DOI article:
Albright, William Foxwell: The principles of Egyptian phonological development
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12747#0079
[6] THE PRINGIPLES OF EGYPTIAN PHONOLOGIGAL DEVELOPMENT. 69
pronoun and the verb. It may be said that the pronoun is throughout Semitic. Tbc
disjunctive pronoun (ahok, etc.) is heteroclitic, being composed of the old Semitic
disjunctive pronoun, and the Semitic emphatic possessive (ntok = Assyr. *antuka,
Eth. entidka), as will be shown elsewhere in détail. The conjunctive pronoun (wy, etc.)
is the product of a secondary clipping, after the old Semitic verb had been replaced
by the later neoplastic formations; it is identical with the Semitic pronominal suffixes.
AH the other pronominal formations, including the nisbes, may be paralleled closely
in Semitic.
The Egyptian verb was originally exactly like the Semitic verb, and many of thèse
éléments have survived even into Goptic. Among the residual structures may be men-
tioned the imperative, the infinitive, the qualitative, and the causative and reflexive
conjugations. In old Egyptian we still have many examples of the parliciples of derived
conjugations in m, which have survived as pure substantives. The three infinitives,
kmoh, ccutm, and Mice correspond exactly to the three main Semitic types qatâl
(Assyr. Heb. absolute, Ar. qitâl is secondary dissimulation), qâlul^Av. taqottul, etc.;
Heb. qaitel; Eth. qattel; Assyr. kussudu, etc., orig. *kassudu, as shown by naksudu), and
lîdat (Reb. lédet; Assyr. litlu, Ar. Itdah, both preserved as substantives). In Egyptian
the functions have been somewhat differently specialized, and the form Vidal bas been
transferred from primœ waw to iertiœ infirmée. There is no trace of the infinitive laqtîl,
which in Ar. is the regular, and in Assyr. the archaic infinitive of the fiel. The qua-
litative is identical in function and almost in form with the Assyrian qualitative, or
permansive, and still exhibits its close relationship to the infinitive, which in Assyrian
is so évident, in Egyptian by the nisbe endings [êdmkwy, édmty, etc.) which evidently
are due to the analogy of the third person, édmy, where the nisbe is, of course,
quite correctly placed. Being derived from the transitive infinitive, with which it
interchanges in Coptic, it is employed just as in Assyrian to express the passive, but
since (note the polarity!) in the qal, qâlula is intransitive, and is used especially to
dénote duration of condition, the qualitative of in transitives in Egyptian has precisely
this meaning. The fact that the Egyptian causative is identical with the Assyrian,
Aramaic, Minean, and, in fact, with the archaic Semitic causative in s throughout,
is well known, as is also the fact that the Eg. forms like rigégé, nérév, belong with Eth.
angargara, antablaba, etc. It is not. however, realized that the latter form survives in
slightly modified state in Assyrian, as nagarruru, etc., in verbs mediœ geminalœ, and
naparsudu, in quadrillerais, niqilpû, etc., in strong verbs. Just as in Eg. and Eth.
thèse verbs express continuance of action, and are thus exactly équivalent to Arabie
tadaldala, tadahraga, etc.; we have merely a reflexive in n instead of one in t. The
Eg. neoplastic forms édmf, édmnf, etc. are ail based on the infinitive, and not on the
old Semitic participle, as Sethe still maintains; we have almost exact parallels for
the development in Ethiopie. The vocalization is preserved in one case, that of the
so-called subjunctive, ctmom, ctmcdtn, which rellect old gerundive forms *éadmâf,
pronoun and the verb. It may be said that the pronoun is throughout Semitic. Tbc
disjunctive pronoun (ahok, etc.) is heteroclitic, being composed of the old Semitic
disjunctive pronoun, and the Semitic emphatic possessive (ntok = Assyr. *antuka,
Eth. entidka), as will be shown elsewhere in détail. The conjunctive pronoun (wy, etc.)
is the product of a secondary clipping, after the old Semitic verb had been replaced
by the later neoplastic formations; it is identical with the Semitic pronominal suffixes.
AH the other pronominal formations, including the nisbes, may be paralleled closely
in Semitic.
The Egyptian verb was originally exactly like the Semitic verb, and many of thèse
éléments have survived even into Goptic. Among the residual structures may be men-
tioned the imperative, the infinitive, the qualitative, and the causative and reflexive
conjugations. In old Egyptian we still have many examples of the parliciples of derived
conjugations in m, which have survived as pure substantives. The three infinitives,
kmoh, ccutm, and Mice correspond exactly to the three main Semitic types qatâl
(Assyr. Heb. absolute, Ar. qitâl is secondary dissimulation), qâlul^Av. taqottul, etc.;
Heb. qaitel; Eth. qattel; Assyr. kussudu, etc., orig. *kassudu, as shown by naksudu), and
lîdat (Reb. lédet; Assyr. litlu, Ar. Itdah, both preserved as substantives). In Egyptian
the functions have been somewhat differently specialized, and the form Vidal bas been
transferred from primœ waw to iertiœ infirmée. There is no trace of the infinitive laqtîl,
which in Ar. is the regular, and in Assyr. the archaic infinitive of the fiel. The qua-
litative is identical in function and almost in form with the Assyrian qualitative, or
permansive, and still exhibits its close relationship to the infinitive, which in Assyrian
is so évident, in Egyptian by the nisbe endings [êdmkwy, édmty, etc.) which evidently
are due to the analogy of the third person, édmy, where the nisbe is, of course,
quite correctly placed. Being derived from the transitive infinitive, with which it
interchanges in Coptic, it is employed just as in Assyrian to express the passive, but
since (note the polarity!) in the qal, qâlula is intransitive, and is used especially to
dénote duration of condition, the qualitative of in transitives in Egyptian has precisely
this meaning. The fact that the Egyptian causative is identical with the Assyrian,
Aramaic, Minean, and, in fact, with the archaic Semitic causative in s throughout,
is well known, as is also the fact that the Eg. forms like rigégé, nérév, belong with Eth.
angargara, antablaba, etc. It is not. however, realized that the latter form survives in
slightly modified state in Assyrian, as nagarruru, etc., in verbs mediœ geminalœ, and
naparsudu, in quadrillerais, niqilpû, etc., in strong verbs. Just as in Eg. and Eth.
thèse verbs express continuance of action, and are thus exactly équivalent to Arabie
tadaldala, tadahraga, etc.; we have merely a reflexive in n instead of one in t. The
Eg. neoplastic forms édmf, édmnf, etc. are ail based on the infinitive, and not on the
old Semitic participle, as Sethe still maintains; we have almost exact parallels for
the development in Ethiopie. The vocalization is preserved in one case, that of the
so-called subjunctive, ctmom, ctmcdtn, which rellect old gerundive forms *éadmâf,