Sentence type = existential (__ is equivalent to __). This is a
literary device, making the narrative seem more colorful than simply saying
aHa.jn.... "then ___ stood up."
*aHa* pw iri.......
aHa = infinitive of verb (stand),
aHa *pw* iri....
pw = copula (holding the place of English "is"),
aHa pw *iri.n* zA-n.y-sw.t...
- iri.n = relative sDm.n=f, (what ___ did)
- [ed., This is a nominal form of the verb, see Loprieno p86-87].
aHa pw iri.n *zA-n.y-sw.t*, Hrw-dd=f, ...
zA-n.y-sw.t = noun = title. There is honorific transposition. The word n.y-sw.t was held in great esteem and therefore written before the word zA, which was a noun without special sacred significance in relation to the king. The origins n.y-sw.t are a long story which I don't wish to get into here, however its meaning CAN be interpreted (though not necessarily anything more than a folk etymology (and by the way there are people who believe the word was originally nzw, which I personally doubt)) as "he of the Sedge" (which admittedly is rather contrived). However the Egyptians themselves seem to have treated it as a nisba of n plus a noun, as can be seen in the example of n.y.t-sw.t "kingship" which shows some odd spelling features explainable in this fashion.
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t, *Hrw-dd=f*, r mdw.t,
...
Hrw-dd=f = proper noun. The name can also just as well be Djedefhor as Hardedef. There is some speculation that this son later MIGHT have become Djedefre (or Radedef) who succeeded Khufu and took a theophoric [ed., literally 'god-bearing'] name which was comensurate with his elevation in status, in the same way that it has also been suggested that KhufuKhaf (or Khaefkhufu) was the same person as King Khafre before he had ascended the throne. This word is the subject of the relative sDm.n=f (jrj.n).
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f, *r* mdw.t, Dd=f
...
r = r of futurity (intention in this case) (to/in order to),
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f, r *mdw.t*, Dd=f
...
mdw.t = infinitive (third weak verb (md.t is written but the root is mdw + t ending)) This is the pseudoverbal construction: Subject + preposition (Hr, m, or r depending on intended nuance) + infinitive. It should NOT be translated as "upon _ing", "in _ing", or "toward _ing", as the literal words involved MIGHT imply, but rather into idiomatic English. The construction is tenseless unless it has the preposition r which implies a futurity relative to the context. iw=f Hr sDm could be either "he is hearing" or "he was hearing". iw=f m ii.t: verbs of motion and some other intransitive verbs often take the preposition m instead of Hr, and are to be translated the same: "he is/was coming". iw=f r sDm "he shall hear". But in certain contexts there is clearly an element of intention or volition involved. This is one of those contexts. The main action of the sentence is the prince's standing up, and the r mdw.t tells us why he did so. Therefore, I personally feel that "in order to speak" is the best way to handle this bit.
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f, r mdw.t, *Dd=f
"////////////// m ...
(What follows is a long clause telling what he said.)
Dd=f = circumstantial sDm=f (literally while he is/was saying, but English does not need to repeat the "he", and "saying" will do just fine here.) Often students are confounded by the use of mdw.t and Dd one after the other. Think of it this way: mdw.t means "speak" in the sense of "at/toward/in address (often of some matter or problem, even a confrontation)", but Dd means "say". In order to make a quote, the Egyptian had to say "he got up to speak, saying..." It is almost like a quotation mark in English. Sometimes Egyptians also employed a sort of end quote, by adding "thus he said" letting one know that the quote is over.
This text does not do that however.
Lacuna (start of LINE 2)
aHa pw iri.n
zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f, r mdw.t, Dd=f "////////////// *m* rx.t.n
...
m = either m of predication or partitive m, depending on what was in the lacuna. If you take it to be the m of predication, then translatie it "as", if it is the partitive m, then "from/out of".
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f, r mdw.t, Dd=f
"////////////// m *rx.t.n* nty.w ...
- rx.t.n: NOTICE my correction to the transliteration! I had left a space between rx.t and the n. I am emmending this to rx.t.n because I think it is a relative sDm.n=f. The t is there because generally Egyptians used the feminine singular as the default for relatives which refer to something unspecified previously in the text. In other words: "the feminine thing which (someone) came to know".
- [ed. see Loprieno p86]
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t, Hrw-dd=f, r mdw.t, Dd=f
"////////////// m rx.t.n *nty.w* zw3 ...
- nty.w = masculine plural of the relative pronoun,
- [Stephen Fryer, 14 April, 1997 (RE>AEL WESTCAR lines 1-7, et al.)]
- "ntyw swA" = those who have passed
- [ed., meaning, those who have passed over to the other side/passed on/etc. A euphamism for those who are now dead]
[G.Graham, continued]
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t ... ... Dd=f "////////////// m rx.t.n
nty.w zwA *n rx.n.tw* mAa.t r ...
I am grouping n together with rx.n.tw because n simply negates the verb. n rx.n.tw = negated circumstantial sDm.n.tw=f. The tw makes it into a passive construction. (while/and ___ is not known) The verb rx has to be used in the sDm.n=f most often where we would use a present construction in English because the verb actually meant "get acquainted with" or "COME to know". When one "knows" something this "getting acquainted with" or "coming to know" has already taken place.
[Serge Rosmorduc's comment 16 April, 97: Usually, (I
think there are exceptions to this, though) n sDm.n=f negates
circumstantial sDm=f, except for "n sDm.n=f is ADVERB" which negates
nominal sDm.n=f. So, I would think "n rx.n=tw mAa.t r grg" as
"One can not distinguish truth from falsehood"(BTW,
it seems to me on second thought that I've seen much more n rx.n=tw than n
rx=tw... but in a way, it's normal : if rx means 'learn', to know is to have
learnt => so "iw=i rx=kw", but "not to
know" is equated with the impossibility to learn in the first place, and
so we have a dissymetric pattern between the positive form and the negative
one.)]
[Geoff. Graham's posting, 15 April, 1997,
continued]
aHa pw iri.n zA-n.y-sw.t, Dd=f "////////////// m rx.t.n nty.w
zwA n rx.n.tw *mAa.t* r grg ........
mAa.t = noun, subject of n rx.n.tw. My take on the context is that since the papyrus included several stories told by other sons right before this sentence, Hardedef wishes to emphasize that everything the king has heard so far was in the distant past and therefore not able to be confirmed in its validity. The lacuna should say something like "we have heard" followed by "what those who have passed away knew" then "while/and/BUT" (Egyptian did not really have great distinctions of these circumstances, but the circumstantial could express most of them)... therefore: "but truth is not known from fabrication/falshood" (in THOSE stories). And then he proceeds to tell Khufu that there is a living magician as we soon see in the rest of the text. Therefore this is a kind of turning point in the story.
aHa pw iri....... ...... rx.n.tw mAa.t *r* grg ///// Hm=k
m ......
r = preposition (with regard to/against) Our idiom would be "truth FROM falsehood".
aHa pw iri...... ..... rx.n.tw mAa.t r *grg* ///// Hm=k m
.....
grg = noun in a prepositional phrase. grg means "falshood", but it is derived from the verb "found/create/establish" and I think this calls for a translation which includes this idea better, so I have opted for "fabrication". The negative quality of grg is relative to its context. It DOES have positive connotations as well, so I think the more neutral "fabrication" does the job nicely. Hardedef probably did not mean to imply that his brothers had all told the king lies, but that the stories might just be exaggerated accounts. "Exaggeration" might also serve well in this context.
[Geoffrey Graham's post, continued]
lacuna (start of LINE 3)
(maybe something like: "however, there exists for", based on the context. Khufu is being told about someone who can do magic in his own day. We want the text to say that somebody is around or something like that. Maybe "Your Majesty has")
aHa pw iri.... ... mAa.t r grg ///// *Hm=k* m hAw=k Ds=k
...
Hm=k = noun + suffix pronoun. Taken with what was in the lacuna Hm=k probably is preceeded by some preposition, being in a prepositional phrase.
aHa pw iri.... ... ///// Hm=k *m* hAw=k Ds=k
n-rx=f...
m = preposition (in)
aHa pw iri.... ... ///// Hm=k m *hAw=k* Ds=k
n-rx=f...
hAw=k = noun with suffix pronoun. (your "time/era/day" (even "vicinity"))
aHa pw iri.... ... ///// Hm=k m hAw=k *Ds=k*
n-rx=f...
Ds=k = noun and suffix pronoun. Literally "your self", but here it is like an adjective in that it modifies hAw=k making "your own time".
[G. Graham, continued]
aHa pw iri.... ... ///// Hm=k m
hAw=k Ds=k *n-rx=f*...
- NOTE: I have modified the original transliteration. I had "n rx f...". ON second thought the construction might be a noun formed out of an n sDm=f similar to how iw=f-aA=f comes to be "entrepreneur" though its literal meaning would be "he comes and he becomes great". That expression is often used as a noun, and maybe this is one too. Literally "he is not known" becoming " one who is not known" becoming " an unknown (person)".
- [ed., see Gardiner section194, p145 for a discussion of idiomatic phrases]
[Serge Rosmorduc's comment, 16 April, 97: A remark : on
Blackman's transcription, the =f is followed by a '?'. On the photograph,
one can see the determinative of rx, and what is bellow is very damaged.
There are two dots which might be the head and horn of f, but that's not
sure. Has anyone an idea of some other possible restoration ? =k ?
(doesn't seem to fit).]
[Geoff. Graham's posting, 15 April, 1997,
continued]
lacuna
The lacuna should say "to Your Majesty". My take is that the prince is divulging information that is not known to Khufu, and is prefacing it in such a fashion.