Page 8 - Adjectives

THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODS
Page 8

Adjectives

Now that we have looked at the Adjectival Sentences, let's take a look at adjectives and see how they function in Mdw-Ntr.

ADJECTIVES AS MODIFIERS AND ADJECTIVES AS NOUNS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Adjectives are said to qualify a "thing" that is symbolized by a noun. They do not qualify actions that are symbolized by verbs. But to understand what I mean here, we must distinguish between nouns and verbs and the phenomena symbolized by each.

The word "running" can be either a noun, a verb or an adjective, depending upon its context in an English sentence.

"The short man is running," - uses "running" as a verb.

"The fat man hates "running," - uses "running" as a noun.

"Soccer is a "running" game, - uses "running" as an adjective modifying "game.

In the first sentence, "running" is the action described as carried out by the short man.

In the second sentence, running is the thing that the fat man does not like.

In the third sentence, running acts as a modifier for a noun.

CONTEXT gives meaning in both English and in Mdw-Ntr.

Now, within the context of certain types of thinking, one could say that all words relate to a PROCESS. This is so because the universe is DYNAMIC.

NOTHING IS ABSOLUTELY STATIC. Every existing thing is in a state of being. And every action in existence is in a state of being. I believe that this worldview is very important to understanding the language of Mdw-Ntr. In this world view, the individual is a process passing in different forms through the world, just as the world is defined by the process of the great disc passing through the sky and the life giving Nile coursing down stream rising and falling with consistent undulation.

For a person with such a worldview as that described above, one can act within the process, or act upon the process. When the man in the example above is running, he is acting within the process. And when the fat man hates running, he is acting upon the process of running. And if the process of running can modify soccer, then the process can become a part of something else. Some Egyptologists use the term "STATIVE" for a type of sentence that describes the state of a thing. I.e.: "The man is tall."

However, this same concept could be stated as: "The man is in a state of being tall." Or, "The man is in a process of being tall." To the people of the Ancient Nile Valley Civilization, their very existence upon this earth was a process. Their existence was journey through the different stages of life, if you will. This concept very easily supported the notion of an afterlife, not only in the Ancient Nile Valley Civilization, but in other parts of Africa as well.

James P. Allen in this very good Introduction to Mdw-Ntr and the culture of Hieroglyphs: "Middle Egyptian" states that there are three types of adjectives, not surprisingly called "Primary", "Secondary" and "Derived" [Okay, so "derived" is a surprise for now.]

There is only one Primary Adjective, and that is the word "all" "nb" the quality of "all" or "universality" was the only true adjective a word that was in itself a qualifier of any observed process. [As opposed to an "engaged" process, which would require an adverb].

Secondary Adjectives are actually verb-forms in the form of participles used to qualify the observed processes.

Therefore, the sentence: "She fine." "nfr.t-sj" Would
more accurately be translated as: "She be fine." because "nfr" is a participle made of the verb "nfr" "to be fine." [Remember we added the feminine "t".]

Derived Adjectives are derived from nouns and prepositions. This is done by adding a noun [in what is called a direct genitive construction]

Field of Salt
"Sxt-HmAt"
Noun             =         Field        =         Sxt
Noun             =         Salt           =         HmAt
                                                                 [Note, the round glyph designates a "place" and is not a part of the word salt]

or attaching another noun with the use of a preposition such as n, and this is called a genitial adjective [or an indirect genitive construction].

MOST ADJECTIVES IN MDW-NTR CAN ALSO SERVE AS NOUNS. AND WHEN I SAY "MOST" I MEAN ALL BUT ONE - nb

"She is fineness"nfr.t s.i" uses "nfr" as a noun.

ADJECTIVES ALL IN A ROW

So, how do we order our mdw-ntr words when we use adjectives? What comes first, what goes in the middle, and what comes last?

A good “rule of thumb” is that your adjective should probably always come after your noun or noun complex.

NOUN COMPLEX?? What’s That?

Well, remember that a noun can have a suffix denoting gender? If you have such a suffix, the adjective comes after that suffix, which comes after the core word of the noun. So the order would be NOUN – SUFFIX – ADJECTIVE.

"My Excellent Plans"
“sXrw.i-iqrw”

Noun            =     Plans          =    sXrw    =
Suffix           =     my              =    i            =
Adjective     =     Excellent    =   iqrw    =

And suppose you have a direct genitive made up of two nouns?

Those two nouns are so tight, nothing can come between them, so there you would have to have: NOUN – NOUN – ADJECTIVE. This can get a bit tricky if the adjective is seen as modifying the first noun in the direct genitive complex. But if you think of the direct genitive as a noun complex with both nouns being integral parts of the term, it might make more sense to put the adjective at the end of the noun complex, or - the term - or the direct genitive.

The man’s beautiful wife.
“Hm.t-zi-nfr.t”

Noun          =        Wife          =     Hm.t               =
Noun          =        Man           =     zi                    =
Adjective   =        beautiful    =      nfr.t              =

Here, it is the wife that is beautiful, not the man.

Now here is a helpful hint. You can often determine which part of a direct genitive is being modified by the adjective by paying attention to the ending of the adjective and the nouns. This is because the noun and its modifier will always have the same endings. Notice in the example above, that the adjective beautiful nfr.t has the feminine ending “t”.

Two final points:

1. nb, being an adjective, always follows the noun it modifies, but it always precedes the other adjectives modifying that same noun.

All things good and pure.
“Xt-nbt-nfr.t-wabt” [Notice there is a"viper" to reiterate the "f" here]

Noun            =     things                =    Xt              =
Nb                =     all [feminine]    = nbt            =
Adjective     = good / beautiful   =    nfr.t          = [Notice there is no"viper" here]
Adjective     = pure                      =    wabt        =

2. Demonstratives also precede other adjectives modifying that same noun. [Now does that mean that “Nb” precedes demonstratives, or do demonstratives precede “nb?” - I wonder…]

This is your beautiful house.
“pr.k-pn-nfr” [Notice there is no"viper"or "mouth"in the "nfr" here]

Noun                    = house          pr        =
Suffix                   = your           .k         =
Demonstrative    = this           pn        =
Adjective             = beautiful     nfr       =

YOU CAME IN WITH NOTHING, ...
YOU GO OUT WITH NOTHING.

POSSESSIVES
In modern western culture, we like to talk about what we have or what we own. The folk of Km.T didn't do that. In fact, they did not have a word for own or “to have.”

Now you may ask: “How could they talk about “Dominion” if they did not “own” anything?” And that is when you have to start thinking like an ancient African. Instead of ownership, think in terms of Responsibility and Relationship. Quite often [more often than not] Mdw-Ntr used the word "nb" to express the relationship of Dominion in a Direct Genitive.

The word nb is generally understood to mean Lord. For example, Lord of the sky is nb-pt..

I know of one Egyptologist believes that nb is used to mean ownership, and uses the example that nb-aAw means the owner of donkeys, but I think the concept was closer to "responsible for" [or lord of] donkeys.

Another example given by this Egyptologist is the genitival adjective that is used as a connotation of possession. The preposition n is understood to mean “to” or “for” and can be positioned in order to show a relationship between two things.

HqA pw n rTnw Hrt

"He is the ruler of Upper Retenu"

Can you figure out where the "n" is? And if this grammar is puzzling, why not scroll up and review the "Indirect Genitive Construction?"

Finally, there is the use of the nfr-Hr construction.

“nfr Hr” - Say, whaaa?

Now this is something that can really make your brain “itch.” - Unless you think like a person who speaks Eubonics.

Mdw-Ntr has a type of word complex which the traditional Egyptologist call the “nfr Hr” construction. And as stated before, “nfr” means “beautiful” [or there abouts] and “Hr” means “face.” The traditional way to express this complex is “nfr Hr” “Fair of Face.” And then the Egyptologists go from there to “Having a pretty face” to “pretty.”

Well the traditional way will get you there - after you go all the way around “Robin Hoods Barn.” But turn your mind around a little bit, and think about it differently.

When I was a kid, I always heard the term “Big leg sister.” It meant – and I presume that it still means – a woman with big pretty legs. I never heard the old timers say “That woman, big of legs.” It was understood from the syntax that the reference was to the quality of the legs of the woman.

One reason I believe that the traditional Egyptologist gets all tangled up in this concept is because they can’t seem to easily get away from the notion of ownership. They want to say that the person owns the face "Hr" and that “nfr” describes that thing owned. Don’t be greedy! Don’t try to OWN everything. Being nfr Hr is what you are - not what you own. The big leg sister doesn’t own her legs, her legs are a part of her and contribute to who and what she is. A rather brilliant social scientist that I know would say that the traditional Egyptologist is hung up on being “parts specific.”

So, when the nfr Hr construction is used to describe “a scribe skilled in his fingers” zXAw-iqr-n-Dbaw.fwe are not talking about a scribe who owns fingers, but one who is characterized by his skilled fingers.

Rememberemember, nfr-Hr is translated as “Good of face.” Or having a good face. But if you can break yourself away from the European concept of ownership and think of yourself as being within a greater state of grace, “Good of face” becomes a statement of characterization and not of possession. Therefore we get: “One who is good of face.” Or “One, who is many of sheep.” A good way to think of it may be as follows. Instead of counting your sheep, count your blessings. Now, do you own your blessings? I believe that most people would think not. So, when we say that “He who has many blessings.” We are not saying “He owns many blessings.” But that he is characterized by being blessed many times.

HOW MUCH FOR THE BIRDIE IN THE WINDOW?

The people of KmT had to be cool. They were so cool they never had to ask more than one question when using an adjective. That, by the way, is called an “Interrogative Adjective.”

They had other questions, but only one in which they used a question. And what was the question?

It was “How Much?” wr

ADJECTIVES THAT ARE NOT

Because of the manner in which English is constructed, English speaking Egyptologist often use adjectives to translate words that are not adjectives in Mdw-Ntr.

These are called “Apparent Adjectives.”

The Other -

In English, “other” is an adjective. Why? I don’t know. All my life, I have been “The Other.” And I have never thought of myself as an adjective. I guess seeing “The Other” as a modifier has something to do with have a self centered world view.

Anyway, “Other” has masculine, feminine and plural forms.

Masculine Singular ky

Feminine Singular kt, kty

Plural kiwi or or or

“Other” in Mdw-Ntr is a noun and “The Other Man” is a noun phrase composed of two nouns: “Other” and “Man.”

“Other” can also be used by itself to mean – What else? - “Other.”

When used by itself, Other can take a suffix, just like any other noun.

EACH

“Each” like “Other” is a noun and can be used in a noun phrase, but not by itself.
tnw = or

SOME

“Some” is another apparent adjective like “Each” that can only be used in a noun phrase.
nhi =

Because “Each” and “Some” are nouns used with other nouns, the noun phrase that they form are a genitival phrase. And “Each” and “Some” are always the first noun in the genitival phrase. And for a reason I do not yet understand, “Each” is always used in a Direct Genitive Phrase, and “Some” is always used in an Indirect Genitive Phrase.

Each time
tnw = each [instance] of time

Some salt
nh(i)-n-HmAt

LIKE - TO THE LIMIT?

There are some prepositional phrases also that are Apparent Adjectives.

“LIKE” and “TO THE LIMIT”

“Like” actually has three forms.

1. Like in degree [Allen uses the term: “According to the length.”]

r-A-w =

2. Like in shape

mi qd =

3. Like in character

mi qi

“To the Limit” [I like to think of this as: “To the Max.”]

r Dr =

GOOD, BETTER, BEST

In a culture where everything is relative, it is not difficult to structure phrases which express that relativity.

One thing was compared to another by placing r after the adjective that qualifies a thing and the thing to which it is compared. AARRRGGGHH!!

Okay, it’s not that bad. Look – Remember how the adjective comes after the noun it qualifies? Let’s say we’re talking about a son: zA.

And if we want to say that the son is good we say zA nfr.

And if we want to say that this son is better than something, we would put an r after “Good son” zA nfr r.

And if we want to compare that good son to a servant, we would place the servant after the "r". zA nfr r Hm.
"A son is better than servant."

So what we have done is to place an r after the adjective that qualifies something and the thing to which it is compared. The r is placed after the word good that qualifies son and before the servant to which the son is compared.

THE BEST IS YET TO COME

So much for the comparative, what about the Superlative?

Well, Mdw-Ntr does this in two ways:

One way to do this is to use a direct or indirect genitive such as
wr wrw
The greatest of the great
or