The Demotic Verbal System by Janet H. JohnsonReview by: Helmut SatzingerJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 145-146Published by: American Research Center in EgyptStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000156 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 00:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:49:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 145

11 E.g., S. Moscati, ed., et al., Introduction to the Com-

parative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Porta Linguarum Orientalium N.S. VI, Wiesbaden, 1969), § 1 1.6 c.

12 C. T. Hodge, "Afroasiatic: An Overview," in idem, ed., Afroasiatic: A Survey (The Hague, 1971), 16.

THE DEMOTIC VERBAL SYSTEM by Janet H. Johnson, (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civiliza- tion, no. 38), pp. xv + 344. The Oriental Insti- tute, 1976.

Demotic and Greco-Roman hieroglyphic texts share the dubious honor of being outside the ken of most Egyptologists for all practical purposes, partly basically because of their intrinsically difficult readings; Demotic in particular has suffered from undeserved neglect, so the appearance of the pre- sent work is to be welcomed. Spiegelberg's Demo- tische Grammatik (1925), Lexa's Grammaire demotique (1949) and Ort-Geuthner Grammaire demotique du Papyrus Magique Londres et Leyde (1936) all antedate the acceptance of the implications for Demotic of

Polotsky's epoch-making work on the Coptic verbal

system in his Etudes de syntaxe copte (1944). A certain amount of preliminary work on the Demotic verbal

system has appeared in the form of articles over the last twenty years. During the same period our understanding of the mechanics of the Late Egyp- tian verbal system has progressed apace. Thus the time appears ripe for a systhesis of the Demotic verbal system as well as a diachronic view of the

development of the Egyptian verbal system as a whole. Although the author did not intend the

study to be absolutely comprehensive, a representa- tive sample of quotations are provided, although the main bulk of examples is limited to those taken from the Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leyden (irritatingly appreviated as "Magical") from the third century A.D. and the second cen-

tury a.d. Myth of the Sun's Eye, both of which share a Theban provenance. Heavy use is also made of the tale of Khaemwaset (Setne Khaemwaset) and the Instructions of Onkhsheshonqy, both from the Ptolemaic period.

After a discussion of the morphology of the verbal bases, the author discusses the Demotic tenses in turn, grouping them into present, non-

present and clause conjugations. For each tense, the positive, negative, circumstatial, relative and second-tense forms are discussed, illustrated by fifty tables of forms in Demotic script, because of the massive problems of analyzing graphemic evi- dence in a fluctuating and under-differentiated writ-

ing system. The author's disclaimer that she will not undertake semantic analysis is overly modest,

because she provides a good analysis and discussion of the uses of the fifty or so verbal constructions she discusses. In view of the fairly late date of her basic sources, it is not surprising that the verbal

system looks very much like that of Coptic, but the differences are significant still: the past tense sdm.f is still alive and not yet replaced by the periphrasis that will produce Coptic afsotm; the Third Future can still be relativized; the Second Perfect (Coptic: ntajsotm) has not yet been formed with nt-, although the Fayyumic form aafsotm can be traced in its De- motic prototype r-irf sdm and the /zta-forms may underlie a curious form written mtwk cq "you entered" (p. 117).

One of the most valuable services the present study has rendered us is the sorting out of a number of homophonous or apparently homophonous forms from behind the vagaries of Demotic writing

(1) Circumstantial iwfsdm LE iwfhrsdm Present:

(efsotm) (2) Second Present iirfsdm LE iirfsdm

(efsotm) (iir ME irr) (3) Conditional iwfsdm LE iriwfhr sdm

(efsotm) (4) Second Part iirfsdm LE iirfsdm

(F. aafsotm) (iir ME irn) (5) Past (periph- irfsdm LE irfsdm

rastic) (afsotm) (ir ME \rn) (6) Third Future iwf(r) sdm LE iwfr sdm

(efesotm)

Because of their morphological similarity and lluc-

tuating spelling in Demotic script, most of these tenses have been confused with each other at one time or another, both by the ancient scribes and modern analysts. A further confusion ensues because the transcription of Demotic follows the confusions of the scribes, inserting iw (as a trans- cription of (jl) after bn before a prospective sdm'f (e.g. bn iw shn't'k "you shall not order ..." for bn shn't'k . . . where bn-iw represents Coptic nne LE bn, ME nn,) where most likely no "copula" iw ever

appeared as a structural constituent. In the examples on p. 171, the combination of bn and iw could have bten written as bn-iw to prevent diachronic struc- tural misunderstandings. Most of the graphic diffi- culties are explained in the discussions the author

provides, although too much prior knowledge of

Egyptian is assumed for the non-Egyptologist linguist to follow. The discussions, for each verbal construction, of its Late Egyptian antecedents and its Coptic descendants are helpful.

Some confusion in the presentation is caused by continuing to use the traditional term sdm'f as if it

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:49:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

146 JARCE XV (1978)

existed as an entity. Perhaps by admitting that the sdm-f is not "a unity" the author does not realize that that means it is also not an entity. In the case of the na- adjectives in Coptic (and their m counter- parts in Demotic (e.g. na-nou "be good"), I seriously doubt that the second constituent is one of the bases traditionally considered a "sdm'f\ Sethe suggested, in Nominalsatz § 37.2, that it was the infinitive of the adjective verb with an agent ex- pressed with the direct genetive.

The term "aorist" and "perfect" are troublesome also. By "perfect", the author refers to the form Wih-f sdm, which corresponds to the English past perfect (or pluperfect) and is thus a bit confusing. The term "aorist" dcbpicrros. = non-limited (by time or aspect) is used for the far sdm-f form, which is con- fusing, because the aorist in Greek is primarily a past tense that (together with the perfect in that language) can occasionally be used gnomically. In addition, even the etymological meaning of non- limitation does not genuinely characterize the meaning of the hr sdm'f form, which the author rightly explains, refers to naturally inevitable, normal and customary actions.

Such terminological questions are, to some extent, a matter or taste. The major thesis of the book is admirably sustained, namely that the Demotic verbal system represents, in its complexity, a logical continuation of its Late Egyptian counter- part, and, in its form in the Roman period, is quite close to that of Coptic. This book provides a valuable bridge over the badly understood linguistic period between Late Egyptian and Coptic and will enjoy many years as a useful reference work.

Helmut Satzinger Vienna

COPTIC ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY com- piled by J. Cerny. 8°, pp. xxiv + 384. Cam- bridge University Press, 1976. $75.

This, Cerny's last major work, was completed and at the printers just before his unexpected death in 1970. Devoted friends, A. F. Shore, I. E. S. Ed- wards and T. G. H. James, took upon themselves the task of seeing his book through to publication, with J. M. Plumley and A. Alcock also giving their aid. To all these a great debt of gratitude is owed for the eventual appearance of this immensely use- ful and distinguished volume.

Cerny's aim was a simple one, that of filling in a gap in the otherwise magistral Coptic Dictionary of Crum. When the first part of the latter's work came out in 1929, he apologized in his Preface for the omission of any etymologies for the Coptic forms.

He excused himself with a lack of expertise in Demotic and the greatly increased costs that would result from the inclusion of hieroglyphic type. Moreover he paid tribute to Spiegelberg's Hand- wb'rterbuch which had appeared in 1921 and which did include etymologies, either hieroglyphic or demotic, if only the latter existed. Crum felt that he could add nothing of importance to what Spiegelberg had already made available.

Crum may have thought he had some basis for an assumption that little future progress could be expected in etymologies. The first volume of the Wb'rterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache appeared in 1926. Taking the letter B as a sample, I checked through it and found that there is almost complete agree- ment between what the Worterbuch offers in the way of Coptic etymologies and what Spiegelberg gives under Coptic B as hieroglyphic ancestors, in all some 27 forms. To these Spiegelberg could add 8 demotic ancestors, for a total of only 35 etymolo- gies for some 62 Coptic forms, or 56%. But Crum's own exhaustive research into Coptic texts, pub- lished and unpublished, resulted in an increase of primary forms under B by 60, in effect almost doubling Spiegelberg's list.

It was hardly to be supposed that etymologies would be lacking for all these newcomers or that none could be found for at least some of the forms for which Spiegelberg could offer nothing. This was the challenge to Cerny. Crum completed his Dic- tionary in 1939, and, about 1945, Cerny began to compile his own list of etymologies. In 1951, when he assumed the Oxford chair, he discovered that Eugene Devaud had begun a similar task as early as 1922; after his death in 1929, his slips had found their way first to Crum and then to the Griffith Institute. Cerny acknowledge his indebtedness to Devaud's early work, but in every case the evi- dence was re-examined and verified, and then, too, since 1929 many texts had been published and many new etymologies had suggested themselves for acceptance or rejection.

Cerny's principle was "to adopt etymologies which I considered certain, probable or at least possible." How well he succeeded can be tested by again examining the forms under B. To the 122 primary forms of Crum, Cerny offers five new forms and etymologies for 87 of the 127 total, or 68%. That this same proportion would obtain over the whole range of Coptic may be accepted with little hesitation. Moreover Cerny gives etymologies not only in hieroglyphic type, but in demotic writing as well as transliteration, an inestimable boon to the Demoticist. Source references abound, and indeed his reference abbreviations cover fourteen pages, convincing testimony to the wide range of his re-

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:49:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions