[home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P4]

Commentary on pWestcar, Page 4, Lines 1 - 21

This discusses hieroglyphic page 4 (= De Buck's Page 81, lines 13 - 16 (end); then page 82, lines 1 - 10).
The full transliteration is here. The 'clickable' vocabulary is here.
 
Go to Line 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - 5 - 6 | 7 | 8 - 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 - 18 | 19 | 20 - 21 |
 
LINE 1
Dd.in Ddi n is n rmT it.y anx.w wDA.w snb.w nb=i

 

[Nancy R. Tomasheski, 18/7/97: AEL More Translation]
"Djedi: "Indeed not! Not people, O Sovereign, l.p.h., my lord."
 
[G. Graham, 18/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation]
Great! This works.
 
[ed. More literally: "Then said Djedi...."; l.p.h. abbreviates anx.w wDA.w snb.w, "life, prosperity, health"]

 

LINE 2 [next] [top]
mk n wD=tw iri.t mn.t ir.y n tA-aw.t Sps.y.t
 

 

[Nancy R. Tomasheski, 18/7/97: AEL More Translation]
"Behold, such a thing is forbidden [to do to] the noble cattle!
 
[G. Graham, 18/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation]
Yes. Quite good. Literally "n wD=tw" means "it is not commanded". I might have used "Hey, doing such a thing is not permitted for higher animals!" aw.t can sometimes be used as a generic word for "animal/mammal". I think, in combination with "Sps.y.t" "august/sublime/noble/high-born" it is actually the Egyptian idiom for "humankind".
 
[J. Hoch, 22/7/97: AEL Re(2): AEL More Translation]
This is a past tense construction: "Doing something like that has not been ordained..." Geoff is right that the sDm(w).f passive is difficult to recognize. Here are a couple of suggestions. The aHa.n sDm.n.f usually has the (circumstantial) sDm.n.f. If there is no N, then try a sDm(w).f passive. Also look for the subject--is the subject the doer of the action? There are examples of aHa.n sDm.f (i.e. without an N) but these are quite rare.
 
LINE 3 [next] [top]
aHa.n ini.w n=f smn wDa.w tp=f

 

 
[G. Graham, 18/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation]
"Then a goose was brought to him and its head was removed."
[Note] we have not just one passive verb form here [ed., ie. sDm.w] but TWO, which is admittedly quite confusing. The dative element n=f intervenes between the verb and its subject because of the surface reordering of pronouns. This makes it look as if it were a sDm.n=f, but it is not.
 
LINES 4 - 6 [next] [top]
aHa.n rdi.w pA-smn r gbA imn.t.y n.y
wAx.y DD=f r gbA jAb.t.y n.y wAx.y

 

 
[G. Graham, 18/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation]
"Then the goose was placed on the west side of the audience-hall,"
[Nancy R. Tomasheski, 18/7/97: AEL More Translation]
"his head at the eastern side of the [audience-hall]."
 
 
LINE 7 [crosses to de Buck Page 82, line 1] [next] [top]
aHa.n Dd.n Ddi Dd.w.t=f m HkA

 

[Nancy R. Tomasheski, 18/7/97: AEL More Translation]
"Djedi spoke his words of magic."
[G. Graham, 18/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation]
Correct. Let me just put a more literal version for those who need it:
"Then Djedi said his sayings in magic"
[M.D-S, 22/7/97: AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7]
What form is Dd.w.t ("sayings")? Presumably derived from the verb, Dd, to say/speak. It must be nominal but can't be the infinitive (which doesn't have a t ending as far as I can see). A passive participle ("what he said")? It also seems a bit repetitious, the same verb used twice, along with a similarly sounding persons name (Ddi). Was this word-play?
 
[G.Graham, 22/7/97: RE>AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7]
It is an imperfective passive participle in the feminine plural. The generic was referred to in Egyptian using the feminine gender. If it were perfective we would expect a reduplication of /d/s as in Ddd.w.t. Biliteral verbs behave in this anomalous fashion with reduplication in the perfective. Imperfective means that the action was continuous or repeated. "what he habitually said/says" = "his sayings". Look in Gardiner under "participles."
 
I might also have wanted to point out that m in m Hk3=f is probably best interpreted as the partitive m, meaning "out of" rather than "in". Let me modify the phrase to "his sayings from magic". Though, you will notice that this does not make a very big difference in the English this time around.
 
[J. Hoch, 23/7/97: RE>AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7]
Ddt.f: Mike is right on in noting this as a nominal form. And his suggestion as passive participle works well, except for the fact that the suffix .f is attached. In class I tell my students (over and over) that the participles and the relative verb forms are "cousins." The participles are the single cousins, and the relative verb forms are the "married" cousins, since they conjugate. Here we seem to have the married variety. (In other words, in Egyptian one used the participle when one did not want or need to indicate the subject--and one used the relative forms precisely when the subject was needed.)
 
The point that it is redundant is true, but in the ancient NE generally, there is a rhetorical device known to modern scholars as "cognate accusative"--the writer uses the same verbal root for the verbal action and for the action performed. We don't find "she sang her song" as a very clever phrasing, but the general pattern was much liked in the ANE. This phenomenon is also very well attested in the Hebrew scriptures
 
[S.Fryer, 22/7/97: RE>AEL Westcar AEL Pg.4, Ln.7]
This same expression occurs in the section of Westcar about the boating party: aHa.n Dd.n Xr-Hb DADAmanx Dd.wt m HkA.w "Then Djadja-m-ankh said his say of magics" I rather like to use "of" here rather than "in" as a translation, because "in" sort of implies in English that he was using a special language, which isn't necessarily the case.
 
LINES 8 - 9 [next] [top]
wn.in pA-smn aHa Hr Hbb DD=f m mit.y.t
 

 

[Nancy R. Tomasheski, 18/7/97: AEL More Translation]
"Then the goose stood and waddled and his head [did] likewise."
[G. Graham, 18/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation]
Literally: "his head in like-fashion"
[post to MD-S concerning the transcription of DADA]
this word is just an example of group writing. In Coptic it is <Tj>O, even less sounds than DD. In syllabic orthography the D3 sign is used to represent D, and the b3 sign to represent b, etc.]
 
[J. Hoch, 28/7/97: AEL Re(2): AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
Hr HbAbA. I think the interpretation as an adverbial phrase is the simplest and is very typical of Egyptian sentence structure--even if it suffers slightly in logic. However, aHa here may have the sense of being upright/on the feet (as opposed to on its side).
 
[S.Fryer]
I don't think that Hr means "and" here, I believe it is usually used that way to connect nouns, similar to the English "We had wind on top of rain." In this case you need to take the whole phrase Hr HbAbA together as a progressive tense (Hr + infinitive) so it would be "waddling" ("hobbling" almost sounds like it). The part smn aHa is subject+stative with a rough meaning of "the goose (as a result of getting up) was standing". The whole sentence more literally comes out as "It came about the goose was standing waddling." However that would be atrocious English for what is meant. In English, with our inordinate love of conjunctions, we would probably express it as "Then the goose stood up and waddled."
[G.Graham, 23/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation] (responding to Stephen Fryer)
Yes, Stephen, this is quite correct. However, the stative form of aHa need not be translated as a literal stative. In Egyptian aHa is classed as a "verb of motion". ("get up" involves motion from one position to another) The stative is used as the normal "past tense" for verbs of motion. "The goose got up" does the trick. Also, while technically you are right about the pseudo-verbal construction representing a gerundive ("standing"), in many cases it seems better to just translate it as a regular past tense in the English. Of course, as I am sure you are aware, Egyptian grammar was evolving to a more analytical structure and the pseudo-verbal construction ended up basically taking over the role of the sDm=f in later stages of the language.
Literally the Egyptian is saying: "Then the goose came to be standing (and) waddling." Yet, of course, for all practical purposes, the sentence really means: "Then the goose got up and waddled."
I thought it would be a good opportunity to introduce these particular points about the stative and the pseudo-verbal construction. Notice, also that they are often used in tandem. One can continue the other. This text makes especially good use of this feature, not having to repeat the subject for the Hr Hb3b3. This is the real reason why English requires an "and" at this juncture. The Egyptian expresses no separate subject for HbAbA. It is not that Hr is translated as "and" but that there is a blank space between the bound units "pA-smn aHa.w" AND "Hr-HbAbA". English requires a conjunction to connect the two while Egyptian did not.
 
LINE 10 [next] [top]
xr m-xt spr=f wa r wa
 
 
[G. Graham, 18/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation]
"After he had arrived, one to the other..."
 
Yes, this part does get difficult ... I almost wonder if the =f does not refer to Djedi, and the spr is not in some fashion causative (analyzed as "s-prj"), meaning: "After he (Djedi) had caused one to go toward the other..." Is this plausible? See, even I who have read this text many times before, am still debating bits of it with myself.
[S.Fryer]
I think the =f is referring back to the goose. So a literal trnslation might be "After it arrived, one part to the other." But English would probably want to say something like "After the pieces reached each other.
[G.Graham, 23/7/97: RE>AEL More Translation] (responding to Stephen Fryer)
Yes, this was also my first rendition of the sentence. One does not particularly expect a special causative form of prj to happen here, yet you have to admit that it helps to explain the =f. I think your explanation is probably the more likely, but it still is awkward, isn't it? Another approach (quite in sync with yours) would be to assume that wa r wa, literally "one to one", possibly also "one to the other", could be taken a step further to represent the idiom "back together". "afterwards he came back together." i.e. (re-assembled (himself)). Aren't different languages amusing? ;-)
 
 
LINE 11 [next] [top]
 
aHa.n pA-smn aHa.w Hr gAgA
 
[G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
"Then the goose got up and cackled!"
 
[Q's by G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
1. What form is aHa.w?
2. Why would they use that form instead of a sDm.n=f?
3. What form is g3g3?
4. Where is the subject of g3g3?
[A's by Mark Line]
1. It's the stative (aka old perfective / pseudo-participle). [G.G., Right]
2. They used this form with verbs of motion.
[G.Graham] Yes, it was the preferred form for the PAST tense of verbs of motion.
3. [ed., gAgA is the infinitive]
4. I think [the subject is] p3-smn.
[G.G., since .. we have .. the pseudo-verbal construction, then we are treating it something like a "verb" and p3-smn is the subject.]
 
LINE 12 [next] [top]
 
aHa.n rdi.n=f ini=tw n=f xtaA iri.n.tw r=f m mi.t.y.t
 
[G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
"Then he caused a wood-fowl* to be brought to him."
"The same thing was done to it."
*xt-aA seems to be another kind of goose, but because the ideogram {xt} occurs in it, I am taking a little lexical license.
 
[Q's by G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
1. Identify the verb forms in this sentence.
2. How would you analyze what is going on?
3. What alternative translation would also work here?
4. What is the Egyptian subject of this sentence?
 
[A's by Mark Wilson, 24/7/97; interspersed with comments by G. Graham, 24/7/97; RE>AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-)]
1a. rdj.n=f is the past tense circumstantial sDm.n=f
[G.G.] Right. It is goverend by aHa.n, which technically is a verb too. It is circumstantial because it is subordinate.
1b. [G.G.] jnj=tw is a subjunctive sDm=f. While we translate it "passively" and in certain cases this is the only way it can be translated into English, the suffix =tw does represent a person, the indefinite, generic person "one". Literally it says "that one might bring". The reason it necessarily has to be subjunctive is that it is governed by rdj.n=f.
2. ... would it be possible to consider the whole of jnj=tw n=f xta3 to be the object of rdj.n ?
[G.G.] I think it is. This was the point of the question. I wanted to show how aHa.n necessitated that the next verb be circumstantial, and how rdj.n=f necessitated that the next verb be subjunctive. There are certain patterns which one finds repeating themselves in Egyptian all the time. If one can learn a few basic rules, then one will have an easier time identifying the functions of verbs in sentences an therefore be able to translate all the more efficiently.
3. [G.G.]What I was looking for was a sentence which utilized the literal translation of =tw. "Then he caused that one bring him a wood-fowl."
4. I think it's tw because it really means "One does likewise to it".
[G.G.] Yes, see you DID already know this!
[S. Fryer, 28/7/97, RE>AEL Re(2): AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ]
Perhaps you could clear up for me where subjunctive fits in the scheme of the Egyptian verb. Am I correct that it is a function of the prospective form, rather than a separate form (unlike Latin, for example, where subjunctive is a separate verb form)?
I would also tend to see the w in this word [ini.tw] as merely indicating that the t is pronounced (anticipating Late-Egyptian spelling rules a little - there do appear to be a number of instances of this in this text) - int rather than in=tw?
[G.Graham, 29/7/97; RE>AEL Re(2): AEL Grammar the head on the Goose! ;-)]
Well, actually in Old Egyptian the subjunctive and prospective were separate forms, but in Middle Egyptian they seem to have coalesced into one form. A good place to find the Old Kingdom information would be in James Allen's book on the verb in the Pyramid Texts. I can't remember its exact title right off hand. It was his dissertation.
You might be quite right [Stephen]. There might not be any =tw there at all. The verb jnj is one of those irregular ones which take an unexpected {t} in their subjunctive forms. The other ones that do this are jj and jw, both meaning "come" and probably realizations of the same verb in actuality. I think you are right, by George! I can't believe I missed this one.
[Hans van Haarst, 25/11/97; AEL Westcar P4 L12]
[ed.note: Hans points out that the transcription should read iri.n.tw, whereas the original transcription used in the discussion above was just iri=tw]
The verb form [of iri.n.tw] is initial and can not be a continuation of the previous sentence, because circumstantial sDm.n.tw=f is not allowed. The passive sDm.w=f would then have to be used (aHa.n sDm.w=f). If you rule out the existence of an indicative sDm.n=f, then it has to be the nominal/emphatic form of sDm.n=f. The translation : "The way one handled it, was in the same manner." the emphasis lying on "in the same manner". Why was this heavy construction used simply to say that the aHa-bird was handled in the same manner ? These stories were originally being told to people (in the same way as the troubadours did in the Middle Ages) because almost nobody could read or write. Maybe such a construction was written down by a scribe when he heard a pause in the story: "Now the way one handled it was ....... in the same manner !" The pause was introduced by the storyteller to catch the attention of the audience. The cleft sentence is of course our way to translate the Egytian sentence, it is not a cleft sentence [in egyptian]. Well otherwise we can just see it as a indicative sDm.n=f and translate it as a plain sentence : "One handled it in the same manner."
 
LINE 13 [next] [top]
 
aHa.n rdi.n Hm=f ini=tw n=f iH
 
[ G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
"Then His Majesty caused an ox to be brought to him,.."
 
s-xr.w tp=f r tA
 
"Its head was felled to the ground."
[Q's by G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
1.What is the subject of this sentence?
2. What form does the verb take?
3. What class of verb is it?
[A's by M. D-S, 25/7/97: RE>AEL Grammar the head on]
1. This is a passive construction. The subject (patient) is tp=f (the head).
2. The sDm.w=f passive (aka perfect passive). An verb form common in early egyptian.
3. caus. 2-lit. (causative of a 2-lit verb)
[G.Graham] Yes. For those of you who do not already know it. In Middle Egyptian one could make a causative out of various verbs (not necessarily all verbs) by putting a prefix s- onto the front of them:
xr "fall" > s-xr "fell/cause to fall"
mn "endure/remain" > s-mn "establish/cause to remain/endure"
mnx "become effective" > s-mnx "make effective"
Dd "say" > s-Dd "tell/relate/recount"
 
LINE 14 [next] [top]
aHa.n Dd.n Ddi Dd.w.t=f m HkA
 

 

[ G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
"Then Djedi said his words* of magic."
*"things which are habitually said" can equal "utterances" or "words".
 
 
LINE 15 [next] [top]
 
aHa.n pA-iH aHa.w //////////////
 
[ G.Graham: posting 22/7/97: AEL Grammar the head on the Goose!]
"Then the ox got up!"
 
LINE 16 = LOST (lacuna)
 
LINE 17 - 18 [next] [top]
 
///// Hr sA=f [nwH]=f xr.w r tA
 
*The word [nwH] is written with a piece of cordage and a stroke, and its reading is uncertain. I have hazzarded an educated guess because of context.
 
[S.Fryer, 27/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna]
"[the lion walked] behind him with its leash fallen to the ground."
 
This obviously is the tail-end of a description of Djedi performing the lion-taming trick that Hardedef had mentioned, back on the first page. As for a transliteration of the ideogram (which was used also on the first page, in an exact parallel statement to this), Faulkner probably wisely doesn't attempt any, just giving the meaning from context as "leash". So, with a little emendation: [the lion walked] behind him with its leash fallen to the ground. Although if I was describing the scene in English I would probably say "with its leash trailing on the ground."
[MDS/GG: 25/7/97RE>AEL After the lacuna]
We discussed transliteration of the verb xr (to fall). The verb form here is probably the stative/old perfective, so the ending should be .w, which is shown above. Geoff did not have it in his original posting. This brought up the issue of what to show in the transliteration; what is actually written, or what one infers. This is a controversial point. Geoff tends to show much more than is present in the text. See exx. [S.Fryer; 28/7/97;RE>AEL After the lacuna], [G.Graham, 28/7/97; AEL Transliteration Wars].
 
LINE 19 [next] [top]
 
aHa.n Dd.n pA[y=f nb] xwfw mAa-xrw
 
*I am filling in the lacuna with another educated guess, given the {p3} and the {falcon on standard} determinative. "jt.y" or several other kingly titles might also fill the space nicely.
 
[G.Graham, 25/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna]
"Then [...] Khufu the vindicated said;"
[S.Fryer, 27/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna]
"Then ... Khufu, of blessed memory, said"
I can't accept Geoff's proposed emendation, since I don't believe that the Late-Egyptian possessive adjectives are used anywhere else in this text, so I would rule out the use of p3y=f. I did look through the rest of the Westcar text, and couldn't find a similar phrasing anywhere, so I prefer to just leave it blank (see following NOTE for a side issue). So I translate it as: 'Then ... Khufu, of blessed memory, said"
 
LINE 20 - 21 [bottom]
 
pA- ir=f Dd
[S.Fryer, 25/7/97; RE>AEL After the lacuna]
"Now what about what they say about you knowing the number (layout? plans?) of the secret chambers of the sanctuary of Thoth?"
I'm translating tnw as simply "number" here provisionally, though it probably meant considerably more. Its determinatives are the scroll and plural strokes.
 
[G. Graham, 25/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna]
"(And), as for what is said that you know the number of the non-public-rooms of the structure of
Thoth...?"
 
Now for a question: What is pA? What is strange about how it is used in this sentence? Any explanations?
 
[S.Fryer, 28/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna] (responding to Geoff's question on pA)
Well it looks to me like a demonstrative that modifies Dd, which is a noun "a saying" ultimately derived from Dd "say." So it would be "this saying." The enclitic particle gets inserted between them though, since it likes to be, if possible, the second place in a sentence. The most common enclitic we have in English is "however," and the effect of the sentence is similar to "This, however, saying."
[ed., see also line 16 of page 3, where pA Dd occurs]
 
 
<< Prev Page | Next Page >>
Up to Line 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - 5 - 6 | 7 | 8 - 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 - 18 | 19 | 20 - 21 |
[home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P4] [top]