DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41333#0157
Louis Zonhoven
Leiden
Continuity and Change in the sdm.n—f-forms in Old Egyptian
That Classical Egyptian forms a language con-
tinuum encompassing Old and Middle Egyptian is
demonstrated by the fact that the narrative verbal
system that is generally called “Middle Egyptian”
has its roots in Old Egyptian. Old Egyptian has wit-
nessed a change that most clearly surfaces in the
corpus of texts treated by DORET in his “Narra-
tive Verbal System”.1 With regard to the rhematic
narrative verb forms, Later Old Egyptian is in bet-
ter tune with Middle Egyptian than with Earlier Old
Egyptian.
Single versus Compound Forms
in Old Egyptian Narrative
That major change is that the active Simple Past
Old Perfect 1st ps. sing, sdm.k/pr.k as well as the
Independent (/Indicative) sdm=f3Ti ps. used in the
main clause of Earlier Old Egyptian narrative were
giving way to the compound forms jw sdm.n=j/=f
and the Pseudo verbal constructionjw=j pr.kj /jw=f
pr.w, which were to become common in Middle
Egyptian.2 3 The latter construction functions as the
counterpart of jw sdm.n=j/=f with the verbs of mo-
tion because this class of intransitive verbs cannot
form a Circumstantial sdm. n=f?
The compound form jw sdm.n=j is generally
agreed to contain the form morphologically known
as the “Circumstantial sdm. n=f\ though, in my opin-
ion, the compound form as a whole is best consid-
ered as a unity in its own right consisting of a bound
particle and a verb form which cannot function in the
main clause without the particle. With justification
GARDINER labelled it a “compound verb form”.4
The “Perfect” .vt/m. /?==/-co triplex
This compound form is part of the sdm. n=f-com-
plex, which represents the “Perfect” in the suffix-con-
jugation. As the ‘New’ Perfect it stands in contrast
to the “Old Perfect”.
The latter term I prefer to other names of the form,
such as the “Stative”, the “Pseudoparticiple” or
GARDINER’s “Old Perfective”. The first two names
cover the uses and the meanings of the form only in
part, and, from the aspectual point of view, the term
“Perfect” as a general denominator for the form
seems to me preferable to “Old Perfective”, which
1 E. DORET, The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Mid-
dle Egyptian, Cahiers d'Orientalisme, Geneve 1986 (here-
inafter referred to as: NVS).
2 Ibidem, pp. 108 and 145.
3 Ibidem, p. 98.
4 A.H. GARDINER, Egyptian Grammar, Oxford 1957, pp.
382-384 (§ 460), under my assumption that GARDINER used
this word in its strict sense of a whole composed of at least
two elements, for which see also under “compound” in the
Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford, many editions). For ex-
ample, G. LEFEBVRE, Grammaire del’Egyptien classique,
Le Caire 1955, p. 157 (§308) too uses the term “formes
composees”, while J. POLOTSKY, Les transpositions du
verbe en egyptien classique, IDS 6 (1976), p. 32 (3.8.1) speaks
of “temps composes”. Opposed to these views of a com-
pound form seems to be M. COLLIER, The Circumstantial
sdm(f)/sdm.n(j) as Verbal Verb-Forms in Middle Egyptian,
JEA 76 (1990), pp. 73-85, especially 74, footnote 7, where it
is claimed, without further exposition, that in jw/rhc.n
sdm. n=f the role of the particles (in COLLIER'S terms “aux-
iliaries”) is to be viewed in the same way as the particles
focused upon by him, i.e. mk and jst. On the basis of my
studies of the sdm.t=f as a relative future tense, I have
pointed out (ZONHOVEN, Studies on the sdm. t=f verb form
in Classical Egyptian, V: The relative future tense sdm. t=f
BiOr 55 (1998), cols. 604-605 (§ 4)). in contrast to COL-
LIER'S view, that from the viewpoint of how these main
clause compound verb forms semantically work
GARDINER'S term seems most appropriate. The verb forms
they contain, which have been identified by POLOTSKY as
the Circumstantial sdm=f/sdm.n=f, fulfil all the requirements
of belonging to a set of finite relative tenses at work in
Classical Egyptian, as appears from their use in the circum-
stantial-temporal clause. In all probability, such finite rela-
tive tenses can only function in Classical Egyptian in the
main clause - for which absolute time reference is typical -
when anchored to a Reference Point representing the speak-
er's present, i.e. jw “here-now-(and mostly)-I” (see foot-
note 27 below) and rhr.n with approximately the Perfect
meaning “as it has come to stand (and stands now)”, to
151
Leiden
Continuity and Change in the sdm.n—f-forms in Old Egyptian
That Classical Egyptian forms a language con-
tinuum encompassing Old and Middle Egyptian is
demonstrated by the fact that the narrative verbal
system that is generally called “Middle Egyptian”
has its roots in Old Egyptian. Old Egyptian has wit-
nessed a change that most clearly surfaces in the
corpus of texts treated by DORET in his “Narra-
tive Verbal System”.1 With regard to the rhematic
narrative verb forms, Later Old Egyptian is in bet-
ter tune with Middle Egyptian than with Earlier Old
Egyptian.
Single versus Compound Forms
in Old Egyptian Narrative
That major change is that the active Simple Past
Old Perfect 1st ps. sing, sdm.k/pr.k as well as the
Independent (/Indicative) sdm=f3Ti ps. used in the
main clause of Earlier Old Egyptian narrative were
giving way to the compound forms jw sdm.n=j/=f
and the Pseudo verbal constructionjw=j pr.kj /jw=f
pr.w, which were to become common in Middle
Egyptian.2 3 The latter construction functions as the
counterpart of jw sdm.n=j/=f with the verbs of mo-
tion because this class of intransitive verbs cannot
form a Circumstantial sdm. n=f?
The compound form jw sdm.n=j is generally
agreed to contain the form morphologically known
as the “Circumstantial sdm. n=f\ though, in my opin-
ion, the compound form as a whole is best consid-
ered as a unity in its own right consisting of a bound
particle and a verb form which cannot function in the
main clause without the particle. With justification
GARDINER labelled it a “compound verb form”.4
The “Perfect” .vt/m. /?==/-co triplex
This compound form is part of the sdm. n=f-com-
plex, which represents the “Perfect” in the suffix-con-
jugation. As the ‘New’ Perfect it stands in contrast
to the “Old Perfect”.
The latter term I prefer to other names of the form,
such as the “Stative”, the “Pseudoparticiple” or
GARDINER’s “Old Perfective”. The first two names
cover the uses and the meanings of the form only in
part, and, from the aspectual point of view, the term
“Perfect” as a general denominator for the form
seems to me preferable to “Old Perfective”, which
1 E. DORET, The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Mid-
dle Egyptian, Cahiers d'Orientalisme, Geneve 1986 (here-
inafter referred to as: NVS).
2 Ibidem, pp. 108 and 145.
3 Ibidem, p. 98.
4 A.H. GARDINER, Egyptian Grammar, Oxford 1957, pp.
382-384 (§ 460), under my assumption that GARDINER used
this word in its strict sense of a whole composed of at least
two elements, for which see also under “compound” in the
Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford, many editions). For ex-
ample, G. LEFEBVRE, Grammaire del’Egyptien classique,
Le Caire 1955, p. 157 (§308) too uses the term “formes
composees”, while J. POLOTSKY, Les transpositions du
verbe en egyptien classique, IDS 6 (1976), p. 32 (3.8.1) speaks
of “temps composes”. Opposed to these views of a com-
pound form seems to be M. COLLIER, The Circumstantial
sdm(f)/sdm.n(j) as Verbal Verb-Forms in Middle Egyptian,
JEA 76 (1990), pp. 73-85, especially 74, footnote 7, where it
is claimed, without further exposition, that in jw/rhc.n
sdm. n=f the role of the particles (in COLLIER'S terms “aux-
iliaries”) is to be viewed in the same way as the particles
focused upon by him, i.e. mk and jst. On the basis of my
studies of the sdm.t=f as a relative future tense, I have
pointed out (ZONHOVEN, Studies on the sdm. t=f verb form
in Classical Egyptian, V: The relative future tense sdm. t=f
BiOr 55 (1998), cols. 604-605 (§ 4)). in contrast to COL-
LIER'S view, that from the viewpoint of how these main
clause compound verb forms semantically work
GARDINER'S term seems most appropriate. The verb forms
they contain, which have been identified by POLOTSKY as
the Circumstantial sdm=f/sdm.n=f, fulfil all the requirements
of belonging to a set of finite relative tenses at work in
Classical Egyptian, as appears from their use in the circum-
stantial-temporal clause. In all probability, such finite rela-
tive tenses can only function in Classical Egyptian in the
main clause - for which absolute time reference is typical -
when anchored to a Reference Point representing the speak-
er's present, i.e. jw “here-now-(and mostly)-I” (see foot-
note 27 below) and rhr.n with approximately the Perfect
meaning “as it has come to stand (and stands now)”, to
151