DOI Heft:
Nr. 3-4
DOI Artikel:Müller, Wilhelm Max: The false r in archaic egyptian orthography
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12678#0216
200
THE FALSE R IX ARCHAfC EGYPTIAN ORTHOGRAPHY
The primitive masculine noun is l v-T^ npyw (plur.), Turin Lovesonns
x u 1 _2i 1 r-^-i i i i AA/VW\ j\ J\
("grains" of the pomegranate) ; npy (of wheat) ^ m, Pap. B. M., 10111
m
(PSBA., 1885), gnost. Paris, ed. Maspero, III, p. 24 (both very late texts). Thus
AAAAAA
the masc. seems to have palatalized its r to npy while the féminine ^ ^ (Miss,
fr., V, p. .365) nprt, n*.<{>pi, kept it. As said above, Coptic ne^pi solves the whole
problem, but without the Coptic it would again be impossible to corne to this décision.
To corne now to a conclusion : as can be seen from the above discussion, it is very
rarely possible to prove a false r in a clear way where comparative philology does not
corne to our rescue. I fully admit that a great part of the above cases, where we had
to opéra te with the Egyptian tradition alone, could be understood also without assuming
an r, i. e. only as mutilations of original r. This is, as I have said, a question of taste,
and cloubtless, some people will prefer to follow as norm that easier and more meeha-
nical theory. But we have a few cases proving the use of original r beyond any doubt ;
it results from thèse that r must have played a much larger part in early orthography
than we can show now. In ail probability, we shall never be able to détermine
clearly more than a fraction of the cases of that deceptive orthography. Original r
in the cognate languages furnishes, I repeat, no guarantee that the earliest Egyptians
pronounced r as such and not already had weakened it. It is one of the saddest im-
perfections of the hieroglyphic System which I describe hère without ofïering sufli-
cient rules for controlling it.
While the high. antiquity of the liquid pronunciations of r explains the use of r
for Yodh and Aleph and its limitation to the end of words or, at least, of syllables,
the purpose of introducing r as variant of y is less apparent. To our modem minds it
seems, at-first,*a useless variant. We might try to see in its introduction some
abortive attempt to remove the grave defect of the early orthography, namely that (
(y) must represent both k and ,1. There is, however, no foundation for such a theory.
The false r ahvays shared the ambiguity of that unfortunate Aleph-Yodh sign; it is a
purely graphie variant. I believe, we have to see in its use principally calligraphie
considérations. In our two best examples, swr and sr, the broad sign —«— seems to
be the décisive reason for selecting the broad <=> rather than the high (. This agrées
the contrary a longer, denominative, form. The y is always kept and not modernized to y, i, because of that
fondness for the combination /'+ ?/• Later, on hpr "form" follows erroneously the analogy of this name,
e. g. Ann. Scrc, VIII, p. 216.
1. is> I believe now, the later création; we may empirically strike its approximative character by
treating it as Aleph but this is not much hetter, I fear, than Charopollion's treatment as an "a", a mistake
with which he read mostly correctly in an empiric way. I suspect, "^j^ 's something very différent; if it
were an Aleph only, why does it not change with ( in early Semitic loanwords? I have shown, OLZ., VIII,
p. 417, that the latter represents mostly Aleph in such loanwords. — (I cannot help quoting here specially in-
structive example of the Yodh-value of ( entirely misunderstook so far : /w^a j\ "coire" = £jt (med.
^ !), cp. also Assyrian and Mehri [nyôk). The Egyptian has borrowed this word letter for letter : nyk itociK.
The much repeated comparison with "to marry" furnishes a good illustration what is considered as
"comparative philology" by many Egyptologists.
THE FALSE R IX ARCHAfC EGYPTIAN ORTHOGRAPHY
The primitive masculine noun is l v-T^ npyw (plur.), Turin Lovesonns
x u 1 _2i 1 r-^-i i i i AA/VW\ j\ J\
("grains" of the pomegranate) ; npy (of wheat) ^ m, Pap. B. M., 10111
m
(PSBA., 1885), gnost. Paris, ed. Maspero, III, p. 24 (both very late texts). Thus
AAAAAA
the masc. seems to have palatalized its r to npy while the féminine ^ ^ (Miss,
fr., V, p. .365) nprt, n*.<{>pi, kept it. As said above, Coptic ne^pi solves the whole
problem, but without the Coptic it would again be impossible to corne to this décision.
To corne now to a conclusion : as can be seen from the above discussion, it is very
rarely possible to prove a false r in a clear way where comparative philology does not
corne to our rescue. I fully admit that a great part of the above cases, where we had
to opéra te with the Egyptian tradition alone, could be understood also without assuming
an r, i. e. only as mutilations of original r. This is, as I have said, a question of taste,
and cloubtless, some people will prefer to follow as norm that easier and more meeha-
nical theory. But we have a few cases proving the use of original r beyond any doubt ;
it results from thèse that r must have played a much larger part in early orthography
than we can show now. In ail probability, we shall never be able to détermine
clearly more than a fraction of the cases of that deceptive orthography. Original r
in the cognate languages furnishes, I repeat, no guarantee that the earliest Egyptians
pronounced r as such and not already had weakened it. It is one of the saddest im-
perfections of the hieroglyphic System which I describe hère without ofïering sufli-
cient rules for controlling it.
While the high. antiquity of the liquid pronunciations of r explains the use of r
for Yodh and Aleph and its limitation to the end of words or, at least, of syllables,
the purpose of introducing r as variant of y is less apparent. To our modem minds it
seems, at-first,*a useless variant. We might try to see in its introduction some
abortive attempt to remove the grave defect of the early orthography, namely that (
(y) must represent both k and ,1. There is, however, no foundation for such a theory.
The false r ahvays shared the ambiguity of that unfortunate Aleph-Yodh sign; it is a
purely graphie variant. I believe, we have to see in its use principally calligraphie
considérations. In our two best examples, swr and sr, the broad sign —«— seems to
be the décisive reason for selecting the broad <=> rather than the high (. This agrées
the contrary a longer, denominative, form. The y is always kept and not modernized to y, i, because of that
fondness for the combination /'+ ?/• Later, on hpr "form" follows erroneously the analogy of this name,
e. g. Ann. Scrc, VIII, p. 216.
1. is> I believe now, the later création; we may empirically strike its approximative character by
treating it as Aleph but this is not much hetter, I fear, than Charopollion's treatment as an "a", a mistake
with which he read mostly correctly in an empiric way. I suspect, "^j^ 's something very différent; if it
were an Aleph only, why does it not change with ( in early Semitic loanwords? I have shown, OLZ., VIII,
p. 417, that the latter represents mostly Aleph in such loanwords. — (I cannot help quoting here specially in-
structive example of the Yodh-value of ( entirely misunderstook so far : /w^a j\ "coire" = £jt (med.
^ !), cp. also Assyrian and Mehri [nyôk). The Egyptian has borrowed this word letter for letter : nyk itociK.
The much repeated comparison with "to marry" furnishes a good illustration what is considered as
"comparative philology" by many Egyptologists.