a) Narrative past tense form of the type: aHa.n sDm.n=f. The
3rd person plural suffix pronoun (sn) is used. "Then
they said..."
b) nDm-ib means joyful [sweet of heart], so it is an adjective.
The context is a direct address by the gods to Ra-wsr, so I would opt for
the verbal use of the adjective, possibly a prospective form.
"... may you be joyful, Ra-wsr, ..."
Line 2: Given the lack of anyone doing the bearing (of the 3
children), the verb msi is in the passive form (msi.w). Good
old Redjedet seems to have slipped on the scale of importance here...
" See, three children are/have been born
to you"
[S.Rosmorduc, 21/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar p9, L1]
....the idea is that Wsr-ra is not currently happy, but well be happy
when he has heard the good news. One could translate : Rejoice,
Wsr-ra ! lo, three children have been delivered for you.
A note : adjective verbs mean 'become -
The Adjective' ; for example, nfr, as a verb, means become good,
not 'be good'. So, with a prospective, the literal translation is : "may your mood become sweet, ra-wsr" By the
way, it seems to me that nfr sw is mostly used for more or less
permanent or intrinsic qualities, as nfr sw is a nominal construction.
We could build a table like that :
Permanent
non-permanent
Substantive
ink sS
iw=i m sS
I am a scribe
I am acting as a scribe
Adjective
nfr sw
iw=f nfr.w
he is perfect (intrinsically)
he is now perfect/ he has become perfect
It is however my impression that things are more clear-cut for substantives
than for adjectives.
"Then he spoke to them: My ladies, what
can/could I do for you ?"
I have transliterated the verbform of iri as iri.ti=i,
because I think that it is a prospective relative form. He is very glad
what they did for him, so he wants to thank them. I noticed that on the
transliteration page the verbform is iri.t=i, which must
be an infinitive or a verbal noun, which literally translates into
What is my doing for you ? This does not give the personal touch of
the context. I believe that Gunn discovered this prospective form, but
Gardiner does not mention it and most other grammars do not agree on this
subject. Could anybody comment on this ?
[J. Hoch, 21/11/97/RE>AEL Westcar P9, top]
1. nDm ib.k Mike's interpretation of nDm as the prospective
"adjective verb" is right on. The subject is ib.k, but
Mike's translation as "May you be joyful" is fine. Closer technically
is: "may your heart be joyful..." The "adjective verb"
usage is nothing terribly special--it is just taking an adjectival root
and using it as a verb. The use is restricted to certain forms (i.e. NOT
used in statements of fact); it occurs especially as prospective forms
(e.g. in wishes, etc.), imperatives (clearly shown by their negations),
and the stative.
2. ptr iri.ti.i n.Tn... Hans has identified the form very nicely.
Here not only context indicates that a modal force "can/could,"
"might" (which is suitable to a prospective form) is required,
but also the writing is typical of the feminine prospective relative form
(written with the "ti" group instead of simple "t",
which does, however, also occur). The relative form (like its "unmarried"
[i.e. unconjugated] cousin, the particple) is adjectival. Egyptian adjectives
function fully as nouns, as we have here: literally "What is that
which I might do for you?"
Gunn, indeed, did identify this form and
it has been widely accepted. In his 2nd and subsequent editions, Gardiner
(EG #387.2) did not reject this form outright, but he did not distinguish
it as separate from the "perfective relative form". But he did
not hesitate to translate as prospective those cases that clearly warranted
such a translation.
[S.Rosmorduc, 21/11/97, RE>AEL westcar P9, L3]
I think your idea is right. [ed.
re Hans post] As far as I know, the prospective relative form is
quite accepted now. Gardiner put it in one of the editions of his grammars,
but decided not to keep it in the third edition. However, it is exposed
in other grammars, like Lefebvre's.
The form is not likely to be a imperfective
relative for, which should be written ir:r:t=i (with one
more "r").
Another prospective relative form appears in the text : nA Ddy=k
pty sy tA rwDDdt
What you are going to say is "who is she,
this Roudjidjit ?"
The known forms for the prospective relative form
are :
MASC:
FEM.
2-lit.
3-inf.
Ddy=f
mry=f
2-lit.
3-lit.
2-gem
3-inf
rdi
Ddti=f
anxti=f
mAti=f
mrti=f
diti=f
Of course, the final i can fall.
[MDS, 21/11/97; RE>AEL westcar P9, L3]
This type of question conforms to nominal syntax, eg. ptr sw,
who is he? In this case the second part is a nominal phrase, 'that I can/may
do...'. The .t or .ti ending is normal for a feminine antecedent.
Its presence here I take to be due to the neuter, independent use of the
adjective. The prospective relative form seems to be alive and well, and
is given i section 160 of Hoch, chpt 19, 2 of Englund, section 4.6.3.4
of Loprieno. Gosh, when you get a sentence like this ('What can I do for
you?) it really brings home to you that people have changed very little!
"Please will you give this barley to your
porter, so you may take it with you instead of beer (lit. as the price
of beer). I take di and iTi to be prospective verb
forms.
[G.Graham, 22/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar p9, L.4]
Yes, this seems right. There is a chance too that zwn.t might
refer to the process of making beer. It, of course, must be an infinitive,
if that is the case, since it comes after a preposition r.
[MDS24/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar p9, L.4]
This would make much better sense! I couldn't understand the reference
to giving something instead of beer. The grain could easily be used to
make beer, whereas if he offered beer, it would only last a very short
time under the normal sunny conditions of Egypt. So the translation would
be more like: "... so you may take it with (for)
you (in order) to make beer." So, does anyone have a source
for the other meaning? Faulkner gives, 'price' or 'trade', which is rather
different.
[Hans van Haarst, 22/11/97; AEL Prospective relative
forms and Westcar P9 L5]
"Then Khnum loaded himself with the barley"
[MDS, 24/11/97; AEL Westcar P9, L6-7]
Now let me understand the situation, Khnum is impersonating a porter
(?), so he is the one who picks up the barley. So sw refers to himself
rather than to someone/something else. How would you normally provide barley,
in sacks or in jars? Do they say how much barley? We translated it
as barley, but would the final stroke determinative really mean 'one measure of barley'? If so, how much would this
be? Presumably easy for one person to carry?
[Hans van Haarst, 25/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, L6-7]
Khnum as a porter is also for me something that escapes me. You are
right about the stroke, I overlooked it. It is clearly there in the original
hieratic in my edition of Blackman . So it has to be your suggestion :
" one sack of barley " Isn't it
strange that the gods get paid in beer (barley) and that they have to carry
it themselves ?
[G.Graham, 25/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, L6-7]
Probably in a sack. I don't know much about measures but I think Gardiner
has a whole section about it.
I love this one: 'Then they proceeded to the
place they had come from." Or, "Then
they left for the place from which they had come."
Notes:
a) this begins with a nominal construction (infin-pw-relative form)
like line 28 of the previous page (p8).
b) the noun bw (place) is modified by the following adjectival
form of the verb ii, ie. a relative form (?) "they
had come"
c) im (from). Sorry, can someone explain the function of this
again for me? Is it an adverb, modifying the verbal adjective?
[Hans van Haarst, 25/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, L6-7]
The complete construction is r bw ii.n=sn im=f. This last f
functions as a resumptive pronoun. It refers to bw. But you can
leave it out, so I think your translation is correct. The form ii.n=sn
is a sDm.n=f relative form ( perfect relative form).
aHa.n Dd.n As.t n nn ntr.w ptr nA-ntt n ii.wyn r=s nn iri.t biA.y.t
n nA-n-Xrd.w
"Then Isis said to these gods, "..."
[Hans van Haarst, 27/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, L8-11]
I found [this line] rather difficult. The
ntt (the fem./neuter of nty) is used here because nA
is neuter. Then the sentence begins with the {interrogative pronoun} ...
ptr / pty : " What ".
So literally it translates as : " What is the
it that we have gone back from her ?"
[G.Graham, 28/11/97. RE>AEL Westcar P9, L8-1] (replying
to Hans)
I would have gone for:"What
is that for which we have come if not to make a miracle for these children"
Egyptian used many plurals where English
would use a sigular. nA or nn often refers to "words", "deeds",
in this case, "these things for which we have
come", but English simply would not use a plural here in most
cases, so it makes literal translation kind of awkward. And, of course,
... Egyptian nA, nn, nf, etc... paradigm did originate
in a neuter, even though the neuter was dead even in Old Egyptian, having
only survived as a place holder for the plural... or at least it was explained
to me something like that once upon a time.
No, I think the =s in this case is a kind of resumptive
pronoun refering back to ptr and nA, making it mean something
like "that for which". It is true
that it seems odd to come after a stative (Old Perfective) verb, but remember
that ii.t / iw.t is a verb of motion so, rather than using
a sDm.n=f, its normal past tense would be in the stative.
[Hans van Haarst, 27/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, L8-11]
The last sentence is ... a difficult one.
First I thought of smi=sn as a prospective sDm=f:
" so that they could report ". But
maybe smi=n is a prospective relative form, rdi.w
can be a perfective active participle and
iw.t=n a prospective sDm=f used
circumstantially. The translation would then be : the miracles, "
that we can report to their father, who caused us
to come ". The same verbform iw.t is used in
L13. I have always difficulty in identifying these relative forms, because
almost never you will find smy=f but mostly smi=f.
[G.Graham, 28/11/97. RE>AEL Westcar P9, L8-1]
"that we might report (it) to their father
who caused us to come?"
[S. Rosmorduc, 28/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, L8-11]
(responding to Hans)
I think your first idea is the good one,
because biAt is feminine. If smi were a relative form, we
would have smit(y)=n.
[MDS (question to Hans), 28/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar
P9, L8-11]
nA is also used for plural nouns. Also, if smi=n
is a prospective relative form, then shouldn't it modify the preceding
noun (ie. "children")?
Now there was a nice article in Lingua
Aegyptia 1 (1991), 357-387, by Jean Winand, which gave a pretty solid case
for ii and iw being different writings of the same verb.
[Hans van Haarst, 28/11/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, L8-11]
(responding to MDS)
You are right [about smi=n] it has to modify the preceding
noun. That can not be biAyt, otherwise the form would have to be
written smi.t=n. So the suffix pronoun sn in pAy=sn
has to refer to the children. The translation is then : the
children " to whose father who let us come we will have to report
"
"Then they caused the sky to come into a
storm with rain."
[MDS, 1/12/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9 / L11-17]
A couple of questions:
a) What is the verb form of iw.t? Prospective? If so,
would it then mean:
"Then they caused that the sky become as (m of predication)
a storm with rain" ???
b) Was the storm simply a dramatic entrance or was it an excuse
for them not to carry the barley away with them on their journey (because
it would get wet)?
"Then they placed the corn in a chamber
that was locked."
[Hans van Haarst, 2/12/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9 / L16-17]
About the verbform xtm.ti in L16 and L17. I think that this
is a classical example of the prospective participle. Translation of a.t
xtm.ti : " the room that can be locked
". There were several rooms in the house, but here the room that had
a lock was meant ( restrictive use of the participle ). On the other hand
if you consider xtm.ti to be a stative, then
the translation would be : " a room that is
locked " ( descriptive use of the adverbial adjunct ) A room
has to be opened before it can be locked, so I think xtm.ti
is a prospective participle. It is a minor point and I agree with the rest
of your translation.
"Then she said, "It is prepared beautifully
everwhere except for the jars that were brought."
Note: What is going on in the last part of the sentence? Is it something
like ".. the jars of one's bringing"?
[Hans van Haarst, 2/12/97; RE>AEL Westcar P9, lines
18-22]
This a case I think where the suffix pronoun
sn is dropped. So L 22 should read :
n ini.tw=sn. Borghouts calls this phenomenon 'pro-drop' ( pronoun
dropping) in his grammar ( p. 139 ). But I don't know if this is a general
accepted name. The translation :
" (they) were not brought ".
Q: Was this maybe meant to express the supposed lesser knowledge
of good Middle Egyptian by the maidservant ?
wpw-Hr pA-it n.ynn xni.y.w.t iiw=f m a.t Hr xtm=sn
[Hans van Haarst, 2/12/97, AEL Westcar L23-L27]
"Then the maidservant said : " Good
is it to clean up here,
except the barley of these dancers, which is
in the room with their locks on it "
A strange answer of the maid. You could
also consider nfr pw to be the seldom used negative expression :
"It is not" (Gardiner p. 265 ),
then the translation could be : " It is not
( possible ) to clean up here, ..." Both answers I don't understand
so maybe there is a sentence missing; nfr pw begins at a new line.
I added (yt) to Hr(yt) because I think that here the
room and not a room with their locks is meant. Hryt is the adjective
which restricts the sentence. But I am not sure. Any comments please.Maybe
all the maid wanted to say was : "Well , I can
clean up this room but not the room with the barley because it is locked.
"
[Mark Vygus, 3/12/97; RE>AEL Westcar L23-L27]
Faulkner (page 228 under smnx) says that nfr pw smnx aA
means "there is no doing any good here"
[G.Graham, 11/12/97; Re: AEL Westcar L24-L25]
aHa.n Dd.n tA-wbA.y.t
Then the maid-servant said;
nfr(.w) pw s-mnx** aA
"it is a lack* of
efficiencies here
*taking nfr as a short writing of nfr.w (p. 132, entry
15, of Faulkner's CDME), meaning "deficiency"
**taking s-mnx as "the where-with-all which one needs in
order to s-mnx", s-mnx being "make efficient".
Maybe it is just the infinitive too at any rate, and I think it could be
used this way. Comments?
(Can one ever take a pw sentence as expressing "there is"?
I am still kind of uncomfortable about this, but I feel it must be saying
something negative, because of the adversative effect of wpw-Hr
which is coming in the next bit.)
wpw-Hr pA-it n.y nn xni.y.w.t
except for the grain of those songstresses,
iw=f m a.t Hr(.y.t) xtm=sn
but it is in a room [upon
which]* their seal is.
*taking, what I think was Hans' suggestion that this should be a nisba
on Hr, and that it should properly agree with a.t, which
by Late Egyptian had become masculine anyway, so this is not totally unexpected.
"Then it will be Raweser who will give them
the payment of it after he has returned."
i. the participial construction in+noun+prospective sDm=f
is used.
[MDS: ie. the 2nd tense prospective sDm(w)=f form,
which is written rdi (section 138 of Hoch)]
ii. kA is a particle 'then'. The
compound preposition m-xt (after) is followed by the prospective
sDm=f (emphatic branche, which I believe is called 2nd. prospective
by James Hoch)
[G.Graham, 8/12/97; RE>AEL Westcar p9, L28]
> L 28: kAi in ra-wsr rdi=f n=sn DbA.w ir.y m-xt iw.t=f
k3j [is] a helping verb of sorts. It moves the action into the
future with "then he will..." etc.
"Then it will be Rauser who shall give them
the appropriate equivalent after he shall return." (Better
English might just reduce this to: Then Rauser will
pay them back when he returns. rdj can mean pay, and I see
no reason why rdjDb3.w jr.y could not just be an idiom for
"pay back" or something like that.)
K3j, like aHa.n, sets the scene in relation to other
sentences. Only, aHa.n is for "then" in the past and k3j
is for "then" in the future. The rest is a participial statement:
literally saying "by Rauser he gives to them..."
This is so that Rauser will be emphasized as the subject.