Commentary for pWestcar, AEL Page 2, Lines 1-20

This discusses hieroglyphic page 2 (= page 80 of de Buck).

The full transliteration is here. The 'clickable' vocabulary is here.

 

Go to Line 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

---

 

LINE 1 [next]

xr-m-xt spr=f r Dd(y)

 

Stephen Fryer [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

"Now after he reached Djedi"

 

G. Graham [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?] responding to Stephen.

Your translation implies that we have a subordinate clause, which I don't think we do. xr means "now/moreover", m-xt means "afterwards" I would translate it:"now afterwards (after some time) he reached Djedi." You need a full-stop after this. It cannot be a subordinate circumstantial clause because what follows is the beginning of a new idea, which is not the main sentence. aHa.n always brings in something new.

 

J. Hoch [14/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

I would not be so hasty to dismiss Stephen's original translation of the xr m-xt as "Now after he reached Djedi...", this use does seem to occur. We had a similar occurrence in lines 16-17 (of the web site copy): xr m-xt nA n(y) aHaw mni(w) r mryt, SAs pw ir.n.f m Hrty... which I would take to be: "Now, after the ships had been docked to shore, he proceeded overland..." rather than "Now later, the ships were docked to shore. He proceeded overland..." This sounds like a subordinate clause in translation, and Geoff's interepretation as a full clause may be strictly speaking correct--but very often the relationship between the xr m-xt clause and the following main clause seem to be very closely linked. Let's keep an eye out for more examples as we go, and maybe we can come up with some better answers.

 

[S.Rosmorduc, 18/8/97; AEL West. P2, L1] (in answer to MDS question, What is the verb form of spr=f? Why is it past tense?)

> Firstly, xr-m-xt spr=f occurs three times (all in the Kheops/Djedi story), so it is not a typo.

The other xr m-xt in the text are followed by Noun Phrase + Old perfective. There are in fact a number of cases when one would wait for an accomplished verb form and one finds a simple sDm=f (for example, later : aHa.n Snt RwDDdt xt n tA wbAyt). I find this problem rather tricky.

> However, in the case of xr-m-xt spr=f we might have a simple circumstancial sDm=f. Remember that sDm.n=f is not a past tense : it's an accomplished, that is, at some point in time, the action is finished ; the point might be past, present, or even future. In general, the context gives the tense, not the verb form.

> If we try a circumstancial, we get : Now, afterwards, when he reached Djedji, the sedan chair was put down. (note that then you must cut : xr / m-xt / spr=f then / after / when..., and not xr/ m-xt spr=f, then / after he came.

> This understanding of xr-m-xt is backed up by (late egyptian) examples where m-xt is followed by prepositional phrases. There could be middle egyptian ones somewhere, but I haven't got them at hand. Example (two brothers):

xr-ir m-xt, Hr tr n rwhA, wn.in pAy.f sn aA (Hr) wHa r pAy.f pr, "and later, in the evening, his elder brother came back home")

But the sentence : xr m-xt spr=f wa r wa aHa.n pA smn aHa Hr gAgA is then a little problematic : it would be : "Then, when one (part) met the other, the goose stood up cackling"

(BTW, the form aHa.n NP + old perfective has a resultative meaning...)

To express the sentencewithout the resultative meaning, the scribe would have written : aHa pw irw.n pA smn iw=f Hr gAgA . I'd rather see one part reach the other, and then, the goose standing. But on the whole, the hypothesis of a circumstancial sDm=f seems quite plausible.

 

LINE 2 [next] [top]

aHa.n wAH(.w) pA qniw

 

Stephen Fryer [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

the carrying chair was put down

Q: Did the form wAH ever get identified?

A: Past tense passive in a "aHa.n sDm(.w)=f" passive construction.

 

G. Graham [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?] responding to Stephen.

Fine, except that this is not a continuation of the previous idea. "Then the litter was put down."

 

J. Hoch [14/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

Stephen's identification of wAH(w) as the "sDm(w).f passive" (the past-tense PASSIVE circumstantial form) is absolutely correct. Let's keep track of how many of these forms actually occur. In the aHa.n construction, one expects first and foremost to find a (circumstantial) sDm.n.f form to follow. When you encounter a form without an n (i.e. what looks like a sDm.f form)--try it as a sDm(w).f passive. Also, look for the subject--does it work better as a passive or as an active verb form?

 

 

LINE 3 [next] [top]

aHa pw ir.n=f r wSd=f

 

S. Fryer [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

"He stood up to speak to him" (the =f is the OBJECT of the infinitive wSd)

 

G. Graham [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?] responding to Stephen.

Excellent job! Literally we see "It was a standing up which he did in order to address him." which of course is not good English.

 

P. Ryan [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

How about: "What he did was to stand up before addressing him". [G.Graham supported this]

 

J. Hoch [16/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

The problem with this is that there is a good Egyptian construction that means "before (DOING XYZ)", and this is not it. There are also prepositions that could be used to indicate prior action, but not the preposition r. Preposition r + infinitive as a means of indicating PURPOSE--"in order to (DO XYZ)"--is NORMAL. Geoff's original interpretation and translation (not necessarily his word-for-word rendering, which is also correct, but not good English--heh, heh) were on the right track

 

LINE 4 [next] [top]

 

gmi.n=f sw sDr.w Hr TmA m sS n.y sbA=f

 

Stephen Fryer [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

"having found him lying on a mat in the threshold of his (house?)"

[16/6/97] On second thoughts, there actually is another m in there in the hieroglyphic transcription tmAm. Of course, somewhere in there someone put in the wrong determinative too - deBuck has Aa19 instead of the correct V19.

 

J. Hoch [16/6/97; AEL Westcar: Finding Djedi]

Now, someone also transliterated tmA as tmAm and then apologized--but that IS what the text actually has. The second m is an Egyptian writing convention to indicate that the A of the historical writing was no longer to be pronounced (i.e. older form was tmA; later form was tm). The repetition of the m essentially means: stop reading at "m". Normally, in such a case, we just transliterate: tmA.

 

What is the form of sDr? What is the word that it refers to, and how does it function grammatically in the sentence. (It has a BIG, BIG role.) This ties into my first bit of probing.

 

Jumping back a line, we had Hardedef arrive in his palanquin, which was then set down. He arises to address Djedi. This brings us back to some things that Marianne brought up some time ago. How did a royal address a powerful eminence? It seems to me that getting out of the palanquin and standing up was probably a sign of respect. (Would have been rather rude talking to Djedi just sitting in a deposed palanquin--but also maybe it would not be decorous to be just sitting in a grounded palanquin in any situation??!!). The dialogue between them is a bit tricky--both use rather genteel language. But we still have a few loose ends in FINDING DJEDI.

 

G. Graham [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?] responding to Stephen.

"when he found him lying upon a mat in the threshold of his door. "

The word for door is written with the picture of a door. It is read sbA.

 

J. Hoch [14/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

The word with a house determinative is uncertain. It is not necessarily to be read sbA, and I do not know what the best reconstruction would be. Stephen took gmi.n.f sw sDr(.w) Hr tmA m sS n ?=f as a circumstantial clause (a modifying clause: "having found him" as opposed to a main clause "He found him..."). I cannot fault this interpretation, but there is another option (and years of experience convince me that the verb gmi "to find" is used almost exclusively in a single construction). Any ideas?

 

Stephen Fryer [16/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

Actually, I suppose that gm.n=f must be a second tense form [= nominal, or emphasizing form], which would make this what you refer to as an explicatory sentence. gm.n=f sw sDr(=w) Hr tmAm m sS n ?=f .... "He found him lying on a mat in the entrance of his ? ....", or, with different emphasis, "It was lying on a mat in the entrance of his ? ... that he found him."

 

S. Rosmorduc [17/6/97; AEL Re: Westcar Back-tracking?]

There are a number of verbs who are almost always used with the nominal sDm.n=f form [= second tense/nominal/emphasizing form], and whose value is almost those of auxiliaries. It include sDr, gmi, and a few others. To sum up, the nominal form emphasises the circumstances, which is why the order is reversed in translation. With some verbs, the circumstances are naturally the most important part of the sentence, and these verbs show a great trend toward systematic use of the nominal form. For example, sDr or wrS (spend the night/day) are mostly used to express HOW your spend the day. As of gmi, it usually stresses the state of the thing found. The translation of : gmi.n=j sw mwt.w could be "I found him, dead.", but a better one would be : "I found that he was dead". Interestingly, in Westcar, most sDm.n=f found in the narrative parts correspond to this kind of verbs.

 

But too systematic a use can weaken a construction. And while the form is almost certainly nominal, it might sometimes be a perfectly good translation not to express the emphasis in the translation.

List of probably nominal sDm.n=f in Westcar :

(page and line numbers at left refer to the papyrus, right refer to de Buck)

 

[2,9] wrS.n.s im Hr swir Hna pA nDs

[6,9] gm.n.f pA nxAw wAH Hr pAqyt

[6,13] wrS.n Hm.f Hr hrw nfr Hna pr-nswt-aws mi-qd.f

[6,14] pr.n fqA.n.f Xry-Hbd Hry-tp DADA-m-anx m bw nb nfr

[7,14] gm.n.f sw sDr Hr tmAm m sS n pr.f [80,3]

[10,2] gm.n.sn sw aHa dAiw sxd [84,7]

[12,4] gm.n.s ir.tw m Xnw.f (?perhaps?) [87,5]

[12,5] rd.n.s st r at wnnt Xr Hnw.s [87,7]

[12,13] gm.n.s sn.s n mwt.s smsw Hr mr mHy nwt Hr xtyw [87,14]

[12,20] gm.n.f rwDDdt Hms.ti tp.s Hr mAst.s ib.s Dw r xt nbt [88,5]

 

note the frequency of 'gm.n=f'. You never find "aHa.n gm.n=f" in this text. (And while I'm at it, the aHa in 'aHa.n sDm.n=f' was probably originaly a nominal form).

 

LINE 5

Hm Xr tp=f Hr amam n=f ky Hr sin rd(.wy)=fy

 

Stephen Fryer [13/6/97; RE>AEL Back-tracking?]

with a servant at his head rubbing him with oil, and another massaging his feet.

[amam is given as "smear" in Faulkner, "anoint" in Hoch - basically he was having his bald head polished]

[rd.wy.fy is a dual form, and could be "his legs" rather than "his feet")

 

LINE 6 - 9 [next] [top]

aHa.n Dd.n zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f;

"iw xr.w.t=k mi anx tp-m tni xr iAw.t, As.t-mni(w), As.t-qrs, As.t-zmA-tA, sDr r Ssp Swi m xA.w.t, nn kHkH.t n.y.t sry.t!"

Stephen Fryer [16/6/97; AEL Hardedef's speech]

I'm having difficulty with the first part of Hardedef's speech to Djedi. To sum up the serious problems:

1 ) What is the form of anx?

2 ) What is the usage of xr (so far I haven't found a similar use in my references)?

3 ) What is the form of sDr and is it parallel with anx?

iw xrt=k mi anx tp-m tni "Your condition is like one living before old age."

[mi could be "as though" I'm not sure what form of anx is used here - it could be a plain noun, "life" or it might be a participle "one living"]

J. Hoch [16/6/97: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like]

iw xrt.k mi anx tp-m tni

The translations have been pretty good. (That is a high compliment from me!) Whatever anx is, it has been correctly taken as a noun or nominal form: "life" or "living." Here is another suggestion: why not take it as a participle "one who lives." This would be the imperfect active participle. Lichtheim also takes it this way. She correctly fixes the English to something like "Your condition is like (that of) one who lives before old age." (although she has "who lives above age," whatever that means...)

 

G.Graham [17/7/97; RE>AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like], responding to Marc Line who said:

> 2. That tni should be seen in the sense of "growing old" and that "tp"

> would then be suggesting that Djedi is someone whose condition is such

> that he appears to be "above" growing old, i.e. that his powerful magic

> allows him to stay the effects of ageing.

I think tnj probably is something like that. "Old" for people is Tnj, and "old" for monuments and more permanent things is jz. If you take <nx to be a participle and tp-m as the compound prepostion, you might get: "your condition is like one who lives before ageing."

 

Stephen Fryer [16/6/97; AEL Hardedef's speech]

xr iAwt st mniy

st qrs

st smA-tA

"Now old age is the (proper) place of mooring

the (proper) place of the coffin

the (proper) place of joining the land."

 

[Here I'm treating xr as a non-enclitic particle, rather than the preposition "near," introducing a new sentence in contrast with the previous one. The three euphemisms for dying are pretty obviously a case of parallelism. I have perhaps been over-literal in translating st as "place" - Faulkner gives it as being a sort of prefix for creating abstract nouns (like bw?)]

 

G. Graham [11/6/97; RE>AEL pWestcar Redux]

Maybe these noun phrases, mostly euphemisms for death, are all in aposition and still governed by the preposition [tp-m]. "The mooring-place, the burial-place, the place of joining the earth, reclining toward the light, free of illness, without the hacking of a cough."

 

J. Hoch [16/6/97: AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like]

xr iAwt st-mni

 

The particle xr may introduce a new sentence: "Now, ..." or perhaps here it is more subordinate "for old age is mooring" ("mooring" being a metaphor for dying). The sentence structure was questioned earlier and as no one has jumped in, perhaps I can explain what I think. It seems to be the simplest nominal construction: what I call the "AB Nominal Sentence." [ed., section 128 of Hoch]. In this construction element A is placed up against element B without any other connecting words. This construction is rather restricted in its use, but it looks like that's what we've got here. It means "A is B." Note that st-mni, st-qrs, and st-smA-tA are all abstract nouns formed with st. Similar compounds are formed with bw. Most of these words do not have any direct connection with "place" or spacial location, but often they refer to conditions. Many of these are not to be found in the dictionaries, but are fairly easy to figure out.

 

[ed., for an alternative analysis of nominal syntax, see Loprieno, chpt 5]

 

G.Graham [17/6/97: AEL mnjw] (responding to Marianne's question.

The word mnjw has two main meanings, "pasture" (sheep/cattle/etc.) or

"moor" (a boat) both of which are connected by rope. In Egypt animals are usually tied to a rope when pastured in order to confine them to a particular area. When you tie an animal it is similar to tying a boat. There is a secondary meaning of mnjw also: "marry", when you "tie the knot". This word also was commonly used as a euphemism for "die". mnjw does not literally mean "death" but rather "wrap-up time" as you so excellently put it in one of your previous posts!

G.Graham [17/6/97: RE>AEL Westcar: Your Condition is like]

What I like about how you [Marc] have handled this is that, if the original sentence means "your condition is like one who lives BEFORE ageing", then, the rest of it will be a description of what ageing can be, and how very close it seems to death. "For agedness is dying, burial, landing, and lying down from the light" but then what do you do when it starts to name positive characteristics, or at least the lack of negative ones?...

"free of illness, without the hacking of a cough."

Your know what, James, you have to be right here! This is a noun-noun sentence! There really is nothing else you can do with it! I do get the impression, however, that there might be something left out though. Why does the description of old age shift from a comparison with death, something that is bound to be negative, is it not, to the lack of illness? Have we missed something in the middle here? Could this be some kind of exclamation? Let me take some liberties and see what you think: "Oh what an old age, (that is usually) death, burial, interment, (YET, look at YOU) lying in the sun, free of illness, and with not (even) the hacking of a cough!"

I am still not entirely satisfied. I just want there to be some adversative conjunction stuffed in there between the death metaphores and the picture of health motif, don't you?

 

Stephen Fryer [16/6/97; AEL Hardedef's speech]

sDr r Ssp Sw m xA(y)t

nn kHkHt nt sryt

"One sleeping to daylight without disease and no sound of a cough."

[I am not sure what form sDr is here - I'm taking it as a participle in parallel with anx in the first line of the speech. If it is, that sort of makes the whole section between into sort of a parenthetical statement, sort of stuck in the middle of another sentence: "Your condition is like one living before age, sleeping till...." I couldn't find kHkHt in Faulkner, but it is such a lovely coughing sound!]

 

Prof. James P. Allen [15 May, 2000; AEL Westcar 7,17-19]

jw xrt.k mj anx tp m tnj, xr jAwt st mnj st qrs st smA tA, sDr r Szp, Sw m xAwt nn kHkJt nt sryt

"Your condition is like (that of) one who lives before distinction, (even) in the presence of old age, mooring, burial, and joining the earth, who sleeps until daylight, free of ailments, without coughing of the throat."

This is a sentence with adverbial (prepositional phrase) predicate: xrt.k is the subject and mj anx plus everything after is the predicate. anx is an active participle; tp m is a compound preposition meaning "before" (literally, "head in"), usually spatial, but also temporal, as here. tnj "distinction" is a common idiom for "old age": to the ancient Egyptians, who honored their elders, one who was old was also distinguished. The greeting reflects the common opening of letters: jw xrt.k mj anx HH n zp "Your condition is like (that of) one who lives a million times." Though cast as a statement, both sentences actually contain an implied wish for the hearer's wellbeing. The sense of Hardjedef's greeting can be paraphrased as follows: "May your condition be like one who has not yet reached old age, who sleeps through the night, free of ailments and coughing, even though you are old and therefore near death."

 

Look at section 16.6 and 16.6.13 of my grammar. There you will see that the particle xr (a) stands at the beginning of a clause and (b) is followed either by a prepositional phrase or clause (subject and predicate). Neither of these is the case in tnj xr jAwt, so xr there can only be a preposition.

[James P. Allen, Curator, Department of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art]

LINE 10

"(i-)nD-xr.w.t, imAx.y pw!"

G.Graham [11/6/97: RE>AEL pWestcar Redux]

"Greetings, O venerable one!"In this case, the pw is for the vocative.

LINE11 [next] [top]

"ii.n=i aA r nis r=k m wpw.t n.y.t it=i, xwfw, mAa-xrw."

G. Graham [11/6/97; RE>AEL pWestcar Redux]

"It is on a mission of my father, Khufu, the justified, that I have come here to summon you. "

The use of the sDm.n=f for a verb of motion should be a clue to the emphasizing nature of the verb. What form would we have expected to have seen if this were a regular past tense? Any takers?

[ed. Answer is the stative/old perfective form]

 

J. Hoch [14/6/97: AEL Westcar: Why I have come]

Geoff's interpretation of jj.n=j <3 r njs r=k m wpw.t n.y.t jt=j xwfw m3<-xrw as "it is on a mission of my father, khufu, the justified, that I have to come to summon you" is right on. This is a fairly advanced level point of grammar, so you who are just getting the basics, don't worry! Here, the speaker wants to say WHY he has come, and not THAT he has arrived (a bit obvious, eh?). The reason why he has come is contained in the (adverbial) phrase r nis r.k "in order to summon you". As Geoff points out, this is a prepositional phrase (prep. r + infinitive), and as such it is adverbial. The point the speaker is making in this type of construction is always adverbial (why, where, how, in what condition, when, etc. etc.).

 

G. Graham (cited by J. Hoch)

sDm=f's can have four different forms: indicative, circumstantial, subjunctive/prospective, and emphasizing/nominal. sDm.n=f's only have two possible forms: circumstantial and emphasizing/nominal. This example was an emphasizing/nominal one.

A note of caution on terminology. "Indicative", in Egyptological jargon, does not designate a verb form with the characteristics and uses that most of us would imagine. I have opted for calling it the "Old Indicative", since it is a relic from Old Egyptian, and is used only in certain negations. The equivalent of the indicative statement (statement of fact) is in Egyptian built around the iw sDm.f (which uses the CIRCUMSTANTIAL verb forms) or the iw.f m pr (sentence with adverbial predicate) construction and its various modifications/substitutions.

 

G. Graham[17/6/97, RE>AEL Westcar: Why I have co] (responding to Mark's questions)

> Why is it necessary to reverse the two parts of the sentence?
There is no necessity to reverse the order so long as you make it clear which part is the emphasized part. The cleft sentence is one way that English can emphasize an adverbial adjunct. At other times we do so by special wording or by underlining or in certain instances final position can emphasize too. Egyptian could emphasize by word order too, but it seems to have also had the second tense as an efficient tool for doing so without shifting the words. I also think that sometimes Egyptologists are making too much out of the emphasis that the second tense created. We do not always need to indicate it so strongly, making our translations filled with too many stilted cleft sentences. There are varying degrees of emphasis and sometimes you just have to get a feel for the context in order to know what degree is warranted in a given translation. My Coptic instructor feels that some second tenses are best translated in the usual fashion so as to avoid overly dramatic English when the original was only mildly emphasized. I used the cleft sentence in this example in order to make a point mostly. It helps people to remember the emphasizing/second tense form of the sDm=f/sDm.n=f. If I had left it as:

"I have come to summon you on a mission of my father, Khufu the justified."

it still would have worked just as well. In a sense the "on a mission of..." is still emphasized in English because it is at the end of the sentence. The point was, however, to draw attention to the fact that we have a special grammatical circumstance here. So long as people understand that, it really does not matter if one uses a cleft sentence in English or not.

 

> (I see that /m/ is not normally reckoned to have the meaning of "at"

The prepositions in Egyptian are really pretty fluid. There is NO one-for-one correspondence in English. Really you can say that about any language though. The usage of prepositions is very specific from one language to the next. There will be times when you are forced to translate "m" as any number of English prepositions depending on what the context is. This takes some time to get used to, but just keep notes on the prepositions for a while and you will begin to get a general sense of them. They are also dependent upon various idioms in Egyptian AND in English.

 

LINE 12 [next] [top]

"wnm=k Spss.w n dd-n.y-sw.t, DfA.w n wnm.w Sms.w.w=f."

G.Graham [11/6/97: RE>AEL pWestcar Redux]

"You shall eat the delicacies of the royal largesse, the provisions of the foods of his followers."

 

[S.Fryer, 11/8/97; RE>AEL West.P2, L12-13] (responding to MDS about the initial verbs for this line and the next line)

Well, first of all, the verb starting this discourse (ii.n=i) is a 2nd tense sDm.n=f emphasizing the reason or manner of his coming. This is followed by a purpose construction (r + infinitive: r nis, "to suumon"). The two verbs you asked about are prospective forms wnm=k "you may/will eat" sb=f "he may/will conduct" I'm not sure whether these would be regarded as purpose clauses (the reason for the summons) or result clauses (the result of obeying the summons). I think I prefer the latter myself.

 

There are basically three types of sDm=f/sDm.n=f verb forms:

1) Circumstantial - both sDm=f and sDm.n=f forms - cannot stand alone at the beginning of a sentence - expresses basically our "indicative"

2) Prospective - only sDm=f form - stands alone at the beginning of a sentence - expresses our "modal" forms: wishes, uncertainty, purpose, result - all looking towards the (relative) future.

3) "Second Tense" - both sDm=f and sDm.n=f forms - stands alone at the beginning of a sentence - emphasis is on how or why the action is performed.

 

G.Graham [12/8/97; AEL sDm=f's etc.]

Technically there are four distinquishable sDm=f forms, though the Indicative is the rarest and not encountered nearly as often as the other three. I think what you maen to say is that the circumstantial is translated by our indicative when it is preceeded by either jw or a noun subject which is echoed in the suffix pronoun at its end. In such cases it can be denoted as an "aorist". However, by definition, circumstantials are normally dependent clauses, which cannot stand alone, as you have noted, but which are subordinate. They can be translated as "when he hears/heard", "though he hears/heard", "hearing" etc. They can never be the main verb of a sentence unless they are preceeded by jw or a noun subject as described above.

[Re: prospective sDm=f] technically thre are two forms embedded in it. There is the subjunctive and the prospective, but they became indistinct from one another in the Middle Kingdom.

[ed., well discussed in Loprieno, chpt 4]

 

LINE 13 [next] [top]

"zbi=f tw m aHa.w nfr n it.w=k, wnm.w Xr.y.t-nTr."

G.Graham [11/6/97: RE>AEL pWestcar Redux]

"He shall usher you into the good standing of your ancestors, and the foods of the necropolis."

 

[initial verb form is prospective sDm=f]

 

S. Fryer [12/6/97; RE>AEL pWestcar Redux]

Actually, if you check the spelling m aHaw nfr is "in (after) a good period of time." While the Egyptians tended to wish a good burial on each other they tended to stick in a phrase like this to ward off any suggestion that the old fellow should push off for the West forthwith.

 

LINE 14 [next] [top]

Dd.in Ddi pn; "m Htp, m Htp, Hrw-dd=f, zA-n.y-sw.t, mri.y n.y it=f!"

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

Then this Djedi said "Welcome, welcome, Hardedef, (O) prince, beloved of his father!"

I still stand by "welcome" because I believe it is simply the omission of "ii.ti" in "ii.ti m Htp".

 

S. Fryer [12/6/97; RE>AEL pWestcar Redux]

It seems that the Egyptians used m Htp in much the same way that Hebrew uses Salom and Arabic uses salam. In this case I would guess it was a short form of ii.ti m Htp "welcome in peace" so Geoff's "Welcome! Welcome!" is probably the proper meaning

 

Serge Rosmorduc [18/6/97RE>AEL What Djedi Said]

I think this Htp might also be related with the ritual used while awakening a divinity : "rs=k, Htp=k, rs=k m Htp" and thus mean "good day".

 

J. Hoch [19/6/97; AEL Re(2): AEL What Djedi Said]

I don't have a problem with taking pn quite literally as "this". Unlike "vocative pw", it need not be taken as an honorific. The idea of translating it "the aforementioned Djedi" is a good one.

[20/6/97] The best argument against an honorific function is that it occurs in the narrative and not in quoted speech. Characters in stories don't get honored by the narrator, but rather by other characters. Only the deceased and the king (and associated persons & things) merit honorifics of any sort, such as mAa xrw and interjections like anx(w), wDA(w), snb(w)! "May he live, prosper, and be hale!", etc.

LINE 15 [next] [top]

"Hzi tw jt=k, xwfw, mAa-xrw!"

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

May your father Khufu the justified favor you!

[ed. initial verb form is prospective sDm=f]

LINE 16

"s-xnt=f As.t=k m iAw.w!"

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

May he promote your position with the elders!

 

[ed. initial verb form is prospective sDm=f]

LINE 17 [next] [top]

"Snt kA=k ix.w.t r xft.y=k!"

(ed., First word emended to Snt from Sni.t after some discussion (see below). The two verbs have similar meanings (see vocab). SnT xt r "vent anger on")

"May your ka vent its anger on your enemy!"

[ed. initial verb form is prospective sDm=f]

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

"May your Ka enchant things against your enemy!"
I do not have any good explanation for the {t} on Sni.t. Does anyone else? I thought about it being a sDm.tw=f passsive, but doesn't jx.w.t have to be the object here?

later post [17/6; RE>AEL What Djedi Said]:

It is on Faulkner, Page 268. Snj.t jx.t r is an idiom meaning "litigate against". It would be:"May your Ka litigate against your enemy."

That would be a reference to the trials of the afterlife and it would express Djedi's wish that the prince would win and have a good position in the next world.

 

S.Fryer [17/6/97; RE>AEL What Djedi Said]

I just got around to hauling out the Faulkner. On page 269, under SnT you will find the same spelling we have here for "revile." Further in the same he has SnT xt r "vent anger on" with Westcar 7,25 as a reference. That would make this. "May your ka vent its anger on your enemy!"

 

[private post by Stephen Fryer]

Faulkner gives the passage in question as a reference for this idiom using the verb SnT in its attested spelling of Snt (with coil for hard t). He also references the almost identical idiom later in Westcar as another example. He translates both idioms as "vent anger upon":

 

[P.Westc.7,11] Snt kA=k x.(w)t r

[P.Westc.12,9] aHa.n Snt rwdDdt x.(w)t n

[private response to Stephen by Geoff]

Oh, I had not caught that. I guess you must be right then. It does help to explain the t. The coil however could be either a determinative or a t-hardener as you have suggested. The coil is very well attested on words containing the sound Sn. This is also why Lichtheim has translated it differently. She, like me, did not find the other possibility as you have.

[Stephen Fryer continues]

To further confound the issue, of course, M.Lichtheim takes this passage (P.Westc.7,11) as an example of Sni meaning to surround or overwhelm (Faulkner,p.267-268), which translates quite nicely. However the determinative is wrong (coil+arm). And it is unclear how she understood Snt in the later passage (P.Westc.25,9) as she translates the phrase with "had a quarrel with".

 

Unfortunately, the meanings of Sni and SnT are sufficiently close that it is rather difficult to distinguish them purely from context. You seem to be left trying to explain an (apparently) extraneous t, whereas the (apparently) extraneous w is fairly easily accounted for. (I would point out again the prospective form of ini which is spelled in.tw.f in a couple of places in the text, so perhaps you could get around the t problem that way - both weak verbs and all?)

 

LINE 18 [next] [top]

"rx bA=k wA.w.t afd.t r sbx.t n.y.t Hbs bAg(y.w)!"

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

"May your Ba be acquainted with the ways of the coffin toward the pylon of covering (i.e. "which covers") the weary!" This is a reference to achieving a proper funeral and making it to the afterlife in one piece, I think.

 

J. Hoch [19/6/97; AEL Re(2): AEL What Djedi Said]

So far nobody has brought up the traditional interpretation of afd.t as a fem. pl. participle of the root afd "to lead" r "to a place". Faulkner has only this Westcar as an example, but the Woerterbuch may have more. This would yield: "May your ba be acquainted with the roads that lead to the portal".

 

S. Fryer [13/8/97; RE>AEL West. P2, L18] (responding to a question by MDS; "could n.y.t really be nty")

The hieroglyphic text in deBuck is nt - I don't think that could be nty. Rather than sbx.t being "pylon" it probably is "portal," although there is a very similar word which I think there is a possibility of confusion, which means "chest." Hbs means "to hide," although this isn't given in Faulkner with this exact determinative. Faulkner guesses that b3g here means "sight" - though with a question mark - the eye determinative(?) following it is a puzzle. I have a feeling that there is some reference here from the Pyramid texts or offin texts that we are missing. If we had some idea of the allusion we might have a chance of making sense out of it.

[12/8/97] I checked the Coffin Texts. There is no place where Hbs bAg occurs. However in Spell 237 (Vol.3, p.307), one of the sources uses the eye determinative after bAg (translated as "languid one" in the CT index).

[14/8/97] I think possibly the explanation is [for the eye determinative] ... that the Egyptians did use "weary" and "weary of heart" as euphemisms for the dead. The eye determinative could make it mean something like "ghost" - similar concepts are behind our words "spectre" and "spectral" which derive from Latin spectare "to see."

 

[Janet Johnson, private post to MDS 12/9/97]

The word bAg meaning "weary" can refer to the dead (so Faulkner in his translation of bAgyw as Languid Ones=the dead), so the Hbs bAg would be the portal which covers/hides the dead, or something similar.

LINE 19

"(i-)nD-xr.w.t, zA-n.y-sw.t pw!"

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

Greetings, O prince!"

LINE 20

aHa.n Awi.n n=f zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f a.wy=fy.

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

Then prince Hardedef extended his hands (note the dual suffix) to him.

LINE 21

aHa.n s-aHa.n=f sw.

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

Then he uprighted him (caused him to stand).

LINE 22 [top]

wDA pw iri.n=f Hna=f r mry.t Hr rdi.t n=f a=f.

G.Graham [16/6/97: AEL What Djedi Said]

What he did was set out together with him toward the shore while giving his hand to him.