Die Protasis jr sdm·f ... - Some Afterthoughts. Lingua Aegyptia 4, 1994, 271-274

LingAes 4 (1994), 27l-7 4

..DIE

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

HelmutSatzinger,Wien The paperI presentedat the conference,"Die Protasisjr sQm.fim rilterenAgyptisch", was publishedn LingAeg 3 (1993). Here now, somereflectionson the discussionthat followedmy presentation. The paperwas a reactionto M. Malaise,sstudy, .,La conjugaison suffixale dans les propositions conditionelles introduites pr ir en ancien et moyen 6gyptien",cdE 60 (1985), 152-167.In his analysisof examplesof jr wnn.f plus circumstantialverbal form he concludesthat theseare the expressionof Middle Egyptian hypotheticalconditions. A comparableinterpretationis given by L. Depuydt, ,,TheEnd of lr.f sdm.finthe Heqanakhte Letters",RdE 39 (1988), 204, and"Late Egyptian ,Inn, ,if , and the conditional clausein Egyptian",JEA77 (1991),69-77.lnview of the hypothesisthat ir wnn.fplus circumstantialform is conditionedby stylistic or pragmaticaspects,it seemed advisableto draw the attentionto somebasicstructuralfacts(that were,by the way, already innuce seenby Gardinerl:the use of the periphrasticverbalphrase#wnn.f plus circumstantialform# is syntacticallyconditionedand has nothing to do with moods of the apodosis. This is just one more manifestationof the tripartitie pattern,#Particle/I.Ioun/VerbNoun-Adverb#,that dominateslargepartsof 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 coreferentialwith the subjectnoun of the matix construction(i.e., the signifiö of both subjectsis identical).This embeddingis probably effectedby joining the Adverbial Sentenceto the matrix consfuction: #(particle^.{oun/ Verbo."6-Nounsuuj) * (Nounro63-Adverbn."J#. Subsequently,the secondappearanceof 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"

Helmut Satzinger

one chosenabovewhich rendersthe resultof this embedding,ratherthan the processus: "predicatenucleus"-"subject"-"predicateextension". Thereis anotherpatternwhich resemblesrathercloselythe tripartite pattemjust discussed, althoughit is apparentlybipartite. It is obviously madeup of the first and the third elementsof the tripartite pattem,the secondbeingabsent.The initial elementsare the same. The paradigmof forms that areto be found in the secondposition is comparableto, though not identical with, the one of the third position of the tripartite pattern. It seems clear thereforethat we aredealingwith a variant of the tripartitepattern.All the constructionsof the secondpositionencompass theexpression ofan agent(in the caseofthe Passive,rather a "patient"). In the endeavourtowardsreconcilingthe two paradigmsrecoursemay be had to the assumed "presence"of a zerosubjectbetweenthefrst andthe secondelement:

Jw mk ;bj (and others) nn ntj forms ofwnn

adverbial sdm.n.f Passive negativeconstructions : n sdm.f n sdm.n.f emphasizingconstruction

Thefirst elementis a verb(wnn),or anelementof basicallyattributiveadjectivalnature (ntj, ntt), or some kind of a predicativeadjective (nn), or one of several particles of controversialnature and origin ffra mk, is!; negativer0. eputt from jw, each of these elementsis also found in truly bipartite constructionswhere it plays the predicativepart: wnn pt'as long as heavenshall exist' Urk. IV, 305, 8; ib., 348, 9 (see Gardiner, Grammar,$ 107;imperfectiveorprospective2 sdm.0;bw ntj nlr'the placewheregod is' (lit. '... in relationto which ...') CT V 274d(B2Bo)3;nk wj,hereI am!', .me-voici!,(see Gardiner,Grammar,p. 179,3);nn me'tjw 'thereareno righteous'Lebensm.122.a It may be surmisedthattheyarealsopredicativewhenextendedby a third element,i.e., in the tripartite construction. The second elementof the tripartite pattem is invariable a noun. It is obviously the subject.It hasno counterpartin the pseudo-bipartite pattemand it was suggestedthat it is zetoedin thesecases.The zerosubjectis a known featureof Middle Egyptian.sIn many casesit canbe interpretedasthe expressionof an indefinite pronoun.A particularpattem is jwQStative (3rdpersonmasc. sing.),6as in jw6 s! n jn st tp ts,'(it) goesfavourably with him who doesit on earth' (Gardiner,Grammar,388,1). In analogyto this, pseudobipartiteconstructions like jw sjm.n.fhavebeeninterpretedasjw ö sdm.n.f '(it) is while z ^ r 4 5 6

Using J. Allen's terminology; thus "prospectivesQm.f'means the sameas what is otherwise called "s{mw.f' or even"prospeciwes!mw.f'. Satzinger,BiOr 44 (1987),620; cf. id., Attribut und Relativsatzim Alteren Agyptisch, in Studienzu Spracheund Religion Agyptens(FestschriftW. Westendorfl,1984, 132. Cf. Satzinger,Neg. Konstr. g 51. Gardiner,Grammar g 486; alsocf. Edel, Grammatikg 992. Gardiner,Grammar g467; Westendorf,Grammatik| 776.

Die hotasis ir sdm.f

he hasheard'.7But of course,the analogyis not perfect:whereasin jw 6 sf... the subjects of jw and of the verb arecoreferential(thecommonsignifiö is the indefinite idea expressed by zero),in iw O süm.n.ftheyarenot: theverbhasanothersubject,this time a personalor definiteone which is not expressedby zero. However, thesetwo casesare on different levelsin termsof diachrony.Whereasthe pattemjw b statle is living Middle Egyptian, i.e.,it is formedalongthelinesof this idiom, thepseudo-bipartite patternmust be regarded asa grarnrnatrcaltz'ed structurethat cannotbe analysedanymorewithin the Middle Egyptian system. The third elementis either an adverbial,or an adverbialverb form. or a construction thatmay haveadverbialfunction:the properadverbials,includingthe "gerunds,,(br sdm, m sQm,r sQm),areadverbialby definition. The sameis true of the "circumstantial"sdm.f, the "circumstantial"sQm.n.fandthePassive,althoughsomeauthorsclaim that theseforms arebasicallyindicative,but havecometo be mostlyusedcircumstantially, i.e., as adverbs. As for the negativeconstructions,the situationis the other way round: mostly, they are indicative;but eachandeveryone of them may also be used adverbially. Almost the same is true of the nfr sw construction:thereare-apart from its indicativeuse-a few instances whereit is circumstantial.8 The hardestcaseis that of the emphasizing constructions.I do not know of anyMiddle Egyptianinstancesof an emphasizing constructionbeingusedas a clauseof circumstance.9 But as its basicconstructionis the AdverbialSentence,it may be thought possible and natural that emphasizing constructions can also be used circumstantially,actuallythey arein LateEgyptianloandlater. The decision for either of the two patterns (tripartite or pseudo-bipartite)depends largely on the form of the predicativeextension,cf. the diagramsgiven above. There is, however,a grey areaor transitorycases.Thepredicativeextensionsdm.f(circumstantial) is found not only in the tripartitepattern,jw.f (etc.) sQm.f,but also in severalcasesin the pseudo-bipartite pattem,jw (etc)sdm.fl1 It is true,in somecasesthe sdm.f afterbarejw is obviously"emphatic"(cf. examples(9) to (14) in my paper),but otherinstancesde$zthis interpretation. Johnsonthoughtshe had discoveredinstancesof mk + prospective(or subjunctive) sdm.f.l2 Polotsky has suggestedregardingclauses of purpose, formed with the subjunctive sdm.f,asthe circumstantialClausesof themode.But apartfrom thathypothesis, it would not be possibleto grouptheseforms amongthosethat areeither adverbialby nature, or may be used adverbially.I think, however,that Johnsonwas mistaken.In the three / 8 9

Cf. Satzinger,GM 115(1990),102. Gardiner,Grammar,p. 290; Westendorf,Grammatikg l7l. There are post-classicalexamples,like iw jj.n.j r snsn $r.tn...'it being in orderto praise you and... that I have come,' Berlin 2o8l,s-i of the XXth dynasty,quotedby wente, ,INES 2g (1969), 10. Here, however,we are not dealingwith a bareemphasizingconstructionbut rather one that is embedded into a jw construction. 10 Polotsky,Etudes,75-76;LRI20,5; 41,4; 45, t5; 55, t3-14:6j, 8. ll Cf. Satzinger,GM tt5 (l9g}),gg-102. 12 Johnson,The Use of the Particle mkin Middle Egyptian Letters, in Studien4u Spracheund Religion Agyptens(Fs.westendorf, r984)I,71-g5,inparticularpp.Tg-g0, exx.24a,24band25a.

Helmut Satzinser

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