resemblances have been observed in the grammatical structure
of the Berber and Cushite groups with Semitic (cf. H.
Zimmern, Vergleichende Grammatik d. semitischen Sprachen,
Berlin, 1898, especially pronouns and verbs); but the relationship
must be very distant, and there are no ancient documents
that can take back the history of any one of those languages
more than a few centuries. Their connexion with Semitic and
Egyptian, therefore, remains at present an obscure though
probable hypothesis. On the other hand, Egyptian is certainly
related to Semitic. Even before the triliterality of Old Egyptian
was recognized, Erman showed that the so-called pseudo-participle
had been really in meaning and in form a precise
analogue of the Semitic perfect, though its original employment
was almost obsolete in the time of the earliest known texts.
Triliteralism is considered the most essential and most peculiar
feature of Semitic. But there are, besides, many other resemblances
in structure between the Semitic languages and Egyptian,
so that, although the two vocabularies present few points of
clear contact, there is reason to believe that Egyptian was originally
a characteristic member of the Semitic family of languages.
See Erman, “Das Verhältnis d. ägyptischen zu d. semitischen
Sprachen” (Zeitschrift d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1892);
Zimmern, Vergl. Gram., 1898; Erman, “Flexion d. ägyptischen
Verbums” (Sitzungsberichte d. Berl. Akad., 1900). The Egyptians
proper are not, and so far as we can tell never were, Semitic in
physical feature. As a possible explanation of the facts, Erman
supposes that a horde of conquering Semites, like the Arabs
of a later day, imposed their language on the country, but disappeared,
being weakened by the climate or absorbed by the
native population. The latter acquired the Semitic language
imperfectly from their conquerors; they expressed the verbal
conjugations by periphrases, mispronounced the consonants, and
so changed greatly the appearance of the vocabulary, which
also would certainly contain a large proportion of native non-Semitic
roots. Strong consonants gave place to weak consonants
(as ق has done to ا, in the modern Arabic of Egypt), and then
the weak consonants disappearing altogether produced biliterals
from the triliterals. Much of this must have taken place,
according to the theory, in the prehistoric period; but the loss
of weak consonants, of ע, and of one of two repeated consonants,
and the development of periphrastic conjugations continued to
the end. The typical Coptic root thus became biliteral rather
than triliteral, and the verb, by means of periphrases, developed
tenses of remarkable precision. Such verbal resemblances as
exist between Coptic and Semitic are largely due to late exchanges
with Semitic neighbours.
The following sketch of the Egyptian language, mainly in its
earliest form, which dates from some three or four thousand years
B.C., is founded upon Erman’s works. It will serve to contrast with
Coptic grammar on the one hand and Semitic grammar on the other.
The Egyptian Alphabet
= ỉ;
so conventionally transcribed since it unites two values,
being sometimes y but often א (especially at the beginning
of words), and from the earliest times used in a manner
corresponding to the Arabic hamza, to indicate a prosthetic
vowel. Often lost.
and
are frequently employed for y.
= ’(א);
easily lost or changes to y.
= ꜥ(ע);
lost in Coptic. This rare sound, well known in
Semitic, occurs also in Berber and Cushite languages.
= w;
often changes to y.
= b.
= p.
= f.
= m.
= n.
= r;
often lost, or changes to y. r and l are distinguished
in later demotic and in Coptic.
= h
distinction lost in Coptic.
= ḥ
= ḫ;
in Coptic ϣ (sh) or Ϧ (kh) correspond to it.
= ẖ;
generally written with
(š) in the Old Kingdom,
but
corresponds to kh in Coptic.
= s
distinction lost at the end of the Old Kingdom.
= ś
= š (sh).
= q;
Coptic ⲕ.
= k
Coptic ⲕ; or ϭ, ϫ, according to dialect.
= g
Coptic ⲕ; or ϭ.
= ṯ;
often lost at the end of words.
= t (θ); often changes to t, otherwise Coptic ⲧ; or ϫ, ϭ.
= d;
in Coptic reduced to t.
= ḏ (z); often changes to d, Coptic ⲧ; otherwise in Coptic ϫ.
ROOTS
Egyptian roots consist of consonants and semi-consonants only,
the inflexion being effected by internal vowel-change and the
addition of consonants or vowels at the beginning or end. The
Egyptian system of writing, as opposed to the Coptic, showed only
the consonantal skeletons of words: it could not record internal
vowel-changes; and semi-consonants, even when radicals, were
often omitted in writing.
PERSONAL PRONOUNS
Sing.
1.
c.
ỉw (?) later wỉ.
Pl.
1.
c.
n.
Du.
2.
m.
kw.
2.
c.
ṯn.
2. c. ṯny.
f.
ṯn.
3.
m.
*fy,
surviving only in a special verbal form.
3.
m.
śn,
early lost, except as suffix.
3. c. śny.
f.
śy.
f.
*śt
surviving as 3. c.
From these are derived the suffixes, which are shortened forms
attached to nouns to express the possessor, and to verbs to express
the subject. In the latter case the verb was probably in the participle,
so that śḏmỉỉ-śn, “they hear,” is literally “hearing are they.” The
singular suffixes are: (1) c. -ỉ; (2) m. -k, f. -ṯ; (3) m. -f, f. -ś;—the
dual and plural have no special forms.
Another series of absolute pronouns is: (2) m. ṯwt, ṯw; f. ṯmt, ṯm;
(3) m. śwt, św; f. śtt, śt. Of these ṯwt, ṯmt, &c., are emphatic forms.
Many of the above absolute pronouns were almost obsolete even
in the Old Kingdom. In ordinary texts some survive, especially
as objects of verbs, namely, wỉ, tw, tn, sw, st. The suffixes of all
numbers and persons except the dual were in full use throughout, to
Coptic; sn, however, giving way to a new suffix, -w, which developed
first in the New Kingdom.
Another absolute pronoun of the first person is ỉnk, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ, like
Heb. אנכי. It is associated with a series for the second and third
persons: nt-k, nt-ṯ, nt-f, nt-śn, &c.; but from their history, use
and form, it seems probable that the last are of later formation, and
are not to be connected with the Semitic pronouns (chiefly of the
2nd person) resembling them.
DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS
There are several series based on m. p; f. t; pl. n; but n as a
plural seems later than the other two. From them are developed
a weak demonstrative to which possessive suffixes can be attached,
producing the definite and possessive articles (p’, t’, n’, “the,”
p’y-f, “his,” p’y-s “her,” &c.) of Middle Egyptian and the later
language.
NOUNS
Two genders, m. (ending w, or nothing), f. (ending t). Three
numbers: singular, dual (m. wỉ, f. tỉ, gradually became obsolete),
plural (m. w; f. wt). No case-endings are recognizable, but construct
forms—to judge by Coptic—were in use. Masculine and
feminine nouns of instrument or material are formed from verbal
roots by prefixing m; e.g.m·sdm·t, “stibium,” from sdm, “paint
the eye.” Substantives and adjectives are formed from substantives
and prepositions by the addition of y in the masculine; e.g.n·t, “city,” nt·y, “belonging to a city,” “citizen”; ḥr, “upon,”
ḥr·y (f. ḥr·t; pl. ḥr·w), “upper.” This is not unlike the Semitic
nisbe ending iy, ay (e.g. Ar. beled, “city,” beledi, “belonging to a
city”). Adjectives follow the nouns they qualify.
