7/29/2019 Die Protasis jr sdmf ... - Some Afterthoughts. Lingua Aegyptia 4, 1994, 271-274

1/4

LingAes 4 (1994),27 -7 4

..DIEPROTASISr sdrn,f,..,'_SOII AFTERTHOUGHTS

HelmutSatzinger,WienThepaper presented t the conference,Die Protasisr sQm.f m rilterenAgyptisch", waspublishedn LingAeg3 (1993). Herenow, some eflectionson the discussionhat fol-lowedmy presentation.hepaperwas a reactiono M. Malaise,s tudy,.,Laconjugaisonsuffixale dans les propositions conditionelles ntroduites pr ir en ancien et moyen6gyptien",cdE 60 (1985),152-167.Inhis analysis f examples f jr wnn.fplus circum-stantialverbal form he concludeshat theseare he expressionof Middle Egyptian hypo-theticalconditions.A comparablenterpretations givenby L. Depuydt, ,,TheEnd of lr.fsdm.f nthe Heqanakhteetters",RdE39 (1988), 204, and LateEgypti n ,Inn, ,if , andtheconditionalclause n Egyptian", EA77 (1991),69-77.lnview of the hypothesishatir wnn.fplus circumstantialorm is conditionedby stylisticor pragmaticaspects,t seemedadvisableo draw the attentiono somebasicstructural acts(thatwere,by theway,alreadyinnuce seenby Gardinerl: heuse of theperiphrasticerbalphrase#wnn.f plus circum-stantial orm# is syntacticallyconditionedandhasnothing to do with moods of the apo-dosis. This is just one moremanifestation f the tripartitie pattern,#Particle/I.Ioun/Verb-Noun-Adverb#, hat dominatesargepartsof theMiddleEgyptian erbalexpression,.g.:

extensionJwmkjsJ (andothers)nnnt jforms of wnn

.tswswswwj, k, !, 4 s etc., unless he subject sdeleted

.f, except with participles and nfinitivewherethesubject s deleted

m pr.ksdm.fPspt.ltr sdnm jjtr sdm

It was shownthat this pattemis built upon a basicbipartite pattern,#particle4.{oun/Verb-Noun#' which is extendedby embeddingnto it an Adverbial Sentence,#Noun-Adverb#, the subjectnoun of this beingcoreferentialwith the subjectnoun of the matixconstruction i.e., the signifiof bothsubjectss identical).This embeddings probablyeffectedby joining the Adverbial Sentenceo the matrix consfuction: #(particle^.{oun/Verbo."6-Nounsuuj) (Nounro63-Adverbn."J#.ubsequently,hesecondappearance f thenoun is deleted:#ParticleA'{oun/Verb-Noun-Adverb#. n alternative erminology is the1 cf. G-dinet,Grammnr$ 150: "Whenthepredicateof the y'-clauseisadverbialtheverb ,to be, is usedin its S-dm.fform*f *nn.f"

7/29/2019 Die Protasis jr sdmf ... - Some Afterthoughts. Lingua Aegyptia 4, 1994, 271-274

2/4

HelmutSatzinger

one chosenabovewhich renders he resultof this embedding,ather han the processus:"predicatenucleus"-"subject"-"predicate xtension".There s anotherpatternwhich resemblesatherclosely he tripartitepattem ust discus-sed, although t is apparently ipartite. It is obviously madeup of the first and the thirdelements f the ripartitepattem, hesecond eing absent.The nitial elements re the same.Theparadigmof forms that are o be found n the second osition s comparableo, thoughnot identical with, the one of the third position of the tripartite pattern. It seems cleartherefore hat we aredealingwith avariantof the tripartitepattern.All the constructionsofthe second ositionencompassheexpressionfan agent in the caseofthe Passive,athera "patient"). In the endeavourowards econciling he two paradigms ecoursemay be hadto the assumedpresence"f a zerosubject etweenhe rst and he second lement:

adverbialJwmk;bj (andothers)nnnt jforms ofwnn

sdm.n.fPassivenegative onstructionsn sdm.fn sdm.n.femphasizing onstructionThefirst elements a verb(wnn),or anelement f basicallyattributive djectival ature(ntj, ntt), or some kind of a predicativeadjective(nn), or one of severalparticlesofcontroversialnatureand origin ffra mk, is!; negative 0. eputt fromjw, each of these

elements s also found in truly bipartiteconstructionswhere it plays the predicativepart:wnn pt'as long as heaven hallexist' Urk. IV, 305, 8; ib., 348, 9 (seeGardiner,Grammar, 107;imperfectiveorprospective2dm.0;bw ntj nlr'the placewheregod s'(lit. '... in relationo which ..')CT V 274d B2Bo)3; k wj,here am!', .me-voici!,(seeGardiner,Grammar,p. 179,3); n me'tjw 'thereareno righteous'Lebensm.122.aIt maybesurmisedhat hey arealsopredicative henextendedy a third element,.e.,in the tripartite construction.The secondelementof the tripartitepattem s invariablea noun. It is obviously thesubject.t hasnocounterpartn the pseudo-bipartiteattemand t was suggestedhat t iszetoedn thesecases.Thezerosubject s a known feature f Middle Egyptian.s n manycasest canbe interpretedas he expression f an ndefinitepronoun.A particularpattem sjwQStative (3rdpersonmasc.ing.),6 s n jw6 s! n jn st tp ts,'(it) goes avourablywith him who does t on earth'(Gardiner,Grammar,388,1).In analogy o this, pseudo-bipartite onstructionsike w sjm.n.fhavebeen nterpreted s w sdm.n.f (it) is whilez Using J. Allen's terminology; thus "prospective Qm.f'means the sameas what is otherwise called^ "s{mw.f' or even"prospeciwe !mw.f'.r Satzinger,BiOr 44 (1987),620;cf. id., Attribut und Relativsatzm Alteren Agyptisch, in StudienzuSpracheund ReligionAgyptens FestschriftW. Westendorfl,1984,132.4 Cf. Satzinger,Neg. Konstr. g 51.5 Gardiner,Grammarg 486; alsocf. Edel,Grammatikg 992.6 Gardiner,Grammarg467; Westendorf,Grammatik 776.

7/29/2019 Die Protasis jr sdmf ... - Some Afterthoughts. Lingua Aegyptia 4, 1994, 271-274

3/4

Die hotasis ir sdm.f

he hasheard'.7But of course,he analogys not perfect:whereasn jw 6 sf... the subjectsof jw and of the verbarecoreferential thecommonsignifi is the indefinite deaexpressedby zero), n iw Osm.n.f heyarenot:theverbhasanother ubject,his timea personal rdefiniteone which is not expressedy zero.However, hese wo casesare on differentlevels n termsof diachrony.Whereashepattemw b statle is living Middle Egyptian,i.e., t is formedalong he inesof this diom, hepseudo-bipartiteatternmustbe regardedas agrarnrnatrcaltz'edtructurehatcannotbeanalysed nymorewithin the Middle Egyptiansystem.The third elements eitheran adverbial,or an adverbialverb form. or a constructionthatmayhaveadverbialunction: heproperadverbials,ncluding he "gerunds,,br sdm,m sQm, sQm), readverbialby definition.Thesames true of the "circumstantial"sdm.f,the "circumstantial" Qm.n.f ndthePassive, lthough omeauthors laim hat hese ormsarebasicallyndicative, ut havecome o bemostlyusedcircumstantially,.e., as adverbs.As for the negative onstructions,hesituations the otherway round: mostly, they areindicative;but eachandeveryoneof them may alsobe usedadverbially.Almost the sameis trueof the nfr sw construction:hereare-apart from its indicativeuse-a few instanceswhere t is circumstantial.8hehardest ase s thatof theemphasizingonstructions. donotknowof anyMiddleEgyptiannstances f an emphasizingonstruction eingusedasaclause f circumstance.9ut as ts basicconstructions theAdverbialSentence,t maybethought possible and natural that emphasizing constructions can also be usedcircumstantially,actually hey are n LateEgyptianloand ater.The decision for either of the two patterns(tripartite or pseudo-bipartite)dependslargely on the form of thepredicativeextension,cf. thediagramsgiven above. There is,however, greyareaor transitory ases. hepredicative xtension dm.f circumstantial)sfoundnot only in the tripartite attern,w.f (etc.)sQm.f,but also n several ases n thepseudo-bipartiteattem,w (etc)sdm.f 1 It is true, n some aseshesdm.f afterbarew isobviously emphatic" cf.examples9) to (14) in my paper),but other nstances e$z hisinterpretation.Johnsonhoughtshehad discoverednstances f mk + prospectiveor subjunctive)sdm.f.l2 Polotskyhas suggestedegarding lausesof purpose, formed with the sub-junctivesdm.f,as hecircumstantial lauses f themode.But apart romthathypothesis,twouldnotbepossibleo group heseormsamong hose hatareeitheradverbialby nature,or maybe usedadverbially. think, however, hatJohnsonwas mistaken. n the three/ Cf. Satzinger, M 115 1990),102.8 Gardiner,Grammar,p.290;Westendorf,Grammatikg l7l.9 Therearepost-classical xamples, ike iw jj.n.j r snsn$r.tn...'it being in order o praiseyou and...thatI havecome,'Berlin 2o8l,s-i of the XXth dynasty,quotedby wente, ,INES 2g (1969), 10. Here,however,we arenot dealingwith a bareemphasizing onstruction ut ratherone that is embeddedntoa w construction.10 Polotsky,Etudes,75-76;LRI- 20,5; 41,4; 45, t5 ; 55, t3-14:6j, 8.ll Cf . Satzinger,GM t5 (l9g}),gg-102.12 Johnson,The Use of the Particlemkin Middle EgyptianLetters, n Studien4u Spracheund ReligionAgyptens(Fs.westendorf,984)I,71-g5,inpart icularpp.Tg-g0,exx.24a,24band25a.

7/29/2019 Die Protasis jr sdmf ... - Some Afterthoughts. Lingua Aegyptia 4, 1994, 271-274

4/4

Helmut Satzinser

examplesquoted,w sy'm.fs in all probability thepseudo-bipartiteariantof the tripartiteconstructionw.f sjm.f,r3 as mk sglm.f s of mk sw sdm.f, s! sdm.f of js! sw sdm.f,wnjn sim.f of wnjn.f sQm.f,etc.This meanshat he sdm.f n the examples uotedbyJohnson s circumstantial, ather hanprospectiveor subjunctive.Note that the time rangeof mk sw sgLn.fs a near uture 'il va 6couter'), nd he same s trueof its pseudo-bipartitevariant,mk sdm.f.Of course, he conceptof the tripartitepattern estson severalassumptionswhich arenot really cogent.There s no solated roof hat a constructionike n sjm.f, or, still worse,the emphasizingconstruction, s adverbialafter mk, etc. The fact that mk, etc. can bepredicative in the ue bipartitepattern,#mk + subject#)does not by itself prove cogenflythat it is predicative n the tripartitepattern,either. For jw, no bipartite consfruction sattested.Therefore,the inclusion of jw n the numberof the predicativenuclei is mereinduction,based n the otherwise loseanalogy. ut... his s the only concepthatyieldsauniform structure or the numerousconstructionsnvolved. Polotsky oncequoled,unatenimunitatemntellectus.Imustadmit,minedoesa ot.On theotherhand, do not think that the altemativeview that heseverbalconstructions(includingnegativeandemphasizingonstructions)ollow immediatelyon the introductoryelements s wrong: it is a different view-point, but it is certainly a legitimatemodel fordescribing Middle Egyptian. I am sure that it correspondsbetter to what speakers eltinstinctivelyabout t, thandoes he uniform model of the tripartitepattemwhich is hereadvocated or. But my view-point is not a purely synchronicone. I am aiming at a ratherhistoricalexplanation,houghone hat s not too far from the synchronic eality of Old andMiddleEgyptian.Are the "circumstantial" im.f ands!m.n.f forms eallycircumstantial,.e.,usedas ad-verbials hroughout? have neverreallybelieved n a morphologicalcategoryof adverbialforms. From the gammar of some Semitic anguages was familiar with main sentenceconstructionseingusedasclauses f circumstance,ndwe find this also n Egyptian n anumberof cases. hus, he negative onstructionsntroduced y n andnn canbeusedbothindependentlyand circumstantially.If they can others can, too. And if independentconstructionsanbe used ircumstantially,hoseconstructionshat seemo be exclusivelycircumstantial i.e., the "circumstantial"sfim.f and sjm.n.I) are basically independentforms.On theother hand, am fully convinced andhavealwaysbeen) of the existenceofnominalforms, just as everybodyelse is convincedof the existenceof adjectival orms(i.e.,participle,s-dm.tj.fj nd elative orms).This is thetrue morpho-syntacticichotomy:independentand (or) circumstantial orms on one side, noun forms (substantivaloradjectival)on theother.l3 Cf . Satzinger, M ltl (1990),gg-102.