“genitive” possessive constructions in Égyptien de

“Genitive” possessive constructions in Égyptien de tradition:

Compound construction vs. of-construction

Daniel A. Werning (EXC “Topoi,” Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)

Keywords: Egyptian, Égyptien de tradition, attributive possession, noun compound, of-construction,

emulation of ancient language, passive possession, animacy, alienability, genitive meaning, semantic map,

phrase classifiers.

Abstract

This article mainly explores the usage of two attributive possessive constructions that are traditionally

labeled the “Direct Genitive” and “Indirect Genitive” (in both cases, the notion “genitive” refers not to a

morphological case but to an attributive possessive function). The former is a productive type of noun

compound construction, the later is comparable to the English of-construction. The texts investigated are

written in Égyptien de tradition, i.e., in an artificial emulation of “ancient” language in the later 2nd and 1st

millennia BCE. Among other things, the article explores constructional as well as semantic influences on

the choice of one or the other construction in the Book of Caverns (13th century BCE): (i) influences of

constructional complexity of the two related nouns/noun phrases, (ii) the animacy of possessors, and (iii)

the alienability of the possessive relation. In the course of this, the statistical impact of cases of “agentive

possesseds” like, e.g., ‘ruler of the netherworld’ and “possessing possesseds” like, e.g., ‘possessor of a bier,’

is discussed, i.e., the impact of cases in which the possessed “controls” or possesses the possessor. Finally

(iv), the attested “genitive” meanings are mapped onto a semantic map of possessive relations. The

quantitative observations made are interpreted as the result of the application of a simple translation rule by

which the ancient authors transformed genitive constructions of their contemporary language varieties into

genitive constructions of Égyptien de tradition. This may also explain the fact that some patterns found are

not perfectly in line with general typological expectations. Three miscellaneous sections deal with (i) a case

of passive possession, (ii) cases of genitive constructions in which the analyses of the grammatical structure

and the indications of the semantic structure via “phrase classifiers” do not go together, and (iii) a

possessive construction that exhibits a curious hybrid of Earlier Egyptian grammar and Late Egyptian

spelling habits.

0 Introduction

In this article, I explore the usage of mainly two attributive possessive constructions, traditionally labeled as

“Direct Genitive” construction and “Indirect Genitive” construction by Egyptologists. The Direct Genitive

construction is a productive type of noun compound construction which is roughly comparable to German

possessive noun compounds. The Indirect Genitive construction, on the other hand, is comparable to the

English of-construction. In both constructions, the notion “genitive” refers not to a morphological case but

to an attributive possessive function. More specifically, I mainly investigate these constructions in Egyptian

texts written in Égyptien de tradition, i.e., in an artificial emulation of “ancient” language, which the

Egyptians used for highly prestigious texts in the later 2nd and 1st millennia BCE.

I start with an introduction to Ancient Egyptian chronolects (Section 1) and the phenomenon of

Égyptien de tradition (Sections 1–2). A survey of possessive constructions in two Égyptien de tradition

corpora (Section 3) sheds light on the knowledge about original Earlier Egyptian chronolects that the

Daniel A. Werning, "Genitive" possessive constructions in Égyptien de tradition: Compound construction vs. of-construction,to be

published in: Eitan Grossman & Stéphane Polis (eds.). Possession in Ancient Egyptian, Berlin: de Gruyter

authors of these texts obviously had. The main part of this article is a case study of full noun genitive

constructions in one particularly long text in early Égyptien de tradition: the Book of Caverns from the 13th

century BCE. After an introduction to the Direct and Indirect Genitive constructions in Earlier Egyptian as

opposed to Late Egyptian (Section 4.1), I proceed to analyze Direct and Indirect Genitive constructions in

the Book of Caverns (Section 4.2).

One section of this main part looks at possible influences of constructional complexity of the possessor

noun and the possessed noun on the choice of one or the other construction (Section 4.2.1). In the course of

this, I discuss the question whether the authors of texts in Égyptien de tradition conceptualized their “Direct

Genitive” as a Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction, rather than as a Direct Genitive proper, i.e., a

phonologically marked compound construction as in original Earlier Egyptian. Section 4.2.2 explores

possible semantic influences of the related nouns and/or the “possessive” meaning relation. We look at the

animacy of possessors, the alienability of the possessive relation, and I review the attested genitive

meanings on the basis of a semantic map of possessive relations that was proposed by Kiki Nikiforidou

(1991).

After the main part, three miscellaneous sections deal with a few interesting phenomena related to

possessive constructions in Caverns that are beyond the main scope of this article. The first section treats a

case of passive possession (Section 5.1). The second discusses cases of genitive constructions in which the

analyses of the grammatical structure and the indications of the semantic structure via “phrase classifiers”

do not go together (Section 5.2). The third section highlights a possessive construction that exhibits a

curious hybrid of Earlier Egyptian grammar and Late Egyptian spelling habits (Section 5.3).

A final paragraph contains a concluding summary (Section 6).

1 Egyptian chronolects and Égyptien de tradition

For highly prestigious texts such as, e.g., religious and official texts, the Egyptians always used a language

variety that was old-fashioned in some respects. Over the course of the later 2nd millennium BCE, the

difference between the language used for such texts and the contemporary spoken language had grown

considerably. For prestigious texts, the authors tried to emulate the “ancient” language that they found in

texts from past times, i.e., in texts from the 3rd and earlier 2nd millennium BCE. Egyptologist call these

emulations “Spätmittelägyptisch” (e.g., Karl Jansen-Winkeln), “Neo-Middle Egyptian” (Friedrich Junge),

or “Égyptien de tradition” (Pascal Vernus).1 Texts in Égyptien de tradition are attested until Roman times,

i.e., until the early 1st millennium CE (Figure 1).

1 See Jansen-Winkeln (1996), Junge (1984), Vernus (e.g., in L’Égyptologie en 1979), Stauder (2013b). I prefer the

term “Égyptien de tradition” to “Neo-Middle Egyptian” since the latter may lead the reader to the false

assumption that (Classical) Middle Egyptian was the only model for the emulation.



Fig. 1. Ancient Egyptian chronolects and text registers (based on Kammerzell 1998: Abb. 5 and Junge 1984:

Tab. 2; CC-BY)

We may assume that the ancient language was not spoken at home anymore at a certain point in time.

Instead, authors of such texts had to learn about the ancient language in private “schools,” from reading and

copying old texts and from what the senior scribes taught them. For a new text, they could partly copy and,

if necessary, adapt sentences and phrases that they found in original ancient texts. For the rest of the text as

well as for completely innovative texts, however, they needed to create new phrases and sentences in

Égyptien de tradition by themselves. Given that the authors’ primary spoken language, or rather language

varieties (L1), were considerably different from the “ancient” language varieties, we often find certain

influences of their L1 in Égyptien de tradition (L2) texts.2 On the one hand, this Égyptien de tradition

exemplifies constructions and lexical items that were saliently different in ancient texts as compared to

contemporary language. On the other hand, those constructions and lexical items that were considered

typical of the contemporary language were deliberately avoided. We may think of the process as a

translation of a mental text in L1 to a written text in L2 (see Section 2 below). In any event, as a result, texts

in Égyptien de tradition do not always perfectly match any authentic ancient chronolect like Old Egyptian

or Middle Egyptian from the 3rd and earlier 2nd millennia BCE. Furthermore, it is probably not the case that

Égyptien de tradition was taught and used in an unbroken, fixed scholarly tradition over more than one

thousand years of its attestation. To the contrary, we have to account for the fact that Égyptien de tradition

also changed and that it was seemingly even re-invented over and over again. It is therefore advisable to

study, rather than all texts in Égyptien de tradition at once, the Égyptiens de tradition of common “schools”

or even of individual texts.

2 Égyptien de tradition as mental translation product

In Section 1, I proposed thinking of the creation of an entirely new text in Égyptien de tradition as a

translation of a mental text in a contemporary used language variety of Egyptian (L1) to a written text in

Égyptien de tradition (L2). Egyptologists call the chronolects of the late 2nd and the 1st millennium BCE that

were comparatively close to the contemporary spoken language “Late Egyptian” and “Demotic,”

respectively (see Figure 1 above). The following text examples from the Book of Caverns,3 an early

Égyptien de tradition text from the 13th century BCE, clearly show the influence of the contemporary L1,

2 See Stauder (2013b), Werning (2011, I: 259–260), Werning (2013). 3 The text critical edition Werning (2011: II) is referred to by “Hb.” throughout this article.



i.e., Late Egyptian. For example, the constructions below match neither any original Earlier Egyptian

grammar, nor contemporary Late Egyptian grammar. Instead, they are artificial hybrids of features of both

grammars.4 Earlier Egyptian and Late Egyptian are different with respect to both the morphological set and

function of determiners, as well as with respect to the syntactic position of the determiner. In the Book of

Caverns, we occasionally find ancient determiner morphemes in the syntactic position of contemporary

determiners. The specific combinations of morphemes and syntactic positions are not attested in any

original chronolect.

In example (1), we find an Earlier Egyptian demonstrative morpheme in the position of the Late

Egyptian demonstrative (the “*” before Egyptian text examples marks reconstructed phrases).

(1) L2 = Ég. de trad.

(13th c. BCE) (Hb. 67.7, tO)

m= tn Hry.t

in= DEM.PROX:F oven:F

Class. Middle Eg.

(20th c. BCE) * (reconstruction)5

m= Hry.t =tn

in= oven:F =DEM.PROX:F

L1 = Late Eg.

(13th c. BCE) * (reconstruction)

m= t#~ Hry(t)

in= DEM:F oven(F)

‘into this oven’

In (2) and (3), we find an Earlier Egyptian demonstrative morpheme with the function of a determinative in

the position of the Late Egyptian definite article or possessive article, respectively. Original written Earlier

Egyptian did not yet employ any morpheme in the function of a determinative.


(13th c. BCE) (Hb. 88.24, RVI)

n= pn= s.Xpr =sn

DAT= DETV:M.SG= let_come_into_being\PART[M.SG] =3PL

Class. Middle Eg.


n= s.Xpr =sn

DAT= let_come_into_being\PART[M.SG] =3PL

L1 = Late Eg.


n= p#= sXpr =st

DAT= DEF:M.SG= let_come_into_being:PART =3PL

‘to the one who created them’

4 Werning (2011, I: 186–191, §§112–119). 5 Note that the lemma Hry.t ‘oven’ is not clearly attested before the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE (Werning

2011, I: 250; for the debated dating of Kheti, see now Stauder (2013a: 468–476).




(13th c. BCE) (Hb. 90.17, RVI)

m= pn= HD.y-j

INSTR= DETV:M.SG= bright\PART.DISTR[M.SG]-1SG

Class. Middle Eg.

(20th c. BCE)

* (reconstruction)

m= HD-j

INSTR= bright\PART[M.SG]-1SG

L1 = Late Eg.

(13th c. BCE)

* (reconstruction)

m= p{#}y-j HD

INSTR= DEF.POSS:M.SG-1SG bright

‘with my bright one (i.e., the sun disc)’

In (3), the position of the personal suffix pronoun that indicates the possessor is “ancient” insofar as it is

attached to the possessed, as in Earlier Egyptian, and not to the article as in Late Egyptian. The resulting

construction is alien to Earlier Egyptian as well as to Late Egyptian.6

In Section 4, we explore comparable phenomena in two competing attributive possession constructions,

called the “Direct Genitive” and the “Indirect Genitive” by Egyptologists. Before doing so, however, I

survey the set of attested possessive constructions in some Égyptien de tradition texts.

3 Survey of possessive constructions in two Égyptien de tradition corpora

In Section 1 and 2, we saw that Égyptien de tradition is an artificial emulation of Earlier Egyptian

grammars and that it occasionally exhibits influences from the authors’ contemporary spoken language

varieties. In order to get an impression of which Earlier Egyptian possessive constructions are attested in

Égyptien de tradition texts, Table 6 in the appendix enumerates constructions and their attestation in two

such corpora. The first is the “Book of Caverns” (13th century BCE; Werning 2011). The second is a corpus

of texts from the Third Intermediate Period (henceforth TIP; 11th–8th century BCE; Jansen-Winkeln 1996).

Interpreting Table 6, we may summarize that most Earlier Egyptian constructions that are attested more

than only exceptionally in Earlier Egyptian texts are attested in Caverns as well. Only two comparatively

rare attributive constructions are missing,7 as well as two specific existential clause patterns8. Furthermore,

constructions commonly or exclusively attested in Late Egyptian are avoided.9 This may also explain the

mentioned absence of the two missing attributive constructions and one of the missing existential clauses,

similar forms of which are also part of Late Egyptian grammar.10 The basic trend also seems to hold in

Égyptien de tradition texts from the Third Intermediate Period. In this corpus, however, a few Late

6 For comparable and rarely attested constructions in Late Egyptian (*p#=HD-j DEF:M.SG=bright-1SG or *p{#}y HD-j

DEM:M.SG bright-1SG), see Winand (this volume). 7 The constructions with deictic adverb jr-~ ‘thereof’ and n.~-...=jm.y ‘of mine, of yours, ...’ (see Table 6 in the

appendix). 8 The affirmative existential clause [jw wn N-PRON] and the negated pattern [nn N-PRON] without wn (see Table 6

in the appendix). 9 E.g., the possessive article (p#y-, t#y-, n#y-), the n(~).sA clause, the [N sw(t)] construction, the possessive pronouns

p(#).n(~) and tj.n(~)t, and the wn=md~ clause (see Table 6 in the appendix). 10 Earlier Eg. jr-~ and n(.~)-...=jm.y survive in Late Eg. as uninflected jr~ and n(~)-...=jmy, respectively. Earlier Eg.

[jw wn N-PRON] is comparable to Late Eg. [wn N ...] (see Table 6 in the appendix).



Egyptian constructions are also attested.11 As opposed to Caverns, one “ancient” Earlier Egyptian

existential clause is not attested.12

Altogether, we see that the authors that composed texts in Égyptien de tradition were remarkably well

informed about Earlier Egyptian, and that they were very aware of typical differences between Earlier

Egyptian and Late Egyptian. Therefore, when we explore possible differences between Égyptien de

tradition and original Earlier Egyptian in a specific complementary pair of constructions in the next section

(Section 4), namely the “Direct Genitive” and the “Indirect Genitive,” we may expect rather subtle

differences, i.e., differences that were not salient enough to be necessarily noticed or differences triggered

by contextual criteria too deeply entrenched in the spoken language of the authors to escape.

4 Case study: full noun genitive constructions in the Book of Caverns

4.1 Full noun genitive constructions in Earlier and Late Egyptian

For the expression of a possessive relation between two full nouns, Egyptian of the 3rd and 2nd millennia

BCE basically had two different attributive constructions that Egyptologists call “Direct Genitive” and

“Indirect Genitive,” respectively.13 The Indirect Genitive resembles the English construction [NPOSSED of

NPOSSOR], with the difference that the attributive/“genitive” connector exhibits gender/number agreement14

with the head of the phrase, the possessed noun, in Earlier Egyptian.15 The agreement, however, became

increasingly optional and was eventually lost in Late Egyptian (Table 1).

11 E.g., the possessive article (p{#}y-, t{#}y-, n{#}y-), the n(~).sA clause, and n(~)-...=jmy (see Table 6 in the appendix). 12 The non-existence clause with wn.t (see Table 6 in the appendix). 13 Loprieno (1995: 56–57), Allen (2013: 71); Schenkel (1962), Kammerzell (2000: 101–104); Jansen-Winkeln

(2000). 14 On the agreement of the connector in genitive constructions as a possible typological criterion, see Serzisko (2004:

1093–1094). 15 According to the Egyptological opinio communis, the genitival connector n(~) / n(~)-w / n(~)-t ‘GEN, of,’ regularly

spelled simply n, nw, or n-t, respectively, was probably etymologically an adjectival derivation of the “dative”

preposition n ‘DAT, to, for’ (e.g., Malaise & Winand 1999: §92, Schenkel 2012: §5.2.3, Allen 2013: 74). Earlier

Egyptian had a productive means to derive an adjective from a noun or preposition with an adjectivizing suffix -~,

which Egyptologist and Semitists call a “nisbe” derivation: n-~ / n-~-w / n-~-t. Since the nisbe morpheme -~ itself

was most likely vocalic */iː/ (Werning 2011, I: 139–141, §§56–57; Schultheiß 2014) and there was also no

immediate need for a mater lectionis (cf. Werning forthcoming), it was normally not reflected in the hieroglyphic

script (n, nw, n-t).



Table 1. The “Indirect Genitive” construction in Old Egyptian and Late Egyptian

Old Egyptian (≈ 2500 BCE)

M.SG NPOSSED n(~) ( ) NPOSSOR ‘N(M)[SG] of[M.SG] N’

M.PL N-w POSSED n(~)-w ( ) NPOSSOR ‘N(M)-PL of-M.PL N’

F.SG/PL N.t POSSED n(~)-t ( ) NPOSSOR ‘N:F of-F N’

Late Egyptian (≈ 1100 BCE)

No agreement NPOSSED n(~) ( )16 NPOSSOR ‘N of N, N’s N’

The second construction, the so-called Direct Genitive, is a kind of noun compound construction

[NPOSSED=NPOSSOR]. The possessed and the possessor form a compound that cannot normally be broken apart.

Notably, no personal suffix pronoun or enclitic morpheme may occur between the two nouns. As for the

phonetic/prosodic markedness of this construction, there is inconsistent evidence. Based on evidence from

Coptic, the latest phase of Egyptian, we know that, at least in some of these compounds, the main stress was

on the first noun, i.e., the possessed, for example

(4) Earlier Egyptian */ˈħam/ + */ˈnaːcaɾ/ → */ˈħamnacaɾ/

(3rd millennium BCE)

Hm nTr Hm=nTr

servant(M) god(M) servant(M):STRESS=god(M)

‘servant’

‘god’

‘god’s servant, priest’

Bohairic Coptic /ˈhɔnt/ (Westendorf

(1st millennium CE) ϩⲟⲛⲧ [1965] 1992: 380)

hont

priest

‘priest.’

Some Egyptologists take this head marking construction to be an old compound construction that was not

productive anymore already in the 2nd millennium BCE.17

It seems, however, that the stress in the Direct Genitive construction was usually on the second noun,

i.e., the possessor, and that the first noun appeared in a phonetically somewhat reduced form, which

Egyptologists and Semitists call status constructus,18 for example:

16 Occasionally, we still find the spellings n-t and nw in Late Egyptian. Some of the instances seem to

retain or emulate Earlier Egyptian grammar. In other instances, however, the spellings seem to refer to the same

spoken morpheme as the spelling n (see Erman 1933: §§213–215, Junge 1999: 64). 17 Cf. Edel (1955/1964: §320), Schenkel (1990: 81–86, with reference to G. Fecht), Loprieno (1995: 57),

Kammerzell (2000: 101–102); but cf. Allen (2013: 71). Roman Gundacker is currently working on a book on

Egyptian compounds. 18 Serzisko (2004: 1096); Schenkel (1990: 81), Schenkel (2012: 132, §5.2.3), Allen (2013: 71–72), Borghouts (2010,

I: §83.a with fn. 4); von Soden (1995: §62).



(5) Earlier Egyptian */ˈniːbat/ + */ˈħaːjit/ → */nibtˈħaːjit/

(3rd millennium BCE)

nb.t H(y).t nb.t=H(y).t

mistress:F mansion:F mistress:F\STC=mansion:F

‘mistress’

‘mansion’

(goddess) ‘Nephthys’

Old Coptic */nəbˈtʰoː/ (Westendorf

(Earlier 1st millen- ⲛⲉⲃⲑⲱ [1965] 1992: 120)

nium CE) nebthô

Nephthys(F)

‘Nephthys.’

There were, therefore, two types of such compounds: (i) a noun compound with a stress on the first/head

noun [NPOSSED:STRESS=NPOSSOR] and (ii) a compound with a phonetically reduced first/head noun and a

stress on the second/dependent noun [NPOSSED\STC=NPOSSOR:STRESS]. In a nutshell, one of the two nouns

carried the main stress, while the other was attached to it in a reduced clitic-like form. Since we usually

cannot know which of the two compound types a given instance belonged to, I do not indicate a stress

pattern in the glosses below. Instead, I use the mark “==”, i.e., two equal signs, for both types of compounds

in order to highlight them (NPOSSED==NPOSSOR; Table 2). As to be discussed below, the Direct Genitive

construction became more and more limited in the course of the 2nd millennium BCE. Compare Table 1 and

Table 2 for the situations in Old Egyptian and Late Egyptian.

Table 2. The “Direct Genitive” construction in Egyptian

Old Egyptian (≈ 2500 BCE)

Common NPOSSED==NPOSSOR ‘N’s N, N of N’

Late Egyptian (≈ 1000 BCE)

Limited usage NPOSSED==NPOSSOR ‘N’s N’

It will become important in discussion below that there are only few hints regarding a potential third

genitive construction in original Earlier Egyptian, namely a mere juxtaposition of two nouns without salient

phonetic effect,19 henceforward “Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction.”20 The decisive point is that,

in these cases, it is difficult to imagine that the whole sequence of words carried only one main stress, while

the other words appeared in a phonetically reduced form. Most of the possible examples seem to be

19 Note, however, that the differentiation between juxtaposition and composition can be problematic in certain cases

(Serzisko 2004: 1093). 20 See the references in Jansen-Winkeln (2000: 29, fn. 25), Werning (2011, I: 191, §120, fn. 268). Some of the listed

examples come from texts that actually also emulate “ancient” language, i.e., they do not necessarily exemplify

natural/non-artificial Egyptian language constructions. Others are probably scribal errors (cf. Lefebvre 1955: §150,

mention by Jansen-Winkeln).



instances of a very specific kind, which often could be explained otherwise. For example, some official

professional titles come as sequences of three or more full nouns,21 e.g.,

(6) (3rd millennium BCE; Jones 2000: 848, no. 3099)

zx#(w)==pr(w)==mD#.t

scribe(M)==house(M)==manuscript:F

‘Scribe of the House of Manuscripts.’

An analysis as a nested Direct Genitive construction would suggest that all but one of the nouns were

spoken in a phonetically reduced form. As to official titles like this, however, one may wonder whether the

written form of the titles always reflects the actual spoken construction properly, or whether the spelling is

just an abbreviation.

Other potential examples of Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Constructions have either a clitic element

[NPOSSED=X NPOSSOR] (7) or an adjective between the two nouns [NPOSSED A NPOSSOR] (8–9). Some of these,

however, involve locative nouns as what appears to be a possessor. In these cases, an alternative analysis as

unmarked locative adverbials might be suitable (7b–8b). Finally, in some instances with adjectives between

the two nouns, the construction could alternatively be analyzed as in (9b).

(7) (3rd millennium BCE; Urk. I, 12,9, 13,14;

Hm==k#=nb D.t after Edel 1955/1964: 136, §321)

servant(M)==ka(M)=each[M] endowment:F

a)

b)

‘any ka-priest (of) the endowment’ (analysis as Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction)

‘any ka-priest (in) the endowment’ (analysis with unmarked locative)

(8) (3rd millennium BCE; PT, 845b;

psD.t o#-t Jwnw after Schenkel 1962: 59)

nine:F great-F Heliopolis(M)

a)

b)

‘the Great Ennead (of) Heliopolis’ (analysis as Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction)

‘the Great Ennead (in) Heliopolis’ (analysis with unmarked locative)

(9) a) (3rd millennium BCE; PT, 810c;

TpH.t wr-t Jwnw after Edel 1955/1964: 136, §321)

cave:F great-F Heliopolis(M)

‘the great cave (of) Heliopolis’ (analysis as Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction)

b)

TpH.t wr-t==Jwnw

cave:F great-F==Heliopolis(M)

‘the cave, the great one of Heliopolis’ (analysis with apposition)

21 Some examples are actually mixtures of both types of compounds: (j)m(.~).rA==Hm-w==nTr

(overseer\STC==servant-PL:STRESS==god) ‘overseer of the god’s servants’ (Borghouts 2010, I: 297–298, §83.b.3).

Cf. also Schenkel’s (2012: 132) comment on titles as a specific case.



Other apparent examples of Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Constructions are either also very specific, so

that it is doubtful whether we may infer commonly used constructions from them, or they are so rare that

doubts may be raised about the reliability of their attestation.22 Anyhow, possible examples of possessive

constructions with mere juxtapositions in original Earlier Egyptian are altogether so rare that we may

definitely call them exceptional.

While the Direct Genitive was still largely productive in Old Egyptian (3rd millennium BCE),

Egyptologists noticed that it became more limited in use in the course of the 2nd millennium BCE.23 Allen

(2013: 72) recently summarized: “The two genitival constructions coexisted into Demotic; their use and

distribution has not been systematically studied. By Coptic, however, only the analytic construction was

still productive, with the direct genitive largely lexicalized.” Notably, no statistical investigations have been

published yet. For the case of the two genitive constructions in Earlier Egyptian, we can only build upon a

discussion of the more or less impressionistic claims of various authors by Jansen-Winkeln (2000: §§5–9).

First, it is clear that we have to be prepared to consider that not only one factor, but rather a set of factors, is

responsible for the choice of the Direct or the Indirect Genitive construction.24 Among these, the following

three parameters seem to have a certain influence:25

i) Constructional influences:

a) If the first noun (i.e., the possessed) is accompanied by further attributes, the Indirect Genitive is

preferred.

b) If a personal suffix pronoun is attached to the first noun, the Indirect Genitive is obligatory.

c) Certain inflectional forms of the first noun seem to prefer one of either constructions (e.g., SG

vs. PL/DU).

ii) Lexical influences: Certain lexemes seem to prefer one or the other of the constructions.

Further semantic influences are not clearly discernable for original Earlier Egyptian. Whether the related

nouns are definite or indefinite does not seem to play a salient role.26 In accordance with iconic principles in

language, many scholars perceive a certain semantic “closeness” of the possessive relation in instances of

Direct Genitives and/or a certain “looseness” in cases of Indirect Genitives.27 However, as Jansen-Winkeln

(2000: §5) points out, these perceptions are often based on judgments that are hard to put on objective

grounds. Jansen-Winkeln (2000: §§9–11) further argues that for “qualitative” possessive relations like, e.g.,

22 For possible examples, see Edel (1995: §§321–323), Borghouts (2010, I: §83.b.4), Schenkel (1962: 59–61),

Jansen-Winkeln (2000: 29, fn. 25–26). 23 Cf. Jansen-Winkeln (2000: 29), Kammerzell (2000: 102), Schenkel (2012: 132), Junge (1999: 62–63). In an

account that simplifies the actually attested variation to a certain degree, Kammerzell (2000: 101–104) proposed

that the distribution of Direct Genitives vs. Indirect Genitives corresponded to an alienability split and that it

already developed in the late 3rd millennium BCE. While this might come close to the attested variation for the

specific case of pronominal possessors (cf. the contributions of Gardiner, Sojic, and Winand in this volume), the

distribution for the case of nominal possessors seems more complex. 24 Jansen-Winkeln (2000: 37); cf. also few remarks by Shisha-Halevy (2007: 239–240). For comparable statistical

studies on the English s-Genitive vs. of-Construction, see Rosenbach (2003) and Altenberg (1982). 25 Jansen-Winkeln (2000: §§6, 8). 26 Jansen-Winkeln (2000: 30, 31). 27 Cf. Schenkel (1962); Jansen-Winkeln (2000: §§5, 7); recently, e.g., Borghouts (2010, I: §§83a, 85.c.1).



in ‘a statue of stone’ or ‘a man of honor,’ the Indirect Genitive is obligatory.28 He points out that, in these

cases, the distribution of the actual possessive semantics of the relation contradicts the distribution of the

possessive semantics of the possessive construction: While, grammatically, the “statue” is in the position of

the possessed, semantically it is rather something like a possessor (of a quality). With a certain type of

nouns, however, we also find comparable meanings with Direct Genitives, e.g.,29

(10) Erman & Grapow (1962–1931, II: 228,12–13),

nb==m#o.t BBAW, DZA (23.762.840–850)

lord(M)==truth:F

‘possessor of truth; one who is truthful.’

Below, I suggest classifying examples like this as special cases in which lexical influences overrule the

constructional meaning (Section 4.2.2, meaning (m2b) “possessing possesseds”). Leaving these cases aside,

we may still adhere to the hypothesis that qualitative possession is not normally expressed by Direct

Genitives.

It is fruitful to relate this hypothesis to a semantic map of possessive meaning developed by Nikiforidou

(1991). She suggested that the set of observable meanings of Indo-European possessive constructions be

analyzed as a network of related meanings that are more or less remote from prototypical possession

(Figure 2; see also Section 4.2.2 below).

Fig. 2. Semantic map of IE possessive constructions after Nikiforidou (1991: appendix)

We see that genitive constructions with qualities in the grammatical slot of the possessor, i.e., Thing

constituted | Constituent material and Holder of an attribute | (Distinctive) property, are comparatively

remote from the prototypical possessive meaning of Possessions | Possessor. In the light of this research, I

28 See the meaning (f) Thing constituted | Constituent material in Section 4.2.2. Schenkel (1962: 60) already hints at

the impossibility of expressing the possession type with a material as the possessor with a Direct Genitive. 29 Compare also Eyre (this volume).



propose that the above-mentioned observations on genitive constructions in Earlier Egyptian can be

translated into a more general hypothesis on semantic influences on the choice of the Direct or Indirect

Genitive construction:

iii) Semantic influences: Less prototypical possessive relations prefer the Indirect Genitive to the Direct

Genitive.

In the following section, we will evaluate possible influences on the choice of the Direct or the Indirect

Genitive based on observations about frequencies in one specific, comparatively long text in Égyptien de

tradition, namely the Book of Caverns.

4.2 Full noun genitive constructions in the Book of Caverns

The Book of Caverns was composed in the 13th century BCE.30 It contains approximately 11,500 words and

526 instances of genitive constructions (hereby, literal repetitions in litanies are not counted). The following

statistics are based on raw data that are available from xxx ### ONLINE REPOSITORY TO BE

INSERTED ### xxx.

The contemporary spoken language and the contemporary language of private letters and of literature

was Late Egyptian (cf. Figure 1, above). The language of Caverns is an ancient scholarly emulation of

earlier language, i.e., an Égyptien de tradition (Section 1). We may think of the creation of the largely new

text of Caverns as a mental translation of their Late Egyptian (L1) thoughts into Égyptien de tradition

(Section 2). Generally speaking, the Égyptien de tradition of Caverns is quite similar to original Earlier

Egyptian. There are, however, also certain influences from the L1 of the authors, i.e., Late Egyptian.31 In

this section, I describe the usage of genitive constructions with two or more full nouns and try to spot

possible Late Egyptian influences.

First, we find many more instances of Direct Genitives in Caverns than instances on Indirect Genitives

(Table 3).

Table 3. Relation of Direct vs. Indirect Genitives in the Book of Caverns

Direct Genitive

NPOSSED==NPOSSOR

Indirect Genitive

NPOSSED n(~)/n(~)-w/n(~)-t NPOSSOR

Percent of instances ca. 80% ca. 20%

Given that the Direct Genitive became increasingly rare in the non-artificial language over the course of the

2nd millennium BCE (Section 4.1), this seems to be a remarkable high frequency of the Direct Genitives.

Regarding the Indirect Genitive construction, Earlier Egyptian and Late Egyptian are fundamentally

different with respect to the agreement of the “genitive” connector. We find gender/number agreement of

the genitive connector with the head noun in Earlier Egyptian, but no agreement in Late Egyptian (Table 1

30 Werning (2011, I: ch. V). 31 See Werning (2011, I: 259–261).



above). In Caverns, approximately 5 of 6 instances of the connector clearly display agreement and only 1 of

14 instances clearly lack agreement (Table 4).32

Table 4. Agreement of the “genitive” connector in the Indirect Genitive in the Book of Caverns

Agreement

n(~)-w or n(~)-t

Not distinctive

n(~)

No agreement

n(~) instead of n(~)-w or n(~)-t

Instances 46 47 7

Percent of all instances 46% 47% 7%

Percent of distinctive instances 87% –– 13%

Unfortunately, there are no comparable statistics for texts in original Earlier Egyptian. But compared to

what standard grammars suggest, both the high frequency of Direct Genitives (Table 3) and the low

frequency of genitive connectors that lack agreement with the possessed (Table 4) exceed what we might

expect to find in texts in original Earlier Egyptian.

4.2.1 Possible influences of constructional complexity

From what was said in Section 4.1 above, we expect to find that the constructional complexity of the

possessed and/or the possessor influences the choice of the type of genitive construction. If the first noun is

accompanied by attributes, we expect the Indirect Genitive to be preferred. We further expect to find no

cases of personal suffix pronouns attached to the first noun in a Direct Genitive construction.

Table 7 in the appendix provides an overview of bipartite genitive constructions, i.e., genitive

constructions that relate two and only two nouns plus their optional attributes, or, differently speaking, two

nominal phrases. We find that in cases of possessive relations of two bare nouns without any attributes, the

Direct Genitive construction (N==N) is generally preferred in approximately 9 of 10 instances. As expected,

both attested cases of possessed nouns with attached personal suffix pronouns select the Indirect Genitive,

e.g.,

(11) (Hb. 90.16, RVI)

m=jrw-k n(~) (W)sjr S#H

in=figure(M)[SG]-2SG.M of[M.SG] Osiris(M) Orion(M)

‘in your figure of Osiris-Orion.’

Furthermore, an Indirect Genitive is used if there is not only one, but a set of coordinated possessed nouns,

e.g.,

32 Compare with the statistics in Werning (2011, I: 131, §48, 235–236, §173), which also includes the cases of

repetitions in litanies that are excluded here.



(12) (Hb. 67.17, RVI)

dp-w jb-w n(~)-w Xft(~)-w-j

head(M)-PL heart(M)-PL of-M.PL opponent(M)-PL-1SG

‘the heads and hearts of my enemies.’

As predicted, cases of possessed nouns with additional attributes to their right trigger the use of an Indirect

Genitive (for the only two possible exceptions, see the discussion of (14) below), e.g.,

(13) (Hb. 13.3, α)

(RVI)

... (tO)

sSm St# n(~) (W)sjr

image(M.COLL) mysterious[M.SGsic!] of[M.SG] Osiris

‘the mysterious image of Osiris.’

On the other hand, cases of possessed nouns with clitic or non-clitic determiners or prepositions to their left

do not seem to show a treatment that is clearly different from those with bare possessed nouns. All these

observations are in concord with the assumption that the authors of Caverns differentiated between (i) an

analytic Indirect Genitive construction and (ii) a phonetically marked compound genitive construction just

as it existed in Earlier Egyptian (Tables 1–2).

There are, however, two surprising patterns with genitive meaning. One of the two is the pattern [o(w)-

w~/o(w) tn=N] ‘the arms/arm of the N’ to be discussed later (example 19a). The other one is the pattern

[qrr.t dp(.~)-t N] ‘the first cavern of N’ (example 14a). It is hard to imagine how this could be a Direct

Genitive, i.e., a phonetically marked compound, since both nouns are separated from each other by the word

dp(.~)-t ‘first, one opon, one ahead.’33 As in the case of other adjectival attributes that accompany the first

noun to their right, we would rather expect an Indirect Genitive here (example 14b, compare with 13).

(14) a) Caverns

(13th century BCE) (Hb. 1.23, tO;

qrr.t dp(.~)-t dw#.t similarly in Hb. 1.1)

b) Middle Eg.

(20th century BCE) * (reconstruction)

qrr.t dp(.~)-t n(~)-t dw#.t

cave:F.SG first/ahead:ADJZ-F of-F netherworld:F.SG

‘the first cave of the netherworld.’

As discussed in Section 4.1 above, apart from similar examples in later texts that are likewise compositions

in Égyptien de tradition,34 we find comparable instances only in very few Old Egyptian texts that rather do

not exemplify normal Old Egyptian and surely not Middle Egyptian (examples 7–9 above). The

construction [N dp.~-t N] ‘the first N of N’ is, therefore, a potential example for a third genitive construction,

a Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction [NPOSSED NPOSSOR]. In this specific case, however, we might

33 I wonder, however, if the word dp(.~) ‘first’ is a short clitic in the contemporary language and if the authors of

Caverns thought of the string as follows: [qrr.t=dp(.~)-t==N]. 34 Jansen-Winkeln (1996: §397).



alternatively interpret dp(.~)-t dw#.t as an adjectivized prepositional phrase, more literally paraphrased, ‘(the

cave) that is the foremost of the netherworld’ (ahead:ADJZ-F netherworld:F.SG), which is semantically very

close to ‘the first cave of the netherworld’ (cf. example 9b, above). In any event, the construction in (14),

which is attested twice in Caverns (Hb. 1.1, 1.23), is remarkable. It is a doubtful but still possible example

for a Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction [NPOSSED NPOSSOR], which is, to the best of our knowledge,

largely alien to both original Earlier and Late Egyptian, and therefore potentially an artificial Égyptien de

tradition construction.

Further possible hints on a Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction in Caverns come from nested

genitive constructions with more than two full nouns (see Table 8 in the appendix). In Caverns, we find at

least 14 clear instances of what appears to be a sequence of nested Direct Genitives

[NPOSSED==[NPOSSED==NPOSSOR]POSSOR] ‘the N’s N’s N’ (e.g., examples 15a, 16a, 29). If it were indeed a

nested Direct Genitives construction, we would have to assume that two of the nouns were phonetically

reduced and that only one noun — very probably the last noun — contained the main stress (cf. Section 4.1

above). In original Earlier and Late Egyptian, such constructions are virtually unattested, and at best

exceptional.35 We would expect at least one of the two genitive relations to be expressed by an Indirect

Genitive construction, most probably the first one ([N n(~) [N==N]], see examples 15b, 16b). It is therefore

questionable whether the authors of Caverns actually had a nested Direct Genitive construction

[N==[N==N]] in mind, or whether they thought of a Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction

[N [N==N]], or even [N [N N]], in (15a) and (16a).

(15) a) Caverns

(13th c. BCE)

(Hb. 82.49, tO)

TpH.t=?=snT==(W)sjr

cave:F=?=divine_body(M.COLL)==Osiris(M)

b) Middle Eg.

(20th c. BCE)

* (reconstruction)

TpH.t n(~)-t snT==(W)sjr

cave:F of-F divine_body(M.COLL)==Osiris(M)

‘the cave of the divine body of Osiris,’

35 But see footnotes 21 and 20 above.



(16) a) Caverns

(13th c. BCE)

(Hb. 42.29, α)

(tO)

(Pet)

b#-w=?=Xft(~)-w==(W)sjr

soul(M)-PL=?=opponent(M)-PL==Osiris(M) 36

b) Middle Eg.

(20th c. BCE)

* (reconstruction)

b#-w n(~)-w Xft(~)-w==(W)sjr

soul(M)-PL of-M.PL opponent(M)-PL==Osiris(M)

‘the souls of the enemies of Osiris.’

In addition to that, there are at least another 23 potential examples for the Simple Juxtaposition Genitive

Construction in Caverns. In these cases, however, doubts concerning the grammatical analysis can be raised,

too. In each of the questionable examples, one of the supposed possessed nouns is actually a nominalized

de-prepositional adjective (“nisbe”), namely37

Hr-~ (on/above-ADJZ) ‘one who is over, master,’

Xnt-~ (front/at_the_front-ADJZ) ‘one at the front, chief; one who dwells38 in, inhabitant,’

jr-~ (to/ATTD/close_by-ADJZ) ‘one who is at,39 one responsible, guardian,’ and

jm-~ (in/ESSIVE-ADJZ) ‘one who is in, inhabitant; one who is (in the form of)40.’

In these cases, the connection between the nominalized de-prepositional adjective and the following noun

can be analyzed as a genitive connection in certain contexts, but it can also be analyzed as a preposition–

noun relation. Compare the following two competing analyses of one of the examples from Caverns:

(17) Caverns

(13th c. BCE)

(Hb. 80.14, tO)

a) Direct Genitive

analysis

Xft(~)-w==Xnt.~==dw#.t

opponent(M)-PL==chief[M.SG]==netherworld:F

‘the enemies of the chief of the netherworld’

b) Prepositional

object analysis

Xft(~)-w==Xnt.~ dw#.t

opponent(M)-PL==at_the_front:ADJZ[M.SG] netherworld:F

‘the enemies of the one who is at the head of the netherworld.’

36 At least Xft(~)-w==(W)sjr ‘the enemies of Osiris’ is very probably a Direct Genitive compound. Compare the

position of the enclitic demonstrative copula pw in the following Nominal Sentence:

Xft(~)-w==Ro=pw [opponent(M)-PL==Ra(M)]=DEM ‘These/they are the-enemies-of-Ra’ (Hb. 68.6, Pet). This

copula is normally attached to the first compact word or phrase. 37 The word Xft~ ‘the enemy, the opponent,’ originally also a nominalized de-prepositional adjective/nisbe Xft-~

(opposite-ADJZ[M.SG]) ‘the one who is opposed,’ on the other hand, is very probably already a fully lexicalized

noun (see footnote 36). 38 For the meaning ‘one who dwells in,’ see Werning (2011, II: 506). 39 For the meaning ‘one close to, one at,’ see Werning (2012: §§4.1–4.2). 40 For the meaning ‘one who is (in the form of),’ see Werning (2011, II: 478).



In this particular case, however, analysis (b) is probably less likely. In the written form, the phrase Xnt.~

dw#.t is spelled with a phrase classifier [GOD] which refers to the phrase Xnt~ dw#.t as a whole.41 This

indicates that the authors understood this pair of words as a combined expression ‘chief–of–the–

netherworld.’ However, since these cases with de-prepositional nisbes are not clear examples for genitive

constructions, they are left out of the statistics in this article.

The following example (18) is a comparable case that is also difficult to analyze since a nominalized

adjective/nisbe derived from the compound preposition m=Xt ‘behind, after, in the following’ is involved.

Traditionally, Egyptologists assume that the connection between the relational noun, Xt in this case, and the

following noun is a Direct Genitive connection (m=Xt==N). It is unclear, however, whether this necessarily

holds true for the de-prepositional nisbe jm.~ Xt ‘one who is behind, one following, follower’ as well.

(18) Caverns

(13th c. BCE)

(Hb. 4.1–2, RVI)

j psD.t n(~)-t nTr-w

o! ennead:F[SG] of-F god(M)-PL

jm(.~)-t Xt=?=k#==jmn.t

in:ADJZ-F following?(M)=?=bull(M)[SG]==west:F[SG]

‘O divine group of gods,

the ones in the following of the “bull” of the west!’42

To conclude, the Égyptien de tradition in Caverns exemplifies 14 clear and another 23 debatable instances

of constructions that are either to be analyzed as nested Direct Genitive Constructions [N==[N==N]] ‘the N

of the N of N’ or, alternatively, as constructions that include at least one Simple Juxtaposition Genitive

construction [N N] ‘the N of N.’ However, both constructions are, as far as I can see, alien to both Earlier

and Late Egyptian. I propose that these constructions are the result of a simple rule for the translation of

genitive constructions that were mentally phrased in the author’s contemporary chronolect Late Egyptian

(L1) into Égyptien de tradition (L2). The rule was, evidently, to (i) delete all articles and (ii) either

exchange the Late Egyptian uninflected connector n(~) ‘of’ in the Indirect Genitive construction by an

inflected version of it, i.e., n(~)-ø, n(~)-t, or n(~)-w, respectively, or to simply leave the connector out (see

Table 5). It is unclear whether they conceptualized the latter case, i.e., two directly following nouns, as a

phonetically marked Direct Genitive compound or as a Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction.

41 A phrase classifier refers to the combined meaning of a whole phrase or productively derived word form and

usually stands at the end of it. For the notion and the phenomenon of “phrase classifiers,” see Werning (2009: 5),

Werning (2011, I: 106–107, §12 with footnote 62), Werning (in preparation). For a largely similar approach,

cf. Lincke (2011: §2.3), Lincke & Kammerzell (2012: §3.3.2–3). Note, however, that compound semantics need

not necessarily imply compound morpho-syntax (cf. Haspelmath 1998). 42 Note that the spelling of jm(.~)-t Xt with the phrase classifiers [GOD][PLURAL] indicates that jm(.~)-t Xt was

understood as a combined expression ‘the–ones–in–the–following’ and also that it was not felt as simply an

adjectival attribute to psD.t ‘ennead’ but as a full noun phrase in apposition. Cf. a similar example in Hb. 101.9.

The meaning of the relational noun Xt alone is not entirely clear (cf. Erman & Grapow 1926–1931, III: 342–347).



Table 5. Translation process model of genitive constructions in Égyptien de tradition

Late Egyptian (L1), bipartite (ART=)N n(~)= (ART=)N

(ART=)N== N

Translation rules: ↓delete ART ↓inflect,

or delete

↓delete ART

Égyptien de tradition N=?= N

N n(~)-ø/t/w N

Late Egyptian (L1), tripartite (ART=)N n(~)= (ART=)N n(~)= (ART=)N

(ART=)N n(~)= (ART=)N== N

(ART=)N== N n(~)= (ART=)N

Translation rules: ↓delete ART ↓inflect,

or delete

↓delete ART ↓inflect,

or delete

↓delete ART

Égyptien de tradition N=?= N=?= N

N n(~)-ø/t/w N=?= N

N n(~)-ø/t/w N n(~)-ø/t/w N

N=?= N n(~)-ø/t/w N

In two interesting instances of genitive constructions, the authors of

Caverns did not apply the general rule to simply delete all Late

Egyptian (L1) articles (example 19). Instead, they exchanged them

with an Earlier Egyptian demonstrative morpheme (cf. examples 1–

3 above). The resulting construction is definitely an Égyptien de

tradition hybrid that is alien to both Earlier and Late Egyptian.

Again, it is unclear whether the resulting construction was

conceptualized as a Direct Genitive construction or as a Simple

Juxtaposition Genitive Construction.

Fig. 3. The Mysterious One with Ra

on her hand (Book of Caverns, scene

L; Werning 2011, II: 234)

(19) Caverns

(13th c. BCE)

(Hb. 60.5, tO; sim. 60.12)

Hr o(w)-w~=?=tn=St{#}y-t

on arm&hand(M)-DU=?=DETV:F=mysterious-F

L1 = Late Eg.


Hr= o(w).w~ n(~)= t#=St{#}y(t)

on= arm&hand(M):DU of= ART:F=mysterious(F)

Class. Middle Eg.


Hr o(w)-w~==St#-t

on arm&hand(M)-DU==mysterious-F

‘on the hands of The Mysterious One’ (cf. Figure 3)



4.2.2 Possible semantic influences

Generally speaking, possible semantic influences on the choice of either the Indirect Genitive or the Direct

Genitive constructions may come from (i) semantic features of the possessor, (ii) semantic features of the

possessed, and/or (iii) the semantic relation between the two. In this section, we first look at the animacy of

possessors in the Book of Caverns. Afterwards, we investigate the degree of the alienability of the attested

relations. Finally, I review the attested semantic relations based on a semantic map of possessive meanings

that was suggested by Nikiforidou (1991).

The animacy of the possessor

Research on possession often claims that “prototypical instances of possession involve human possessors,

and, less typically, non-human animate possessors.”43 In Caverns, we find that genitive possessors are

altogether nearly as often inanimate as animate (Figure 4).

Fig. 4. Animacy of genitival possessors in the Book of Caverns (CC-BY)

Furthermore, Figure 4 shows that the Direct Genitive [N==N] and the Indirect Genitive [N n(~) N] behave

differently with respect to animacy. While both animate and inanimate possessors prefer the Direct Genitive,

it is surprisingly44 not the animate, but the inanimate possessors that prefer the Direct Genitive even more.

In the Indirect Genitive, inanimate possessors are remarkably rare.

The results, however, are influenced by the statistical effect of special cases like, for example, ‘ruler of

N,’ ‘lord of N,’ ‘king of N,’ or ‘possessor of N’ in which the grammatical slot of the possessed is occupied

by an agent or a (semantic) possessor and, consequently the slot of the possessor is occupied by a

patient/theme or a (semantic) possessed. I tentatively label cases like these “agentive possesseds” or

“possessing possesseds,” respectively (see meaning (m2) below). If we delete these cases from our set, we

find, indeed, that possessors are more often animate than inanimate, and a relation between the animacy of

the possessor and the choice of one or the other genitive construction is not that clear (Figure 5).

43 Heine (1997: 21, cf. 5, 9). 44 Cf. the opposite phenomenon in English (Rosenbach 2003: §4.3).



Fig. 5. Animacy of genitival possessors in Caverns without cases of agentive and possessing possesseds

(CC-BY)

The alienability of the possessive relation

In an evaluation of the relation of alienable possession and head marking in Ancient Egyptian, Kammerzell

(2000: 102) claimed that in Ancient Egyptian around 2000 BCE, i.e., in Middle Egyptian, “[p]ossessive

expressions with alienable possessed are no longer built productively by means of compounds (i.e., Direct

Genitives, D.W.).” Due to the lack of actual quantitative research on this topic, however, we can only take

this as the educated intuition of an experienced Egyptological linguist. Assuming that Kammerzell’s

intuition is accurate, we may expect that authors who composed texts even later in the 2nd millennium

expressed alienable possessive relations preferably with the Indirect Genitive. In the Égyptien de tradition

of Caverns, however, we find exactly the opposite behavior. The authors did not only generally prefer the

Direct Genitive to the Indirect Genitive (Table 4 above), but, in cases of alienable possession, they used the

Indirect Genitive not in a higher but rather in a lower percentage of cases than in the cases of inalienable

possession (Figure 6).

Fig. 6. Alienability of genitival possessive relations in the Book of Caverns (CC-BY)

Actually, the data in Caverns contradict possible expectations suggested by iconicity principles in language.

The iconicity principle predicts that the closer semantic relation, i.e., inalienable possession, tends to be

expressed by the more compact construction, i.e., the Direct Genitive, while the more loose relation, i.e.,

alienable possession, tends to the less compact construction, i.e., the Indirect Genitive.45 Rather than taking

the opposite tendency in Caverns as a counterexample against iconicity principles, I suspect that the

45 Cf. Rosenbach (2003: 389, 398), Pusch (2001: §4.2.1), with reference to the work of John Haiman.



unexpected data in Caverns testify for the artificial nature of its language. Generally, it seems that we

cannot claim that we find an alienability split in Caverns, at least not an obvious one.

A semantic map of possessive relations

In an article on genitives, Nikiforidou (1991) suggests analyzing the set of observable meanings of

possessive constructions as a network of metaphorically related meanings. Her main result is a

corresponding semantic map of genitive meanings (Figure 2 above). In this section, we explore the genitive

meanings that we find in Caverns and map them on a rearranged and slightly expanded version of

Nikiforidou’s semantic map (Figure 7 below).

The following list exemplifies genitive meanings that we find in genitive constructions in Caverns. I

tried to categorize the meanings based on Nikiforidou’s classification (meanings (a)–(m) below). Eventually,

I specified the meanings more precisely, e.g., the meanings (c1)/(c2), (k1)/(k2), (m1)/(m2). However, some

cases are ambiguous and some do not clearly fit one of her classes, e.g., those mentioned in (c1a2) and (c2).

Two meanings seem to be missing in her map: Entity | Identified and Agent | Patient/Theme (see (n) and

(m2) below). In the case of the Entity | Identified, it is an identification that is established between the

possessor and the possessed. The other missing cases that may be categorized as cases of Agent |

Patient/Theme are cases in which the slot of the constructional possessed is filled by an actor or (semantic)

possessor, while the slot of the constructional possessor is filled by a patient, theme, experiencer, or

(semantic) possessed. In these cases it is the constructional possessed that “controls” or “possesses” the

constructional possessor (and not vice versa). Note that in the case of (m2b) Possessor | Possessed, the

meanings of the construction slots contradict the possessive meaning of the lexemes that occupy the slots

(constructional possessed—semantic possessor, constructional possessor—semantic possessed). I

tentatively label these special cases as cases of “agentive possesseds” and “possessing possesseds,”

respectively (see Section 4.2.2 above).

The following list gives examples for genitive meanings in the Book of Caverns:46

(a) Possessions | Possessor (genitivus possessivus)

‘The coffer of Osiris’ (hn==(W)sjr), ‘the cavern of Osiris’ (qrr.t==(W)sjr), ‘the mysterious place

of(/with?) the chief of the netherworld’ (bw St# n(~) Xnt~==dw#.t), ‘the cave of(/with?) his head’

(TpH.t==dp-f), ‘the divine group of(/around?) Osiris’ (psD.t n(~)-t (W)sjr), ‘the council of the chamber of

the west’ (D#D#.t n(~.t) o.t==jmn.t).

(b) Kin | Person

‘Son of Osiris’ (z#==(W)sjr), ‘son of a god’ (z#==nTr), ‘son of the earth (i.e. snake)’ (z#==t#); see

examples (22–23) below.

46 In the examples, the first of a pair of nouns in the Egyptian example is the possessed and the second is the

possessor—just like in the English translation. Further grams and marks are: n(~)/n(~)-w/n(~)-t ‘of’ (Indirect

Genitive), == ‘of’ (Direct Genitive), m ‘in,’ -k 2SG.M, -f 3SG.M, -Tn 2PL, -sn 3PL, pn DEM.M.SG, pf DEM.DIST.M.SG,

o# ‘great,’ St#/s.St# ‘mysterious.’



(c) Part | Whole (genitivus partitivus)

(c1a1) Part | Whole: body parts

‘The head of Ra’ (dp==Ro), ‘the heads of the ones to be destroyed’ (dp-w n(~) Htm-yw);

(c1a2) Part | Whole (?): divine manifestations

‘the soul of The God’ (b#==nTr=pn), ‘the ka of the west’ (k#==jmn.t), ‘the image of the lord of the

netherworld’ (sSm n(~) nb==dw#.t), ‘the transformation of Khepri’ (Xprw==%p{r}j), ‘the shining disc

(i.e., the sun) of Ra’ (jtn==Ro), ‘the shining disc of the Great God’ (jtn n(~) nTr o#);

(c1b) Part | Whole: inanimates

‘the caverns of the west (i.e., the netherworld)’ (qr(r).(w)t==jmn.t), ‘the chamber of the west’ (o.t==jmn.t),

‘the gate of(/to?) heaven’ (sb# n(~) p.t), ‘the districts of the Silent Realm (i.e., the netherworld)’

(sp#.(w)t==jgr.t, see example (29) above); ‘the land of the west’ (t#==jmn.t), ‘in the sphere of his face’

(m=rk==Hr-f), ‘in the surrounding of his mysterious shrine’ (m=dbnw n(~) k#r-f St#);

(c2) Part | Whole (?): Located entity | Space (D.W.)

‘the ways of(/in) the netherworld’ (w#.(w)t==dw#.t), ‘in between the pair of mysterious caverns of(/in) the

west’ (m=jm(~).(w)t.n(~) qr(r).t~ St#-t~ n(~)-t~ jmn.t), ‘the sarcophagus of(/in) the west’ (db#.t==jmn.t),

‘the gods of(/on) the shore’ (nTr-w==jdb), ‘the divine group(s) of(/in) the west’ (psD.t==jmn.t), ‘the

guides of(/in) the mysterious (netherworld)’ (s.Smi-yt==St{#}y.t).

(d) Attribute | Holder of an attribute

‘The darkness of the mysterious (netherworld)’ (kkw==St{#}y.t), ‘the darkness of hell’ (kkw==Htm.yt),

‘the youth of his body’ (Hwn==How-f).

(e) Originating element | Origin

Possible examples (cf. the meanings (c1) and (n)): ‘the gods of(/from) the council’ (nn.n(~) nTr-w==D#D#.t),

‘the gods of(/from) the divine group around Osiris’ (nTr-w==psD.t jm(~)-t (W)sjr); (cf. the meaning (d)):

‘the light of(/from) his shining disc (i.e., the sun)’ (HD.wt n(~)-t jtn-f), ‘the light of(/from) his shining disc’

(HD.wt==jtn-f).

(f) Thing constituted | Constituent material (genitivus materiae)

‘A flame of fire from his mouth’ (ns n(~) sD.t dp r#-f), ‘the Ennead of gods, the divine group of gods’ (psD.t

n(~)-t nTr-w).

(g) Holder of an attribute | (Distinctive) property (genitivus qualitatis)

Possible examples (complete list):47 ‘the cavern of(/with) the two hills’ (qrr.t==j#.t~), ‘the cave of(/with)

the two posts’ (TpH.t==mnj.t~), ‘the (personified) Silent Realm of(/with) the knifes’ (jgr.t==zf(j)-w), ‘the

(personified) Silent Realm of(/with) the gods’ (jgr.t==nTr-w), ‘the (personified) Quiet Realm of(/with) the

gods’ (sgr.t==nTr-w), ‘the land of(/with) the silent (divinities)’ (t#==j.gr-w), ‘the caverns of(/with) the

mystery’ (qrr.t==St#(.w)) (for the latter two, different readings of the passages are possible); ‘the cave

of(/with) the coffer of(/with) the mysterious (body) that the ones in the netherworld see’ (TpH.t n(~)-t hn n(~)

47 Cf. Nikiforidou (1991: 184).



s.St# m##-w dw#t(~)-w); ‘that night [of] taking counsel and of judging the spirits’ (grH=pf <n(~)> nD==mdw

n(~) jr.t wp.t==#X(j)-w).

(h) Entity compared | Standard of comparison

‘The most primeval one of the transformations’ (pn=p#(w)t-~==Xpr<w>-w), ‘the oldest of (the old ones

on) the earth’ (wr==t#).

(j) Effect | Cause

No clear example; but cf. meaning (k2).

(k) Experiences/Products | Experiencer/Agent (genitivus subjectivus)

(k1a) Experience | Experiencer

‘The abomination of their hearts/minds’ (bw.t==jb-w-sn);

(k1b) Action | Agent

No clear example.

(k2) Theme/Patient | Agent (genitivus auctoris)

‘inside the winding of (the snake-shaped) Nekheb-kau’ (m=xnw=?=q#b==NHb(.w) k#-w).

(m) ‘Adventures’ | Patient 48 (genitivus objectivus)

(m1) Action | Theme/Patient

‘The birth of Ra’ (ms.wt==Ro), ‘the separation of the spirits’ (wp.t==#X(j)-w), ‘the protection of Osiris’

(z#==(W)sjr), ‘the guarding of his enemies’ (z#w.t==Xft(~)-w-f).

(m2) Agent | Patient/Theme (addition D.W.)49

(m2a) Agent/Experiencer | Patient/Theme/Experience (“agentive possesseds”)

‘The ruler of the netherworld’ (Hq(#)==dw#.t), ‘the care-taker of this following’ (nDt.~ n(~) jm(~)-w Xt-f),

‘the heir of Osiris’ (j(w)ow==(W)sjr), ‘the enemies of Osiris’ (Xft(~)-w n(~)-w (W)sjr), ‘enemies of Ra’

(Xft(~)-w==Ro); ‘lord of the west’ (nb==jmn.t), ‘king of the west’ (nzw==jmn.t); ‘“great” of the west,

chief of the west’ (o#==jmn.t); (cases with de-prepositional nisbes, which are excluded from the statistics,

see the discussion above:) ‘chief of the netherworld’ (Xnt-~=?=dw#.t, see example 17, above), ‘master of

the lamenting ones’ (Hr(-~)=?=j#kb-(y)w).

(m2b) Possessor | Possessed (“possessing possesseds,” compare with (a))

‘“lord” of (his) head, possessor of (his) head’ (nb==D#D#), ‘“lord” of a bier, possessor of a bier’

(nb==Dry.t), ‘“lord” of a tassel, possessor of a tassel’ (nb==monX.t).

48 The difficulty to always clearly separate between Action | Theme/Patient and Experience | Experiencer is also

addressed by Nikiforidou (1991: 180). 49 Nikiforidou (1991: 153) mentions a case like this, namely “addresser of Sokrates,” only in an introductory list.



(n) Entity | Identified (addition D.W.) (cf. genitivus explicativus)

‘In your form of(/which is) Osiris-Orion’ (m= jrw-k n(~) (W)sjr c#H, see example 11, above), ‘in his

mysterious [for]m of(/which is) the one who wears a headscarf’ (m= <jr>w-f St# n(~) ofnt-~), ‘in your name

(of/)which is sčpyw’ (m=rn-Tn n(~) sTp-yw).

As for the additional meaning (n) Entity | Identified, I tentatively suggest understanding it as a metaphorical

expansion of the meaning (f) Thing constituted | Constituent material (see Figure 7). Support for this

hypothesis may come from the observation of prepositional meaning in Egyptian. The Earlier Egyptian

preposition m also covers both meanings ‘out of’ (material) and ‘as, being’ (essive).50

Figure 7. Semantic space of genitive constructions, slightly modified variant based on Nikiforidou (1991:

appendix) (CC-BY-SA)

The following diagrams (Figures 8–9) map the semantic spaces covered by the Direct Genitive (N==N,

compound construction) and the Indirect Genitive (N n(~) N, of-construction) in Caverns, respectively.51

50 Besides the meanings ‘in (inessive), from (ablative), with (instrumental).’ See Erman & Grapow (1926–1931, II:

1–2); for the spatial meanings of m, see Werning (2012: §5.2). 51 The numbers in brackets that are added to the meaning Part | Whole are cases of the meaning (c1a2) Divine

manifestation | Divinity. For those in brackets added to the meaning Holder of an attribute | (Distinctive) property,

different reading of the passages are possible. The meaning Effect | Cause is not attested in genitive constructions

in Caverns.



Figure 8. Semantic space of Direct Genitive constructions (N==N) in the Book of Caverns (CC-BY)

Figure 9. Semantic space of the Indirect Genitive construction (N n(~) N) in the Book of Caverns (CC-BY)

Evaluation of the sematic maps

Since the language of Caverns is obviously a mixture of sophisticated emulations of older chronolects and

influences of the contemporary spoken language, i.e., an artificial hybrid (Section 2, above), we should be

prepared for the eventuality that typological expectations are not necessarily met.

In concord with the concept of semantic maps, we expect the attested meanings of a genitive gram to

cover one continuous area on the map.52 Looking at the semantic maps (Figures 8–9, above), we see that the

semantic spaces of the two genitive constructions in Caverns largely cover contiguous areas despite the

artificial nature of its language. There are, however, some cases of Direct Genitive constructions that I

classified as cases of the meaning (g) Holder of an attribute | (Distinctive) property (see above) that seem to

form an island on the semantic map (Figure 8).

Earlier, I put forth the hypothesis, based on earlier claims concerning genitive constructions in Earlier

Egyptian, that less prototypical possessive relations prefer the Indirect Genitive to the Direct Genitive

(Section 4.1 above). This expectation seems to be met only partially. As expected, two comparatively

52 Haspelmath (2003: especially 217), Grossman and Polis (2012: 183–187, especially 186).



peripheral meanings, namely (f) Thing constituted | Constituent material and (n) Entity | Identified, are

always expressed with and only with the Indirect Genitive construction. On the other hand, the peripheral

meaning (g) Holder of an attribute | (Distinctive) property is attested with both constructions (given my

classifications of the examples are acceptable). And another similarly peripheral meaning, namely (h) Entity

compared | Standard of comparison, is attested with the Direct Genitive construction only. Given the low

number of instances of this meaning, however, the latter observation may simply be attributed to statistical

effects (this is why there are dotted lines in Figure 9). On average, we expect only 1 of 5 possessive

relations to be expressed with an Indirect Genitive (Table 3, above). The same statistical effect may also

explain why the meaning (k) Experiences/Products | Experiencer/Agent is not attested in Indirect Genitive

construction.

As far as the meaning (b) Kin | Person is concerned, on the other hand, we could have expected one or

two of the nine cases to be expressed with an Indirect Genitive. Therefore, the gap seems indicative. Taking

a closer look, however, we find that all nine instances of kinship relations in Caverns involve the lexeme

z# ‘son’ as the possessed (examples 20–23):

(20) z#==nTr son(M)==god(M) ‘son of a god’ (e.g., Hb. 48.11, RVI),

(21) z#==(W)sjr son(M)==Osiris(M) ‘son of Osiris’ (Hb. 101.36, RVI),

(22) z#==t# son(M)==earth(M) ‘son of the earth’ (Hb. 2.22, tO, RVI),

(23) z#-w==t# son(M)-PL==earth(M) ‘sons of the earth’ (e.g., Hb. 15.21, tO).

The lexeme z# ‘son,’ however, is a very frequent possessed noun in Egyptian, used in affiliations of the

pattern A z#==B ‘A, son of B’ in both, Earlier and Late Egyptian.53 In certain common phrases, z# even

made it into the 1st millennium CE, notably also in (21/24):54

(24) Old Eg. z#==(W)sjr son(M)==Osiris(M) */ʦiʀuːˈsiːrV/ ‘son of Osiris’

> Coptic ⲥⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲉ siousire */siːuːˈsiːrə/ ‘son of Osiris.’

Moreover, the compound z#==t# (examples 22, 25) is among the few fixed old compounds of the type with

a stress on the first part that made it into Coptic times (see Section 4.1, example 4 above):55

(25) Old Eg. z#==t# son(M)==earth(M) */ˈʦiʀtaʀ/ ‘son of the earth (i.e. snake)’

> Coptic ⲥⲓⲧⲉ site */ˈsiːtə/ ‘basilisk.’

It was obviously common for z# ‘son’ to be used in a compound construction in all phases of the Egyptian

language. The authors of Caverns did not deviate from this usage in their Égyptien de tradition.

Due to the lack of quantitative studies on Earlier Egyptian as well as Late Egyptian, it is difficult to

further evaluate the semantic spaces of the two genitive constructions in Caverns. In cases in which Earlier

Egyptian and Late Egyptian chronolects seem to exhibit the same usage, the authors at least did not deviate

from it (e.g., in the use of z# ‘son’ and in the use of the Indirect Genitive construction for Thing constituted |

Constituent material relations). The general preference of the Direct Genitive to the Indirect Genitive in a

53 Compare also the traditional usage of z# with directly suffixed personal pronouns (see Winand, this volume). 54 Cf. Vycichl (1983: 182), Westendorf (1992: 535). 55 Westendorf ([1965] 1992: 198).



ratio of 4:1 in Caverns (see Table 3, above), however, is a hypercorrection toward an unnaturally frequent

use of the Direct Genitive compared to not only Late Egyptian, but very probably also compared to original

Earlier Egyptian chronolects.

5 Some remarkable possessive constructions in the Book of Caverns

5.1 Passive possession

The Book of Caverns exemplifies many examples of what is called “passive possession” in typological

literature.56 In each case, the possessed noun is kk.w ‘darkness’ and the possessor noun in a personal suffix

pronoun, as in (26).

(26) (Hb. 62.12, tO)

dr-j kk.w-Tn

drive_away:SBJV-1SG darkness:M.COLL-2PL

‘I will drive away the darkness around you (literally: your darkness).’

5.2 A puzzle: grammatical phrases vs. phrase classifiers

An often attested phrase in Caverns is jr(.~)-w o# n(~) N (the_one_at-M.PL door(M)[SG] of N), which most

naturally translates into English as ‘the doorkeepers of N’ (see examples 27–28).

(27) (Hb. 18.40, RVI)

jr(.~)-w o# n(~) (W)sjr

close_by/at:ADJZ-M.PL door(M)[SG] of[M.SG] Osiris(M)

‘the doorkeepers of Osiris.’

(28) (Hb. 17.3, tO)

jr(.~)-w o# n(~) Htm.yt

close_by/at:ADJZ-M.PL door(M)[SG] of[M.SG] hell:F[SG]

‘the doorkeepers of hell.’

The crucial point is the analysis of the morpheme spelled n. A natural assumption is that is the

genitive connector n(~) ‘of,’ the M.SG form of which is always spelled simply n. Contrary to what we

would expect of the genitive connector in these environment in Caverns (see Table 4, above), however, the

morpheme does regularly not agree in number with the plural head noun phrase jr(.~)-w o# ‘doorkeepers,’

which would look like jr(.~)-w o# n(~)-w (W)sjr/Htm.yt (the_one_at-M.PL door(M)[SG] of-M.PL Osiris/hell)

‘the doorkeepers of Osiris/hell,’ with a plural version of the genitive connector nw.

An explanation is that the possessors ‘of Osiris’ and ‘of hell’ do not relate to the M.PL phrase jr(.~)-w o#

‘doorkeepers’ as a whole, but only to the M.SG word o# ‘door:’ jr(.~)-w o# n(~) (W)sjr/Htm.yt (the_one_at-

M.PL door(M)[SG] of[M.SG] Osiris/hell) ‘the keepers of the door of Osiris/hell.’ Indirectly, this analysis is

56 Heine (1997: 23), with reference to Pawley’s work from 1973.



also supported by another example in Caverns in which a Direct Genitive seems to occur instead of the

Indirect Genitive (29a).

(29a) (Hb. 1.2, tO)

jr(.~)-w o#==sp#.(w)t==jgr.t

close_by/at:ADJZ-M.PL door(M)[SG]==district:F.PL==Silent:F[SG]

‘the keepers of the door of the districts of the Silent Realm’

≈ ‘the doorkeepers of the districts of the Silent Realm.’

This analysis, however, is surprising since the spellings of the phrase jr(~)-w o# with the phrase classifiers

[SNAKE][PLURAL] like in example (28) or [GOD][PLURAL] in example (29) clearly indicate that the

Egyptian authors understood the phrase jr.~-w o# as a semantically combined expression ‘doorkeepers.’57

This designation even made it into the dictionaries.58

Admittedly, in (29), an alternative analysis as Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction (see Section

4) is possible (29b).

(29b) (Hb. 1.2, tO)

jr(.~)-w o# sp#.(w)t==jgr.t

close_by:ADJZ-M.PL door(M)[SG] district:F.PL==Silent:F[SG]

‘the doorkeepers (of) the districts of the Silent Realm.’

In cases like (27) and (28), however, any other analysis is unlikely.59 It seems, therefore, that the layout of

the grammatical relations and the indication of semantic phrases by phrase classifiers do not go together in

(27, 28, 29a; compare also the example 17 and example 18 with footnote, above).

5.3 Spelling of n~=sw ‘he belongs to; belongs to him’

The construction [n(~)=PRON N] ‘PRON belongs to N; N belongs to PRON’60 is attested only once in the

Caverns (30).

(30) (Hb. 101.24, RVI)

j b#=pw n(~) n(~)=s<w> dp==Sfj

o! soul(M)=DEM.M.SG of[M.SG] belonging_to=3SG.M head(M)==ram(M)

‘O you soul of “The-one-who-has-the-head-of-a-ram”!’

57 For the notion and function of “phrase classifiers,” see footnote 41. 58 E.g., Erman & Grapow (1926–1931, I: 104,3, 164,17). 59 In certain instances, one could alternatively interpret the morpheme spelled n not as the Indirect Genitive

connector n(~) ‘of,’ but as the “dative” preposition n ‘for/to:’ jr(.~)-w o# n=N (the_one_at-M.PL door(M)[SG]

DAT=N), more literally ‘the doorkeeper for/to N’ (still analyzed this way in Werning 2011, II). In example (28),

however, this alternative interpretation is questionable since inanimate dative objects are normally introduced not

by n ‘DAT, for, to’ but by r ‘to, ATTD’ in Earlier Egyptian (Erman & Grapow 1926–1931, II: 193–194, 386–388).

And in (29), this explanation is impossible, since there is no element spelled n at all. 60 Schenkel (2012: ch. 6.3,c); see also Vernus and Polis (both in this volume).



In an original Earlier Egyptian text, we would have expected the spelling n-ns-sw-w for the

morpheme group n(~)=sw in this possessive construction.61 In this instance, however, the morpheme

sequence is spelled n-s-SCROLL (n(~)=s). The spelling lacks a representation of w and it exhibits an

additional SCROLL classifier. It is obviously derived from the Late Egyptian fossilized morpheme n-

ns-s-~-SCROLL (n(~).sA) ‘belong to; he/she/it belongs to,’ which is the functional successor of Earlier

Egyptian n(~)=sw, n(~)=s~, n(~)=st, as well as simply n(~)= in this construction.62 While the construction in

Caverns is proper Earlier Egyptian, the spelling n(~)=s for the expected morpheme sequence n(~)=sw is

derived from orthography of its Late Egyptian fossilized successor n(~).sA.

6 Conclusions

In the late 2nd and the earlier 1st millennia BCE, authors who wrote texts in Égyptien de tradition, i.e., who

emulated Earlier Egyptian language in their texts, were remarkably well informed about the “ancient”

written language varieties from the 3rd and earlier 2nd millennia BCE. Only constructions that are scarcely

attested and very probably also were scarcely attested in ancient texts also escaped the ancient Egyptian

philologists (Section 3). Nevertheless, the modern linguist can eventually spot influences from the authors’

contemporary chronolect in their Égyptiens de tradition (Sections 2, 4, and 5.3).

In Section 4.2, we explored the usage of the Direct Genitive construction (NPOSSED==NPOSSOR) vs. the

Indirect Genitive construction (NPOSSED n(~) NPOSSOR) in the Book of Caverns (early Égyptien de tradition, 13th

century BCE). It turned out that the authors clearly preferred the Direct Genitive to the Indirect Genitive

(Table 3). Their contemporary chronolect, i.e., Late Egyptian, shows the opposite tendency, i.e., an

increasing preference for the Indirect Genitive. The preference of the Direct Genitive in Caverns is to be

understood as a strategic means to emulate Earlier Egyptian grammar. Moreover, in cases in which the

authors used the Indirect Genitive, they took care to inflect the genitive connector by gender and number

(Table 4), as it is usual in original Earlier Egyptian. This is remarkable since this inflection was not present

in the Indirect Genitive construction of their contemporary chronolect anymore (Table 1).

Furthermore, I highlighted the special effect on statistics of animacy that certain types of genitive

relations have that I tentatively labeled “agentive possesseds” (e.g., ‘ruler of the netherworld’) and

“possessing possesseds” (e.g., ‘possessor of a bier’). In these cases, it is not the constructional possessor but

the constructional possessed which “controls” or “possesses” its nominal partner.

In Section 4.2.1, we explored the variety of more complex instances of genitive constructions, i.e.,

instances in which additional attributes accompany the possessor noun or the possessed noun as well as

instances of nested genitive constructions (‘the N of N’s N’). Most of these match original Earlier Egyptian

patterns. There are, however, some construction variants that are exceptional for — or even alien to —

original Earlier Egyptian (examples 14–19, 29). These are cases for which analyses as true Direct Genitive

constructions, i.e., constructions in which all but one of the nouns are phonetically reduced, are improbable

or even impossible. I suggested that these instances be understood as results from a mechanical translation

of basic contemporary constructions into patterns that the authors attributed to Earlier Egyptian grammar.

We may reconstruct the following rule: “(a) Delete articles; and (b1) inflect genitive connector or (b2)

delete genitive connector.” Note that phonetic considerations are not part of this translation rule.

Consequently, the authors created also constructions like, for example, [N N N] ‘the N of N’s N’ which

61 Gardiner (1957: §114,2). 62 Erman (1933: §233), see also Polis (this volume).



are largely alien to original Earlier Egyptian since the original Direct Genitive construction entailed the

phonetic reduction of all but one of the participating words ([N\STC==N] ‘the N of N’), which in turn

imposed restrictions on its usage (see Section 4.1). As a result, we may conclude that the authors of Caverns

seem to have conceptualized the original Earlier Egyptian phonetically marked Direct Genitive rather as a

Simple Juxtaposition Genitive Construction, probably not in all but at least in some instances.

Figure 10 maps the translation process as to be reconstructed for the Book of Caverns.

Figure 10. Mental translation of Late Egyptian genitive constructions to the Égyptien de tradition as found

in the Book of Caverns

In Section 4.2.2, we explored possible semantic influences on the choice of either the Indirect or the Direct

Genitive constructions. We found that, contrary to expectations based on iconicity principles, inalienable

possession is expressed comparatively more often with the less compact Indirect Genitive construction (≈

35%) than alienable possession is (≈ 15%), and, accordingly, alienable possession is expressed

comparatively more often with the more compact Direct Genitive construction (≈ 85%) than inalienable

possession is (≈ 65%) (see Figure 6).

Furthermore, I reviewed a mapping of all attested semantic relations in the two genitive constructions in

Caverns onto Nikiforidou’s (1991) semantic map of possessive meanings. To this end, I added the semantic

relation of Entity | Identified (entity) to the map (for some instances, it remains unclear or even difficult to

appoint the sematic relation to a particular class; see Section 4.2.2). In any event, both the Direct Genitive

construction and the Indirect Genitive construction cover large spaces on the semantic map. They are,

however, not identical (compare Figures 8 and 9). Notably, the peripheral meanings Thing constituted |

Constituent material and Entity | Identified (entity) are attested in the Indirect Genitive construction only,

and, as a possessed noun, the kinship term z# ‘son’ is always used with the Direct Genitive construction. As

opposed to typological expectations in the case of natural languages, the semantic space covered by the

Direct Genitive construction does not form one single contiguous space. Besides the main space, there is a

second island. It is unclear whether this is the case due to the fact that the language of Caverns is an

artificial emulation of ancient language varieties or whether the underlying semantic map needs to be

revised.

Specific glossing abbreviations

- affix boundary

= clitic boundary

== Direct Genitive construction

=?= Direct Genitive construction, questionable



ADJZ adjectivizer (nisbe)

ART article

ATTD attached (adpositional meaning)

COLL collective

DAT dative (function)

DEM demonstrative

DETV determinative article

DIST distal

DISTR distributive

GEN genitive (function)

N noun

NEG negation

PART participle

PTCL particle

POSS possessive

POSSED possessed

POSSOR possessor

PRON personal pronoun

PROX proximate

QUANT quantitative

REL relative pronoun

RELF relative form

SBJV subjunctive

STC status constructus

Abbreviated literature

DZA = Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Das digitalisierte Zettelarchiv [des

Wörterbuchs der ägyptischen Sprache] (DZA). In: Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae.

http://aaew2.bbaw.de/tla/ (accessed 2014).

L’Égyptologie en 1979 = Unknown editor. 1982. L’Égyptologie en 1979: Axes prioritaires de recherches

(Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 595). Paris: Éditions du

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Hb. + [text number] = Werning (2011: II).

Bibliography

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Possession and ownership: a cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y.

Aikhenvald & R. M. W Dixon (eds.). Possession and ownership. A cross-linguistic typology

(Explorations in Linguistic Typology 6), 1–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allen, James P. 2013. The ancient Egyptian language: An historical study. Cambridge, New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: A study of syntactic variation in 17th century

English (Lund Studies in English 62). Lund: CWK Gleerup.



Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Das digitalisierte Zettelarchiv [des Wörterbuchs

der ägyptischen Sprache] (DZA). In: Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae. http://aaew2.bbaw.de/tla/

(accessed 2014).

Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.).

2004. Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. 2. Halbband

(Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17/2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Borghouts, Joris F. 2010. Egyptian: An introduction to the writing and language of the middle kingdom

(Egyptologische uitgaven 24). Leiden: Nederlands instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Edel, Elmar. 1955/1964. Altägyptische Grammatik (Analecta Orientalia 34/39). Rome: Pontificium

Institutum Biblicum.

Erman, Adolf. 1933. Neuägyptische Grammatik, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Engelmann.

Erman, Adolf & Hermann Grapow. 1926–1931. Das Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. Leipzig: J. C.

Hinrichs.

Gardiner, Alan H. 1957. Egyptian grammar: Being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs, 3rd, rev. edn.

London: Oxford University Press.

Grossman, Eitan & Stéphane Polis. 2012. Navigating polyfunctionality in the lexicon: Semantic maps and

Ancient Egyptian lexical semantics. In Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis & Jean Winand (eds.). Lexical

semantics in Ancient Egyptian (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 9), 175–225. Hamburg:

Widmaier.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22(2). 49–85.

http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/staff/martin_haspelmath/pdf/1998gre.pdf (accessed

2014).

Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic

comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.). The new psychology of language. Cognitive and functional

approaches to language structure, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/staff/martin_haspelmath/pdf/2003sem.pdf (accessed

2014).

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in

Linguistics 83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. 1996. Spätmittelägyptische Grammatik der Texte der 3. Zwischenzeit (Ägypten und

Altes Testament 34). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. 2000. Bemerkungen zum „Genitiv“ im Ägyptischen. Zeitschrift für ägyptische

Sprache und Altertumskunde 127. 27–37.

Jenni, Hanna. 2004. Sätze zum Ausdruck von Zugehörigkeit und Besitz im Ägyptischen. Lingua Aegyptia.

Journal of Egyptian Language Studies 12. 123–131.

Jones, Dilwyn. 2000. An index of Ancient Egyptian titles, epithets and phrases of the Old kingdom (British

Archaeological Reports: International series 866). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Junge, Friedrich. 1984. ‘Sprache’. In Wolfgang Helck & Wolfhart Westendorf (eds.). Lexikon der

Ägyptologie V: Pyramidenbau - Steingefäße, Col.1176–1211, 2 tabs. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Junge, Friedrich. 1999. Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen, 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Otto

Harrassowitz.

Kammerzell, Frank. 1998. Sprachkontakte und Sprachwandel im Alten Ägypten, habilitation thesis, Georg-

August-Universität Göttingen, unpublished.



Kammerzell, Frank. 2000. Egyptian possessive constructions: A diachronic typological perspective. STUF -

Language Typology and Universals 53(1). 97–108. http://www.archaeologie.hu-

berlin.de/aegy_anoa/publications/kammerzell_egyptian-possessive-constructions/ (accessed 2014).

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. Adnominal possession. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, W.

Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals. An international

handbook. 2. Halbband (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20/2), 960–970.

Berlin: De Gruyter.

Kurth, Dieter. 2008. Einführung ins Ptolemäische: Eine Grammatik mit Zeichenliste und Übungsstücken.

Teil 2. Hützel: Backe.

Lefebvre, Gustave. 1955. Grammaire de l’égyptien classique, 2nd, rev. et corr. ed. (Bibliothèque d’étude

12). Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale: Cairo.

Lincke, Eliese-Sophia. 2011. Die Prinzipien der Klassifizierung im Altägyptischen (Göttinger

Orientforschungen, Reihe IV: Ägypten 38/6 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 6).

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lincke, Eliese-Sophia & Frank Kammerzell. 2012. Egyptian classifiers at the interface of lexical semantics

and pragmatics, in: Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis & Jean Winand (eds.). Lexical semantics in

Ancient Egyptian (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 9), 55–112. Hamburg: Widmaier.

Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lustman, Jacqueline. 1999. Etude grammaticale du papyrus Bremner-Rhind. Paris: Jacqueline Lustman.

Malaise, Michel & Jean Winand. 1999. Grammaire raisonnée de l'égyptien classique (Aegyptiaca

Leodiensia 6). Liège: Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres.

Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic

change. Cognitive Linguistics 2(2). 149–206.

Pusch, Claus D. 2001. Ikonizität. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, W. Oesterreicher & Wolfgang

Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. 1. Halbband

(Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20/1), 369–384. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-

genitive in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.). Determinants of grammatical

variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43), 379–411. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Satzinger, Helmut. 1986. Syntax der Präpositionsadjektive („Präpositionsnisben“). Zeitschrift für ägyptische

Sprache und Altertumskunde 113. 141–153.

Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1962. Direkter und indirekter „Genitiv“. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und

Altertumskunde 88. 58–66.

Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1990. Einführung in die altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Schenkel, Wolfgang. 2012. Tübinger Einführung in die klassisch-ägyptische Sprache und Schrift, [5th],

green ed. Tübingen: Wolfgang Schenkel.

Schultheiß, Alexander. 2014. Studien zur Semantik und Formenbildung der Nisbe im Älteren Ägyptischen.

Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin PhD dissertation.

Serzisko, Fritz. 2004. Possession. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang

Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.). Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und



Wortbildung. 2. Halbband (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17/2), 1091–

1103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Shisha-Halevy, Arial. 2007. Determination-signalling environment in Old and Middle Egyptian: Work-

notes and reflections. In Tali Bar & Eran Cohen (eds.). Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in

honor of Gideon Goldenberg (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 334), 223–254. Münster: Ugarit.

Soden, Wolfram von. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 3rd edn. (Analecta Orientalia 33). Roma:

Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

Stassen, Leon. 2001. Predicative Possession. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, W. Oesterreicher &

Wolfgang Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. 2.

Halbband (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20/2), 954–960. Berlin: De

Gruyter.

Stauder, Andréas. 2013b. L’émulation du passé à l’ère thoutmoside : la dimension linguistique. In Susanne

Bickel (ed.). Vergangenheit und Zukunft. Studien zum historischen Bewusstsein in der Thutmosidenzeit

(Aegyptiaca Helvetica 22), 77–126 (based on manuscript of the author). Basel: Schwabe.

Stauder, Andréas. 2013a. Linguistic dating of Middle Egyptian literary texts (Lingua Aegyptia Studia

Monographica 12). Hamburg: Widmaier, Kai.

Unknown editor. 1982. L’Egyptologie en 1979: Axes prioritaires de recherches (Colloques Internationaux

du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 595). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique.

Vycichl, Werner. 1983. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven: Peeters.

Werning, Daniel A. 2009. Extracts from GIF project no. 988 report Ancient Egyptian classifiers in a

diachronic perspective. Annual progress report (2009), ed. by Frank Kammerzell & Orly Goldwasser,

Berlin & Jerusalem (http://www.gwdg.de/~dwernin/published/Daniel_Werning-

Extract_GIF_Report_2009.pdf).

Werning, Daniel A. 2011. Das Höhlenbuch: Textkritische Edition und Textgrammatik (Göttinger

Orientforschungen. Reihe 4, Ägypten 48). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Werning, Daniel A. 2012. Ancient Egyptian prepositions for the expression of spatial relations and their

translations. In Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis & Jean Winand (eds.). Lexical semantics in Ancient

Egyptian (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 9), 293–346. Hamburg: Widmaier.

http://www.gwdg.de/~dwernin/published/Daniel_Werning-2012-

Egyptian_Prepositions_Spatial_Relations.pdf.

Werning, Daniel A. 2013. Linguistic Dating of the Netherworld Books Attested in the New Kingdom. A

Critical Review, in: Gerald Moers, Kai Widmaier, Antonia Giewekemeyer, Arndt Lümers & Ralf Ernst

(eds.), Dating Egyptian Literary Texts, Volume 1 (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 11), 237–

281. Hamburg: Widmaier. http://www.gwdg.de/~dwernin/published/Daniel_Werning-2013-

Linguistic_Dating_Netherworld_Books.pdf.

Werning, Daniel A. forthcoming. Hypotheses on glides and matres lectionis in Earlier Egyptian

orthographies. In James P. Allen, Mark Collier & Andréas Stauder (eds.). [Proceedings of the

workshop on Earlier Egyptian grammar, Brown University, Providence (RI), March 27–39, 2013]

(Wilbour Studies in Egyptology and Assyriology), ca. 20. Atlanta: Lockwook.

Werning, Daniel A. in preparation. Classifier systems in three Middle Egyptian texts. An empirical

functional approach, with contributions by Annette Sundermeyer & Philipp-Emanuel Klepsch.



Westendorf, Wolfhart. 1992. Koptisches Wörterbuch: Bearbeitet auf Grund des Koptischen

Handwörterbuches von Wilhelm Spiegelberg. Studienausgabe, Titelauflage der Ausgabe Heidelberg

1965/1977. Heidelberg: Winter.

Research data repository

Spreadsheets that contain raw data on the Book of Caverns and its evaluation as well as Figures 1 and 4–9

are available from the following online repository: xxx ### TO BE INSERTED ### xxx.

Appendix

Table 6. Possessive construction in the Book of Caverns and Third Intermediate Period texts in Égyptien de

tradition

Construction Pattern

example

Original

chronolects

Égyptien de

tradition

(Marks: POSSOR bold,

POSSED underlined)

Earlier

Eg.

Late

Eg. (L1)

Caverns

(L2)

TIP

texts

(L2) (a)

Attributive constructions

Personal suffix pronoun attached to nouns

N-PRON house-1SG

‘my house’ Usual Restricted passim §220

Personal pronoun after

nouns N tw(t), N sw(t)

house 2SG

‘house of yours’ ––– Rare ––– (?)

Deictic adverb jr~ N jr-~ mother thereof

‘their mother’ Rare Rare ––– (?)

Reflexive pronoun N-PRON Ds-PRON

house-1SG self-

1SG

‘my own house’ Usual Rare Yes (b) §408

Possessive article plus noun DEF.POSS-PRON N

DEF.POSS-1SG

house

‘my house’

Still

rare Usual ––– (c)

§§241–

242 (d)

“Direct Genitive”

(see Section 4.1) N==N

head==god

‘the god’s head’ Usual Restricted passim

§§397,

399–404

“Indirect Genitive” (see Section 4.1)

N n(~) N head of god

‘the god’s head’ Usual Usual (e) passim

§§398,

399–404

N n(~)-PRON head of-1SG

‘head of mine’

Except.

(f) ––– ––– (g) –––

N.~ ... jmy attribute N n(~)-PRON=jm.y

house of-

1SG=jm.y

‘house of mine’

Rare Rare ––– §379

Possessive pronoun p# n(~) N > p(#).n(~) N,

t# n(~)-t N > tj.n(~)t N

the_one of

goddess

‘one who belongs

to the goddess’

Except. Usual ––– –––

Bahuvrihi, Adjectival

Clause, and sim. with

adjective of quantity/size

ADJ:QUANT N (h)

great sheep

‘one who has

many sheep’ Usual Lexical. Yes (i)

§§382,

575




example

Original

chronolects

Égyptien de

tradition


POSSED underlined)

Earlier

Eg.

Late

Eg. (L1)

Caverns

(L2)

TIP

texts

(L2) (a)

Bahuvrihi, Adjectival

Clause, and sim. with

inalienable noun (body part)

ADJ N:POSSED (j)

perfect face

‘one who has a

perfect face’ Usual Lexical.

Many

(k)

§§382,

575

Lexical constructions

De-nominal adjective

(“nisbe”; certain cases with

semantically possesseds)

N.POSSED-~/y

headdress-ADJZ

‘one who has a

headdress’ Usual Lexical. Many (l) §178 (m)

Possessor noun and sim. that

demands an “object” as

possessed noun in Direct

Genitive (see above)

N.POSSOR==N (n)

lord==sky

‘lord of the sky,’

ruler==sky

‘ruler of the sky’

Usual Lexical. Many

(o)

§§401,

176–177

(p)

Predicative constructions

“Dative” possession clause (PTCL) N n=N

house DAT=man

‘A man had a

house.’ Rare ––– Yes (q)

§271,A g

(p.174)

PTCL n-PRON N;

PTCL=PRON n-PRON

PTCL DAT-3SG.F

house

‘She has a house.’ Rare –––

Rarely

(r)

§544–

545 (s)

N.~ clause

(n(~) N=PRON),

n(~)=PRON=PRON;

n(~)=PRON N,

n(~)=PRON N

of=3SG.M house

‘A house belongs

to him,’

of=3SG.M gods

‘He belongs to the

gods.’

Rare ––– (t) §584

N(~).sA clause n(~).sA=PRON N

n(~).sA=3SG.M

gods

‘He belongs to the

gods.’

––– Usual ––– (u) §584

N.~ clause in name n(~) N N

of life god

‘Life belongs to

God.’(?)

Except. ––– ––– [–––]

N.~ ... jm clause n(~)-PRON=jm=PRON of-1SG=jm=3SG.M

‘They are mine.’ Except. ––– ––– ? (v)

Nominal Clause (existential

scheme) with autonomous

personal pronouns as

possessor

PRON N 1SG house

‘I have a house.’ Rare Rare Rare (w) §584

Comitative possession N xr N

woman with

house

‘The woman had

a house.’

Rare Rare (x) §289

“Holding” possession

N m=o(w)==N,

N m=o(w)-PRON

N mo N, N mo-PRON

scroll in=hand-

1SG

‘I have a scroll.’

Rare ––– (y) ? (z)

Wn md~ clause wn N md~-PRON

wn=md~-PRON N

exist scroll md~-

1SG

‘I have a scroll.’

Except. Usual ––– (aa)




example

Original

chronolects

Égyptien de

tradition


POSSED underlined)

Earlier

Eg.

Late

Eg. (L1)

Caverns

(L2)

TIP

texts

(L2) (a)

Existence Clause with wn jw wn N-PRON

PTCL exist son-

1SG

‘I have a son.’

Usual Usual

(wn ...) ––– –––

Non-Existence Clause with

wn

nn wn N-PRON,

nn wn N n(~) N

NEG exist son-1SG

‘I have no son.’ Rare

(> mn ...:

Usual)

Once

(bb) §593 (cc)


wn.t nj=wn.t N-PRON

NEG=exist son-

1SG

‘I have no son.’

Rare ––– Once

(dd) –––


nn

nn N-PRON

nn N n(~) N

NEG son-1SG

‘I have no son.’ Usual ––– ––– (ee)

§§593,

595 (ff)

Non-Existence Relative

Clause with jwt.~ jwt.~ N-PRON

REL.NEG son-1SG

‘who has no son’ Usual Lexical.

Many

(gg)

§735

(hh)

Table endnotes

a) Paragraphs refer to Jansen-Winkeln (1996).

b) 9×, e.g., Hb. 18.8, 21.17, 26.12, 15.4.

c) But cf. example (3) above (pn=HD.y-j; Hb. 90.17).

d) Few (§237: “wenige”).

e) But without gender/number agreement in Late Egyptian; see Section 4.1, above.

f) Borghouts (2010: I, §85.e).

g) But see corrupt Hb. 71.21–22.

h) E.g., oS# N ‘one with many ...,’ o# N ‘one with great/many ...,’ wr N ‘one with many/great ...,’ q# N ‘one with

high/many ...,’ Srr N ‘one with little/few ....’

i) E.g., oS# sT#-w ‘the one with many tunnels’ (Hb. 25.20), oS# rn[///] ‘the one with many nam[es?]’ (Hb. 26.3), q# jnon

‘the one with a long beard’ (Hb. 52.18), q# jrw ‘the one with a tall figure’ (Hb. 103.3).

j) E.g., nfr Hr ‘one with a beautiful face,’ jqr Dbo-w ‘one with skillful fingers’; cf. also jmn rn-f ‘one whose name is

concealed.’

k) E.g., w#S-w b#-w ‘the ones with sublime souls’ (Hb. 9.12).

l) E.g., ofnt-~ ‘the one (with) a headscarf’ (Hb. 80.2,13), nst-(~)w ‘the ones who (have) a throne’ (Hb. 59.29), Sni-y

‘the hairy one’ (Hb. 21.18).

m) mnw-y ‘having (many) monuments’ (“reich an Denkmälern”).

n) E.g., nb==N ‘lord of N, the possessor of N,’ Xnt-~=?=N ‘the one at the front of N, the foremost of,’ Hr-~=?=N ‘the

one over N, the master of N,’ Hr-~ dp==N ‘the one above N, the chief of,’ o#==N ‘the great one of N,’ Hq#=?=N ‘the

ruler of N,’ jr-~=?=N ‘the one at N’ (see also Eyre, this volume).

o) E.g., nb==ofn.t ‘possessor of a headscarf’ (Hb. 22.28), nb-w==b#-w ‘the ones who are with (their) souls’

(Hb. 19.41), nb==D#D# ‘one who has (his) head’ (Hb. 22.21), o#-w==sDr.wt ‘the ones who have beds’ (Hb. 6.4).

p) nb, Hq#, Hr-~ dp, Hr-~, jr-~ (cf. table endnote n).

q) E.g., T#w n-k ‘You have air.’ (Hb. 47.6), hy n-k ‘Praise is yours/to you.’ (4×, e.g., Hb. 99.13).

r) jw n-k jr.t~-k ‘You have your eyes.’ (Hb. 99.13ff.), jw n-k hy ‘Praise is yours/to you.’ (Hb. 49.12).

s) jw n-k N ‘You have N.’

t) Cf. Section 5.3, above.

u) But cf. n(.~)=s<w> dp==Sfj ‘the one who has the head of a ram’ (see example 30, above).



v) Cf. Jansen-Winkeln (1996: §379, fn. 2; 1×?).

w) ntk jrw==Xnt~=?=dw#.t ‘Yours is the form of the chief of the west’ (Hb. 13.11), ntk x#.t-f Hw#(-t) ‘Yours is his

decomposing corps’ (Hb. 13.13), ntn(sic!) b#==onX Xprw ‘Ours is the soul of the one with vivid transformation’

(Hb. 105.4); cf. also corrupt nnk r=Dr tm (Hb. 71.22).

x) Hb. 70.13, 80.12, 101.34.

y) Cf. Hb. 8.2, 13.8.

z) Cf. Jansen-Winkeln (1996: §289).

aa) Cf. ntt wn m=o(w)-k (Jansen-Winkeln 1996: §378).

bb) nn wn b#-w-sn ‘They have no souls’ (Hb. 85.57).

cc) nj wn Dr=o-sn.

dd) nj wn.t ofn.t-Tn ‘You have no headscarves’ (Hb. 54.10).

ee) But cf. Hb. 33.16 (nn St#(w) n.~ jm~-t ow-w~-f).

ff) Negation mostly spelled simply with outstretched arms.

gg) E.g., jwt.~ dp-sn jwt.~ b#-sn ‘the ones who have no head and who have no soul’ (Hb. 28.1–2), jwt(.~)-w HD(.wt)-sn

‘the ones who have/see no light’ (Hb. 28.1–2), jwt(.~)-w dp jwt(.~)-w wsr.(w)t-sn jwt(.~)-w b#-sn ‘the ones without

head, who have no necks, and who have no soul’ (Hb. 28.1–2).

hh) jwt~ wn-f.

Table 7. Bipartite genitive constructions in the Book of Caverns

NPPOSSED NPPOSSOR Direct Genitive (Instances) Indirect Genitive (Instances) Unclear (Instances)

N (bare) N (various) N==N (326×) N n(~) N (36×)

N (bare) N-PRON N==N-PRON (33×) N n(~) N-PRON (9×)

N (bare) N=DEM N==N=DEM (5×) N n(~) N=DEM (2×)

N (bare) DEM=N –– –– N DEM=N (2×)

N (bare) Relative clause

(REL AdvP) N==nt~ ADVP (1×?) N n(~) nt~ ADVP (4×)

N (bare) Coordinated

N1, ..., Nx N==N1, N2 (1×?) N n(~) N1, ..., Nx (1×)

Coordinated

N, ..., N N (various) –– N1, ..., Nx n(~) N-PRON (2×)

N-PRON

N-PRON ADJ

N

N

––

––

N-PRON n(~) N1, N2

N-PRON ADJ n(~) N

(1×)

(1×)

N=DEM N (various) –– N=DEM n(~) N (16×)

DEM=N N DEM=N==N (3×) ––

N ADJ N (various) –– N ADJ n(~) N (7×)

N dp~ N –– –– N dp.~ N (2×)

nn.n(~) N N nn.n(~) N==N (3×) nn.n(~) N n(~) N (3×)

PREP +

relational N N (various)

PREP=N==N

PREP N==N (43×) PREP=N n(~) N (1×)

Repetitions in litanies are counted only once. De-prepositional nisbe–N relations are omitted.



Table 8. Tripartite genitive constructions in Caverns

NPPOSSED1

NPPOSSOR1

NPPOSSED2

NPPOSSOR2

Direct Genitive (Instances)

or simple juxtaposition? Indirect Genitive (Instances)

N N N

N=?=N==N

PREP=N=?=N==N

(see also example 29a)

(11×)

(1×)

N n(~) N==N

N==N n(~) N

N n(~) N n(~) N RELF

(2×)

(1×?)

(1×)

N=DEM N N –– N=DEM n(~) N==N (2×)

N N=DEM N PREP=N=?=N==N=DEM (1×) ––

N DEM=N N –– N n(~) DEM=N==N (1×)

Coordinated

N, ..., N N

Coordinated

N, N –– N, N, N n(~) N==N, N (1×)

Questionable cases with nominalized de-prepositional adjectives/“nisbes” Xnt-~, jr-~, Hr-~, jm-~, jm-~ Xt,

or with a nominalized participle Hq# (see the discussion in Section 4.2.1)

NISBE/PART N N (various) N=??=N=?=N

jm(~).t Xt=??=N=?=N

(4×)

(1×)

N=??=N n(~) N

jr(~).w=??=o# n(~) N

(1×)

(7×)

N NISBE/PART N (various) N==N=??=N

N==N=??=N-PRON

(14×)

(1×)

N n(~) N=??=N

N n(~) N=??=N-PRON

(13×)

(1×)

NISBE/PART NISBE/PART N (various) jm(~).w Xt=??=N=??=N (3×) ––

N=DEM NISBE/PART N –– N=DEM n(~) N=??=N (3×)

N ADJ NISBE/PART N –– N ADJ n(~) N=??=N (2×)

“=?=” and “=??=” mark cases in which it is unclear whether these are phonetically marked Direct Genitive

constructions. Repetitions in litanies are counted only once.

“genitive” possessive constructions in Égyptien de

Documents