DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1167#0047
nominal plural ending .w, the adjectival ending .'i, the verbal past tense ending .n, and the
personal endings of the stative conjugation. Suffix pronouns are separated from the stem
by a hyphen (-).
Transliterating the Egyptian script, i.e. producing an unequivocal representation, is
uncommon. The only system of transliteration that has ever been proposed is by Schenkel
(1983a; additions and modifications in Schenkel 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, and 1985), but it
has not (yet) come into use among Egyptologists. The conversion of hieratic into hiero-
glyphs in modern text editions is conventionally called "transliteration" by Egypto-
logists26 although this process is not entirely unambiguous.
2.6.i.a Problems connected with the transcription of certain words
Consonants can be left unwritten in specific instances of a word although they are
supposed to have been pronounced ("defective writing", for details OS* § 2.6.4). Thus,
doubt may arise about the exact nature and number of consonants to be assumed for a
word, and scholars frequently disagree in this respect. For example, the word ® "town" is
transcribed variously as niw.t (Gardiner 1957: 498), nw.t (Osing 1976a: 378), or n'.t
(Edel 1980: 16-19); the word LiJ "house" aspr (Gardiner 1957: 492), prj (Fecht i960:
§ 150), and prw (Osing 1976a: note 1122 on p. 836f.); or the word___4s "king" as swtnj
(Sethe 1907: 25; this reading is outdated nowadays), nj-sw.t (Gardiner 1957: 4&a),jnj-sw.t
(Fecht i960: §§ 3o-33), nzw (Schenkel 1986, Schneider 1993), and several others. Cf. also
the unconventional readings which Hodge (1991a) adopts for some words. In this book, I
have tried to indicate uncertainties about the transcription whenever this is vital for my
argumentation.
2.6.1.3 Interpreting transcription symbols
The fact cannot be stressed enough that the transcription is purely conventional. The
Egyptological transcription must not be interpreted as a phonological and even less as a
phonetic representation. During the period of hieroglyphic use covering more than 3ooo
years, the phonetic appearance of Egyptian changed drastically; however the writing of
many words changed little, and so does the transcription.
Let us discuss just one example. In the word <rS "sun" the symbol <r> denotes a liquid
whose exact original pronunciation is disputed. <S is a symbol for an original dental stop
/d/. The pronunciation during the Middle Kingdom may have been something like /'riddV/
or /'liddV/ (V = unknown vowel). By the New Kingdom, several phonetic developments
including the shift /d/ > /?/ (ESP § 3.6.2) had taken place. The word was now pronounced
as /'reia/ or similarly although its writing did not change. By the Roman period, the word
had been contracted to /'re/ in pronunciation, but the word was still written <rS as already
in the beginning of Egyptian history.
26 Cf. Fischer-Elfert (1997: note 9 on p. VIII) and Kammerzell (1995: XXXVIII).
47
personal endings of the stative conjugation. Suffix pronouns are separated from the stem
by a hyphen (-).
Transliterating the Egyptian script, i.e. producing an unequivocal representation, is
uncommon. The only system of transliteration that has ever been proposed is by Schenkel
(1983a; additions and modifications in Schenkel 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, and 1985), but it
has not (yet) come into use among Egyptologists. The conversion of hieratic into hiero-
glyphs in modern text editions is conventionally called "transliteration" by Egypto-
logists26 although this process is not entirely unambiguous.
2.6.i.a Problems connected with the transcription of certain words
Consonants can be left unwritten in specific instances of a word although they are
supposed to have been pronounced ("defective writing", for details OS* § 2.6.4). Thus,
doubt may arise about the exact nature and number of consonants to be assumed for a
word, and scholars frequently disagree in this respect. For example, the word ® "town" is
transcribed variously as niw.t (Gardiner 1957: 498), nw.t (Osing 1976a: 378), or n'.t
(Edel 1980: 16-19); the word LiJ "house" aspr (Gardiner 1957: 492), prj (Fecht i960:
§ 150), and prw (Osing 1976a: note 1122 on p. 836f.); or the word___4s "king" as swtnj
(Sethe 1907: 25; this reading is outdated nowadays), nj-sw.t (Gardiner 1957: 4&a),jnj-sw.t
(Fecht i960: §§ 3o-33), nzw (Schenkel 1986, Schneider 1993), and several others. Cf. also
the unconventional readings which Hodge (1991a) adopts for some words. In this book, I
have tried to indicate uncertainties about the transcription whenever this is vital for my
argumentation.
2.6.1.3 Interpreting transcription symbols
The fact cannot be stressed enough that the transcription is purely conventional. The
Egyptological transcription must not be interpreted as a phonological and even less as a
phonetic representation. During the period of hieroglyphic use covering more than 3ooo
years, the phonetic appearance of Egyptian changed drastically; however the writing of
many words changed little, and so does the transcription.
Let us discuss just one example. In the word <rS "sun" the symbol <r> denotes a liquid
whose exact original pronunciation is disputed. <S is a symbol for an original dental stop
/d/. The pronunciation during the Middle Kingdom may have been something like /'riddV/
or /'liddV/ (V = unknown vowel). By the New Kingdom, several phonetic developments
including the shift /d/ > /?/ (ESP § 3.6.2) had taken place. The word was now pronounced
as /'reia/ or similarly although its writing did not change. By the Roman period, the word
had been contracted to /'re/ in pronunciation, but the word was still written <rS as already
in the beginning of Egyptian history.
26 Cf. Fischer-Elfert (1997: note 9 on p. VIII) and Kammerzell (1995: XXXVIII).
47