# Pre-Late Egyptian Reconstruction/The Perfect Active Participle

In Egyptological studies the termed Perfect Active Participle, which apparently mirrored an identical internal frame as most other Afroasiatic languages (emitting a sort of adjectival dimension to the verb) is but a rather thorny issue among scholars. The main form of the perfect active participle is generally reconstructed with the pattern CaCiC. In addition, if the CaCiC form ever truly existed (as a templatic form) it would have collapsed alongside other forms at an early period and all the forms would have been indistinguishable from one another presumably at a point in Egyptian history when not only the vowels of unstressed syllables were no longer distinguishable in speech but also when a relocation of stress due to an augmented affix (or word) caused syncopation of the medial vowel. So, for example:
       nāfir + af = nǎfraf ...and... nāfar + af = nǎfraf
To add insult to injury, the category of Egyptian adjectives has come into question on numerous occasions by scholars as a grammatical entity within all the phases of the language. Semantically and pragmatically there is also no obvious fine line between an adjective, a noun or a verb (sometimes even an adverb)- noticeably so in the hieroglyphics where attributive roots can most likely be found (in what appears to be an unaltered fashion) in all the aforementioned grammatical categories. Other than a remnant pattern [or two] specific to the defined attributive root, Coptic does not appear to answer many of the unanswered questions of the Egyptian adjective. And any information regarding the adjective is fairly scarce, un-unified and/or speculative leaving enthusiasts and learners to come to our own conclusions. With this being said, I am going to identify some unmentioned developments, with respect to the adjective's templatic patterns and usage, that I noticed while piecing together any information I could find on the adjective which at the least can give me some closure to the subject which I myself have been thrown into circles while trying to understand the ambiguity of the Egyptian adjective. Some of these observations are listed below:
Below are the forms of the Perfect Active Participle:

## Templatic Class II: Form 1

The following paradigm equates to Osing and Schenkel's: Subjekts-Nominalisierungen: Nominalbildungsklasse II 1: sādim/sǎdm-t.

### Form 1: AaBiC (masc)

| Root Class | Formula | Example | Notes |
| 2-lit. | AǎB | | |
| 2ae-gem. | AǎB | wǎn - someone | ⲞⲨⲞⲚ$^{SB}$, ⲞⲨⲀⲚ$^{AA2F}$ - someone |
| 3-lit. | AāBiC | wāɜid - green; fresh | |
| 3ae-inf. | AāBij | māsij - who was born | ⲘOⲤⲈ$^{S.Copt}$, ⲘOⲤⲒ$^{B.Copt}$ -(qual.) birth |
| 3ae-gem. | | | |
| 4-lit. | AǎBCiD | dǎldil - drop, drip, leak | |
| 4ae-inf. | AǎBCij | zǎḫnij - fellow; pair | |

### Form 1: AaBCat (fem)

| Root Class | Formula | Example | Notes |
| 2-lit. | AāBat | mānat - root | NOYNE - root |
| 2ae-gem. | AāBat | dābat - brick | |
| 3-lit. | AǎBCat$^{LEg}$ AaBǐCat$^{OEg-MEg}$ | nǎfrat$^{LEg}$ - the good/beautiful one nǎfirat$^{OEg-MEg}$ - the good/beautiful one bǎjnat - bad (fem) | ⲚⲞϤⲢⲈ$^S$, ⲚⲞϤⲢⲒ$^B$, ⲚⲀϤⲢⲈ$^{AA2}$ - good, profitable ⲂⲞⲞⲚⲈ$^{SA}$, ⲂⲞⲚⲒ$^B$, ⲂⲰⲚⲈ$^O$, ⲂⲀⲀⲚⲈ$^{Sf}$, ⲂⲀⲚⲒ$^F$ |
| 3ae-inf. | AǎBjat | gǎbjat - weak, bad | |
| 4-lit. | AaBCīDat | daldīlat - drop, drip, leak | |

## Templatic Class II: Form 2

There appeared to be variant perfect active participle vocalizations.
There are two major explanations for this type of participle vocalization:
* One explanation for the following irregularities may have to do with an i-Type Modification (better termed as coarticulation) due to the proximity of specific consonants (i.e., d, š, k, q, m, ect); for example; mǐn - stable, should mechanically be mǎn but 2-rad roots containing unstressed /a/ are going to have an automatic schwa/reduced sound anyway.
* Another explanation is that the word may have been borrowed from another Afro-asiatic root consisiting of the ppattern CiCVC and was then used as an adjective as well as a noun in Egyptian. This appears to be the case for ϢⲒⲢⲈ and ⲚⲒϢϮ / ⲚⲈϢⲦⲈ.
Oftentimes, more than not, it appears all these forms had an adjectival dimension added to it's internal vocalic structure anyhow, which may have expressed an automatic original adjectival internal vocalic marker no matter how it is looked at.

### Form 2: AiBaC (masc)

| Root Class | Formula | Example | Notes |
| 2-lit. | AǐB | mǐn - stable (binding) | |
| 2ae-gem. | AīBaB | šīrar - small | ϢⲒⲢⲈ$^{S.A.A2}$, ϢⲎⲢⲈ$^{S.}$ |
| 3-lit. | AīBaC | ꜥīfad - nail; pin | |
| 3ae-inf. | AīBaj | jījaj - has come mīsaj - | |
Note: A shift of stress to the final syllable comprises Form 4 (Osing and Schenkel's Subjekts-Nominalisierungen: Nominalbildungsklasse II 4: sidǎm/sidāmat)
(3-lit.) pitǎḥ - creator
(4-lit.) jinbǎɜ - mute (person)
Note: An observation to made here [with all of the shifts of stress of the participles] is that this shift may have been:
* due to the verb originally containing |-aw| or |-uw| where the ending was eventually dropped
* the original verb had an adjectival element associated with its meaning, where the shift occurred due to additions pre/su-fixed to the word which were later dropped
* there was some sort of phonological priority including but not limited to vocalic metathesis

### Form 2: AiBCat (fem)

| Root Class | Formula | Example | Notes |
| 2-lit. | AǐBat | | |
| 2ae-gem | AǐB(B)at | šǐrrat - small | ϢⲈⲈⲢⲈ$^{S.}$, ϢⲀⲒⲢⲒ$^{B.}$ |
| 3-lit. | AǐBCat | qǐbɜat - chest | |
| 3ae-inf | AǐBjat | mǐsjat - woman who gave birth | ⲘⲎⲤⲈ$^{S.Copt}$, ⲘⲎⲤⲒ$^{B.Copt}$ |
Note: A shift of stress (of the fem form) to the middle syllable comprises Form 4 (Osing and Schenkel's Subjekts-Nominalisierungen: Nominalbildungsklasse II 4: sidǎm/sidāmat)
(3-lit.) jiḥānat - cupped hand

## Templatic Class II: Form 3

This form appears to be specialized for adjectives. In the list compiled by Osing, there appears to be only about 17 verbs following this pattern:

### Form 3: AūBiC (masc)

| Root Class | Formula | Example | Notes |
| 2-lit. | | | |
| 2ae-gem | AūBiB | wūrij/r - big šūrij - son; child | OⲨⲎⲢ ϢⲎⲢⲈ$^{S.}$, ϢⲎⲢⲒ$^{B.}$, ϢⲎⲖⲒ$^{F.}$ |
| 3-lit. | AūBiC | mūɜiꜥ - true mūriš -red | ⲘⲈ, ⲘⲎ ⲘⲎⲢϢ$^{S.B.F.}$, ⲘⲈⲢϢ$^{S.F.}$ |
| 3ae-inf | AūBij | mūtij - correct | |

### Form 3: AūBCat (fem)

| Root Class | Formula | Example | Notes |
| 2-lit. | AūBat | zūfat - knife, sword | ⲤⲎϤⲈ |
| 2ae-gem. | AūBat | wūrat - big šūrat - daughter; child kūmat - Egypt | OⲨⲎⲢⲈ ϢⲈⲈⲢⲈ$^{S.A.A2}$, ϢⲎⲎⲖⲒ$^{F.}$ ⲔⲎⲘⲈ |
| 3-lit. | AǔBCat | mǔɜꜥat - true tǔtaf - art pitcher?! | ⲘⲎⲈ ... |
| 3ae-inf. | AǔBjat | mǔt(jat) - correct | |
| 4ae-inf. | AǔBCat | šǔpsat - sublime, perfect | |

#### Notes

This pattern can be broken down into:
* Dimension - wūri / wūrat - big, šūri / šūrat - small (also defined as 'young' which would then categorize this word as age as well as dimension)
* Age (similar to dimension)
* Value - šǔpsi / šǔpsat - sublime, precious (can so be considered a qualification)
* Colour - kūmi / kūmat - black, dūšir / dǔšrat - red, mūriš / mǔšrat - light red
* Qualification - mūɜiꜥ / mūɜꜥat - truth, mūtir / mǔtrat - correct, mūtij / mūtat - correct
The (Cu-Ca) pattern is partially discussed in this article, in reference to the place name Ugarita/Agorita ('krjt) and the pattern Ca-Cu, which I will translate in the below words from German to English:
...Regardless of whether it is the Albright mentioned south-Canaanic "Agôret(a)" or similar or there is an inner Egyptian reason, as Helck expresses "Egyptian felt the syllable sequence (Cu-Ca) as unpleasant", and for that very reason, according to the phrase which Helck uses "umvokalisiert" (changing of the vowel). In fact, in the nominal noun formations of the Egyptian language, the initial sequence of syllables (Ca-Cu) is best documented in different nominal classes:
    Nominalbildungsklasse II 10: sadūm-w / sadǔm-w-t
    Nominalbildungsklasse I 8: sadūm-w / sadǔmwut/sadǔmut
In contrast, the syllable result (Cu-Ca) plays a rather marginal role. It is occupied in a single deverbal nominal formation class, and, if one takes into account the three-syllable of (Ugarit), only in the feminine, and finally, when the syllable structure with initial open syllable is computed, only with two-radicular roots (at least not with three-radical roots):
    Nominalbildungsklasse I 7: sǔdmaw / sudmāw-t, Pronounced vocal 'u' from masculine counterpart (in other words, in this class, in Coptic the feminine 'u' is not shown but implied by the masculine 'u')...

# Problematic Vocalizations

* Some words appear to have shift of stress to the final syllable which makes it difficult to postulate the vowels in the first syllables- these forms obviously emit a sort of vocalic metathesis:
(2ae-gem. fem) ḥat(t)ǎt - armpit ; epaulette [ϪⲞ$^S$, ⲀϬⲞ$^B$].
* Some words exhibit not only a final stress but also a vowel quality of |ǔ| in the final syllable:
(3-lit. fem) t-wɜǔt ~ tǔɜat > taɜǔt - doorpost [ⲦOⲨⲀ$^{S.A.Copt}$, ⲐOⲨⲀⲒ,ⲐⲂⲀⲒ $^{B.Copt}$ - doorpost] (3ae-inf. fem). p-r(w)ǔt ~ pǔrat > parǔt - seed [ⲠⲢⲰ$^{SA2F}$, ⲪⲢⲰ$^B$, ⲠⲢⲞⲨ$^A$ - winter] [par-/pir-$^{PAA}$ = fruit, corn] - it is assumed this word belongs to Form 3: sūdim/sǔdm-t.
* And some words exhibit an |ě| in the final stressed syllable:
(2-lit. fem) ḥamět - peg; stake (2-lit. fem) m-rět - painful , bad ; disease [mr$^{Pyr.OEg}$ - be ill] [ma(Ha)r$^{PAA}$ - be ill; weak]

# Interesting Notations

* Helmut Satzinger, in his essay, states: "Stem vocalization was completely reorganized [corresponding/comparisons to the Egyptian Stative Conjugation); cf. Arabic with CaCaC-, CaCiC- and CaCuC-: ’axaDtu, -ta, -ti, ’axaDa, ’axaDat etc., “I / you / he / she took”; ‘alimtu “I learned” etc.; Hasuna “he has become good” etc. The internal passive is probably another innovation: ’uxiDa “he has been taken”".
* Helmut Satzinger also says: "To be exact: we are dealing in Egyptian with two verbal nouns, an unmarked form CaCVC, and a marked form with gemination or reduplication and “pluralic” meaning, as we would say today".
* Through more intensive online research it appears the vocalization CaCiC was often-times amended to C(Ⲉ/Ⲁ)CCⲈ in Coptic which shows metathesis of the last syllable expressing the adjectival dimension of a root.. so it can be assumed the process of the adjectival marker went through the following progression:
       CaCiC / CaCeC ~ CaCCi
    Though it is interesting to note that not all roots went through this process (i.e., ⲚⲞⲨϤⲈ > nfr, ⲚOⲨⲦⲈⲘ > ndm, ect). At the current time the amended adjectival variation appears to be used sparingly and unpredictably mimicking the nisba construction.
* The CaCiC form did not directly surface in Coptic vocabulary, this has caused doubt as to its overall existence in Egyptian grammar and is still considered a speculative reconstruction. Maybe some research on the history on why Semitic languages utilized adjectives with the inflection CaCiC might answer this, as I read somewhere that the reason Hebrew had CaCiC had a lot to do with the final syllable being reduced when appendixed to a word, which at the least shows an overall construct form rather than an actual adjectival inflection but this reduced form was so predictable and specific to adjectives that it began to be termed an adjectival form.
       In Hebrew, the qātîl pattern (The patterns are described in more or less their actual shape, rather than in an underlying or historical form, as in many grammars) shapes adjectives (## 9–11) as well as substantives. The pattern is used for professional terms, some passive in sense (## 12–14), some stative or active (## 15–17), although the distinctions should not be pressed. The words for certain agricultural activities also employ this pattern.... The Hebrew Qal stem has (1) qātal/yiqtōl, (2) qātēl/yiqtal, (3) qātōl/yiqtal, (4) qātal/yiqtal, (5) qātal/yēqtēl, and (6) qātēl/yiqtōl as the various stative vowel patterns. The Qal stem distinguishes stative verbs from fientive verbs by demarcating a distinct vowel pattern for the stative.
* ↑ Most adjectives other than nb and nisbes have an extant cognate verb, e.g. nfr "good" and nfr "become good". These can usually be analyzed as participles, because they share a common vocalization with non-adjectival participles, e.g. wbḫ *wabiḫ > ⲞⲨⲰⲂⳈ/ⲞⲨⲰⲂϢ "white" ("one who is light", from wbḫ "become light") and wḥꜥ *wáḥiˤ > ⲞⲨⲰϨⲈ "fisherman" ("one who nets", from wḥꜥ “net”). They are therefore generated by the same syntactic process as participles, as in jmnt nfrt (Pyr. 282b) "the beautiful West". - Allen, James P. The Ancient Egyptian Language: An Historical Study pg 75.
* ↑ The Plural of Nouns in Egyptian and in Coptic by J. Vergote pg 84
* ↑ A noun (not an adjective/participle) according to Jürgen Osing and Wolfgang Schenkel (Zur Rekonstruktion der deverbalen Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen).
* ↑ A noun (not an adjective/participle) according to Jürgen Osing and Wolfgang Schenkel.
* ↑ A noun (not an adjective/participle) according to Jürgen Osing and Wolfgang Schenkel.
* ↑ Loprieno, Antonio. A Linguistic Introduction pg 87.
* ↑ A noun (not an adjective/adjective) according to Jürgen Osing and Wolfgang Schenkel.
* ↑ 'As was to be expected, pattern no. 1 (sādim fem sǎdmVt) is the vocalization of the perfect active participle. It can not be excluded that also pattern no 2 (sīdam) has this function, although languages usually have a uniform pattern for participle forms. - Satzinger, Helmut On Egyptian Participles and Nomina Agentis pg 475 http://homepage.univie.ac.at/helmut.satzinger/Texte/Participles.pdf
* ↑ Peust Carsten pg 248.
* ↑ In Antonio Loprieno's book 'Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction' pg 87 and 260; Antonio Loprieno mentions Wolfgang Schenkel's notations consisting of III-inf verbs of movement showing the pattern ci:caj... - to be noted/examined is that most i-Type participles are not verbs of movement.
* ↑ Here there is a sort of metathesis which occurred: mǐsyat$^{MEg}$ ~ mǐysat$^{LEg}$ ~ ⲘⲎⲤⲈ$^{S.Copt}$.
* ↑ Satzinger, Helmut On Egyptian Participles and Nomina Agentis pg 475 http://homepage.univie.ac.at/helmut.satzinger/Texte/Participles.pdf
* ↑ An identical vocalic pattern (CuC[iC]) is also predominantly used as the vocalization of the qualitative in Coptic (for II Lit. verbs and some other classes) which indirectly shows those roots/verb forms utilizing original |u| had static/state origins in meaning. Through progression in time these forms were exclusively used for those verbs of static meaning (or nouns/adjectives) and then only used for this purpose
* ↑ technically šěpsat
* ↑ https://books.google.com/books?id=GQhPDgAAQBAJ&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=coping+with+obscurity+brown+workshop+early+egyptian+grammar&source=bl&ots=EAYv89Py1k&sig=BD-tyjZ6DzLBy8bqu9IQc9z0rxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-_JrLrsnVAhUINiYKHQGVBOoQ6AEIUTAI#v=onepage&q=coping%20with%20obscurity%20brown%20workshop%20early%20egyptian%20grammar&f=false .. pg 17
* ↑ file:///media/removable/ESD-USB/Laptop%20Files/Egyptian/CaCuC_Schenkel_2013.pdf
* ↑ https://www.dict.cc/forum-questions/detail-13861-umvokalisiert.html
* ↑ A noun (not an adjective/participle) according to Osing and Schenkel.
* ↑ A noun according to Osing and Schenkel.
* ↑ Etymology is found on http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\semham\egyet&first=901... Some might find some of these etymologies unreliable.
* ↑ A noun (not an adjective/participle) according to Osing and Schenkel.
* ↑ A noun (not an adjective/participle) according to Osing and Schenkel.
* ↑ Etymology is found on http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\semham\egyet&first=901... Some might find some of these etymologies unreliable.
* ↑ SEMITIC SUFFIX CONJUGATION AND EGYPTIAN STATIVE: A hypothetic morpho-syntactic scenario of its origin by Helmut SATZINGER pg 9.
* ↑ In reference to the accented Original Absolute |-a| vowel between the verb and the suffix of Afro-Asiatic Suffix Conjugations which split [in the progression of some Afro-Asiaitic languages] into into an accusative case (in -a) for the direct object, etc., and — at least in Proto-Akkadian — an absolute state (in zero) for quotation, address, predicate, focus, topic, etc.: kind of a bare noun... Helmut Satzinger, in his essay SEMITIC SUFFIX CONJUGATION AND EGYPTIAN STATIVE: A hypothetic morpho-syntactic scenario of its origin by Helmut SATZINGER pg 8.
* ↑ https://homepage.univie.ac.at/helmut.satzinger/Texte/EgnSem01.pdf pg 230
* ↑ Helmut Satzinger continues by stating: Semitic and Egyptian developed their verbal systems independently, from the same starting point (three verbal bases: (a) qVtl; (b) qtVl; (c) qVttVl. / (a) sVdm; (b) sdVm; (c) sVdVmm), but arrived partly at different points.... So Semitic developed the prefix conjugation by inversion of the suffix conjugation: qatl- + ta > ta-qatil. The Egyptian suffix pronoun conjugation (i.e., the "suffix conjugation" of Egyptological terminology), on the other hand, is reached by conceiving the subject as genitival.
* ↑ https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr20c02.pdf and http://www.areopage.net/PDF/waltke.pdf