DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18664#0152
140 COL. XXI
nb nt e-f n5m-w nt e-'r-k cs-f ar-f e--r-k kk rfm-f
hy pe hrt nfr p syf n wm-w(?) nhe(?)
28. p-e-'r syt nt syt 5wt n ntr-w tre-w py nta p nt
n hm erme p nt cy gm-t-f cwt t p't(?) co-t lit hr pr-ybt
n Kmy
29. e-f pr n nw mhrr km hr wc-t bw n qme zwf te-y
-r-rh n pe-k rn te-y 'r-rh n te-k-t hm-t(?) t yp-t n syw
11 (?) rn-k
30. te-y hwy hyt(?) ar-k n p-hw nphclcm bcllc bclkhc
y-co-phphe z zf nb hmm nb sht nb nt e-7r-k n'm-w
31. n p-hw e-'r-k-sw hn p ht p wef p mws p nys t
cte-t p mht co p mht hm n spyr-w n ef-w n qs-w n ce nb
32. n p hcr n mn a-ms mn sc nte-s se (?) ne(?) mn
a-ms mn a mc nb nt e-f n5m-w nt e°r-k cs- ar-f
hn p ?rp p mhrr sp-sn nte-k pe p mhrr
33. n hstb n mc-t nte-k t yr-t n p rc nte-k p byl n
'Tm t shn-t-t(?) n swy p sicpyn n Wsr nte-k py k km
hyt 7r pyr n p nwn
34. e p nfr n 'S-t erme-k nte-k rcks rcpcrcks p snf n
py "s hwt a-'n-w-f n p t n hr a Kmy hr p bl (?) a p 7rp (?)
be left out of the question, the fact that both in 21/27 and 21/41 s is
written over ne, as if by an afterthought, suggests that ne, which is
identical in spelling with the auxiliary of the future, must be the verb
n*s., ' go' (attaching itself to ito-y : novi, ' futurus esse '), as opposed to
iihot, 'come'(which is qualitative of ei; see Kabis, A. Z., 75. 107).
is practically the qualitative of tye (Stern, § 348). The correction
of ne to I in both passages would therefore be particularly remarkable.
Although, according to Steindorff, § 251, the qualitative is admissible
in the conjunctive it seems difficult after oj-Mrre- : hence no doubt the
correction; but if it be possible, the meaning would be ' until she be
going,' while s expresses ' until she go.' It would seem that the scribe
was puzzled by the ne, hence the mistakes and corrections. The follow-
ing table of forms of the verbs ' come ' and ' go ' may be useful:—
Inf.
Inf.
Qual.
Stm-f.
'go ' Copt, uje : ujei
hot : iiotti, ita-
(t)eniio(oir
Dem. s
nc ne-
ne (?)
n*f
' come ' Copt, ei: 1
—
jv-hott
(t)^to
Dem. y
—
-n-*w
'w-f
nb nt e-f n5m-w nt e-'r-k cs-f ar-f e--r-k kk rfm-f
hy pe hrt nfr p syf n wm-w(?) nhe(?)
28. p-e-'r syt nt syt 5wt n ntr-w tre-w py nta p nt
n hm erme p nt cy gm-t-f cwt t p't(?) co-t lit hr pr-ybt
n Kmy
29. e-f pr n nw mhrr km hr wc-t bw n qme zwf te-y
-r-rh n pe-k rn te-y 'r-rh n te-k-t hm-t(?) t yp-t n syw
11 (?) rn-k
30. te-y hwy hyt(?) ar-k n p-hw nphclcm bcllc bclkhc
y-co-phphe z zf nb hmm nb sht nb nt e-7r-k n'm-w
31. n p-hw e-'r-k-sw hn p ht p wef p mws p nys t
cte-t p mht co p mht hm n spyr-w n ef-w n qs-w n ce nb
32. n p hcr n mn a-ms mn sc nte-s se (?) ne(?) mn
a-ms mn a mc nb nt e-f n5m-w nt e°r-k cs- ar-f
hn p ?rp p mhrr sp-sn nte-k pe p mhrr
33. n hstb n mc-t nte-k t yr-t n p rc nte-k p byl n
'Tm t shn-t-t(?) n swy p sicpyn n Wsr nte-k py k km
hyt 7r pyr n p nwn
34. e p nfr n 'S-t erme-k nte-k rcks rcpcrcks p snf n
py "s hwt a-'n-w-f n p t n hr a Kmy hr p bl (?) a p 7rp (?)
be left out of the question, the fact that both in 21/27 and 21/41 s is
written over ne, as if by an afterthought, suggests that ne, which is
identical in spelling with the auxiliary of the future, must be the verb
n*s., ' go' (attaching itself to ito-y : novi, ' futurus esse '), as opposed to
iihot, 'come'(which is qualitative of ei; see Kabis, A. Z., 75. 107).
is practically the qualitative of tye (Stern, § 348). The correction
of ne to I in both passages would therefore be particularly remarkable.
Although, according to Steindorff, § 251, the qualitative is admissible
in the conjunctive it seems difficult after oj-Mrre- : hence no doubt the
correction; but if it be possible, the meaning would be ' until she be
going,' while s expresses ' until she go.' It would seem that the scribe
was puzzled by the ne, hence the mistakes and corrections. The follow-
ing table of forms of the verbs ' come ' and ' go ' may be useful:—
Inf.
Inf.
Qual.
Stm-f.
'go ' Copt, uje : ujei
hot : iiotti, ita-
(t)eniio(oir
Dem. s
nc ne-
ne (?)
n*f
' come ' Copt, ei: 1
—
jv-hott
(t)^to
Dem. y
—
-n-*w
'w-f