PAGE 5 COMMENTARY

[home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P5]

Commentary for pWestcar, AEL Page 5, Lines 1 - 20

This discusses hieroglyphic page 5 (= De Buck's Page 82, lines 10 - 16 (end), then Page 83 lines 1 - 5).
The full transliteration of page 5 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 |
LINES 1 - 2 [next]

Dd-in Ddi Hzi.ti n rx=i tnw ir.y

it.y anx.w wDA.w snb.w nb=i
[S.Fryer, 25/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna] "And Djedi said, "Please, Sovereign, live long and prosper, my Lord, I don't know the number of them."
[G.Graham, 25/7/97; RE>AEL After the lacuna]

"Then Djedi said;"
"Please*, I don't know the appropriate number, Sovereign, to whom life, prosperity**, and health, my Lord."

*Here, I would transliterate Hzj.tj. The verb is third-weak and the {s} is from original {z}.
**I would also used wD3.w. There is a final {3} in the root.
LINE 3 [top] [next]

iw=i sw.t rx=kw bw nty st jm
[S.Fryer, 25/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna] "However, I do know where it is."
[G.Graham, 25/7/97; RE>AEL After the lacuna] "I do however know the place in which it is."
LINE 4

Dd-in Hm=f iw ir=f tn
[S.Fryer, 25/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna]

"And His Majesty said, "So where is it?!"
The interrogative "where" is tn with a road sign as determinative. At this point I have a feeling that Khwfw was probably starting to get a little impatient, so I added an exclamation mark as well as a question mark.
[G.Graham, 25/7/97; RE>AEL After the lacuna] "Then His Majesty said; "As for it, where is it?""
LINES 5 - 6 [top] [next]

Dd-in Ddi pn

iw afd.t im n.t ds m a.t sip.t.y rn=s m iwnw
[S.Fryer, 25/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna]

"And Djedi-san said
"There is a box of flint there in the room labeled Records in On."

This is the usual expression for "where N is" - bw nty 'N' im tnw 'N' would be decidedly unusual .- and see note below
[G.Graham, 25/7/97; RE>AEL After the lacuna]

"Then this Djedi said;"There is a box of flint there in a room the name/reputation of which is
recorded/famed in Heliopolis."
[ed., the city iwnw is translated variously. Geoff has converted it to its later Greek name, Heliopolis, "sun-city"].
LINE 7 [top] [next]

mk st m tA-afd.t
[S.Fryer, 25/7/97: RE>AEL After the lacuna]

"In the box!"

In the official AEL version there is some material added here that isn't in the papyrus. DeBuck has it marked in brackets <mk st> "See it is....". I preferred to leave it out, because Djedi left it out - he was in rather a hurry because Khwfw's look was getting blacker with every extra syllable he spoke.

[G.Graham, 25/7/97; RE>AEL After the lacuna]

"(See it is)* in the box."

*Adding back in De Buck's "mk st"
LINE 8 [top] [next]

Dd-in Hm=f i-zi ini n=i sy

"Then his majesty said: "Go and bring it to me!"

M. D-S [11/8/97; AEL West. P5, L8-]

i-zi and ini are imperatives
n=i takes precedence over the dep. pronoun sy ("it"), and moves up closer to the verb.
S. Fryer [12/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L8-] Order of pronouns: SUBJECT (suffix) - INDIRECT OBJECT - OBJECT. This applies only when all three are pronouns; any which are nouns fall outside the scheme and come after the pronouns.
LINE 9

Dd-in Ddi it.y anx.w wDA.w snb.w nb=i

"Then said Djedi; "Sovereign, l.p.h., my lord"
LINE 10

mk nn ink is inn n=k sy

"See, I am not the one who will bring it to you"
M. D-S [11/8/97; AEL West. P5, L8-]

nn and is surround the phrase they negate
inn, a participle, with future meaning in this case (?)
Again, the n=k nips in ahead of the dep. pron. to get close to the verb (which is now a verbal noun).
G.Graham [12/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L8-]

The gemination in jnn, since jnj is a third weak verb and not a biliteral (*jn), indicates that the participle is imperfective. This means that the action is not yet complete. It is ambiguous since i could indicate that it is action which is even now taking place and had been taking place in the past too, so long as it is not yet finished. However, in this case, because of context, we can rest assured that the imperfection referred to is that the act has not yet taken place, an probably will not. Were we dealing with a biliteral verb the situation would be reversed, and the gemination would have indicated a perfective form. Ddd would mean "which was said", with the action complete, for instance.
LINE 11

Dd-in Hm=f in-mi ir=f ini=f n=i sy

"Then said his majesty: "Who then will fetch it for me?"
G.Graham [12/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L8-]

This line has bothered me. You must be right [Mike], because this is what Khufu must be saying. However, we are expecting the verb jnj to have a {t} in it in the prospective, because it is irregular, and always produces an otherwise unexpected {t} in this form. Why it is not here, I have not figured out. I would love to see some suggestions. [ed. the same problem also occurs with ini in line 13]
S. Fryer [12/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L8-]

Perhaps it is 2nd Prospective in(w)=f: "So who is it who will bring it to me?"
LINES 12 - 13

Dd-in Ddi

in smsw n.y pA-Xrd.w xmt nty m X.t n.y rd-Dd.t ini=f n=k sy

"Then said Djedi: The eldest of the 3 (?male?) children in the body (womb) of RdDdt, He will bring it to you."
M. D-S [11/8/97; AEL West. P5, L8-]

What is the verb form of ini? (in the last 2 lines). Not a prospective as there is no .t. So an aorist/circumstantial form? Again, the indirect object n=k, slips in ahead of the dep. pronoun (object).
S. Fryer [12/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L8-]

This is a "participial" statement. The "jn" introduces the AGENT. Since it refers to future time, the 2nd Prospective form in(w)=f is used. (Hoch, 'Middle Egyptian Grammar', #134, pp.196-7).
"It is the eldest...who will bring it to you."
Basically this format allows the emphasis to fall on the agent of the action. In the past and present "tenses" the perfect and imperfect participles are used.
LINES 14 - 15

Dd.in Hm=f, mri=i is st nA Dd.y=k
pty=sy tA RdDd.t

"Then his Magesty said; "but I want it, this (thing) about which you speak!"
"Who is she, this Reddjedet?"
M. D-S [11/8/97; AEL West. P5, L8-]

[my attempt at translating this line] "Then said his majesty, .......????"
OK, we have a verb, mri (love, wish,desire) joined to a suffix pronoun =i (I, me). It is bare, ie. no starting particle (eg. iw, mk, etc.). Is it geminated (ambiguous in the text)? I think probably not.
Then I think there is the enclitic particle is, which can convert the sentence to a question, or just emphasise the next noun. Next is the dependent pronoun, st (it, her). Then the dem. pronoun (plural), nA (these), which ideally has a joining n.y to the next (plural) noun. In this case there isn't. The 'noun' following is derived from the verb, Dd, to say/speak. It doesn't look like an infinitive because of the .y ending, and the context would fit something like a relative form "the ones of whom you speak". So to put it all together, "I desire indeed the ones of whom you speak."
G. Kadesh [post to MDS]

I think you are right on about Ddy.k being a relative form, but I doubt you could translate it the way you do without a resumptive pronoun. The nA is a tip-off that what follows is functioning as a noun, Secondly, if one keeps in mind that the key to the relative is the fact that the antecedent and the subject are different, it becomes a bit clearer. See what you think of this solution: "these (things) which you have said".
I confess that i am not wholly persuaded that all bare sDm=f s are not purely verbal. Your translation starts off sensibly to me. I would render it: "I desire indeed these things, (namely) the things which you have said." Keep in mind that st can be a plural collective; with the nA clause following, i incline to that solution. I suppose others would translate "It is indeed these things, (namely) the things which you have said, that I desire." I have no great quarrel with that. The nA Ddy=k clause is most likely appositional, in my view. I will say that one might also expect Ddt=k for "things which you have said", but it is not a consistent usage.
G. Graham [14/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L14-15]

The js makes a contrast, like "however" or "indeed". I thought "but" worked particularly well in this context. The grammatical forms of st and n3 do not technically agree, but this is because it is a kind of generic "neuter". Egyptian did not have a real neuter, only masculine and feminine and plural, but st can refer to something like a neuter, an "it" as opposed to a "him", a "her", or a "them". It might be plural but the plural strokes are not present, and the plural is sometimes used for abstract or undefined things. n3 is quite clearly plural, as you have translated it. However, we expect a singular since there is only one hidden box with the desired information, unless the King is referring to some plural of the Tnw or possibly has the understanding that "these words/matters are equal to a 'thing' or a particular concern into which more than one word or idea has been poured."
S. Fryer [14/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L14-15]

A bare, ungeminated sDm=f opening a sentence, would be "prospective" (I prefer to think "modal" - it reminds me not to try to tranlate it as future). So it means "I would like...."
[G.Kadish, 19/8/97; to MDS] (reply to question about prospective meaning of mri)

How to translate mri is something of a problem, but it is not a grammatical one. One of the dangers in translating from one language to another is to get too rooted in just one or two translations and try to plug them in to the available slot. In the case of mri, your instinct is a good English language instinct, to want to supplement the bare meaning. The Egyptian word conveys meanings that require an object of some sort or the somewhat more diffuse idea of general wish or want, sometimes without an object. In our example, there was an object (st), which was further amplified by n3 + the relative form in apposition to st. My teacher was John A. Wilson. From him I learned a rather more pragmatic, context based approach to determining the meaning of a passage. That is, after all, what we are after. Sometimes the newer grammatical dispensation seems to me to obscure issues needlessly. For example, you will see the term subjunctive bandied about. Well, it is certainly not the same as a prospective, .... Subjunctive remains condition contrary to fact.

LINES 16 - 17

Dd-in Ddi

"Then said Djedi, "..."

Hm.t wab pw n.y ra nb sAXbw

".. She is the wife of a wab-priest of Ra, Lord of Sakhebu"
[MDS] I can't find the name of this town/city, sAXbw.
[G.Graham, 18/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L.16-20] This is a hapax legomenon [ed., single occurrence], and we just call it "Sakhebu" in English. The location of the town is believed to be in the Western Delta someplace.
[MDS, 1/198; AEL Westcar p5,6; sAXbw, Rm.wy]

Just got a copy of R. Hannig's egyptian-german dictionary. It has a lot of other useful things, among them a map of ancient egypt listing the egyptian cities and towns. sAXbw is shown on the map as a specific place in the western delta (map 7) and is thought to be equivalent to 'Zat el-Kom'. Does anyone know anything about this place?

iwr.ti m Xrd.w xmt n.y ra nb sAXbw

"She is pregnant with 3 children of Ra, Lord of Sakhebu"

NOTES: The first verb is a stative form. This sentence I suppose really follows on (since the subject of the stative always comes before the verb), so should be rendered, "Who is..." . The subject is found way back in the previous line ('pw' = she).
LINES 18

iw Dd.n=f r=s
[G.Graham, 18/8/97;RE>AEL West. P5, L.16-20] "He (Djedi) said about them (sometimes the pronoun =s is substituted for =sn) ..."
[M.D-S., 19/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L.16-20] Is it not possible that Ra told her about her children since he was the father? What makes this unlikely/impossible? Perhaps the use of a pronoun (=f) for a god? [I must admit, I may have been influenced in my translation by a much later story, about a virgin birth.]

[S. Rosmorduc, 20/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L.16-20] I would rather suppose that =f is Ra himself, (especially if you consider the last part of the story :-) as the 'potent office in the whole country' is most probably kingship.

LINE 19

iw=sn r iri.t iA.t twy mnx.t m tA pn r Dr=f

"... (that) they shall exercise this potent office in this entire land, ...

[S. Rosmorduc, 20/8/97; RE>AEL West. P5, L.16-20]

About Mike's question : iw=sn r ir.t iA.t twy is perfectly correct. To exercice an office is said in egyptian ir.t <the office>'. For example ir sS means 'be a scribe' ; and ir.t TAty means 'to exercice the function of vizier'.
[G.Graham, 18/8/97;RE>AEL West. P5, L.16-20] (in answer to MDS)

twy is an Old Egyptian demonstrative (pwy, twy, nwy).

LINE 20

iw smsw n=sn im.y r iri.t wr-mA.w m iwnw
"... and their eldest shall become Greatest-of-Seers (High Priest of Re) in Heliopolis."
<< 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 |
[home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P5]
[top]