Page:EB1911 - Volume 09.djvu/73

Rh resemblances have been observed in the grammatical structure of the Berber and Cushite groups with Semitic (cf. H. Zimmern, Vergleichende Grammatik d. semitischen Sprachen, Berlin, 1898, especially pronouns and verbs); but the relationship must be very distant, and there are no ancient documents that can take back the history of any one of those languages more than a few centuries. Their connexion with Semitic and Egyptian, therefore, remains at present an obscure though probable hypothesis. On the other hand, Egyptian is certainly related to Semitic. Even before the triliterality of Old Egyptian was recognized, Erman showed that the so-called pseudo-participle had been really in meaning and in form a precise analogue of the Semitic perfect, though its original employment was almost obsolete in the time of the earliest known texts. Triliteralism is considered the most essential and most peculiar feature of Semitic. But there are, besides, many other resemblances in structure between the Semitic languages and Egyptian, so that, although the two vocabularies present few points of clear contact, there is reason to believe that Egyptian was originally a characteristic member of the Semitic family of languages. See Erman, “Das Verhältnis d. ägyptischen zu d. semitischen Sprachen” (Zeitschrift d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1892); Zimmern, ''Vergl. Gram.'', 1898; Erman, “Flexion d. ägyptischen Verbums” (Sitzungsberichte d. Berl. Akad., 1900). The Egyptians proper are not, and so far as we can tell never were, Semitic in physical feature. As a possible explanation of the facts, Erman supposes that a horde of conquering Semites, like the Arabs of a later day, imposed their language on the country, but disappeared, being weakened by the climate or absorbed by the native population. The latter acquired the Semitic language imperfectly from their conquerors; they expressed the verbal conjugations by periphrases, mispronounced the consonants, and so changed greatly the appearance of the vocabulary, which also would certainly contain a large proportion of native non-Semitic roots. Strong consonants gave place to weak consonants (as ق has done to ا, in the modern Arabic of Egypt), and then the weak consonants disappearing altogether produced biliterals from the triliterals. Much of this must have taken place, according to the theory, in the prehistoric period; but the loss of weak consonants, of, and of one of two repeated consonants, and the development of periphrastic conjugations continued to the end. The typical Coptic root thus became biliteral rather than triliteral, and the verb, by means of periphrases, developed tenses of remarkable precision. Such verbal resemblances as exist between Coptic and Semitic are largely due to late exchanges with Semitic neighbours.

The following sketch of the Egyptian language, mainly in its earliest form, which dates from some three or four thousand years , is founded upon Erman’s works. It will serve to contrast with Coptic grammar on the one hand and Semitic grammar on the other.

Egyptian roots consist of consonants and semi-consonants only, the inflexion being effected by internal vowel-change and the addition of consonants or vowels at the beginning or end. The Egyptian system of writing, as opposed to the Coptic, showed only the consonantal skeletons of words: it could not record internal vowel-changes; and semi-consonants, even when radicals, were often omitted in writing.

From these are derived the suffixes, which are shortened forms attached to nouns to express the possessor, and to verbs to express the subject. In the latter case the verb was probably in the participle, so that śḏmỉỉ-śn, “they hear,” is literally “hearing are they.” The singular suffixes are: (1) c. -ỉ; (2) m. -k, f. -ṯ; (3) m. -f, f. -ś;—the dual and plural have no special forms.

Another series of absolute pronouns is: (2) m. ṯwt, ṯw; f. ṯmt, ṯm; (3) m. śwt, św; f. śtt, śt. Of these ṯwt, ṯmt, &c., are emphatic forms.

Many of the above absolute pronouns were almost obsolete even in the Old Kingdom. In ordinary texts some survive, especially as objects of verbs, namely, wỉ, tw, tn, sw, st. The suffixes of all numbers and persons except the dual were in full use throughout, to Coptic; sn, however, giving way to a new suffix, -w, which developed first in the New Kingdom.

Another absolute pronoun of the first person is ỉnk, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ, like Heb. . It is associated with a series for the second and third persons: nt-k, nt-ṯ, nt-f, nt-śn, &c.; but from their history, use and form, it seems probable that the last are of later formation, and are not to be connected with the Semitic pronouns (chiefly of the 2nd person) resembling them.

There are several series based on m. p; f. t; pl. n; but n as a plural seems later than the other two. From them are developed a weak demonstrative to which possessive suffixes can be attached, producing the definite and possessive articles (p’, t’, n’, “the,” p’y-f, “his,” p’y-s “her,” &c.) of Middle Egyptian and the later language.

Two genders, m. (ending w, or nothing), f. (ending t). Three numbers: singular, dual (m. wỉ, f. tỉ, gradually became obsolete), plural (m. w; f. wt). No case-endings are recognizable, but construct forms—to judge by Coptic—were in use. Masculine and feminine nouns of instrument or material are formed from verbal roots by prefixing m; e.g. m·sdm·t, “stibium,” from sdm, “paint the eye.” Substantives and adjectives are formed from substantives and prepositions by the addition of y in the masculine; e.g. n·t, “city,” nt·y, “belonging to a city,” “citizen”; ḥr, “upon,” ḥr·y (f. ḥr·t; pl. ḥr·w), “upper.” This is not unlike the Semitic nisbe ending iy, ay (e.g. Ar. beled, “city,” beledi, “belonging to a city”). Adjectives follow the nouns they qualify.