LingAeg 18 (2010), 1-17

At the Outskirts of a System

Classifiers and Word Dividers in Foreign Phrases and Texts
Niv Allon, New Haven

Abstract
This paper aims to explore the Egyptian classifier system as it appears in transliterated foreign texts
from the New Kingdom and the Late Period. At the center of the paper stands a scribal tradition in
which classifiers are used in a unique and innovative function. In the restricted environment of foreign
texts, the A2 and T14 classifiers function mostly metatextually, marking the linguistic environment
of the text as foreign. The semantic change underwent by the two classifiers shares many features of a
cross-linguistic phenomenon of pragmaticalization.

During the New Kingdom many foreign words find their way into Egyptian texts.
Most of these words are classified semantically upon their first appearance and show
the common features of the Egyptian system.1
wsr, oar and the Semitic loanword
, mrkbt, chariot, share similar schematic relations with their
[WOOD] classifier (stuff/object), while both words for tent, the Egyptian
,
j#m.w, and the Semitic
, jhr take the [HABITAT] classifier.2 The only
apparent difference in the classification of foreign words is a stronger tendency toward schematic classifiers, which are quite prominent in the overall Egyptian system.3
Furthermore, throughout the New Kingdom and the Late Period, several scribes
chose to incorporate foreign phrases into their works. Some even transliterate whole
texts, as for example pAmherst 63, which was written probably in the 4th century
BCE.4 It extends over 23 columns and constitutes a small library of Aramaic religious/literary texts.5 These textual units appear mainly in magical contexts,6 but are

1
2

3
4

5
6

Preliminary versions of this paper were presented in the GIF workshop in Berlin 2010, and in a
COST A31 conference held in Jerusalem 2010. I would like to thank the participants for their
comments. I would also like to thank Professor Orly Goldwasser and Dr. Eitan Grossman for their
suggestions and criticism.
For an analysis of the classification of foreign words, see Goldwasser (2006: 28-29).
wsr (Wb. I, 364.1-4) mrkbt (Wb. II, 113.4; Hoch 1994: no. 189), j#m.w (Wb. I, 81.1-7), jhr (Wb. I,
81.1-7; Hoch 1994: no. 24); the word jhr appears in this instance (pHarris I 76,10, see Grandet
1994: I, 337; II, pl. 77) with another meronymic classifier, the V12 hieroglyph of a band or a
string.
Goldwasser (2006: 29); for a discussion of schematic relations in Ancient Egyptian see
Goldwasser (2002: 33).
Vleeming & Wesselius (1983-1984: 111); Partial editions were published by Vleeming &
Wesselius (1985 & 1990) and Nims & Steiner (1983, 1984 & 1985). Steiner (1997) provides also
with a translation of the whole text. For a more recent analysis see Kottsieper (1988a, 1988b, 1997
& 2003).
Vleeming & Wesselius (1983-1984: 112).
The incorporation of foreign elements has many attestations in Ancient Egyptian magical and
medical texts, cf. Ritner (1993: 246).

Niv Allon

found also in literary and other non-literary sources. Two main clusters are discernable chronologically: (1) New Kingdom texts of different languages: spells of pBM
EA 10042 & 10059, a phrase in pAnastasi I and the text of Cairo 25759;7 (2) Aramaic
texts of the Late Period: pAmherst 63 and the spell of Wadi Hammamat.8 The classifier system in most foreign texts of both periods shows some interesting phenomena,
much different than the classification of foreign words.9 The features of the classifier
system in foreign transliterated texts and textual units are the focus of this paper.10
The unusual employment of classifiers in these texts has been mostly disregarded
or understood as evidence for foreign language incompetence on the part of the Egyptian scribe. Analyzing the phenomenon, however, through Goldwassers framework
of classifiers offers a different interpretation.11 Goldwasser shows that determinatives,
even if absent from the spoken language, constitute a clear linguistic system. They are
comparable in non-incidental ways to the use of oral classifiers, which are well
attested cross-linguistically: they occur in surface structures under specifiable conditions and denote some characteristic of the entity to which an associated lexeme
refers.12 As one of the classification systems revealed in the language, Egyptian
classifiers reflect a system of knowledge organization. Each classifier is tied to a certain conceptual category, which is discernable through the words it accompanies and
7

The texts and their most recent editions are: two spells in pBM EA 10042 (Leitz 1999: 42, 49-50;
pl.18, 23; Schneider 1989) and six spells in pBM EA 10059 (Leitz 1999: 61-63; pl. 31-32);
pAnastasi I 23, 5 (Fischer-Elfert 1986 & 1992); Cairo 25759 (Shisha-Halevy 1978).
8 Couyat-Montet Nr. 187 (Vittmann 1984; Steiner 2001). Zauzich (1985) suggests a different reading of the spell as written in Egyptian. The intriguing chronological gap between the two clusters
of texts falls outside the scope of the discussion on the Ancient Egyptian classifier system, and
therefore shall not be dealt in this paper.
9 The scholarly interpretations of the texts manifest a certain degree of diversion and uncertainty,
and several texts were suggested as mere sequences of words of power. Argumentations regarding the relation between their meaning and the semantic motivation of their classifiers should thus
be taken with due caution. The difficulty in deciphering those texts lies both in their utilization of
words otherwise unattested in Ancient Egyptian texts and in their unique employment of classifiers. Nevertheless, the latter appears also in texts such as pAnastasi I and pAmherst 63, which can
neither be described as word lists nor as elaborated sequence of powerful vocalizations such as
abracadabra. Furthermore, as it will be discussed later, the semantic value of the words in these
texts has only a minor role in the appointment of classifiers, and it is this relation that is the key to
the understanding of the phenomenon.
10 Foreign phrases and syntagms can be found also in personal names, usually classified similarly to
Egyptian names as compound units (for compound classification see Gardiner (1957: 61),
Werning (forthcoming: 112). Schneider indicates that every fourth name (of the Asiatic names in
the New Kingdom) appears with the T14 classifier or with both T14 and N25 classifiers
, cf.
Schneider (1992: 403-4b). According to Schneider, the majority of names appear with a classifier
that follows the semantic content of an Egyptian homophone. Foreign divine entities, however,
seem to appear mostly with a divine classifier:
, Reshef, (Wb. II, 455.17-18)
, Anat,
(Wb. II, 206.6) or with a more specific classifier:
Baoal (Wb. I, 447.10-12), and CamaS
with the N5 hieroglyph in the theophoric name
, cf. Schneider (1992: 94). For
similar phenomena in other languages see Zibelius-Chen (2005), Wthrich (2009): Meroitic, Peet
(1927): Cretan.
11 As postulated in Goldwasser (2002 & 2006). McDonald (2004) argues against and offers an
alternative view, which is summarized and discussed in Kammerzell (forthcoming).
12 The features of the prevailing definition set by Allan (1977: 285). A typology of classification
systems can be found in Grinevald (2000, 2003 & 2004) and many examples of the diverse manifestation of such systems are also available in Aikhenvald (2000 & 2006) and Senft (2000).

At the Outskirts of a System

through its iconic image. In her recent publications, Goldwasser shows that homonymophobia, the principle of homonymy avoidance,13 is only partially applicable as
the main motivation for the function of the classifiers. Actually, a much wider range
of information is provided to the reader, as for example through the presence of
multiple classifiers. Goldwasser and Grinevald suggest that the prominent contribution of classifiers is in their simplification of the rather complex process of reading.14
Though the function of several classifiers in foreign texts do not comply with
Goldwassers framework, its systematic view and its attention to the range of words is
essential in clarifying the function of these classifiers and its evolution.

1 Classification Strategies
Written texts, as opposed to spoken speech, are more easily detachable from their
original context and are therefore more prone to a careful and conscious planning.15
The employment of classifiers in foreign texts suggests that their scribes chose a certain classification strategy, which they then followed quite consistently in their texts.
Three major groups are discernable according to classifier frequency, ranging from
none to full-scale employment of classifiers.

1.1 No classifiers
Only one spell of the 18th Dynasty manuscript of pBM EA 10059 appears without any
classifiers (fig. 1). Spell no. 18 is accompanied by two paratextual elements written in
Egyptian and marked in red a title that precedes the spell, and an instruction for the
recitation of the spell that follows it.16 Words in these parts are classified following
the standards of the Egyptian classifier system of the New Kingdom, classifying the
word Sn.t, conjuration with the A2 [ORALITY] hieroglyph17 and the word fnT, worm,
maggot with the [SWORM] hieroglyph.18 The other words are either grammatical elements or certain words of high frequency, which almost never appear with a classifier
in this period.19

Fig. 1: pBM EA 10059, spell no.18: VII, 2-3 (Leitz 1999: pl. 32)

13
14
15
16

cf. Geeraerts (1997: 123).

Goldwasser & Grinevald (forthcoming).
Cf. Traugott & Dasher (2002: 46).
On the nature of the rubric as a paratextual element in relation to the spell see Nyord (forthcoming).
17 The employment of the sign V1 with the word Sn.t might rise from its homonymity with the verb
Sni, to surround (Wb. IV, 489.1-491.5). Anthes suggests that the two words are related, cf.
Anthes (1961: 87-88), and also Ritner (1993: 43).
18 The term [SWORM] was suggested by Goldwasser for the category of snake+worm, cf.
Goldwasser (2005: 100).
19 For a discussion on verbs with zero-classifier in Late Egyptian, see Kammerzell (forthcoming: 67).

Niv Allon

The A2 sign
, which appears twice in the spell, operates as part of the group
writing, denoting the sound commonly represented by '.20 Leitz transcribes the text as
sbknjmrskn (twice) jmr nXrsn, while Steiner suggests it to be a Northwest Semitic
spell, which reads: [s]-b-k-n A-m-r s-k-n (twice) A-m-r-nu X-r-s-n or in his translation:
[L]eave us, I say, l<ea>ve us. We have said our incantation.21
Without any classifiers, however, the word-division is rather doubtful. This obscurity exemplifies one of the important roles of classifiers in the construction of reading,
by indicating the word segmentation.22

1.2 Sporadic classification

This group includes four texts, all of the New Kingdom: Ostracon Cairo 25759, and
spells no. 15, 19 & 20 in pBM EA 10059 according to Steiners interpretation.23 This
strategy resembles the previous group in its prominent number of unclassified words.
A small number of words, however, take a classifier throughout the text. For instance,
Cairo 25759 is apparently a coherent text of northwestern Semitic language, constituting a record of private everyday life.24 Shisha-Halevy reconstructs the text as:
tant a-oazim la balbalbud-Aalaj-idun-jamS(a)baka/u r(a)kaba/u wab/pa.
In his translation, the text reads, Giving the goats toson ofson of In-the-handsof-the-gods-of-Sidon Maritimalower and upper millstones and25 Only three
words in the text are classified (cf. fig. 2):
, ozm, goats receives the
[HIDE&TAIL] hieroglyph, while the personal name and the S(a)kaba/u-r(a)kaba/u,
lower and upper milestones appear with the [FOREIGN] hieroglyph. The nature of the
T14 hieroglyph ( ) in its classification of the milestones is quite non-standard to the
Egyptian system, and it will be dealt with in section 2.

20 See Helck (1989), Schenkel (1986). For further discussion in group-writing and its research
history, see Ward (1996).
21 Steiner (1992: 195).
22 Similar problems emerge also in the decipherment of cryptographic orthographies, as for example
in the enigmatic netherworld books, which quite rarely employ classifiers, cf. Darnell (2004: 8).
The enigmatic inscription on the ceiling of corridor G in the tomb of Ramesses VI is an exception
to this tendency, cf. Hornung (1988: 47); Darnell (2004: 14 n. 2).
23 Steiner 1992: 193. Spells no. 16 & 17 may show similar features, but they are too fragmentary to
assert their classification methods. Spell no. 20 employs twice the A2 hieroglyph and once the
N31 sign. While the two A2 signs are probably parts of the group writing (cf. Schenkel 1986;
Helck 1989: 124), there is no evidence to support the employment of the N31 in that role. It seems
therefore to classify the last couple of syllables as their Egyptian homophone, w#i, to be far
(Wb. I, 245.3-13).
24 Shisha-Halevy (1978: 160).
25 Shisha-Halevy (1978: 162). Hoch (1994:85) claims that the sounds /z/ is never represented by
Egyptian T, and suggests the translation bones.

At the Outskirts of a System

Fig. 2: Cairo 25759 (Shisha-Halevy 1978: 147)

1.3 Full-scale classification

The largest and most diverse group of texts falls into the category of full-scale classification, indicating the eminent part of classifiers in the Egyptian graphemic system.26
This group contains texts of both the New Kingdom and the Late Period. One spell in
pBM EA 10059 shows a variety of classifiers ( , , , ).27 Otherwise, the usual
classification in this group is distinguishable from previous categories and from other
texts in its unique employment of repetitive classifiers, which appear repeatedly after
(almost) every word.28 One spell in pBM 10042 shows an employment of one persistent classifier (fig. 3). The title does not indicate its foreign origin, but Borghouts
points to the unintelligibility of its words, and suggests it might not be in Egyptian at
all.29 This text is the first to employ the A2 classifier as the predominant repetitive
classifier.30

26 Following Shisha-Halevy in his discussion of the previous text, cf. Shisha-Halevy (1978: 152).
27 Spell no. 21 in Leitz (1999: 63; no. 33 in Steiner 1992: 198-199).
28 This term is to be differentiated from repeater, which point to the relation between the classifier
and the classified entity, in which the classifier is identical to the lexeme it refers to (for example
in Jacaltec noun classifiers: ix ix CL. WOMAN woman), or in the Egyptian system, the classifier is
a pictorial tautology of its lexeme (ST.w,
turtle. cf. Wb. IV, 559), cf. Goldwasser (2002:
15), Grinevald (2004: 1026).
29 Borghouts (1978: 89, 111 n. 304); Ritner suggests that rwk# and r#k# might represent the words
attested in demotic as lg, cease, see Ritner (1993: 193 n. 890). Ritner suggests that the same word
appears also in the 3rd line of vso. II, written as rk#. If these are indeed three instances of the same
word, then it will be a clear case in which the same word is classified differently in an Egyptian
and in a non-Egyptian context.
30 The sign preceding the A2 classifier in the writing of the word popo resembles the hieratic forms of
sign N21
(Mller II: 323) and F18
(Mller II: 160). Leitz transcribes the word with the
former, whereas it appears written with the latter in the Wb., cf. (Wb. I, 504.8). Its relation to the
word is yet to be explained. The N21 sign might originate from the similarity to the word po.t,
bank; area of land, (Wb. I, 504.2), while the F18 sign appears with words related to orality: (wSo,
to bite, to utter (Wb. I, 370.6-13); psH, to bite, to sting (Wb. I, 550.1-10); sbT, to laugh (Wb.
III, 434.5-11) and Hw, the god of authoritative utterance (Wb. III, 44.8-10), cf. Gardiner (1957:
463).

Niv Allon

Fig. 3: pBM EA 10042, rto VII, 12 (Leitz 1999: pl. 18)

Sporadic classification and repetitive classification are not mutually exclusive, as both
strategies can appear in one text. Schneider suggests that the spell of section Z in pBM
EA 10042 should be read as a Canaanite conjuration for lion hunting.31 This text
employs the T14 classifier as the repetitive classifier (cf. fig. 4), while the word sm,
to put, to set according to Schneider, takes the Y1 classifier
in all its five occurrences.32

Fig. 4: pBM EA 10042 rto XII, 1-5 (Leitz 1999: pl. 23)

pAnastasi I, pAmherst 63 and the spell from Wadi Hammamat resemble the spell of
section Q in pBM EA 10042, by employing quite monotonously the A2 classifier
throughout the text, while classifying few words with other hieroglyphs.33 Among the
many insults hurled by the scribe of pAnastasi I at his addressee, a short phrase says:
i-b-t k-m i-y-l m-h-r n-o-m. Fischer-Elfert reconstructs the sentence as Semitic, Abd.t
km# Ayl mhr nom, You are lost like a lamb, dear Maher (fig. 5).34 The A2 sign appears
after three of the words, while Ayl, lamb is classified by the [HIDE&TAIL] hieroglyph,
and the word Maher, officer, receives the A24 classifier, which appears with words

31 Schneider (1989); Leitz suggests a different word division which follows more closely the usage of
classifiers, cf. Leitz (1999: 49-50).
32 Though several of the T14 signs may resemble the writing of the G7 sign
in Hieratic in the New
Kingdom (cf. Mller 1965: II, 16, 41) both Schneider (1989: 54) and Leitz (1999: pl. 23) agree in
transcribing the sign as T14. Each T14 sign is accompanied by a long diagonal sign, which will be
discussed later.
33 Bowman remarks on the distribution of the A2 sign in pAmherst 63 that even one who is ignorant
of Demotic is attracted by the flaglike vertical stroke that occurs at somewhat regular intervals
throughout the photographs of the text. Bowman (1944: 220).
34 Gardiner suggests another translation (following Burchardt): Thou slayest like a lion, pleasant
Maher, cf. Gardiner (1911: 25* n. 10); Hoch (1994: 20-21). According to Meeks (1997: 34), the
word Ayl has two other attestations, which Hoch claims to belong to a different word, cf. Hoch
(1994: 20-21; no. 17 & 18). Meeks adds that its translation as lion lies solely on the comparison
to the Semitic word, and seems to be more problematic than ram.

At the Outskirts of a System

of force and authority.35 As for the third A2 classifier, the meaning dear/pleasant
might seem to belong to the category of the A2 classifier. Nevertheless, words of
similar meaning and especially nDm, take the Y1 classifier and not the A2 classifier in
the Ancient Egyptian system.36 Thus, the third A2 classifier seems to be another
repetitive classifier.

Fig. 5: pAnastasi I 23, 5 (Fischer-Elfert 1983:138)

The sporadic and the repetitive classifications differ not only in their density, but
more importantly, they entail different relations between the classifier and the classified entity. The sporadic classification is mostly semantically motivated, mapping
goats (ozm) and lambs (Ayl) onto the category of [QUADRUPED], and military officials
(mhr) onto the category of [FORCE&AUTHORITY].37 Even in the troublesome sporadic
classification of pAmherst 63,38 the divine classifier seems still to accompany names
of divine entities. Repetitive classifiers, however, may accompany any word: Abd.t,
lost, km#, like, and most of the vocabulary of pAmherst 63. As repetitive classifiers
do not refer to the entity behind the lexeme they accompany, it raises the question
whether they are classifiers at all.

2 Classifier or Word divider?

Repetitive classifiers seem to disobey the principle of semantic motivation, which is
listed among the major parameters of classification systems according to Allan,
Aikhenvald and Grinevald.39 Their indifference to the semantic content of the words

35 Shisha-Halevy translates nom following its D54 classifier , as speedy, which seems suitable to
describe the mhr in his roles as a warrior and a scout, cf. Fischer-Elfert (1986: 244-246) and Zorn
(1991). Hoch (1994: no. 244) notes, however, that the root nwo in Biblical Hebrew means quiver,
wave, tremble (BDB 631a-b) and the employment of the D54 classifier might rise from confusion
with the word noi, to go, to travel (Wb. II, 206.7-21), cf. Shisha-Halevy (1978: 152); FischerElfert (1986: 198-199).
36 nDm: Cf. (Wb. II, 378.9-379.21; 380.1-18) and the various attestations in the DZA. The Y1 classifier accompanies the word nDm also in pAnastasi I itself (4,6; 8,2), and also hru (Wb. II, 496.6497.11)
37 At least there seems to be a correlation between the classifier and our reading of the lexeme it
accompanies. It is, nevertheless, methodologically problematic to assert the scribes knowledge of
the words he is writing through the classifier system, since classifiers serve an important role in
our decipherment of mostly hapax legomena.
38 Several Aramaic words in the text are classified apparently according to their Egyptian homophones and not to their semantic content. Vleeming & Wesselius (1983-1984: 119) note that such
word-dividers are not used to convey semantic informationbut are used by the scribe merely as a
consequence of the way in which he associates the preceding consonants with certain Egyptian
words. The dependence upon homophones in classification is attested in other Egyptian texts as
well, cf. Kammerzell (forthcoming: 12). Note that the sporadic classification in pAmherst 63 shows
a similar distribution of classifiers to their distribution in foreign names the majority of words are
classified extra-semantically, while mainly divine entities are still classified according to their
referent.
39 Allan (1977:285); Aikhenvald (2006: 463); Grinevald (2003: 94, 96-97).

Niv Allon

they accompany brought many scholars to regard them as mere word dividers, whose
only function is to mark the end of words.40
Nevertheless, repetitive classifiers should not be thrown out so easily from the
system. After all, these signs are interchangeable with other classifiers, as evident in
those manuscripts in which one can find both sporadic and repetitive classification: section Z of pBM EA 10042, pAnastasi I,
pAmherst 63, and the spell from Wadi Hammamat. Moreover,
these signs are commonly used as classifiers and not as logograms
or phonograms through the history of the script, and they function
as such in other non-foreign parts of pBM EA 10042 and pAnastasi
I.41 The last spell of pBM EA 10042 provides even further corroboFig. 6:
ration, marking the end of words with a diagonal sign following
The diagonal
sign of the spell
each T14 hieroglyph (fig. 6).42 This sign does not accompany the
in section Z of
T14 classifier in other parts of the manuscript and it renders the
pBM EA 10042
function of the T14 as word-divider redundant.43
Non-semantic classifiers are attested also elsewhere in the Egyptian system.44 The
scribe of pAnastasi I shows quite an impressive knowledge of Semitic words and
expressions. In an ironic twist, he refers to his addressee as
Tpr ydo, a knowledgeable scribe.45 The T14 cannot be explained as
referring to the addressee, who is Egyptian through and through. This phenomenon
might be elucidated through Hochs remarks on the expression S(a)kaba/u-r(a)kaba/u
in Cairo 25759: The determinative indicates nothing other than the foreign origin of
the words.46 The T14 sign in both examples does not refer to the foreignness of a
person or of stones. It refers to the foreignness of the vocabulary.
The non-semantic function of the A2 classifier is even more common. Junge notes
that Late Egyptian employs far more general classifiers, compared to the common
orthographies of Middle Egyptian. In this process, he adds, while the classifiers
seem to lose their significance as indicators of meaning, their role as word
separators increase.47 The cross-linguistic comparison to oral classifiers shows a
similar process in which many classifiers undergo a process of semantic extension,
defining increasingly complex and heterogeneous classes.48 Nevertheless, the A2
40 See Zauzich (1985:128-130).
41 A2 appears for example with Sd, recite (pBM EA 10042, rto. VIII,1), and wnm (id. V, 10).
42 It might be interpreted as a rather elongated version of the Z5 sign, which serves usually as a
graphic marker, replacing a sign, which is rather difficult to render in Hieratic, cf. Mller (1965:
559) and Gardiner (1955: 537). In its employment in this spell, it seems to mark graphically the
end of the word rather than to replace another sign.
43 Zauzich (1985: 128-130) compares the A2 sign in pAmherst 63 to the phenomenon of worddividers in the Meroitic script, which mark the end of words with a sign of 2 or 3 points. Nevertheless it rather resembles that use of the diagonal sign in pBM EA 10042 than the A2 classifier, as
it does not function as a classifier in the Meriotic writing system.
44 For several other non-semantically motivated phenomena see Kammerzell (forthcoming: 12).
45 pAnastasi I 17,7; For a discussion and further bibliography see Fischer-Elfert (1986: 152).
46 Hoch (1994: 289). Nims & Steiner (1983: 263) describe similarly the employment of A2 classifiers
as a shift from the signified to the signifier in the foreign text of pAmherst 63.
47 Junge (2001: 34).
48 Grinevald (2004: 1027).

At the Outskirts of a System

classifier seems still to be mostly common with the category of [ORALITY] that incorporate words of eating, drinking, talking and such, and its metaphoric extension,
according to Goldwasser, of words of senses and emotions, such as love, think, plan,
etc.49
The A2 classifier appears, however, with another group of words, which is not
strictly semantic. Though more research is needed, it seems that already during the
Middle Kingdom and more frequently in the New Kingdom, the A2 classifier appears
with certain particles and interjections such as
, jn, a negation strengthener
after bn;
, h#n#/hn, a particle introducing an unfulfilled condition or wish;
, j#, an interjection or particle which is usually rendered as truly, indeed;
, my, a strengthener of the imperative and others.50 These particles and
interjections belong to the category of discourse markers or pragmatic markers,
which refer to the relations of the text (sentence, phrase, or even the discourse) to its
co-text, context, speaker, addressee and other variables. These relations might refer to
the situation in which the text is said, the intention of its speaker/writer or his assertion, etc.51 During the New Kingdom also several interrogative pronouns appear with
this classifier (
, njm, who,
, ptr, who, what).52 Arguably, these
may take this classifier because of their double function, both semantic and pragmatic,
marking the (inter)subjective nature of the sentence, though, further research is
needed.53
The A2
and the T14 classifiers are therefore part of the classifier system.
Nevertheless, their roles as semantic or as non-semantic classifiers do not suffice in
explaining the phenomenon of their appearance with (almost) any word in foreign
texts. A look at the phenomenon in a larger scale is more revealing.

3 Metatextual function and Semantic change

The distribution of the A2 hieroglyph received some attention by scholars who
worked on the Aramaic texts. Bowman suggests that the scribe used the A2 sign in
all cases in which no other determinative seemed pertinent to him.54 This residual
function would have probably employed, nevertheless, by the Y1 classifier, which
according to Kammerzells analysis of verb classifiers, denotes quite a heterogeneous
group of words, that have very little in common (mH, fill, gmi, find, sDm, hear, o#,
49 Goldwasser suggests that under the classification of the sub-category of [SENSES & EMOTIONS]
with the A2 classifier lies the deep structure metaphor [THE BODY IS A CONTAINER], see
Goldwasser (2005: 99, 111).
50 jn (Wb. I, 90.1; Junge 2001: 113), h#n#/hn (Wb. II, 481.7-9; Erman 1933: 689; Gardiner 1955:
288-293; erny & Groll 1993: 9.8), my (erny & Groll 1993: 9.16, 24.6.2), j# (Junge 2001: 322;
erny & Groll 1993: 9.4). For a different analysis of the particle jn see Groll (1970: 154-156).
51 This brief description is based upon analysis and observations on particles in Middle Egyptian
conducted by Oral (2010: 2).
52 njm (Junge 2001: 323), ptr (Wb. I, 565; 506.8). Note that not all interrogative pronouns and
particles appear with the A2 classifier as for example,
, jX (erny & Groll 1993: 61.7,
57.11).
53 An intersubjective function can be found in my, which according to Gardiner has an hortative sense
to it, cf. Gardiner (1955: 288).
54 Bowman (1944: 220).

10

Niv Allon

be great).55 Its function therefore is to mark a certain verb as neither being one of
the most frequent verbal lexemes with auxiliary functions (that carry no classifier at
all) nor belonging to one of the semantically more consistent categories.56 The Y1
classifier even serves this function in the non-foreign parts of pBM EA 10042 with
several words.57 The same Y1 classifier, however, is never employed as the default or
the residual classifier in foreign texts.58 Nims and Steiner suggest, in a similar
interpretation, that the A2 serves as a default classifier in this text since the word is
the basic unit of speech.59 Nevertheless, outside of this corpus, the A2 sign accompanies non-semantically a very limited group of words (interjections, particles and
interrogative pronouns), and not any word. Finally, Steiner claims in his later work
that the A2 classifier is an indicator of the scribes foreign language incompetence,
who used it for words whose meaning was not known to him.60 This explanation
would have also anticipated the Y1 classifier more than the A2 sign. Moreover, even
in pAmherst 63, whose word division and employment of sporadic classifiers is rather
problematic,61 it is clear that the scribe has knowledge of Aramaic according to certain orthographic methods he applies in the inscription of the text.62
The key to this irregular appliance of the A2 classifier is in the context. The
appearance of a non-semantic A2 classifier with a content word (as opposed to function words as particles, interjections and interrogative pronouns) is restricted to
foreign transliterated texts, and so is the phenomenon of a non-semantic repetitive
classifier. Furthermore, when foreign words appear in Egyptian texts, they usually
take a semantically motivated classifier, but when they appear as a part of a foreign
transliterated text, they either take a non-semantic repetitive classifier or they are
classified only sporadically. These different features of the phenomenon point to the
fact that the main factor in the employment of classifiers in foreign texts is in the
linguistic environment. In contrast to the common tendencies of the Egyptian classifier system according to Goldwasser,63 the classification in foreign transliterated texts
is influenced by a factor, which is well beyond the relation between the classifier and
the entity it refers to. The employment of such classifiers, much like the nouveau
55 mH (Wb. II, 116.6-118.10), gmj (Wb. V, 166.6-169.8), sDm (Wb. IV, 384.4-387.14), o#i (Wb. I,
162.13-17).
56 Kammerzell (forthcoming: 7). Priese (1973: 282-283) suggests that the plural marker,
or has a
similar function. He claims that it served as a word-divider in Egyptian, after it started accompanying abstract words and substances. He then argues that the Meroitic word-divider was adopted
from it. According to Quack (1994: 60), the plural marker is employed as a word-divider also in
pBoulaq 4. Werning (forthcoming: 106-107) suggests that in the Book of the Cavern the plural the
combination of the Y1 sign and the plural marker may denote a class of intangible and non-solid
entities, whereas the Y1 classifier may has also the function of denoting verbal-lemma.
57 stp (rto I,2), nDm (rto I,3), rX (VII, 1) Xtp (IX, 3) and others.
58 Spell no. 17 in pBM EA 10059 employs two sequential Y1 classifiers, but the spell is too fragmentary to determine whether it is a repetitive classifier. According to Steiners interpretation at least
one of the signs is semantically motivated, cf. Steiner (1992: 195).
59 Nims & Steiner (1983: 263).
60 Steiner (2001: 266).
61 The mistakes (especially the falsely divided words) an the use of determinatives show that the
scribe frequently did not understand what he was writing. (Nims & Steiner 1983: 262).
62 Kottsieper (2003: 98, 112).
63 Goldwasser (2002: 25).

At the Outskirts of a System

11

roman exemplifies the common tendencies, which the system is ruled by, and without
which the special employment of classifiers in foreign texts could not have been conspicuous as it is.
Even in such an abundantly classified text, like pBM EA 10059, the shift to a
classifierless or to a sporadically classified spell indexes its foreign linguistic environment.64 These classification strategies are, nevertheless, nothing new to the system,
and in no stage of the language are classifiers to be regarded as obligatory. The
employment of a specific classifier mainly as a metatextual marker is, in contrast,
truly innovative. Classifiers in general, and specifically in the Egyptian system,65 are
oriented to the content of the word, while the A2 and the T14 in their new function
are more markers of the linguistic environment. This scribal tradition exploits in a
new way the inherent features of the script, by using the classifiers system to mark the
linguistic environment of the text, and by applying non-semantic classifiers as the
predominant classifier in the text. The motive for this innovation is most aptly understood through Goldwasser and Grinevalds analysis of the classifiers role as reading
aids. By marking the linguistic environment as foreign, the repetitive classifiers influence the process of reading and open a different horizon of expectations in every
aspect of the language: lexicon, grammar, discourse, etc. Scholars of applied linguistics and mainly those who research second languages point out the importance of
metalinguistic awareness and the identification of the proper strategies applicable for
the interpretation of the text.66 Through the classifiers the reader is signaled to abandon the decoding and word-recognition processes relevant to Ancient Egyptian, and to
apply others when possible.67 The special employment of classifiers has another function, when it appears in multilingual manuscripts. Phrases and quotes in a foreign
language seem to function also on the level of the discourse, occurring at a boundary
between texts or different elements of talk,68 as for example between spell and
paratextual elements (title and instructions). Thus the switch to another code, which is
reflected in the different nature of classifiers, contributes to the structuring of a
discourse.69
64 A similar manipulation of the classifier system takes place in cryptographic orthography, in which
classifiers are quite uncommon, cf. Darnell (2004: 8).
65 Werning suggests that certain signs, such as the Z1, operate on different levels of the language
(Semogrammindex and Grammatoindex), and do not refer to the semantic content of the word. The
prominent part of the system, nevertheless, comprises of classifiers (Werning, forthcoming: 108109).
66 Grabe (2009: 243) refers mainly to the organizational patterns of the discourse in the text; nevertheless, in the predominant contexts in the surveys of applied linguistic the nature of the text as
foreign is given even before the reading began.
67 For an analysis of reading a foreign language and reading processes see Grabe (2009: 141).
Though group writing might be considered as another cue to the foreign nature of the text, quite a
number of Egyptian words are written in this system, as for example certain particles in the New
Kingdom, as jn and h#n# mentioned above, cf. Ward (1996: 26-27); Junge (2001: 43-44).
68 Similarly to discourse markers, which do not always follow syntactic divisions of sentences or
other definitions of speech/textual units, cf. Schiffrin (1987: 31). It is important to note the bracketing of textual units does not imply any hierarchy, cf. Traugott & Dasher (2002: 154).
69 In medieval medical writings, for example, which share many features with Ancient Egyptian
magical and medical texts, code-switching operates quite commonly as a text-organizing device,
see Pahta (2004), especially 4.5.3.

12

Niv Allon

The innovative usage of classifiers is actually quite regular in terms of semantic

change. It shares many features with the process Traugott and Dasher analyze in their
book, Regularity in Semantic change, as pragmaticalization, i.e. a shift from the
semantic to the pragmatic domain,70 in which there is a tendency toward metatextual
meaning, or more specifically a shift from de re to de dicto.71 In this process words
such as actually, indeed, and others enter the system as content words and appropriate
over the course of time another metatextual or discursive meaning/function.72 Though
pragmaticalization describes usually the semantic change of lexemes, this model is
applicable also to the case of the A2 and the T14 classifiers. Starting their way in the
Egyptian classifier system, they mark referents, which belong to the categories of
[ORALITY] such as eat, drink, love and [FOREIGN] such as personal names and
toponyms. Similar to Traugott and Dashers examples, even when the classifiers
acquire their new function as metatextual markers, they do not lose their older meanings. While in some lexemes the older meanings become restricted to certain contexts,
in regards to classifiers, it is their pragmatic function that is found only in foreign
texts. The Egyptian classifiers might diverge from the model described by Traugott
and Dasher in the issue of intentionality. Lexemes such as indeed and in fact acquire a
new meaning/function, which is often unconscious or unintentionally employed. It is,
however, questionable to what extent the employment of the A2 and the T14 classifiers is unconscious, considering the unique environment of transliterated texts as well
as the variety of classification strategies during the New Kingdom. As for the Late
Period, the scarcity of transliterated texts and the chronological gap between the two
clusters of texts render this question quite problematic to answer.
Traugott and Dashers model illuminates the importance of finer analyzing in
order to follow the evolution of a lexeme or a sign. The relation between word and
speech proves to be too vague in the description of this change, as the A2 classifier
doesnt seem to develop into a general default classifier. The non-semantic employment of A2 with particles, interrogative pronouns and interjections is probably an
important link in its evolution. After being tied to pragmatic elements, which have a
bearing on the discourse or on a textual unit, the A2 classifier itself has acquired such
function and is utilized as a metatextual sign by competent scribes.

4 Concluding remarks
The margins of a system sometimes have the benefit of elucidating certain phenomena
otherwise left unnoticed at its busy center. Out of ten foreign transliterated texts or
textual units, only one classifies its lexemes according to the standards of the Egyptian classifier system during the New Kingdom and later on. The others may be
divided into two groups: those, which alternate the frequency of classifiers, shifting
between no classifiers to sporadic classification; and those, which employ classifiers
70 Traugott (1982), for a similar employment of the term see Aijmer (1996).
71 Traugott & Dasher (2002: 40). Though they seem to put much stress on co-text as an important
factor in the process, Erman & Kotsinas (1993) refer to a wider notion of context: they are
highly contextualized, that is they can only be interpreted in context.
72 Indeed and similar words are discussed specifically in Traugott & Dasher (2002: 159-170). A
summary of cross linguistics regularities in semantic change is outlined on p. 281.

At the Outskirts of a System

13

in a new and innovative way. In the latter group a specific classifier, most prominently the A2 classifier , is employed repeatedly almost after every word, signaling
metatextually the unusual nature of the text. The process in which the A2 classifiers
function is enriched resembles in many of its features a cross-linguistic process of
semantic change, which is described as pragmaticalization a process in which words
that refer to entities in the world add to their function a more metatextual or pragmatic
function and refer to the text or to the discourse.73
Lexemes and signs do not alter their meaning on their own. These processes take
place, especially in ancient Egypt, in the hands of scribes who strategically choose to
employ a certain classification method. The scribe of pBM EA 10059 of the 18th
Dynasty, for example, prefers to move between full classification and using no classifiers, remaining within the borders of the system.74 The scribe of pBM EA 10042 of
the 19th or 20th Dynasty, in contrast, chooses to use the repetitive classifier, employing
once the A2 classifier and once the T14 classifier. Therefore, the scribal tradition,
which Steiner identifies in the classifier system of pAmherst 63 and the spell of Wadi
Hammamat,75 has its roots in the New Kingdom and is evident in the magical papyrus
of pBM EA 10042 and pAnastasi I. This change in the employment of the A2 classifier reveals the relative freedom in which scribes can explore new ways of expression
within the constraints of the system. These new functions are valuable in the process
of decoding and extracting meaning from the text.
The employment of the A2 classifier with certain particles and interjections is an
important point in the evolution of the A2 sign to its role as a metatextual classifier. In
that stage it still functions in relation to a specific word and to a specific class of
words. These words, however, do not belong to the group of content words; they are
discourse markers and metatextually functioning lexemes. Since these words are not
content words, their relation to the otherwise semantically motivated A2 sign is
quite ambiguous. Metonymy, which according to Traugott and Dasher is an important
mechanism in the pragmaticalization process, seems to have also a distinct role in the
semantic change of the two classifiers. Similar to the lexemes analyzed by Traugott
and Dasher, the A2 classifiers new roles have much in common with its earlier
73 The reduced number of classifiers and the low semantic motivation are also well-attested attributes
of dying or decaying classifier systems, cf. Grinevald (2004: 1028-1029). Nevertheless, the new
function of the A2 and T14 classifiers points to the productivity of the Egyptian classifier system
and to its flexibility. Moreover, the vitality of the system is reflected in many other texts and in the
treatment of new words that enter the system. If these features were the outcome of decay or
freezing of the system, then they should have occurred outside of the context of foreign texts,
obliterating the markedness of the repetitive classifiers.
74 pBM EA 10059 could be a compilation of spells of different manuscripts, each exhibiting similar
classification strategies separately. The examination of such corpuses as the Coffin Texts and the
Books of the Dead suggests otherwise, as certain classification preferences seem to be evident in
the overall manuscript rather than in specific parts of it. It follows, therefore, that the employment
of classifiers was influenced by the concrete scribe of each manuscript, who was not compelled to
copy the exact writing of each word. See for example the employment of the Sethian classifier in
one version of the Book of the Dead pCairo CG 51189, (pJuja; Munro 1994: II, pl. 46-72), and
its avoidance in another pLondon BM EA 10477 (pNu; see for example the writing of the nSnj
and its derivations in Lapp 1997: pl. 49, l. 8 and pl. 21, l.6).
75 Steiner (2001: 266).

14

Niv Allon

meanings accompanying words of intention and emotions as well as of speech and

orality, as pointed out by Bowman. The T14 classifier adds to its functions as a
marker of foreignness of entities the function of foreignness of speech. Nevertheless,
this paper has only been able to draw very briefly the outlines of such a change and to
bring into light certain points on its trajectory. The role of subjectification, the move
to a more expressive subject oriented point of view,76 might be relevant to the A2
classifier in its appearance with particles and interjections, but further research is
needed. In order to fully understand the process undergone by the A2 and the T14
classifiers and the way in which new meanings are added to its function, a more finegrained analysis of their evolution is needed, with due attention to contexts and ambiguities.

Bibliography
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. I think an English Modal Particle, in: Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds.),
Modality in Germanic Languages, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-48.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
2006. Classifiers and Noun Classes: Semantics, in: Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Languages
and Linguistics I, 2nd edition, Oxford: Elsevier, 463-470.
Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers, in: Language 53, 285-311.
Anthes, Rudolf. 1961. Das Verbum Sni umschlieen, bannen in den Pyramidentexten, in: Zeitschrift
fr gyptische Sprache 86, 86-89.
BDB = Francis B. Brown, Samuel R. Driver & Charles A. Briggs, 2005. The Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon, 9th edition, Peabody (MA): Hendrickson Publishers.
Borghouts, Joris F. 1978. Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts, Nisaba 9, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Bowman, Raymond A. 1944. An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic Script, in: Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 3.4, 219-231.
erny, Jaroslav & Sarah I. Groll. 1993. A Late Egyptian Grammar, 4th edition, Rome: Biblical Institute
Press.
Darnell, John C. 2004. The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic
Compositions in the Tomb of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 198, Fribourg: Academic Press & Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
DZA = Digitalisiertes Zettelarchiv des Wrterbuches der gyptischen Sprache, Berlin
(http://aaew.bbaw.de/dza/index.html).
Erman, Adolf. 1933. Neuaegyptische Grammatik, Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.
Erman, Britt & Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The Case of ba and you know, in:
Studier i modern sprkvetenskap 10, 76-93.
Fischer-Elfert, Hans-Werner. 1986. Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I: bersetzung
und Kommentar, gyptologische Abhandlungen 44, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1992. Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I: Textzusammenstellung, Kleine gyptische
Texte, 2nd edition, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gardiner, Alan H. 1911. Egyptian Hieratic Texts: I. Literary Texts of the New Kingdom, Leipzig: J.C
Hinrichs, 1*-34*, 1-40a.
1955. Remarques sur la particule dmotique hmy: Lettre de Sir Alan H. Gardiner a M.C. De Wit,
in: Chronique dEgypte 30, 288-293.
1957. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd edition, Oxford:
Griffith Institute.

76 Traugott & Dasher (2002: 30).

At the Outskirts of a System

15

Goldwasser, Orly. 2002. Prophets, Lovers and Giraffes: Wor(l)d Classification in Ancient Egypt, with
an Appendix by Matthias Mller, Gttinger Orientforschungen IV/38, Classification and Categorisation in Ancient Egypt 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2005. Where Is Metaphor? Conceptual Metaphor and Alternative Classification in the Hieroglyphic Script, in: Metaphor and Symbol 20.2, 95-113.
2006. A Comparison between Classifier Language and Classifier Script: The Case of Ancient
Egyptian, in: Gideon Goldenberg (ed.) A Festschrift for Hans Jakob Polotsky, Jerusalem: Magnes,
16-39.
Goldwasser, Orly & Collette Grinevald. Forthcoming, What Are Determinatives Good For?
Grabe, William. 2009. Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice, The
Cambridge Applied Linguistics series, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grandet, Pierre. 1994. Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999), vol. I & II, Bibliothque dtude 109, Cairo:
Institut franais darchologie orientale.
Grinevald, Collette. 2000. A Morpho-Syntactic Typology of Classifiers, in: Gnter Senft (ed.), Systems
of Nominal Classification, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50-92.
2003. Classifier Systems in the Context of a Typology, in: Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on
Classifier Constructions in Sign Language, Mahwah (N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2004. Classifiers, in: Geert Booij, Christian Lehman, et al. (eds.), Morphology: An International
Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyer, II, 10161031.
Groll, Sarah I. 1970. The Negative Verbal System of Late Egyptian, London: Oxford University Press.
Helck, Wolfgang. 1989. Grundstzliches zur sog. Syllabischen Schreibung, in: Studien zur Altgyptischen Kultur 16, 121-143.
Hoch, James E. 1994. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate
Period, Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press.
Hornung, Erik. 1988. Zum Schutzbild im Grabe Ramses VI, in: Jacques H. Kamstra, Henk Milde &
Kees Wagtendonk (eds.), Funerary Symbols and Religion, Kampen: J.H. Kok, 45-51.
Junge, Friedrich. 2001. Late Egyptian Grammar: An Introduction, translated by David Warburton,
Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Kammerzell, Frank. Forthcoming. Egyptian Verb Classifiers, in: Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, Rhodes: University of the Aegean.
Kottsieper, Ingo. 1988a. Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63, I: Teil II-V, in: Ugarit-Forschungen 29,
385-434.
1988b. Papyrus Amherst 63 Einfhrung, Text und bersetzung von 12,11-19, in: Oswald Loretz,
Die Knigspsalmen. Die altorientalisch-kanaanische Knigstradition in jdischer Sicht, Teil 1,
Ugaritisch biblische Literatur 6, Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 55-75.
1997. El ferner oder naher Gott? Zur Bedeutung einer semitischen Gottheit in verschiedenen
sozialen Kontexten im 1. Jtsd.v.Chr, in: Rainer Albertz (ed.), Religion und Gesellschaft: Studien zu
ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen des Antiken Vorderen Orients, Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 248, Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 25-74.
2003. Zum Hintergrund des Schriftsystems im Pap. Amherst 63, in: Dutch Studies 5.1, 89-115.
Lapp, Gnter. 1997. Catalogue of Books of the Dead in the British Museum I: The Papyrus of Nu (BM
EA 10477), London: British Museum Press.
Leitz, Christian. 1999. Magical and Medical Papyri of the New Kingdom, London: British Museum
Press for the Trustees of the British Museum.
McDonald, Angela. 2004. [Review of] Orly Goldwasser. Prophets, Lovers and Giraffes: Wor(l)d
Classification in Ancient Egypt, in: Lingua Aegyptia 12, 235-244.
Meeks, Dimitry. 1997. Les emprunts gyptiens aux langues smitiques durant le Nouvel Empire et la
Troisime Priode Intermdiaire. Les alas du comparatisme, in: Bibliotheca Orientalis 54, 32- 61.
Mller = Georg Mller. 1965. Hieratische Palographie: Die aegyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von der fnften Dynastie bis zur rmischen Kaiserzeit dargestellt I-III, Neudruck (= 2nd
edition 1927-1936), Osnabrck: Zeller.
Munro, Irmtraut. 1994. Die Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Museum Cairo, gyptologische Abhandlungen 54, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Nims, Charles F. & Richard C. Steiner. 1983. A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic
Text in Demotic Script, in: Journal of American Oriental Studies 103.1, 261-274.

16

Niv Allon

1984. You Cant Offer your Sacrifice and Eat it Too: A Polemical Poem from the Aramaic Text in
Demotic Script, in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43, 89-114.
1985. Ashurbanipal and Shamash-Shum-Ukin: A Tale of Two Brothers from the Aramaic Text in
Demotic Script, Part 1, in: Revue biblique 92,60-81
Nyord, Rune. Forthcoming. Useful writings. Studies in ancient Egyptian rubrics.
Oral, Elsa. 2010. Les particules en gyptien ancien. De lancien gyptien lgyptien classique,
Bibliothque dEgyptologie 152, Cairo.
Pahta, Pivi. 2004. Code-switching in Medieval Medical Writing, in: Irma Taavitsainen & Pivi Pahta
(eds.), Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Peet, Thomas E. 1972. The Egyptian Writing-board B.M. 5647, Bearing Keftiu Names, in: Stanley
Casson, Essays in Aegean Archaeology: Presented to Sir Arthur Evans in Honour of his 75th
Birthday, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 90-99.
Priese, Karl-Heinz. 1973. Zur Entstehung der meroitischen Schrift, in: Fritz Hintze (ed.), Sudan im
Altertum: 1. Internationale Tagung fr meroitistische Forschungen in Berlin 1971, Meroitica
1, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 273-306.
Quack, Joachim F. 1994. Die Lehren des Ani: ein neugyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem kulturellen
Umfeld, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 141, Freiburg (Schweiz): Universittsverlag.
Ritner, Robert K. 1993. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 54, Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Senft, Gnter (ed.). 2000. Systems of Nominal Classification, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1986. Syllabische Schreibung, in: Wolfgang Helck & Wolfhart Westendorf
(eds.), Lexikon der gyptologie VI, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 114-122.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, Thomas. 1989. Mag. pHarris XII, 1-5: Eine kanaanische Beschwrung fr die Lwenjagd?
in: Gttinger Miszellen 112, 53-63.
1992. Asiatische Personennamen in gyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 114, Freiburg (Schweiz): Universittsverlag.
Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. 1978. An Early North-West Semitic Text in the Egyptian Hieratic Script, in:
Orientalia 47, 145-162.
Steiner, Richard C. 1992. Northwest Semitic Incantations in an Egyptian Medical Papyrus of the Fourteenth Century B.C.E. in: Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51.3, 191-200.
1997. The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script, in: William W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture I:
Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden & New York: Brill, 309-327.
2001. The Scorpion Spell from Wadi Hammamat: Another Aramaic Text in Demotic Script, in:
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60.4, 259-268.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semanticpragmatic aspects of grammaticalization, in: Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 245-271.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change, Cambridge & New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Vittmann, Gnter. 1984. Ein Zauberspruch gegen Skorpione im Wadi Hammamat, in: Heinz J. Thissen
& Karl-Theodor Zauzich (eds.), Grammata Demotika: Festschrift fr Erich Lddeckens zum 15.
Juni 1983, Wrzburg: Zauzich, 245-256, pl. 35.
Vleeming, Sven P. & Jan W. Wesselius, 1983-1984. Betel the Saviour, in: Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux
28, 110-140.
1985. Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63: Essays on the Aramaic texts in Aramaic-demotic Papyrus
Amherst 63, vol. I, Amsterdam: Juda Palache Instituut.
1990. Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63: Essays on the Aramaic texts in Aramaic-demotic Papyrus
Amherst 63, vol. II, Amsterdam: Juda Palache Instituut.
Ward, William A. 1996. A New Look at Semitic Personal Names and Loanwords in Egyptian, in:
Chronique dgypte 141, 17-47.
Wb. = Adolf Erman & Hermann Grapow. 1926-1963. Wrterbuch der gyptischen Sprache, LeipzigBerlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Werning, Daniel A. Forthcoming. Das Hhlenbuch: Textkritische Edition und Textgrammatik.

At the Outskirts of a System

17

Wthrich, Anik. 2009. Abracadabras mrotiques dans le Livre des Morts?, in: Burkhard Backes,
Marcus Mller-Roth & Simone Sthr (eds.), Ausgestattet mit den Schriften des Thot: Festschrift
fr Irmtraut Munro zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Zauzich, Karl-Theodor. 1985. Abrakadabra oder gyptisch? Versuch ber einen Zauberspruch, in:
Enchoria 13, 119-132.
Zibelius-Chen, Karola. 2005. Die nicht gyptischsprachigen Lexeme und Syntagmen in den chapitres
supplmentaires und Sprchen ohne Parallelen des Totenbuches, in: Lingua Aegyptia 13, 181-224.
Zorn, Jeffery R. 1991. L. pa-ma-a-a in EA 162:74 and the Role of the MHR in Egypt and Ugarit, in:
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50.2, 129-138.