Coffin Texts 1986

8/10/2019 Coffin Texts 1986

1/19

(#)rf in the Coffin Texts: A Functional Tableau

Ariel Shisha-Halevy

Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 106, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1986), pp. 641-658.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28198610%2F12%29106%3A4%3C641%3A%28ITCTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K

Journal of the American Oriental Society is currently published by American Oriental Society.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aos.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgTue Sep 18 22:36:49 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28198610%2F12%29106%3A4%3C641%3A%28ITCTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Khttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aos.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aos.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28198610%2F12%29106%3A4%3C641%3A%28ITCTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K


2/19

z ) r f IN THE COFFIN TEXTS A FUNCTIONAL TABLEAU

A structural, corpus-based role examination of the Middle Egyptian particle element written

irflrf shows it to be anything but simple or monolithic. Scanning its environmental distribution as

well as i ts micro- and macro-syntactic compatibili t ies and its commutabili t ies we arrive at two

major structural identit ies (i .e., functions correlatable with distinct formal entit ies): (a) an

analyzable, verb syntagm componential AUGENS r . f , the pronominal component of which i s

conditioned by a preceding pronoun and noun, (b) an invariable, unanalyzable morph irf, a

DIS CO UR SE CO HEN SIO N EX PO NE NT in d ialogic syntax , s ignall ing the non- in i tia li ty as wel l

as non-finality of i ts clause, with an additional intra-clausal prosodic DISJUNCTOR function.

Each of these is i llustrated and discussed in detail , und er consideration of i ts morphological and

environmental specifics, a transitional "linking" role between the two is postulated and illustrated.

It is suggested that a third element (rf, invariable and unanalyzable) is a secondary manifestation of

i rf , funct ional ly specialized as a SUP ER OR DI NA TO R.

Fo r H.J. Polotsky

On his eightieth birthday, Septe mbe r 13th.

1985,

with thanks. love an d admir ation,

.

w.s.

0 1 I N TH FOL L OW I N G PAGES

propo se to exam ine into conside rat ion (a) only cases of adverb al (r( .f)

forma lly, dis t ribut ional ly and funct ional ly, the various where the pronom inal element is correferent to the

recurring sequences of f + S U P - p r o n o u n " , p ro n o m in a l s egm en t o f t h e p reced in g v e rb -fo rm ( p r i i

for which a rectional/complementational adjunctal r . i etc.) or to i ts pronom inal reference (p ri ( imperat ive)

interpretat ion of the preposi t ion r- "to, against . . .

r.k , p r i (participle) r.f; see below) and (b ) cases of

governing a pronoun commutable with a noun is (i)rf-on th e fac e of it,

third-person-singular-mascu-

exc lude d'. T his preliminary sifting is effected by taking

l ine exponent in interlocut ive context where such a

reference cannot be t raced to i ts nominal or pro-

Some more or less detailed functional discussions of

nomin al referate. This is admit tedly a rou gh-and -ready

heuris t ic procedure, empirical ly conceived and with

r(.f)/

~rf:

Edel $$613f., 616f., 818, 821 (with Nachtrage,

little theoretical significance: isolated instances in which

p. Ixxx), 818-42 (ir. amo ng oth er enclitics), 1007f., 1012, 1012;

i t fai ls must be handled individual ly, by contextual

Gar diner $5252,497-500; Lefebvre $8558, 587 (on the whole,

considera t ion and in the accum ulated l ight of the bulk

I agree with L.'s inte rpre tatio n of the relationship of r.f and

of the evidence.

irf, see below); W estend orf 1962 $5388, 392; Miiller 1975:

0.2 Without c la iming a pr ior i homogenei ty for the

$67(5) on irf: " after im perativ es and in clauses of purpos e; in

Coffin Texts corpus-o n the co ntr ary , witness idio-

questions." M. Gilula has briefly discussed this particle in his

syncracies are here constantly in evidence-this is

as yet unpublis hed d issertatio n (1968, p. 6-8, see

GM

2:53-59

nonetheless assumed in the present s tudy, which is

(1972)); see also Abel 1910passim, Silverman 1980: 87ff. (97:

restricted to th e seven volumes of the edit ion. ' The

"sentence adve rbn-this with reference to the variable r.f-

ques tion w hether or no t , o r to what degree th i s corpus

"two d is t inct words both wri t ten

rf

one functioning in

does in fact represent a consistent ly describable Ptat de

rhetorical questions and the other acting as a sentence adverb;"

no fun ctio nal distinction is suggested between rf and irf),

Callender 1983: 89 (drawing on stan dard text-bo ok exposi-

A . De Buc k, The Egyp tian Coffin Texts, Chica go 1935-

tions, translating r.f/r .s "in this regard" a nd again offering no

1961 (University of Chicago Press, the Oriental Insti tute

forma l distinctions; rf does not feature in his l ist of enclit ics,

Publications); the references below are to volume, page and

ibid. 91).

section.


3/19


4/19

SHISHA-HALEVY:

i)rf In th Coffin Texts

V ink irf N / nn k irf tm (2.5 )

V l

sdm(.n) irf N (2.6)

0 7 5 rf a prosodically fused close- juncture al ternant

of irf (3.1-2); rf a S U P E R O R D I N A T O R .

1 0 1 Th e syntag m r.f (r.i, r .k etc.), a com pon entia l

v erb m od ifier a nd a ~ ~ e n s , ~ in th ree p atte rnccurs

group s, namely (a) , in which i t is adverbial , expandin g

a finite or personal verb-form; (b), in which it is

adverbal t o im peratival-al locutive clause forms; c ,in

which i t is adnomina l . F or the range (a)-(b) , the verb

syntagms a re displayed wi th the i r charac te r i s t ic

' ~ u ~ e n s , w hich

I

use for Polotsky's Verstarker(Polotsky

1961) is originally a Celtological term ( nora augens, cf.

Zeuss, Grammatzca Celtica (1853) 332ff., 341, 344, etc.,

Pedersen, Vergl. Grammatik d Keltischen Sprachen, (1913)

I

137ff.

seman tic-functional definitions in Tab le A; they are the

formal expo nents of the interpersonal-functional m utu-

al i ties displayed in Tab le B as a world dram atic

ne tw or k o f a t t i t ud ina l ve c to r s ( t he c ode use d :

N deceased, subject and object of funerary at ten-

tions; S the surviving relation, initiator and agent

of these attentions; l the daevic (malevo lent,

opponent, unjust'? deities, Dzn the benevolent, just,

favourab le or at least objective deities). '

1 1 0 1 The a t tes ta t ions in the CT for the augens r.f

supply the fol lowing forma l inventory ( the references

are representative): (1)r.i (IV

13c),

( i) r .k

(I

277f., I

48e ), r.1 (I 289 e), r.f (I 142c), r s (I 142c),

ir . tn

(I 218b)

(8), r.sn (V 56a).

Cf. Grieshammer 1970: ISff., 71ff. On the significance of

the personal parameter in Coptic modal paradigms, cf.

Polotsky 1944: 15f.

= CP

120f.)


5/19

N

-

D

Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.4 (1986)

T A B L E

B

N

DI

D

S

boasting,

demand/refusal

requestexhortation

self-congratulation

" sdm .

(r. i)

"

" imper . ( r. k ) sdm. ( r. ~) / sd m . ( r.k)"

"n n sdm.i ( r . i ) / sdm.k ( r .k)"

demand/refusal

"imper. r .k sdm.k"

"nn sdm . i"

equest, exhortation

demand

exhortation

(onbehalf of N)

imper. (r .k) sdm.k (r.k)" "imper. (r .k) +

"imper. (r .k) +sdm.

k

"sdm.k (r. k)" s d m . "

S

wish, exhortation demand

(onbehalf ofN)

"imper. (r.k ) sdm.k (r.k)" "imper. (r .k)

" sdm .k (r.k )

sdm l f" ( r . fl "

Ohs.(a) take thei-variantsinthe 1stand2ndperson

masc.sg1. to be purely orthographic;inthe otherper-

sons except for the 3rd masc. sgl.,

attribute the

absenceofthisvarianttostatisticalchance,duetorela-

tively weak representation (twenty-odd occurrences).

Notsohowever inthe 3rdmaculine,with overninety

occurrences:theabsenceinthiscaseismorphologically

significant(systemic),seebelow.

(b) 1do notseethe absenceof the 1stpersonplural

representant as systemic (significant) "Unbelegtheit,"

but as fortuitous, since no suppletive replacement

thereofisdetectable.

1 1 0 2 PARADIGMa),beingtheverb-lexemeconstitu-

encyforpattern-range(a):

(1)

V e rbs o f m o t i on orpos t ure :

(9)

~ y ,w

"come"

'h ' "stand (up)"

k "come/go in"

wbn

"rise(ofsun)"

bri

"run"

phr "turn around, revolve"

pri "come/go out,""goup,ascend"

n w d

"move"

rwi "leave,depart"

request, delocutive (3rd person)

exhortation invocation

as for

D

N

"sdm . (r. k)"

h f "creep,lurk"

h m s

"sit (down)"

h t p

"rest," "set (ofsun)"

b p i "travel,movehither andthither"

hr "fall down"

s3i

"linger,staybehind"

sw3 "pass"

zbi "go, passaway"

shnt i

"progress (bepromoted)"

53s "go, travel,""traverse"

Sm "go, walk"

d3 i

"cross"

iw(@)r- "beabout to goto-,setoutfor-"(once,V

3384

wnn , conditionedalternantof zw (V1I 169k)

ini

(passive)"be brought" (once,I 162h)

(2) Other intransitives: 3m "burn" (intr.)

' n h "live''

wnn

"be, become"

b 3gi "be/becomeweary"

nh t "be/becomestrong"

n d m "be/becomepleasant,sweet"

h ' i

"rejoice"

h! , shd "light up" (intr.), "be/becomebright"


6/19


7/19

646

Jo urn al of the American Oriental Society 106.4 1986)

where "sdm r.f

N"

is neatly in opposition to irf, the

non-co mm utable, unanalyzable "part icle" (below), in a

single syntactic complex:

(9) (111 50h-51 b) sh i r$ t n ~t hd t, 'nh.k ~ rf m i.W?

"-Su ppo s ing whi te-wheat bread runs ou t , what wil l

you live on?" Note, however, the incompatibility of the

two elements, which is not surprising, given their

original identity (see below 2.3, and cf. the incompati-

bility in Coptic of augens and particle in the case of

ntof and h66f).

1.1.2 a(2): "prz.n.f r.f," attes ted in the 2nd an d 3rd

persons s ingular, including the nominal actor. The

augens modifies the circumstantial (adjunctal, not

rhematic-narrat ive, fol lowing the theme iw-) and

"emphatic" sdm.n.f forms; only verbs of movement o r

posture:

(10) (V1 408h k) ht , bf, ~my w -htHr br, br, imyw-ht

Sth nph.n.f sw, bf.n. r.

h r

R c

"Run , run, fol lowers of

Horus Ru n, run, fol lwers of Seth He can not overtak e

him, s ince he has fled to Re." Note the valent ial

dis t inct ion between h i "run" (neutral , here with zero

rect ion, "be in pursui t ," cf . C op tic po t nsa-) an d bt r.f

hr- "flee (for shelter) to-."

1 1) (V 74d, 152a) ij3.n.k r.k f nw "Fro m where h ave

you turned up?" (alternatively, the augens is really

actor-, not act ion-referred; consider the col loquial-

rhetorical insis tence o n the acto r in surprised quest ions

such as "Where did

YOU

co m e f ro m ? (Cf. also 11

243 b(S 2P B9C): 'hC.n.f r.f with a stativ e varia lectio ).

I

kno w of no instanc e of r.f with the "emp hatic"sdm .n.f

as theme to a non-interrogative focus-rheme.12

1.1.3 a(3): "pr.k:.f r.f" usually in ap od osi , attest ed in

the 2nd and 3rd persons, incl. nom inal actor.

(12) (I 27 3 f ir gm.k nirw hmsy, h ms.k 3.k r.k hn '.sn "If

you find the gods seated, you too shal l si t with them."

(13) (1V 356a-3 57a) kb h.k:.kr.k r kb hw Gb, shd.k:.k

r.k r shd w 3ht p t "You (too?) shal l be refreshed with

(more than?) the freshness of Geb, you (too?) shal l

shine brighter t han the brightness of the sky-horizon."

Th e characteristic function of the augens here is additive-

adversa tive ("you, however," "you too," "you fo r you r

j 2 An early instance of an idiomatic narrative collocation

containing the empha tic

sdm.n .f

form, common in later

phases of the literary language (Urk . IV 89 6, Westc. 2, 15 and

in Late Egyptian narrative (Hirtengesch . 177, D'Orbiney 7.2)

as well as in early

M E

(Sin. B 248) may be already frozen or at

least fixed in the C T: (VII 36r) hd.n r.f r d w 3 , d w : the land

has become light very early (see Vernus 1981, his ex x. 12-

13). Wb 111 208): the verb form is here probably in nexus w ith

a following circumstantial ( no sooner has the land become

light, than . . . or : as soon as the land became light, . .

partw-cf. Cop tic h6 6= ) o r com parat ive, in relat ion to

the protasis of (more rarely) an element in the clause

i tself. M ore exx. for this pat tern (also com mo n in the

Pyramid Texts): I 273g, 1V 359b, 363c, 376d (r.k and

rectional r- in compatibility).

1.1.4 a(4)-statives:

N

iy rlf," '>r.kwz r.1," attes ted in

the Is t , 2nd, 3rd s ingular. Note th at this is the only case

of this augens in the dura tive ("adverbial") pres ent

predication pattern-the stative is after all the expo-

nent of a c omp lex temp oral category (the perfect :

"presen t state resulting of past action"): r.f is app ar-

ently incom patible with the hr infinitive dura tive

verbal predicates . However, for verbs of movement

(and perhaps a larger subset of the intransi t ive verb

lexemes) the opposi t ion of (durat ive) s tate vs. past

act ion is neutral ized in favour of the former, in the

for m of the stative.I3

(14) (I 154d -e, also 155b) m.k hfty.kpf ;my ntrw rmtw

imyw hrty w- nrr y(w) r.f "Behold, tha t enem y of

yours amongst the gods and people (and those) of the

necrop olis has arrived ('on his mission') to break y our

house, to undermine your dwelling)."

(15) (V1 136n) rh.n .itn, rh.n.i rnw.tn, pr.k wi r.1 wcb .kw i

"I know you-I know your names, having ascended

pure o n my way."

(16) (11 234b, v. 1. SIP, SIChass., Pap. Berl.) (his

gua rdian wh o is in the Tribu nal) -('hC.n.f r$ 'wy.f

r-hr.f)// 'hcr.fr$-(it is with his ar ms stretched out tha t

he has ar i sen) / i s ari sen on h i s concern ," no te the

compatibi l ity of the two r- hom onym s, the fi rs t an

internal modifier, sharing with the lexeme a single

actor-exp ression, the second a valent ial "government"

modifier. More exx.: 1276g, 1V 104d.

1.1.5 a(5):

"N

p h r rl f"-part iciple, '4 at t r ibut ive or

adnex al ("conjunct") to a no un nucleus-the augens

occurring in the 3rd person singular form; no clear

imperfect ive/perfect ive morphological marking:

l 3 Polotsky 1965: 22ff., I976 $3.3, Junge 1970: 1-21, 1984:

116. In Bohairic Coptic (probably in Fayumic and Oxy-

rhynchite too) Se nu= is virtually the non-durative alternant

of the verb go. In Urk.

1

125.16 Sm r.f (Sm stative, the pred.

complement of emphatic gm.n. i ) is superficially durative: on

his way ; however, for narrative Sm the durativity feature is

neutralized, in absence of an opposition with another nar-

rative (circ. s d m . n . f ) form (although the precise status of Sm

amon g ME verbs of motion is admittedly uncertain).

I

This is the only non-finite verb form have found

expanded by the augens r.J However, the one uncertain

exam ple may be taken as an instance of infinitive r.$ Hr m

prr r.f r p r (V Is la , 2 witnesses out of

7).


8/19

647

(17)(VII430c)R C p h r fr np t "Rec, onhiscircularway

in the sky." Three witnesseshave the(circumstant ial)

sdm.f here.

(18) (VI 144d)Stative?-

hnn pw n RC , wd r .fm hnnw

0

Pha l l u s o f ReC , m o v i n g w i l d l y a b ~ u t . " ' ~ ons ider

alsoI1100a(in

N

' nb r .f ), compar ing I195ewi th r$

absent(whichmayindicateadifferent-perfective?-

participle).

1 1 6

STATEMENT In the (a) g roup of

F

FUNCTION:

p a tt er n s, I t a k e r.f t o h av e mo st ty pic all y a v er b-

modifyingaugentialrole.Often,thiscannotbeisolated

in t ranslat ion, i t beingan integral part of thesemantic

wholeconsist ingof the lexemiccomponent and

r.$

In

certaincontextual lydeterm inableinstances, this modi-

ficationisreferabletothenominal/pronominalACTOR,

not theverb lexeme.

A s a n i n te r na l a d v er b al mod ifie r,1 6 r.f m a r ks a

specia l modal ity of ac t ion , lending a d i s tinc t, seman-

ti ca lly d e fi nab le ~ k t i o n s a r t " character iza t ion to the

l A pun; I differ here with Faulkner's translat ion (1977:

162) 0 you phallus of Rec which goes awry for him in

uproa r, taking r.f to be a prepositional adjunct.

6

One recalls here the so-called dativus ethicus (a doubly

infelicitous term for the Semitic Sprachbund where it is a

striking, if minor, typological trait), at least in some of its

functions. This phenomenon, calling for a typological-com-

parative exposition following upon language-specific accounts,

is outside my present brief; Hintze (1952: 81ff.) discusses the

ethical and reflexive dative in Egyptian, with reference to

Semitic and Indo-European analogues. He points out the

uses- affektbedingt, in his view of the preposit ion n-,

especially when accompanying the imperative. In the late

Egyptian stones its distribution is in part not unlike that of

ou r r./ (ibid. p. 86ff.); its post-imperatival role (82ff.) does

certainly recall our (b) gro up of patterns (par. 1.2.1-2).

Hintze does not mention r.Jin this connection (Coptic nu=

to o deserves t o be mentioned here--yet another unresearched

chapter of Coptic g rammar: very strik ing in Bohairic, we find

in Sahidic too the distinction of post-imperatival (address-

enhancing) vs. action-referred augential modification). Inci-

dentally, Greenbaum's simple test to distinguish intensifiers

from ma nner adjuncts (Greenbaum 1970: 25f.), viz. the impos-

sibility of phrasing howv-questions for the forme r, is appli-

cable to both augential ( actor-intensifier'') and lexeme modi-

fying r.f(as distinct from the circonstant r=) .

l

If the classic distinct ion of aspect from Aktionsarr

hinges upon the objective, naturally observable natu re of

the latter vs. the subjecrive, staging chara cter of the forme r,

then the category we are observing here is one of mode-of-

action; yet this is not least a question of terminological

In the Coffin Texts

ac t ua l exp res si on. Th i s may be conc is el y def ined a s

EN H AN CED

I N TRAN S I TI VI TY :

the(indirect) goal of the

actionisdetachedfromtheactionexpression,whichis

focused o r "wrapped" a round i ts ac t o r a s a k ind o f

I NTRANS I T I VE

REFLEXIVATION,xtendedinperformance

(or at least presented inasort "blow-up" o rexaggera-

t ion) , enr iched in impl ied detai ls -e .g . , o far i s tocra ti c

leisure,ofself-centereddeliberateness,ofasseveration,

o fenergy o r in tensi ty .' "'Eat ing" i s thus t rans formed

into "dining," "going" into "progress ingon one'sway,"

"run ning (away )"into "flee" (adverb ialsincl.p reverbs,

or derivat ion serve t oexpress this typeofcategory in

other languagesi9). Ina textological view, theactor is

o ft en p r om o t ed t o p ro ta go n is t s ta tu s, a t le ast

episodically.

Note that r.f a f fec ts the valency mat r ix of a g iven

verbonlyinsofaras i t affirmsand enhances the intran-

s it iv i ty o f un iva len t ve rb s by fo rma l ly occupy ing a

p o te n ti al r ec ti on s lo t; rf is h er e t he a l te r nan t, f o r

intransit ive lexemes, ofa reflexiverect ion. N ot being

anadjunct but an inneroperatorof theverbphrase, i t

is not focal izablebyan"emphatic"form.Thepoint to

seize theat tent ionhere is theprominence lent byr.f to

theverbal not ioni tself , probablyrelatable to thenon-

a t te s t at ion o f bo th marked -t hema ti c ( "emphat ic ," i n

theparadoxical t radi t ional terminology)andnarrat ive

( pl ot -d et ai l) f o rm s among t ho se e xp and ed b y r.$

(NeitherhaveIfoundexamplesinnegativeclauses).

When, in somecontex tual conf igura t ions , r.f- - s ti l l

a d ve r ba l in p la cemen t- fu nc ti on s e xt er na ll y t o t h e

verblexeme,modifyingthe(pro)nominalactor,it isan

exponent ia l ra ther than component ia l fac tor , l ending

p rominence t o t he ac t o r add it ive ly o r adve rs at ivel y

withothers: see thefol lowingparagraphs.

1.2 (b ) IMPERATIVAL-ALLOCU TIVEATTERNS

The verb-lexeme inventory in pat t ern-group (b) i s as

follows:

( I ) verbsofmovements andposture:

iy,w "com e," L'go''

is"go, hurry"

systems and metalinguist ic models. Be that as it may, r./plays

in these patterns a word-formationa l rather than a systemic-

morphological role.

l Cf.

R SSL R

968; esp. pp. 56ff.

Other languages express similar semantic functions by

lexical pairs (flow ooze), by pre- or post-verbal adverbials in

close junc ture with the lexemes (peri-ergazomai, ek-poned,

com-pungo, con-calesco, dis-curro, sir about, sleep around,

bargain away) or by special word-formational means (e.g.,

the Turkish -i~tir-nfix o r the Hebrew hitpac el pattern).


9/19

Jo urn al of the American Orien tal Society

106.4

1986)

'h c "stand up," "get up"

wn "pass"

wd3 "set out"

hn "flee"

prr "go/ come out ," "ascend"

m, my "come" (imperative)

nm "pass, travel"

h i "descend"

hm "retreat, flee, go away"

hm s "si t (down)"

h tp "rest," "set (of sun)"

h' "rise (of sun)," "appear"

"return, withdraw"

bt "go, retiren

"pass"

sb "go, slip away"

fz, fz+refl. pr on ou n "rise," "get up"

d r

"cross (river)"

with preposit ional phrases serving for vehement

urging (modal-- imperativepas marke d by the

absence of iw-) h3.k "(turn) back "

hr-hr.k "(fall) o n you r face "

(2) other intransitives:

'nh "live"

(i)gr "be jfall silent"

hkn "rejoice1'(?)

shrn "be mighty, be in control"

h "be (a) spirit"

wsr "be powerful"

nfrr "be divine"

(3) transitives (their inclusion in the constituency is

distinctive):

wnm "eat"

lnw "count"

dd

"say, tell"

1 2 1

b(1): "pri (imperative)r.k ." Th e relevant for m

inventory : (1)r.k" (VI 393b), (i)r.r (IV 174k), (i )r . ~ n

(IV IOOf), with occasional reiterated variants for the

sing ular: r .k r.k (I1 134h. 402c, v. 1. irf), r.1 r.f, r.1 ir.1

(V 254d, V I 230j) . The three immediate consti tuents

of the expand ed impera tiva l c lause-namely, the

address ("vocative") nou n, the imperative verb form

followed by the augens--combine into two basic syn-

tagms: "pr r+r .k+ (~oun ) "" ' or

(i,

i 3 , h3 ) +N oun+

U

The percentage of I-forms is here about 60%, somewhat

less in the feminine form-significantly different from that of

~r,f 'inhe (a) patterns.

2 1 Although the addressee in the imperative utterance is

usually made explicit (by means of a dependent pronoun,

"vocative" noun or different subsequent pronominal refer-

ence). it often happens that r.k is the sole exponent of

genderjnumber (e.g., V 308e, VII 359b) and, more impor-

pri+rk".22 In spite of the predom inance of intransi t ive

verbs, which could sup por t the assumpt ion tha t what

we have here is on pr inciple the same componential

"internal" modif icat ion as in the (a)-patterns above, i t

must nonetheless be observed that the very different

mod ality of the imperative makes-at least to som e

extent-for a difference in the modifying function of

our augens. If we let, so to speak, the "external"

adnominal modif icat ion ( insist ing on and promoting

the ac tor exponent of a weakly impera t ive modal

form, viz . , the prospective sdm.f) progress on the

modal spectrum towards the absolute imperative, this

modification will, reaching the p oint of s taightforward,

of ten brusque command, no longer lend prominence

to the addressee but entone the address as a whole,"

markin g an im mediacy and u rgency of personal refer-

ence and at t i tude. There are remarkable paral lels

between this prominencing of the allocutive distinctive

f e a tu r e o f t he impe r a t i va l pa r t i c l e s o r a dve r b i a ~s .~~

This address enhancement is compatible with a vehe-

ment , impat ient , brusque or even rude command

tone25 often in th e interperson al en vironm ent (3.1 O. 1)

D,

S,D,

N ) or by diacritic need, in which latter case

r .k is an identifying index for the addressee, or

address-marking the "vocative" noun. Let me make

tantly, also an imperarive marker. (Very rarely one encounters

morphological characteriz-ation in the verb form itself (e.g.,

1V 96b m zr.tn n.i).

As main variant readings in the different witnesses one

finds: "pri

N

(imperative or prospective sdm.f?)/"prr(imp.)-

r.k / "pri.k r. k".

''

Cf. Hintze 1952: 82 n. 2,8 3 n. 5, 84f. F or some parallels in

English, see Jespersen 1961, Pt. 111 .11.8.41ff. ("emotional

colouring . . with emphasis on the pronoun (and with a

poin ting finger"), Pr. VII .6.9. Onions 1932 $156 ("contemp-

tuous emphasis"). With certain lexemes t z ,

w $ : )

r.k seems to

have also valential value, marking or underlining the repex-

ivir-v of the imperative: "get thee gone."

24

On the post-imperatival particle paradigm in German, see

Gornik-Gerhardt 1981

(woh l /doch /schon /nu r /h loss /ahe r /

also/auch) ; see Von d. Gabelenz in Weydt 1977: 472f..

Asbach-Schnitker 1977: 52f.

5

Cf. the cattle -drovers' promptiny cry "3s r.k": see Erman,

AeZ 48:42f. (1910); cf. "schon der Dringlichkeit" in German,

Gornik-Gerha rdt 1981: 99ff.; (p. 102) "schon markiert, dass

der Sprecher voraussetzt, dem Horer sei klar, dass er aufgrund

der Autoritat des Sprechers oder aufgrund von allgemeinen

Konventionen, Normen oder gegenseitiger Vereinbarung (X)

tun muss. .

.

dass (X) sofort augefiihrt werden muss, da es

schon langst hatte getan sein sollen oder konnen .

. .

das der

Sprecher annimmt, der Horer miisse wissen, das ( X ) schon

langst hatte getan sein sollen oder kiinnen."


10/19

649

HISHA-HALEVY: Textsi)rf In the Coffin

myself clear: post-im peratival

ir= is certainly a differ-

ent s t ruc tura l ent i ty f rom the augens r= in pa t te rns

(a) (although partly hom onym ic with it): this statement

of (par t ial) homonymy is based on their functional

differences, their different syntagmatic compatibilities

(1r.k compatible also with transitives), the fact that

rr.k does not refer to any overt and specific (pro)-

nominal element, but to an address-form as a whole

( the imperative does not "contain" an implied 2nd-

person mark but, like interjections and "vocatives," is

marked as allocutive), and finally its distinctive form

inventory, making for a "morphological" difference.

(20) (111 48e -f) wnm irk In.sn r.1; n w nm.1 n.fn! " 'Ea t

you'-so they say to me; I won't ea t at you r behest"

(note the contrast of the preposit ions r - ("at ," with

aggressive an d ill intent) and n - ("dativus commo di").

(21) (1V 70-71) gr r r .fn, ntrw, md w nt r h n c nt r "Shut

up, you gods , when one god ta lks (or : tha t one god

may talk) to another" (cf . a lso BD 78.5 (Nu). 78.7

(Ani)).

(22) ( V 46-7) dd n.r zr.k sS w rpn n b nw ?)p r R w ty

nty im "Tell you me all the particulars of yonder

Hous e of the Rw.tyW-n. usually precedes the augens,

al though there are exceptions.26

(23) (V1 210d) hr-hr .k ~ r .k , m: i t . i Wsir! "On your

face, you, my father Osiris'murderer!"

(24) (IV 55e, 68b) brk r.k r Dd w "0 Falcon, come

you to Busir is" - note again the compatibi l i ty, hence

structural difference-of-identity, of the tw o r- elements.

Ad ditio nal exam ples: 1 373c, 1V 96d , 100b, V 182a,

308d, VI 114c.

A single instance of n.k in syntagm with ir.k estab-

l ishes their com patibi l i ty, with the former an internal-

comp onential, the latter an extern al-augential modifier:

(25) (1 58b-c) h3 Wsir N fn , iw n.1 ir.1 r p.t (vv. 1.

1wt.f. prosp . sdm..f 'and (masc. im perative) iw 1r.k) "0

female Osiris N! Mak e you yo ur way to th e sky!" (cf.

Faulkne r's note , 1973:12 n.

I )

1 2 b(2): Instances of "m.k r .k" seem to corro bora te

the suggested interpretat ion of r .k as marking or

stressing the address feature."

'"ccording to Edel $821, an "accusative or dative-object"

preceding :r = is characteristic of Old as against Middle

Egyptian; yet he admits t o an exception in the Pyramid Texts

(see 5616f.). Edel's suggestion ($18) that the prominence-

lending (hervurhehend) variable rr= is typically OE illustrates

the dangers imminent in this sort of "characterology"(unless

of course he has the spelling in mind).

And cf. the 1.atin "ethical dative" accompanying "you-

deictic" expressions, like eccelhic tihi (Kuhner-Stegemann 1

323f.), Greek toi(cf. Kiihner-Gerth I1 149f., Denniston 537113),

modern Irish fench leal, etc.

Cf.

Callender 1975: $3.5.4 (r.k

(26) (V 123-24) m.k r.k w sk.t, m.k r.k sy h r whr.t

"Here is the boat ("for your informationmz8)-here

she is at the wh arf ." Co ntras t the relative order of the

augens and dependent pronoun (grammatical subject)

here with that in ( I 194e) m.k tw ir .k, where the

dependent pronoun is not a grammatical subject but

the existenct in the y ou- deictic existential claim "Here

you are.""

(27) (I 306c) m.k ir.k gm.n.i!w h rg s. k, Wrd Wr "See,

lying on your side 1 found you, G reat W eary One!"

1 3 1 ( ~ 1 ) :Th e au gen tial r.f

M A R K I N G A S PROMINENT

a

preceding (focal) pronoun:

(28) ( IV 42a-b) bpr m w dh . . . ink ir . i bpr m wdh

" B E C O M I N G

CHIL D: I t is 1 who have become a

child." Althou gh there is no escaping the fact that the

thematic contour of this sentence as it is before us is

ambiguous, and i ts resolution is not aided by the

augen s,jO yet the face of i t , a Cleft S entence (pro-

nominal vedette) interpretation seems plausible and, if

we are to judge by the proso dic features of a com par-

able Cop tic pattern (an ok pet-) , is even preferable.

No te tha t on e witness here has irf (th e particle),

illustrating the relatively easy shift from segment-

reference to clause-reference (see below).

1 3 2 (c2): Prominent inalienable possession in the

interlocutive persons (in vaunting or defiant address):

marking a special, involved, non-detached address focus);

idem. 1983: 90 (without further comment translated "behold;

it is important that"); Hannig 1982: 35f., 41f., 49 is the only

one who attempts a definition of m.k-statements in text-

grammatical terms ("Trxtrelation," presentative communi-

cation).

Faulkner (1977: 34) takes this to be an imperative:

"complete the barge " (our pattern b(l)).

ln (V11 280c) ~ n k - ntr - :r.k, r.k, I believe, is not the

comparison preposition ("greater than you": s o Faulkner,

L.esko; two arguments against this interpretation are the

absence of a suitable referate to .k and the higher probability

of ntr i being a compound proper name), but must mean "for

your information" (cf. Greek toi), and its remarkable place-

ment may indicate either a prosodic relatively-close juncture

(single-colon status) of the whole preceding complex of

nominal sentence apposit ion or its inf(~rmationa1unity.

(znk- would be the focus, to judge by the in compat~bili ty n

Coptic of the interlocutive subject-pronouns with proper

names the only exx. know of are NHC

V

(3) 278 (Apoc. of

James) and the Fayumic Mark 8:28 (Chass.). (On the #znk

PIV pattern see Gilula 1976: 164, 167ff., Junge 1981: 450,

Schenkel 1984; 162ff.)

'

See


11/19

-

650

Jo urn al of the American O riental Society 106.4 (1986)

These two points have fun-

Wsir r nfrw I t is f rom your very own mou th I have

dam ental signif icance for the functional evaluation of

emerged ( /shall emerge?) , says Osir is to the gods.

irf

The fact that r . tn occurs here in syntagm with ano ther

(29) (11 79b) pr. n.i (v. pr .i) n r:.tn r.tn ds.tn , in

d i a l o g u e c o n ~ t i t u t e n t s . ~ ~

augens, ds=, establishes their belonging to different

augential categories.3'

(30) ( I l l 121a-b) Upright shall I depart , hnn.1 r . i

dml, 'r.t.1 r.i dm .ti MY phallus secured (joined), MY

rectum sewn up.

(31) (1 169b) srnsi.1 1r.i ir.n.f wi m h c w n iwfif As fo r

MY begetter, i t is f rom the mem bers of his f lesh that

he has shaped me. Note that the two last exx. have

the possessed noun in the focal consti tuent of the

clause.

2 THE NVA RIAB LE irf lrfA R T I C L E

2 0 1 We now turn to look at the non-analyzable

element written irf 4

z

r rf z hich appears, by

functional and distr ibutional considerat ions, to be a

single entity with two prosodically conditioned allo-

mo rph s (or at least al1ographs)-a graphem ically fuller

(irf) and a lesser (rf) o ne . Th e distri butio n of irf b eing

the more extensive and i ts functional picture the

clearer of the tw o, I shall treat it first.

2 0 2 Th e for m irf, with a varia nt (the omission

of the ex-pronominal grapheme is instructive and

corresponds to the derelevantizat ion of the pronoun

in this ex-syntagm; moreover , the 3rd person sgl .

mascul ine i s the unmarked member in the person

categ ory, 32 ee pattern-specific orth ogra phic inform a-

tion below). Syntactic traits are observable in irf-

conta ining pa t te rns : ( a ) they fea ture a nomina l /

pron om ina l gramma t ica l subjec t , (b) they a re ( in the

overwhelming majority of cases: four out of five

patterns, over 90% of all attestations) interrogative

"emphatic topic." Regula's "mise en relief thkmatique"), cf.

Halliday 1967, Jones 1977: 169ff. (also 3ff., 6ff.).

Compare the compatibility of Coptic augentia: -hdd=

mmin mmo= (e.g., Shenoute AmPl. 261). -hdd = nto=

(ibid. 11 468), cf. Shisha-Halevy 1986: 170f. See n. 10 on the

distinction between .f and r,f (F or n.f as possession-focusing

augens in later phases of Egyptian, cf. Borghouts 1971: 106f.

[n. 2081).

3

rrf is corrected in to ir in two or thr ee witnesses out of four

in 111 12le (not a "scribal error,"pac,e Ede1$821 A n m . n his

Nachtrage (p. LXXX) he even relates this form to the

pronominal-anaphoric adverb iry! See p. 412 for the invaria-

bility issue. Note that ir is the form in about 20% of all

attestations, and usually occurs as variant reading in the case

of multiple evidence. Other occasional variants are irrf

(ir rf?), r, irn

(V

70a).

2 1 PA TT ER NI). By far the largest num ber of occur-

rences of irf is ob serva ble in sentences with an

emphatic substantival verb-form as subject;j4 n orde r

of f requency (but probably not of grammatical sig-

nificance): sdm.n . , sdm.f, sdm w. ( the emphatic

prospective35), with no restrict ion of valential p rop-

erties: transitives and intransitives, all active. The

predicate is an interrogative adverbial-prepositions

governing the interrogative pronou ns l ist what? , m

who, zy what-, which-?, an d the interrogative

adverb fnw where?. In this pattern (as also in patt .

V1, par. 2.6 below) one may consider the prevailing

writing irf ) as distinctive, since only in these

tw op att ern s as opposit ion between the par t icle irf and

the an alyz able (sy ntag m) r.f is at all conceivab le (see

par. 2.6 for their compatibility).

( 32 ) (11 215- 16) i r h . tn i r f (v . I . rf ) mr i i s t n t r i s p w . . .

~ r . t n ( ) r m- hnw sw ht? Bu t how do you know

that he (or: it) is a god

.

.

.

that you should act against

him in the egg? 36

(33) (V 92-93) The constructio n of the boat: .

. .

But

wh at (shall 1 do ) if the wind blew before she had a

mast?-Ta ke Babi's phallus (for a mast).

.

.

.

s m n . i s w

irf h r list :

. . .

But what shall I fasten it on? -- . .

Wh at abo ut her cablesv-Take yond er N'w-snake (for

a cable).

. . .

wd.i sw irf t n w

. . .

But where shall 1

fix it? No te th at irf, n ot being ad(p ro-)n om inal, is

compatible with the dependent pronoun, unlike the

augential r.f

(34) An often recurring, well-known dialogu e sequen ce

(e.g., in spells 173, 184, 187, 195, 199, 203, 205 581

etc.j7: having rejected and refused t o e at the var ious

imp ure substances pressed o n him by the daevic deities,

the deceased is the n asked: 'nh.k irf m iSst?('nh ~ rfN m

iist?) -But wh at will you (/w ill N) live on?

The dist inctive form of th e par t icle in this pattern is

irf (with 100-odd oc currences, cou ntin g all witnessses,

as against less than ten for r f , and occasional i r -

var iants) . In this typ e of sentences we d o f ind the

13

On this invariable element, the most extensive mono-

graphic discussion is by Silvermann 1890:

93ff. passim.

34

Polotsky 1976 $2.4-5.

35

Op. cit.,

3.6;

Schenkel 1981.

6

Cf. Gilula 1971: 17 n. 14.

3

One instance of this dialogue (111 202i) seems very impor-

tant for the sy ntax of the Cleft Sentence and glose-form since


12/19

SH I SH A - H A L E V Y :

65 1

i)rf In the CoSfin Texts

aug ential r.J either as a variant reading fo r irf or ,

rarely, as a sole reading (patterns a(1)-a(2) above). The

verbs occurr ing here are

iy

3i, p h (wi th objec t) and

dd This is hardly surpr ising: histor ical ly and to a

degree synchron ically, irf represents the anap ho ric

reference to the whole substantival ("emphatic") verb

form, whereas r l f i s anapho r ic only to i t s ac tor com-

po nen t. Sync hron ically, irf is often fossilized, yet his-

tory h as left its traces in the synchron ic distribution-

no t the prevalence of irf after nominals (and mo re

especially the pattern that may well represent the

original function of irf, patt. (III), see par. 2.3 below):

(35) (V1 3380-q) 1.n.k ir.k

rn

? . i.k ir.k zy bw?

"Wh ence hav e you come' Wh ither will yo u go?"

(Faulkner 1977: "What do you want? Fo r what have

you come?").

(36) (1V 77c) ph .k ir.k drw nw

p t

m

r

? (v.

1

p h k

zrf. .

.

"How will you reach the boundaries of the

sky?"

Irf here is primarily an illocutive indic ator, expo nent

of interclausal cohesion, signalling recourse to facts

mentioned before or a si tuation assumed t o be familiar

to the inter locutor ; i t is a grammatically per t inent

option, and can be put in paradigmatic relat ion to

("replaced by") othe r particles such as rr an d is 38

r

may have a secondary prosodic disjunctor function

(see 2.7).

in it the interrogative-adverbial focus precedes its topic-

theme: hr ln iSst irf/ir tm.k swr /wm wistlhs

?

But why wilt

thou not drink urine (/e at excrement)? (see Edel1119). To

judge by the negation, the verb-form is nominal-unless we

concede tm-negation of circumstantial verb forms, and con-

sider this an early instance of the adverbial glose with an

initial focus (cf. Shisha-Halevy 1978 for Late Egyptian, 1986:

85%. for Coptic). Be that as it may, the clause-second position

of zrfpoints to its identity with irf in the topic-initial pat terns.

Yet an other mystifying case is (111 94c) zr arf mim 'nh.m

m

k

?w h ?dwt.z, swr. tn m-m S'w sifwt.i-which 1 propose to

translate How come (lit. 'how done') (tha t) you should live

on the baked provisions of my altars, drink o f .

.

my

jars.

. . .

(~r(-)m S?d/ i:d.n Sct.k, ibid. f-g, seems to be the

justifying answer to this indignant question). Could this also

be the circumstantial sdmw,f serving as glose, i.e., topic-

theme of the Cleft Sentence? (Incidentally, in (111 51f.) rdi.n.k

wnm.k irf i n sw, irfis in the second, not third position (pac e

Gardiner p. 405); the placement of the focus m is probably

conditioned (non-pertinent).

Consider V 95f-g, V1288c, V 397m, 111 234-5, and cf. the

German paradigm of

wohl/denn/ju/doch/etwa/eigentlich/

uuch (Asbach-Schnitker 1977: 50ff., Konig 1977 with further

reff.

2 2 P A T T E R N

I t ) :

interrogative or (rarely) non-inter-

rogative ap par en t Cleft Sentences, with irf in the

"prosodic slot" between the pronominal subject (also

focusing element)pw and i ts relative/part icipial appos-

i tive expansion (consti tut ing together w ith i t the glose

or theme-topic):

(37) (V1 250g) ii st p w irf irt.k n.i rn isw iry? "But wh at

will you d o for me in retu rn for it?"-ir.t.k is a

prospective relative form.

(38) (V

1

IOh, M2C) ii st pw irf i3tt r .s? "But what is the

dam age ( 'mutilation') do ne to it (the boat)?"

Consider here too (1V 222-23c) pw rr lr f sw, t3 p n n

3htyw? (vv. 1. y w r rf lpw ir t pn . .

.

"But w hat is this

land of the Horizon-Dwellers?"-NB: rear app ositio n

is the only way a subjec t noun can ente r the p w sw

essential ly pronom inal pattern.

(39) (1 173a) ink p w irf ir.n.f . (v. 1 ir.f) 1 a m one

who was m ade (by) h aving a cted / acting (successfully)"

(pa ce Faulkner 1977:32: "I am he w ho was created; he

is c rea ted and endures . . . 3. In this case one might

argu e for a different pattern-the cop ular ("ternary")

Nominal Sentence, with initial pronominal subject-

and th e prosodic co ntou r evidenced by the pre-f inal (or

colon-final3') placement of ~rfseems to support the

copular identity of

pw 40

Still, this may be a "binary"

"mk pw" Nomina l Sentence wi th pw expanded by a

participle that is "substantival" (i.e., contains its own

nucleus),-not, howev er, a Cleft Sentence4': the fact

that our sentence is in absolute text- ini t ia l posi t ion

seems to weigh against a polem ic role.

2 3

PA TT ER N111)-#Noun -irf/irs#: a n especially

illum inatin g array of exam ples in which irf follows a

noun ( incl . a nominal verb form) in a presenrar ive-

querying re joinder con~t ruc t ion:~ '

39

Colon in the sense of

E.

Fraenkel's Kolon und Satz

studies, namely a sub-clausal prosodic unit.

4

Cf. the Prosody indicated in the Coptic copular Nominal

Sentence by such constructions as (Amel. 11 76) pounof

nouSFre ebol hntmntr mmao enta-pefeiiit taus naf pe o uhoou

(Shisha-Halevy 1986: 34f.)

4 '

Cf. the distinction in Coptic of the Cleft Sentence Npet -

and N p e pet- , not Cleft Sentence but delocutive Nominal

Sentence with determinated-relative appositive subject (cf.

Polotsky 1962: 54ff.). O n the ink pw pattern (deceivingly

simple; in fact, probably hiding two o r three distinct patterns,

the Coptic as well as Egyptian) see Gilula 1976: 167ff., 1981:

393, Junge 1981, the latter also for the Nominal Sentence:

Cleft Sentence dilemma in Middle Egyptian: Schenkel 1984:

161ff.

4 2

This is not an elleipsis of the interrogative word (Edel

1000), but a dis tinct (and even basic) pattern by its own right.

38


13/19

652

Jo ur na l of the Am erican Orie ntal Society 106.4 (1986)

(40) (V 93-94) (The con struction of the ferry. Th e

deceased enu merates, one by one, the individual i tems

of its equipm ent--apparently in an interrogative-

querying modula t ion: "What about . ?, receiving

appropriate answers ("X will do for that purpose") , to

which fur ther consultat ive-deliberat ive queries are

l inked. 1 am quoting here the var iant readings differ ing

in point of lexeme as a continuous text):

13wt rrs

?

(TI C)--"Rut (what ab out) her sail?"

t3wt.s r rsl t3wt.s i rf? (Sq I , 2Sq /TI Re , M2C)

1hw.s r rf? (S ql , 2Sq, Sq lC , TIR e , M2C)- -"Rut (what

abo ut) h er cables?"

b1w.s rrs

?

(TIC)-"But (what abo ut) her gunwhales?"

spr .s rr /spr / / / r r f? (S ql Sq / M2C)-"But (what about)

her ribs?"

sp r. ~ .rf'(Sq I c, T

l

be)

Co m pa re (V 17-18):

t

3wt.s irs, 1hw.s ir///, sp r.s irs

And, resolving this var iat ion by witnesses ("MS

norm"):

(Sql Sq) No un ( rn. ) e rn . pos sess or IR F/ I R ,

Nou n (1:) +fern. possesso r IRS

(Sq2 Sq) Nou n (rn.) +.fern. pos sess or IRF, No un

(1:) +fern. possesso r IRS

(Sq l C) Noun (rn.) +fern. possesso r

+

I RF , N oun

f .

(dual)

+

I R F

(Sq7 Sq) N oun (rn.,.f .) +fern. possesso r

Z R S ~ I R

( T I C) N oun f. + IRS, Noun (rn.) +fern. posses-

sor

IRS

(TI Be) No un (rn.,.f .) +.fern. p oss esso r + I RF , N oun

( 5 ) ( du al ) + IR

F

(M2C) Noun ( rn . ,J ) +fe rn . possessor I R F

Despite the regularity, striking at first sight, of the

gender-concord of ir f with the preceding noun, one

observes three kind s of significant variation : (a) between

zrf an d irs following a feminine no un a n d feminine

possessor-the du al always having irfi (b) between

noun-referred and suffix-referred concord (in TIC),

(c) between rrf'and rr (with masc. an d fem. noun s)

Th e noun s in this case are predicates in this catalogic

enum erative sequence, of which every #N oun irf#

unit is a relat ively indepe ndent com ponen t. The par t i-

cle, here anaphorically variable, "fastens upon" either

of the two referable cons ituents of this single-membered

clause, thereby not only integrating it in the texture of

the dialog ue, bu t also hy postatizing it, i.e., giving it full

status of a n al locutive clause, intoned, occupying a slot

in the dialogue sequence, response-eliciting (41).

consider this-at least partly-a (clause-oriented) pa r-

ticle, not (clause-segment-oriented) augens function,

because of the regular I-form, the orthographic varia-

tions and the unmistakably discourse-oriented role of

an interclausa l relato r or link signal: irf ' "pilots a

dialogue in order to keep a si tuation of com mun ication

alive even if . . . the 'real threa d'ha s got lost or is being

questioned."43 I t m ust no netheless be conceded that

here is a kind of tran sition o r twilight zone between the

augential and par t icular functions-a transi t ion envi-

ron me nt f rom the (a-b) to the (I -V1) sets of patterns:

this is the l ink between the augential-analyzable and

the particular fossilized entities, between the intra-

sytactical ly functional syntagm and the macrosyntac-

tically func tiona l morph-a janus-faced relator in the

f irst com ponen t of a dialogu e joint comprising al locu-

t ion and response substructures.

I prop ose a similar interpretation for the following loci:

(41) (111 334) (wbn.k whn.tr, hp2pr.k hpr.tr "May you

shine and stay shining, com e into existence and stay in

exist ence ") nw zrf 4d .n .k : h 3 n.r s:.i!-rn.k wi i.kwi!

"But as for tha t which you have said, namely 'Would 1

had a son!'-here 1 am!" (cf. Py r. 886a: WJ . R c ! nw rf

dd.n.k, Rc: hw s: . i . rn.k N, R c, N p w s:.k!)

(42) An exa mp le I consider especially illuminating-a

va ria nt of th e co m m on '''nE2.k rrf rn ifst" (p ar . 2.1

abo ve) reads (111 93, twice) 'nh.k rrf--"But wh at ab ou t

your nourishment", l i teral ly: "But (wh at abou t) 'that-

you-will-live"'? (no te the absence of valential char-

acterization of the specific rection of "live on , subsist

on") . The question is thus phrased as a nominal

problem-setting-apparently the minimal, or nuclear

substructure of pattern (1).

(43) (V1 320 f) (possibly) (dl 1r.k rh.i irt.n.sn "Let me

know what they have done

.

. ) dbh . t.k rs, i.in Si3

"'Your request ,' says Si3" (Fau lkn er 1977:254 trans-

lates differently (with n. 14 on p. 255): "Let me know

what those tw o have don e (abou t) what you asked for,"

with hr supposedly om mitted.

2.4 P A T T ER NIV): rrfin th e so-called "particip ial state-

ment" Cleft Sentence-in-introduced nom inal/ i nde p.

pronoun vedette, mostly interrogative, followed by a

participle o r prospective s4rn.f glose. The placem ent of

irj ' here is clause-second, thu s post-focal (a position

common to patts . 111-IV). Observe that a secondary

disju ncto r fun ction is conceivable here (see below, 2.7).

As for the spelling: whereas in patts. 1-111 he standard

is decisively irf; we encounter in patt. IV quite fre-

Cf. Dennist on 309ff'., esp. 3121.: "the questioner asks for

supplementary inlormation" (on responsive and connective

dc

kai . also 8Iff. ~ a r progressive"-boundary signal for

the ommm rment of dialogue concatenation: see Gardiner

5152

r . f

"now. . ). Compare German ja

aher

(see Kiirler

1979. Franck 1979: 3f., Liitten 1979); the type of rejoinder

isolated here is missing in the illuminating typology of

rejoinder sequences in Halliday-Hasan 1980: 206ff.


14/19

653

H I S H A - H A L E V Y :i)rf

quently (approx. 50% of all occurrences) the form

rJ4

I canno t see a grammatical motivation fo r the distribu-

tion of the two forms in our pattern:45

(44) (V1 2490 ff.) rn m irfir hn c. k ?-in Inp w nh sm t

"But who is it will cooperate (/cooperated?) with

you?-It is An ubis , Lord of the Desert," in m ir fr di

pr.k? -in Bs(?) Wr-- "But wh o is it will let (/le t?) thee

forth?-It is the Great Hidde n One," in m rf si3 tw '

--in

K

Wr-"Rut wh o is it will pull (/pulledf )

you?-It is the Great Bul1,"pr.k zrf h r i b t ? p r. i hr Sw-

"But o n what will you ascend?--On Sh u will 1 ascend."

The participles must be perfective-punctual, referring

to future t ime, or-which would functionally amo unt

to the same-true active prospective participles.46

(45) (V 89d) in r irf(v . 1. nrn-rf) s3y.f n. n (1n.i) dpt

tn? "Who is it then will guard this boat for us (for

me)?" note the fused form nm -rj; com paring the forms

in 3.1.

(46) (IV 42 a-b , f-g) (bp r m wdh sp- 2) ink irf bp r m

wdh "(Becoming a child for the second time). It is I

who have become a child for the second t imew-note

the augential variant (patt. (c): ink 2r.i (ex. 27).

2.5

PA TT ER NV): irf in post-focal placem ent in a

binary nominal sentence or an adjectival-predicate

clause.

In the post-focal position irf appe ars to have a

focusing (prominent-rheme) function ( in addit ion to

pattern a nd con text information):

(47) (1 2348) dd.s n n.k: ~w m htp, Wsir

N

(p n ) twt irf

nh imnt "They shall say to you: 'Welcome, Osir is N

YOU a re the Lord of the West . '" As in ex. 27, here to o

the thematic resolution of #ink- N is uncertain, but

the open jun ctu re indicated by the place me nt of irf ma y

point to the focal status of the pronou n.47

(48)

(11 166~-d)nnk irf tm;

h sn . i pw "T O M E

belongs everything: Geb is MY BROTHER."^'

4 1

Except for one witness-SlOCa (4 irf, once rf), the

sources are consistenct in their choice of either of the two

variants.

4 5

Th e evidence for the correlation of 1rf:rf with the varia-

tion (at least orthographic) of the amalgamated focus nm vs.

unamalgamated ~ n -ms too uncertain to be of much use: ~n - m

1rf(l9), zn-m rf (4) but nm rrf(6), nm rf(5)- for rf; a ratio of

17.4% following ~ n-m . 5.5% after nm. Nonetheless, a striking

opposition V 89d) of ~n -m r fvs. nm rf may hint at a prosodic

conditioning for the lesser allomorph rf occurring after a

procliric nm- (see below. $3.0.1).

4"

Cf. Gunn 1924: 35R., Gardiner $368; Schenkel 1965.

Cf. Gilula 1976: 167K., Junge 1981: 441f.. 450f.

4"f Gilula 1968b. and consider

hw

rf- with Meltzer 1984.

In th e Coffin Tex ts

(49) (VII 96?) {n sw irf, rr

0)

WhichSn ? (or:

where) is he, then, he who created a disturbance?"N ote

the intercolary placement, possibly related to a pros-

odic disjo ining -"com ma" role of the particle (2.7).

2.6 MISCELLANEOUS. QUESTIONS-a) irfin RHE TOR ICAL

verb

clause^. ^

The dist inctive or thography here is

irj

Examples are not num erous:

(50) (V 92b) zr.n z rf p t {:w, n wnt bt.s?--"But

what if the wind should blow before she ( i .e . , the boat)

has a mast?," taking ir.n- as introducing a protasis

(preposed circum stantial form as a hypothetical clause)

or , a l ternatively, an "emphatic" (st i l l hypothetic)

sdm.n.f with the focal (unmarke d circum stantial)

negative-possession n wnt &.s: "But what if it was

before she had a m ast tha t the wind blew?"). Differ-

ently Fau lkn er, 1977:25 "The w eather is windy and sh e

has no mast ."

(51)

(V

115b

ff .)

d d irf n ir p w ipsy: in d3.n.k n .i s n rh,f

tnw dbCw .f? "(As fo r that which tho u hast said, that

you w ould ferry over to wh ere this noble god is,) why,

this no ble god will say: "Have you ferried over to me a

man al though he does not know the number of his

fingers? " (th e circumstantial n rh.f seems to be the adv .

comp lement predicated by the em phatic sdm.nlf ' form

rather than merely ad nom inal to s "a man."

(b) Here

I

would l ike to mention a rare instance of the

comp atibi l i ty-a rareness no t surpr ising, in view

of wha t has been suggested for the history of irf-of r.f

( INTRA clausal , augential i Aktionsa r t-and irf (1NTER-

clausal relator) . N ot at tested, to my knowledge, in the

CT , this exam ple is f rom the Pyramid Texts (461a): p r

r.f N zrf rr p. t br. k "Yet (or sim.) N shall ascend to

the sky (on his way) to you, R."' Th e functional

op po sitio n is reflected in on e of placem ent: r.f in

a

pert in ent p osit ion, adju nctal to the verb lexeme pr l ; irf

between cola (or colon-final), in a prosodically con-

ditioned position. (It is however difficult to decide

whe ther this placem ent of irf is also motiv ated by the

co-occurrence of both elements and the need t o signal

their dist inct functionin g: this would acco unt fo r this

position, different from the usual post-lexemic one of

irfwith a nominal actor."')

Y

Edel ($821, p. 412f.) suggests the placement of irf is

typologically indicative of the OE-ME transition, the particle

not "penetrating" vrrh ohjrc t syntagms in Old Egyptian.

5

Sethe (Komnzentar 260f., see also V I 148) considers-- -

wrongly, in my opinion-rrf and r.f here to be a doubly

occurring (repeated) "emphasizing ethical dative" (i.e., our

augens), with the difference in position reflecting a prosodic

not essential dill'erence in function: rlf "status constructus,"


15/19

654

Jo urn al of the American Orien tal Society 106.4

(1986)

(c) (52) (1 273a, TI C , T2C ) (nis.n n.k :st , dsw.n n.k

Nbt-Ht) , rdiw n.k ir f 3hw

.

Isis has summoned

you, Nephthys has cal led out to you; to you have the

Spir its to o been given over : irf again characterizes the

final link.

2.7 T H EPA RT I CL Erf : STATEMENTF F U N C T I O N

Judgin g by micro- and macro-syntactic environmental

criteria , namely the prevalence of irf in interro gativ e

an d / or argumentative-polemic (Cleft Sentence ) clauses,

on th e on e hand , and in dialogue-seria l envi ronment ,

on the other , as well as by paradigmatic cr i ter ia of

substi tut ion ( tr apparently the semantical ly adjacent

mem ber, occuping an ad jacent slot of the interrogative

para digm -ma tr ix,5 ' it appears irf is a regressive

(retrospective)-conjun ctive sen tence adverbial,52 over-

lapping sections of the combined semantic range of

"proclitic" (sic ), the irf a fuller form of the same entity. Sethe

quotes (462c, relative) sk.n N rrf (bu t note the significant non-

personal variant i r ) -"which he even destroyed" and the

reiterated augens (variant) in 133b iy.n.f rf rf bnty Hr .

5 Note that tr is not in the same category (in the strict

structu ral concept ion) as rrS, since the two are compat ible:

witness the common amalgamat ion p(w)-tr-rf (varying with

pw-rfand p(w)-tr) "But who ?

5

Jacobson 's terms (Ja cobson 1964); "conjunct" (concessive-

additive) in Greenbaum's terminology (Greenbaum 1969);

"connector" (Pinkster 1972), "conjunction" (Halliday-Hasan

1980). The terminological issue here is hardly trivial.

l r j

would be a "jonctif" in Tesniere's classification of mots vides

(lexemically empty, but grammatically decisive-"Outils

grammaticalsV--while the "full words" a re of far lower

grammatical significance). Yet at the same time we are

painfully aware of the fuzzy and ill-defined borderline

between junc tors ("empty") and adverbia ls ("full"-or would

it be "fuller"). The question must be faced, not only whether

we are at all in a position to advance an analytic, unbiased

definition of the A D V E R B in Egyptian, but whether the theo-

retical distinctions involving adverbials are indeed dichotomic

or rather gradient-consider that other perennial embarras s-

ment, that of drawing the line between actants (of high

grammatical significance) and circumstants (low grammatical

significance), a stru ctur al weakness of Tesniere's model that is

clearly related to our quandar y. (See Baum 1976: 89f.).

Pinkster's confident various semantic relations between pa ra -

tactic sentences, a re no coordinato rs and can be shown not to

be adverbs eitherw-I have italicized such constituents of the

definition

as are themselves in need of being (re)defined-

rather begs the question. The fact t hat the consensus analysis

of the relation between the irf-clause and its preceding cotext

Greek oun , de , de , and nu/nu nS 3 nd somew hat s imi la r

in function to the Co ptic par t icles ntof and hdiif (also

fossilized, fro m 3rd person mascu line augen tial syn-

tagms). Irf, primarily a n indica tor of the depend ence

=

non-initiality) of its clause, is simultaneously a

signal of cohesion, of the dependence

=

non-finality

and, on the informational level, in sufficiency) of the

preceding one(s): witness its incompatibility with the

same al locutive m.k- patterns that accommodate the

aug ens r.f (m.k rf- do es occur in othe r phases -or

textual types? see n. 55). Prom inent am ong the form al

ope rators of dialogic syn tax, i t a lso signals the

OBSTI-

N A C Y (in H. Weinrich's terminological sense) of a

T H E M E

OF

DISCUSSION-henceyet ano ther telling incom-

patibility, namely with grt, typically used to signal a

change of topic (pace Callender 1983:91, who trans-

lates gr t now, you understan d and calls i t explana-

tory ). ~ r f which is primarily an operator in dialogue

grammar, often characterizes a special kind of rejoin-

der , one fol lowing a response and solici t ing another ,

thus a cohesion factor l inking a new query to a

preceding set of query + response dialogue subunits.

(Needless to say , this is a dependen ce entirely different

from the on e existing within the qu ery-response com -

plex).

It is mo reov er wo rth considering-even if one can -

no t see at present a way of pro ving this-whether irf

doe s not also have a prosod ic-syntactic disjunctor

role, m arking a more or less sha rp ar ticulat ion between

to pr imary (prosodic as well as syntactic) immediate

consti tuents of the ut terance, a sor t of segmental

comma-element, a pause or rest mark.5 4Historically

speaking, we witness the isolation of an observed

macrosyntactic factor , a n exponen t of interclausal

relations, ou t of an or iginal augens or ad-(pro)no minal

will be paratactic (cf. Halliday-Hasan 1980: 322). should not

overly impress us: it is ethnocentric, with an unmistakable

Indo-European squint ("subordination

=

conjunctional hypo-

taxis"), and ou ght to be questioned with a view to the special

workings of Egyptian tagmemics (see 42.7.1).

53

Cf. Denniston 431,259 (note fo r instance the examination

sequence in Oed. Rex 555ff.).

5

I

find this corroborated by an instance of ir giving an

addressed pronoun prosodic independence or the status of

"minimum prosodic unit":

( V I

288c ntk ir, iy.n.k tr ir(.k?)

m ? "Hey you What have you come to do? (Faulkner 1977:

235 n. 5 hesitantly suggests emending to ink). (Compare the

double role of German "Abtonungspartikel" such as ja, also,

doch, as Gliederungssignale: see Sandig 1979, and cf. the

prosodically and to a degreee semantically similar however:


16/19


17/19

656

Jo urn al of the American O riental Society 106.4 1986)

iw60-rf+ N) circ. sd m .n f(I 1 113k, 116d, 114b, 201b)

sd m w.f

stative

nn/n6 ' - r f (v . I irf) prosp.sd m.f(V1 348h , V1 135p)

sdm.t.f(V 179a)

3.1.2 rf following enclit ic (clause/colon -second) ele-

m e n t ~ : ~ ~

. . :

(53) (I11 89

(?))

i nn-rr-rf

.

-ti-"-rf.

wr1m.k "Oh, will you not eat then?." In tw o witnesses,

the grammatical amalgame or cluster is spelled rrf .64

Similarly, in interrogative nom inal sentences: ptr-rf-sw,

m-tr-rf sw "W ho is it then?" (e.g., 1V 195b, 200-201,

205b, 209a, 2 17a, 229c)

i ~ - m s ~ ~ - r f . you have

. :

(54) (111 233bff.) ("May

power over those who have been ordered to h arm you

in the necropo lis") iw-ms-rf m i 4d.k .

N

'nh.k rn t n

Gh ? hwr .k pw ; n wnm.n.k s t 'nh .k rn t n h d t dSr . tc

"And, indeed, ( i t is66) as YOU say, N: 'Is it on Geb's

bread (i.e., soil) you a re to live? It is your ab om inatio n;

you can not eat i t I t is on bread of red emmer you wil l

live."' He re we find rf in eleven witnesses, while six

have irf o r ir.6 7This may have something to d o wi th the

dialogue (or rather monologue), not part of a bona-fide

address in Wechselrede: this accounts for the compatibility of

m.k and r f and instructs us regarding the textual value of the

latter.

h l

Probably a situational ("hir-el-nunc") grammaticalired

nominal used in theme status as a supe rordinator (cf. Polotsky

1976: 34f.. cf. Callender 1975: 29, Junge 1978: 74ff. For its

prosodlc status, cf. Fecht 1960: 118, Edel $880, Gilula 1981:

397 n. 6.

h

l

Probably (like hw, h

:?)

a grammaticalired predicative

adjective. See Gunn: 1924: 115 (one finds in Gunn's material

on the so-called negative words grt and ms following n, ms

following nn (in the existential nn wn Adm. 3 2).

6

A

brief combinatory checklist of rf/r.fwith other particles

(r.k grl, r.k tr,

r p w

VS.IS r.f, hm r.s n), found among Gunn's

papers at the Griffith Institute, Oxford ( Gunn M SS V 66 p. 8)

does not seem to distinguish different entities or environments

preceding the enclitic cluster.

6

Edel $58 18, 838, Gardiner $491-.tr is not an "inter-

rogative particle" (pace Gilula 198 1: 397 n. 6). any more than

ir

is one; both are compatible with and typical of interro-

gation, yet

d o

not mark it as such.

64

Some further instances of ~ r f, r f: 89b, V 103d, 104f.

65

For -ms, see Gardiner $25 1

00

r ~ v

mi-, with a reroed theme- "possessor" and adverbial

predicate: cf. Gardiner 6123, Edel $919, Junge 1978: 76.

6

Cf. a similar variation in the predicative (adjectival,

interrogative)pn rf SW? (IV 223c).

am big uou s or varying prosodic value of rw ms, perhaps

allowing fo r a co nto ur difference between zw-ms irfand

zw ms-rf.

. k 3 6 8 - ~ ,: in two examples of sdm.k:

rf

N

with a feminine act or noun : V 21d (bik.1 wr.t, with a

consensus of six witnesses) and IV 144-45 (with a

parallel text in VII 2421).

3.1.3 Instances of rf (not i rf ) as a theme-m arker super-

ord ina ror ("then," "therefore," "in th at case"), (co-)

markin g a preceding clause as subordinate-thematic:

(55) (11245d) (since 1 have cru shed his survivor, since I

have crushed his cultivator in his field) ndrn rf zh n

3hw lnf r w l R ' "the Sp ir i ts/g ods / Re are therefore glad"

(cf. also VII 52 1 n d m rf ' p rf l w ).

(56) (V 3 18i-j) 'hC rf t r r - ~ r , h' rf

N

tn 4t .s ds.s-

"Should the Eye of Horus should stand up, N here very

self shall then sta nd up ."

(57) (V11 51 1 f) ( .

.

. as I herald Re through the Gate

of Heaven) rf ntrw m hsf i "then the gods will be

joyful to e nco unt er me"; alternatively, "1 have come .

t ha t 1 ma y her ald R e . .

.

and the gods wil l then be

joyf u l . .

Note the prevalence of adjectival-predicate clauses

sup erord inate d by rf (ex. 56 ma y also be a case of the

participle predicated: "Should the Eye by upstanding,

N shall be upstanding"

3.2 1 consider the element rf in the above comb inations

nothing but an environmentally-prosodically and to

a certai n exte nt semantically-modified altern ant of

irf. 1 confess my to tal ign oran ce regard ing its precise

prosodic propert ies and environment, but i t may per-

hap s not be over-rash to assume a prosodic weakening

of irf as a sym ptom as well as mark of its inclusion as

f inal component of an amalgam of second-posit ion

part icles6y or as second com ponen t af ter ( relat ively)

proclitic elements (including Gardiner's "non-enclitic"

particles).70 In p rinciple, h owev er, this is still the

8

See Gardiner $242 for the initial ("non-enclitic")

k ? :

whether or not k occurs in the sdm. k.

: f

syntagm as a colon-

second element, still remains to be settled.

6u

Consider comparable particle-clusters in Coptic (-re-hod5

-de haif on, -an ntof), and in Greek the opposition of ara to

-ra in de-ra, e-ra, men-ra, e gar-ra. (See Shisha-Halevy 1986:

166f.)

70

CT. Abel 1910 (note esp. pp. 3ff.,

7f.

Fecht 1960 ($218ff.,

222-23).

Edel tjG814, 818, Gardiner tj226ff., an unpublished

systematic listing by Gunn of open -/close -juncture positions

((iunn MSS, V 66)-all with no comprehensive treatment of

prosody; the need fo r serious att ention due this all-important

if elusive facet of syntax, the only way of arriving at sound

statements regarding word-order and placement, is all too

bluntly evident in the references to relevant research, in which


18/19


19/19

658

Journal of the American

3riental Society 106.4 (1986)

J U N G E ,F., 1981, Nom inalsatz un d Cleft Sentence im

Agyptischen, in:

Studies Presented lo H. J.

Polotsky,

Beacon H ill: Pirtle and Pols on, 431 -62.

KOE RFER , , , 1979, Zur konversat ionellen Funktion

von

ja aber

am Beispiel universitaren Diskurse,

in: W EYD T 1979: 14 -29.

K O E N I G ,. 1977, Modalpartikel in Fragesatzen, in:

WEYDT 1977: 115-30.

LEFEBVRE,., 1955,

Grammaire de I'Egyptien clas-

sique,

Le Caire: IFAO .

LI ITTEN,

.

Die Ro lle der Par t ikeln

doch, eben

und

ja

a l s K onse nsus - K ons t i t u t i va i n ge sp r oc he ne r

Spra che, in: W EY DT 1979: 30-38.

ME LTZ ER ,. S., 1975, A R are Use of

Ds

Suffix-

Pronoun in Middle Egyptian.

JARCE

12:33-35.

M E L T Z E R ,

.

S., 1984, The Particle H as an Adjec-

tival Predicate,

GM

73:37-43.

MUI.I.ER,D . 1975,

A Concise Introduction to Middle

Egyptian Grammar,

Lethbridge.

NIC AC CI , , , 1980, SU una formu la dei 'Test i dei

Sarcofagi, '

Liher Annuus

(Studium Biblicum

Franciscanum ) XXX: 197-224.

O N I O N S ,C. T., 1932,

An Advanced English

London: Routledge.

PINKSTER, . , 1972,

On Latin Adverbs,

Amsterdam:

Nor th-Hol land Publ .

PL A NC K ,., Zur Affinitat von

selbst

und

auch,

in:

WEYDT 1979:269-84.

POLOTSKY,. J . , 1944,

~ t u d e s e syntaxe copte,

Le

Caire: IFAO.

POLO TSKY ,. J . , 1962, Nominalsatz und Cleft Sen-

tence im Kopt i schen , Or .32:413-30

=

CP

418-35).

PLO TSK Y, . J . , 1964, Agyptische Verbalformen und

ihre Vokalisation,

Or.

33:267-85

= CP

52-~70) .

POLO TSKY ,. J . , 1965,

Egyptian Tenses =

Proceed-

ings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and H u-

ma nities, 1115) =

CP

71-96).

POLOTSKY,. J . , 1969, Zur al tagyptischen Gram-

matik ,

Or.

38:465-~81.

P O L O T S K Y , J., 1971,

Collected Papers,

Jerusalem:

The Magnes Press.

P O L O T S K Y ,.

J.

1976, Les transposit ions du verbe en

Cgyptien classiqu e,

Israel Oriental Studies

5: 1 5 0 .

P O L O T S K Y ,

.

J. 1984, Randbemerkungen, in:

Stu-

dien zur Sprache und Religion Agyptens

(Fest-

schrift W. Westen dorf, 1, Go ttinge n) 113-23.

S A N D I G ,B., 1979, Beschribung des Gebrauch s von

Abtonu ngspart ikel im Dialog, in: W EY DT 1979:

84-94.

SATZINGER, 1976,

Neuagyptische Studien,

Wien:.,

Verlag d. Verbandes der wiss. Gesellschaf ten

Osterreichs.

SCH ENK EI., ., 1965, Sing ularisches und pluralisches

Partizip,

MDAIK

20:110-14.

SCH E N K E L , . , 1981 ,

sdm.f

und

sdmw.f

als Pro-

spektivformen, in:

Studies Presented to

H.

J.

Polotsky,

Beacon Hill: Pirtle and Polson, 506-27.

SC HE N KE L,. , 1984, Fokussierung: Uber die Rein-

henfolge von Subjekt und Pradikat im klassisch-

agyptischen Nom inalsatz, in:

Studien zur Sprache

und Religion hyptens

(Festschrift W. Westen-

dorf, I , Gottin gen) 157-74.

SE T H E ,K., 1916,

Der Nominalsatz im Agyptischen und

Koptischen,

Leipzig: Teubner

=

Abh.d.konig1.-

sachs.Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften, Philo1.-his-

torisch e Klasse, 331 3).

S H I S H A - H A L E V Y., 1975, Two New She nou te Texts:

Grammatical-Phraseological Com mentary, Or.

44:469-84.

S H I S H A - H A L E V Y ,., 1976, Unpublished Shenouteana:

Grammatical-Phraseological Commentary,

En-

choria

6:29- 62.

S H I S H A - H A L E V Y ,., 1978; Quelque s thkmatisations

marginales du verb en nto-Cgyptien,

OLP

9:

5 1-67.

S H I S H A - H A L E V Y ,,, 1984, On S om e Coptic Nominal

Sente nce Patterns, in:

Studien zur Sprache und

Religion Agyptens

(Festschrift W. Westendorf, I ,

Gottingen) 175-89.

S H I S H A - H A L E V Y ,., 1986,

Coptic Grammatical Cate-

gories: Structural Studies in the Syntax of She-

noutean Coptic,

Rome: The Pontifical Institute.

S I L V E R M A N ,. P., 1980,

Interrogative Constructions

with IN and IN- I W in Old and Middle Egyptian,

Malibu: Undena = Bibl. Aegyptia, 1).

STE INTH AL,.- MIST ELI,

.

1893,

Charakteristik der

hauptsachlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues,

Berlin:

Diimmler .

T E SN I E RE ,

de syntaxe structurale2,

., 1976,

~l kmen t s

Paris: Klincksieck.

V E R N ~ J S ,., 198 1, Forme s 'em phatiques' en fonction

'nonemphatique ' dans la protase d'un systeme

corrClatif,

GM

43:73-88.

WESTENDORFW., 1962,

Grammatik der medizinischen

Texten,

Berlin: Akademieverlag.

WEYDT, ., 1977,

Aspekte der Modalpartikeln: Studien

zur deutschen Abtonung,

Tubinge n: Niemeyer.

WE Y D T ,

H.,

1979, ed.,

Die Partikeln der deutschen

Sprache,

Berlin, New York: D e Gruyter.
http:///reader/full/MUI.I.ERhttp:///reader/full/MUI.I.ER

Documents

Coffin Texts 1986