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#0214
198
THE F AL SE R IN ARCHAIC EGYPTIAN ORTHOGRAPHY
f\ AAWv\
later liquidated, îs il ^ 3nr "stone". Demotic 'ny proves that une lias lost a
final weak consonant and. that the r, if ever liquidated, can be traced as y to the neo-
Egyptian pcriod, at lcast, for the demotic orthography is always more liistorical than
phonetic. The chances for a false r are not quite as goocl as with t(w)r; I should
prefer, however, to assume here rather an original, not a secondary, y, expressed by
r. Some scholars would try to find an argument for one or the other theory in the
fréquent graphie omission of the r (cp. ,n,Wny, 5; L., D., II, 37, etc.). I confess
that I am, in gênerai, very skeptic towards utilizing the defective orthography of r.
It would be natural to see the r dropped more frequently in writing when correspond-
ing with a weak letter but ncither the use of r nor the analogy of the liquid conso-
nants, m and n, similarly subjected to defective orthography, allows us to rely on
such omissions of r. I am afraid, we hâve to investigate every single case for itself
and cannot say, if the occasional defective writing of lâr "to roast", ssr "to milk"1,
etc., lias any meaning. Perhaps, ^ ^ wà (Khnemhotep, 162, etc.) belongs to the
cases of false r (cp. B. n-oTeuje where an r would hâve chances of reappearing), see
wsr, Br.,W., p. 289; PSBA., 1886, p. 18; Ebers, — against ws in Pap. Hearst!)
With the préposition ® "at", written ©, Pieiil, ÀZ., XXIV, p. 82; hry, 26,
118; ® (j ^^r^j, Tombeau Seti III, 1, 47, liquidation of original r remains more
plausible, i. e. with a much used, unaccented word like a préposition.
It is a desperate task to solve ail thèse questions and to separate the false r from
the three confusing éléments : the defective ortnography, the phonetic changes ("li-
quidation", i. e. palatalisation, at the side of graduai dropping of r), and the many
abuses of the combination in the New Empire. The fondness of tins period to
use ry for final r -f- any short vowel (or weak consonant)2 is too little observed ; best
known is the fondness for ry, when a t prececls. I suppose, this meant originally
distinguishing tr from rr in the hieratic of the late Micldle Empire. Cp. even syllabic
spellings like twry, Br., W., p. 1530, -rwpe (old trt) "willow tree", or archaizing
spellings like ^J\^^> Anast. IV, 2, 7; III, 4, 2 = Sali. I, 8, 1 (Ebers better
dr(w)yt) = Tpe. In words which ended in an r without following vowel, like grwp,
htrtj "horse" (Koller, 2, 3, cp. Abyd., III, pl. 10, etc.), this may be attributed to the
analogy of dérivations of the same root, like e. g. gu>^ "obligation", and the analogy
of the weakened forms c«.£ov(i) may be responsible, for 1^ ( L., D., III, 13 a,
etc., although we hâve c^ois-wp (demotic shwr, shioy) — but other hierogrammates
may have considered the y as "protection" of the r, and for other cases even analogy
may fail as an explanation. Thèse confusions seem to begin in the Middle Empire,
see above.
To give an example of the difficulties and confusions, touchée! already above in
the case of $>ko, gK*xiT : that the Egyptian word bhr "date" originally went back to
1. Hardly = c*.£p (Setiie), cp. demot. sh[\)r. Ssr originally "to stroke, rub" (Kahun, 7, 26)
2. In [ ^ (var., Totb., 68, 3, etc.) "to bind", however, the weak letter ought to stand
place as Coptic JuiHipi : ju».ipe shows; AioTp bas been mutilated, probably quite early.
THE F AL SE R IN ARCHAIC EGYPTIAN ORTHOGRAPHY
f\ AAWv\
later liquidated, îs il ^ 3nr "stone". Demotic 'ny proves that une lias lost a
final weak consonant and. that the r, if ever liquidated, can be traced as y to the neo-
Egyptian pcriod, at lcast, for the demotic orthography is always more liistorical than
phonetic. The chances for a false r are not quite as goocl as with t(w)r; I should
prefer, however, to assume here rather an original, not a secondary, y, expressed by
r. Some scholars would try to find an argument for one or the other theory in the
fréquent graphie omission of the r (cp. ,n,Wny, 5; L., D., II, 37, etc.). I confess
that I am, in gênerai, very skeptic towards utilizing the defective orthography of r.
It would be natural to see the r dropped more frequently in writing when correspond-
ing with a weak letter but ncither the use of r nor the analogy of the liquid conso-
nants, m and n, similarly subjected to defective orthography, allows us to rely on
such omissions of r. I am afraid, we hâve to investigate every single case for itself
and cannot say, if the occasional defective writing of lâr "to roast", ssr "to milk"1,
etc., lias any meaning. Perhaps, ^ ^ wà (Khnemhotep, 162, etc.) belongs to the
cases of false r (cp. B. n-oTeuje where an r would hâve chances of reappearing), see
wsr, Br.,W., p. 289; PSBA., 1886, p. 18; Ebers, — against ws in Pap. Hearst!)
With the préposition ® "at", written ©, Pieiil, ÀZ., XXIV, p. 82; hry, 26,
118; ® (j ^^r^j, Tombeau Seti III, 1, 47, liquidation of original r remains more
plausible, i. e. with a much used, unaccented word like a préposition.
It is a desperate task to solve ail thèse questions and to separate the false r from
the three confusing éléments : the defective ortnography, the phonetic changes ("li-
quidation", i. e. palatalisation, at the side of graduai dropping of r), and the many
abuses of the combination in the New Empire. The fondness of tins period to
use ry for final r -f- any short vowel (or weak consonant)2 is too little observed ; best
known is the fondness for ry, when a t prececls. I suppose, this meant originally
distinguishing tr from rr in the hieratic of the late Micldle Empire. Cp. even syllabic
spellings like twry, Br., W., p. 1530, -rwpe (old trt) "willow tree", or archaizing
spellings like ^J\^^> Anast. IV, 2, 7; III, 4, 2 = Sali. I, 8, 1 (Ebers better
dr(w)yt) = Tpe. In words which ended in an r without following vowel, like grwp,
htrtj "horse" (Koller, 2, 3, cp. Abyd., III, pl. 10, etc.), this may be attributed to the
analogy of dérivations of the same root, like e. g. gu>^ "obligation", and the analogy
of the weakened forms c«.£ov(i) may be responsible, for 1^ ( L., D., III, 13 a,
etc., although we hâve c^ois-wp (demotic shwr, shioy) — but other hierogrammates
may have considered the y as "protection" of the r, and for other cases even analogy
may fail as an explanation. Thèse confusions seem to begin in the Middle Empire,
see above.
To give an example of the difficulties and confusions, touchée! already above in
the case of $>ko, gK*xiT : that the Egyptian word bhr "date" originally went back to
1. Hardly = c*.£p (Setiie), cp. demot. sh[\)r. Ssr originally "to stroke, rub" (Kahun, 7, 26)
2. In [ ^ (var., Totb., 68, 3, etc.) "to bind", however, the weak letter ought to stand
place as Coptic JuiHipi : ju».ipe shows; AioTp bas been mutilated, probably quite early.