LingAes 4 (1994), 27l-7 4

..DIE

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

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

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

Helmut Satzinger

one chosenabovewhich renders the resultof this embedding, ratherthan the processus: "predicatenucleus"-"subject"-"predicate extension". Thereis anotherpatternwhich resembles rathercloselythe tripartite pattemjust discussed, althoughit is apparently bipartite. It is obviously madeup of the first and the third elements of the tripartite pattem,the second beingabsent. The initial elements are the same. The paradigmof forms that areto be found in the second position is comparable to, 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 positionencompass the second theexpression ofan agent(in the caseofthe Passive, rather a "patient"). In the endeavour towardsreconcilingthe two paradigmsrecoursemay be had to the assumed "presence" of a zerosubject between thefrst andthe second element:
adverbial sdm.n.f Passive negativeconstructions : n sdm.f n sdm.n.f emphasizing construction

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

Thefirst element is a verb(wnn),or anelement of basicallyattributive adjectival nature (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 elements is 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, sdm.0;bw ntj nlr'the placewheregod is' $ 107;imperfectiveorprospective2 (lit. '... in relation to which ...') CT V 274d(B2Bo)3; nk wj,hereI am!', .me-voici!,(see 'there Gardiner, Grammar,p. 179,3); nn me'tjw areno righteous'Lebensm.122.a It may be surmised thattheyarealsopredicative whenextended by 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 counterpart in the pseudo-bipartite pattemand it was suggested that it is zetoed in thesecases. The zerosubjectis a known feature of Middle Egyptian.sIn many cases it canbe interpretedasthe expression of an indefinite pronoun.A particularpattem is jwQStative (3rdpersonmasc. sing.),6 as 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.fhavebeeninterpreted asjw sdm.n.f '(it) is while
z ^ r 4 5 6 Using J. Allen's terminology; thus "prospective sQm.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 analogy is not perfect:whereas in jw 6 sf... the subjects of jw and of the verb arecoreferential (thecommonsignifi is the indefinite idea expressed by zero),in iw O sm.n.ftheyarenot: theverbhasanother subject,this time a personal or definiteone which is not expressed by zero. However, thesetwo casesare on different levelsin termsof diachrony.Whereas jw b statle is living Middle Egyptian, the pattem i.e.,it is formedalongthelinesof this idiom, thepseudo-bipartite pattern must be regarded asa grarnrnatrcaltz'ed structure that cannotbe analysed anymorewithin the Middle Egyptian system. The third elementis either an adverbial,or an adverbialverb form. or a construction thatmay haveadverbial function:the properadverbials, includingthe "gerunds,, (br sdm, m sQm, r sQm), areadverbialby definition. The sameis true of the "circumstantial"sdm.f, the "circumstantial" sQm.n.f andthePassive, although someauthorsclaim that theseforms arebasically indicative, but havecometo be mostlyusedcircumstantially, i.e., as adverbs. As for the negative constructions, 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 hardest caseis that of the emphasizing constructions. I do not know of anyMiddle Egyptian instances of an emphasizing construction beingusedas a clause of circumstance.9 But as its basicconstruction is 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 transitory cases. Thepredicative extension sdm.f(circumstantial) is found not only in the tripartite jw.f (etc.) sQm.f,but also in severalcasesin the pattern, pseudo-bipartite jw (etc)sdm.fl1 It is true,in somecases pattem, the sdm.f after barejw is obviously"emphatic"(cf. examples (9) to (14) in my paper),but otherinstances de$zthis interpretation. Johnsonthoughtshe had discovered instances of mk + prospective (or subjunctive) sdm.f.l2 Polotsky has suggested regardingclauses of purpose, formed with the subjunctive sdm.f,asthe circumstantial Clauses of themode.But apartfrom thathypothesis, it would not be possibleto grouptheseforms amongthosethat areeither adverbialby nature, or may be used adverbially.I think, however,that Johnsonwas mistaken.In the three
/ 8 9 Cf. Satzinger, GM 115(1990),102. Gardiner,Grammar,p. 290; Westendorf, Grammatikg l7l. There are post-classical examples,like iw jj.n.j r snsn$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 bareemphasizing construction but 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-bipartite variant of the tripartite jw.f sjm.f,r3 as mk sglm.f construction is of mk sw sdm.f, js! sdm.f of js! sw sdm.f, wnjn sim.f of wnjn.f sQm.f,etc.This means quotedby that the sdm.f n the examples Johnsonis circumstantial,ratherthan prospectiveor subjunctive.Note that the time range of mk sw sgLn.f is a nearfuture('il va 6couter'), andthe same is trueof its pseudo-bipartite variant,mk sdm.f. Of course, the conceptof the tripartite patternrests on severalassumptions which are not really cogent. proofthat a construction Thereis no isolated like 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,based on the otherwise closeanalogy. But... thisis the only concept that yields a uniform structurefor the numerousconstructionsinvolved. Polotsky once quoled, unat enimunitatem intellectus.Imustadmit,minedoesa lot. On the otherhand,I do not think that the altemativeview that theseverbal constructions (including negativeandemphasizing constructions) follow immediatelyon the introductory elements is wrong: it is a different view-point, 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 advocated for. 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 beingusedasclauses of circumstance, andwe find this also in Egyptianin a numberof cases. Thus,the negative constructions introduced by n andnn canbeusedboth independentlyand circumstantially. If they can others can, too. And if independent constructions canbe usedcircumstantially, thoseconstructions that 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.fj andrelativeforms).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.