http://www.slideshare.net/africaonline1/mdu

-ntr-for-intellectual-warfare

Origins of Writing from Dr. Theophile Obenga

Actual Chronical Writing Chart in the World The chronology for the four independent centers of writing in world history is now as follows : - Egyptian System of Writing : The earliest hieroglyphic signs dating from about 3400 B.C. They are already used for their sound values. This system of writing was developed in three successive stages, known as hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic. - Sumerian Writing : about 3060 B.C.. The Sumerian script was always on clay. The most ancient Sumerian inscriptions on tokens and seals are difficult to read because there is no firm relationship between sign and language. From about 3000 B.C. wet clay were impressed by means of a triangular shaped stylus, leaving a wedge shaped mark. The Cuneiform Writing had thus come into existence. - Chinese Writing System : No later than the Shang Dynasty, in 1766 B.C., the earliest Chinese inscriptions found on bronze vessels and oracle bones are already highly stylised. China has the longest literary tradition that still continues today. - Maya script : This is the script of the Maya civilization of central America having been dated from 500 B.C. to 1200 A.D. A total of about 800 glyphs have been identified.

African Scholarly Review Publication

ANKH

www.ankhonline.com

Forms of Mdu Ntr

Coptic

v

Direction of Hieroglyphic Writing

African Mdu Ntr Scholars

Dr. Rkhty Amen, Dr. Mario Beatty, Dr. James Conyers, Dr. Maulana Karenga, Dr. Theophile

Obenga, Mfundishi Jhtyms, Dr. Mautu Ashby, Ankh mi Ra, Asar Hotep, Bro. Jonathan Owens

(Rap God, Amen Ra Squad), mrw nTr tkAt, Dr.Rosalind Jeffries, Bro. Harold Wright, nfol tegum

mdakonu, Nuwabian Scholars

Dictionaries An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary Wallis Budge http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/library.html#openbook http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/documents/DicksonDictionary.pdf Faulkner Concise Middle Egyptian Dictionary

Egyptian Grammar (Egyptology: Griffith Institute) Hardcover – January 1,

1996

by Sir Alan Henderson Gardiner (Author)

So You should be able to Read this Sacred Line

From the Shabaka Stone

From http://www.rostau.org.uk/aegyptian-l/exercises/exer cise1.html

CREDIT TO Geoff GrahamBGBGsokar@minerva.cis.yale.edu

Suffix Pronouns:

=i =j "I, me, my"

=k "you, your" masculine singular

=T "you, your" feminine singular

=f "he, him, his" (or "it" when the

referent is m.)

=s "she, her, hers" (or "it" when the

referent is f.)

=n "we, us, ours"

=Tn "you, your" plural

=sn "they, them, theirs"

=tw "one, one's"

Pseudo-Verbal Construction:

This construction consists of a subject introduced on a kind of

conjugation base iw which is basically untranslatable into English.

Its only purpose is to provide a base upon which the suffix pronoun

can adhere. This is followed by a preposition and the infinitive of a

verb. Prepositions which can be used in this construction are Hr

"upon", r "at/to/toward", and m "in". The usage of each preposition

depends on different factors, but this will be introduced later. For

now, just learn the paradigms which are presented.

Paradigm I:

iw=i Hr mri.t "I am

loving", "I was

loving", or "I love".

iw=k Hr mri.t "you (m.,

sing.) are loving"

iw=T Hr mri.t "you (f.,

sing.) are loving"

iw=f Hr mri.t "he is

loving"

iw=s Hr mri.t "she is

loving"

iw=n Hr mri.t "we are

loving"

iw=Tn Hr mri.t "you

(pl.) are loving"

iw=sn Hr mri.t "they

are loving"

Paradigm II: (using the r

of futurity)

iw=j r mrj.t "I will be

loving"

iw=k r mrj.t "you (m.,

sing.) will be loving"

iw=T r mrj.t "you (f.,

sing.) will be loving"

iw=f r mrj.t "he will be

loving"

iw=s r mrj.t "she will be

loving"

iw=n r mrj.t "we will be

loving"

iw=Tn r mrj.t "you (pl.)

will be loving"

iw=sn r mrj.t "they will

be loving"

Dependent Pronouns:

These are a different kind of pronoun from the suffix pronouns

and they can stand alone. They serve various different functions,

one of which is as subjects of pseudo-verbal constructions, but

they must also be introduced by certain words. We will have a

particle what introduces them in a moment. For now just learn

the paradigm.

wi "I, me"

Tw "you" (m., sing.)

Tn "you" (f., sing.)

sw "he, him" (or "it" when the

referent is m.)

sy "she, her" (or "it" when the

referent is f.)

st "it" (inanimate objects which

are not defined as m. or f.)

n "we, us"

Tn "you" (pl.)

sn "they, them" (mostly animate

beings)

st "they, them" (mostly inanimate

objects or animals)

Non-enclitic Particle:

This particle introduces the dependent pronouns as subjects of

sentences.

mk "look/behold/hey" (it need not be very strong and does not

always have to be translated at all.)

Examples: Notice that the subject of these sentences is a dependent pronoun

introduced by mk, and that the object of these sentences is a suffix

pronoun affixed to the infinitive of the verb.

mk wj Hr mrj.t=k "Look, I love you"

or "hey, I am loving

you"

mk Tw Hr mrj.t=s "Look, you (m.) love

her."

mk Tn Hr mrj.t=f "Look, you (f.) love

him."

mk sw Hr mrj.t=Tn "Look, he loves you

(pl.)"

mk sy Hr mrj.t=j "Look, she loves me."

mk n Hr mrj.t=sn "Look, we love them."

mk Tn Hr mrj.t=n "Look, you (pl.) love

us."

mk sn Hr mrj.t=s* "Look, they love

it/her."

wi "I, me"

Tw "you" (m.,

sing.)

Tn "you" (f.,

sing.)

sw "he, him" (or

"it" when the referent

is m.)

sy "she, her" (or

"it" when the referent

is f.)

st "it" (inanimate

objects which are not

defined as m. or f.)

n "we, us"

Tn "you" (pl.)

sn "they, them"

(mostly animate beings)

st "they, them"

(mostly inanimate

objects or animals)

NOUNS:

A noun is a person, place, or thing. It is one of the basic building

blocks in the grammar of any language. In English we have nouns

in the singular and the plural. In other languages there are more

options. For instance, in French, German, Arabic, and many other

languages, nouns have gender. This means that the person, place,

or thing is treated as masculine or feminine, or neuter. English

does not have genders associated with nouns, but Egyptian did.

Gender can be associated with the real gender of a living being.

The words for "man", "boy", "father", and "rooster" might all be

masculine because the objects represented by these words are

naturally male... they have the male genital organs and not female

ones. Similarly the corresponding words, "woman", "girl",

"mother", and "hen" might all be feminine because these words

represent inherently female beings with female genitalia.

However, in most languages that have gender as a grammatical

feature, all words have some gender, even if they are not inherently

male or female by their nature. This will be easy for speakers of

German, French, and various other languages to understand,

because their languages have always had words of different

genders. German has three genders, and French has two Genders,

but English has NO genders. English speakers are often at a loss to

understand why a noun should be considered masculine or

feminine because the English language does not make any

grammatical distinctions except for in very few words like the

pronouns: "he, she, it", etc.

In Egyptian there were only two genders: masculine and feminine.

The masculine was the unmarked form, while the feminine had a

feminine suffix ending marking it as such. Some masculine words

in Egyptian can be converted to their feminine equivalents by

simply adding this suffix.

I. Examples: (the feminine suffix ending is .t)

nTr "god" nTr.t "goddess"

nb "lord" nb.t "lady"

zj "man" zj.t "woman"

z3 "son" z3.t "daughter"

sn "brother" sn.t "sister"

j3d.y "boy"j3d.y.t "girl"

jH "ox" jH.t "cow"

There are, however, many more masculine and feminine words in

Egyptian that derive from distinct roots. Note also that some

masculine words can end in /t/. These are /t/s which are part of

the root of the word, and not a suffix ending. This is why, in my

transliteration, I am always careful to point off a suffix /t/ with a

period (.t).

it "father" mw.t "mother"

hj "husband" Hm.t "wife"

pr "house" Hw.t "mansion"

xt "tree" jx.t "thing/possession"

nbw "gold" m-fk3.t "turquoise"

Sfdw "scroll" m-D3j.t "book"

X3r "sack" Tj.t "table"

As you can see, some of the above words are obviously male or

female, such as: "father", "mother", "husband", and "wife", but

others are not obviously so. There is nothing inherently masculine

about "gold" or feminine about "turquoise". The only way to learn

the masculine from the feminine is to memorize them. Fortunately

this is very easy in Egyptian because feminine nouns almost

ALWAYS have their feminine suffix ending .t on them. The only

areas for possible confusion will be masculine words which also

end in /t/, such as the words for "father" and "tree" above.

Now, every noun also has number in Egyptian. In English we have

two numbers: singular and plural. In Egyptian they had three:

singular, dual, and plural. Dual means that there is a pair of

something, two of them. In Old Egyptian the dual was much more

important than it was in Middle Egyptian, and separate pronoun

endings existed for each dual form. By the time of Middle

Egyptian the dual was already becoming slightly less frequent, so

that nouns could be made into the dual, but the adjectives which

modified them and the verbs for which they were the subjects, as

well as the pronouns which referred to them did not have to agree

with them and be dual anymore. They would simply use the plural

forms with dual nouns in Middle Egyptian.

In both feminine and masculine nouns, the singular was unmarked.

This means that there was no special written cue telling you that a

noun was singular. The noun written alone is assumed to be

singular.

The dual and plural were marked. This means that each form,

whether masculine or feminine, had morphemes (changeable

grammatical features) which showed whether it was dual or plural.

The masculine nouns had an ending .wy for the dual, and an

ending .w for the plural.

III. Examples of number on masculine nouns:

pr "house" pr.wy "two houses" pr.w "houses"

jt "father" jt.wy "two fathers" jt.w "fathers"

nTr "god" nTr.wy "two gods" nTr.w "gods"

The feminine nouns had an ending .ty for the dual, and an ending

.w.t for the plural.

IV. Examples of number on feminine nouns:

Hw.t "mansion" Hw.ty "two mansions" Hw.w.t "mansions"

mw.t "mother" mw.ty "two mothers" Mw.w.t "mothers"

nTr.t "goddess" nTr.ty "two goddesses" nTr.w.t

"goddesses"

Possession of Nouns:

Any noun can have a personal pronoun suffix affixed to it. This

indicates possession by the person whose suffix pronoun is used.

mw.t=i "my mother"

mw.t=k "your (m.) mother"

mw.t=T "your (f.) mother"

mw.t=f "his mother"

mw.t=s "her mother"

mw.t=n "our mother"

mw.t=Tn "your (pl.) mother"

mw.t=sn "their mother"

Sometimes it happens that a singular noun has a plural suffix on it, and

seems odd to English. In these cases, it is often correct to translate the

noun as plural:

Example: jb=sn literally "their heart" but actually translatable as "their

hearts".

Nouns Possessing Nouns:

There are several ways to express possession in Egyptian. One of

them is called the "direct genitive". This is a construction wherein

one noun is followed by another noun. The first noun is the

possessed thing and the second noun is the possessor of the first.

VI. Examples:

sn j3d.y "brother of a boy"

pr Hm.t=f "house of his wife"

jx.t hj=s "possessions of her husband"

nb.t pr "lady of a house" (house-mistress)

X3r nbw "sack of gold"

m-D3j.t z3=sn "book of their son"

ADJECTIVES:

An adjective is a word that characterizes a noun. It "modifies" it. I

can tell you that I have a house. But I can modify your concept of

my house by specifying more about it with adjectives. "I have a big

house." Now, you know that my house is big. It is not just a house,

but now it is a "big house". Most languages have adjectives, and

those that do not still have ways of making adjectival expressions

in other ways. In Egyptian the category of adjective was not as

static as it is in a language like English. In Egyptian certain words

could move from the category of verb to noun to adjective rather

easily.

(In Old and Middle Egyptian what we might call adjectives were

something like verbs and they became adjectives as participles of

verbs. However, increasingly, in Late Egyptian, Demotic, and

totally in Coptic these words were all becoming nouns and the

category of "adjective" disappeared entirely, and modifications of

nouns were carried out by juxtaposition of nouns with a

preposition between them.)

Suffice it to say that every Middle Egyptian adjective was also an

adjectival verb.

VII. Examples:

nfr "good/become good"

bjn "bad/become bad"

wr "great/become great"

nDs "small/become small"

dSr "red/redden"

qnj "yellow/become yellow"

w3D "green/flourish/become green"

jrtyw "blue/become blue"

Tms "purple/become purple"

km "black/become black"

HD "white/brighten"

hrw "happy/become content"

Dwj "sad/become sad"

wsx "wide/become wide"

Sm` "narrow/become narrow"

jz "light/become light"

dns "heavy/become heavy"

These verbs were not always conjugated the same way as any other

verb, however. So, "good" was not just the adjective "good"... it

was also the verb "become good". For the most part however, these

adjectives were only used initially with a noun or a dependent

pronoun for their subjects. We call this the nfr sw construction.

VIII. Examples:

nfr wi "I am good"

nfr Tw "you (m.) are good"

nfr Tn "you (f.) are good"

nfr sw "he is good"

nfr sy "she is good"

nfr st "it is good"

nfr n "we are good"

nfr Tn "you (pl.) are good"

nfr sn "they are good"

nfr st "they (inanimate) are good"

The same can be done with nouns:

IX. Examples:

nfr zj "the man is good"

nfr zj.t "the woman is good"

nfr zj.wy "the two men are good"

nfr zj.ty "the two women are good"

nfr zj.w "the men are good"

nfr zj.w.t "the women are good"

Notice that the adjective remains the same throughout the

paradigm. It is only the subjects which vary.

On the other hand, when an adjective modifies a noun, and

"being/becoming" that adjective is not the main event in a

sentence, then the adjective has to agree in gender and number

with the noun it modifies. This is accomplished by the addition of

similar affixes to the ones we just learned about for nouns:

feminine .t, masculine dual .wy, masculine plural w, feminine dual

.ty, and feminine plural .w.t.

X. Examples:

z3.w nfr.w "good sons"

jH wr "great ox"

mw.t nfr.t "good mother"

z3.ty nfr.ty "two good daughters"

etc...

Let’s apply this knowledge into reading parts of the Nile Valley’s

Most Sacred Literature the Pert Em Heru from

http://maat.farangis.de/scans/BUDGE_Egyptian_Book_of_the_De

ad_194-198_English.pdf

7980-0

From My Work – Primary Evidence that Ancient Egyptians were Black

http://www.slideshare.net/africaonline1/primary-evidence-ancient-egyptians-came-from-inner-africa

You can Read the Pyramid Text too

http://dtango.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/mistranslating-hieroglyphic.pdf

Source http://www.maat.sofiatopia.org/verb.htm

King Names

https://www.oup.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/169455/02_HUR_A2_3e_p77.pdf