stative eventive traces oreal

8/12/2019 Stative Eventive Traces Oreal

1/12

ZS137 (2010) E. Oral : Stative-Eventive Opposition in Ancient Egyptian 145

ELSAORAL

Traces of a Stative-Eventive Opposition in Ancient Egyptian

Rethinking Pseudoparticiple as Old Perfective

Grammars usually describe types of predica-tion according to the nature of the predicate, i.e.the part of speech to which it belongs1. Fourtypes are often distinguished: nominal, loca-

tive/situational/adverbial, adjectival and verbalpredication. This tradition may have preventedsome pertinent linguistic analysis of Older Egyp-tian data, especially concerning the problematiccategory of the adjective2, and hinders recogniz-ing some facts of alignment in Proto-Egyptian3.Moreover, the diachronical stratification whichcharacterizes Old Egyptian sources contributedto prevent one confronting adjectival predica-tion with another paradigm whose non verbalorigin has long been recognized, i.e. Old Perfec-

tive/Pseudoparticiple. I would try starting fromthe fact that, for Proto-Egyptian, Pseudopartici-ple is a priori neither more nor less a verbalpredicate than adjectival predication for, tograsp the sense of the system, we have to look atthose different types of predication whileputting them in parallel. The aim of this contri-bution is thus twofold:

1 See e.g. A. H. Gardiner , Egyptian Grammar,1957, 135142. More recently M. Malaise, J. Wi-nand, Grammaire raisonne de lgyptien classique,1999, 494511, J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 2000,6770.

2 For recent critical contributions from an egyp-tological point of view, see S. Uljas, The EarlierEgyptian Adjective Reconsidered, LingAeg 15, 2007,231250, and C. Peust, Adjektiv und Adjektivverb,in C. Peust (ed), Miscellanea in honorem Wolfhart Westendorf, Gttinger Miszellen Beihefte 3, 2008, 58 82.

3 By Proto-Egyptian, I intend a stage in Egyptianlanguage history which, while anterior to historicalsources, left some traces in it, and may be at least partlyreconstructed.

(1) Challenging the usual semantic characteri-sation of the adjectival ornfr sw predication,so as to show that it used to function as non-eventive, stative (vs. dynamic) predication rather

than as essential (vs. contigent) predication.Parallel with this reassessment of its use as a realstative, the traditional characterisation of Pseu-doparticiple with statal verbs as an alleged sta-tive will be questioned.

(2) Proposing a different analysis of thePseudoparticiple4 and its relationship to the so-called Old Perfective/Indicative sDm=f . It hasalready been observed that both forms were func-tionally complementary, but I will argue thatPseudoparticiple and Old Perfective sDm belonged

to one and the same paradigm in some stage ofthe Egyptian language5, and that the Pseudopar-ticiple was initially a form specialized for dynami-cal/eventive predication, a fact which is rathercounterintuitive given its usual denomination.

Thus, I will claim thatnfr sw predication wasthe real Stative counterpart to the re-unitedOld Perfective paradigm. From a typologicalpoint of view, these analysis result in a picture which suggests that Proto-Egyptian may repre-sent an interesting case for fluid split intransitiv-ity 6.

4 Let it be called this way for the time being, sincethis label doesnt presume anything about its meaningand functions, see W. Schenkel, Tbinger Einfhrungin die klassisch-gyptische Sprache und Schrift, 2005,224.

5 This original unity has been hypothesized byK. Jan se n- Wi nk eln , Das gyptische Pseudopar-tizip, OLP 24, 1993, 528, but along absolutely differ-ent diachronical lines of explanation.

6 For recent important progress in descriptive andgeneral linguistics on this topic, see M. Donohue(ed.), Typology of Semantic Alignment, Oxford, 2008.


2/12

146 E. Oral: Stative-Eventive Opposition in Ancient Egyptian ZS137 (2010)

1. What was the stative predicationin Older Egyptian?

Thenfr sw is usually characterized as express-ing an inherent property 7. This semantic descrip-tion is supposed to match the distinction be-tween adjectival and verbal predication. We would like to challenge this usual assessment. Infact, looking at more ancient data in a precise way shows us thatnfr sw predication is notbound to essential quality vs. contigency.

1.1. Reconsidering the adjectivalpredication

The very simple observation that the adjectival predicate can be considered as a participle isrelevant to our point because it already blundersthe boundary between adjectival and verbalpredication. Moreover, this predicate can evenbe a participle of a two-places verb, even if thisremains a limited phenomenon. But even whenthis is the case, it is almost never active. When itstill is, the semantics of the predication excludeany eventive interpretation:

(1) The quality ascribed to the subject, whileimplying some kind of agentivity, is presented asa state which characterizes it, as opposed to aprocess/event occurring.

sHDw sw tA.wj r jtnHe is more illuminating of the Two Lands than thesun disc8.

The form sHDw is an active participle, but thesubject of the predication (the king) is not view-ed as an agent, since the proposition aims atexpressing a defining property of his which isbased on some prototypical role of the sun andthe Nile9.

7 Ma lai se -Wi nan d, op. cit., 494: stable et inh-rente pas synonyme datemporalit, 499: noncontingente.

8 For this analysis rather than reading sHD wj sw, seeS. Uljas, LingAeg 15, 2007, 235.

9 Wb, DZA 141320, lists sHDw illuminator, as anepitheton of the sun god. While remaining very rare inMiddle Egyptian, this use could be more frequent ingyptien de tradition , see e.g. great Sphinxstele, l.12(Amenhotep II):rx sw kAt nbt nt MnTw, he knew all

(2) While active in a sense, the constructionstates a fact whose validity is unlimited in time,and not a process. There is no agentivity on thesubject side. Examples of this use remain rare.One can cite:His city loves him more than itself,Haj st jm=f r nTrw=sn it rejoices about him more than their gods10. (A petitioner wants his utterances to be taken intoconsideration more than accomplishment of what hehas come for)Haj sw jm r sprw nbHe rejoices about it more than any petitioner11.

We may conclude that, as a stative, thenfr sw predication may express a property implyingsome agentivity of its subject, but without mak-ing reference to an event. It is also the case when the predicate is a passive participle of atwo-places verb. The following example is par-ticularly interesting since it alternatively shows,in the same context, a one-place adjectival( nfr ) and a two-places verbal predicate ( mrjj ):mrjj sj mH.tj r wnn=s Sw.tjIt is wanted full rather than empty 12.nfr sj mH.tj r wnn=s Sw.tjIt is better full than empty 13.

This legend belongs to a tomb representationshowing the owner of the tomb in a seat whosebearers say a seemingly conventional line. Themeaning is that it is better when the seat is full,i.e. when the defunct is sitting in it. Whatever itsritual signification may have been, this statementobviously implies that it could be empty, andthat being full is no inherent property of it.Moreover, the variation betweenmrjj and nfr shows that another participant than the subjectis not excluded from adjectival predication.

works of Montu [P. Vernus, p.c.]. In this phase of thelanguage, one can indeed expect the original semanticsof thenfr sw predication to have been lost, as they werepart of an alignment system which had changed since a very long time by then.

10 Sinuhe, 67.11 Ptahhotep, only L2 = pBM 10509, l.4,13.12 P. Duell , The Mastaba of Mereruka, The Univer-

sity of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 39, Chi-cago, 1938, 53.

13 N. Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Ge-brwi, II, Londres, 1902, pl. VIII.


3/12


Unlikenfr , mrj implies indeed the existence of anexperient. If explicitely mentioned, it can bephrased as an oblique participant 14:n Spss mnx mrjj wj xr Jzzj r mjt=j nbbecause I was respected, beneficial and loved by Izezimore than anyone with the same rank 15.or as a typical agent-like argument in a transitiveconstruction (involving amrr=f form) in astrictly similar context:(Never was the like made for anyone)n mrr wj Hm=f r bAk=f nbbecause His Majesty loved me more than anyservant 16.

The choice ofnfr sw construction in the for-

mer example may be influenced by the fact thatthe other predicates occurring in parallel withmrjj, Spss andmnx , could not be conceived of asa transitive action. But the very semantic natureof the verb mrj used in this context with themeaning to favour someone makes it naturalthat beingmrjj by the sovereign is usually notconceived of as an event but as a state. In thisrespect, it can be revealing to compare its use with another way of referring to royal favour which often forms a formulary couple with it,i.e. the verbHzj. Its Aktionsart is different fromthat of mrj , for the action of praising has aninherent telicity. As a consequence, the fact ofbeingHzj can more easily be thought of as anevent, even if it remains of course possible toconsider the state attained through it withoutpaying attention to the process itself:Hzj wj Hm=f Hr=s r xt nb.His Majesty praised me for it more than anything 17.

Here the use of Old Perfective predicationput light on the event. Later on, the sDm.n=f

form will be used to express the same content,i.e. the gratification of the courtier viewed as anevent. But it is also possible to present the samefact as a state. The next examples come fromMiddle Egyptian texts:

14 Other uses of the prepositionxr show that it hasto do with the agentive, while not being the most typicalpreposition to introduce the agent (which is jn ).

15 Urk. I (2nd ed.), 60, 7.16 Urk. I, 84, 1.17

Urk. I, 104, 4.

wn.jn Hm=f wSd=f wj aD=f bjt=j nt ra nbwn.k rf m jw=f-aA=f, Hs(jj) wj m hrw pn r sfxpr.kj m rx-nsw mAa, Ssp.n Hm=f nmtt=jHis Majesty began to address me, recognizing my

character in daily life,Having been then an ever-growing personage, I waspraised today more than yesterday.Having become a true Kings Friend, His Majestyaccepted my services18.

The contrast between the choice of Pseu-doparticiple withHzj and of nfr sw predication withmrj appears most clearly in: prr=j Hs.kwj m aH mr(jj) wj m stp-sAI used to come out (after) having been praised in thepalast, (while) I was loved at the court 19.

While the syntactical function of each propo-sition as a circumstance defining the action ex-pressed by the main predicate prr=j is the same,the different semantic category ofHzj and mrj triggers the use of Pseudoparticiple vs. adjectival predication20.

These examples already show that thenfr sw predication, while being essentially non eventive,does not have to express an inherent property 21.Later on, numerous examples confirm that thenfr sw predication may be used to express con-tingent states as well as more essential ones22. A well-known one is Sinuhe B 31: nfr tw Hna=j ,

18 Sethe, Leses. 75, 6 = BM 574.19 Sethe, Leses. 74, 16 = Mnchen, Glyptothek 27.20 I find it difficult to seemr(jj) wj m stp-sA as an in-

dependent sentence here, for this would break thebeloved symmetry withHzj, and then with jw nD.t(w) n=j

jAwt , the discourse clearly turns to another episode. zj usually implies a rise in status and position, whereasmrj does not (H.-W. Fischer-Elfert, p.c.), see alsoK. Ja ns en -W in ke ln , Zur Bedeutung vonHzj undmrj, Gttinger Miszellen 190, 2002, p. 4752.

21

Explaining the use of amrr=f form in place ofa nfr sw predication in semantical terms (Malaise- Winand, op. cit., 499: la qualit nest pas vuecomme appartenant par nature au sujet) is besides thepoint. In fact this contrast seems to be bound to a syn-tactical parameter, i.e. the nature of the preposition-conjunction used in each case, some of which liken-jqr-n (see alson-aAt-n ) entail the use of amrr=f form, whileprepositions more grammaticalized in their use as aconjunction, likeHr-ntt or n, may precede a full-range ofindependent constructions.

22 The compatibility ofnfr sw predication with jw goes in the same direction, e.g. for Old Egyptian, Mal-aise-Winand, op. cit., 190: jw nfr nA, jw nfr xrt rnpt (PT 1195c).


4/12


you will be fine with me. Less often cited isPtahhotep, L1, 403: (Behave so and so) nfr tw Xr=s , you will be fine through it. Evenclearer examples occur in non literary texts likeletters: ny xr nfr Tw Hr wnm jt-mHj nfr jw=j r tA? is it not the case that are you fine at eating goodlower egyptian barley while Im neglected?(pMMA Hekanakhte I, 1)23. This distinction thusdoes not appear to be relevant for the choice ofadjectival predication as against Pseudopar-ticiple, if one considers it to be a stative. But as we shall see now, this very current assumption isin need of critical reappraisal.

1.2. The Pseudoparticipleof adjective/statal verbs According to thedoxa , the Pseudoparticiple

was originally a stative, and continued to func-tion as such even after entering the system ofaspectual or temporal oppositions in historicalEgyptian. Thiscommunis opinio is founded uponan alleged identity with the Akkadian cognate24.It has been maintained despite numerouscounter-examples showing that it often has adynamic dimension even with statal predicates25.

23 See e.g. pBerlin 10038, vs. 12: aSA spw nfr pw dr.tw sDb jm, numerous are the cases for which evil was notremoved.

24 A critical assessment of the relevance of Akkadianfacts for a better understanding of Egyptian data isneeded. This crucial point is discussed in a more de-tailed way in E. Oral, Same Source, Different Out-come?, LingAeg 17, 2009, 183200.

25 Noted by E. Edel , Altgyptische Grammatik, Analecta Orientalia 34/39, Rome, 1955 1964, 594.See also J. Winand, Temps et aspect en gyptien. Uneapproche smantique, Pd 25, Leiden-Boston, 2006, whose basic assumption about original stative functionof Pseudoparticiple is also based on comparison with Akkadian as presented in G. Buccellat i , An interpre-tation of the Akkadian stative as a nominal sentence, JNES 27, 1968, 112 and id., A Structural Grammar ofBabylonian, Wiesbaden, 1996, but whose descriptiveaccuracy does not fail to note thatnfr sw predicationdoes not really exclude reference to a previous state (seep. 246) and that Pseudoparticiple often has a resultativesense with statal verbs. He analyses this fact as resultingfrom the integration of Pseudoparticiple into the aspec-tual system as a perfect, while trying to interpret someexamples as showing continuity with the alleged moreancient stative use. In my opinion, most of them can beinterpreted as resultative, while stative uses are an inno-

In fact, positive examples of stative Pseudopar-ticiple are lacking 26, while the very existence anduse of thenfr sw predication should warn usagainst any immediate equivalence drawn be-tween Akkadian and Egyptian facts. I will arguethat Pseudoparticiple with statal verbs express aprocess or the result of a process. A very shortfragment of narrative discourse (cf. use of auxil-iary jxr ) shows a clearly dynamical use of Pseu-doparticiple with a state predicate:

jxr jmn(=j) xt m rrwt [. . .]nDm.k Hr aw(j) wn aq=j r Xnw aIt happened that I suffered from illness at the gate[. . .]I recovered27 immediately when (?) I entered into the

apartments28

.No matter if the Pseudoparticiple is an inde-

pendent predicate or an adjunct here: what is ofimportance for our analysis lies in the fact thatthe form indicates either an event or the resultof an event, as is clearly showed by the temporalindicationHr awj, and by the very fact that a re-covery is meant. In view of others facts all goingin the same direction, I would not say that itspresence triggers an eventive interpretation oth-erwise not natural to Pseudoparticiple (so Edel, 584), but that it signals its very primary func-tion. We can compare this Old Egyptian exam-ple with some more recent formulation in pro-cedural discourse29. It is not surprising that inthis phase of the language, a sDm.n=f form isused to express a dynamical perfect. In all thesepassages, the presence ofHr awj would not beenough to make a stative interpreted as an eventform, but it combines naturally with processualpredications30.

vation whose continuity with the posterior history ofEgyptian is less problematic.

26 Examples of the typewab.tj wab kA=k given byEdel, op. cit., 596, do not in fact illustrate a paralleluse of Pseudoparticiple SG2 andnfr + Noun adjectival predication, but rather show two optative uses ofPseudoparticiple and sDm=f form.

27 Or having recovered immediately.28 H. Ju nk er , Giza XI, Wien 1953 , 176. 29 As for someone for whom I made this medica-

tion, be it (such and such illness), jw nDm.n=f Hr a.wy, hehas recovered immediately (pHearst 75).

30 See W. Westendorf, Grammatik der medizi-nischen Texte, Grundri der Medizin der Alten gyp-


5/12


Possible occurrences of Pseudoparticiple with a state predicate in the V-S word orderpattern are rare in Old Kingdom texts. Oneshould interpret them by putting them in parallel with the preceding example:nj zp jr.t mjtt n bAk nb mjt jn jtj nbn mrr wj Hm=f r bAk nbn jr.t(=j) Hzz.t=f ra nbn wn(=j) jmAx m jb=f

jqr.k xr Hm=f gm(=j) wAt m sStA nb n Xnw Spss(=j) xrHm=fNever had the like been done to any servant of thesame condition by any sovereign,because HM loved me more than any servantbecause I made what he praises everyday,because I was imakh in his heart,I have/having become excellent in HMs view byfinding a solution in all secret affairs of the palast sothat I was respected in HMs view 31.

The Pseudoparticiple could well be here syn-tactically dependent. However this may be, itclearly has a resultative value [I have becomeexcellent] rather than a stative one [ I am excel-lent]. If the speaker wanted to express a stative value (I was), he could use rather an adjectivalor nominal predication ( jqr wj xr Hm=f or jnk

jqr 32 ). The presence of a proposition specifying

in which way this quality was made to appear inthe kings opinion ( gm(=j) wAt m sStA nb n Xnw )tends to confirm that a change in status is re-ferred to by the speaker. In the next example,the lacuna makes it impossible to assess the de-pendent use of the Pseudoparticiple:[...] mnx.k xr Hm n nb=j sDm.t(=j) r xt nbhaving become beneficial in the Majesty of my lords view so that I was listened to more than everything 33.

The contrast with Urk. I, 60, 7supra , where amnx wj clause provided the reader with an indi-

ter VIII, Berlin, 1962, 166, 121, for a similar use in amedical context (Mutter und Kind, J, 7, 5), which hetermed virtuell konsekutiv, Pseudopartizip des Resul-tats and may illustrate a SG3 Pseudoparticiple ( snbw ) asa main eventive predicate.

31 Urk. I, 84, 4.32 For the existence and use of the first possibility,

see P. Vernus, Observations sur la prdication declasse (nominal predicate), LingAeg 4, 1994, 325 348.

33 E. Brov ars ki , The Senedjemib Complex, I, GizaMastabas 7, 2001, pl. 6467a, fig. 2830.

cation regarding the state of the locutor amongthe courtiers without any indication of previousevolution, shows that the Pseudoparticiple heremakes reference to an event (becomingmnx inthe kings eyes), probably resulting in the newposition acquired by the speaker.

We can even try to illustrate our point here bycontrasting the use ofnfr sw predication vs.Pseudoparticiple with the same verb. We findindeed few but clear instances of it in lettersfrom the Old Kingdom. Here is a well-knownexample34:My Majesty has loved seeing this letter of yours morethan anything.rx Tw tr Dd mrr.t Hm(=j) r xt nbtwt n(=j) Dd=k r xt nb Anyway you know how to say what My Majesty lovesmore than anything. What you say is more pleasant to me than anything 35.

If the Pseudoparticiple was really a Stative, we would haverx.tj here. But, according to theanalysis advocated here, this cannot in fact bethe case, because the Pseudoparticiple form hasa resultative character which originated in itsdynamical protohistorical use, so that it wouldmean here: you know with a possible para-

phrase because you have learnt, thus alludingto an event (acquisition of knowledge). Andindeed this is what happens in the followingexample, where the king also writes to a courtier:(the king promises a reward to the recipient of theletter)mrr(=j) Tw Hm sk Hm rx.t(j) mrr(=j) Tw 36. indeed the way I love you is such as you shall cometo learn how much I love you37.

In a prospective context, the Pseudoparticiplemarks the accomplishment of an action from

34 Preferable to Urk. I, 129, 5 ( jn tr rx w(j?) Tw ), where the-w after rx could well represent the admira-tive ending.wj, in the intensive construction whichcannot be immediately compared to the use of thePseudoparticiple.

35 Urk. I, 179, 17.36 See E. Brovarski, op. cit., 100 for the new lec-

ture of the text.37 Urk. I, 63, 11. Underlying this unusual translation

of the passage is an in-depth analysis of the use of parti-cles like sk and Hm, for which see E. Oral, Les par-ticules de lancien gyptien lgyptien classique (Biblio-thque dEgyptologie), Le Caire, forthcoming.


6/12


the viewpoint of the future. There is a resultativeaspect, in accordance with the original dynamical value of the form. In this context, the verbrx ,followed by a content clause (nominal formmrr=j ) describing the information acquired,means to come to learn38. This meaning con-trasts with the preceding example, where theking acknowledges a capacity. There one couldeven translaterx as to be able to, with a fol-lowing infinitive clause ( Dd ...)39.

Another pair of examples can be of interesthere. When a worker asks for another saw be-cause he has been using the same one for toolong, he says:

m kjj srfwGive another one, it has become warm40.

The use of the Pseudoparticiple expressesexplicitly the fact that the property which ispredicated from the subject is the result of aprocess, an aspectual meaning absent from thefollowing statement, which describes a state without implying anything about its antecedents:O Pepi! ()Htp.tj

srf mrwt=k

You have become satisfiedLove of you is warm41.

38 One should remember here that the active use ofthe Pseudoparticiple is well attested in historical times with the verbrx , which may hint to the fact that, havingundergone a sort of lexicalization due to frequency withthe meaning to know, it was able to resist the pro-gressive elimination of active interpretation of the form.

39 Winand, op. cit., ex. 307, 244, who describes a very similar example in terms of qualit essentielle delindividu. His analysis opposes the dynamic dimen-sion of sDm.n=f form to the stative character of thePseudoparticiple. It bears on a renovated system whichis not the object of the present contribution, but, to myopinion, tends to underestimate the resultative value ofthe Pseudoparticiple, while opposing it to thematic usesof the sDm.n=f form with focalizing discourse function(and translated as such, see ex. 304 et 305) withouttaking into account the role of this function in thechoice of this form ofaccompli rather than the resultativeconstruction with the Pseudoparticiple.

40 G. S tei nd or ff , Das Grab des Ti, Verffentli-chungen der Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in gyp-ten II, Leipzig, 1913, 133.

41

PT 1290b.

1.3. The evolution of the Pseudoparticipletowards a stative use

Contrary to some current analysis, we thusfind it more coherent to consider the capacity ofthe Pseudoparticiple to express a primary stateas a secondary evolution, in accordance with ageneral change towards theme-rheme predica-tion, and which was to reach its full develop-ment ingyptien de la deuxime phase 42. I will indeedargue that a syntactic parameter plays indeed acrucial role in the history of the form, opening anew stage in its evolution: its use as rheme in atheme-rheme construction or its attributive useas a dependent predicate bound to a NP. Whatabout early attestation of Pseudoparticiple seem-ingly expressing states which at first sight are notresultative? Here one must remember that weare trying to reconstruct a system which hadalready disappeared in historical Old Egyptiansources. In this attested stage, change to S-Vorder and re-use of the Pseudoparticiple in anew syntactic slot had already produced someeffects. I would like to sketch here two furtherlines of explanation:(1) eurocentric conception of Aktionsart (2) loss of resultative implicature in a process oflexicalization

(1) We will take for example a sentence like:(my father made this testament)

sk sw anx(w) when he was alive43.

What we translate here as alive seems to bea stative. But this view is bound to the way weconsider the fact of being alive. It is indeed ty-pologically well known that semantic categoriza-

tion of verbs is not something universal44

. Toput it a bit schematically, in a given language,some verbs like the verb for to live can be

42 In spite of the sympathy one may have for cyclicalreturn, there would be no coming back to an ancientstative use in this evolution, as was sometimes said.

43 Urk. I, 11, 8.44 See M. Mithun, Active/agentive case marking

and its motivations, Language 67, 1991, 510546, which illustrates such differences even in one and thesame family, and for cases of evolution in semanticcategorization of verbs.


7/12


categorized as a state predicate, or as an activitypredicate, with a basic meaning like to bealive. But it can also be conceived of as adynamic process, with a basic meaning like tocome to life, to acquire life. In this last case,being alive can appear as the result of the actionexpressed by the verb. Along this view,anx would be symmetrical tomwt , in spite of the factthat it seems more natural for us to think of todie as a telic and to live as an atelic activity 45.Examples like the following tend to confirm thatthe verbanx is not categorized in the same wayas its French or English equivalent:anx.n=j m sf

Rs.n=j wj mjn I came to life yesterdayI got up today 46.

In French for example, jai vcu cannothave an inchoative meaning, in accordance withthe fact that its basic meaning is to be alive, while the Egyptian form really means I havecome to life.

(2) At first sight, some uses of the Pseudopar-ticiple such as the following indeed seem toillustrate a stative use:

sk wj wa.kwj Hna Nwtas I was isolated with Nut 47.

But the resultative meaning of the form doesnot imply that the creator god would not havebeen alone in a previous stage48. As is the case inother languages, e.g. in French (je suis isol), aresultative can loose its dynamical implicature

45 See in the same direction Winand, op. cit., 265 266, esp. n. 18, who shows that the presence of anauxiliary is necessary to express the idea of remainingalive withanx.

46 Book of the Dead, 179, 6 Aa.47 CT II, 33e B1C.48 Pace Winand, op. cit., 2289, ex. 267, une pro-

position dtat au parfait ancien acquiert parfois un sensdynamique dans la narration (effet de la pression delinstance dnonciation. On the contrary, I wouldsuggest that it came to loose its dynamical meaning dueto its use in a situational slot. See the way a butchercomplains about having to do something with no help: jw qsn r jrt nn wa.kj wrt , its (too) difficult for meto do that all alone (A. Erman, Reden, Rufe undLieder auf Grberbildern des alten Reiches, ABAW 15,Berlin, 1918, 18).

while keeping a form characteristic for express-ing the result of a process. Thus it undergoes akind of lexicalization as a new state predicate49.In Egyptian, this functional change correlates with a syntactical one, i.e. the use of Pseudopar-ticiple in a dependent slot, be it as an attributivepredicate or as a kind of situational predicate ina compound construction with S-V order.

2. Reconstructing an Old Perfective paradigm

For claritys sake, we may use two ways of re-ferring to what we consider to be one and thesame form50. This distinction will be based on itssyntactical and textual attestation: in the Pyramid Texts is used a form which we will call prj S, for it appears exclusively or almostexclusively with intransitive verbs and nominalsubject 51. in the autobiographical texts of the Old King-dom appears a form which we will call sDm AP,for it involves two participants (agent-like andpatient-like) with a transitive verb.

We need to assess two facts concerning theseconstructions: that their aspectual value is basically identical, while differences in their semantic use resultfrom context-bound interpretation. that both of them are complementary toPseudoparticiple, which also has a different se-mantic use in the Pyramid Texts and in autobio-graphical texts.

But as a preliminary, we need to clarify thefact that our diachronical point of view implies

49 In this case, a triggering parameter for the lexicali-zation process could be that the primary adjectivewa means one and cannot mean alone.

50 Sometimes called Old Perfective, or Indicative.F. Kammerzell, Norm, Relikt oder Fiktion?, GM102, 1988, 4157, shows convincingly that some syn-tactical slots which were considered to exhibit the in-dicative/perfective sDm=f have in fact nothing to do with it.

51 See J. P. Allen, The inflection of the verb in thepyramid texts, BA 2, 1984, 367 (verbrx ), 306 (as apresent tense) for a possible attestation of sDm AP inthe Pyramid Texts.


8/12


that we take into account only theolder uses ofthe Pseudoparticiple functioning as an inde-pendent main predicate with V-S order, as op-posed to uses in the locative predication patternor with an adverbial/attributive syntax.

2.1. Dynamical active Pseudoparticiple with V-S order as a remnant:

pragmatical vs. historical explanations

What allows us to say that this use is recessiveis firstly a statistical view. How could active in-terpretation of Pseudoparticiple be innovative asit is very restricted in use and bound to disap-pear52? As showed elsewhere, comparison with Akkadian should not be used as a model foranalyzing Egyptian data in such a straightfor- ward way as is sometimes the case in previousstudies53. Some analysis see in the active Pseu-doparticiple a form in its own right with anincomplete conjugation54. Its motivation wouldthen be of a pragmatic nature. I really doubtsuch a phenomenon as the creation of a defec-tive paradigm with no other cause as the profil-ing ofego in autobiographical texts. Moreover,this explanation does not take into account the

52 Many analyses agree about this, thus E. Doret, The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Middle Egyp-tian (Cahiers dOrientalisme 12), 1986, F. Kammer-zell, Augment, Stamm und Endung. Zur morpholo-gischen Entwicklung der Stativkonjugation, in A.Loprieno (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Interna-tional Conference on Egyptian Grammar. Crossroads 2Los Angeles, Oct. 1720, 1990, LingAeg 1, 1991, 179:rezessives satzwertiges Perfekt, W. Schenkel, op.cit., 2005, 22, 227 for traces of the ancient active use without auxiliary in Middle Egyptian.53 Pace K. Jansen-Winkeln, Das gyptischePseudopartizip, OLP 24, 1993, 528, whose analysisof active Pseudoparticiple as an innovation is heavilydependent upon the parallel with Akkadian Stative asrepresented in G. Buccellati, An interpretation ofthe Akkadian stative as a nominal sentence, JNES 27,1968, 112 and J. Huehnergard, Stative, predica-tive form, pseudo-verb, JNES 46/3, 1987, 215232, whose approaches have been at least partly challengedby a more recent study, see N. J. C. Kouwenberg,Nouns as verbs: the verbal nature of the Akkadianstative, Orientalia 69, 2000, 2171.

54 L. Zon ho ve n, Ego and the Dynamic Old Per-fect in Classical Egyptian, GM 176, 2000, 103110.

fact that active V-S Pseudoparticiple is, even ifscarcely, attested in other texts and with otherpersons than SG155. The active use of the verbrx with the Pseudoparticiple is well-known. Lessoften cited, the use of active Pseudoparticiple with the verb j, say in the Pyramid Texts shallnot be neglected56. It is attested with SG1-2-3 forpronominal Agent, the nominal Agent beingsometimes specified (introduced by jn ). Theseuses contrast with the more recent sDm.n=f formsuch as j.n=sn + ( jn ) nominal A. The past as wellas present interpretation of the Pseudoparticiplehere reminds us of lat.inquit , another defectiveparadigm involving a former perfective form whose temporal array has become wider. Thepaucity of attestation for active transitive Pseu-doparticiple with V-S order in the Pyramid Texts can be explained by the absence of narra-tive setting using the SG1, which appears as theonly historical context exhibiting this remnant ofits Proto-Egyptian use as a perfective. Accord-ing to the view advocated here, the exclusivelypassive interpretation of transitive Pseudopar-ticiple in later times is bound with its use in thesituational predication with theme-rheme order,an innovation which opens a new stage in thehistory of the form, which looses its originalnature as a V-S construction57. Thus, one mayunderstand along which morphosyntactical paththe renewal of the perfective paradigm began with SG3 and spread to other persons, SG1 re-maining the last where the older use of Pseu-doparticiple was to be attested58. Such a histori-

55 See Ed el , op. cit., 588, 590, 594. On the mean-ing of the optative use and for possible traces of thedynamical SG3 Pseudoparticiple with one-place predi-cates, see Or a l , op. cit.56 See Allen, op. cit., 206, R. Faulkner, The Verb J To Say and Its Development, JEA 21, 1935,183.

57 I tend to think that both passive and active inter-pretation were possible in Proto-Egyptian, in a similar way to what seems to have been the case with the Ak-kadian form, mutatis mutandis, see Ko uwe nb erg , op.cit.

58 See E. Oral, Fracture dactance et dynamiquemorphosyntaxique: le renouvellement du perfectif en Ancien gyptien, Bulletin de la Socit de linguistiquede Paris 102, 2007, 365395, where I try explaining themorphogenesis of the more recent perfective form

sDm.n=f along a concrete historical path which is not


9/12


cal explanation seems the better way to explainthe fact that Middle Egyptian also has only SG1independent dynamic use, which can no longerbe held as an argument for the pragmatical ex-planation.

2.2. Distributional complementaritybetween sDm A P/ prj S and Pseudoparticiple

Before developing our analysis, we mustmention the fact that variants of one passage inthe Pyramid Texts have been invoked as illus-trating an alleged complementarity of Pseu-doparticiple andnfr sw predication59:PT 495bWmAA Ra W sjA Ra Wmay Re look at W may Re recognize Wnj sw j.rxw Twhe belongs to those who know you

j.rx swknow him!

which is a correction of the following initial text:PT 495bWnj sw j.rxw Twhe belongs to those who know you

j.rx.kmay you know!him"

The supposed rewriting of a Pseudoparticiple SG1 j.rx.kj in j.rx sw would represent a uniquefact. Moreover, the forms are effortless inter-pretable in another way, as optative sDm=k resp.imperative sDm60. Parallel passages of Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts indeed show that theknowledge of Re by the dead king is stated inorder to justify the request that Re in his turn

only semantic but involves also morphological andsyntactical parameters. See in the same direction despitesome differences, D. Wernings study, Aspect vs.relative tense, and the typological classification of the Ancient Egyptian sDm.n=f , LingAeg 16, 2008, 261 292.

59 Allen, op. cit., 1984, followed by Jansen- Winkeln, op. cit., 1993, who unlike Allen takes it as aproof thatnfr sw predication underlies the Old Perfec-tive prj S, thus corroborating the alleged stative value ofthe Pseudoparticiple.

60 See B. Ma thieu, Modifications de texte dans lapyramide dOunas, BIFAO 96, 1996, 292 et n. 26, 334.

might reciprocally recognize him61. This lecturefinds confirmation in the version of Pepi:

j.rx rf Ppjj Ra

then recognize Pepi, o Re! The invocation of Re, to whom this speech isaddressed as showed by the preceding context,entails interpreting j.rx as an imperative62. Otherreplacements of Pseudoparticiple SG1 cited by Allen ( 367b and 590) all involve a form withfull noun Agent, in accordance with the analysisdefended here. No empirical reason remains tosee instances of thenfr sw predication in theseoccurrences of j.rx NN alternating with Pseu-doparticiple SG1.

2.2.1 prj S and Pseudoparticiple as a perfectin the Pyramid Texts

With one-place predicate, the use of Old Per-fective prj S is attested in the Pyramid Texts63. The following example combines Old Perfective sDm + full noun Agent with verbs of motion and with verbs expressing some kind of meteo-rologic statement:

aD pt nwr tA jy r xa +Hwtj The sky has got perturbed, the earth has trembled,Horus has come, Thoth has appeared.

According to Allen, the form has present orpresent perfect aspect in the PT64. I would preferto say that we have here a perfect which, in thediscursive setting peculiar to this textual cate-gory, may be interpreted as having a resultativemeaning. In fact, the absence of auxiliary makescontextual parameters play a more important

61 See PT 327aW and CT VI, 399k401i (T1L).62 J.rx can hardly be taken as an Old Perfective sDm

with a two places-verb, a form which barely occurs inthe PT. It remains possible, while highly improbable,that an initial Pseudoparticiple SG1 has been misinter-preted as an optative, hence the versions W and N, buteven in this case, no complementarity between Pseu-doparticiple andnfr sw predication would be attestedhere.

63 For sDm=f (sic) of the verbs of motion with sub-stantival agent, see Edel, op. cit., 471; Allen, op. cit., 311.

64

Allen , op. cit., 1984.


10/12


role in the aspectual interpretation of a construc-tion which was nominal in its origin. To make itclear, I will use a paraphrase. In a language with-out auxiliary using a construction like gone N,there is virtually no distinction between the per-fect N has gone and the present N is gone. The context of utterance and the discourse set-ting here play a crucial role in selecting one ofmany possible semantical interpretations.

The crucial fact whose relevance has not beenrecognized lays in the complementarity of prj Sand Pseudoparticiple as a V-S active main predi-cate65:

zj wn-an.wj Hna kA=f zj Wsjr Hna kA=f zj #ntj-jrtj Hna kA=f zj.tj Ds=f Hna kA=k Dewen-anwi has gone with his kaOsiris has gone with his kaChenti-irti has gone with his ka You have gone yourself with your ka66.

This shows that in the older state of the lan-guage, the Old Perfective form with pronominal Agent complementary to prj S was indeed thePseudoparticiple, and not the sDm.n=f form. Theexplanation of the contrast between Old ( prj r )

vs. Recent Perfective ( pr.n=f ) in terms ofmythological use misses the point 67. The relevant parameter appears to be the nominal vs.pronominal nature of the Agent.

The more recent perfective sDm.n=f firstcame in use with two places predicates, as isillustrated by passages where the prj S construc-

65 Allen, op. cit., 590: in the Pyramid Texts, the

bare initial old perfective of intransitive verbs is a coun-terpart of the independent aorist with nominal subject[=our prj S], with an illustration of this complementar-ity involving the verbrx (PT 496bW).

66 PT 17c. Parallel passages show the prj S form with the king as subject instead of the Pseudoparticiple SG2, thus confirming that the two forms belong tothe same paradigm, see spells 447, 450 of the Pyramid Texts.

67 Allen, op. cit., 309. While acknowledging thatsuffix pronouns are not attested as subject with intran-sitive verbs, he fails to take all consequences into ac-count because he believed in their attestation with tran-sitive verbs, a commonly shared view which had not yetbeen challenged as has been the case since then.

tion is used in parallel with the sDm.n=f form ofa transitive verb68:

j.gr n=k nTrwdj.n psDt a=sn jr rA=sn The gods fell silent 69 before you,the Ennead put their hands on their mouths70.HA Ppj pw

sxt.n r zH=f Hr tp=k pSS.n tS wrmwt=k(...)HA Ppj pw

jy n=k r Htm m bAw=f O PepiHorus has woven his booth upon your headSeth has spread your roof.()

O PepiHorus has come to you, equipped with his bas 71

The complementarity between Pseudopar-ticiple and prj S in the Pyramid Texts appears asthe counterpart to the one demonstrated forPseudoparticiple SG1 and sDm A P in the auto-bographical texts by Doret 1986 and others.

2.2.2.Dm AP and Pseudoparticiple as narrativein autobiographical texts of the Old Kingdom

Facts are well-known72. E. Doret showed howboth forms are used as a past narrative, in con-trast with the use, in the same inscriptions, of

jw sDm.n=j as a perfect in discourse within self-laudatory passages73. This narrative use of thePseudoparticiple involve transitive as well as

68 See also A llen, op. cit., 422. This fact findsmorphosyntactical causes in the diachronical evolutionpostulated in Oral, op. cit.

69

See Ed el , op. cit., 593 for an example of aPL2Pseudoparticiple j.gr.twnj , whose context shows thedynamic (stop talking!) vs. stative (be silent!) na-ture.

70 PT 254b.71 PT 21002101.72 See the detailed study of E. Doret, op. cit., 1986

followed by Zonh ov en , op. cit., 103.73 Later on, this opposition can be reinterpreted in

Middle Egyptian archaizing texts, whereHsj wj Hm=f expresses narrative preterite with nominal agent while

jw Hs.n=f wj is used for the same aspect with pronomi-nal agent. See P. Vernus, La position linguistique destextes des sarcophages, in H. Willems (ed.), The world of the coffin texts, 1996, 167 168.


11/12


intransitive verbs, but only transitive verbs withthe sDm A P. The question now arises why thereis no prj S in the autobiographical texts. I wouldinterpret this fact in terms of textual dimension.In the narrative setting, the Perfective pr.n=f form had already taken over for dynamical pastin general, while in the ritualTextgattung the older

prj S form, which could express a perfect as wellas a present and was temporally ambivalent,fitted better in the performance setting. In ac-cordance with this interpretation, the use of thePerfective pr.n=f form in the Pyramid Textsmeets the need for a perfective with no perfectdimension. On the other hand, with transitive verbs, there is no other interpretation of the sDm A P construction than as a dynamical/eventivepredication, so that the need for marking explicitdynamicity in accordance with the narrativesetting was not the same as with intransitive verbs like verbs of motion. As for the absenceor quasi-absence of sDm A P in the Pyramid Texts, it can be explained by a difference in thediscursive setting 74. If one consider that thisancient perfect had already been marked fornarrativity with transitive verbs, as is attested byits use in the Old Kingdom inscriptions, it couldnot fit anymore in the Pyramid Texts setting, where the function of perfect was taken over bythe sDm.n=f form.

2.3. Filling the gaps

Now we need to make a crucial point con-cerning Old Perfective sDm=f . This has al-ready been noticed but is not always recognizedby grammars. The form is surely attested only

with Full Noun Agent-like participant. There isno clear attestation of Old Perfective sDm +suffix pronoun75. All possible occurrences, and

74 Allen, op. cit., 307 et 311.75 See already J. Os ing, Zur Syntax der Biographie

des Wnj, Orientalia 46, 1977, 168 et E. Doret, op.cit., 2527; W. Schenkel, AfO 35, 1988, 238239, WZKM 79, 1989, 212, 2005, 202: unerweitert alstrans.-akt. Hauptsatz-Tempus, sicher allerdings nur inder Verbindung mit substantivischem Subjekt. Accord-ing to Zonhoven, op. cit., 103, the non-attestation ofa real perfective sDm=f form would only be due to the

they are not many, can be explained as other sDm=f forms. Only the deep-rooted custom ofnaming conjugation paradigms sDm=f hasprevented us to understand the reality of thisfact with all its consequences. Its relevance con-cerning the Proto-Egyptian Perfective paradigmis yet to be taken into account. For if Old Per-fective sDm=f was never a sDm=f form but only a

sDm, a question automatically arises: how didone say I praised him or I appeared? Whynot look at a form whose functional overlap with the Old Perfective sDm has been demon-strated i.e. the Pseudoparticiple? What we get isa unified Old Perfective paradigm:

The complete Old Perfective paradigm sDm .kj Pseudoparticiple with

.tj pronominal agent

.j > .w

.tj sDm A sDm with Full Noun Agent

This description is compatible with the natureof the base in both Pseudoparticiple and OldPerfective sDm. It has long been recognized thatthe Pseudoparticiple base has to be a participle,as is the case with its Akkadian cognate Stative

paris 76

. The question of the base of sDm=f conju-gational patterns represents another difficultyand a much discussed topic in Egyptian linguis-tics. But, since we propose to cut off the OldPerfective sDm from the rest of the real sDm=f conjugations (where the pronominal agent-likerole can really be expressed by a suffix pro-noun), we also want to consider the problem of

fact that Old Kingdom autobiographical texts have asparticipants a locutor ( SG1) and the king ( Hm=f ). Hecites some examples from Sinuhe for Middle Egyptian,but F. Kammerzell, Norm, Relikt oder Fiktion?,GM 102, 1988, 4145 convincingly shows that theforms with suffix pronouns are interpretable in another way. Alleged sDm=f in E del , op. cit., 469 includeforms of the verbDd (Urk. I, 42, 11; Urk. I, 42, 13) which are easily explained as imperfective and express-ing a circumstance.

76 On the value of the j-augment which sometimesprecedes the base in the Pyramid Texts, see F. Kam-merzell, Augment, Stamm und Endung, LingAeg 1,1991, 167, who suggests (183184) that it could beinterpreted as a morphological marking of active syn-tagms.


12/12


the nature of its sDm-base apart from the ques-tion of the nature of the base of other para-digms. Thus the problem becomes less compli-cated. For if we consider it from theonly pointof view of Old Perfective sDm + Full Noun Agent, it appears quite clearly that a perfectiveparticiple is the best hypothesis77.

Conclusion: Stative predication vs.Eventive predication in Proto-Egyptian

What we get is a type of fluid intransitivityalignment 78:

With Full Noun arguments: neutral align-ment.

jy Hm=f His Majesty has come.Hzj Hm=f bAk=f His Majesty praised his servant. nDm Hm=f His Majesty (is/was/got 79 ) fine.

With Pronominal arguments: state vs. even-tive alignment.

jy.kj I have come. Hzj.kj sw I praised his servant. nDm.kj I (have) recovered.

vs.nDm sw He (is/was) fine.

Pseudoparticiple endings thus appear as pro-nouns which originally functioned as subjectin their own right in a V-S order constructionbefore being reinterpreted as person markingmorphs agreeing with a preceding noun or pro-noun. They were marked for representing the

77 Comparison with recent analysis of the AkkadianStative seems to show that this participle could beinitially unmarked as regards passive/active distinction,see Ko uw en be rg , op. cit., esp. 63 67.

78 See D. Creissels, Remarks on split intransitiv-ity and fluid intransitivity, in O. Bonami & P. Ca-br ed o Ho fh err (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax andSemantics 7, 2008, 139168.

79 Contextually, even this eventive interpretationmay have been possible, See PT 1109a: mr jb=s n=f ,her heart got sick because of him, where this statementconcerning the feeling of his celestial mother towardsthe king occurs in parallel with prj S constructions,

sDm.n=f forms of transitive verbs and even main ac-tive Pseudoparticiple ( j.tj , said she) expressing actions viewed from the same point in time.

Agent-like argument in a process or event, inopposition to the adjectival predication, wherethe dependent pronoun remains neutral as re-gards the semantic role of the subject, excludingonly the interpretation of the whole propositionas expressing an event. From a typological pointof view, the posterior recomposition of the per-fective paradigm in historical Egyptian allows usto take a glimpse in how this kind of alignmentsystem may undergo an evolution giving rise to amore common alignment configuration80.

Summary

Challenging the usual semantic characterisation ofthe adjectival ornfr sw predication, this papershows that it originally functioned as a non-eventive,stative (vs. dynamic) predication rather than as anessential (vs. contigent) predication. Conversely, thetraditional characterisation of the Pseudoparticiple with statal verbs as an alleged stative will be question-ed. This study thus claims that the Pseudoparticiple was initially a V-S periphrastic conjugation special-ized for dynamical/eventive predication, formingone and the same paradigm with the Old Perfective

sDm + lexical subject (which isnot a sDm=f ). The realstative counterpart to this re-united Old Perfective

paradigm appears to be thenfr sw predication. Froma typological point of view, this suggests that theopposition between event and state may have playeda crucial role in the Proto-Egyptian verbal system.

Keywords

Pseudoparticiple Adjective Verbal System OldEgyptian

80 I would like to underscore the fact that this con-tribution represents to some extent a work in progress,in particular concerning the non stative original func-tion of Pseudoparticiple and the way it acquired one inits posterior evolution. Notwithstanding, I hope toshow here that in putting together observations whichhad already corrected some ancient fausses routes withsome new analyses, one can draw a more coherentpicture of some Proto-Egyptian elements.

stative eventive traces oreal

Documents