DOI issue:
Nr. 3-4
DOI article:Müller, Wilhelm Max: The false r in archaic egyptian orthography
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12678#0199
THE FALSE R IN ARCIIAIC EGYPTIAN ORTHOG RAPIIY
183
bination as variant) an r which (§ 211) "alréady in very carly time passes into ( y"
(Sethe : j, ï), so that we should have in tho use of r for later y nothing but a historié
orthography. This theory lias been repeated by Erman (sce above) and others. It
has the advantage of a fallacious simplicity and applies, indeed, to 11 ie laier confusion
of false r and "liquidated" (I know no better rendering of the very awkward tcrm
"mouUiert" l) r, a confusion created by the employment of <=> (j for both, beginning
at the end of the Ancient Empire, becoming gênerai in the Micldle Empire.
The reader will see below, however, that the false r and the "liquidated" /' are
not the same thing, although they form close parallçls. The fact that the promm-
ciation of r as y or its (subséquent?) dropping (with Aleph as transitional remuant j
can be traced evenbeyond the pyramid te.vts is very confusing, indeed, and the regular
use of <=>( (not yet usecl at ail in the pyramid texts; see below on the alleged swry)
since the early Middle Empire, both for original /• and for r weakened later, is still
more perplexing1. As thus the Ancient Egyptians, already 2000 15. C, apparently had
lost the power of distinction between genuine and secondary r (if we may use this, I
fear somewhat ambiguous expression for later y or Aleph, as successors to earlier
r), the confusion of both features by Egyptologists is intelligible. The problem of se-
parating them is, indeed, even almost impossible for those working with the help
afforded by Egyptian material alone. That problem can bc solved only by compara-
tive philology.
The best and easiest illustration of the original use of false r is furnished by the
familiar word for "sheep", ^( j^^i etc. It has recently been discusscd by Spie-
gelberg [Rec. de Trav., XXII, p. 213). Our sagacious colleague has, however, not reco-
gnized the historical development of that word, as lie was mislecl by exaggcrated trust
in the Greek translitération of the vvell known clecan list. That document rendors the
hieroglyphic name of the constellation " female sheep" <=> by trpw, a form which, of
course, does not allovv any connection between coptic ccoot and the later hieroglyphic
forms. In gênerai, now the tendency prevails to consider the translitérations of that
latest time with much more confidence than they deserve (a tendency not at ail agree-
ing with the often too summary condamnation of the contemporaneous grammatical
traditions). That list is far from being a représentative of the best Egyptian learning.
The Greek writer has not huntcd for a philologist as his authority but lias accepted
the translitérations of an ordinary pricst, exactly as the modem tourist will take for
the authentic sounds of the Coran the prononciation of the next-best Arab who can
read, not of the most learned Shêkh of the Azhar Mosque. To ascribc to that priest's
crpw an authority against ail other traditions and to consider it as a trustworthy con-
nection with a lost word of the Old Empire (Sp. 214), means continuing the same cre-
dulity. Unfortunately, as saicl above, this credulity has diverted Spiegelberg from
drawing conclusions nearly reaclied already by Brugsch. I set that Greek transcrip-
1. It remains to trace the development of the confusion at the beginning of the Middle Empire. See
below on the earliest example w\ry.
183
bination as variant) an r which (§ 211) "alréady in very carly time passes into ( y"
(Sethe : j, ï), so that we should have in tho use of r for later y nothing but a historié
orthography. This theory lias been repeated by Erman (sce above) and others. It
has the advantage of a fallacious simplicity and applies, indeed, to 11 ie laier confusion
of false r and "liquidated" (I know no better rendering of the very awkward tcrm
"mouUiert" l) r, a confusion created by the employment of <=> (j for both, beginning
at the end of the Ancient Empire, becoming gênerai in the Micldle Empire.
The reader will see below, however, that the false r and the "liquidated" /' are
not the same thing, although they form close parallçls. The fact that the promm-
ciation of r as y or its (subséquent?) dropping (with Aleph as transitional remuant j
can be traced evenbeyond the pyramid te.vts is very confusing, indeed, and the regular
use of <=>( (not yet usecl at ail in the pyramid texts; see below on the alleged swry)
since the early Middle Empire, both for original /• and for r weakened later, is still
more perplexing1. As thus the Ancient Egyptians, already 2000 15. C, apparently had
lost the power of distinction between genuine and secondary r (if we may use this, I
fear somewhat ambiguous expression for later y or Aleph, as successors to earlier
r), the confusion of both features by Egyptologists is intelligible. The problem of se-
parating them is, indeed, even almost impossible for those working with the help
afforded by Egyptian material alone. That problem can bc solved only by compara-
tive philology.
The best and easiest illustration of the original use of false r is furnished by the
familiar word for "sheep", ^( j^^i etc. It has recently been discusscd by Spie-
gelberg [Rec. de Trav., XXII, p. 213). Our sagacious colleague has, however, not reco-
gnized the historical development of that word, as lie was mislecl by exaggcrated trust
in the Greek translitération of the vvell known clecan list. That document rendors the
hieroglyphic name of the constellation " female sheep" <=> by trpw, a form which, of
course, does not allovv any connection between coptic ccoot and the later hieroglyphic
forms. In gênerai, now the tendency prevails to consider the translitérations of that
latest time with much more confidence than they deserve (a tendency not at ail agree-
ing with the often too summary condamnation of the contemporaneous grammatical
traditions). That list is far from being a représentative of the best Egyptian learning.
The Greek writer has not huntcd for a philologist as his authority but lias accepted
the translitérations of an ordinary pricst, exactly as the modem tourist will take for
the authentic sounds of the Coran the prononciation of the next-best Arab who can
read, not of the most learned Shêkh of the Azhar Mosque. To ascribc to that priest's
crpw an authority against ail other traditions and to consider it as a trustworthy con-
nection with a lost word of the Old Empire (Sp. 214), means continuing the same cre-
dulity. Unfortunately, as saicl above, this credulity has diverted Spiegelberg from
drawing conclusions nearly reaclied already by Brugsch. I set that Greek transcrip-
1. It remains to trace the development of the confusion at the beginning of the Middle Empire. See
below on the earliest example w\ry.