LingAes 4 (1994), 27l-7 4

..DIE

PROTASIS rr sdrn,f,..,'_ SOIIß AFTERTHOUGHTS

HelmutSatzinger, Wien
The paperI presented at the conference, "Die Protasisjr sQm.fim rilterenAgyptisch", was publishedn LingAeg 3 (1993). Here now, somereflectionson the discussion that followedmy presentation. The paperwas a reaction to M. Malaise,s study, .,La conjugaison suffixale dans les propositions conditionelles introduites pr ir en ancien et moyen 6gyptien",cdE 60 (1985), 152-167.In his analysis of examples of jr wnn.f plus circumstantialverbal form he concludesthat theseare the expressionof Middle Egyptian hypotheticalconditions. A comparable interpretation is given by L. Depuydt, ,,TheEnd of lr.f sdm.finthe Heqanakhte Letters",RdE 39 (1988), 204, and"Late Egypti an ,Inn, ,if , and the conditional clausein Egyptian",JEA77 (1991),69-77.lnview of the hypothesis that form is conditionedby stylistic or pragmaticaspects,it seemed ir wnn.fplus circumstantial advisableto draw the attentionto somebasicstructuralfacts(that were,by the way, already innuce seenby Gardinerl:the use of the periphrastic verbalphrase#wnn.f plus circumstantialform# is syntacticallyconditionedand has nothing to do with moods of the apodosis. This is just one more manifestation of the tripartitie pattern,#Particle/I.Ioun/ VerbNoun-Adverb#,that dominates largepartsof the Middle Egyptianverbalexpression, e.g.:
extension Jw mk jsJ (and others) nn ntj forms of wnn .t sw sw sw wj, k, !, 4 s etc., unlessthe subjectis deleted .f, except with participles and infinitive where the subjectis deleted m pr.k sdm.f Pspt. ltr sdn m jjt r sdm

It was shown that this pattem is built upon a basic bipartite pattern, #particle4.{oun/ Verb-Noun#' which is extendedby embeddinginto it an Adverbial Sentence,#NounAdverb#, the subjectnoun of this being coreferential with the subjectnoun of the matix construction (i.e., the signifiö of both subjects is identical).This embedding is probably effectedby joining the Adverbial Sentenceto the matrix consfuction: #(particle^.{oun/ Verbo."6-Nounsuuj) * (Nounro63-Adverbn."J#. Subsequently, the secondappearance of the noun is deleted:#ParticleA'{oun/Verb-Noun-Adverb#. An alternativeterminology is the
1 cf. G-dinet,Grammnr$ 150: "Whenthepredicateof the y'-clauseisadverbialthe verb ,to be, is used in its S-dm.fform *f *nn.f"

fhavebeeninterpreted asjw ö sdm.e. Satzinger. negativer0.A particularpattem is jwQStative (3rdpersonmasc. g 51.).a It may be surmised thattheyarealsopredicative whenextended by a third element. The initial elements are the same. in relation to which .f n sdm. In analogyto this. Gardiner.bj (and others) nn ntj forms ofwnn Thefirst element is a verb(wnn).the second beingabsent.3). Grammatik| 776. IV.f' or even"prospeciwes!mw. Edel. sdm. Westendorf. pseudobipartiteconstructions like jw sjm.n.or anelement of basicallyattributive adjectival nature (ntj. or one of several particles of controversialnature and origin ffra mk.. It seems clear thereforethat we aredealingwith a variant of the tripartitepattern. i. '.f emphasizing construction Jw mk . though not identical with. Konstr. BiOr 44 (1987). ratherthan the processus: "predicatenucleus"-"subject"-"predicate extension".sIn many cases it canbe interpretedasthe expression of an indefinite pronoun. .Grammar g467.n. The paradigmof forms that areto be found in the second position is comparable to.f Passive negativeconstructions : n sdm.0. althoughit is apparently bipartite..'(it) goesfavourably with him who doesit on earth' (Gardiner..6 as in jw6 s! n jn st tp ts. thus "prospective sQm.bw ntj nlr'the placewheregod is' $ 107.Grammar. is!. It hasno counterpart in the pseudo-bipartite pattemand it was suggested that it is zetoed in thesecases. the one of the third position of the tripartite pattern. or some kind of a predicativeadjective (nn). Allen's terminology.f'.Grammar g 486. each of these elements is also found in truly bipartite constructionswhere it plays the predicativepart: wnn pt'as long as heavenshall exist' Urk. Grammar. cf. Satzinger. alsocf. 132. In the endeavour towardsreconcilingthe two paradigmsrecoursemay be had to the assumed "presence" of a zerosubject between thefrst andthe second element: adverbial sdm.f'means the sameas what is otherwise called "s{mw.(see 'there Gardiner.1984..n. Attribut und Relativsatzim Alteren Agyptisch. id. in Studienzu Spracheund Religion Agyptens(FestschriftW.f '(it) is while z ^ r 4 5 6 Using J. Cf.Helmut Satzinger one chosenabovewhich renders the resultof this embedding.620. Westendorfl. . Thereis anotherpatternwhich resembles rathercloselythe tripartite pattemjust discussed. eputt from jw.n.122. 348. nn me'tjw areno righteous'Lebensm. Gardiner. Grammatikg 992. 8.All the constructionsof positionencompass the second theexpression ofan agent(in the caseofthe Passive. ib.') CT V 274d(B2Bo)3. The zerosubjectis a known feature of Middle Egyptian.hereI am!'.1). 9 (see Gardiner. rather a "patient"). sing..me-voici!. It is obviously the subject..388. 179.imperfectiveorprospective2 (lit.p.Neg. It is obviously madeup of the first and the third elements of the tripartite pattem. ntt). 305. The second elementof the tripartite pattem is invariable a noun. Grammar.. in the tripartite construction. nk wj.

l2 Polotsky has suggested regardingclauses of purpose. actuallythey arein LateEgyptianloandlater. There are post-classical examples. exx. formed with the subjunctive sdm.in iw O süm. 8...we are not dealingwith a bareemphasizing construction but rather one that is embedded into a jw construction. it may be thought possible and natural that emphasizing constructions can also be used circumstantially. GM 115(1990).that Johnsonwas mistaken. in Studien4u Spracheund Religion Agyptens(Fs. however.quotedby wente.westendorf.p.'it being in orderto praise you and. 12 Johnson.Tg-g0. thesetwo casesare on different levelsin termsof diachrony. includingthe "gerunds.9 But as its basicconstruction is the AdverbialSentence.I think. but havecometo be mostlyusedcircumstantially.tn.e. a grey areaor transitory cases. The sameis true of the "circumstantial"sdm.) sQm. As for the negative constructions. pseudo-bipartite jw (etc)sdm. Here. However.Grammar.ftheyarenot: theverbhasanother subject.f. t3-14:6j. areadverbialby definition. thepseudo-bipartite pattern must be regarded asa grarnrnatrcaltz'ed structure that cannotbe analysed anymorewithin the Middle Egyptian system. the analogy is not perfect:whereas in jw 6 sf.INES 2g (1969). Johnsonthoughtshe had discovered instances of mk + prospective (or subjunctive) sdm.it is formedalongthelinesof this idiom. 45.Etudes.f after barejw is obviously"emphatic"(cf.or an adverbialverb form. ll Cf.fl1 It is true.f (etc.this time a personal or definiteone which is not expressed by zero.gg-102. although someauthorsclaim that theseforms arebasically indicative.In the three / 8 9 Cf. r sQm).n.f he hasheard'.asthe circumstantial Clauses of themode. they are indicative. the pattem i.24a.s-i of the XXth dynasty. the "circumstantial" sQm. (br sdm.Whereas jw b statle is living Middle Egyptian.but eachandeveryone of them may also be used adverbially.LRI20.The Use of the Particle mkin Middle Egyptian Letters. 41.like iw jj.71-g5.e.n.in somecases pattem.. The decision for either of the two patterns (tripartite or pseudo-bipartite)depends largely on the form of the predicativeextension. Gardiner.j r snsn$r. the sdm.GM tt5 (l9g}). t5. Almost the same is true of the nfr sw construction: thereare-apart from its indicativeuse-a few instances whereit is circumstantial.. 10 Polotsky.f.inparticularpp.8 The hardest caseis that of the emphasizing constructions.but otherinstances de$zthis interpretation.n.But apartfrom thathypothesis. I do not know of anyMiddle Egyptian instances of an emphasizing construction beingusedas a clause of circumstance. 290.but also in severalcasesin the pattern.cf.. Satzinger.' Berlin 2o8l.5. .f.f. m sQm..Die hotasis ir sdm. Grammatikg l7l. the diagramsgiven above. There is. the subjects of jw and of the verb arecoreferential (thecommonsignifiö is the indefinite idea expressed by zero). .4. i.. or a construction thatmay haveadverbial function:the properadverbials. as adverbs.f(circumstantial) is found not only in the tripartite jw. that I have come. examples (9) to (14) in my paper).102.f andthePassive. 55. Satzinger. Thepredicative extension sdm. or may be used adverbially.24band25a. however..7But of course. The third elementis either an adverbial. the situationis the other way round: mostly. however. Westendorf..75-76. it would not be possibleto grouptheseforms amongthosethat areeither adverbialby nature. 10. r984)I.

Imustadmit.the negative constructions introduced by n andnn canbeusedboth independentlyand circumstantially.f. And if independent constructions canbe usedcircumstantially. etc.f construction is of mk sw sdm.f.This is the true morpho-syntactic dichotomy: independentand (or) circumstantialforms on one side. Of course. thisis the only concept that yields a uniform structurefor the numerousconstructionsinvolved. thoughonethat is not too far from the synchronicreality of Old and Middle Egyptian.. GM ltl (1990).f formsreally circumstantial. On the otherhand.gg-102. But. either.. But my view-point is not a purely synchronicone. noun forms (substantival or adjectival)on the other.Note that the time range of mk sw sgLn. the conceptof the tripartite patternrests on severalassumptions which are not really cogent. but it is certainly a legitimatemodel for describingMiddle Egyptian. or.f sjm. the inclusion of jw n the number of the predicativenuclei is mere induction.minedoesa lot.r3 as mk sglm.f of wnjn.f. still worse. I am aiming at a rather historical explanation. If they can others can.I do not think that the altemativeview that theseverbal constructions (including negativeandemphasizing constructions) follow immediatelyon the introductory elements is wrong: it is a different view-point.f ands!m.fis in all probability the pseudo-bipartite variant of the tripartite jw.f n the examples Johnsonis circumstantial. the emphasizingconstruction. andwe find this also in Egyptianin a numberof cases.I am fully convinced(andhave always been) of the existenceof nominal forms.f. no bipartite consfruction is attested.I) are basically independent forms. Polotsky once quoled.f. than doesthe uniform model of the tripartite pattem which is here advocated for.Therefore. just as everybody else is convincedof the existenceof adjectivalforms (i.jw sy'm.e. andthe same is trueof its pseudo-bipartite variant. etc. can be predicative(in the tue bipartite pattern.tj. I am sure that it correspondsbetter to what speakersfelt instinctively about it.etc.f. . thoseconstructions that seemto be exclusively circumstantial(i. From the gammar of someSemiticlanguagesI was familiar with main sentence constructions beingusedasclauses of circumstance. proofthat a construction Thereis no isolated like n sjm.f and sjm. wnjn sim. Are the "circumstantial" sim. js! sdm.. Satzinger.e. For jw.based on the otherwise closeanalogy. The fact that mk.. the "circumstantial" sfim. unat enimunitatem intellectus. too.participle.usedas adverbialsthroughout? I have never really believedin a morphologicalcategoryof adverbial forms..f of js! sw sdm.f is a nearfuture('il va 6couter').mk sdm.e. Thus.f sQm.n.This means quotedby that the sdm.n.Helmut Satzinser examplesquoted.ratherthan prospectiveor subjunctive.#mk + subject#)does not by itself prove cogenfly that it is predicativein the tripartite pattern. l3 Cf.fj andrelativeforms). i.s-dm.is adverbial after mk. On the otherhand.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful