NUMERALS

1, w; 2, fn; 3, hml; 4. fdw; 5, dw'; 6, sis (or sw.?); 7, fb: 8, hma; 9. psq; 10, mt. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (?) resemble Semitic numerals. 20 and 30 (mb) had special names; 40-90 were named as if plurals of the units 4-9, as in Semitic. 100, šnt; 1000, 10,000, 2b; 100,000, fnw.

Many verbs with weak consonants-1y, Iw, II. inf. (m[w]), and those with-are particularly difficult to trace accurately, owing to defective writing. It seems that all the above classes may be divided into two main groups, according to the form of the infinitive:-with masculine infinitive the strong triliteral type, and with feminine infinitive the type of the III. inf. The former group includes all except III. inf., IV. inf., and the causative of the bilitera!s, which belong to the It is probable that the verb had a special form denoting condition, as in Arabic. There was a causative form prefixing f, and traces of forms resembling Piel and Niphal are observed. Some roots are reduplicated wholly or in part with a frequentative meaning, and there are traces of gemination of radicals.

second group.

Pseudo-Participle.—In very early texts this is the past indicative, but more commonly it is used in sentences such as, gm-n-f wi 'h' kwi, The found me I stood," i.e. he found me standing." The indicative use was soon given up and the pseudo-participle was employed only as predicate, especially indicating a state; e.g. ntr.t Im, the goddess goes "; iw-k wdti," thou art prosperous." The endings were almost entirely lost in New Egyptian. For early times they stand thus:Sing. 3. masc. fem.

1, late w.

1. C.

kwi.

Dual wil. liiw

Pl. w. li. liwny.

wyn.

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

ig-f," he hears"; $dm-w-f," he is heard "(pl. dm-l-fn," they are heard "); $dm-tw-f, he is heard"; śdm-n-f, he heard --to-f," he was heard "; also, fdm-in-f, sdm-hr-f, śdm-k,-f. Each form has special uses, generally difficult to define. dm-f seems rather to be imperfect, fdm-n-f perfect, and generally to express the past. Later, fdm-f is ordinarily expressed by periphrases; but by the loss of n, sdm-n-f became itself sdm-f, which is the ordinary past in demotic. Coptic preserves fdm-f forms of many verbs in its causative (e.g. Tanboy " cause him to live," from Egyptian din, and, in its periphrastic conjugation, the same forms of s.be." and try, do. With sdm-f (sedmo-f) was a more emphatic form (efdomef), at any rate in the weak verbs. The above, with the relative forms mentioned below, are supposed by Erman to be derived from the participle, which is placed first for emphasis: thus, fdm w tn,"hearing is the king"; dm-f, for fy, hearing he is." This Egyptian paraphrase of Semitic is just like the Irish paraphrase of English, "It is hearing he is.'

The imperative shows no ending in the singular; in the plural it has y, and later w; cf. Semitic imperative.

The infinitive is of special importance on account of its being preserved very fully in Coptic. It is generally of masculine form, but feminine in III. inf. (as in Semitic), and in causatives of biliterals. There are relative forms of sdm-f and śdm-n-f, respectively sdm-w-f (masc.), fdm-t-n-f (fem.), &c. They are used when the relative is the object of the relative sentence, or has any other position than the subject. Thus sdm-t-f may mean" she whom he hears,"" she who[se praises] he hears," "she [to] whom he hears [someone speaking]," &c. There are close analogies between the function of the relative particles in Egyptian and Semitic; and the Berber languages possess a relative form of the verb.

Participles.-These are active and passive, perfect and imperfect, in the old language, but all are replaced by periphrases in Coptic. Verbal Adjectives.-There is a peculiar formation, fdm-ty-fy, "he who shall hear," probably meaning originally "he is a hearer," sdm ly being an adjective in y formed from a feminine (1) form of the infinitive, which is occasionally found even in triliteral verbs; the endings are: sing., masc. ty-fy, fem. ty-fy; pl., masc. ty-śn, fem, ty-st. It is found only in Old Egyptian.

Particles.-There seems to be no special formation for adverbs, and little use is made of adverbial expressions. Prepositions, simple and compound, are numerous. Some of the commonest simple prepositions are "for," "to," m "in, from," hr "upon." A few enclitic conjunctions exist, but they are indefinite in meaning-swł a vague" but," grt a vague moreover," &c.

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

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

THE WRITING

The ancient Egyptian system of writing, so far as we know, originated, developed and finally expired strictly within the limits of the Nile Valley. The germ of its existence may have come from without, but, as we know it, it is essentially Egyptian and intended for the expression of the Egyptian language. About the 1st century B.C., however, the semi-barbarous rulers of the Ethiopian kingdoms of Meroe and Napata contrived the "Meroitic "alphabet, founded on Egyptian writing, and comprising both a hieroglyphic and a cursive form (see ETHIOPIA). As yet both of these kinds of Nubian writing are undeciphered. Egyptian hieroglyphic was carried by conquest into Syria, certainly under the XVIIIth Dynasty, and again under the XXVIth for the engraving of Egyptian inscriptions; but in the earlier period the cuneiform syllabary, and in the later the "Phoenician" alphabet, had obtained a firm hold there, and we may be sure that no attempt was made to substi tute the Egyptian system for the latter. Cuneiform tablets in Syria, however, seem almost confined to the period of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Although it cannot be proved it seems quite possible that the traders of Phoenicia and the Aegean adopted the papyrus and Egyptian hieratic writing together, before the end of the New Kingdom, and developed their Phoenician alphabet from the latter about 1000 B.C. In very early times a number of systems of writing already

"

reigned in different countries forming a compact and not very large area-perhaps from South Arabia to Asia Minor, and from Persia to Crete and Egypt. Whether they all sprang from one common stock of picture-writing we shall perhaps never know, nor can we as yet trace the influence which one great system may have had on another, owing to the poverty of documents from most of the countries concerned.

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

The employment of the signs are of three kinds: any given sign represents either (1) a whole word or root; or (2) a sound as part of a word; or (3) pictorially defines the meaning of a word the sound of which has already been given by a sign or group of signs preceding. The number of phonograms is very restricted, but some signs have all these powers. For instance, is the conventional picture of a draughtboard (shown in plan) with the draughtsmen (shown in elevation) on its edge:-this sign (1) signifies the root mn, "firm"; or (2) in the group

44

"

set, , represents the same sound as part of the root mnḥ, "good "; or (3) added to the group snl (thus: D), shows that the meaning intended is "draughtboard," or "draughts," and not any of the other meanings of sn. Thus signs, according to their employment, are said to be (1)" wordsigns," (2) "phonograms," or (3) "determinatives."

www

Word-signs.-The word-sign value of a sign is, in the first place, the name of the object it represents, or of some material, or quality, or action, or idea suggested by it. Thus is br, "face"; , a vase of ointment, is mrh.t, "ointment"; is wdb," turn." Much investigation is still required to establish the origins of the values of the signs; in some cases the connexion between the pictures and the primary values seems to be curiously remote. Probably all the signs in the hieroglyphic signary can be employed in their primary sense. The secondary value expresses the consonantal root of the name or other primary value, and any, or almost any, derivative from that root: as when, a mat with a cake upon it, is not offering-mat," but also hip in the sense of "conciliaonly hip, an tion,' peace,' rest, setting (of the sun), with many derivatives. In the third place, some signs may be transferred to express another root having the same consonants as the first: thus , the ear, by a play upon words can express not only fdm, “hear," but also fdm," paint the eyes."

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

The phonetic values of the signs are derived from their word-sign values and consist usually of the bare root, though there are rare examples of the retention of a flexional ending; they often ignore also the weaker consonants of the root, and on the same principle reduce a repeated consonant to a single one, as when the hoe knn, has the phonetic value hn. The history of some of the alphabetic signs is still very obscure, but a sufficient number of them have been explained

For some alphabetic signs more than one likely origin might be found, while for others, again, no clear evidence of origin is yet forthcoming. It has already been explained that the writing expresses only consonants. In the Graeco-Roman period various imperfect attempts were made to render the vowels in foreign names and words by the semi- vowels as also by , the consonant y which originally represented having been reduced in speech by that time to the power of , only. Thus, IIroλepauos is spelt Ptwrmys, Antoninus, Nt'nynws or Intnyns, &c. &c. Much earlier, throughout the New Kingdom, a special "syllabic " orthography, in which the alphabetic signs for the consonants are generally replaced by groups or single signs having the value of a consonant followed by a semi-vowel, was used for foreign names and words, e.g. , "chariot," was written

b," tower," was written

non,

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

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

A; of motion.

; of acts involving force.

; of divinity.

It seems that "acrophony " (giving to a sign the value of the first letter of its name) was indulged in only by priests of the latest age, inventing fantastic modes of writing their vain repetitions" on the temple walls.

Rosetta stone itself. One of the most characteristic distinctions of later demotic is the minuteness of the writing.

Hieroglyphic is normally written from right to left, the signs facing to the commencement of the line; hieratic and demotic follow the same direction. But monumental hieroglyphic may also be written from left to right, and is constantly so arranged for purposes of symmetry, e.g. the inscriptions on the two jambs of a door are frequently turned in opposite directions; the same is frequently done with the short inscriptions scattered over a scene amongst the figures, in order to distinguish one label from another.

In modern founts of type, the hieroglyphic signs are made to run from left to right, in order to facilitate the setting where European text is mixed with the Egyptian. The table on next page shows them in their more correct position, in order to display more clearly their relation to the hieratic and demotic equivalents.

Clement of Alexandria states that in the Egyptian schools the pupils were first taught the epistolographic style of writing (i.e. demotic), secondly the "hieratic" employed by the sacred scribes, and finally the hieroglyphic (Strom. v. 657). It is doubtful whether they classified the signs of the huge hieroglyphic syllabary with any strictness. The only native work on the writing that has come to light as yet is a fragmentary papyrus of Roman date which has a table in parallel columns of hieroglyphic signs, with their hieratic equivalents and words written in hieratic describing them or giving their values or meanings. The list appears to have comprised about 460 signs, including most of those that occur commonly in hieratic. They are to some

extent classified. The bee heads the list

as a royal sign, and is followed by figures of nobles and other human figures in various attitudes, more or less grouped among themselves, animals, reptiles and fishes, scorpion, animals again, twenty-four alphabetic characters, parts of the human body carefully arranged from

to A, thirty-two in number, parts of animals, celestial signs, terrestrial signs, vases. The arrangement down to this point is far from strict, and beyond it is almost impossible to describe concisely, though there is still a rough grouping of characters according to resemblance of form, nature or meaning. It is a curious fact that not a single bird is visible on the fragments, and the trees and plants, which might easily have been collected in a compact and well-defined section, are widely scattered. Why the alphabetic characters are introduced where they are is a puzzle; the order of these is: O

windpipe

arm with stick man with stick

lungs and

nht “ be strong

"

nht

nht “ be strong'

"

nht

sm;

sm;

heart

heart and

?

nfr

windpipe

sparrow

?

characterized, and in its most cursive form seems hardly to retain any definable trace of the original hieroglyphic pictures. The style varies much at different periods.

Demolic.-Widely varying degrees of cursiveness are at all periods observable in hieratic; but, about the XXVIth Dynasty, which inaugurated a great commercial era, there was something like a definite parting between the uncial hieratic and the most cursive form afterwards known as demotic. The employment of hieratic was thenceforth almost confined to the copying of religious and other traditional texts on papyrus, while demotic was used not only for all business but also for writing literary and even religious texts in the popular language. By the time of the XXVth Dynasty the cursive of the conservative Thebais had become very obscure. A better form from Lower Egypt drove this out completely in the time of Amasis II. and is the true demotic. Before the Macedonian conquest the cursive ligatures of the old demotic gave birth to new symbols which were carefully and distinctly formed, and a little later an epigraphic variety was engraved on stone, as in the case of the

cut, prick, cutting instrument

Three others,

and, had already occurred amongst the fish and reptiles. There seems to be no logical aim in this arrangement of the alphabetic characters and the series is incomplete. Very probably the Egyptians never constructed a really systematic list of hieroglyphs. In modern lists the signs are classified according to the nature of the objects they depict, as human figures, plants, vessels, instruments, &c. Horapollon's Hieroglyphica may be cited as a native work, but its author, if really an Egyptian, had no knowledge of good writing. His production consists of two elaborate complementary lists: the one describing sign-pictures and giving their meanings, the other cataloguing ideas in order to show how they could be expressed in hieroglyphic. Each seems to us to be made up of curious but perverted reminiscences eked out by invention; but they might some day prove to represent more truly the usages of mystics and magicians in designing amulets, &c., at a time approaching the middle ages.