COMMENTARY FOR PAGE1, LINES 4-12

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

Commentary for pWestcar, AEL Page 1, lines 4 - 12.



[next] [bottom] [top]

PAGE 1: LINE 4:

Dd.in Hm=f; "iSz.t pw Hrw-dd=f zA=i ?"

[Stephen Fryer, 14 April, 1997]

It is hard to tell if "Dd-in" in these phrases is a continuative form "then said..." or whather we should understand it as a passive "said by ...". In the case of the common introit to inscriptions "Dd mdw in..." it seems that the passive ("Words spoken by...") makes most sense (at least to me). Here I might go for a continuative form, sort of akin in meaning to the "waw-consecutinve" so beloved in the Hebrew bible. So we get:

"Then his majesty said, "Who is it, Hardedef, my son?"

Dd.in True enough, in is indeed the marker of the agent "by" and regularly occurs with passive forms. Here, however, it is a verbal "infix" that occurs in the form called the "sDm.in.f" form. This form indicates sequence: "Then His Majesty said..." This indicates the next action in a sequence of actions.

[prev] [next] [bottom] [to top]

LINE 5 - 6

Dd.in n.y-sw.t-zA Hrw-dd=f; "iw wn nDs, Ddi rn=f, Hmsi=f m Dd-snfrw, mAa-xrw,

[ed. see Loprieno p123, example 106, which discusses, iw wn nDs, Ddi rn=f]

[James Hoch, 17 April, 1997 ('AEL Re: WESTCAR 5 ')] iw introduces an "existential sentence" ("There is/are/was/were...").

Ddi rn.f is a nominal clause that functions here as a circumstantial clause. Circumstantial clauses that modify (INDEFINITE) nouns are usually relative clauses ("a NOUN who..." or "a NOUN whose..." etc.). One could translate fairly literally: "There is a commoner whose name is Djedi", but other phrases may make for a better final translation: "by the name of Djedi", but one should still recognize that the clause means "Djedi being his name" at the most basic level.

Hms.f m Dd-snfrw-mAa xrw

Hms.f is a circumstantial sDm.f verb form and begins a circumstantial clause (notable for the ABSENCE of particle iw [etc.]). This clause also modifies the indefinite noun nDs "a commoner" and is a relative clause. Thus it is "a commoner who lives in Djed-Sonfru-Justified." The fact that the noun being modified is indefinite is an important fact, as a definite noun ("the commoner") would require a different type of construction. (Note that the concept of definite/indefinite existed even before there were articles to express the concept.

Dd-snfrw is the name of the pyramid town at Meidum.

(15 April, 97): The phrase mAa xrw (fem. mAat xrw) that occurs after peoples' names (not just those in cartouches) means "justified" (in the court of the hereafter). When mentioning the deceased, one inserted this phrase immediately after the person's name. Note that in place names that contain the names of deceased individuals, one might also use the phrase.

[prev] [next] [bottom] [to top]

LINE 7:

iw=f m nDs n.y rnp.t Sn.t-mD, iw=f Hr wnm tA diw-Sn.t, rmn n.y iH m iwf,

[Stephen Fryer, 14 April, 1997 (RE>AEL WESTCAR (Part 1) lines 5-8)]

"iw-f Hr wnm" is a progressive verb form, which could be translated "he is eating," however modern English usage includes progressive action in a simple present sometimes, and here is best translated as "he eats" "m iwf" = in meat, ie "in the category of meat" So we might translate it: "He eats 500 loaves of bread, a side of beef for meat,..." This last sentence continues (in the next line): "...along with drinking 100 jugs of beer until this day.
"h(n)qt ds 100" = one hundred jugs of beer. The sign after the jug determinative is the number - the Egyptians loved accounting.
"r-mn-m hrw pn" = until this very day. Indicates that he continues in this right up to the present.
[James Hoch, 15 April, 97, (AEL RE: WESTCAR, line 7)]

Well, this is not necessarily a Late Egyptianism here. In fact, it shows the hallmarks of excellent Middle Egyptian. First thing, we have here a circumstantial clause as modifier of a noun (relative clause with indefinite antecedant--"a NOUN who DOES" clause). Second point, time is not expressed in the "pseudo-verbal" constructions. The aspect is 1) on-going action, but also 2) repeated action. Just as in English we say, "My neice has been swimming since she was three years old." (and now that she is thirteen..., does not mean that she has been in the water for the last ten years), so the Egyptian should allow for a meaning "a commoner who has been eating 500 loaves (of bread), a side of beef, and drinking 100 jugs of beer down to this day..."
"h(n)qt ds 100" = one hundred jugs of beer. The sign after the jug determinative is the number - the Egyptians loved accounting.
[James Hoch, 18 April, 1997 ('AEL Re: WESTCAR, Line 7ff. / Difficulties Ahead')

wrote a long post which asks a few questions and is worth reading BEFORE you go through this section

First, although this may have already been answered--the verb rdi is normally written with the arm sign in Hieratic texts, as in the infitive in line 9.

Now that we have been through some of the grammar, let's appreciate some niceties, as well. There is a pun in line 7-8 Djedi eats rmn n(y) iH ... r mn m hrw pn. It's not an exact pun, but it's typical of Egyptian word plays. What do you think of iwf "meat" in the context of a whole slough of iw.f... clauses?

Line 7, note that Djedi eats the side of beef m iwf. I suspect that the writer intended us to read: m iwf.f "as his meat". As long as all the needed signs are in the vicinity, Egyptian scribes felt quite happy to cut corners in this fashion.

[prev] [next] [bottom] [top]

LINES 8 - 10:

[Stephen Fryer, 16 April, ('AEL P-Westcar lines 8-')

First of all we have three parallel sentences that start with "iw-f rx". I'm taking the "rx" to be the stative "rx-w", so the opening of all of them is "He has learned...," that is "He knows..." The first two of these sentences continue with an infinitive, giving the meaning of "...how to..."
LINE 8 - 9: The sentence spanning these lines:

iw-f rx(-w) Ts tp Hsq(-w)

[James Hoch, 18 April, 1997 ('AEL Re: WESTCAR, Line 7ff. / Difficulties Ahead')

Line 9, Some questions for you:
1) what is rx? (O.K. that was an easy one! But how did you know?)
2) rdit has been identified as an infinitive. But what is its grammatical function here?
3) What form is Sm and how does it work here?
Lines 9-10, Explain: how does the following phrase work: [leash].f Hr tA ? I.e., what type of phrase/clause is it?
[Geoffrey Graham (responding to S. Fryer) 16 April, 1997 (RE>AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12)]

Firstly, though your transliteration is just fine and perfectly correct, I do want to point out, for those who are interested, that Ts "tie/bind/join" came from an original Old Kingdom TAz, and should not be confused with Tzj "lift/elevate/distinguish" even though most people would transliterate the two words identically as Stephen has. In certain cases, when the hieroglyphs cannot be included, it is helpful to use fuller writings in such instances where Middle Egyptian-style transliterations are quite ambiguous since one could write either verb as Ts.

[James Hoch, 17 April, 1997 ('AEL Re: WESTCAR 5 ')]

tp Hsq(w)
The key factor is that tp is indefinite--"a head" and not "the head." The stative (old perfective) is the one that occurs here. Note that the stative is essentially in the class "adverb" (whatever that turns out to be at the end of the day), but stative forms can modify nouns. The participle would seem also a likely possibility (since participles are adjectives), but experience with feminine nouns, where it is easier to distinguish between the participle and the stative makes me almost certain that it is a stative.
(G.Graham, responding to S. Fryer's question "not sure of the form of the verb "Hsq". I would take it to be a relative or a stative...", said)

As for Hsq, it is a perfective passive participle, which is an adjectival form of the verb. "Severed" is the same in English. It is from the verb "sever" but it is past, passive, and adjectival, i.e. a perfective passive participle.

I suppose it might be [an old perfective] but I really am not sure. Someone with a sounder grammatical background should comment here, but I feel that the stative is more likely to occur in a slightly more verbal context than this (though I mean really slightly because the stative does seem very adjectival since it refers to the state which comes about after the verb's action is complete). I am not sure whether it can be used so adjectivally as this instance seems to call for, but I could be wrong.
I also kind of wonder about the relationship between third person statives and participles since their endings are often similar (Old Kingdom -j and Middle Kingdom -w, which seem not too distant from the final -y and -w which participles sometimes exhibit). I'm not sure I dare to say that they have a common source, but I sure would like to pose the question to someone who has looked into these forms in greater depth than I have. The persons to ask are really James Hoch and Antonio Loprieno, who I am sure are monitoring this exchange, maybe one of them will have some help for us.
[Serge Rosmorduc, 17 April, 1997 (AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12)]

I would personally think of a stative (old-perfective, pseudo-participle, perfect, or whatever name you like to give it), with a construction like a virtual relative clause :
iw=f rx=w Ts tp
(iw=f) Hsq(=w). (this is called a nexal construction : a word used in a sentence is also the subject of an adverbial sentence that follows). Because tp is not a definite noun. But perhaps I'm too Ramesside. With a stative, a closer translation would be ".. a head after it has been cut off", or :".. a head which has been cut off".]
[Stephen Fryer, 16 April, continued]

LINE 9: the sentence beginning in this line:

iw-f rx(-w) rdi-t Sm mAi Hr sA-f ?-f Hr tA

LINES 9 - 10:

The third sentence breaks the pattern somewhat since "iw-f rx" is followed by a noun rather than an infinitive:
iw-f rx(-w) tnw ip-wt n-t wnt n-t DHwty
"He knows the number of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth."
[Geoffrey Graham, 17 April, 1997 ('AEL WC 8-12 & 3rd Weak Verbs')]
{Question: T for t in tnw, Is this a scribal error, a transcription error or simply my lack of experience?}

tnw is from an original Tnw. Middle Egyptian was slowly losing selective affricates/palatals. T in certain environments was becoming t, while D was also becoming d. The dictionaries tend to list things under their more pure standard forms, and this is yet another reason that I believe in transliterations which give MORE information rather than ones which boil things down to only what the scribe has written. However, one cannot provide that "more" information unless one has a bit of experience, so the learning process involves a stage of working with what you've got, and as you progress and learn through experience you will find new bits of information to incorporate into your future work. In this case, you just discovered a valuable tool: when you see a t, sometimes it is a good idea to also check your dictionaries under T, because the t MIGHT be a corruption of an original T.
[S. Fryer, continued] The next sentence is an explanatory comment, not part of the prince's speech. It explains why the last statement is something of special interest to the king.

[prev] [bottom] [top]

LINES 11 - 12

ist wrS Hm n n-sw-bit xfw mAat-xrw Hr HHy n-f nA-n ipt n-t wnwt
n-t DHwty r irt n f mitt iry n Axt-f

"For the Majesty of King Khufu, justified, spent much time in searching for himself these secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth in order to make their likeness for his tomb." The term "n Axt-f" starts out with the sign usually used for negation, however it is found sometimes for the more usual "n" sign - they were actually rather similar in Hieratic and represent a similar consonantal value. Literally it is "for his horizon" with "horizon" referring to the place where he (like the setting sun) enters the underworld.
[James Hoch, 19 Apri, 1997, ('AEL PWestcar lines 13-15']

I don't seem to have gotten many takers on my questions, but I will throw out another one: HHy "to search out" has been identified as an infinitive. What is noteworthy about the infinitive of this verb?
[Mark Wilson 7 May 97; responding to James' query about HHy]

I wonder if there's anything to be said about the fact that this verb ends with a y? Perhaps there's some kind of nisba at the back of it?]

"wrS ... Hr HHy" The opening verb means to spend time, but since it includes the word for "big" (wr), this may have been felt as "spending a lot of time" - comments? The "Hr + infinitive" is a description of repeated or continuous ongoing action, so I translate it as "spent much time in searching" The "n-f" following "HHy" would imply that he is seeking it either on his own or for his own purposes.
OK, there's what I make of it, so now you can all tell me where I made mistakes, and hopefully clarify some of the points that were unclear to me.]
[S.Fryer to J. Hoch, 18 April 1997; personal post regarding HHy]

It is a third weak verb (HHi) whose infinitive ends in y rather than t (which is the more usual case. I have come to the conclusion that the class "3rd weak" is actually several classes of verbs, including:
1) verbs ending in an unsupported vowel (or ending in a glottal stop - the "standard" 3rd weak verbs (why they should sprout a "t" I don't know, but note a similar phenomenon in Hebrew.)
2) verbs ending in "y" which was pronounced weakly enough to assimilate to the form of type 1. The final consonant tends to reappear in circumstances where it becomes the opening consonant of a syllable, rather than the final.
3) verbs ending in "w," with similar behaviour to the "y" class
4) possibly, though I haven't come to any definite conclusions, a class ending in "r," with similar results to the "y" and "w" verbs
[James Hoch reply to S. Fryer regarding HHy and verbs ending in y, 19 April 1997]

I think you are right, but have not gone so far in my grammar as you. The so-called "third weak" verbs that do not take t in their infinitives must be "3rd y" strong verbs. That there is a connection of true Egyptian 3rd weak verbs with the Semitic ones (which also take a t, as you noted) seems almost beyond question, but that does not rule out the existence of strong verbs with y as final consonant in Egyptian. The question of the verbs ending in _r_ is somewhat different, and here, thank goodness, we probably can have some real answers. The r in final verbal position seems to have often been "weak", meaning that it got dropped (which makes one think of British or New-England style "r".) However, the roots themselves are of the "strong" type, so even though the last consonant may have been dropped--and even though this may have had some consequences in the pronunciation of the root, there does not seem to be any connection to the 3rd weak roots.
[James Hoch 12 May 1997]

Let's go back for a second to line 11, where we have: TOPIC (King of U. & L. Egypt...) followed by Hr HHy. Here HHy is certainly an infinitive of an apparently final weak verb. The infinitive of this (and a few other verbs) seems to always occur without the t , and usually with the y written. I suppose that in this (and the other similar verbs) the final consonant y was treated as a strong consonant and therefore did not fall into the final weak class. With true final weak verbs, the y occurs in only some forms and is usually not written.
[Serge Rosmorduc, 17 April 1997 (AEL P-Westcar lines 8-12)]

I think 'wrS' is a mrr=f (or nominal sDm=f/emphatic sDm=f/, depending of the name you give it). For those who work from Gardiner, I'll try to explain it with some details : The 'mrr=f' is a NOMINAL verb form. That is, the verb, its subject, and so forth, become a NOUN group (it has the denomination 'mrr=f' because 3iae inf. verbs like mry, sTi... geminate)

See :
* 'iw wnm=f t m pr=f' "he (usually) eats bread in his house"
* 'wnm=f t m pr=f' =>
if 'wnm=f' is a mrr=f, then
'wnm=f t' means literarily : 'the fact that he eats bread' and the whole sentence is an adverbial sentence :
'the-fact-that-he-eats-bread IS in his house', Which is usually rendered : "It is in his house that he eats bread" / "If he eats bread, it is in his house" / "he eats bread only in his house"
The function of the form is to put an emphasis on the adverbial adjunct.

Back to our text, let's say that if wrS is nominal, then you render the sentence literally as :
"It is looking for the ..... that Kheops spent his time." And often with these kinds of verbs, (wrS, sDr, ...) the value is almost one of exclusivity :
The Majesty Kheops of king Kheops was spending his whole time looking for ...
(In (very) popular french, I would say "Kheops, il etait rien qu'a chercher .... ;-) ) ]

[James Hoch, 17 April, 1997 ('AEL Re: WESTCAR 5 ')]

Serge's idea of taking wrS as a 2nd tense form in an emphatic sentence is a good one. (I call them "explicatory sentences" because the speaker uses the construction to make a point about the circumstances under which an action took place--and not just to say that the action took place.) Circumstances include where, when, how, why, by what means, etc. Here a fairly literal translation would be: "In fact, how Khufu, justified, spent his nights was searching out for himself the ..." Of course, that can be polished up. Serge gave some excellent translation techniques of this construction. It should be considered an advanced level difficulty, so if you don't understand in detail, don't worry, you have years to learn the intricacies!
[Serge Rosmorduc answering a question by Marc Line, (15 April), ie.

Q: "How can you be sure of the honorific transposition in n-sw-bit?"
A: I can't tell the whole story, but we have a few transcriptions in other languages that point to this reading : e.g. GEG p 51, note 1, quotes insibya as a cuneiform rendering of nsw-bity.]
[Geoffrey Graham, 17 April, 1997 ('AEL WC 8-12 & 3rd Weak Verbs)']

jst wrS Hm n.y n.y-sw.t bj.t.y xwfw m3<-xrw Hr HHy n=f n3 n jp3.w.t n.y.w.t wn.t n.y.t DHwty

"in fact, the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, was spending time seeking these forbidden-compartments of the sanctuary of Thoth for himself."

Khufu's name has been found in various locations with variant spellings. They seem to indicate that his FULL name was Xnmw-xwj=f-wj meaning "Khnum protects me" [ed., a sDm=f construction used as a name, ie. a noun]. If anyone is interested in seeing these variant spellings, he/she can find them in Juergen Bekerath's _Handbuch der aegyptischen Koenigsnamen_, Berlin, 1984, page 178. The spelling in Papyrus Westcar I is very unusual in that it seems to leave out the first {w} which is ubiquitous in inscriptions from the king's reign.

n=f = "for him" (in this case, since the subject is identical with the dative recipient, "himself")
n3 n = "these" (literally "these of") The problem is that De Buck's vulture did not look enough like a vulture, and you read it as an owl.

[line 12] n-t DHwty *r irt n f* mitt iry n Axt-f

[James Hoch, 17 April, 1997 ('AEL Re: WESTCAR 5 ')]
irt is definitely the infinitive--how can you tell?

Note that if a subject is required, the prospective sDm.f is used. But if no subject is required, the infinitive is used. A picky point, but it is best to reflect this in your translations: r + infinitive = "in order to hear"; contrasting with sDm.f "in order that he hear". LINES 11-12: What do you make of the n.f in both lines? How would you deal with it in translating for 1) a teacher, 2) a polished publication?

[Geoffrey Graham, 17 April, 1997 ('AEL WC 8-12 & 3rd Weak Verbs)']

Yes, it is an infinitive. Remember that various different verb classes in Egyptian form their infinitives differently. The verbs which have final weak consonants (j and w) have feminine -t endings. The verb in quesion is actually jrj and not simply jr, as Gardiner introduces it. I believe it is very important to learn the verb's class at the time when one learns the verb instead of having to relearn everything when one finally gets to the chapter which intorduces the infinitive and various other verbal quirkinesses. Actually a large number of very common verbs are third weak. I list a few of them below with all of their radicals and their final -t endings for the infinitive: (notice that most of them have j as their third radical, but there are a few with w). I hope this list, though NOT a complete one at all, might be of some help.

Triconsonantal verbs with weak third consonants

3wj.t extend
3bj.t desire
3bw.t stop/halt
jwj.t come (or jj.t and jw.t can be considered separate but mean the same)
jbj.t thirst
jnj.t bring
jrj.t do/make
jTj.t take
wpj.t open/judge/divide
wdj.t put/push/hit/strike
p3w.t have done in the past (later becomes pwj.t)
prj.t emerge/go forth/leave
psj.t cook/boil
mrj.t love
msj.t give birth/create
mkj.t protect
mdw.t converse/confront verbally
nnj.t faint/become weak
nrj.t fear
rmj.t weep
rSw.t rejoice
rdj.t give (irregular verb but still has 3rd weak characteristics)
h3j.t descend/return
hrw.t become happy/content
H<j.t jubilate
Hmj.t flee/retreat
Hzj.t favor/reward/praise
Hsj.t sing
HDj.t destroy/break

x3j.t measure/weigh/examine
x<j.t shine/appear/rise (celestial)
xbj.t subtract
xpj.t walk
xnj.t halt/alight/stop
Xnj.t row
Xzj.t become weak
z3w.t guard/protect
zbj.t go/pass/send
zpj.t remain/be left over
znj.t pass by/surpass
s3j.t become satisfied
skj.t perish/destroy
stj.t shoot/eject/pour
sTj.t engender/beget
sDj.t break
Swj.t become empty/become dry
Sbj.t change/alter
Smj.t go (irregular, verb may have changed verbal classes over time?)
Snj.t surround/conjure/ask
Sdj.t pull up/extract/rescue/read
q3j.t become high, tall, loud, long
qnj.t prevail/become strong
k3j.t plan/devise
ksw.t bow
gmj.t find
tpj.t breathe/sniff
thj.t transgress/wander
txj.t get drunk
Tnj.t raise up/distinguish
Tzj.t lift up
D3j.t cross over/ferry
Dwj.t call

Triconsonantal verbs with weak third consonants
3wj.t extend 3bj.t desire 3bw.t stop/halt jwj.t come (or jj.t and jw.t can be considered separate but mean the same) jbj.t thirst jnj.t bring jrj.t do/make jTj.t take wpj.t open/judge/divide wdj.t put/push/hit/strike p3w.t have done in the past (later becomes pwj.t) prj.t emerge/go forth/leave psj.t cook/boil mrj.t love msj.t give birth/create mkj.t protect mdw.t converse/confront verbally nnj.t faint/become weak nrj.t fear rmj.t weep rSw.t rejoice rdj.t give (irregular verb but still has 3rd weak characteristics) h3j.t descend/return hrw.t become happy/content H<j.t jubilate Hmj.t flee/retreat Hzj.t favor/reward/praise Hsj.t sing HDj.t destroy/break	x3j.t measure/weigh/examine x<j.t shine/appear/rise (celestial) xbj.t subtract xpj.t walk xnj.t halt/alight/stop Xnj.t row Xzj.t become weak z3w.t guard/protect zbj.t go/pass/send zpj.t remain/be left over znj.t pass by/surpass s3j.t become satisfied skj.t perish/destroy stj.t shoot/eject/pour sTj.t engender/beget sDj.t break Swj.t become empty/become dry Sbj.t change/alter Smj.t go (irregular, verb may have changed verbal classes over time?) Snj.t surround/conjure/ask Sdj.t pull up/extract/rescue/read q3j.t become high, tall, loud, long qnj.t prevail/become strong k3j.t plan/devise ksw.t bow gmj.t find tpj.t breathe/sniff thj.t transgress/wander txj.t get drunk Tnj.t raise up/distinguish Tzj.t lift up D3j.t cross over/ferry Dwj.t call

[G. Graham replied to S. Fryer's suggestion that Axt-f should be translated as 'tomb', not as 'temple', as given by M. Lichtheim.]

You are right. It is the tomb, because cosmologically the Akhet was a sort of compartment that the sun passed through on its way from the upper world to the lower world, and there was also another Akhet which it passed
through on its way back in the opposite direction at the eastern horizon. We use the english word horizon for the Akhet, while for the Egyptians it constituted a whole realm just beyong the horizon. The picture sign for the word consists of the sun passing into the earth between two mountains, and it is determined by the house sign, whether it was used for a tomb or whether it was used for the horizon (both cases). Each tomb that was built hoped to serve as a model of the real Akhet so that it was a way station between worlds. See James P. Allen's Genesis in Egypt, YES 2 for a discussion of the cosmology involved.
[James Hoch, 18 April, 1997 ('AEL Re: WESTCAR, Line 7ff. / Difficulties Ahead')

n Axt.f. The use of the negative arms for the preposition n "to, for" etc., is fairly common in Hieratic texts. Note that it is extremely rare as the genitival n(y) "of". The letter n and the negative arms signs differ in Hieratic only through a dot in the middle of the negative arms sign.

<< Prev Lines | Next Lines >>

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