Revue égyptologique (N.S.2.1920/1924)

ON CERTAIN PARTICIPIAL FORMATIONS IN EGYPTIAN

45

European languages that the Rétrospective Pronoun is omitted in such expressions;
we say the thinçj longed for, and not the tliing lotiged for it; Semitic and Egyptian,
on the other hand, regularly insert a Pronoun’.
Now note, in support of the contention tliat the Relative Forms are derived from
the Passive Participles, that the Rétrospective Pronoun is there inserted under exactly
the same conditions as witli the Passive Participles. This may be seen by comparing
Idt nb-f hr

‘that on account of which his lord is angry’


with

^ 1 Ir/f hr-s 'that on account of which one is angry’. Analogies to
the Egyptian Idt nb-f hr-s may be found in such German compounds as ein blumenum-
ranktes Hans, eine bachdnrchlaujene Wiese, where, as before, the Rétrospective
Pronoun is left unexpressed.
We now proceed to a further stage in the évolution of the Relative Forms. This
stage is one where no Semantic Subject follows the Passive Participles, but where this
has a direct Semantic Object of its own distinct from the qualified Noun or Antécé-
dent. The qualified Noun or Antécédent is then necessarily only an indirect Semantic
Object of the verbal notion inhérent in the Passive Participle, and a Rétrospective
Phrase becomes indispensable in order to define the précisé relation. The construction
here described is well-known in the classical languages, where the direct Semantic
Object is expressed grammatically by an accusative kno.wn as the Retained Accusa-
tive; examples are perculsi pectora Poeni, o\ èiriTETpaiJ^évot tt)v apy_r,v, ein herzdurch-
stochener Leichnam. In English one may compare hamstrung, found fault with,
made fun of boys granted a holiday and so forth1 2. Here again the Rétrospective
Pronouns sua, aùto'iç, thern are characterically omitted, though in Semitic and Egyp-
tian they are almost always inserted. Good Egyptian examples are :
^ he who used to give orders is (become) one to whom

l % o a û_Q /wvw'
à_0 i W.wNa I _
orders are given, lit. a given to him face; Gardiner, Admonitions, p. 106.
*—U) f

— _ /WVW\

I I I


I I I

P

I I I

list of witnesses

in wliose presence this testament was made, lit. made this testament beside them ;
Pap. Kahun, 11, 24. Cf. 13, 1.
~n“' nn | there is no poor man for whom the
like has been done, lit. done for him the like ; Sinuhe B, 309.
These constructions are, of course, perfectly familiar to Sethe, who indeed seerns
to hâve been the first to draw attention to them ( Verbum, II, §§ 899 foll.). None the
less, I am inclined to think that he has interpreted them wrongly. On Sethe’s view

1. See Brockelmann, Grundriss, II, pp. 582 loll., for the cases where the Rétrospective Pronoun is omitted ;
and for Egyptian, Verbum, II, § 746.
2. Some of these English examples 1 owe to the kindness of Mr, Gunn.