DOI Artikel:
Gardiner, Alan H.; Litt, D.: A hitherto unnoticed negative in Middle Egyptian
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12747#0092
82 A. H. GARDINER. [4]
further into this topic, the very nature of which admits of limitless discussion, we
may sum up our conclusion by saying that whereas nfr n dénies an accident nfr
pvo dénies existence.
One further point requires comment : both nfr n and «/r pw (in example 5) are
found followed hy the sdmf Form, and it is clear that in such cases the entire clause
containing the sdmf Form serves as subject to the (ultimately) adjectival predicate
nfr. Have we analogies for this? Gertainly they are not common, since in |^^^ w
[Pap. Kahun 28, 3. 6. 10) and J ^rf ^ i P (ibid. 97, 9; 3a, 9) sdm may con-
ceivably be the infinitive, in spite of the fact that the noun following it is subjecl;
(semantic subject'2)), and not object (semantic object). 1 am, however, able to quote
J \ >2 V J ! H^i^vll! '^l0w ev^ îS that-thou-comest-safe-and-sotind r, Pap.
Kahun 82, 1 a ; a less certain example, owing to the obscurity of the context, is
^ I I • P *— ! $ "1*1* r» TTi r~i 4b " ÎS a8reea^e that god shoitld chastise the dif-
fcullies of my conscience (lit. body)n, Lebensmûde, 2g-3o.
(1) Perhaps even the accident of death. The phrase hrw nfr n-i hn f «the day on which it went well with
me» [Florence 177^) bas often been quoted, but no one, so far as I am aware, has troubled to enquire
wherein lay the benefit of death here alluded to. Is it not possible, after ail, that nfr n-î ïm/may mean
«the day on which I ceased to exist»?
(2) On thèse terms, see my article in Revue Egyptologique, nouv. série, t. II, pp. 43-5.
further into this topic, the very nature of which admits of limitless discussion, we
may sum up our conclusion by saying that whereas nfr n dénies an accident nfr
pvo dénies existence.
One further point requires comment : both nfr n and «/r pw (in example 5) are
found followed hy the sdmf Form, and it is clear that in such cases the entire clause
containing the sdmf Form serves as subject to the (ultimately) adjectival predicate
nfr. Have we analogies for this? Gertainly they are not common, since in |^^^ w
[Pap. Kahun 28, 3. 6. 10) and J ^rf ^ i P (ibid. 97, 9; 3a, 9) sdm may con-
ceivably be the infinitive, in spite of the fact that the noun following it is subjecl;
(semantic subject'2)), and not object (semantic object). 1 am, however, able to quote
J \ >2 V J ! H^i^vll! '^l0w ev^ îS that-thou-comest-safe-and-sotind r, Pap.
Kahun 82, 1 a ; a less certain example, owing to the obscurity of the context, is
^ I I • P *— ! $ "1*1* r» TTi r~i 4b " ÎS a8reea^e that god shoitld chastise the dif-
fcullies of my conscience (lit. body)n, Lebensmûde, 2g-3o.
(1) Perhaps even the accident of death. The phrase hrw nfr n-i hn f «the day on which it went well with
me» [Florence 177^) bas often been quoted, but no one, so far as I am aware, has troubled to enquire
wherein lay the benefit of death here alluded to. Is it not possible, after ail, that nfr n-î ïm/may mean
«the day on which I ceased to exist»?
(2) On thèse terms, see my article in Revue Egyptologique, nouv. série, t. II, pp. 43-5.