meaning "travel by land" (p.176) [By the way, I knew I had seen this in there, but had a problem finding it just now. Does anyone else find Faulkner's "alphabetical order" somewhat confusing?] Of course he gives only two references for this, one of which is this exact passage. Presumably it is ultimately derived from Hr, "upon", since the roads etc would all be higher than the rest of the land, especially the river, which was the main highway. I'm not sure of the exact location of Ded-Snofru, but would presume it was on the high desert next to the pyramid, so Hr would be even more descriptive, and one could possibly even go so far as to attempt translating m Hrty as "upwards"

The construction is parallel to an earlier one:
SAs pw ir(w).n=f m xntyt "he journeyed southward"
m Hrty "he journeyed overland(?)/upward(?)"
The word after the m is obviously a nominal of some form, the general suggestion having been an infinitive. Assuming this is an infinitive of a 4th-weak verb, what is somewhat unusual about it? (Which is what James originally asked, and I don't want to spoil the fun >:-> )
[James Hoch, 12 May, 1997, replying to G.G. regarding Hrty]

Geoff mentions that Hrty might be adverbial, but by that I think he was looking at the phrase m Hrty (a prepositional phrase), which as a phrase *is* adverbial. In any case, whatever Hrty is, its function is as a noun (which infinitives are by definition).
[James Hoch, 6 May, 1997]

snDm.n.f m qniw... This clause is subordinate to the main clause, which precedes it: "having taken a seat (etc.)..."
[James Hoch, 12 May, 1997]

Now as for snDm.n.f in line 17, how does it function grammatically? Points to keep in mind: as Geoff said recently, it is verbal (that's fairly obvious), and it is not the beginning of a new sentence. (Here even context would rule that out--one does not take a seat AFTER one has already set out on a palanquin jaunt.) Something might be said about the time sequence here and how the phrases relate to each other.
[ed. note: see answers by S. Fryer in commentary of page 2, line 2]
[S. Fryer, 7 May 97 ('RE>AEL Back to Westacr, ll. 11 ff.')]

What Hardedef did was "snDm.n=f" which is usually translated "he sat down," but considering the meaning of the root "nDm" I think we should maybe think more in terms of "got comfortable," or "took his ease," or "relaxed."
[James Hoch, 8 May, 1997 ]

I think that Stephen is no doubt right in the ORIGINAL meaning of snDm along the lines of "putting oneself to ease", but it also took on the meaning of "to sit down" and even "to dwell". Not unlike the slang (at least in my era): "to take a load off," meaning "to sit down."
[S. Fryer, 7 May 97 ('RE>AEL Back to Westacr, ll. 11 ff.')], commenting on hbny making it into english as 'ebony':

Actually the route was fairly direct Eg. hbny -> Gr. ebenos -> L. (h)ebenus -> Eng. ebony. The Romans sometimes spelled it with an "h" but that doesn't really count since by the 1st cent. CE they didn't pronounce the "h" at the beginning of words. My old complete Webster got it wrong, deriving it from Heb. eben "stone" because ebony is so hard!


[prev] [next] [top]

LINE 17-18 (S. Fryer, contd)

nbA.w m ssnDm gnX.w r=f m nbw

[James Hoch, 6 May, 1997 ] - what form is gnX (and note the word order) ?

The meaning of gnX may not be certain, but I am inclined to think of the known examples of carrying poles, where the gold bits are attached to the ends of the poles. The ssnDm wood, whatever it was, would probably have been highly polished to "gleam" along with the gold. Possible meanings of gnX then might be "to fit" or "to cap" (with metal determinative because of the type of fitting). I have not done a study of the word, so this is totally off-the-cuff.
My original question was not so much concerning the meaning of the word gnX, but rather with its grammatical form. The word order: ssnDm gnX (NOUN VERBAL-form) is key here.

Also note the wordplays: what were the carrying poles made of and what did Hardedef do before he was carried off?

(8 May)The word-play in lines 17-18 is simply this: Hardedef "having seated himself" (snDm.n.f) was carried in a palanquin with carrying poles made of ssnDm wood. In Egyptian literature, with puns, like in horseshoes, "close counts".
<< Prev lines (4-12) | AEL Page 2 >>

Go up to line: | 13 | 14 |15 |16 | 17 | 18 |
[home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P1]
[Commentary page 1, lines 1 - 3 | 4 - 12 | 13 - 18 ]