PROBLEMS OF ADJ ECTIVAT CONSTRUCTIONS

IN

OLD AND MIDDLE EGYPTIAN

Edmund S" Meltzer

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Toronto1980

TABLE OF'CONTENTS

1

17

tt4

r59

186

249

26r

284

-24--i-

CONCIUSIONS

ft is not feasible, with the data or EeanE at ourd.isposal, to establish a derivational hierarchy of qualita-tive adjectlves vis-&-vis substantives, particlples orverbs in Egyptiao. Nisbe adjeetives, on the other hand.,

are relational adjectives, as already noted, by vergote, aodtheir singular morphosyntaeti-c characteristics can be

und.erstood ia light of that fact. The exceptioaal pred.ica-tive use of nisbes is mainl-y found. with possessive pred.icatecoastructtons, which are exceptional in otber respects as

well; and it is possible that the pred.icative use sf nisbesoutside of the posseseive sonstructions, as welL as the veryrare attestation of adjective-verbs fron nisbes, is dialec_ta1. N&*, "divi-nerrt is not a niebe but is a qualitativeadj ectlve.

The descriptive nodifier systen of Egyptian is charac_terized by doublet (or even more prolific) construetions inmost categories (.fug., direct and. iad.irect geniti-ve, apposi_tion with and without the g of pred.icatlon, at least threeconstructions uader the heading of ad.jective + qualifyingnoun, and. aa even greater profusion of relative construc-tigns -- over and above the ,marked"rr and rrvirtualrt relativeclauses). of particular iaterest are the pnesencc offormally ad.verbial modifiers alongsid.e forually adjectivalcoastructions as nou[ qualifiers, and the occasional cross-over fron oRe category to the other. rt is oftea diffieult

-fz,t _250_

to deteraine the degree of fornal differentiatiou betueea

etynologically-related. adjectives and adverbs because of

the unvooalized script and other orthographie coasidera-

tions. [here is a further unoertaiaty involved in forually

d.efining the category of adverbials in Old and Middle Egyp-

tlan. Ia the category of relative clauses, strictly

d.efined. (aor is it elear precisely what the parameters of

this category should be)r the adjectival nod.ifier is

f* a"fioit":l , whiLe predomi-aaatly ad.verbial nod.ifiers are

f- a"fittt"l; outsid.e this Ramow category, this d.istj-sctiou

does not ho1d..

The use of the adiectival epithet (qualitai;ive or nisbe)

in Egyptian cannot conrriacingly be correlated with the

definiteness or indefiniteness of the antecedeat; nor can

it be demonstrated conslueively that the adjectival epithet

in Egyptian is restrictive, and it nay well show a restric-

tive,/non-restri ctive anbiguity.Prepositioaal epithetsr prepositional nisbes + coraple-

nents, and relative clauses of the form tsEL + prepositional

phrase are all realizatioas of underlying adverbial pred.i-

cates. Of these constructions, only relative clauaes are

narked. for t-+ d.efinite-l . Beyond this, it is not easy toL.Jldentify the criteria by which one or angther of these con-

structlons appears ia the suTface structu:le. The choj-ce issometines ascribable to the preference for a given type of

expression with certaia semantic categories; preposltional

_251_

epithets are often used in ,syntactic derivations,r (inclu-ding the use of prepositional phrases closely construed.

with verbs). However, idionatic usages as a whole reuainan i11-defined area. We would suggest that discgurse

strueture plays an important role in motivating the selec-tion of one or another of these constructions.

The area of prepositio4gle4verbq is characterized. by

much interplay between adverbial and pronominal norphemes.

The use of igE/i""(?) as a circumlocutioa for third. personpronouns provided iuportant inpetus for the emerBeace of rw

as a thi-rd. pexson plural suffi-x-prorroun.

rn old and^ Mid.dle Egyptian, locative and partitive inshould be considered the same word. When the late suffix-pronoun r! of the third persoa p1ura1_ had. becoue estab-lished., the ad.verb in tend.ed. to be replaced. by the positionalallomoqph of the preposition m + the suffix-pronoun .Er 1:g.,. - J -. -in.w and 4:-imry. rt is most like1y that the forn represetr-* o, ,oilli*u, (locative, and i.a eristential and posses-

sive eentencee) arose secondarlly as a specialised variantof n-in.:r, rhich ia other constructioas in coptie appears as

FIMOOY. Thus Ft{ny and, ItmOOY nost probably d.o not representtwo origiaally distiact ad.verbial words.

The prevalliag obsolescence of the uorphosyntactiocategory of thc ad.jeetival epithet i-a the later history ofthe Egyptian language enconpasses both qualitative aad. rela-tional (aisbe) adJectives. Ad.jeetival attributes in the

IF--)q?-

laterphasesofEgyptiatr(culninatinginCoptic)areincreasinglyexpressed.bytheattributivegenitiveandbyrelative aod. circumstantial (ttvirtual relativetr ) clauses --

constructioaswhichalreadywerepresentiatherepertoireof forms in the earlier period.s, but which were not ful1y

diversifiedandexploitedinthead.jectivalrea.lB.Thus'it can sonetimes be obgerved tbat' wheu there are several

availableoonstructions,theuseofand.eventualpreferenceforoneisinaceordwiththebroad'principlesofthcmorphosyntaetic developneat of the l-anguage' Syncbronic

paraphraserelationsaad'diachroniedevelopnentsoftenshow

twoaspectsofthesamepicture;thes.r'achroniclittlebyIittle feeds intor o3 adds up to, the diachroaic.

Belatlvg--gfggr 85 derived' adjeetive-equlvalents

construeted. with the nisbe-fornations gEI "Bd fuJ,,Z' share

certainessentialeharacteristiosofthere}ationalcategorycLauses

of adjectives; thus phrase

aregotusedasad.Jcctivalpredicates/.Perhapsthis,agmuch as red.und.ancy, cxplaias the apparent eonstraint in

valpredicateg(u.,therelativizationofsentelrceswithad.Jeetivalpred'ieatce).Thcapparentexceptioatothisconstraint ts the relativizatioa of seotences with thc predi-

cative negativ€ EE. Ia the lateIr pbases of Egyptian' with

theobsolescenceoftheuseofthequalitativeadJectiveasarrepithet,relativeclausescometoellcotrpassasignifieant

-2r)-

portion of the realm of quali_tati-ve ad.jectives. rt isposslble that the distincti-on between p.E@r anaclause-level relative constructions is significant, thelatter category being und.erstood. to includ.e relativized.erpressions which, as Borghouts notes, have been incorpo_rated into phrase 1eve1 constructions or have crossed. oversecondarily into phrase 1evel. Rerative clausesr arld rela_tive constructions as a r*hole, are a meeting-ground ofsyntactic leve1s.

Ng and irrtx d.ivid.e between them the funeti.ons of anegative ad"iestive. Moreover, the use of an in ,rvirtuelrelativestt alongsid.e iwty or nty + na in rmarkedr relativesparallels the use of prepositional epithets alongsideprepositional aisbes or relative clauses consisting of nty+ prepositional phrase.

The old perfective aE a ,.oua qualifier i.s probablyaost often used when the stative sense of the attribute orcharacteristic ia questioa is being emphasized. (as well asia the semantic category f+ courlete]l , whieh prefers ad.ver_bial uodi-fiers). The possibility shourd. be consid.ered. that"adverbs derived. fron ad.jectival or verbal stems,r shoningthe ending .v or 'its reflexes originate in an adverbial useof the third pexson nasculine singular foru of the oldPerfective- The speetrum of meanings and uses shown by theo1d Perf,eetive, an. by eognate forms in related. langua*es,ean probably best be understood in terms of the original

J!f,--2*-

existence.of a multiplicity of patterns within (or at least

und.erlyiog) the forms in question. These patterns should

most likely be regard'ed, not as inaovations within the

respectivelanguaBesorsub-families,butasirrb'eritedfromProto-Afroasiatic and' Proto-Senitic, various patteras or

combinations of patterns survivin6 (or beiag adapted') in

each of the daughter languages'

The area of adjective + qualifying noun is an extrene

exaupleofaSxoupofcloselyinterrelatedaadsimilar-appearingconstruetionswhichmustbecarefullydistin-guished froa other (sonetises morphosyatactically virtually

identical) constructions to which they are also reLated '

Justasithasbeenquestioaed.whetherthesimple(absolute)eonstrrretionYithqualifyiagnouashouldbeidentifiedwiththed.ireetgenitive,thepossibilityshould'beeonsideredthat examples of ,lbrokeg constructs, '' in which ostensible

d.irect genitives &re interrupted', ebould' be distiaguished

fros the d.irect gealtlve and. regarded as examples of the

use of a qualifyinr nous after another rrouno $p +

coaplcnent should. be iaeluded iu the domain of qualifyiaS

BOua constructionsi it must remaiu laoonclusive whether the

ttinvented.rt uee of prepositioual nisbes necessitates the

reeognitlonoftwotypesofoonplenentatioawithsuehgigbes.

Itisnotahard-and.-fastrulethatthequalifyiagnoun + suffix-pronoun nust be iatrodueed by g1a(v)t (or g)r

-25r-

or that the absoi,ute eoastructioa uust be used when thequalifying noun has no suffix-pro&oun. However, it isuncertain whether expressions of the type mn},rt sBrw. s areto be analyzed. as adjective + qualifying noun or as a sortof relative foru fros the ad.ieetive-verb. Middle Egyptianerpressions of the tme g + ggE + noun ehould. be regard.edas vetitives rathcr than prohibitions, and. (evea when theaoun has a suffj_x-pronoltn) ehould most 1ike1y be taken aS

the ad,Jectlve-verb construed rrith qualifying noun.

1o" ad.jective + qualifyiag noua eremplifies whatGardiner terms the I'ennphasized.rf ad.Jeetive, and lends itselfto conparisolt' with the oomplex constructions with the passiveparticiples and relative forns. uafsrtunatcly, the und.er_lyiag structure of these latter a4pressions is anenable tosharply diver6eat analyses. There are likewise ambiguitiesin the attempt to posit the und.erlying strings of e:rpressionswith qualifying nouns (which should. ia any case nost like1ybe regarded as couplex strings). Eowever, it is erbremelylikely that expressions of the types ,he is glad of heart'and trhie heart is glad" are related.. rn sone cases, thedistributioa of these tJrpes eaa be aseribed. to syntactieconsid.eratioas, but very frequently it seelas related. tosuch vague and subJective criteria as id.iomatio and. stylis_tie preferenee and. aptness fon a given context ,.nd; rwould suggest, to discourse structure.

[he $€menf,rg and. syntactie analogies between at least

Er-256-

sone qua.lifying noua constructions and. the ad.verbial aecu-

eativc tre noteuorthy. The occasional use of g to introd'uce

the qualifying noun lends itself to conpaxison with the use

of tr (rarely ia the eatly period.s), and of Denotic y"-ir=

and. Coptic N-/MMO=, to introduce the direct obJect of a

transitive verb. .LLgo to be aoted ia this coanectioa is the

ttabsolutsrt use of aouns after intransitive verbs other than

ad.jcctive-veabsr which can be regarded as the employneat of

quallfyiag nouns with verbs. Eowever, Lt must bc euphasized

that this is g}Z-98 of the variotrs relatioaships nanifes-

ted. by the qualifying noun con'strtrctioas.

{[he attributive gen-itive is esseatia].ly a geriphrastic

adjeetive, ia rhich the foraative elenent n(y) is itseLf aB

attributtve ad.jective in origin. The developnent of a(v)

iato an invsriable partiele of rrrelaterrt itself exenplifies

the increasing obsolcseetroe of the adjeotival epithet as an

iafleeted. categol1r, as does thc analoSous develoBtsent of

the relative ad.jective g[I. It is uot clear whethar geni-

tival nty (first seep ia Akhenatents reign) >NTE should. be

regarded as a aeologislr from n(f)t or a uae (and allonorph).or whether we should .accept norgto.ififfioposal that it is really derlved

of relative glg ,/already in Middle Egyati,n o,e c,B see

the potential for the reversible ttnueLeus-sateIlttetr reLa-

tioaship uhich charaeterizes the attributive geaitive cotr-

structiotr iB Coptic, a}though that feature of the coastruc-

tion probably etrerged grad.ually duriag tha iaterveaiag time.

It is unlikely that in EgyErtian there is a semeatlc

from m-

) di

-257-

distinetioa between e"n attributive ad.jective and an attribu_tlve genitive fron the sane stea.

Apposition can be regarded as

coreferential (or partiall, corefereatlal\ nominpr g. Thisd.oes not preclude the likelihood that equational sentencesunderlie'appositions. It is unoertai-n whethen the differentsurfacc tJrpes of apposltloa (uitn and. rlthout g of pred.ica_tion) should be ascribed. to d.iffereut sad.erlying structures.rt likewisc cannot be denonstrated unequivooally that theuniatroduced noun ia appositios is amployed ad.verbially.The atJryioal nature of tha construetion, of $g, llothetr,

"which is generally acknowled.ged to be a noun in appositioa,renders i-t doubtful whetben the use of the adJcctival epi-thet as a whole should be regard.ed. as apposition, as Hintzeand. sehenkel have aoted, it is d.ubious whether rrbad.aL-

appositiontt can be separatcd" fron apposltlon as a rrhole.[he problems of apposition rith p, antieipatioa by fi, and

'rrear extrapositionn are linked, to the question of theaature of the und,erlying strueture of inpersoaal senteaces.

The tyaical prosodLeal beharrior of the cornst:ructioasund.er d^iseussion is as follows: the d.ireet genitive is a

bound. construction, while the ind.irect genitive is freer &s

ara nisbe'+ conoplenent (ana most 1ike1y qualitative ad.jec-tLve + qualifying noun as welr, though more -- and. more

oonelusive -- evi.deaee is aeeded)r appositioa, noun. + attri-bute, and the ad.jectival seateace pattera Efr sw. [here

-2r8-

are exceptions. It is likely that ia pharaoaio EgSrptiant

as ia Coptic, the treatneut of constructions as free or

bouad.rand.thedegreeofred'uctiouofaboundnorphenoe'

canvaryfrononed.j.alecttoanothcr.Thus,byooptictines,iadi.rectgeaitivesbad.becomesingleprosodieunitsia somc dialects. Moreovert as constructions tend' to

becone bound' when employed in (or as) groper nanes and

lexioal itens, even when they are free in the language as

arholc,transcriptionsofproperllagtescannotbeusedind.iscrininately and without qualificatloa for reeonstructiag

thc vocalization and accent of the constructi-oas which they

contain.Thepossibilityshould.beconsideredthatooB-pound.s with refrrassive stress (tne so-oalled "hltere Koopo-

sita,,) ditrer in their biad.ing characteristics from the nore

usualcoopound.swithprgqressivestress.Thepossibilityofphonemiostresscannotbeexeluded'forEgyptian;itisatleastpossiblethattheaccentsystemofEgyptian(atleast in its earlier phases) is of the type designated' by

Iroekwood as ttquasi-automatic.rt Prosodical developuoat

accompanies and is an i-sportant aspect of the morphosyntac-

'tic develoPnent of EgYPtian'

Theveryelusivefactorofd.ialectoftencomplicatesnhat would. otherwise be takea as straightforward lineart

d.iachronie developments. It is likely that eonstructions

and forns which originated. at widely divergent periods

reuained in sinultaneous use in d'ifferent dialect areast

-259-

and continued to exert some influeace on the sumounding

speech comnunities. Thus, the question of diachronic deve-

lopment is sti11 relevant; it is simply one degree renoved..

The construction of elaborate, precise, quantified.

sets of transformational rules for various aspects of Egyp-

tian grarirmar is often an aeademic exercise which frequentlydoes not exceed. observational adequacyl and ia which it isdiffieult to avoid. ad hoc results. This is a result of the

limitations in the accessibility of pharaonic E$rptian tothe nodern investigator, the "intultion-sapr " and the diffi-culties involved ia extrieating the syachronJ_c fron the

diachronic (in approaehing the sources, itr assessing the

nechanisns of rule change, and in attenptiag to reconcileformulations- of d.iachronic change with synchroaie grarntraxs

of successive periods). At the saoe time, deep structurerelatj.onships, paraphrase relations, and comparisons ofboth a syachronic and a diachronic nature, of the t;ryes

developed and made faniliar by transformational analysis,can contribute considerable insights to our understendiag

of Egyptibn. Certain formulations of tagmemie analysis --ia partieirlar, the notion of a hierarchy of norphosyntactleItlevelstt -- are ilh-rminating when applied to the EgrytiannaterieL. Another extremely pronising and largely untapped

field which will constribute greatly to our understanding

of a nusber of problems of Egyptiaa synta'r, including those

investigated. in the present study (particularly !,"ith regard.

-260-

to the ehoice and. d.istribution of alteraative construe-

tious) is d.iscourse arralYsis'