Chapter XI: Part 11

The _Neuagyptische Grammatik_ (1880) dealt with texts written in the
vulgar dialect of the New Kingdom (Dyns. XVIII. to XX.). Next
followed, in the _Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und
Alterthumskunde_, studies on the Old Kingdom inscription of Una, and
the Middle Kingdom contracts of Assiut, as well as on an "Old Coptic"
text of the 3rd century A.D. At this point a papyrus of stories
written in the popular language of the Middle Kingdom provided Erman
with a stepping-stone from Old Egyptian to the Late Egyptian of the
_Neuagyptische Grammatik_, and gave the connexions that would bind
solidly together the whole structure of Egyptian grammar (see _Sprache
des Papyrus Westcar_, 1889). The very archaic pyramid texts enabled
him to sketch the grammar of the earliest known form of Egyptian
(_Zeitschrift d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellschaft_, 1892), and in 1894
he was able to write a little manual of Egyptian for beginners
(_Agyptische Grammatik_, 2nd ed., 1902), centring on the language of
the standard inscriptions of the Middle and New Kingdoms, but
accompanying the main sketch with references to earlier and later
forms. Of the work of Erman's pupils we may mention G. Steindorff's
little _Koptische Grammatik_ (1894, ed. 1904), improving greatly on
Stern's standard work in regard to phonology and the relationship of
Coptic forms to Egyptian, and K. Sethe's _Das Agyptische Verbum_
(1899). The latter is an extensive monograph on the verb in Egyptian
and Coptic by a brilliant and laborious philologist. Owing to the very
imperfect notation of sound in the writing, the highly important
subject of the verbal roots and verbal forms was perhaps the obscurest
branch of Egyptian grammar when Sethe first attacked it in 1895. The
subject has been reviewed by Erman, _Die Flexion des agyptischen
Verbums_ in the _Sitzungsberichte_ of the Berlin Academy, 1900. The
Berlin school, having settled the main lines of the grammar, next
turned its attention to lexicography. It has devised a scheme, founded
on that for the Latin Thesaurus of the Berlin Academy, which almost
mechanically sorts the whole number of occurrences of every word in
any text examined. Scholars in England, America and Denmark, as well
as in Germany, have taken part in this great enterprise, and though
the completion of it may be far off, the collections of classified
material already made are very valuable for consultation.[11] At
present Egyptologists depend on Heinrich Brugsch's admirable but
somewhat antiquated _Worterbuch_ and on Levi's useful but entirely
uncritical _Vocabolario_. Though demotic has not yet received serious
attention at Berlin, the influence of that great school has made
itself felt amongst demotists, especially in Switzerland, Germany,
America and England. The death of Heinrich Brugsch in 1895 was a very
severe blow to demotic studies; but it must be admitted that his
brilliant gifts lay in other directions than exact grammatical
analysis. Apart from their philological interest, as giving the
history of a remarkable language during a period of several thousand
years, the grammatical studies of the last quarter of the 19th century
and afterwards are beginning to bear fruit in regard to the exact
interpretation of historical documents on Egyptian monuments and
papyri. Not long ago the supposed meaning of these was extracted
chiefly by brilliant guessing, and the published translations of even
the best scholars could carry no guarantee of more than approximate
exactitude, where the sense depended at all on correct recognition of
the syntax. Now the translator proceeds in Egyptian with some of the
sureness with which he would deal with Latin or Greek. The meaning of
many words may be still unknown, and many constructions are still
obscure; but at least he can distinguish fairly between a correct text
and a corrupt text. Egyptian writing lent itself only too easily to
misunderstanding, and the writings of one period were but half
intelligible to the learned scribes of another. The mistaken readings
of the old inscriptions by the priests at Abydos (Table of Abydos),
when attempting to record the names of the kings of the 1st Dynasty on
the walls of the temple of Seti I., are now admitted on all sides; and
no palaeographer, whether his field be Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian
or any other class of MSS., will be surprised to hear that the
Egyptian papyri and inscriptions abound in corruptions and mistakes.
The translator of to-day can, if he wishes, mark where certainty ends
and mere conjecture begins, and it is to be hoped that advantage will
be taken more widely of this new power. The Egyptologist who has long
lived in the realm of conjecture is too prone to consider any series
of guesses good enough to serve as a translation, and forgets to
insert the notes of interrogation which would warn workers in other
fields from implicit trust.

_Language and Writing._--The history of the Egyptian language is evidenced by documents extending over a very long range of time. They begin with the primitive inscriptions of the Ist Dynasty (not later than 3300 B.C.) and end with the latest Coptic compositions of about the 14th century A.D. The bulk of the hieroglyphic inscriptions are written in a more or less artificial literary language; but in business documents, letters, popular tales, &c., the scribes often adhered closely to the living form of the tongue, and thus reveal its progressive changes.

The stages of the language are now distinguished as follows:--

_Old Egyptian._--This is properly the language of the Old Kingdom. In it we have (a) the recently discovered inscriptions of the Ist Dynasty, too brief and concise to throw much light on the language of that time; and the great collections of spells and ritual texts found inscribed in the Pyramids of the Vth and VIth Dynasties, which must even then have been of high antiquity, though they contain later additions made in the same style. (b) A few historical texts and an abundance of short inscriptions representing the language of the IVth, Vth and VIth Dynasties. The ordinary _literary language_ of the later monuments is modelled on Old Egyptian. It is often much affected by contemporary speech, but preserves in the main the characteristics of the language of the Old Kingdom.

_Middle and Late Egyptian._--These represent the vulgar speech of the Middle and New Kingdoms respectively. The former is found chiefly in tales, letters, &c., written in hieratic on papyri of the XIIIth Dynasty to the end of the Middle Kingdom; also in some inscriptions of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Late Egyptian is seen in hieratic papyri of the XVIIIth to the XXIst Dynasties. The spelling of Late Egyptian is very extraordinary, full of false etymologies, otiose signs, &c., the old orthography being quite unable to adapt itself neatly to the profoundly modified language; nevertheless, this clumsy spelling is expressive, and the very mistakes are instructive as to the pronunciation.

_Demotic._--Demotic Egyptian seems to represent approximately the vulgar speech of the Saite period, and is written in the "demotic" character, which may be traced back to the XXVIth Dynasty, if not to a still earlier time. With progressive changes, this form of the language is found in documents reaching down to the fall of Paganism in the 4th century A.D.[12] Under the later Ptolemies and the Roman rule documents in Greek are more abundant than in demotic, and the language of the ruling classes must have begun to penetrate the masses deeply.

_Coptic._--This, in the main, represents the popular language of early Christian Egypt from the 3rd to perhaps the 10th century A.D., when the growth of Coptic as a literary language must have ceased. The Greek alphabet, reinforced by a few signs borrowed from demotic, rendered the spoken tongue so accurately that four distinct, though closely allied, dialects are readily distinguishable in Coptic MSS.; ample remains are found of renderings of the Scriptures into all these dialects. The distinctions between the dialects consist largely in pronunciation, but extend also to the vocabulary, word-formation and syntax. Such interchanges are found as _l_ for _r_, [Coptic: qima] (_k_, _ch_) for [Coptic: dandia] (_dj_), final _i_ for final _e_, _a_ for _e_, _a_ for _o_. Early in the 2nd century A.D., pagan Egyptians, or perhaps foreigners settled in Egypt, essayed, as yet unskilfully, to write the native language in Greek letters. This _Old Coptic_, as it is termed, was still almost entirely free from Greek loan-words, and its strong archaisms are doubtless accounted for by the literary language, even in its most "vulgar" forms, having moved more slowly than the speech of the people. Christian Coptic, though probably at first contemporary with some documents of Old Coptic, contrasts strongly with the latter. The monks whose task it was to perfect the adaptation of the alphabet to the dialects of Egypt and translate the Scriptures out of the Greek, flung away all pagan traditions. It is clear that the basis which they chose for the new literature was the simplest language of daily life in the monasteries, charged as it was with expressions taken from Greek, pre-eminently the language of patristic Christianity. There is evidence that the amount of stress on syllables, and the consequent length of vowels, varied greatly in spoken Coptic, and that the variation gave much trouble to the scribes; the early Christian writers must have taken as a model for each dialect the deliberate speech of grave elders or preachers, and so secured a uniform system of accentuation. The remains of Old Coptic, though very instructive in their marked peculiarities, are as yet too few for definite classification. The main divisions of Christian Coptic as recognized and named at present are: Sahidic (formerly called Theban), spoken in the upper Thebais; Akhmimic, in the neighbourhood of Akhmim, but driven out by Sahidic about the 5th century; Fayumic, in the Fayum (formerly named wrongly "Bashmuric," from a province of the Delta); Bohairic, the dialect of the "coast district" (formerly named "Memphite"), spoken in the north-western Delta. Coptic, much alloyed with Arabic, was spoken in Upper Egypt as late as the 15th century, but it has long been a dead language.[13] Sahidic and Bohairic are the most important dialects, each of these having left abundant remains; the former spread over the whole of Upper Egypt, and the latter since the 14th century has been the language of the sacred books of Christianity throughout the country, owing to the hierarchical importance of Alexandria and the influence of the ancient monasteries established in the north-western desert.

The above stages of the Egyptian language are not defined with absolute clearness. Progress is seen from dynasty to dynasty or from century to century. New Egyptian shades off almost imperceptibly into demotic, and it may be hoped that gaps which now exist in the development will be filled by further discovery.

Coptic is the only stage of the language in which the spelling gives a clear idea of the pronunciation. It is therefore the mainstay of the scholar in investigating or restoring the word-forms of the ancient language. Greek transcriptions of Egyptian names and words are valuable as evidence for the vocalization of Egyptian. Such are found from the 6th century B.C. in the inscription of Abu Simbel, from the 5th in Herodotus, &c., and abound in Ptolemaic and later documents from the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. onwards. At first sight they may seem inaccurate, but on closer examination the Graecizing is seen to follow definite rules, especially in the Ptolemaic period. A few cuneiform transcriptions, reaching as far back as the XVIIIth Dynasty, give valuable hints as to how Egyptian was pronounced in the 15th century B.C. Coptic itself is of course quite inadequate to enable us to restore Old Egyptian. In it the Old Egyptian verbal forms are mostly replaced by periphrases; though the strong roots are often preserved entire, the weaker consonants and the [Hebrew: ts] have largely or entirely disappeared, so that the language appears as one of biliteral rather than triliteral roots. Coptic is strongly impregnated with Greek words adopted late; moreover, a certain number of Semitic loan-words flowed into Egyptian at all ages, and especially from the 16th century B.C. onwards, displacing earlier words. It is only by the most careful scrutiny, or the exercise of the most piercing insight, that the imperfectly spelled Egyptian has been made to yield up one grammatical secret after another in the light brought to bear upon it from Coptic. Demotic grammar ought soon to be thoroughly comprehensible in its forms, and the study of Late Egyptian should not stand far behind that of demotic. On the other hand, Middle Egyptian, and still more Old Egyptian, which is separated from Middle Egyptian by a wide gap, will perhaps always be to us little more than consonantal skeletons, the flesh and blood of their vocalization being for the most part irretrievably lost.[14]

In common with the Semitic languages, the Berber languages of North Africa, and the Cushite languages of North-East Africa, Egyptian of all periods possesses grammatical gender, expressing masculine and feminine. Singularly few language groups have this peculiarity; and our own great Indo-European group, which possesses it, is distinguished from those above mentioned by having the neuter gender in addition. The characteristic triliteral roots of all the Semitic languages seemed to separate them widely from others; but certain traits have caused the Egyptian, Berber and Cushite groups to be classed together as three subfamilies of a Hamitic group, remotely related to the Semitic. The biliteral character of Coptic, and the biliteralism which was believed to exist in Egyptian, led philologists to suspect that Egyptian might be a surviving witness to that far-off stage of the Semitic languages when triliteral roots had not yet been formed from presumed original biliterals; Sethe's investigations, however, prove that the Coptic biliterals are themselves derived from Old Egyptian triliterals, and that the triliteral roots enormously preponderated in Egyptian of the earliest known form; that view is, therefore, no longer tenable. Many remarkable 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 Verhaltnis d. agyptischen zu d. semitischen Sprachen" (_Zeitschrift d. deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft_, 1892); Zimmern, _Vergl. Gram._, 1898; Erman, "Flexion d. agyptischen 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 [Arabic: Qaaf] has done to [Arabic sign], 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 [ayin] 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

[HRG: M17] = _l_; so conventionally transcribed since it unites two
values, being sometimes y but often [Hebrew: alef] (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.

[HRG: Z4] and [HRG: M17-M17] are frequently employed for _y_.

[HRG: G1] = '([Hebrew: alef]); easily lost or changes to _y_.

[HRG: D36] = '([Hebrew: ayin]); lost in Coptic. This rare sound, well
known in Semitic, occurs also in Berber and Cushite languages.

[HRG: G43] = _w_; often changes to _y_.

[HRG: D58] = _b_.

[HRG: Q3] = _p_.

[HRG: I9] = _f_.

[HRG: G17] = _m_.

[HRG: N35] = _n_.

[HRG] = _r_; often lost, or changes to _y_. _r_ and _l_ are
distinguished in later demotic and in Coptic.

[HRG] = _h_ } distinction lost in Coptic.
[HRG] = _[h.]_ }

[HRG] = _h_; in Coptic [Coptic: sai] (_sh_) or [Coptic: xai] (_kh_)
correspond to it.

[HRG] = _[h=]_; generally written with [HRG] (_[vs]_) in the Old
Kingdom, but [HRG] corresponds to _kh_ in Coptic.

[HRG] = _s_ } distinction lost at the end of the Old Kingdom.
[HRG] = _[/s]_ }

[HRG] = _[vs]_ (_sh_).

[HRG] = _q_; Coptic [Coptic: kappa].

[HRG] = _k_ } Coptic [Coptic: kappa]; or [Coptic: qima],
} [Coptic: dandia], according to dialect.
[HRG] = _g_ } Coptic [Coptic: kappa]; or [Coptic: qima].

[HRG] = _[t=]_; often lost at the end of words.

[HRG] = _t_ ([theta]); often changes to _t_, otherwise Coptic
[Coptic: tau]; or [Coptic: dandia], [Coptic: qima].

[HRG] = _d_; in Coptic reduced to _t_.

[HRG] = _d_ (_z_); often changes to _d_, Coptic [Coptic: tau];
otherwise in Coptic [Coptic: dandia].

_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. _iw_ (?) later _wi_. Pl. 1. c. _n_. Du.
2. m. _kw_. 2. c. _tn_. 2. c. _tny_.
f. _tn_.
3. _m_. *_fy_, surviving only 3. m. _sn_, early lost, 3. c. _sny_.
in a special except as
verbal form. suffix.
f. _sy_. f. *_st_ 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 _sdmii-sn_, "they hear," is literally "hearing
are they." The singular suffixes are: (1) c. _-i_; (2) m. _-k_, f.
_-t_; (3) m. _-f_, f. _-[/s]_;--the dual and plural have no special
forms.

Another series of absolute pronouns is: (2) m. _twt_, _tw_; f. _tmt_,
_tm_; (3) m. _swt_, _sw_; f. _stt_, _st_. Of these _twt_, _tmt_, &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, _wi_, _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 _ink_, [Coptic: Anoch]
like Heb. [Hebrew: Anochi]. It is associated with a series for the
second and third persons: _nt-k_, _nt-t_, _nt-f_, _nt-sn_, &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. _wi_, f. _ti_, 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"; _hr_, "upon," _hr.y_
(f. _hr.t_; pl. _hr.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.

_NUMERALS_

1, _w'_; 2, _sn_; 3, _hmt_; 4, _fdw_; 5, _dw'_; 6, _sis_ (or _sw'_ ?);
7, _sfh_; 8, _hmn_; 9, _psd_; 10, _mt_. 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (?) resemble
Semitic numerals. 20 and 30 (_m'b_) had special names; 40-90 were
named as if plurals of the units 4-9, as in Semitic. 100, _snt_; 1000,
_h'_; 10,000, _zb'_; 100,000, _hfnw_.

_VERBS_

The forms observable in hieroglyphic writing lead to the following
classification:--

STRONG VERBS.
Biliteral Often showing traces of an original III. inf.;
in early times very rare.

Triliteral Very numerous.

{ Generally formed by reduplication.
Quadriliteral { In Late Egyptian they were no longer
Quinqueliteral { inflected, and were conjugated with the help
{ of _iry_, "do."

WEAK VERBS.
II. geminatae Properly triliterals, but, with the 2nd or 3rd
radical alike, these coalesced in many forms
where no vowel intervened, and gave the word
the appearance of a biliteral.

III. gem. Rare.

III. inf. Numerous. III. _w_, and III. _i_ were
unified early. Some very common verbs, "do,"
"give," "come," "bring" are irregular.

IV. inf. Partly derived from adjectival formations in
_y_, from nouns and infinitives:--e.g. _s.ip_,
inf. _sipt_; adj. _sipty_; verb (4 lit.),
_sipty_.

Many verbs with weak consonants--I_y_, I_w_, II. inf. (_m[w]t_), and
those with [Hebrew: alef]--are particularly difficult to trace
accurately, owing to defective writing.

It seems that all the above classes may be divided into two main
groups, according to the form of the infinitive:--with masculine
infinitive the strong triliteral type, and with feminine infinitive
the type of the III. inf. The former group includes all except III.
inf., IV. inf., and the causative of the biliterals, which belong to
the second group.

It is probable that the verb had a special form denoting condition, as
in Arabic. There was a causative form prefixing _s_, and traces of
forms resembling _Pi'el_ and _Niphal_ are observed. Some roots are
reduplicated wholly or in part with a frequentative meaning, and there
are traces of gemination of radicals.

_Pseudo-Participle._--In very early texts this is the past indicative,
but more commonly it is used in sentences such as, _gm-n-f wi
'h'.kwi_, "he found me I stood," i.e. "he found me standing." The
indicative use was soon given up and the pseudo-participle was
employed only as predicate, especially indicating a state; e.g. _ntr.t
sm.ti_, "the goddess goes"; _iw-k wd'.ti_, "thou art prosperous." The
endings were almost entirely lost in New Egyptian. For early times
they stand thus:--

Sing. 3. masc. _i_, late _w_. Dual _wii_. Pl. _w_.
fem. _ti_. _tiiw_ _ti_.
2. masc. _ti_ _tiwny_.
fem. _ti_
1. c. _kwi_. _wyn_.

The pseudo-participle seems, by its inflexion, to have been the
perfect of the original Semitic conjugation. The simplest form being
that of the 3rd person, it is best arranged like the corresponding
tense in Semitic grammars, beginning with that person. There is no
trace of the Semitic imperfect in Egyptian. The ordinary conjugation
is formed quite differently. The verbal stem is here followed by the
subject-suffix or substantive--_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdmw stn_,
"the king hears." It is varied by the addition of particles, &c., _n_,
_in_, _hr_, _tw_, thus:--

_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdm-w-f_, "he is heard" (_pl. sdm-ii-sn_, "they
are heard"); _sdm-tw-f_, "he is heard"; _sdm-n-f_, "he heard";
_sdm-n-tw-f_, "he was heard"; also, _sdm-in-f_, _sdm-hr-f_,
_sdm-k'-f_. Each form has special uses, generally difficult to
define, _sdm-f_ seems rather to be imperfect, _sdm-n-f_ perfect, and
generally to express the past. Later, _sdm-f_ is ordinarily expressed
by periphrases; but by the loss of _n_, _sdm-n-f_ became itself
_sdm-f_, which is the ordinary past in demotic. Coptic preserves
_sdm-f_ forms of many verbs in its causative (e.g. [Coptic: tanchof]
"cause him to live," from Egyptian _di.t.nh-f_), and, in its
periphrastic conjugation, the same forms of _wn_, "be," and _iry_,
"do." With _sdm-f_ (_sedmo-f_) was a more emphatic form (_esdomef_),
at any rate in the weak verbs.

The above, with the relative forms mentioned below, are supposed by
Erman to be derived from the participle, which is placed first for
emphasis: thus, _sdm.w stn_, "hearing is the king"; _sdm-f_, for
_sdm-fy_, "hearing he is." This Egyptian paraphrase of Semitic is
just like the Irish paraphrase of English, "It is hearing he is."

The _imperative_ shows no ending in the singular; in the plural it has
_y_, and later _w_; cf. Semitic imperative.

The _infinitive_ is of special importance on account of its being
preserved very fully in Coptic. It is generally of masculine form, but
feminine in III. inf. (as in Semitic), and in causatives of
biliterals.

There are relative forms of _sdm-f_ and _sdm-n-f_, respectively
_sdm.w-f_ (masc.), _sdm.t-n-f_ (fem.), &c. They are used when the
relative is the object of the relative sentence, or has any other
position than the subject. Thus _sdm.t-f_ may mean "she whom he
hears," "she who[se praises] he hears," "she [to] whom he hears
[someone speaking]," &c. There are close analogies between the
function of the relative particles in Egyptian and Semitic; and the
Berber languages possess a relative form of the verb.

_Participles_.--These are active and passive, perfect and imperfect,
in the old language, but all are replaced by periphrases in Coptic.

_Verbal Adjectives_.--There is a peculiar formation, _sdm.ty-fy_, "he
who shall hear," probably meaning originally "he is a hearer,"
_sdm.ty_ being an adjective in _y_ formed from a feminine (_t_) form
of the infinitive, which is occasionally found even in triliteral
verbs; the endings are: sing., masc. _ty-fy_, fem. _ty-sy_; pl., masc.
_ty-sn_, fem. _ty-st_. It is found only in Old Egyptian.

_Particles_.--There seems to be no special formation for adverbs, and
little use is made of adverbial expressions. Prepositions, simple and
compound, are numerous. Some of the commonest simple prepositions are
_n_ "for," _r_ "to," _m_ "in, from," _hr_ "upon." A few enclitic
conjunctions exist, but they are indefinite in meaning--_swt_ a vague
"but," _grt_ a vague "moreover," &c.

Coptic presents a remarkable contrast to Egyptian in the precision of
its periphrastic conjugation. There are two present tenses, an
imperfect, two perfects, a pluperfect, a present and a past
frequentative, and three futures besides future perfect; there are
also conjunctive and optative forms. The negatives of some of these
are expressed by special prefixes. The gradual growth of these new
forms can be traced through all the stages of Egyptian. Throughout the
history of the language we note an increasing tendency to periphrasis;
but there was no great advance towards _precision_ before demotic. In
demotic there are distinguishable a present tense, imperfect, perfect,
frequentative, future, future perfect, conjunctive and optative; also
present, past and future negatives, &c. The passive was extinct before
demotic; demotic and Coptic express it, clumsily it must be confessed,
by an impersonal "they," e.g. "they bore him" stands for "he was
born."

It is worth noting how, in other departments besides the verb, the
Egyptian language was far better adapted to practical ends during and
after the period of the Deltaic dynasties (XXII.-XXX.) than ever it
was before. It was both simplified and enriched. The inflexions
rapidly disappeared and little was left of the distinctions between
masculine and feminine, singular, dual and plural--except in the
pronouns. The dual number had been given up entirely at an earlier
date. The pronouns, both personal and demonstrative, retained their
forms very fully. As prefixes, suffixes and articles, they, together
with some auxiliary verbs, provided the principal mechanism of the
renovated language. An abundant supply of useful adverbs was gradually
accumulated, as well as conjunctions, so far as the functions of the
latter were not already performed by the verbal prefixes. These great
improvements in the language correspond to great changes in the
economic condition of the country; they were the result of active
trade and constant intercourse of all classes of Egyptians with
foreigners from Europe and Asia. Probably the best stage of Egyptian
speech was that which immediately preceded Coptic. Though Coptic is
here and there more exactly expressive than the best demotic, it was
spoilt by too much Greek, duplicating and too often expelling native
expressions that were already adequate for its very simple
requirements. Above all, it is clumsily pleonastic.

THE WRITING

The ancient Egyptian system of writing, so far as we know, originated,
developed and finally expired strictly within the limits of the Nile
Valley. The germ of its existence may have come from without, but, as
we know it, it is essentially Egyptian and intended for the expression
of the Egyptian language. About the 1st century B.C., however, the
semi-barbarous rulers of the Ethiopian kingdoms of Meroe and Napata
contrived the "Meroitic" alphabet, founded on Egyptian writing, and
comprising both a hieroglyphic and a cursive form (see ETHIOPIA). As
yet both of these kinds of Nubian writing are undeciphered. Egyptian
hieroglyphic was carried by conquest into Syria, certainly under the
XVIIIth Dynasty, and again under the XXVIth for the engraving of
Egyptian inscriptions; but in the earlier period the cuneiform
syllabary, and in the later the "Phoenician" alphabet, had obtained a
firm hold there, and we may be sure that no attempt was made to
substitute the Egyptian system for the latter. Cuneiform tablets in
Syria, however, seem almost confined to the period of the XVIIIth
Dynasty. Although it cannot be proved it seems quite possible that the
traders of Phoenicia and the Aegean adopted the papyrus and Egyptian
hieratic writing together, before the end of the New Kingdom, and
developed their "Phoenician" alphabet from the latter about 1000 B.C.
In very early times a number of systems of writing already reigned in
different countries forming a compact and not very large area--perhaps
from South Arabia to Asia Minor, and from Persia to Crete and Egypt.
Whether they all sprang from one common stock of picture-writing we
shall perhaps never know, nor can we as yet trace the influence which
one great system may have had on another, owing to the poverty of
documents from most of the countries concerned.

It is certain that in Egypt from the IVth Dynasty onwards the mode of
writing was essentially the same as that which was extinguished by the
fall of paganism in the 4th century A.D. Its elements in the
hieroglyphic form are pictorial, but each hieroglyph had one or more
well-defined functions, fixed by convention in such a manner that the
Egyptian language was expressed in writing word by word. Although a
picture sign may at times have embarrassed the skilled native reader
by offering a choice of fixed values or functions, it was never
intended to convey merely an idea, so as to leave to him the task of
putting the idea into his own words. How far this holds good for the
period before the IVth Dynasty it is difficult to say. The known
inscriptions of the earlier times are so brief and so limited in range
that the system on which they were written cannot yet be fully
investigated. As far back as the Ist Dynasty, phonograms (see below)
were in full use. But the spelling then was very concise: it is
possible that some of the slighter words, such as prepositions, were
omitted in the writing, and were intended to be supplied from the
context. As a whole, we gain the impression that a really distinct and
more primitive stage of hieroglyphic writing by a substantially vaguer
notation of words lay not far behind the time of the Ist Dynasty.

The employment of the signs are of three kinds: any given sign
represents either (1) a whole word or root; or (2) a sound as part of
a word; or (3) pictorially defines the meaning of a word the sound of
which has already been given by a sign or group of signs preceding.
The number of phonograms is very restricted, but some signs have all
these powers. For instance, [HRG: mn] is the conventional picture of a
draughtboard (shown in plan) with the draughtsmen (shown in elevation)
on its edge:--this sign (1) signifies the root _mn_, "set," "firm"; or
(2) in the group [HRG: mn:x], represents the same sound as part of the
root _mnh_, "good"; or (3) added to the group _snt_ (thus: [HRG:
z:n:t-mn]), shows that the meaning intended is "draught-board," or
"draughts," and not any of the other meanings of _snt_. Thus signs,
according to their employment, are said to be (1) "word-signs," (2)
"phonograms," or (3) "determinatives."

_Word-signs._--The word-sign value of a sign is, in the first place,
the name of the object it represents, or of some material, or quality,
or action, or idea suggested by it. Thus [HRG] is _hr_, "face"; [HRG],
a vase of ointment, is _mrh.t_, "ointment"; [HRG] is _wdb_, "turn."
Much investigation is still required to establish the origins of the
values of the signs; in some cases the connexion between the pictures
and the _primary_ values seems to be curiously remote. Probably all
the signs in the hieroglyphic signary can be employed in their primary
sense. The _secondary_ value expresses the consonantal root of the
name or other primary value, and any, or almost any, derivative from
that root: as when [HRG], a mat with a cake upon it, is not only
_htp_, an "offering-mat," but also _htp_ in the sense of
"conciliation," "peace," "rest," "setting" (of the sun), with many
derivatives. In the third place, some signs may be _transferred_ to
express another root having the same consonants as the first: thus
[HRG], the ear, by a play upon words can express not only _sdm_,
"hear," but also _sdm_, "paint the eyes."

_Phonograms._--Only a limited number of signs are found with this use,
but they are of the greatest importance. By searching throughout the
whole mass of normal inscriptions, earlier than the periods of Greek
and Roman rule when great liberties were taken with the writing,
probably no more than one hundred different phonograms can be found.
The number of those commonly employed in good writing is between
seventy and eighty. The most important phonograms are the _uniliteral_
or _alphabetic_ signs, twenty-four in number in the Old Kingdom and
without any homophones: later these were increased by homophones to
thirty. Of _biliteral_ phonograms--each expressing a combination of
two consonants--there were about fifty commonly used: some fifteen or
twenty were rarely used. As Egyptian roots seldom exceeded three
letters, there was no need for _triliteral_ phonograms to spell them.
There is, however, one triliteral phonogram, the eagle, [HRG], _tyw_,
or _tiu_ (?), used for the plural ending of adjectives in _y_ formed
from words ending in _t_ (whether radical or the feminine ending).

The phonetic values of the signs are derived from their word-sign
values and consist usually of the bare root, though there are rare
examples of the retention of a flexional ending; they often ignore
also the weaker consonants of the root, and on the same principle
reduce a repeated consonant to a single one, as when the hoe [HRG],
_hnn_, has the phonetic value _hn_. The history of some of the
alphabetic signs is still very obscure, but a sufficient number of
them have been explained to make it nearly certain that the values of
all were obtained on the same principles.[15] Some of the ancient
words from which the phonetic values were derived probably fell very
early into disuse, and may never be discoverable in the texts that
have come down to us. The following are among those most easily
explained:--

[HRG: i], reed flower, value _y_ and [Hebrew: alef]; from [HRGs:
i-A-Hn], _y'_, "reed."

(It seems as if the two values _y_ and [Hebrew: alef] were obtained
by choosing first one and then the other of the two semi-consonants
composing the name. They are much confused, and a conventional symbol
_l_ has to be adopted for rendering [HRG: i].)

[HRG: a], forearm, value '([Hebrew: ayin]); from [HRGs: a:Z1],
'([Hebrew: ayin]), "hand."

[HRG: r], mouth, value _r_; from [HRGs: r:Z1], _r_, "mouth."

[HRG: X], belly and teats, value _h_; from [HRGs: X:t*Z1],
_h.t_, "belly." (The feminine ending is here, as usual,
neglected.)

[HRG: S], tank, value _s_; from [HRGs: S:Z1], _s_,
"tank."

[HRG: q], slope of earth value _q_; ''[HRGs: q-A-A-q], _q_'',
"slope," or brickwork, "height." (The doubled weak consonant is
here neglected.)

[HRG: d], hand, value _d_; from [HRGs: d:t*Z1], _d.t_, "hand."

[HRG: D], cobra, value _z_; from [HRGs: D:t*Z1], _z.t_, "cobra."

For some alphabetic signs more than one likely origin might be found,
while for others, again, no clear evidence of origin is yet
forthcoming.

It has already been explained that the writing expresses only
consonants. In the Graeco-Roman period various imperfect attempts were
made to render the vowels in foreign names and words by the
semi-vowels as also by [HRGs: a], the consonant [Hebrew: ayin] which
[HRGs: a] originally represented having been reduced in speech by that
time to the power of [Hebrew: alef], only. Thus, [Greek: Ptolemaios]
is spelt _Ptwrmys_, Antoninus, _'Nt'nynws_ or _Intnyns_, &c. &c. Much
earlier, throughout the New Kingdom, a special "syllabic" orthography,
in which the alphabetic signs for the consonants are generally
replaced by groups or single signs having the value of a consonant
followed by a semi-vowel, was used for foreign names and words, e.g.

[Hebrew: merkevet], "chariot," was written [HRGs:
m:a-r:Z1-k:A-b-W-ti-i-t:xt], in Coptic [Coptic: berechojt].

[Hebrew: migdal], "tower," was written [HRGs: m:a-k-ti-i-r:Z1],
[HRGs: m:a-g-A-d:y-r:Z1-niwt], [Coptic: mechtod].

[Hebrew: kinor], "harp," was written [HRGs: k-n:Z2-i-n-i-w-l:Z1-xt].

[Hebrew: hamath], "Hamath," was written [HRGs:
HA-A-mA-A-ti-i-qmA:xAst ].

According to W. Max Muller (_Asien und Europa_, 1893, chap, v.), this
represents an endeavour to express the vocalization; but, if so, it
was carried out with very little system. In practice, the semi-vowels
are generally negligible. This method of writing can be traced back
into the Middle Kingdom, if not beyond, and it greatly affected the
spelling of native words in New Egyptian and demotic.

_Determinatives._--Most signs can on occasion be used as
determinatives, but those that are very commonly employed as
phonograms or as secondary word-signs are seldom employed as
determinatives; and when they are so used they are often somewhat
differentiated. Certain generic determinatives are very common,
e.g.:--

[HRG: D54]; of motion.

[HRG: A24], [HRG: D40]; of acts involving force.

[HRG: A40]; of divinity.

[HRG: A1]; of a person or a man's name.

[HRG: pr]; of buildings.

[HRG: niwt]; of inhabited places.

[HRG: xAst]; of foreign countries.

[HRG: qmA]; club; of foreigners.

[HRG: A2]; of all actions of the mouth--eating and speaking,
likewise silence and hunger.

[HRG: N35B]; ripple-lines; of liquid.

[HRG: F27]; hide; of animals, also leather, &c.

[HRG: Hn]; of plants and fibres.

[HRG: N33:Z5]; of flesh.

[HRG: mDAt]; a sealed papyrus-roll; of books, teaching, law, and of
abstract ideas generally.

In the earliest inscriptions the use of determinatives is restricted
to the [HRG: A1], [HRG: B1], &c., after proper names, but it developed
immensely later, so that few words beyond the particles were written
without them in the normal style after the Old Kingdom.

Some few signs ideographic of a group of ideas are made to express
particular words belonging to that group by the aid of phonograms
which point out the special meaning. In such cases the ideogram is not
merely a determinative nor yet quite a word-sign. Thus [HRG: qmA-m] =
[HRG: a-A-m-qmA] "Semite," [HRG: qmA-nw] = [HRG: T-H-n:nw-qmA]
"Libyan," &c., but [HRG: qmA] cannot stand by itself for the name of
any particular foreign people. So also in monogram [HRG: Sm] is
_sm_ "go," [HRG: zb] is "conduct."

_Orthography._--The most primitive form of spelling in the
hieroglyphic system would be by one sign for each word, and the
monuments of the Ist Dynasty show a decided tendency to this mode.
Examples of it in later times are preserved in the royal cartouches,
for here the monumental style demanded special consciseness. Thus, for
instance, the name of Tethmosis III.--MN-HPR-R'--is spelled [HRG:
hrw-mn-xpr] (as R' is the name of the sun-god, with customary
deference to the deity it is written first though pronounced last). A
number of common words--prepositions, &c.--with only one consonant are
spelled by single alphabetic signs in ordinary writing. Word-signs
used singly for the names of objects are generally marked with | in
classical writing, as [HRG: Z91-ib:Z1], _ib_, "heart," [HRG: Hr:Z1],
_hr_, "face," &c.

But the use of bare word-signs is not common. Flexional consonants are
almost always marked by phonograms, except in very early times; as
when the feminine word [HRG: D] = _z.t_, "cobra," is spelled [HRG:
D:t*Z1]. Also, if a sign had more than one value, a phonogram would be
added to indicate which of its values was intended: thus [HRG: sw] in
[HRG: sw-w] is _sw_, "he," but in [HRG: sw:t] it is _stn_, "king."
Further, owing to the vast number of signs employed, to prevent
confusion of one with another in rapid writing they were generally
provided with "phonetic complements," a group being less easily
misread than a single letter. E.g. [HRG: wD], _wz_, "command," is
regularly written [HRG: wD-w], _wz_ (_w_); but [HRG: HD], _hz_,
"white," is written [HRG: HD-D], _hz_(_z_). This practice had the
advantage also of distinguishing determinatives from phonograms. Thus
the root or syllable _hn_ is regularly written [HRG: H-Hn:n] to avoid
confusion with the determinative [HRG: Hn]. Redundance in writing is
the rule; for instance, _b_ is often spelled [HRG: b-G26A-A]
(_b_)_b_'('). Biliteral phonograms are very rare as phonetic
complements, nor are two biliteral phonograms employed together in
writing the radicals of a word.

Spelling of words purely in phonetic or even alphabetic characters is
not uncommon, the determinative being generally added. Thus in the
pyramidal texts we find _hpr_, "become," written [HRG: xpr] in one
copy of a text, in another [HRG: x*p:r]. Such variant spellings are
very important for fixing the readings of word-signs. It is noteworthy
that though words were so freely spelled in alphabetic characters,
especially in the time of the Old Kingdom, no advance was ever made
towards excluding the cumbersome word-signs and biliteral phonograms,
which, by a judicious use of determinatives, might well have been
rendered quite superfluous.

_Abbreviations._--We find [HRG: anx-DA-s], strictly _'nh z_' _s_
standing for the ceremonial _viva! 'nh wz, snb_. "Life, Prosperity
and Health," and in course of time [HRG: mDAt] was used in accounts
instead of [HRG: dmD] _dmz_, "total."

_Monograms_ are frequent and are found from the earliest times. Thus
[HRG: Sm], [HRG: zb] mentioned above are monograms, the association of
[HRG: S] and [HRG: D54] having no pictorial meaning. Another common
monogram is [HRG: O10], i.e. [HRG: Hwt] and [HRG: G5] for _H.t-Hrw_
"Hathor." A word-sign may be compounded with its phonetic complement,
as [HRG: T5] _hz_ "white," or with its determinative, as [HRG: S14]
_hz_ "silver."

The table on the opposite page shows the uses of a few of the commoner
signs.

The decorative value of hieroglyphic was fully appreciated in Egypt.
The aim of the artist-scribe was to arrange his variously shaped
characters into square groups, and this could be done in great measure
by taking advantage of the different ways in which many words could be
spelt. Thus _hs_ could be written [HRG: H*Hz:z], _hsy_ [HRG: Hz-i-i],
_hs-f_ [HRG: Hz-z:f], _hs-n-f_ [HRG: Hz-n:f]. But some words in the
classical writing were intractable from this point of view. It is
obvious that the alphabetic signs played a very important part in the
formation of the groups, and many words could only be written in
alphabetic signs. A great advance was therefore made when several
homophones were introduced into the alphabet in the Middle and New
Kingdoms, partly as the result of the wearing away of old phonetic
distinctions, giving the choice between [HRG: z] and [HRG: s], [HRG:
t-T] and [HRG: ti], [HRG: m] and [HRG: M], [HRG: n] and [HRG: N],
[HRG: w] and [HRG: W]. In later times the number of homophones in use
increased greatly throughout the different classes, the tendency being
much helped by the habit of fanciful writing; but few of these
homophones found their way into the cursive script. Occasionally a
scribe of the old times indulged his fancy in "sportive" or
"mysterious" writing, either inventing new signs or employing old ones
in unusual meanings. Short sportive inscriptions are found in tombs of
the XIIth Dynasty; some groups are so written cursively in early
medical papyri, and certain religious inscriptions in the royal tombs
of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties are in secret writing. Fanciful
writing abounds on the temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.

PALAEOGRAPHY

_Hieroglyphic._--The main division is into monumental or epigraphic
hieroglyphs and written hieroglyphs. The former may be rendered by the
sculptor or the painter in stone, on wood, &c., with great delicacy of
detail, or may be simply sunk or painted in outline. When finely
rendered they are of great value to the student investigating the
origins of their values. No other system of writing bears upon its
face so clearly the history of its development as the Egyptian; yet
even in this a vast amount of work is still required to detect and
disentangle the details. Monumental hieroglyphic did not cease till
the 3rd century A.D. (Temple of Esna). The written hieroglyphs, formed
by the scribe with the reed pen on papyrus, leather, wooden tablets,
&c., have their outlines more or less abbreviated, producing
eventually the cursive scripts hieratic and demotic. The written
hieroglyphs were employed at all periods, especially for religious
texts.

_Hieratic._--A kind of cursive hieroglyphic or hieratic writing is
found even in the Ist Dynasty. In the Middle Kingdom it is well
characterized, and in its most cursive form seems hardly to retain
any definable trace of the original hieroglyphic pictures. The style
varies much at different periods.

+------------+-------------+-----------------+-----------+----------+-----------------+
| Sign. | Description.| Name. | Word-sign | Phonetic | Determinative |
| | | | Value. | Value. | Value. |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+-----------+----------+-----------------+
| [HRG: Xrd] | child | hrd (khrod) | | | youth |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: Hr] | face | hr (hor) | hr | [hr] | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: ir] | eye | ir.t (yori.t) | ir | ir | see, &c. |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: r] | mouth | r (ro) | r | r | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: a] | forearm | '('ei) | ' | ' | [action of hand |
| | | | | | or arm] |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: D40] | arm with | nht "be strong" | nht | | violent action |
| | stick | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: A24] | man with | nht "be strong" | nht | | violent action |
| | stick | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: zmA] | lungs and | sm; | sm; | | |
| | windpipe | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: ib] | heart | ib | | | heart |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: nfr] | heart and | ? | nfr | | |
| | windpipe | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: wr] | sparrow | ? | sr | | evil, worthless-|
| | | | | | ness, smallness|
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: zA] | widgeon | s;.t | s; | s; | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: in] | bolti-fish | in.t | in | in | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: Hw] | tusk | (1) ibh "tooth" | bh | bh | bite, &c. |
| | | (2) hw "taste" | hw | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: xt] | cut branch | ht | ht | [ht] | wood, tree |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: zp] | threshing- | sp.t | sp | | |
| | floor | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: hrw] | sun | (1) r' "sun" | | | (1) sun |
| | | (2) hrw "day" | | | (2) division of |
| | | | | | time |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: pr] | chamber, | pr | pr | | |
| | house | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: N17] | flat land | t' | t' | t' | boundless hori- |
| | | | | | zon, eternity |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: Hz] | libation | hs.t | hs | hs | |
| | vase | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: wD] | cord on | wz | wz | wz | |
| | stick | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: nb] | basket | nb.t | nb | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: k] | looped | ? | k | k | |
| | basket | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: mA] | sickle | ? | m' | m' | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: U7] | composite | [mr?] | mr | mr | tillage |
| | hoe | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: U29] | fire-drill | z'.t(?) | z' | z' | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: Sms] | attendant's | sms "follow" | sms | | |
| | equipment | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| [HRG: T30] | knife | ds | ds | | cut, prick, cut-|
| | | | | | ting instrument |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+-----------+----------+-----------------+

_Demotic._--Widely varying degrees of cursiveness are at all periods
observable in hieratic; but, about the XXVIth Dynasty, which
inaugurated a great commercial era, there was something like a
definite parting between the uncial hieratic and the most cursive form
afterwards known as demotic. The employment of hieratic was
thenceforth almost confined to the copying of religious and other
traditional texts on papyrus, while demotic was used not only for all
business but also for writing literary and even religious texts in the
popular language. By the time of the XXVth Dynasty the cursive of the
conservative Thebais had become very obscure. A better form from Lower
Egypt drove this out completely in the time of Amasis II. and is the
true demotic. Before the Macedonian conquest the cursive ligatures of
the old demotic gave birth to new symbols which were carefully and
distinctly formed, and a little later an epigraphic variety was
engraved on stone, as in the case of the Rosetta stone itself. One of
the most characteristic distinctions of later demotic is the
minuteness of the writing.

Hieroglyphic is normally written from right to left, the signs facing
to the commencement of the line; hieratic and demotic follow the same
direction. But monumental hieroglyphic may also be written from left
to right, and is constantly so arranged for purposes of symmetry, e.g.
the inscriptions on the two jambs of a door are frequently turned in
opposite directions; the same is frequently done with the short
inscriptions scattered over a scene amongst the figures, in order to
distinguish one label from another.

In modern founts of type, the hieroglyphic signs are made to run from
left to right, in order to facilitate the setting where European text
is mixed with the Egyptian. The table on next page shows them in their
more correct position, in order to display more clearly their relation
to the hieratic and demotic equivalents.