Part 25

_Pseudo-Participle._--In very early texts this is the past indicative, but more commonly it is used in sentences such as, _gm-n-f wi 'h'·kwi_, "he found me I stood," i.e. "he found me standing." The indicative use was soon given up and the pseudo-participle was employed only as predicate, especially indicating a state; e.g. _ntr·t sm·ti_, "the goddess goes"; _iw-k wd'·ti_, "thou art prosperous." The endings were almost entirely lost in New Egyptian. For early times they stand thus:--

Sing. 3. masc. _i_, late _w_. Dual _wii_. Pl. _w_. fem. _ti_. _tiiw_ _ti_. 2. masc. _ti_ _tiwny_. fem. _ti_ 1. c. _kwi_. _wyn_.

The pseudo-participle seems, by its inflexion, to have been the perfect of the original Semitic conjugation. The simplest form being that of the 3rd person, it is best arranged like the corresponding tense in Semitic grammars, beginning with that person. There is no trace of the Semitic imperfect in Egyptian. The ordinary conjugation is formed quite differently. The verbal stem is here followed by the subject-suffix or substantive--_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdmw stn_, "the king hears." It is varied by the addition of particles, &c., _n_, _in_, _hr_, _tw_, thus:--

_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdm-w-f_, "he is heard" (_pl. sdm-ii-sn_, "they are heard"); _sdm-tw-f_, "he is heard"; _sdm-n-f_, "he heard"; _sdm-n-tw-f_, "he was heard"; also, _sdm-in-f_, _sdm-hr-f_, _sdm-k'-f_. Each form has special uses, generally difficult to define, _sdm-f_ seems rather to be imperfect, _sdm-n-f_ perfect, and generally to express the past. Later, _sdm-f_ is ordinarily expressed by periphrases; but by the loss of _n_, _sdm-n-f_ became itself _sdm-f_, which is the ordinary past in demotic. Coptic preserves _sdm-f_ forms of many verbs in its causative (e.g. [Coptic: tanchof] "cause him to live," from Egyptian _di·t·nh-f_), and, in its periphrastic conjugation, the same forms of _wn_, "be," and _iry_, "do." With _sdm-f_ (_sedmo-f_) was a more emphatic form (_esdomef_), at any rate in the weak verbs.

The above, with the relative forms mentioned below, are supposed by Erman to be derived from the participle, which is placed first for emphasis: thus, _sdm·w stn_, "hearing is the king"; _sdm-f_, for _sdm-fy_, "hearing he is." This Egyptian paraphrase of Semitic is just like the Irish paraphrase of English, "It is hearing he is."

The _imperative_ shows no ending in the singular; in the plural it has _y_, and later _w_; cf. Semitic imperative.

The _infinitive_ is of special importance on account of its being preserved very fully in Coptic. It is generally of masculine form, but feminine in III. inf. (as in Semitic), and in causatives of biliterals.

There are relative forms of _sdm-f_ and _sdm-n-f_, respectively _sdm·w-f_ (masc.), _sdm·t-n-f_ (fem.), &c. They are used when the relative is the object of the relative sentence, or has any other position than the subject. Thus _sdm·t-f_ may mean "she whom he hears," "she who[se praises] he hears," "she [to] whom he hears [someone speaking]," &c. There are close analogies between the function of the relative particles in Egyptian and Semitic; and the Berber languages possess a relative form of the verb.

_Participles_.--These are active and passive, perfect and imperfect, in the old language, but all are replaced by periphrases in Coptic.

_Verbal Adjectives_.--There is a peculiar formation, _sdm·ty-fy_, "he who shall hear," probably meaning originally "he is a hearer," _sdm·ty_ being an adjective in _y_ formed from a feminine (_t_) form of the infinitive, which is occasionally found even in triliteral verbs; the endings are: sing., masc. _ty-fy_, fem. _ty-sy_; pl., masc. _ty-sn_, fem. _ty-st_. It is found only in Old Egyptian.

_Particles_.--There seems to be no special formation for adverbs, and little use is made of adverbial expressions. Prepositions, simple and compound, are numerous. Some of the commonest simple prepositions are _n_ "for," _r_ "to," _m_ "in, from," _hr_ "upon." A few enclitic conjunctions exist, but they are indefinite in meaning--_swt_ a vague "but," _grt_ a vague "moreover," &c.

Coptic presents a remarkable contrast to Egyptian in the precision of its periphrastic conjugation. There are two present tenses, an imperfect, two perfects, a pluperfect, a present and a past frequentative, and three futures besides future perfect; there are also conjunctive and optative forms. The negatives of some of these are expressed by special prefixes. The gradual growth of these new forms can be traced through all the stages of Egyptian. Throughout the history of the language we note an increasing tendency to periphrasis; but there was no great advance towards _precision_ before demotic. In demotic there are distinguishable a present tense, imperfect, perfect, frequentative, future, future perfect, conjunctive and optative; also present, past and future negatives, &c. The passive was extinct before demotic; demotic and Coptic express it, clumsily it must be confessed, by an impersonal "they," e.g. "they bore him" stands for "he was born."

It is worth noting how, in other departments besides the verb, the Egyptian language was far better adapted to practical ends during and after the period of the Deltaic dynasties (XXII.-XXX.) than ever it was before. It was both simplified and enriched. The inflexions rapidly disappeared and little was left of the distinctions between masculine and feminine, singular, dual and plural--except in the pronouns. The dual number had been given up entirely at an earlier date. The pronouns, both personal and demonstrative, retained their forms very fully. As prefixes, suffixes and articles, they, together with some auxiliary verbs, provided the principal mechanism of the renovated language. An abundant supply of useful adverbs was gradually accumulated, as well as conjunctions, so far as the functions of the latter were not already performed by the verbal prefixes. These great improvements in the language correspond to great changes in the economic condition of the country; they were the result of active trade and constant intercourse of all classes of Egyptians with foreigners from Europe and Asia. Probably the best stage of Egyptian speech was that which immediately preceded Coptic. Though Coptic is here and there more exactly expressive than the best demotic, it was spoilt by too much Greek, duplicating and too often expelling native expressions that were already adequate for its very simple requirements. Above all, it is clumsily pleonastic.

THE WRITING

The ancient Egyptian system of writing, so far as we know, originated, developed and finally expired strictly within the limits of the Nile Valley. The germ of its existence may have come from without, but, as we know it, it is essentially Egyptian and intended for the expression of the Egyptian language. About the 1st century B.C., however, the semi-barbarous rulers of the Ethiopian kingdoms of Meroe and Napata contrived the "Meroitic" alphabet, founded on Egyptian writing, and comprising both a hieroglyphic and a cursive form (see ETHIOPIA). As yet both of these kinds of Nubian writing are undeciphered. Egyptian hieroglyphic was carried by conquest into Syria, certainly under the XVIIIth Dynasty, and again under the XXVIth for the engraving of Egyptian inscriptions; but in the earlier period the cuneiform syllabary, and in the later the "Phoenician" alphabet, had obtained a firm hold there, and we may be sure that no attempt was made to substitute the Egyptian system for the latter. Cuneiform tablets in Syria, however, seem almost confined to the period of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Although it cannot be proved it seems quite possible that the traders of Phoenicia and the Aegean adopted the papyrus and Egyptian hieratic writing together, before the end of the New Kingdom, and developed their "Phoenician" alphabet from the latter about 1000 B.C. In very early times a number of systems of writing already reigned in different countries forming a compact and not very large area--perhaps from South Arabia to Asia Minor, and from Persia to Crete and Egypt. Whether they all sprang from one common stock of picture-writing we shall perhaps never know, nor can we as yet trace the influence which one great system may have had on another, owing to the poverty of documents from most of the countries concerned.

It is certain that in Egypt from the IVth Dynasty onwards the mode of writing was essentially the same as that which was extinguished by the fall of paganism in the 4th century A.D. Its elements in the hieroglyphic form are pictorial, but each hieroglyph had one or more well-defined functions, fixed by convention in such a manner that the Egyptian language was expressed in writing word by word. Although a picture sign may at times have embarrassed the skilled native reader by offering a choice of fixed values or functions, it was never intended to convey merely an idea, so as to leave to him the task of putting the idea into his own words. How far this holds good for the period before the IVth Dynasty it is difficult to say. The known inscriptions of the earlier times are so brief and so limited in range that the system on which they were written cannot yet be fully investigated. As far back as the Ist Dynasty, phonograms (see below) were in full use. But the spelling then was very concise: it is possible that some of the slighter words, such as prepositions, were omitted in the writing, and were intended to be supplied from the context. As a whole, we gain the impression that a really distinct and more primitive stage of hieroglyphic writing by a substantially vaguer notation of words lay not far behind the time of the Ist Dynasty.

The employment of the signs are of three kinds: any given sign represents either (1) a whole word or root; or (2) a sound as part of a word; or (3) pictorially defines the meaning of a word the sound of which has already been given by a sign or group of signs preceding. The number of phonograms is very restricted, but some signs have all these powers. For instance, [HRG: mn] is the conventional picture of a draughtboard (shown in plan) with the draughtsmen (shown in elevation) on its edge:--this sign (1) signifies the root _mn_, "set," "firm"; or (2) in the group [HRG: mn:x], represents the same sound as part of the root _mnh_, "good"; or (3) added to the group _snt_ (thus: [HRG: z:n:t-mn]), shows that the meaning intended is "draught-board," or "draughts," and not any of the other meanings of _snt_. Thus signs, according to their employment, are said to be (1) "word-signs," (2) "phonograms," or (3) "determinatives."

_Word-signs._--The word-sign value of a sign is, in the first place, the name of the object it represents, or of some material, or quality, or action, or idea suggested by it. Thus [HRG] is _hr_, "face"; [HRG], a vase of ointment, is _mrh.t_, "ointment"; [HRG] is _wdb_, "turn." Much investigation is still required to establish the origins of the values of the signs; in some cases the connexion between the pictures and the _primary_ values seems to be curiously remote. Probably all the signs in the hieroglyphic signary can be employed in their primary sense. The _secondary_ value expresses the consonantal root of the name or other primary value, and any, or almost any, derivative from that root: as when [HRG], a mat with a cake upon it, is not only _htp_, an "offering-mat," but also _htp_ in the sense of "conciliation," "peace," "rest," "setting" (of the sun), with many derivatives. In the third place, some signs may be _transferred_ to express another root having the same consonants as the first: thus [HRG], the ear, by a play upon words can express not only _sdm_, "hear," but also _sdm_, "paint the eyes."

_Phonograms._--Only a limited number of signs are found with this use, but they are of the greatest importance. By searching throughout the whole mass of normal inscriptions, earlier than the periods of Greek and Roman rule when great liberties were taken with the writing, probably no more than one hundred different phonograms can be found. The number of those commonly employed in good writing is between seventy and eighty. The most important phonograms are the _uniliteral_ or _alphabetic_ signs, twenty-four in number in the Old Kingdom and without any homophones: later these were increased by homophones to thirty. Of _biliteral_ phonograms--each expressing a combination of two consonants--there were about fifty commonly used: some fifteen or twenty were rarely used. As Egyptian roots seldom exceeded three letters, there was no need for _triliteral_ phonograms to spell them. There is, however, one triliteral phonogram, the eagle, [HRG], _tyw_, or _tiu_ (?), used for the plural ending of adjectives in _y_ formed from words ending in _t_ (whether radical or the feminine ending).

The phonetic values of the signs are derived from their word-sign values and consist usually of the bare root, though there are rare examples of the retention of a flexional ending; they often ignore also the weaker consonants of the root, and on the same principle reduce a repeated consonant to a single one, as when the hoe [HRG], _hnn_, has the phonetic value _hn_. The history of some of the alphabetic signs is still very obscure, but a sufficient number of them have been explained to make it nearly certain that the values of all were obtained on the same principles.[15] Some of the ancient words from which the phonetic values were derived probably fell very early into disuse, and may never be discoverable in the texts that have come down to us. The following are among those most easily explained:--

[HRG: i], reed flower, value _y_ and [Hebrew: alef]; from [HRGs: i-A-Hn], _y'_, "reed."

(It seems as if the two values _y_ and [Hebrew: alef] were obtained by choosing first one and then the other of the two semi-consonants composing the name. They are much confused, and a conventional symbol _l_ has to be adopted for rendering [HRG: i].)

[HRG: a], forearm, value '([Hebrew: ayin]); from [HRGs: a:Z1], '([Hebrew: ayin]), "hand."

[HRG: r], mouth, value _r_; from [HRGs: r:Z1], _r_, "mouth."

[HRG: X], belly and teats, value _h_; from [HRGs: X:t*Z1], _h.t_, "belly." (The feminine ending is here, as usual, neglected.)

[HRG: S], tank, value _s_; from [HRGs: S:Z1], _s_, "tank."

[HRG: q], slope of earth value _q_; ''[HRGs: q-A-A-q], _q_'', "slope," or brickwork, "height." (The doubled weak consonant is here neglected.)

[HRG: d], hand, value _d_; from [HRGs: d:t*Z1], _d.t_, "hand."

[HRG: D], cobra, value _z_; from [HRGs: D:t*Z1], _z.t_, "cobra."

For some alphabetic signs more than one likely origin might be found, while for others, again, no clear evidence of origin is yet forthcoming.

It has already been explained that the writing expresses only consonants. In the Graeco-Roman period various imperfect attempts were made to render the vowels in foreign names and words by the semi-vowels as also by [HRGs: a], the consonant [Hebrew: ayin] which [HRGs: a] originally represented having been reduced in speech by that time to the power of [Hebrew: alef], only. Thus, [Greek: Ptolemaios] is spelt _Ptwrmys_, Antoninus, _'Nt'nynws_ or _Intnyns_, &c. &c. Much earlier, throughout the New Kingdom, a special "syllabic" orthography, in which the alphabetic signs for the consonants are generally replaced by groups or single signs having the value of a consonant followed by a semi-vowel, was used for foreign names and words, e.g.

[Hebrew: merkevet], "chariot," was written [HRGs: m:a-r:Z1-k:A-b-W-ti-i-t:xt], in Coptic [Coptic: berechojt].

[Hebrew: migdal], "tower," was written [HRGs: m:a-k-ti-i-r:Z1], [HRGs: m:a-g-A-d:y-r:Z1-niwt], [Coptic: mechtod].

[Hebrew: kinor], "harp," was written [HRGs: k-n:Z2-i-n-i-w-l:Z1-xt].

[Hebrew: hamath], "Hamath," was written [HRGs: HA-A-mA-A-ti-i-qmA:xAst ].

According to W. Max Müller (_Asien und Europa_, 1893, chap, v.), this represents an endeavour to express the vocalization; but, if so, it was carried out with very little system. In practice, the semi-vowels are generally negligible. This method of writing can be traced back into the Middle Kingdom, if not beyond, and it greatly affected the spelling of native words in New Egyptian and demotic.

_Determinatives._--Most signs can on occasion be used as determinatives, but those that are very commonly employed as phonograms or as secondary word-signs are seldom employed as determinatives; and when they are so used they are often somewhat differentiated. Certain generic determinatives are very common, e.g.:--

[HRG: D54]; of motion.

[HRG: A24], [HRG: D40]; of acts involving force.

[HRG: A40]; of divinity.

[HRG: A1]; of a person or a man's name.

[HRG: pr]; of buildings.

[HRG: niwt]; of inhabited places.

[HRG: xAst]; of foreign countries.

[HRG: qmA]; club; of foreigners.

[HRG: A2]; of all actions of the mouth--eating and speaking, likewise silence and hunger.

[HRG: N35B]; ripple-lines; of liquid.

[HRG: F27]; hide; of animals, also leather, &c.

[HRG: Hn]; of plants and fibres.

[HRG: N33:Z5]; of flesh.

[HRG: mDAt]; a sealed papyrus-roll; of books, teaching, law, and of abstract ideas generally.

In the earliest inscriptions the use of determinatives is restricted to the [HRG: A1], [HRG: B1], &c., after proper names, but it developed immensely later, so that few words beyond the particles were written without them in the normal style after the Old Kingdom.

Some few signs ideographic of a group of ideas are made to express

## particular words belonging to that group by the aid of phonograms

which point out the special meaning. In such cases the ideogram is not merely a determinative nor yet quite a word-sign. Thus [HRG: qmA-m] = [HRG: a-A-m-qmA] "Semite," [HRG: qmA-nw] = [HRG: T-H-n:nw-qmA] "Libyan," &c., but [HRG: qmA] cannot stand by itself for the name of any particular foreign people. So also in monogram [HRG: Sm] is _sm_ "go," [HRG: zb] is "conduct."

_Orthography._--The most primitive form of spelling in the hieroglyphic system would be by one sign for each word, and the monuments of the Ist Dynasty show a decided tendency to this mode. Examples of it in later times are preserved in the royal cartouches, for here the monumental style demanded special consciseness. Thus, for instance, the name of Tethmosis III.--MN-HPR-R'--is spelled [HRG: hrw-mn-xpr] (as R' is the name of the sun-god, with customary deference to the deity it is written first though pronounced last). A number of common words--prepositions, &c.--with only one consonant are spelled by single alphabetic signs in ordinary writing. Word-signs used singly for the names of objects are generally marked with | in classical writing, as [HRG: Z91-ib:Z1], _ib_, "heart," [HRG: Hr:Z1], _hr_, "face," &c.

But the use of bare word-signs is not common. Flexional consonants are almost always marked by phonograms, except in very early times; as when the feminine word [HRG: D] = _z.t_, "cobra," is spelled [HRG: D:t*Z1]. Also, if a sign had more than one value, a phonogram would be added to indicate which of its values was intended: thus [HRG: sw] in [HRG: sw-w] is _sw_, "he," but in [HRG: sw:t] it is _stn_, "king." Further, owing to the vast number of signs employed, to prevent confusion of one with another in rapid writing they were generally provided with "phonetic complements," a group being less easily misread than a single letter. E.g. [HRG: wD], _wz_, "command," is regularly written [HRG: wD-w], _wz_ (_w_); but [HRG: HD], _hz_, "white," is written [HRG: HD-D], _hz_(_z_). This practice had the advantage also of distinguishing determinatives from phonograms. Thus the root or syllable _hn_ is regularly written [HRG: H-Hn:n] to avoid confusion with the determinative [HRG: Hn]. Redundance in writing is the rule; for instance, _b_ is often spelled [HRG: b-G26A-A] (_b_)_b_'('). Biliteral phonograms are very rare as phonetic complements, nor are two biliteral phonograms employed together in writing the radicals of a word.

Spelling of words purely in phonetic or even alphabetic characters is not uncommon, the determinative being generally added. Thus in the pyramidal texts we find _hpr_, "become," written [HRG: xpr] in one copy of a text, in another [HRG: x*p:r]. Such variant spellings are very important for fixing the readings of word-signs. It is noteworthy that though words were so freely spelled in alphabetic characters, especially in the time of the Old Kingdom, no advance was ever made towards excluding the cumbersome word-signs and biliteral phonograms, which, by a judicious use of determinatives, might well have been rendered quite superfluous.

_Abbreviations._--We find [HRG: anx-DA-s], strictly _'nh z_' _s_ standing for the ceremonial _viva! 'nh wz, snb_. "Life, Prosperity and Health," and in course of time [HRG: mDAt] was used in accounts instead of [HRG: dmD] _dmz_, "total."

_Monograms_ are frequent and are found from the earliest times. Thus [HRG: Sm], [HRG: zb] mentioned above are monograms, the association of [HRG: S] and [HRG: D54] having no pictorial meaning. Another common monogram is [HRG: O10], i.e. [HRG: Hwt] and [HRG: G5] for _H·t-Hrw_ "Hathor." A word-sign may be compounded with its phonetic complement, as [HRG: T5] _hz_ "white," or with its determinative, as [HRG: S14] _hz_ "silver."

The table on the opposite page shows the uses of a few of the commoner signs.

The decorative value of hieroglyphic was fully appreciated in Egypt. The aim of the artist-scribe was to arrange his variously shaped characters into square groups, and this could be done in great measure by taking advantage of the different ways in which many words could be spelt. Thus _hs_ could be written [HRG: H*Hz:z], _hsy_ [HRG: Hz-i-i], _hs-f_ [HRG: Hz-z:f], _hs-n-f_ [HRG: Hz-n:f]. But some words in the classical writing were intractable from this point of view. It is obvious that the alphabetic signs played a very important part in the formation of the groups, and many words could only be written in alphabetic signs. A great advance was therefore made when several homophones were introduced into the alphabet in the Middle and New Kingdoms, partly as the result of the wearing away of old phonetic distinctions, giving the choice between [HRG: z] and [HRG: s], [HRG: t-T] and [HRG: ti], [HRG: m] and [HRG: M], [HRG: n] and [HRG: N], [HRG: w] and [HRG: W]. In later times the number of homophones in use increased greatly throughout the different classes, the tendency being much helped by the habit of fanciful writing; but few of these homophones found their way into the cursive script. Occasionally a scribe of the old times indulged his fancy in "sportive" or "mysterious" writing, either inventing new signs or employing old ones in unusual meanings. Short sportive inscriptions are found in tombs of the XIIth Dynasty; some groups are so written cursively in early medical papyri, and certain religious inscriptions in the royal tombs of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties are in secret writing. Fanciful writing abounds on the temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.

PALAEOGRAPHY

_Hieroglyphic._--The main division is into monumental or epigraphic hieroglyphs and written hieroglyphs. The former may be rendered by the sculptor or the painter in stone, on wood, &c., with great delicacy of detail, or may be simply sunk or painted in outline. When finely rendered they are of great value to the student investigating the origins of their values. No other system of writing bears upon its face so clearly the history of its development as the Egyptian; yet even in this a vast amount of work is still required to detect and disentangle the details. Monumental hieroglyphic did not cease till the 3rd century A.D. (Temple of Esna). The written hieroglyphs, formed by the scribe with the reed pen on papyrus, leather, wooden tablets, &c., have their outlines more or less abbreviated, producing eventually the cursive scripts hieratic and demotic. The written hieroglyphs were employed at all periods, especially for religious texts.

_Hieratic._--A kind of cursive hieroglyphic or hieratic writing is found even in the Ist Dynasty. In the Middle Kingdom it is well characterized, and in its most cursive form seems hardly to retain any definable trace of the original hieroglyphic pictures. The style varies much at different periods.