Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale <al-Qāhira> [Hrsg.]; Mission Archéologique Française <al-Qāhira> [Hrsg.]: Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes: pour servir de bullletin à la Mission Française du Caire (31.1909)

THE FALSE R IN ARCIIAIC EGYPTIAN ORTIIOGRAPIIY

199

a real r is shown by the form of this much mutilated loan-word in Semitic : tarnr
iaçi1,.etc. From this word the àdjective was derfved, "sweet", originally "like
a date, daty". This denominative must bave been longer, bnry, with the adjectival
ending y, distinguishing it from the primitive noun bnr. How difficult it is now to
trace this distinction in orthography! Coptic &en : imite "date", clemot. bnë and the
Greek loan-word cpotvtç do not help us to détermine the earlier form of the primitive
noun. For the Middle Empire, Kahunpap., 6, 8, etc., J (j ïï is the best ortho-

/WW\A \ S III

graphy, but we find bnr, l. /., 18; 19; 20, and bnry, pl. 15. Later we find even
J t y v\> Anast. IV, 12, 9 (bnr, Pap. Tanis, 4); I am not sure, if Stern's sépa-
ration of J (j^Jm "date syrup" and jfi "dates" (rarely bnry, once bnyr)
in Ebers (bnry, Mutter u. Kind, 7, 2) stands. The word "sweet" is regularly bnry
in the New Empire (Totb., 136, A, 7, Budge; Amonhymn Bulak, 4, 6, etc.); the
earlier tradition, however, varies strangely. Senuhe, 65 (Rec. de Trav., XVI, p. 43,
etc.), bny "sweet"; bnyt, Pyr. P., 641; M., 673; Siut, 4, 230 (plural bnyw, Totb.,
179, 12, but bnruwt, Budge, and bnryw, 17, 104?) would make us doubt the firm r,

l (j, El-Arabah,

pl. 10, the transposition of y is merely graphie.) The most important form is the

/WW\A ^

y (j (j bnyy(w)t which I prefer to understand as
"sweet things" (Maspero : "dates"), thus obtaining a confirmation that the word
"sweet" had a plus of a denominative y ("nisbe"); the r seems to be treated here ir-
regularly as palatalized : benyey (or similarly) for benrey. We understand thus whv,
in earliest time, the derivative bnry "sweet" lias its r sometimes written but never
the primitive noun beny "date". Consequently, the r in the later orthography of this
noun (bny for earliest bnr) lias corne in by the false analogy of bnry = bny y and lias
no right of existence although going back to an original r. In ail thèse forms, no r
seems to be admissible, consequently, although the palatalisation in the one, single
case (bnyywt) complicates the question considerably. The y after the r did not indi-
cate an r but the hierogrammates may in the Middle Empire bave misunderstood it
for r, etc.

Rather analogous is the case c. g. with the word npr "grain". Coptic n^pi, t,

AA/WV\ ^ ^

ensures original r; the early orthography would make us doubt this. The god □ ,

AAAAAA j\ r- ^ o, <_> <5i

Pyr. P., 219, is written (j j m * , Sali. II, 14, 1, similarly Anast. VII, 10, 8,

but Npry, Louvre C 66, m (j j Sali. II, 11, 9; Npïy, Totb., 77, 7. Tom-
beau Seti III, pl. 31, Npry and Np change directly. It is thus difficult to décide, if
the god's name was Npr or Npry (denominative), though the latter is more probable2.

I. 1 owe P. Haupt a suggestion which furnishes the only explanation of the strange transition t/b namely,
the médium of a spirant t like t ( £j) =f— o = b, Does this increase the possibility that Semitic .^_) "date"
and "fruit" are merely dissimilations of the same original form? Less probable would be the analogy of
tumr influencing the Egyptian transition into bnr.

Z. Exactly as the god Hpry ® û r\f) cannot reprcsent a mutilation of the root ujcone (Sethe), but on