1 Introduction
The ancient Egyptians believed that word-play contained the magical and productive force that empowers a text. The mechanism that produces this force assumes various forms, generally in phonological, orthographic, and semantic spheres.1 The most recognizable form is paronomasia, or the semantic juxtaposition of similar-sounding words.2 This similitude ranges from the repetition of lexemes (ploce and antanaclasis), roots (alliteration, consonance, and polyptoton), and lexical endings (homoeoteleuton) to the close homophony between lexemes, roots, and endings. Even with an improved understanding of Egyptian phonology,3 the identification of paronomasia relies on defining phonetic patterns in a text. This task can be accomplished with a computational tool called pattern matching.
Our project investigates the effectiveness of pattern matching for the identification and categorization of paronomasia in Late Egyptian texts.4 As test corpora, two Ramesside (1295–1070 B.C.E.) texts were selected for their contemporaneity and use of paronomasia: The Dream Manual (Papyrus Chester Beatty III; BM EA 10683)5 and the “Seven Houses” cycle (Papyrus Chester Beatty I; BM EA 10681).6 Since both texts have high occurrences of paronomasia, we could assess the applicability of pattern matching in literary genres that utilize paronomasia differently. The Dream Manual employs word-play for the interpretation of dreams and the prognosis of the dreamer, whereas love poetry avails itself of the rhetorical features of word-play to capture and entertain the attention of the audience.
The identification of paronomasia from phonetically similar word-groups is a task that involves linguistic interpretation. For example, pattern matching might return two homophonous words that are not word-play (a false positive). Although current computational methods cannot identify the semantic significance of a phonetic pattern in a text, treating the text as quantifiable (i.e., a group of computer-readable characters) can clarify the conditions under which paronomasia occurs. The application of this multidisciplinary approach generated both known (published) and new examples of phonetic patterns from our test corpora, from which we could identify three conditions that determine the presence of paronomasia in a text: phonology, typology, and distance. Our research aims to define these variables and the frequency at which each variable occurs in both the Dream Manual and the “Seven Houses” cycle.
Some constraints to our study include a two-word limit for word-play types (i.e., word-play pairs). Although paronomastic combinations that employ three or more lexemes appear in the Dream Manual,7 a reduction to two words made our scope more manageable. We additionally restrict the analysis to the identification of word-play with at least two shared consonants. Therefore, true alliteration—the repetition of only one initial consonant—is absent in the returns, but this does not mean that they are missing in the text. In general, the use of true alliteration observes a serial structure without lexical intervals. For instance, an alliterative sequence that repeats the consonant ḥ occurs in Column 5 of the Dream Manual:
5.13. ḥr ḥms ḥr ḥsp.t rꜤ | pw nḏm pw
Sitting in the garden in the sun | Good; It means pleasure.
Despite the frequency of sequential alliteration, this typology would have returned an overabundance of data due to the preponderance of repeating initial consonants in the text. Thus, we shall defer the study of word-play groups and true alliteration to subsequent analyses.
2 Pattern Matching and Paronomasia
Pattern matching can be described as taking an input sequence, in this case a string of text, and searching for the presence of a predefined pattern. For identifying paronomasia, the search criterion depends on an initial, manual codification of word-play occurrences known as a schematization. Although schematizations are not computer-readable, they facilitate the categorization of paronomastic types for researchers and their conversion into machine-readable equations known as regular expressions. A regular expression (regex) extracts textual information in a string from a defined search criterion or schematization.8 The regex indicates whether there is a match by returning a boolean value (i.e., “true” or “false”): if “true,” the desired match is returned and shown by the code, and if “false,” then nothing is returned. Once patterns are defined, this method quickly searches through large quantities of digital texts and identifies instances of the phenomenon, so that Egyptologists can focus on analyzing returns.
Below is an example of a word-play in Papyrus Chester-Beatty III with its corresponding schematization and regular expression for the paronomasia wḏ || wḏꜢ in line 6.20. All regexes are written in Python 3.6:
|
Line no. |
Word-play |
Schematization |
Regular expression for first word |
Regular expression for second word |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6.20 |
wḏ || wḏꜢ |
AB || AB? |
(?:^|\s)(?P⟨word⟩(?P⟨twoChar⟩(?P⟨charOne⟩\w)(?P⟨charTwo⟩(?!⟨charOne⟩)\wj?)))(?=(?:(\s|$|…))) |
(?:^|\s|)(?P⟨match⟩(’+p.group(”twoChar”)+”(?!(”+p.group(”charOne”)+”)|(”+p.group(”charTwo”)+”))\wj?))(?=(?:(\s|$|…))) |
The simplification of transliterated words into schematizations, or the codification of word-play, facilitates the organization of word-play types and the identification of unknown examples in a text. Schematizations tabulate shared and unshared consonants, grammatical gender and number, and verb forms. When a transliterated character in a word matches with another transliterated character in the line, the shared letters in the paronomastic pair are assigned an identical alphabetic value. Unshared consonants are assigned a “?”. For example, the word-play pair wḏ || wḏꜢ becomes AB || AB?. The first half (AB) searches for a character (A) followed by any other character (B), while the second half (AB?) searches the same character (A) followed by the same character (B) followed by any other character (?) than A and B.
The transliteration of the text and the schematizations of paronomasia distinguish between gender markers and verbal conjugations wherever applicable. A period “.” at the end of a lexeme indicates gender and number: e.g., t-ending for feminine adjectives and nouns (mw.t, “mother”). Words ending in a comma “,” designate verb type: e.g., the infinitive t for weak verbs (rdi̓,t “to place, put, give”) or the past tense marker n (sḏm,n=f “he heard”). These grammatical codes conform to a system that the TLA implements for transliterations and dictionary entries.9
Returning to the example above, the regular expression for the first word (wḏ; AB) begins by stating what can come before the word (^|\s). This expression indicates that the word (wḏ) appears either at the beginning of the string (^) or after a space (\s), a string being a sequence of characters (a line of text). Since a sentence does not normally begin with a space, the regex captures a pattern if it is the first word of a string. Next, the regex defines what the word can start with (?P⟨charOne⟩\w). The “\w” states that the first character (A) must be alphanumeric. Then we use a “negative lookahead” (?!⟨charOne⟩)\w) that checks whether the character following the first character (A) is the same in the scheme (e.g., AA). If it is not, it continues the expression. However, if the characters are identical (AA), the condition (AB) is not met and the regex terminates with no returns. Assuming the second character is different than the first, (\s|$|…) checks what is possible to come after the word; in this case, it is either a space, the end of the string ($), or “…” which symbolizes missing text in the transliteration.
A similar pattern appears for the second word (wḏꜢ, AB?). First, the regex defines what can come before the word (?:^|\s|-). Then, the expression looks for the same two characters in the first word (p.group(”twoChar”)). A negative lookahead ?!(”+p.group(”charOne”)+”)|(”+p.group(”charTwo”), checks whether the final character is either A (p.group(”charOne”)) or B (p.group(”charTwo”)) with capture groups that identify these characters in the first word. If the final character is neither A nor B, then the regex returns the following alphanumeric character (\w). Like the regex of AB, the expression concludes with (\s|$|…).
Figure 17.1
Code block for the schematization AB || AB? (Python 3.6)
Figure 17.1 expresses the implementation of the schematization in a code block. The function (AB_ABX) expects “text” as input (a string of characters) and compiles the initial pattern as defined for the first word. The regex subsequently searches the text for matches (finditer) and compiles the regex for the second word. Then, the expression iterates over the text looking for patterns based on the schematization. If a match is found, it returns the name of the scheme, the words for the match, locations of the match in the text, distance between the two words, and the text that was searched. Importantly, the finditer function allows the expression to find matches in both directions (i.e., AB_ABX and ABX_AB).
3 The Ramesside Dream Manual (Papyrus Chester Beatty III; BM EA 10683)
The Dream Manual (Figure 17.2) is the most comprehensive example of ancient Egyptian dream interpretation prior to the Late Period, preserving a corpus of 226 dream interpretations for two types of men.10 The text follows a tabular structure demarcated by the line, “If a man sees himself in a dream,” which introduces the protasis-apodosis structure for each dream. Here, the protasis describes the dream; the apodosis defines whether the dream is good or bad and prognosticates the consequences of the dream for the dreamer. The text begins with 139 nfr (“good”)-dreams (r. 1.12–6.25), continues with an interpretation of 83 ḏw (“bad”)-dreams (r. 7.1–10.9), followed by the section for the “Followers of Seth.”11 The first ten columns in the manuscript might concern the šms.w-Ḥr, the “Followers of Horus,” but this section is missing.12 The final column (r. 11.1–11.24) describes the deviant i̓my.w-Stḫ, “Followers of Seth;” however, it only preserves four fragmentary dreams with no evidence of word-play.
Figure 17.2
The Bad Dreams: Columns 7–9 of the Ramesside Dream Manual (Papyrus Chester Beatty III; BM EA 10683). Gardiner 1935, Plate 7A
Scott Noegel and Kasia Szpakowska categorize seven different types of word-play in the first 10 columns: alliteration, antanaclasis, homoeoteleuton, onomatopoeia, polysemy, translexical punning, and visual puns.13 According to their preliminary study, paronomasia (alliteration/consonance, antanaclasis, and homoeoteleuton) appears 42 times in the Dream Manual.14 Gardiner (1935) provided restorations to lacunae based on paronomasia, which Noegel and Szpakowska note, but we exclude them in this analysis to remain as faithful as possible to the original text. Here, the application of pattern matching in the Dream Manual increased the count from 42 to 107 possible occurrences of paronomasia.
3.1 Phonology
The language of the Dream Manual dates to the Ramesside period (Dynasty 19–20; 1295–1069 B.C.E). Gardiner dates the text to the early reign of Ramesses II (c. 1270 B.C.E.), but the Dream Manual also employs a “Middle Egyptian vernacular,” possibly to elevate the status of the prose.15 While the hieratic orthography and spelling date to Dynasty 19 (1295–1185 B.C.E.), the grammar and vocabulary is Middle Egyptian. For example, the manuscript uses mꜢꜢ, “to see,” instead of the Late Egyptian ptri̓ and does not employ the phenomenon of group writing.16 There are words and expressions in the Dream Manual, however, that only begin to appear in the New Kingdom like gsgs, “to overflow (r. 10.5; Erman and Grapow 1926–1963, V 207; Lesko II, 195),” and ḏnw, “threshing area (r. 6.7; Erman and Grapow 1926–1963, V 575.6; Lesko II, 269).”17 Thus, a phonological reconstruction in this study relies on Late Egyptian phonology without ignoring the possibility that the Dream Manual employs earlier Middle Egyptian lexicography as an archaizing tactic.
The aural reconstruction of Egyptian paronomasia is hypothetical. As a morphologically unique branch of the Afroasiatic phylum, vocalic absences and uncertain consonantal values only complicate accurate readings of Egyptian paronomasia. Another factor that inhibits the analysis of paronomasia is the conventionalization of transliteration, which obscures phonological change and the phonetic similarities between consonants.18 Nevertheless, advancements in the field of Egyptian phonology have improved our understanding of the Egyptian language. Appendix, Table 17.1 delineates the phonetic values for the twenty-four consonants of the Late Egyptian phase as proposed by James Allen (2020, 47–48).19
Late Egyptian is morphologically distinct from earlier phases of the language for two reasons: the orthographic standardization of vernacular Egyptian from the Amarna Period onwards and the intensifying interactions with the Near East.20 Phonological changes from the Middle Kingdom mature during this time as well, most notably with omission of consonant r in the final position and the phonological reduction of the semi-consonants w and i̓.21 In addition, velar (g, k, q) and dental series (t, ṯ, d, ḏ) possibly undergo neutralization and lose distinction between their voiced and voiceless consonants.22 Other consonants are used interchangeably like the velar fricatives ḫ and ẖ, or the palatalized fricatives ẖ and š.23 These transformations are visible in variant spellings with graphically distinct phonemes (e.g., “Seth” as both stḫ and stẖ),24 and later Demotic and Coptic equivalents. Pattern matching can localize paronomastic examples that account for these changes, particularly with homophonous consonants.
A homophonous consonant either shares the same manner or place of articulation with another consonant. According to the data in this study, there are 13 examples in our corpus that use homophony. These examples appear in one of two root structures: AB || AB (antanaclasis) and AB.? || A?B (metathesis). A discussion of these forms is treated in the subsequent section on typology, but it should be noted that the AB || AB type with a homophonous consonant is not true antanaclasis (e.g., line 3.10: kꜢ || qꜢ in the Dream Manual). Among the homophonous groupings listed in Appendix, Table 17.1, the most frequent returns for shared homophonous consonants occur with the coronal stops (t, d), nasal (m, n), liquid (n, r), velar (k, g, q) and sibilant fricative (s, š) phonemes. Strikingly, the least frequent is the labial series (b, p, f) with only one occurrence, and none with voiceless laryngeals (h, ḥ). In short, the incorporation of these equivalences reconciles the graphical differences between consonants, so that pattern matching searches can “hear” homophony.
Similarly, Coptic and Demotic equivalents of lexemes differentiate homophonous pairs from false positives. Although equivalents do not confirm homophony, they do clarify weaknesses in the phonological reconstruction of Late Egyptian. For instance, the skꜢ and sḫ.t in line 4.21, which Noegel and Szpakowska identify (2006, 201) as a possible alliteration, might not be a homophonous pair because the velar k and the velar fricative ḫ do not share the same value in Late Egyptian and in Coptic: skꜢ becomes
Furthermore, Coptic and Demotic equivalents can reconstruct the syllabic structure, vocalic patterns, and overall prosody of Late Egyptian words.28 Although these features are not covered in this article, they should be investigated in future analyses of paronomasia precisely because consonantal skeletons cannot be taken at face value.
We chose to make our pattern matches more “flexible” to accommodate the orthographic occurrences of weak verbal and nominal endings. The orthography preserves consonants in the spelling of a word that may have not been pronounced like the feminine t-marker or the final i̓ of weak verbs. Thus, pattern matching accounts for both the presence and absence of these consonants. For example, a pattern match will search for snṯri̓ as both snṯri̓ and snṯr.
3.2 Typology
The typology of paronomasia relies on a combination of shared consonants in a defined sequence. In this study, simple paronomasia consists of phonetic word-play that conform to a two-consonant minimum and a two-word maximum.
The Dream Manual produces 17 schematizations of simple paronomasia that generate 107 possible occurrences of word-play (Graph 1; Appendix, Tables 17.2–17.3). Five types of paronomasia appear in these returns: consonance, metathesis, homoeoteleuton, polyptoton, and antanaclasis. Variations of root structure for each occurrence of paronomasia suggests a more complex representation of phonemic word-play than previously published for the text. The codification of paronomasia into schematizations not only clarifies the distribution and frequency of typologies in the text, most importantly with unknown cases, but it also helps us understand our own biases when analyzing the phonology and the morphology of paronomasia in Egyptian texts.
Graph 17.1
Distribution of Paronomasia in the Ramesside Dream Manual (BM EA 10683)
The highest returns of paronomasia are metathesis, polyptoton, and antanaclasis. Homoeoteleuton and consonance are fewer with 13 and 8 counts respectively. The apodoses of Column 5 are missing, which possibly contributes to the low occurrence of paronomasia (4 examples). Column 9, however, is well-preserved, but only has two examples of paronomasia and could reflect the constraints imposed by this study. Column 10 also has few returns, but this is due to the length of the column, which only contains nine lines as opposed to the standard 25–28 lines per column in the text.
The most complex form of paronomasia, and the most frequently occurring in this study, is metathesis. Unlike other typologies in the Dream Manual, metathesis jumbles the position of shared consonants in the word-play pair. Frequent combinations for metathesis in the Dream Manual are AB? || A?B (10 counts) and A?B || ?AB (6 counts), but these two types also have high occurrences of false positives. In fact, false positives in our study tend to repeat the liquids n and r in the word-play pair, particularly with the lexemes nfr, inr, and nṯr.
Coptic and Demotic equivalents can determine the phonological similarity between words with these consonants. One false positive is nṯr || rmṯ.w (AB? || A?B) over lines 3.10–3.11. Although it shares the consonants ṯ and r, it is not homophonous (
Nevertheless, there are metathetic examples that are previously unpublished in this type—perhaps due to their relative lexical distances—that make identification difficult. For example, the word-play šd.t || šꜤd (AB.? || A?B) appears over lines 8.5–8.6 at a distance of 13 lexemes. The Coptic equivalents for šd.t,
Metathesis occurs with homophonous consonants as well. In lines 6.2–6.3, the pair skꜢ || sꜤq (AB.? || A?B) share an initial position for the sibilant s, and the transposition of the velar consonants, q ([k]) and k ([kh], [k]), with the approximants Ꜣ and Ꜥ. In line 7.6, the appearance of sšp.t in the protasis suggests a metathetic relationship with ḫpr as an AB.? || A?B type:
7.6. ḥr wšꜤ sšp.t37 | ḏw ḫpr n=f md.wt pw m ḥsy=f
Snacking on a melon | Bad; it means slander will happen and come to meet him.
Intriguingly, the metathesis does not continue into Demotic and Coptic, but becomes antanaclasis with sšp.t in Sahidic as both
The third most common typology in the Dream Manual is polyptoton, with 21 examples. This form is similar to antanaclasis, which shares the same root, but polyptoton differs in the ending of the lexeme.41 Verbal polyptoton includes the past tense sḏm,n=f and the infinitival ending for weak verbs (AB || AB,?). Nominal suffixes (=f, =s) are considered separate from the construction of the paronomasia, but certainly warrant further study. Nominal endings, which are the most frequently occurring variants in polyptoton, encompass both feminine and plural markers (AB || AB.?; ABC || ABC.?), as well as nisbe endings (AB || AB?). Nominal polyptoton often is a correlation between a masculine and feminine pair of the same lexeme. The study returns one example of a nisbe in the protasis of line 2.14:
2.14. ḥr mꜢꜢ nṯr ḥry | nfr ḏfꜢ.w pw ꜤꜢ
Seeing the god above | Good; great are the provisions.
The adverbial construction ḥr + infinitive typically begins the protasis of each dream interpretation in the manuscript. In this case, the choice of the nisbe ḥry to indicate the location of the god is significant due to its derivation from and resulting phonetic similarity to the preposition ḥr. The use of prepositions is not unusual42 in examples of paronomasia from our corpus, as seen in the alliterative sequence on line 5.13 with ḥr ḥms ḥr ḥsp.t nꜤ | pw nḏm pw.
Polyptoton also uses the verbal suffix n to construct paronomastic relationships. An example published by Noegel and Szpakowska contains a polyptotonic example over lines 3.2–3.3:
3.2. mꜢꜢ[,n=f] g(Ꜣ)s | nfr ꜤꜢ.w n(i̓) ḫ.t=f
[He had seen] mourning | Good; the increase of his possessions.
3.3. ꜤꜢ,n šn.w=f | nfr ḫ.t pw ḥḏ ḥr=f n=sn
His hair had become long | Good; it means something at which his face will brighten.
The plural ꜤꜢ.w and genitival adjective n(i̓), in which the original nisbe ending i̓ dropped from pronunciation and writing already during the Old Kingdom, shares a phonetic relationship with the past tense sḏm,n=f in line 3.2. It is possible that the scribe or oneiromancer deliberately chose to employ the Middle Egyptian past tense construction in the protasis, which is otherwise uncommon43 in this text, due to the nisbe n(i̓) in the apodosis of the previous line. Verbal polyptoton takes advantage of the flexibility of lexemes to construct more complex relationships, too. For example, the noun pr pairs with the third weak verb pri̓ in lines 6.5–6.6:44
6.5. ḥr ḫꜢꜤ ḥbs.w=f r tꜢ | nfr pri̓ pw m md.wt
Throwing his clothes on the ground | Good; it means coming forth with words.
6.6. ḥr i̓tḥ dp.t | nfr mni̓=f nfr m pr=f
Towing a boat | Good; His perfect mooring in his home.
Although the schematization is not fully developed, since pattern matching does not identify true alliteration (e.g., pri̓ pw, above) in this phase, there is a relationship between the word pr (“house”) and pri̓ (“emerging”) as polyptoton.45 However, there might be a more practical reason for the scribe to have spread the paronomastic pair over two lines.
The repetition of lexical roots over multiple lines could be an indication of dream categorization, which antanaclasis exhibits as well. Antanaclasis is the repetition of two lexemes that share the same form but differ in meaning. Pattern matching collects an overabundance of repeating words in the text, so the differentiation between paronomastically significant and non-significant returns is a manual procedure.
We identify two types of antanaclasis that depend on the relative position of constituting words in the word-play pair. Antanaclasis either appears in the same line as true antanaclasis or over two lines as a form of antanaclasis known as ploce. Ploce is the repetition of lexemes for emphasis, which pattern matching cannot distinguish from antanaclasis. We might assume that the frequency of repeating lexemes is inversely proportional to the likelihood of it being antanaclasis. For example, the lexemes nfr and ḏw repeat throughout the text, but the audience might not interpret this repetition as paronomastically significant because “good” dreams are organized separately from “bad” dreams in the Manual. This distinction is not mutually exclusive since the clustering of antanaclasis and other word-play types (e.g., 7.6 sšp.t || ḫpr) can be a mnemonic device for the dream interpreter.46 Lines 2.21–2.22 reflect the subtleties in the function of antanaclasis (or ploce) in the Dream Manual:
2.21. ḥr wnm i̓wf n ꜤꜢ | nfr sꜤꜢ=f pw
Eating the flesh of a donkey | Good; it means he becomes great.
2.22. ḥr wnm i̓wf n msḥ | nfr wnm ḫ.t sr [pw]
Eating the flesh of a crocodile | Good; it means the possessions of an official are consumed.
The repetition of wnm (“to eat”) in both protases is not true antanaclasis since the meaning remains the same for both words. The clustering of these two dreams is meaningful for the structural organization of the oneiromantic text—which catalogs both dreams as “good”—and for memorization.
Similarly, the repetition of wnm in line 2.22 constructs true antanaclasis in the protasis and apodosis. The subject and use of wnm in the apodosis are different than in the protasis. The “eating of possessions” has a more obviously metaphorical tone than the “eating of flesh.” Thus, the occurrence of antanaclasis on the same line is significant for the interpretation of a specific dream and often presents a nuanced meaning between constitutive words. On the other hand, the distribution of antanaclasis over two lines demonstrates the organization of dream types in the text and the mnemonic efforts of the scribe, which might explain the frequency of antanaclasis in the Dream Manual.
Consonance and homoeoteleuton are the least common forms of phonetic word-play in the Dream Manual. Unlike true alliteration, which repeats one initial consonant, consonance shares at least two consonants among constitutive words. The repetition occurs in the initial positions of the lexeme as opposed to homoeoteleuton whose consonants repeat at the end of the word. Although consonance resembles polyptoton and antanaclasis, the words in consonance do not share the same lexical root. For example, line 6.20 preserves an occurrence of consonance in the schematization AB?.? || AB?:47
2.23. ḥr nhꜢ.t48 rwḏ,ti̓ || nfr nhy=f pw m …
On a sycamore tree that is flourishing | Good; it means he loses …
The repetition of the consonants n and h in two non-lexically related words realizes the paronomastic relationship between the protasis and apodosis of the line. Possibly, the glottal Ꜣ and semivowel y strengthen the homophony between nhꜢ.t and nhy since the Coptic equivalents are phonetically identical:
Similar to metathesis, consonance runs a risk of false positives which etymological equivalents can clarify. For instance, the preposition i̓n (“by”) and the noun i̓nr (“stone”) in lines 6.3–6.4 appear to be a mnemonic pattern, but might in fact be a false positive:
6.3. ḥr sꜤq i̓Ꜣw.t | nfr nwy,t n=f rmṯ i̓n nṯr=f
Assembling cattle | Good; the gathering of people for him by his god.
6.4. ḥr bꜢk i̓nr m pr=f | nfr smn s m pr=s50
Working stone in his house | Good; Establishing a man in her house.
As an example of AB || AB? the proximity of these two lexemes over two dreams suggests a possible example of a typologization or mnemonic device. Again, the mater lectionis i̓ complicates the homophony between i̓n and i̓nr, which become
10.8. ḥr rdi,t ḥnq.t r ḥnw | ḏw iṯi,t ḫ.t m pr=f
Putting beer into a jar | Bad; Taking of something from his house.
The protasis contains a striking arrangement of the consonants ḥ, r, and n, however our constraints only identify consonance between ḥnq.t and ḥnw. The Coptic equivalents reveal that the consonant n remains strong without assimilating into liquid [l] since ḥnq.t becomes
Homoeoteleuton has a more diverse configuration with its schematizations than consonance. The most popular type of homoeoteleuton in the Dream Manual is paronomasia that plays with the s-causative prefix.55 The following examples include two different occurrences of homoeoteleuton:
2.21. ḥr wnm iwf n ꜤꜢ | nfr sꜤꜢ=f pw
Eating the flesh of a donkey | Good; it means he becomes great.
8.26 ḥr rdi,t snṯr ḥr ḫt n nṯr | ḏw bꜢ.w n nṯr r=f
Placing incense on a flame for the god | Bad; the power of the god is against him.
The roots of the constituent words are identical in ꜤꜢ || sꜤꜢ and snṯr || nṯr, but the paronomastic pair forms with the addition of the s-prefix in one of the lexemes. Other forms of homoeoteleuton include the prefixation of semi-vocalic consonants to the lexical root (e.g., 5.21: wꜤḥ || i̓Ꜥḥ; 10.6: ꜤḥꜢ || ḥꜢ) and weak verbs (7.24–25: pri̓ || i̓ri̓).56 The phonology of glides and matres lectionis, particularly with verbal conjugations,57 warrants a richer integration in future iterations of pattern matching.
3.3 Distance
Distance is the lexical interval between two words which pattern matching records for every identified pair (Graph 2). The success of paronomasia relies on the relative distance between constituent words, but it is not necessarily inversely proportional. For instance, the immediacy of an alliterative sequence might have a different effect in the text than the realization of polyptoton over a single stanza:
4.22. ḥr rdi̓,t n=f Ꜥnḫ.w n ḥw.t nṯr || nfr swꜢḏ n=f Ꜥnḫ i̓n nṯr=f
Giving him victuals of the temple | Good; it means life will flourish for him by his god.
5.13. ḥr ḥms ḥr ḥsp.t n šw | nfr nḏm pw.
Sitting in the garden in the sun | Good; It means pleasure.
Strengthened by the constraints of the line, the homogeneity between Ꜥnḫ.w and Ꜥnḫ permits a distance of seven lexemes for polyptoton as opposed to the alliterative sequence in line 5.13. In general, returns for polyptoton, antanaclasis, and consonance have a wider range (as discussed below) of lexical distances in the Dream Manual than homoeoteleuton.
Graph 17.2
Distribution of lexical distance for paronomastic types in the Ramesside Dream Manual (BM EA 10683)
Most of the unidentified cases in our study take place over two lines, which Noegel and Szpakowska partially identify.58 The pattern match searches are limited to a range of two lines, but we also tested distances over one line and over the whole text.
Overall, the range of distances vary for each type. We observed that the number of shared consonants in an identical sequence between two words might contribute to wider distances. For example, consonance, which is underrepresented in the text (8 examples), has the highest range of 1–19 lexemes. The occurrence of consonance at a lexical distance of 19 words appears to be an outlier, but a closer look at the pair ḥmy || ḥm.t in line 7.24 suggests otherwise.59 Antanaclasis and polyptoton have the second highest ranges (1–17 for antanaclasis and 0–17 for polyptoton) lexemes, but these types are also the most frequent in the text. Notably, antanaclasis does not occur in sequence (no distance). Perhaps, the shared structures between antanaclasis, polyptoton, and consonance improve the chances of making a correlation between words over greater distances.
Paronomasia tends to appear between 1–13 lexemes, which either implies a pair within one dream interpretation or between the apodosis of the first dream and the protasis of the following dream. Metathesis clusters in a range from 1–15 lexemes, but most frequently occurs in a distance of three words with ten total examples.60 Occurrences of certain typologies (metathesis, consonance, homoeoteleuton) tend to congregate within the protasis and apodosis of one line, with fewer occurrences happening either within the protasis (4 times) or apodosis (3 times).61
The Dream Manual operates under the assumption that dreams undergo a diagnosis, which are interpreted for a prognosis. Not only are the dreams catalogued according to type and content, but they also are arranged according to the homophonous and semantic similarities between the dreams themselves and their interpretations, which we have seen with the occurrence of paronomasia over multiple, sequential lines. The scribe takes advantage of the tabular form of the Dream Manual to effectuate the power of paronomasia as a mnemonic or hermeneutic device in the text. The relative proximity of words in paronomasia and the typology influences the function and effect of similar sounding words in a specific genre.
4 Comparison with the “Seven Houses” Cycle (Papyrus Chester Beatty I; BM EA 10681)
The “Seven Houses” cycle is a series of seven poems that play with numerical counts to express longing for a beloved. The text is preserved on the verso of Papyrus Chester Beatty I (BM EA 10681, verso, C1.1–C5.2).62 In an attempt to discern the flexibility of pattern matches derived from the Dream Manual, we select this text for its preponderance of word-play and structural dissimilarity with the oneiromantic text. Unlike the Dream Manual, the Chester Beatty love poems are arranged in linear, sequenced stanzas demarcated by rubrics, which caption each poem (Figure 17.3). This section focuses on the last stanza, the Seventh Day (C4.6–C5.2):
ḥw.t mḥ sfḫ.wtsfḫ r sf bw mꜢꜢ=i̓ sn.tꜤqꜤq,n=i̓ ḫꜢyt i̓m=i̓ḫpr,kwi̓ ḥꜤ.w=i̓ wdnsmḫ ḏ.t=i̓ ḏs=i̓i̓r i̓w n=i̓ nꜢ wr.w swn.wbw hr i̓b=i̓ pẖr.t=snnꜢ ẖry.w-ḥb bn wꜢ.t i̓m=snbw wḏꜤ tꜢy=i̓ ḫꜢy.tpꜢ ḏd n=i̓ mk sw pꜢ nty sꜤnḫ=i̓rn=s pꜢ nty ṯs=i̓pꜢ Ꜥq pr n nꜢy=s wpw.tyw pꜢ nty sꜤnḫ i̓b=i̓Ꜣḫ n=i̓ sn(.t=i̓) r pẖr.t nb.twr sw n=i̓ r tꜢ dmḏ.ytpꜢy=i̓ wḏꜢ pꜢy=s Ꜥq r-bnrptr=s kꜢ snb(=i̓)wn=s i̓r.wt=s rnpy ḥꜤ.t=i̓md.t=s kꜢ rwd=i̓i̓w=i̓ ḥp.t=s sḥr=s ḏw.t ḥr=i̓pr=s m-Ꜥ=i̓ ḥr hrw sfḫ.
Seventh House:63It has been seven days since yesterdaythat I’ve not seen my lover.Affliction has consumed me,my limbs have become heavy,and my body has forgotten itself.Even if doctors come to me,my heart will not be healed by their medicine.And the priests have no recourse among them;my ailment cannot be identified.But the statement, “Look, she is there,” would enliven me.Her name alone is my cure.(Oh), the comings and goings of messengers are what give me life.My lover inspirits me more than any medicine.She is better for me than any therapy.(C5) My lucky-charm is her stepping outside.Let her be seen so I can become healthy,let her open her eyes so my body can become strong,let her speak that I might flourish.When I embrace her, she eliminates the wrong in me.(Alas), it has been seven days since she has left my arm.
Pattern matching produces 91 occurrences of word-play in a stanza of 129 lexical units. The rubricification of “Seventh House” (ḥw.t mḥ sfḫ.wt) and the end of the text, which also coincides with the end of the manuscript, specifies the boundaries that delimit the occurrences of word-play in the song. The initial occurrences of word-play have both the closest and furthest lexical distances in the song and revolve around an eponymous play with “seven” (sfḫ). The song begins and ends with:
sfḫ r sf bw mꜢꜢ=i̓ sn.t
…
pr=s m-Ꜥ=i̓ ḥr hrw sfḫ.
Seventh House: It has been seven days since yesterday that I’ve not seen my lover.
…
(Alas), it has been seven days since she has left my arm.
Figure 17.3
The “Sixth and Seventh Houses”: Love songs from Papyrus Chester Beatty I (BM EA 10681). Gardiner 1931: Plate XXV
The consonance between “seven” (sfḫ) and “yesterday” (sf) establishes the paronomastic correlation between the “Seventh” (mḥ sfḫ.wt) House, which observes a polyptonic sequence with the first word of the song, “seven.” The play with sfḫ only repeats with the completion of the song, “seven,” in an example of symploce, a literary device that occurs in every song in the cycle. Symploce is the repetition of a word at the beginning and end of a clause or stanza.
Unlike the oneiromantic text, the composer of the “Seven Houses” cycle uses paronomasia not only to bracket the body of the song, but also as a technique to retain the attention of the audience through the repetition of sfḫ over 123 lexemes. The Seventh House takes advantage of distance to define the paronomastic correlation with the title of the song (sequential paronomasia with no distance: ḥw.t mḥ sfḫ.wt sfḫ r sf) and to alert the audience to the completion of the song. The body of the song (the interval between the symploce) allows the listener to forget about the initial alliteration with the title until the connection is restored with the final word, sfḫ. Symploce incites the audience to reflect on the sentiments of the lover by recalling the paronomasia at the beginning of the song. This reinforces the temporal relationship between the title and “yesterday” (sf) creating a structural coherence with earlier songs in the cycle.
Graph 17.3
Distribution of pattern matching returns in the seventh song of the Papyrus Chester Beatty I (BM EA 10681, C4.6–C5.2 (BM EA 10681, C4.6–C5.2)
Antanaclasis has the widest range of lexical distance and returns more commonly with distances between one to 10 lexemes, although many of these examples may not be paronomastic (Appendix, Table 17.4; Graph 3). For example, most returns in the song are patterns with demonstrative pronouns (pꜢy, tꜢy, nꜢy), articles (pꜢ, tꜢ, nꜢ), and relative adjectives (nty). Their repetition resembles ploce and reinforces the poetic rhythm of the song (e.g., pꜢy=i̓ wḏꜢ pꜢy=s Ꜥq r-bnr). However, unlike the nisbe in lines 3.2–3.3 of the Dream Manual, these classes do not share a paronomastic relationship with verbs and nouns in the song. Other false positives include pairs with words that end with liquid consonants (r and n).64
The body of the poem contains numerous examples of word-play types that replicate occurrences in the oneiromantic text, but we are aware that there are overlooked and more complex examples in the “Seven Houses” cycle that would benefit from pattern matching.65 Aside from the preponderance of ploce and antanaclasis in the text, pattern matching returns notable examples of metathesis, consonance, and homoeoteleuton. For example, the pair sḥr and ḥr (?AB || AB) in the following line:
sḥr=s ḏw.t ḥr=i
She eliminates (sḥr) the wrong in (ḥr) me.
Proximity between constitutive words seems to be a denotive feature of paronomasia in this text. Perhaps, the homophony between two words enables more complex combinations over the song. For instance, the antanaclasis Ꜥq || Ꜥq and the metathesis pr || ptr in the following clauses reveals an intriguing homophonous pattern:
Ꜥq pr n nꜢy=s wpw.tyw pꜢ nty sꜤnḫ i̓b=i̓ Ꜣḫ n=i̓ sn(.t=i̓) r pẖr.t nb.t wr sw n=i̓ r tꜢ dmḏ.yt pꜢy=i̓ wḏꜢ pꜢy=st Ꜥq r-bni̓ ptr=s kꜢ snb(=i̓).
(Oh), the comings (Ꜥq) and goings (pr) of messengers are what give me life. My lover inspirits (Ꜣḫ) me more than any medicine (pẖr.t). She is better for me than any therapy. (C5) My lucky-charm is her coming (Ꜥq) inside. Let her be seen (ptr) so I can become healthy.
The pattern plays with the proximity between two paronomastic groups: Ꜥq || Ꜣḫ || Ꜥq and pr || pẖr.t || ptr. First, the verbal sequence Ꜥq and pr establishes the juxtaposition between these two groups. The subsequent clause begins with Ꜣḫ66 and reiterates the association with a metathetic pair between pr and pẖr.t (Coptic
This passage also contains a playful articulation of the Ꜥnḫ, wḏꜢ, snb expression, of which Ꜥnḫ and snb undergo further paronomastic constructions.69
Ꜥq pr n nꜢy=st wpw.tyw pꜢ nty sꜤnḫ-i̓b=i̓ Ꜣḫ n=i̓ sn(.t=i̓) r pẖr.t nb.t wr sw n=i̓ r tꜢ dmd.yt pꜢy=i̓ wḏꜢ pꜢy=s Ꜥq r-bni̓ ptr=s kꜢ snb(=i̓).
(Oh), the comings and goings of messengers are what give me life (sꜤnḫ). My lover inspirits me more than any medicine. She is better for me than any therapy. (C5) My lucky-charm (wḏꜢ) is her stepping outside. Let her be seen so I can become healthy (snb).
The pair sꜤnḫ || Ꜣḫ appears to be a homophonous metathesis:70
Ꜥq pr n nꜢy=s wpw.tyw pꜢ nty sꜤnḫ-i̓b=i̓ Ꜣḫ n=i̓ sn(.t=i̓) r pẖr.t nb.t wr sw n=i̓ r tꜢ dmd.yt pꜢy=i̓ wḏꜢ pꜢy=s Ꜥq r-bnr ptr=s kꜢ snb(=i̓).
(Oh), the comings and goings of messengers are what give me life (sꜤnḫ). My lover (sn.t) inspirits (Ꜣḫ) me more than any (nb.t) medicine. She is better for me than any therapy. (C5) My lucky-charm is her stepping outside. Let her be seen so I can become healthy (snb).
Pattern matching returns the pair nb.t || snb as homoeoteleuton (AB.? || ?AB), but does not recognize the pair sn.t || nb.t. Although the schematization for sn.t || nb.t does not exist in the study, pattern matching would not have been able to identify this pair because the scribe does not include the feminine t-ending of sn(.t) in the manuscript. The transliteration is devoid of modern edits, which are incorporated in future iterations of the study. However, the occurrence of snb strengthens the relationship between sn.t and nb.t, each of which pattern matching returns (sn || snb; nb.t || snb). This is a case where pattern matching not only recovers paronomasia in texts, but also highlights missing relationships that overlap homophonously with returned pairs.
5 Future Directions and Conclusions
Pattern matching is a powerful tool, but it requires the input of an Egyptologist to define and recognize phonetic patterns in a text. However, the methodology presented here exposes the biases and oversights of the specialist so that approaches to Egyptian paronomasia may be improved. Pattern matching returns both new and published examples of paronomasia in Papyrus Chester Beatty III; it allows for the visualization of linguistic data and presents information on false positives, the use and percentage of paronomastic types, and the lexical distances between word-play constituents in both the Dream Manual and the Seventh House. Schematizations from the Dream Manual occur in the latter text as well, which suggests that word-play types appear across different genres. Although new occurrences of paronomasia confirm the applicability of pattern matching in Egyptian texts, our methodology can be improved with the implementation of phonotactics—the rules governing the position and values of phonemes in a word—as well as the expansion of the typological repertoire and the application of pattern matching to new texts.
The computational identification of paronomasia highlights how the Egyptians constructed and positioned similar sounding words to increase the magical significance of the text, entertain an audience, or mnemonically assist the scribe. Nevertheless, schematizations are a simplification of the mechanism; thus, they do not account for the complexities of sounds in speech. The use of phonotactics in this research will broaden the range of paronomastic influence beyond the simple, lexical group.71 This includes the influence of grammatical forms in the execution of paronomasia (e.g., lines 3.2–3.3: ꜤꜢ n(i̓) || ꜤꜢ,n from the Dream Manual).72 Additionally, a concordance of Demotic and Coptic does not automatically wean false positives from phonetic word-plays; there is always a need for manual interpretation at this phase. A better implementation of Egyptian phonology, even by means of etymological equivalents, reinforces what constitutes a paronomastic pair.73 Another measurement of accuracy might include Egyptian renderings of foreign words, especially of Northwest Semitic origin, which is central to understanding Late Egyptian phonology.
It is unclear why in both texts certain typologies are more popular than others. We observe that specific typologies (e.g., antanaclasis and ploce) appear at greater distances: as the distance between constituent words becomes longer, word-play pairs share more consonants. For the Dream Manual, the lexical categorization and distribution of specific dreams accounts for the use of one typology over another. More complex variations of paronomasia play with typologies and distance to invoke an effect in the text, such as the mnemonic symploce in the Seventh House. Nevertheless, the picture becomes more complicated once we include schematizations that distribute shared consonants over three or more words. Among the 42 examples published by Noegel and Szpakowska, complex examples exhibit a combination of basic paronomasia in multipart schematizations:
4.3 ḥr mꜢꜢ myw ꜤꜢ || nfr šmw pw ꜤꜢ r ḫpr n=f
Seeing a large cat || Good, it means a large harvest will happen to him.
Each bolded lexeme in the line shares at least one consonant with another word and nine words share at least two. The codification of this line into pattern matching is possible once the building blocks of complex paronomasia are understood. These building blocks consist of the simplest examples of paronomasia, which are the focus of this paper. Although not representative of all paronomastic structures, the experiment has taught us that the mechanics of paronomasia are convoluted and multifaceted, and that literary genres discernibly affect the function and distribution of paronomastic types in a text.
The most dynamic avenue for future exploration is the application of pattern matching to texts with unpublished or unknown occurrences of word-play. A potential corpus is the repertoire of funerary spells, which opens investigation to older corpora and earlier phases of the Egyptian language. Lacunae and scribal omissions could also benefit from pattern matching, particularly when modern reconstructions include paronomasia (e.g., Gardiner 1935). Our study shows that pattern matching is useful to assess biases of paronomastic structures in other texts, but it also reveals noteworthy discoveries. In fact, we tested our pattern matches on an Eighteenth Dynasty manuscript, Papyrus Turin 8438, specifically Book of the Dead Spell 175.74 The experiment returns surprising data, of which an example is shown here:
i̓ri̓.n=sn ḥḏi̓.t i̓mn.t m i̓ri̓.t n=k nb.t i̓mi̓ i̓r=k wi̓ ꜤꜢ Ḏḥw.ti̓ ḫrw-fi̓ i̓tm
“They have created hidden destruction of all that you have done. Cause that you make me great things, Thoth,” says Atum.
Pattern matching returns a metathesis between ḥḏi̓.t (destruction) and Ḏḥw.ti̓ (Thoth), an exciting correlation between the statements of Atum to Thoth. It is possible, then, to use regular expressions to identify paronomasia over a variety of genres with uncertain (or unknown) counts of word-play. It is only by improving our methodology and experimenting with diverse data sets that pattern matching can capture more accurate returns. This process should be flexible and playful, as Egyptian word-play typically is, but determining whether these returns are significant, a colon, or magical, depends on the expertise and attention of a human audience.
6 Appendix, Tables
Table 17.1
Late Egyptian phonology (based on Allen 2020, 47–48; 83–84)
|
Category |
Grapheme |
Value |
|---|---|---|
|
Coronal approximant, glottal, or mater lectionis |
Ꜣ |
[j],—,[ ˀ ] |
|
i̓ |
[ ˀ ],— |
|
|
Laryngealized approximant |
Ꜥ |
[ ˤ ] |
|
Palatal approximant |
y |
[j] |
|
Labial approximant or unstressed vowel |
w |
[w], [u] |
|
Labial phonemes (unaspirated stop b, aspirated stop p, affricate f) |
b |
[b], [ |
|
p |
[p], [ph] |
|
|
f |
[ |
|
|
Nasal phonemes (labial m and coronal n) |
m |
[m] |
|
Coronal liquids (nasal n and tap r) |
n |
[n], [l] |
|
r |
[ɾ],[j],[l] |
|
|
Voiceless laryngeal (glottal fricative h and pharyngeal fricative ḥ) |
h |
[h] |
|
ḥ |
[ħ] |
|
|
Velar fricative phonemes (fricative ḫ and palatalized fricative ẖ) |
ḫ |
[x], [xj] |
|
ẖ |
[x], [xj] |
|
|
Sibilants (fricative coronal s and fricative palatal š) |
s |
[s] |
|
š |
[∫ ] |
|
|
Velar phonemes (unaspirated stop q, aspirated stop k, and palatalized stop g) |
q |
[k] |
|
k |
[kh], [k] |
|
|
g |
[kj] |
|
|
Coronal stops (aspirated stop t and unaspirated stop d) |
t, tw, ti̓ |
[th], [t] |
|
d |
[t] |
|
|
Palatal phonemes (aspirated stop ṯ and unaspirated stop ḏ) |
ṯ |
[thj] |
|
ḏ |
[th] |
Table 17.2
Word-play in Papyrus Chester Beatty III
|
Typology, schematization, and paronomasia |
Count of pattern |
|---|---|
|
Antanaclasis |
39 |
|
AB || AB |
17 |
|
dr || dr |
1 |
|
gm || gm |
1 |
|
ḥḏ || ḥḏ |
1 |
|
i̓n || i̓n |
3 |
|
i̓t || i̓t |
1 |
|
nk || nk |
3 |
|
pr || pr |
3 |
|
tp || tp |
1 |
|
tꜢ || tꜢ |
1 |
|
Ꜥš || Ꜥš |
1 |
|
ꜤꜢ || ꜤꜢ |
1 |
|
ABC || ABC |
20 |
|
ḥnw || ḥnw |
1 |
|
ḫpr || ḫpr |
4 |
|
ḥwi̓ || ḥwi̓ |
1 |
|
i̓wf || i̓wf |
1 |
|
nḫt || nḫt |
1 |
|
nṯr || nṯr |
4 |
|
psḥ || psḥ |
1 |
|
sḏm || sḏm |
1 |
|
smꜢ || smꜢ |
1 |
|
wnm || wnm |
5 |
|
ABCD || ABCD |
1 |
|
ḏꜢi̓s || ḏꜢi̓s |
1 |
|
Consonance |
5 |
|
AB? || AB.? |
1 |
|
ḥmy || ḥm.t |
1 |
|
AB || AB? |
1 |
|
i̓n || i̓nr |
1 |
|
AB?.? || AB? |
3 |
|
ḥnq.t || ḥnw |
2 |
|
nhꜢ.t || nhy |
1 |
|
Homoeoteleuton |
13 |
|
?AB || ?AB |
3 |
|
pri̓ || i̓ri̓ |
2 |
|
wꜤḥ || i̓Ꜥḥ |
1 |
|
?AB || AB |
1 |
|
ꜤḥꜢ || ḥꜢ |
1 |
|
?ABC || ABC |
3 |
|
snṯri̓ || nṯr |
3 |
|
A.B || ?A.B |
3 |
|
ḫ.t || sḫ.t |
3 |
|
AB || ?AB |
2 |
|
ꜤꜢ || sꜤꜢ |
2 |
|
AB.? || ?AB |
1 |
|
ḏꜢ.t || wḏꜢ |
1 |
|
Homophonous antanaclasis |
3 |
|
AB || AB |
3 |
|
qꜢ || kꜢ |
1 |
|
tw || ḏw |
2 |
|
Homophonous metathesis |
10 |
|
AB? || A?B |
10 |
|
bi̓n || fꜢi̓ |
1 |
|
ḫpr || šsp.t |
3 |
|
nṯr || rmṯ |
1 |
|
nṯr || rmṯ.w |
1 |
|
sḏm || sšd |
2 |
|
skꜢ || sꜤq |
1 |
|
snf || sḏm |
1 |
|
Metathesis |
17 |
|
?AB || AB?.? |
1 |
|
ḏbꜢ || bꜢk.w |
1 |
|
?AB || AB.? |
1 |
|
wḏꜢ || ḏꜢ.t |
1 |
|
A?B || ?AB |
6 |
|
myw || šmw |
1 |
|
nḏm || wnm |
1 |
|
nfr || i̓nr |
3 |
|
nṯr || i̓nr |
1 |
|
AB || A?B |
3 |
|
ḫr || ḫpr |
1 |
|
pw || pẖw |
1 |
|
ꜤꜢ || ꜤšꜢ |
1 |
|
AB,? || A?B |
1 |
|
ꜤꜢ,n || ꜤšꜢ |
1 |
|
AB? || A?B |
1 |
|
ḏꜢy || ḏfꜢ.w |
1 |
|
AB.? || A?B |
3 |
|
bn.t || bi̓n |
1 |
|
šd.t || šꜤd |
1 |
|
wꜤ.t || wšꜤ |
1 |
|
ABC || ACB |
1 |
|
wꜢḏ || wḏꜢ |
1 |
|
Polyptoton |
21 |
|
AB || AB,? |
3 |
|
ḫb || ḫb,t |
1 |
|
sd || sd,t |
1 |
|
ꜤꜢ || ꜤꜢ,n |
1 |
|
AB || AB? |
9 |
|
ḫr || ḫr.w |
1 |
|
ḥr || ḥry |
3 |
|
pr || pri̓ |
3 |
|
wḏ || wḏꜢ |
1 |
|
AB || AB.? |
4 |
|
ḥḏ || ḥḏ.t |
2 |
|
ḥm || ḥm.t |
2 |
|
AB? || AB,? |
1 |
|
ꜤꜢw || ꜤꜢ,n |
1 |
|
ABC || ABC.? |
5 |
|
nfr || nfr.t |
1 |
|
nṯr || nṯr.t |
3 |
|
Ꜥnḫ || Ꜥnḫ.w |
1 |
|
Grand Total |
107 |
Table 17.3
Potential, newly identified paronomasia from the Ramesside Dream Manual (BM EA 10683)
|
Typology, schematization, and paronomasia |
Line no. |
Count |
|---|---|---|
|
Antanaclasis (+ homophonous) |
36 |
|
|
AB || AB |
18 |
|
|
ꜤꜢ || ꜤꜢ |
4.3 |
1 |
|
dr || dr |
8.13–8.14 |
1 |
|
gm || gm |
4.19–4.20 |
1 |
|
i̓n || i̓n |
7.18; 7.18–7.19 |
3 |
|
i̓t || i̓t |
6.24 |
1 |
|
nk || nk |
3.7; 3.7–3.8 |
3 |
|
pr || pr |
5.15–5.16; 6.4; 6.6–6.7 |
3 |
|
qꜢ || kꜢ |
3.9–3.10 |
1 |
|
tꜢ || tꜢ |
8.19–8.20 |
1 |
|
tp || tp |
6.23–6.24 |
1 |
|
tw || ḏw |
10.4; 10.4–10.5 |
2 |
|
ABC || ABC |
18 |
|
|
ḥnw || ḥnw |
10.8–10.9 |
1 |
|
ḥwi̓ || ḥwi̓ |
8.19–8.20 |
1 |
|
sḏm || sḏm |
2.24–2.25 |
1 |
|
i̓wf || i̓wf |
2.21–2.22 |
1 |
|
nṯr || nṯr |
4.22; 8.26 |
3 |
|
psḥ || psḥ |
7.18–7.19 |
1 |
|
smꜢ || smꜢ |
4.8 |
1 |
|
wnm || wnm |
2.20–2.22; 7.16 |
5 |
|
ḫpr || ḫpr |
6.16–6.17; 7.5–7.7; 7.19–7.20 |
4 |
|
Consonance |
4 |
|
|
AB || AB? |
1 |
|
|
i̓n || i̓nr |
6.3–6.4 |
1 |
|
AB? || AB.? |
1 |
|
|
ḥmy || ḥm.t |
7.24–7.25 |
1 |
|
AB?.? || AB? |
2 |
|
|
ḥnq.t || ḥnw |
10.8; 10.8–10.9 |
2 |
|
Homoeteleuton |
2 |
|
|
?AB || ?AB |
2 |
|
|
pri̓ || i̓ri̓ |
7.24–7.25; 8.6 |
2 |
|
Metathesis (+ homophonous) |
24 |
|
|
ABC || ACB |
1 |
|
|
wꜢḏ || wḏꜢ |
6.10–6.11 |
1 |
|
A?B || ?AB |
5 |
|
|
nḏm || wnm |
5.11–5.12 |
1 |
|
nfr || i̓nr |
6.4–6.5 |
3 |
|
nṯr || i̓nr |
8.18 |
1 |
|
AB || A?B |
2 |
|
|
pw || pẖw |
6.13–6.14 |
1 |
|
ḫr || ḫpr |
8.11–8.12 |
1 |
|
AB.? || A?B |
10 |
|
|
bi̓n || fꜢi̓ |
8.3–8.4 |
1 |
|
ḏꜢy || ḏfꜢ.w |
2.13–2.14 |
1 |
|
nṯr || rmṯ |
6.3 |
1 |
|
nṯr || rmṯ.w |
3.10–3.11 |
1 |
|
šd.t || šꜤd |
8.5–8.6 |
1 |
|
skꜢ || sꜤq |
6.2–6.3 |
1 |
|
snf || sḏm |
5.2–5.3 |
1 |
|
ḫpr || šsp.t |
7.5–7.6 |
3 |
|
AB.?|| A?B |
1 |
|
|
wꜤ.t || wšꜤ |
7.9–7.10 |
1 |
|
Polyptoton |
6 |
|
|
AB || AB? |
3 |
|
|
pr || pri̓ |
6.4–6.6; |
3 |
|
ABC || ABC.? |
5 |
|
|
Ꜥnḫ || Ꜥnḫ.w |
4.22 |
1 |
|
nfr || nfr.t |
2.7–2.8 |
1 |
|
nṯr || nṯr.t |
2.25–2.26 |
3 |
|
Total |
72 |
Table 17.4
Pattern matching returns from the Seventh House (BM EA 10681, verso, C1.1–C5.2)
|
Typology, schematization, and paronomasia |
Count of pattern |
|---|---|
|
Antanaclasis |
32 |
|
AB || AB |
25 |
|
Ꜥq || Ꜥq |
4 |
|
bw || bw |
3 |
|
ḥr || ḥr |
1 |
|
i̓b || i̓b |
1 |
|
i̓m || i̓m |
1 |
|
i̓w || i̓w |
1 |
|
kꜢ || kꜢ |
1 |
|
nꜢ || nꜢ |
1 |
|
pꜢ || pꜢ |
10 |
|
pr || pr |
1 |
|
sw || sw |
1 |
|
ABC || ABC |
6 |
|
nty || nty |
3 |
|
pꜢy || pꜢy |
2 |
|
sfḫ || sfḫ |
1 |
|
ABCD || ABCD |
1 |
|
sꜤnḫ || sꜤnḫ |
1 |
|
Consonance |
19 |
|
AB || AB? |
18 |
|
bn || bnj |
1 |
|
hr || hrw |
1 |
|
nꜢ || nꜢy |
2 |
|
pꜢ || pꜢy |
10 |
|
sf || sfḫ |
2 |
|
sn || snb |
1 |
|
tꜢ || tꜢy |
1 |
|
AB? || AB.? |
1 |
|
snb || sn.t |
1 |
|
Homoeoteleuton |
12 |
|
?AB || ?AB |
9 |
|
nꜢy || pꜢy |
1 |
|
nꜢy || tꜢy |
1 |
|
pꜢy || nꜢy |
2 |
|
pꜢy || tꜢy |
2 |
|
tꜢy || nꜢy |
1 |
|
tꜢy || pꜢy |
2 |
|
?AB || AB.? |
1 |
|
snb || nb.t |
1 |
|
AB || ?AB |
2 |
|
ḥr || sḥr |
2 |
|
Homophonous Antanaclasis |
11 |
|
AB || AB |
11 |
|
ḏs || ṯs |
1 |
|
ḥr || ḥr |
2 |
|
hr || rn |
3 |
|
i̓r || rn |
1 |
|
pr || rn |
2 |
|
ṯs || ḏs |
1 |
|
wr || rn |
1 |
|
Homophonous Metathesis |
3 |
|
AB.? || A?B |
3 |
|
sfḫ || snb |
2 |
|
snb || sḥr |
1 |
|
Metathesis |
9 |
|
A?B || ?AB |
3 |
|
tꜢy || nty |
3 |
|
AB || A?B |
3 |
|
pr || ptr |
2 |
|
wn || wdn |
1 |
|
AB.? || ?AB |
1 |
|
nb.t || snb |
1 |
|
AB(.t) || A?B |
2 |
|
ḥw.t || ḥꜤw |
1 |
|
wꜢ.t || wḏꜢ |
1 |
|
Polyptoton |
4 |
|
AB || AB.? |
4 |
|
ḥꜤ || ḥꜤ.t |
1 |
|
sn || sn.t |
2 |
|
wr || wr.w |
1 |
|
Total |
90 |
Abbreviations
| CDD |
Chicago Demotic Dictionary or The Demotic dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. |
| Wb |
Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache 1–7 |
On ancient Egyptian word-play, see, e.g.: Noegel 2018; Vinson 2018; Winand 2018; Kousoulis 2011; Richter 2016; Barbash 2015; Navrátilová and Landgráfová 2015; Szpakowska 2011; Hays 2010; Landgráfová and Navrátilová 2009; Noegel and Szpakowska 2006; Breyer 2003b; Morenz 2002; Lippert 2001; Loprieno 2000; 2001; Noegel 2000; Redford 2000; Oréal 1998; Guglielmi 1996; 1986; 1984; Fischer-Elfert 1993; Wessetzky 1985; Malaise 1983; Foster 1980; Meltzer 1975; van de Walle 1969.
There might be paronomastic types in ancient Egyptian texts that are “hidden,” such as assonance, or unknown to the Western tradition (e.g., vowel harmonies). The following types of paronomasia have parallels in both the Western and ancient Egyptian record: Ploce: repetition of words for emphasis (e.g., I am that I am); antanaclasis: repetition of words with different meanings (e.g., Your argument is sound, nothing but sound); polyptoton: repetition of lexical roots with different endings (e.g., Absolute power corrupts absolutely); alliteration: words that repeat the initial consonant (e.g., busy as a bee); consonance: words that share the same consonantal pattern (e.g., pitter, patter); homoeoteleuton: words that share the same lexical endings (e.g., Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall); metathesis: the transposition of shared letters between words (e.g., Elvis Lives in Evil Levis).
For summaries on major scholarship in Egyptian phonology, see: Allen 2020, 181–194 and Peust 1999, 26. The earliest consensus on Egyptian phonology was Alan Gardiner’s Egyptian Grammar (1927), which was the product of nearly a century of linguistic inquiry since the decipherment of the language in 1822. The so-called “Berlin School,” which saw Egyptian phonology as comparable to Semitic, contributed to the development of this discipline in late 19th century with canonical works like Kurt Sethe’s Das Aegyptische Verbum (1899–1902). Influenced by German Egyptology, scholars like William F. Albright (1923), Wilhelm Czermak (1931), and Otto Rossler (1971) reconstruct Egyptian phonology as a Semitic equivalent. The use of Coptic to reconstruct the phonetics of Egyptian has been central to the study of Egyptian phonology, most notably Josef Vergote’s Phonetique historique de l’egyptien: les consonnes (1945) and Carsten Peust’s Egyptian Phonology (1999). Peust’s study is the most comprehensive to-date, covering consonants, vowels, phonotactics, and prosody, and primarily focuses on Late Egyptian and Coptic phonology. More recent studies on Late Egyptian phonology include: Allen 2020; Winand 2018ab; Allen 2013b; Peust 1999; Loprieno 1995; Vernus 1988.
While pattern matching can be applied to any ancient Egyptian text, paronomasia tends to occur in non-administrative genres where the rhetorical, magical, or mnemonic force of word-play might be employed, such as in the belle lettres (literature), theological texts, and didactic texts. Cf. n. 1.
“Dream-book” (Gardiner 1935) and “Dream Manual” (Noegel and Szpakowska 2006) are used interchangeably. The British Museum acquired the Dream Manual, the love-songs, and six other Ramesside papyri from Mr. and Mrs. A. Chester Beatty in 1930 (Hall 1930).
Papyrus Chester Beatty I preserves two cycles of love songs on the verso (sections C and G) and one song on the recto: the “Seven Houses” (C 1.1–5.2: “Beginning of the Poems of Great Delight”), the “Come Quickly to the Sister” songs (G 1.1–2.5), and the Nakht-Sobek songs (r. 16.9–17.13: “Beginning of the Beautiful Verses”). Navrátilová and Landgráfová 2015; Landgráfová and Navrátilová 2009; Simpson 2003; Mathieu 1996; Hermann 1959; Schott 1950.
e.g., Line 8.12: (i̓r mꜢꜢ sw s m rsw.t) i̓bḥw=f ḫr ẖry=f || ḏw mt s pw n ẖri̓w=f. (If a man sees himself in a dream) his teeth falling out | Bad; it means death of a man by his dependents.
Kübler and Zinsmeister 2015, 207–216.
Seidlmayer and Hafemann 2011, 12.
For the cache and its owners: Černý 1978; Pestman 1982. For Egyptian oneiromancy, see e.g., Quack and Ryholt 2019; Prada 2012a; 2012b; Szpakowska 2011a; 2011b; Noegel 2007; Szpakowska and Baines 2006; Vinogradov 2006; Breyer 2003a; 2003b; Bryan 1991, 144–150; Ray 1987; Zivie 1976, 125–145; Sauneron 1959; Erman 1904.
Szpakowska 2003, 74–76. For an alternative interpretation of the text’s function: Israelit-Groll 1985.
Gardiner 1935, 10. Unlike the Demotic Dream Manual, the text does not refer to the female dreamer. See: Quack and Ryholt 2019; Szpakowska 2007; 2003, 68; Sauneron 1959.
Noegel and Szpakowska 2006, 193–212; Gardiner 1935.
Alliteration/consonance (30 occurrences), homoeoteleuton (5 occurrences), antanaclasis (7 occurrences).
Gardiner 1935, 10. On Neo-Middle Egyptian (“égyptien de tradition”) during the New Kingdom onwards, see: Vernus 2016; 1996; 1982; Jansen-Winkeln 1996; 1995; Peust 1999, 27–28. For linguistic hierarchies and language conventions (“registers”), see: Junge 2005, 20–21; Goldwasser 1990, 200–240.
e.g., Shehab El-Din 2006; Depuydt 1988; Israelit-Groll 1970, 59.
Szpakowska 2003: 10.
Also, Peust (1999, 15) warns us that “[e]ven if a phonetic correspondence between genetically related languages is assumed to be certain, the correspondence is of a principally abstract nature and does not allow for a conclusion about the actual pronunciation in one of the compared languages.”
Other reconstructions include Peust 1999 and Loprieno 1995. Cf. n. 4.
e.g., Winand 2017; 1992; Zeidler 1993, 579–590; Schneider 1992. For linguistic exchanges with Semitic languages (loanwords), see, e.g., Schneider et al. 2004; Meeks 1997; Ward 1996; Hoch 1994.
Peust 1999, 137–158.
Peust 1999, 79–84.
Peust 1999, 115–125.
Erman and Grapow 1926–1963, IV, 345, 3.
Crum 1962, 328b; Černý 1976, 149; Demotic sqꜢ: Johnson 2001, S (13:1), 468; Erichsen 1954, 467, 4.
Crum 1962, 377a; Černý 1976, 170; Demotic sḫ.t: Johnson 2001, S (13:1), 362; Erichsen 1954, 450, 4.
This example also illustrates the weakness of the final t.
Cf. n. 3 for references, especially Peust 1999.
Crum 1962, 294b; Černý 1976, 136; rmṯ: Johnson 2001, R (01.1): 37; Erichsen 1954, 247, 5.
In ancient Egyptian, a mater lectionis (“mother of reading”) is a glide (“semi-vowel”; e.g., w, y, or ṯ) in the initial position of a lexeme that indicates the presence of a vowel. Allen 2020, 45, 82; Werning 2016, 29–44.
Crum 1962, 240a; Černý 1976, 116; Demotic nfr: Johnson 2001, N, 72; Erichsen 1954, 216, 8.
Crum 1962, 524a; Černý 1976, 228; Demotic i̓ny, i̓n: Johnson 2001, I (11:1): 161, 144; Erichsen 1954, 34, 14.
Crum 1962, 595a; Černý 1976, 254; Demotic šty(t), št.t: Johnson 2001, Š (10.1): 230; Erichsen 1954, 529, 4.
Crum 1962, 590b; Černý 1976, 254; Demotic šꜤṱ: Johnson 2001, Š (10:1): 49; Erichsen 1954, 492, 6.
Crum 1962, 493a; Černý 1976, 217; Demotic wt: Johnson 2001, W (09:1): 189; Erichsen 1954, 104, 5.
Crum 1962, 511b; Černý 1976, 224; Demotic wḏꜢ: Johnson 2001, W (09:1): 209; Erichsen 1954, 108, 2. The phonetic dissimilarity between wꜢḏ || wḏꜢ in Coptic might be explained by depalatalization of the ḏ > d in Late Egyptian (d >
For sšp.t, see Hudáková 2016.
Crum 1962, 580b; Černý 1976, 249. Possible metathetic retention with sšp.t, which also occurs as šwbe: Johnson 2001, Š (10.1): 67; Erichsen 1954, 503, 2.
Crum 1962, 577b; Černý 1976, 249; Johnson 2001, Ḫ (06:1): 50; Erichsen 1954, 355.
Crum 1962, 502b; Černý 1976, 221; Johnson 2001, W (09:1): 174; Erichsen 1954, 101, 7.
Richter 2016, 26–30; 32–33.
Other examples include lines 5.9: ḥr … šfd.t || nfr smn s m pr=f; 8.12: i̓bḥ=f ḫr ẖry=f || ḏw mt s pw n ẖri̓w=f.
The only other occurrence is on line 2.11: ꜤꜢ.n ḥnn=f || nfr ꜤšꜢ n(i̓) ḫ.t tw=f pw.
A similar relationship occurs in 8.15 (ḥr sḫ,t (=f) ṯry | ḏw pri̓ prr.w pw mt=f), which Noegel and Szpakowska (2006, 203) discuss, but it is not treated here because the form AB? ABB.C AC fell outside our scope in this preliminary study. The word-play prr.w pw (A??.B || AB) occurs in 8.17 as well.
Another possible spatial significance between nfr pri̓ and pr=f with the labial consonants (f and p) and liquid r repeating in both cases.
For the ars memoriae and the relationship between memory and word-play, see: Bolzoni 1999.
Example published by Gardiner 1935 and Noegel and Szpakowska 2006.
Late Egyptian transliteration of sycamore is either nh.t or nꜢA.t. See Lesko 240.
Crum 1962, 242b; Černý 1976, 117; Demotic nhy/nꜢ, nh.w: Johnson 2001, N: 97; Erichsen 1954, 221, 7. Crum 1962, 241b; Černý 1976, 117; Demotic nh: Johnson 2001, N: 96.
There is alliteration and consonance in the apodosis (smn s m pr=s). Noegel and Szpakowska publish an identical occurrence in line 5.9 (2006, 201), but not this example.
Alternatively, e- in Sf, F. Crum 1962, 215b; Demotic i̓n: Johnson 2001, I (11:1): 143; Erichsen 1954, 33.
Crum 1962, 524a; Černý 1976, 228; Demotic i̓ny, i̓n: Johnson 2001, I (11:1): 161, 144; Erichsen 1954, 34, 14.
Crum 1962, 691a; Černý 1976, 288; Demotic ḥnq: Johnson 2001, Ḥ (09:1): 164; Erichsen 1954, 314, 6.
Crum 1962, 685a; Černý 1976, 285; Demotic hnw: Johnson 2001, H (01.1): 62; Erichsen 1954, 277, 1.
Richter 2016, 26 sees s-causative lexemes in a paronomastic pair as polyptoton, whereas we categorize ?AB || AB (e.g., snṯr || nṯr) homoeoteleuton.
pri̓: Crum 1962, 267a; Černý 1976, 127; Demotic pr: Johnson 2001, P (10:1), 118. Erichsen 1954, 134, 7. i̓ri̓: Crum 1962, 83ab; Černý 1976, 48; Demotic i̓r: Johnson 2001, I (11:1), 174.
Allen 2020, 121–144.
Noegel and Szpakowska 2006: lines 2.8–2.9, 3.1–3.2, 3.2–3.3, 5.21–5.22, 5.21–5.22, 9.9–9.10.
ḥmy:
The number includes ranges between 1, 2, and 3 words for metathesis and homophonous metathesis.
Noegel and Szpakowska 2006, 210 for some other examples.
Mathieu 2008, 26–30.
I retain the literal translation of ḥw.t (“house”) here, but ḥw.t also translates to “stanza” (Lesko II, 304). Similarly, the word “stanza” in Italian means “room” or “standing place,” which reflects the meaning in Egyptian. Note also that in the third-person singular suffix pronoun, I transliterate s even though it appears graphically as st.
False positives: pr || rn; hr || rn; and wr || rn.
Mathieu 2008, 30.
There might be a homophonous antanaclasis between Ꜣḫ and Ꜥq (
Crum 1962, 267a; Černý 1976, 127. Demotic pr: Johnson 2001, P (10:1), 118. Erichsen 1954, 134, 7.
Crum 1962, 282b; Černý 1976, 131; Demotic pẖr.t: Johnson 2001, P (10:1), 157; Erichsen 1954, 139, 5.
Mathieu notes this expression in 2008, 44, no. 100.
Allen 2020, 85–94.
Such as, but not limited to, the phonological analysis of final weak consonants, verb forms (infinitives; n-suffix of sḏm,n=f; statives), Late Egyptian conjugation bases (e.g., negative aorist bw in the Seventh House), pronominal suffixes (=f, =s(t), =sn), pronouns, and nominal endings (plural and feminine).
For instance, Late Egyptian onomastica are an excellent resource for alternative lexicographic spellings. See, e.g., Quaegebeur 2019; Nims 1950; Gardiner 1947.
The papyrus dates to the reign of Amenhotep III; its provenience is TT8 of the architect Kha and his wife Meret (Schiaparelli 1927). The language for religious texts during the 18th dynasty is late-Middle Egyptian, as it is in the Dream Manual.
References
Albright, William F. 1923. “The Principles of Egyptian Phonological Development.” Recueil de Travaux Relatifs à La Philologie et à l’archéologie Égyptiennes et Assyriennes 40: 64–70.
Allen, James P. 2005. Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Allen, James P. 2013a. A New Concordance of the Pyramid Texts: PT 247–421. Vol. 3. Providence: Brown University.
Allen, James P. 2013b. The Ancient Egyptian Language: An Historical Study. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, James P. 2020. Ancient Egyptian Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Altenmüller, Hartwig. 1967. “Ein Opfertext der 5. Dynastie.” Mitteilungen Des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 22: 9–18.
Assmann, Jan. 2001. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Austin, John L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by James O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. William James Lectures 1955. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bamman, David, and Gregory Crane. 2009. “Computational Linguistics and Classical Lexicography.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 003 (1).
Barbash, Yekaterina. 2015. “Wordplay’s Place in Mortuary Liturgies: Scribal Devices in Papyrus W551.” In Liturgical Texts for Osiris and the Deceased in Late Period and Greco-Roman Egypt / Liturgische Texte Für Osiris Und Verstorbene Im Spätzeitlichen Ägypten: Proceedings of the Colloquiums at New York (ISAW), 6 May 2011, and Freudenstadt, 18–21 July 2012, edited by Burkhard Backes and Jacco Dieleman, 203–215. Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Bolzoni, Lina. 1999. “The Play of Memory between Words and Images.” In Memory & Oblivion: Proceedings of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art Held in Amsterdam, 1–7 September 1996, edited by Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel, 11–18. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Breyer, Francis. 2003a. Tanutamani: Die Traumstele und ihr Umfeld. Ägypten und Altes Testament 57. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Breyer, Francis. 2003b. “Wortspiele in zwei hymnischen Abschnitten der Traumstele.” Lingua Aegyptia 11: 13–22.
Brunner, Hellmut. 1988. “Name, Namen, Namenlosigkeit Gottes Im Alten Ägypten.” In Das hörende Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Ägyptens, edited by Hellmut Brunner and Wolfgang Röllig, 130–146. Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bryan, Betsy M. 1991. The Reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Busa, Roberto. 1974. Index Thomisticus: Sancti Thomae Aquinatis operum ominium indices et concordantiae in quibus verborum omnium et singulorum formae et lemmata cum suis frequentiis et contextibus variis modis referuntur quaeque auspice Paulo VI Summo Pontifice consociata plurium opera atque electronico IBM automato usus digessit Robertus Busa SI. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Buurman, Jan. 1985. Manuel de codage des textes hiéroglyphiques en vue de leur saisie sur ordinateur. Informatique et Égyptologie 2. Paris: CNRS.
Buurman, Jan, Nicholas Grimal, Michael Hainsworth, Jochen Hallof, and Dirk van der Plas. 1988. Manual for the Encoding of Hieroglyphic Texts for Computer-Input. Informatique et Égyptologie. 3rd, consolidated ed. Vol. 2. Informatique et Égyptologie. Paris: Institut de France.
Černý, Jaroslav. 1976. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Černý, Jaroslav. 1978. Papyrus hiératiques de Deir el-Médineh I: Nos I–XVII. Edited by Georges Posener. Documents de fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 8. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.
Chiarcos, Christian, Émilie Pagé-Perron, Ilya Khait, Niko Schenk, and Lucas Reckling. 2018. “Towards a Linked Open Data Edition of Sumerian Corpora.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Miyazaki, Japan: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/L18-1387. Accessed 1-24-2022.
Crum, Walter E. 1962. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press.
Depuydt, Leo 1988. “Die ‘Verben des Sehens’: semantische Grundzüge am Beispiel des Ägyptischen.” Orientalia 57 (1): 1–13.
Erichsen, W. 1954. Demotisches Glossar. Kopenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Erman, Adolf. 1904. “Die Sphinxstele.” Sitzungsberichte Der Preußischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften Zu Berlin 1904: 428–444.
Erman, A., and H. Grapow (eds.) 1926–1963. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache 1–7. Leipzig: Akademie Verlag.
Faulkner, Raymond O. 1933. The Papyrus Bremner-Rhind, (British Museum no. 10188). Brussels: Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.
Faulkner, Raymond O. 1937. “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: III: D. The Book of Overthrowing ‘Apep.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 23 (2): 166–185.
Fischer-Elfert, Hans-Werner. 1993. “Vermischtes II.” Göttinger Miszellen 135: 31–37.
Foster, John L. 1980. “Sinuhe: The Ancient Egyptian Genre of Narrative Verse.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39 (2): 89–117.
Gardiner, Alan H. 1916. Notes on the Story of Sinuhe. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.
Gardiner, Alan H. 1931. The Library of A. Chester Beatty: Description of a Hieratic Papyrus with a Mythological Story, Love-Songs and Other Miscellaneous Texts, by Alan H. Gardiner. The Chester Beatty Papyri, No. I with 31 Plates in Monochrome and 30 in Line by Emery Walker, Ltd. London: Oxford University Press, Emery Walker.
Gardiner, Alan H. 1935. Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum: Third Series: Chester Beatty Gift Vol. I. Text; Vol. II. Plates. 2 vols. London: British Museum, printed by order of the Trustees.
Gardiner, Alan H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guglielmi, Waltraud. 1984. “Zu einigen literarischen Funktionen des Wortspiels.” In Studien Zu Sprache Und Religion Ägyptens: Zu Ehren von Wolfhart Westendorf, Überreicht von Seinen Freunden und Schülern, edited by Friedrich Junge, 491–506. Göttingen: Herbert & Co.
Guglielmi, Waltraud. 1986. “Wortspiel.” In Lexikon Der Ägyptologie VI, edited by Wolfgang Helck, 1287–1291. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Guglielmi, Waltraud. 1996. “Der Gebrauch Rhetorischer Stilmittel in Der Ägyptischen Literatur.” In Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, edited by Antonio Loprieno, 465–497. Probleme der Ägyptologie 10. Leiden; New York: Brill.
Hall, Henry R. 1930. “The Chester-Beatty Egyptian Papyri.” The British Museum Quarterly 5 (2): 46–47.
Hays, Christopher B. 2010. “The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28: 1–22.” Vetus Testamentum 60 (2): 212–240.
Hellum, Jennifer. 2015. “In Your Name of Sarcophagus: The ‘Name Formula’ in the Pyramid Texts.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 51: 235–242.
Hermann, Alfred. 1959. Altägyptische Liebesdichtung. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Hoch, James E. 1994. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hudáková, Lubica. 2016. “Gardening at Deir el-Bersha in the Middle Kingdom: A Unique Representation of Cucurbitaceae Cultivation.” Ägypten und Levante 26: 313–327.
Israelit-Groll, Sara. 1985. “A Ramesside Grammar Book of a Technical Language of Dream Interpretation [Papyrus Chester Beatty III].” In Pharaonic Egypt, the Bible and Christianity, edited by Sara Israelit-Groll, 71–118. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Israelit-Groll, Sara. 1970. The negative verbal system of Late Egyptian. London; New York: Oxford University Press.
Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. 1995. Diglossie und Zweisprachigkeit im Alten Ägypten. Wiener Zeitschrift zur Kunde des Morgenlandes 85: 85–115.
Jansen-Winkeln, Karl. 1996. Spätmittelägyptische Grammatik der Texte der 3. Zwischenzeit. Ägypten und Altes Testament 34. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Johnson, Janet H. 2001. The Demotic dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/demotic-dictionary-oriental-institute-university-chicago. Accessed 3-23-2022.
Kilani, Marwan. 2019. Vocalisation in Group Writing: A New Proposal. Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 20. Hamburg: Widmaier Verlag.
Kousoulis, Panagiotis. 2011. “‘Stop, O Poison, That I May Find Your Name According to Your Aspect’: A Preliminary Study on the Ambivalent Notion of Poison and the Demonization of the Scorpion’s Sting in Ancient Egypt and Abroad.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 3: 14–26.
Kuebler, Sandra, and Heike Zinsmeister. 2015. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistically Annotated Corpora. 1st ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Landgráfová, Renata, and Hana Navrátilová. 2009. Sex and the Golden Goddess: Ancient Egyptian Love Songs in Context. I. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology.
Lippert, Sandra L. 2001. “Komplexe Wortspiele in der demotischen Chronik und im Mythus vom Sonnenauge.” Enchoria 27: 88–100.
Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loprieno, Antonio. 2000. “Puns and Word Play in Ancient Egyptian.” In Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature, edited by Scott B. Noegel, 3–20. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Loprieno, Antonio. 2001. La pensée et l’écriture: Pour une analyse sémiotique de la culture Égyptienne. Quatre séminaires à l’École Pratique Des Hautes Études, section des sciences religieuses. Edited by Christiane Zivie-Coche. Paris: Cybele.
Malaise, Michel. 1983. “Calembours et mythes dans l’Égypte ancienne.” In Le Mythe: Son langage et son message: Actes du colloque de Liège et Louvain-la-Neuve 1981, edited by Henri Limet and Julien Ries, 97–112. Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre d’histoire des religions.
Mathieu, Bernard. 1996. La poésie amoureuse de l’Egypte ancienne: recherches sur un genre littéraire au Nouvel Empire. Bibliothèque d’étude 115. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.
Meeks, Dimitri. 1997. “Les emprunts égyptiens aux langues sémitiques durant le Nouvel Empire et la Troisième Période Intermédiaire: les aléas du comparatisme.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 54 (1–2), 32–61.
Meltzer, Edmund S. 1975. “A Possible Word-Play in Khaimuas I?” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 102: 78.
Mitchell, Tom M. 1997. “Concept Learning and the General-to-Specific Ordering.” In Machine Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morenz, Ludwig D. 2002. “Zu Formen, Gründen Und Wegen Der Textüberlieferung in Der Altägyptischen Kultur: Teil 1.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 129: 130–141.
Navrátilová, Hana, and Renata Landgráfová. 2015. Sex and the Golden Goddess II: World of the Love Songs. Czech Institute of Egyptology.
Nederhof, Mark Jan. 2009. “Automatic Alignment of Hieroglyphs and Transliteration.” In Information Technology and Egyptology. Gorgias Press. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/1667. Accessed 1-24-2022.
Nederhof, Mark Jan. 2013. “The Manuel de Codage Encoding of Hieroglyphs Impedes Development of Corpora,” In Texts, languages & information technology in Egyptology, edited by Stéphane Polis and Jean Winand, 103–110. Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège.
Nims, Charles. 1950. “Egyptian Catalogues of Things.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9: 253.
Noegel, Scott B. 2000. Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Noegel, Scott B. 2007. “Enigmatic Dreams in Egypt.” In Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, edited by Scott B. Noegel. American Oriental Series. 89. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 89–106.
Noegel, Scott B. 2018. “Appellative Paronomasia and Polysemy in the Tale of Sinuhe.” Lingua Aegyptia 26: 233.
Noegel, Scott B., and Kasia Szpakowska. 2006. “‘Word Play’ in the Ramesside Dream Manual.” Studien Zur Altägyptischen Kultur 35: 193–212.
Oréal, Elsa. 1998. “‘Noir parfait’: Un jeu de mots de l’Égyptien au Grec.” Revue Des Études Grecques 111 (2): 551–565.
Pagé-Perron, Émilie, Maria Sukhareva, Ilya Khait, and Christian Chiarcos. 2017. “Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of the Sumerian Language.” In Proceedings of the Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature, 10–16. Vancouver, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-2202. Accessed 1-24-2022.
Pestman, Pieter W. 1982. “Who Were the Owners, in the ‘Community of Workmen,’ of the Chester Beatty Papyri.” In Gleanings from Deir El-Medîna, edited by Rob J. Demarée and Jac J. Janssen, 155–172. Egyptologische Uitgaven 1. Leiden, Nederland: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Peust, Carsten. 1999. Egyptian Phonology: An Introduction to the Phonology of a Dead Language. Monographien zur Ägyptischen Sprache 2. Göttingen: Peust & Gutschmidt.
Polis, Stéphane, Jean Winand, International Association of Egyptologists, and International Association of Egyptologists, eds. 2013. Texts, Languages & Information Technology in Egyptology: Selected Papers from the Meeting of the Computer Working Group of the International Association of Egyptologists (Informatique & Égyptolgie), Liège, 6–8 July 2010. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 9. Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège.
Prada, Luigi. 2012a. “Classifying Dreams, Classifying the World: Ancient Egyptian Oneiromancy and Demotic Dream Books.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2011: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium Which Took Place at Durham University, United Kingdom, March 2011, edited by Maria Correas-Amador, Nathalie Andrews, Veronica Tamorri, James Taylor, and Heba Abd El Gawad, 167–177. Oxford; Oakville: Oxbow Books.
Prada, Luigi. 2012b. “Papyrus Berlin P. 8769: A New Look at the Text and the Reconstruction of a Lost Demotic Dream Book.” In Forschung in der Papyrussammlung: Eine Festgabe für das Neue Museum, edited by Verena M. Lepper, 309–328. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Quaegebeur, Jan. 2019. Egyptian language in Greek sources: scripta onomastica of Jan Quaegebeur. Edited by Willy Clarysse and Ana I. Blasco Torres. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 280. Leuven: Peeters.
Quack, Joachim F., and Kim Ryholt. 2019. The Carlsberg Papyri 11: Demotic Literary Texts from Tebtunis and Beyond. 2 vols. CNI Publications 36. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Ray, John D. 1987. “Phrases Used in Dream-Texts.” In Aspects of Demotic Lexicography: Acts of the Second International Conference for Demotic Studies, Leiden, 19–21 September 1984, edited by Sven P. Vleeming, 85–93. Leuven: Peeters.
Redford, Donald B. 2000. “Scribe and Speaker.” In Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, 145–218. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Richter, Barbara A. 2016. The Theology of Hathor of Dendera: Aural and Visual Scribal Techniques in the Per-Wer Sanctuary. Wilbour Studies in Egyptology and Assyriology 4. Atlanta, GA: Lockwood Press.
Ritner, Robert K. 1993. “The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice.” Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 54. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Rosmorduc, Serge. 2015. “Computational Linguistics in Egyptology.” UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0fk4n4gv. Accessed 1-24-2022.
Rudin, Cynthia. 2018. “Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead.” http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.10154. Accessed on 1-24-2022.
Sauneron, Serge. 1959. “Les songes et leur interprétation dans l’Égypte ancienne.” In Les Songes et leur interprétation: Egypte ancienne, Babylone, Hittites, Canaan, Israël, Islam, peuples altaïques, Persans, Kurdes, Inde, Cambodge, Chine, Japon, edited by Anne Marie Esnoul and Serge Sauneron, 18–61. Sources orientales 2. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Schiaparelli, Ernesto. 1927. Relazione sui lavori della missione archeologica Italiana in Egitto (Anni 1903–1920), Volume Secondo: La tomba intatta dell’architetto Cha nella necropoli di Tebe. Torino: Giovanni Chiantore.
Schneider, Thomas. 1992. Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis CXIV. Freiburg-Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Schneider, Thomas, Francis Breyer, Oskar Kaelin, and Carsten Knigge (eds). 2004. Das Ägyptische und die Sprachen Vorderasiens, Nordafrikas und der Ägäis: Akten des Basler Kolloquiums zum ägyptisch-nichtsemitischen Sprachkontakt, Basel 9–11. July 2003. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Schott, Siegfried. 1959. Liebeslieder der Pharaonenzeit. Lebendige Antike. Zürich: Artemis.
Seidlmayer, Stephan J. and Ingelore Hafemann. 2011. Handbuch zur Benutzung des Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (TLA). Auf der Grundlage der Hilfetexte des Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (TLA). BBAW, Berlin.
Simpson, William K., and Robert K. Ritner. 2003. The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry. 3rd ed. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Shehab El-Din, Tahia. 2006. “Some metaphorical meanings of the Egyptian verbs of seeing and knowing.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 80, 311–321.
Szpakowska, Kasia. 2003. Behind Closed Eyes: Dreams and Nightmares in Ancient Egypt. Swansea, Wales: Classical Press of Wales; Distributed in the US by David Brown Book Co.
Szpakowska, Kasia, ed. 2006. Through a Glass Darkly: Magic, Dreams and Prophecy in Ancient Egypt. Swansea, Wales; Oakville, CT: Classical Press of Wales; Distributed in the US by David Brown Book Co.
Szpakowska, Kasia, ed. 2007. “Flesh for Fantasy: Reflections of Women in Two Ancient Egyptian Dream Manuals.” Egyptian Stories: A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd on the Occasion of His Retirement, =393–404.
Szpakowska, Kasia. 2011a. “Demons in the Dark: Nightmares and Other Nocturnal Enemies of Ancient Egypt.” In Ancient Egyptian Demonology: Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic, edited by Panagiotis Kousoulis, 63–76. Leuven: Peeters; Departement Oosterse Studies.
Szpakowska, Kasia. 2011b. “Dream Interpretation in the Ramesside Age.” In Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen, edited by Mark Collier and Steven Snape, 509–517. Bolton: Rutherford.
Van den Berg, Hans. 1997. “‘Manuel de Codage’: A Standard System for the Computer-Encoding of Egyptian Transliteration and Hieroglyphic Texts.” http://www.catchpenny.org/codage/. Accessed on 1-24-2022.
Van de Walle, Baudouin. 1969. L’humour dans la littérature et dans l’art de l’ancienne Égypte. Scholae Adriani de Buck Memoriae Dicatae 4. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Vernus, Pascal. 1982. “Diachronie et synchronie dans la langue égyptienne.” In L’égyptologie en 1979: Axes prioritaires de recherches, Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 595, Vol. I, 17–18. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Vernus, Pascal. 1988. “L’Égypto-copte.” Les langues danse le monde ancien et modern III: Les langues chamito-sémitiques: Textes réunis par D. Cohen. Edited by Jean Perrot, 161–206. Paris: Éditions du Centre Nationalde la Recherche Scientifique.
Vernus, Pascal. 1996. “Langue littéraire et diglossie.” In Ancient Egyptian literature: History and forms, Probleme der Ägyptologie 10, edited by Antonio Loprieno, 555–564. Leiden: Brill.
Vernus, Pascal. 2016. “Traditional Egyptian I (Dynamics).” UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0bg342rh. Accessed 1-24-2022.
Vinogradov, Alexey K. 2006. “The Puzzles of the Dream Stele.” Beiträge Zur Sudanforschung 9: 119–154.
Vinson, Steve. 2018. The Craft of a Good Scribe: History, Narrative and Meaning in the First Tale of Setne Khaemwas. Harvard Egyptological Studies 3. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Ward, William. 1996. “A new look at Semitic personal names and loanwords in Egyptian.” Chronique d’Égypte 71: 17–47.
Werning, Daniel A. 2016. “Hypotheses on Glides and Matres Lectionis in Earlier Egyptian Orthographies.” In Coping with Obscurity: The Brown Workshop on Earlier Egyptian Grammar, edited by James P. Allen, Mark A. Collier, and Andréas Stauder, 29–44. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.
Wessetzky, Vilmos. 1985. “Table d’offrandes à inscription démotique au Musée Des Beaux-Arts.” Bulletin Du Musée Hongrois Des Beaux-Arts 65: 11–15.
Winand, Jean. 1992. Études de Néo-Égyptien, 1: La Morphologie Verbale 2. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia. Liège: Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres.
Winand, Jean. “Identifying Semitic Loanwords in Late Egyptian.” Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language, 481–511.
Winand, Jean. “Identifying Semitic Loanwords in Late Egyptian.” Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language, 2018a. “Dialectal, Sociolectal and Idiolectal Variations in the Late Egyptian Texts from Deir El-Medineh and the Theban Area.” In Outside the Box: Selected Papers from the Conference “Deir El-Medina and the Theban Necropolis in Contact” Liège, 27–29 October 2014, edited by Andreas Dorn and Stéphane Polis, 493–524. Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège.
Winand, Jean. “Identifying Semitic Loanwords in Late Egyptian.” Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-Induced Change in an Ancient African Language, 2018b. “Late Egyptian.” UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fr419rk. Accessed 1-23-2022.
Winter, Thomas. 1999. “Roberto Busa, S.J., and the Invention of the Machine-Generated Concordance.” The Classical Bulletin 75 (1): 3–21.
Zeidler, Jürgen. 1994. “A new approach to the Late Egyptian ‘syllabic orthography.’” Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia. Atti II, edited by Jean Leclant, 579–590. Turin: International Association of Egyptologists.
Zivie, Christiane M. 1976. Giza au deuxième millénaire. Bibliothèque d’étude 70. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.