zAs 137 (2010) R.

N yord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions

RUNE NYORD
27
The Radial Structure of Some Middle Egyptian Prepositions*
O. Introduction
A. H. Gardiner's famous Egyptian Grammar
includes an extremely convenient catalogue of
Middle Egyptian prepositions, which lists, classi-
fies and labels the usages of each individual
preposition in the manner of grammars of the
classical languages1. While convenient as a refer-
ence, the disadvantage of such an approach is
that each Egyptian word is presented as a highly
fragmented whole, the unity of which in the
ancient language appears to be pure convention.
On the other hand, when browsing through
Gardiner's categories, it is clear that some of the
different senses of a preposition are related, and
with a certain amount of background knowledge
of the language, one would also readily concede
that they are not all of equal frequency or impor-
tance. In contrast to the traditional listing of
different meanings of a preposition stands the
cognitive linguistic view of words as marking
conceptual categories organized according to certain
general principles
2
In this view, a preposition
* I am grateful to Sami Uljas for a number of useful
comments and suggestions.
1 GEG
3
162ff, similarly elsewhere, e.g. James P.
Allen, Middle Egyptian. An Introduction to the Lan-
guage and Culture of Hieroglyphs, Cambridge 2000,
83-88.
2 The major work, with a number of illustrative ex-
amples, is still George Lakoff, Women, Fire, and
Dangerous Things, Chicago 1987. This view of category
structure has played an important role in the study of
the Egyptian writing system carried out by Orly Gold-
wasser and her co-workers in the Gattinger Orientfor-
schungen IV/38 subseries (the most recent monograph
being Racheli Shalomi-Hen, The Writing of Gods.
The Evolution of Divine Classifiers in the Old King-
dom, [= Gattinger Orientforschungen IV/38,4], Wies-
baden 2006). A few remarks on the usability of this
perspective in the study of non-linguistic classification
has been made in Rune Nyord, The Body in the
Hymns to the Coffin Sides, in: Chronique d'Egypte 82
marks a category of relations between entltles,
and each sense of the preposition would be ex-
pected to have semantic connections to one or
more of the other members of the category.
Very often, conceptual categories are organized
around a prototype which stands out as particu-
larly good examples of members of the category
in question
3
An often-cited example is the cate-
gory BIRD, of which a member like robin is usu-
ally judged to be a more representative example
than chicken or ostrich4. The latter two are ob-
viously members of the category and clearly
related in various ways to more central mem-
bers, however.
From the prototype which consists of central
members of a category, the category can be ex-
tended by means of various principles connect-
ing the members to each other, a process known
as chaininl For example, the Japanese numeral
classifier hon C$:) marks prototypically long, thin
objects, but has among its extensions a "hit" in a
(2007), 8f., and in relation to Egyptian art, see Paul J.
Frandsen, On Categorization and Metaphorical Struc-
turing: Some Remarks on Egyptian Art and Language,
in: Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7 (1997), 79 ff. In
research on the ancient Egyptian language and its cate-
gories, the cognitive linguistic approach has been advo-
cated by Mark Collier, Grounding, Cognition and
Metaphor in the Grammar of Middle Egyptian, in:
Lingua Aegyptia 4 (1994),57-87, where grammaticali-
zation is studied inter alia in terms of polysemy, but this
theoretical framework has not played a major role in the
study of the ancient Egyptian language, unlike in lin-
guistics more generally.
3 See the overview of "prototype effects" in La-
koff, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, 40-46.
4 E.g. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous
Things, 41.
5 Compare also the discussion of this phenomenon
in Ronald W. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stan-
ford 1987,442-445 and the further references given at
id., Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction, Oxford
2008,37 n. 8.
28 R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
baseball game, where the ball's trajectory has a
typical hon-shape connecting it to the center of
the category, though it does not belong to the
class of solid objects constituting the prototypi-
cal members
6

Another basic tenet of cognitive linguistics

which will be of relevance for the current study
is that meaning is essentially embodied. In this
view, conceptual organization is intimately con-
nected to bodily experience, which accordingly
plays a role of paramount importance in human
cognition. The embodied perspective on cogni-
tion has a number of important entailments of
which we will confine ourselves to introducing a
few of direct relevance to the study of Egyptian
7
prepOSitions .
First, prototypes have a tendency to be
formed not by abstract, propositional defmitions
stating necessary and sufficient conditions, but
rather according to what Lakoff refers to as
'interactional properties', characterized as "the
result of our interactions as part of our physical
and cultural environments given our bodies and
our cognitive apparatus. Such interactional
properties form clusters in our experience, and
prototype and basic-level structure can reflect
such clusterings"s.
Secondly, research has shown that human
cognition is fundamentally structured by basic
entities known as 'image schemata,9. These
schemata are basic, preconceptual formations,
which "emerge as meaningful structures for us
chiefly at the level of our bodily movements
6 Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things,
104-105.
7 For a more detailed discussion with references, see
Rune N yord, Breathing Flesh. Conceptions of the
Body in the Ancient Egyptian Coffm Texts, Copen-
hagen, (= Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 37),
C o ~ e n h a g e n 2009, ch. 1.
Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 51
(emphasis in original).
9 See especially Mark] ohnson, The Body in the
Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and
Reasoning, Chicago 1987, passim, and Beate Hampe
(ed.), From Perception to Meaning. Image Schemas in
Cognitive Lingustics (= Cognitive Linguistics Research
29), Berlin 2005, passim. For further references, see
Nyord, Breathing Flesh, 10-19. A brief introduction
to the notion has been given in id., in: Chronique
d'Egypte 82 (2007), 13-15.
through space, our manipulation of objects, and
our perceptual interactions"lO. Such schemata
thus arise as invariances from embodied experi-
ence and accordingly contain very little structure
on their own, but play a very important role by
giving structure to our concepts. Examples of
important image schemata include such precon-
ceptual notions as FORCE, CONTAINMENT and
PATH, of which the latter two will be seen to play
an important role in structuring the categories
marked by the Egyptian prepositions m and r.
Thirdly, image schemata and other effects of
embodied experience do not merely play a role
in our understanding of the physical environ-
ment, but are also indispensable in the structur-
ing of more abstract concepts that would appear
at first to have little to do with embodied experi-
ence. This is made possible by the important
principle of metaphorical structuring
ll
Of par-
ticular importance in the present connection are
the so-called 'ontological metaphors', which
allow us to conceptualize abstract, indiscrete or
otherwise intangible phenomena as concrete
entities or substances12. In the words of Lakoff
and Johnson, "our experiences with physical
objects (especially our own bodies) provide the
basis for an extraordinarily wide variety of onto-
logical metaphors, that is, ways of viewing
events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities
and substances,,13. As an English example of an
ontological metaphor, Lakoff and Johnson give
THE MIND IS A MACHINE (based on the more
general metaphor THE MIND IS AN ENTITY,
which is in fact a metaphor, though it might not
immediately strike the language user as such
because of the ubiquity of ontological meta-
phors) 14. Here, a highly intangible notion is pro-
10 ] ohnson, The Body in the Mind, 29.
11 Introductions to this phenomenon can be found
e.g. in George Lakoff and Mark] ohnson, Metaphors
We Live By, Chicago and London 1980 and Zoltan
Kovecses, Metaphor. A Practical Introduction, Ox-
ford and New York 2002. See also the introduction to
the field in Nyord, Breathing Flesh, 6-35.
12 Lakoff and] ohnson, Metaphors We Live By,
25-32; Kovecses, Metaphor, 34f.
13 Lakoff and] ohnson, Metaphors We Live By,
25.
14 Lakoff and] ohnson, Metaphors We Live By,
27.
zAs 137 (2010) R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 29
vided metaphorically with an ontological status
which allows us to make inferences and other
cognitive operations which would otherwise be
impossible. Since linguistic structure reflects
conceptual structure, we find the conceptual
metaphor in linguistic expressions such as "I'm a
little rusty today", which is immediately under-
stood as a reference to the sub-standard func-
tioning of the speaker's mind because of its on-
tological status as a machine which does not
work properly when rusty.
Before turning to the analysis of the impor-
tant Egyptian prepositions m and r, we need to
introduce one final set of terms useful for ana-
lyzing what Langacker terms "atemporal rela-
tions", which covers inter alia the use of preposi-
tions
15
. In such relations, important roles are
played by the trq/ector (abbreviated tr) and the
landmark (1m). The former is defined as the "fig-
ure within a relational proftle,,16 and corresponds
to what is sometimes referred to otherwise as
the "reference noun", i.e. the entity which the
preposition is used to situate vis-a.-vis the prepo-
sitional object. The latter is referred to corre-
spondingly in Langacker's cognitive grammar as
the landmark, "so called because they are natu-
rally viewed (in prototypical instances) as pro-
viding points of reference for locating the trajec-
tor,,17.
Having now briefly introduced some impor-
tant theoretical notions, we will turn our atten-
tion to the two highly frequent Egyptian prepo-
sitions m and r. On the basis of the cognitive
linguistic theoretical framework just outlined,
the various usages of the prepositions (as listed
by Gardiner and others) will be analyzed with
the aim of suggesting a plausible internal struc-
ture of the conceptual category marked by the
prepositions.
15 Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Gram-
mar. Volume I, ch. 6. See now also id., Cognitive Gram-
mar, 70-73.
16 Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Gram-
mar. Volume I, 217.
17 Ibid.
1. The preposition m.
1.1 Static meaning
By far the most frequent use of this pre-
position is the one which Gardiner labels "of
place". At the same time, the situation where one
entity is located inside another is experientially
highly salient, corresponding to the image schema
of CONTAINMENT, which forms the basis of all
relations where one entity is conceptualized as
being located inside another
18
:
Together, these facts make the locative usage
of the preposition a very likely candidate for the
prototype of the category it denotes. The cen-
tral use of the preposition would thus be cases
of CONTAINMENT where the landmark (i.e. the
CONTAINER) is constituted by a physical object
with clear boundaries:
(1) iw=fm ('t, "It (Sc. a sack of grain) is in a room"
(Westcar 11,24)
(2) brwt=k m pr=k, " ... while your possessions are
in your house" (peasant B1, 124)
(3) ib=i m llt=i, " ... my interior is in my torso"
(CT IV, 57f. [304]).
The most immediate extension is found
when the object of the preposition is not a
discretely bounded entity, but one which is still
nonetheless conceptualized as a CONTAINER:
(4) iw sdw=k m sat, ''Your plots of land are in the
countryside" (peasant B2, 65)
In this example, unlike the previous three, the
object of the preposition is not from the outset
one with a clear-cut boundary, but the concep-
tualization imposed by the preposition m means
18 Johnson, The Body in the Mind, 30ff. For the
CONTAINER schema (called "the container/contained
relation") as a central structure in prepositions compare
also the study of French "dans/hors de" in Claude
Vandeloise, Spatial Prepositions. A Case Study from
French (trans. R. K. Bosch), Chicago 1991, ch. 13.
30 R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Midclle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
(9)
(8)
(5)
that the countryside is understood here as a
CONTAINER for the plots.
A number of further usages are established by
metaphorical projection of the basic CONTAIN-
MENT schema. Rather than referring literally to
spatial CONTAINERS, these examples make use of
one or more of a range of basic metaphors, of-
ten ones known from modern European lan-
guages as well as Middle Egyptian. The first of
these is the metaphor UNITS OF TIME ARE CON-
TAINERS (a specification of the more general and
probably universal TIME IS SPACE), correspond-
ing to Gardiner's "m of time"!9:
mi sbmt m mpt Bdt, " ... like Sakhmet in a year
of plague" (Sinuhe AOS 26
2
)
Often, this metaphor is combined with an-
other frequent projection, namely EVENTS ARE
OBJECTS
2
!, so that the contents of the time unit
can be an event or state of affairs instead of, as
in (5), an object or person:
(6) irt(y)=sn wrr-mdw !Jft=1 m hrwpn njr, "00. those
who would have judgment against you on this
perfect day" (CT I, lOf [3])
(7) dr sty bna m smw, "Getting rid of the smell of
fish in the summer" (pHearst 2,17 [31])
Other metaphorical projections account for
some further usages of the preposition. Thus,
the metaphor (MENTAL AND PHYSICAL) STATES
ARE CONTAINERS
22
leads to Gardiner's "m of
state". Here, the person or object to which the
particular state applies is conceptualized as being
CONTAINED within the state:
P't m imw, "... the elite were in mourning"
(Sinuhe R 10-11)
(i)n 'nb=ln wg3=ln snb=ln m 1J.zt nt mnlW, "Are
you alive, sound and healthy in the favour of
Montu?" (Heqanakht 2, 1)
The use of m + infinitive to express an ongo-
ing action also belongs here, as the actions ex-
19 GEG 162,2.
20 Corresponding to B 44-45, but the other manu-
scripts in which the passage is extant use the noun rnpt
absolutely, without the preposition m. A similar dist-
ribution between the other manuscripts is found in
B 19-20 = AOS 17.
21 Cf. Kovecses, Metaphor, 35.
22 Cf. English "in love" etc., Kovecses, Metaphor,
35.
pressed by certain verbs (mainly verbs of move-
ment) can also be included in the category of
STATES capable of being conceptualized as CON-
TAINERS:
(10) mt wi m hJt r kmt, "Look, I am on my way
down to Egypt" (peasant R 1, 2-3)
By means of the already-mentioned metaphor
EVENTS ARE OBJECTS, the preposition acquires
its conjunction-like usage before finite verbs
where it signifies primarily concomitance in a
temporal or causal sense:
(11) m mrr=k m3=i snb.kwi swdFk sw '3, "As you
wish to see me sound, you must delay him
here" (peasant B1, 109-10)
A related metaphor accounts for the usage
that Gardiner labeled the "m of predication,,23.
Again in this case the metaphor itself is cross-
culturally frequent, namely that of CATEGORIES
ARE CONTAINERS
24
By means of this metaphor,
the "m ofpredication" can be analyzed as constru-
ing a situation in which a particular entity is as-
cribed to a particular category:
(12) mk tw m minw, "Look, you are (in the category
of) a herdsman" (peasant B1, 208)
Often this usage is found where the noun fol-
lowing the preposition has the character not of a
fixed category, but rather of a decidedly ad hoc
one:
(13) ib=i m sn-nw=i, "00. my heart being (in the
category of) my companion" (Shipwrecked
Sailor 42)
Some of the cases labeled by Gardiner as ex-
amples of the "m of manner', notably m m?'t, "in
truth" should probably be analyzed as examples
of the STATES ARE CONTAINERS metaphor, while
23 Cf. the most recent discussion of this usage of the
preposition by Foy D. Scalf, "Statements of Identity
and the m of Predication", in: Lingua Aegyptia 16
(2008), 135-151, where it is argued that this use of the
preposition in non-verbal sentences (he excludes uses
with verbs as "nothing other than verb-preposition
idioms which are common in every language", p. 146) is
motivated vis-a-vis nominal sentence patterns for purely
syntactic reasons. For the present examination of the
semantic structure of the preposition m, the essential
correctness of this hypothesis is inconsequential.
24 Cf. Johnson, The Body in the Mind, 39f.
zAs 137 (2010) R. N yord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 31
others, such as m m3wt, "anew" and m mitt,
"likewise" can be analyzed along with the exam-
ples of the "m ofpredication" as "being something
new" and "being a similar thing", respectively
(CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS).
1.2 Dynamic meaning
This ends the series of usages based on the
simple CONTAINER schema as understood liter-
ally or projected metaphorically. So far, all of the
examples have been static ones which have sim-
ply placed an entity within the boundaries of a
CONTAINER. Another important series of usages
is based instead on a dynamic potential residing
in the preposition
25
, where, combined with the
image-schema PATH (the schema of an entity
moving from a source along a path to a goal)26, it
designates movement from within the bounda-
ries of the CONTAINER to the outside. This cor-
responds in the terminology of Langacker to a
25 Pace R. Hannig, Huang R. F. and Ling Hu
R. M., A note on the use of Egyptian prepositions, in:
Journal of Ancient Civilizations 1 (1986),145-147 who
argue that "[t]he preposition m means basically 'in' and
not 'from, out of. This meaning is attributed to m only,
because of the difference in the construction: therefore
it is a translational meaning, but not a meaning of the
word m" (emphasis in original). The point that in Egyp-
tian - in contrast to English or German - the "refer-
ence nomen", i.e. the trajector in the terminology of
this paper, usually remains the same whether the prepo-
sition is used in a verbal or non-verbal sentence, is well
taken. However, the remarks quoted refer to an artifi-
cially constructed example, which has in common with
all the other examples cited in the paper that no move-
ment of the trajector vis-a-vis the landmark is envisaged
in the Egyptian construction (with the possible excep-
tion of the example with ini m on p. 147, but this can be
analyzed either way). When such a movement is ex-
pressed, it becomes difficult to apply the analysis put
forward by Hannig et al. Thus, examples like those
quoted in (14) and (15) do not merely locate the trajec-
tor "in" the landmark, which would make the expres-
sion mean something like "Coming forth in(side) the
fish-trap" (contrast example (25) below, where the
preposition does retain its static meaning with a verb of
movement), but rather expresses a change in status
from being inside to being outside the CONTAINER, a
meaning which the preposition is evidently capable of
covering in Egyptian.
26 Johnson, The Body in the Mind, 113-117.
"complex relationship", as opposed to the
"simplex relationships" examined so far
27
:
1m
This is most clear when the preposltlon is
used with verbs in the cases labeled "m of separa-
tion" by Gardiner. We should note that since the
central meaning of the category has been seen to
be a basic CONTAINER schema, this is probably
still the main sense in the dynamic use of the
preposition, so that movement out of a CON-
TAINER is to be understood rather than separa-
. 11 28
tlon more genera y :
(14) ky rj n prt m issyt, "Another spell for getting
out of the fish-trap" (CT VI, 34a [477])
(15) ii. n=f m min m iw nsrsr, "He has come today
from (lout of) the Island of Fire" (CT I,
117b [33])
Just as with the static usage, this literal appli-
cation of the CONTAINER schema gives rise to a
series of further usages by means of metaphori-
cal projections. The most immediate of these
make use of a metaphor already mentioned
above, namely CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS.
In this use, the preposition thus comes to desig-
nate a movement out of a category, the so-called
partitive use:
(16) hj in im=f, "Go down and get (some) of it"
(Westcar 11, 25)
(17) ink 8j w'b mi w' im=f.n nb, "I am the son of a
w'b-priest like every one of you" (Siut I, 288)
In these cases, the preposition marks a cate-
gory of which something is taken out, thus re-
27 Langacker, Cognitive Grammar, 117 f.
28 Gardiner mentions further the verb B' in this
connection, and possibly the etymology of the com-
pound preposition 5'-m, "beginning from" should be
analyzed in parallel with the examples cited here. Usu-
ally when that verb occurs with the preposition m, how-
ever, it appears to mean "begin with" rather than "begin
from" (e.g. Heqanakht 2, 27-28, sj'w m wnm rm! '3,
"They have started eating humans here''), which is
probably to be analyzed as the partitive use of the
preposition discussed below, used here to indicate that
the action has not been completed.
32 R. N yord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
sulting in a PART-WHOLE relation
29
The sug-
gested origin in a CONTAINER + PATH schema
means that the partitive use becomes closely
related to the elative one which prototypically
expresses precisely movement out of a CON-
TAINER, and example (17) is already close to
uses marked by the elative in other languages.
The elative use can be taken even further by
th 1m
"d' ,,30 H
e process own as en -Polnt ocus . ere,
instead of expressing a movement out of a cate-
gory as being underway, the preposition is used
to designate that movement as completed, thus
locating the trajector completely outside the
landmark. The clearest example is with the ex-
pression sw m, "empty of'. Here, the preposi-
tion can be understood as placing the potential
CONTAINER (trajector) firmly outside the cate-
gory denoted by the landmark rather in the
manner of English expressions like "run out of
something" or "exempt from something":
(18) sgr r ssp sw m h ~ w t , " ... one who sleeps till
dawn, devoid of illness" (Westcar 7, 18-19)
As Gardiner notes
3
\ such usages are closely
related to the "m of kind', where the category
from which the trajector is said to be taken is a
material or substance out of which the trajector
is made
32
Correspondingly, the landmark con-
29 It has been cogently argued, most recently byJean
Winand, Temps et aspect en egyptien. Une approche
semantique (= Probleme der Agyptologie 25), Leiden
and Boston 2006, 137ff, that this partitive (and occa-
sionally elative) usage is the origin of the apparent em-
ployment of phrases with the preposition m as an alter-
native to direct object constructions. This meaning is
probably also the explanation for the special use of the
preposition with body parts, predominantly with the
word Ct, "body part", pointed out by R. O. Faulkner,
A Coffin Text Miscellany, in: Journal of Egyptian Ar-
chaeology 68 (1982), 29, as the examples seem to ex-
hibit a special tendency to be used of limbs separated
from the body. Winfried Barta, Zur Apposition vom
Typ AmB, in: Gottinger Miszellen 109 (1989), 17-19,
suggests a different analysis of such examples as elliptic
appositions.
30 Cf. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous
Things, 423 f. and 440 f.
31 GEG 162, 6.
32 It is also possible to apply an alternative analysis
according to which the "m of kind' is instead used to
express belonging to a category, and thus related rather
with the static use of the preposition in the "m ofpredi-
cation".
sists of either a mass noun or a count noun in
pluraL When the landmark is designated by units
of time, this relationship is rather abstract, but at
the same time quite close to the clear partitive
and elative examples just mentioned:
(19) ist nsw km.n=f ~ ~ ~ w = f m rnpwt ~ s ~ t nfrw<t>,
"Now, the king had completed his period of
many good years" (Urk. N, 895, 14)
In this case, the metaphor UNITS OF TIME ARE
CONTAINERS makes it possible to express the
period completed by the king as being "made
of' or probably originally "taken from" the
"many good years" constituting the landmark in
this expression. In a similar way, the preposition
can be used of more physical substances, again
most likely expressing that the trajector is liter-
ally "taken from" and thus "made of' the mate-
rial identified as the landmark (MATERIALS ARE
CONTAINERS):
(20) iw bwsw n=i mr m inr m-qjb mrw, "A pyramid
of stone was constructed for me in the midst
of the pyramids" (Sinuhe B 300-301)
Perhaps the most difficult usages to derive
from the basic meaning of the preposition are
those labeled by Gardiner "m of instrument' and
"m of concomitance,,33. In the light of the basic
meaning of the preposition and its derivations as
suggested above, it is to be expected that these
uses might also be derived from the basic CON-
TAINER schema, perhaps in the dynamic use of
the preposition where it is combined with the
PATH schema
34
From this perspective, it may be
suggested that the instrumental use can be de-
rived from the dynamic meaning "out of' just
discussed, in the sense that the completed action
exists as a potential emerging from the instru-
ment (prototypically physical force being trans-
33 GEG 162,7 and 7a.
34 The notion of on action being carried out with an
instrument is likely in itself to be a conceptual primitive
or in the words of Langacker (Cognitive Grammar,
p. 355-357) a "conceptual archetype", and thus proba-
bly not immediately derivative of the image schemata
suggested. What is discussed here is merely the possible
motivations for including this notion in the Egyptian
category m.
zAs 137 (2010) R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 33
ferred from the agent to the patient)35, rather like
the spatial metaphor underlying the English
instrumental use of the preposition "through,,36:
(21) S5t ktt int n=i m s s ~ , "... a little daughter whom
I acquired through prayer" (Shipwrecked
Sailor 129)
In this analysis, the daughter (or perhaps
rather the acquisition) is conceptualized as hav-
ing resided as a potential inside the CONTAINER
metaphorically constituted by the prayer, and
subsequently emerging when the action is ful-
filled and brought to fruition. Langacker
sketches such instrumental expressions in the
following way, with the instrument in the middle
as an intermediary point between the subject
and the object in an "action chain" conceived as
37
a PATH:
35 Cf. the analysis of the Russian instrumental case
as prototypically marking the instrument as a conduit
for energy flow in Michael B. Smith, From Instrument
to Irrealis: Motivating Some Grammaticalized Senses of
the Russian Instrumental, in: Katarzyna Dziwirek,
Herbert Coats, and Cynthia M. Vakareliyska (eds.),
Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic
Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998 (= Michigan
Slavic Materials 44), Ann Arbor 1999, 413-433, based
on Langacker's "action chain" model cited in the pre-
ceding note.
36 With the Semitic cognates (-Jb) of the Egyptian
preposition, a basic meaning of "near" or "touching" is
sometimes assumed to be the basis of the instrumental
use of the preposition ~ e . g . E. Kautzsch (ed.), Gesen-
ius' Hebrew Grammar (trans. A. E. Cowley), Oxford
1910,380 119n-o; Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss
der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Spra-
chen, vol. II, Berlin 1913, 364f. 237e-f), but such a
meaning does not appear to be an independent part of
the Egyptian category m. However, if idiomatic expres-
sions such as m/:t m, "seize" were to be interpreted as
evidence of a meaning as "touching", and the "m of
concomitancl!' discussed below could be interpreted as
vestiges of a meaning "near", then as an alternative
interpretation, a parallel line of extension may be sug-
gested to the one outlined in the two works on Semitic
just quoted: CONTAINER > **NEAR > *CONTACT >
INSTRUMENT.
37 Ronald W. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Application, Stan-
ford 1991,404, fig. 9.3b.
The same analysis may be applied to more
concrete examples as well:
(22) nsb=i !:t<=1 m snk ngm, "I will lick your body
with (my) pleasant tongue" (Urk. IV, 238, 2)
(23) iw=f sspd m bw nb nfr, "It (sc. the house) is
made ready with all good things" (Westcar
11,20)
Again, the result of the action manifests by
moving "out of', "through" or "by means of'
the landmark expressing the necessary require-
ment for successfully completing the action in
question, which is conceptualized in Egyptian38
as a CONTAINER for the potential manifested in
the action.
In the 3
rd
edition of Gardiner's Grammar, the
"m of concomitance" is added as a sub-point under
the instrumental use just discussed
39
, signaling
implicitly that he saw the two usages as related.
This realization has been further elaborated by
F.]unge
40
:
In der Regel konnen nur Tatigkeiten 'mit Hilfe
von etw.' abgewickelt werden, also 'Instrumentalis'
bei Transitiva; Zustande und Vorgange verlaufen
kraft Leistung der Verben, die sie ausdriicken,
'autonomer', d. h. etwa in 'kommen mit Tributen'
(hierher gehort auch br) findet das 'kommen' nicht
durch die Tribute statt wie etwa bei 'schlagen mit
einem Stock' das 'schlagen' durch einen Stock
geschieht: Bei Intransitiva ist mehr eine 'Beteiligung'
am Sachverhalt ausgedriickt. Die Grenzen konnen
jedoch verflieBen: Bei 'kommen mit Schiffen' findet
'kommen' sowohl unter 'Beteiligung' von Schiffen als
auch durchaus 'durch' sie statt.
The main difference between the two usages
is thus marked by the verb with which the
preposition occurs. It should be noted however,
that even in the cases where the preposition can
perfectly adequately be translated by "together
with", it still appears that "the noun following
38 And other languages showing a similar range of
meanings including locative and instrumental marked as
belonging to one and the same category, e.g. Hebrew
with the preposition f and Latin with the ablative case.
39 Following an article by Smither with a note by
Gunn, A New Use of the Preposition m, in: ]ournal of
Egyptian Archaeology 25 (1939), 166-169.
40 Friedrich]unge, Satz und Feld: Versuch zur de-
skriptiven Semantik toter Sprachen am Beispiel mittel-
agyptischer Prap0sitionen, in: Gottinger Miszellen 6
(1973), 78 f.
34 R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
the [preposition m] appears to designate per-
sons of lesser importance than the speaker" as
Smither observed
41
In fact, in all of the exam-
ples cited by Smither, it is possible to translate
the preposition instead as "having" or "bring-
ing", thus putting the examples in line with
Gunn's examples of m in the specific sense of
"having" (primarily of body parts) in the note
accompanying Smither's paper
42
This merger of
the two apparent categories into one which we
might term a factitive usage of the preposition
brings us much closer to the more clearly in-
strumental ones discussed above, since, even
when living beings or boats are the landmark,
they are still seen in the context as "instru-
ments" or "facilitators" brought for the comple-
tion of some more or less specified task. The
difference in relation to the clear instrumental
cases is that this task is usually to be sought in
the wider context of the occurrence, rather than
being signified by the verb in the clause in which
the preposition occurs, for example:
(24) bnt.n=i m J:zsb 400 m stpw nb n ms'=i, "I fared
upstream, even bringing 400 troopers from
all the hand-picked men of my army" (Urk.
VII, 15,4)
Unlike exx. (21)-(23), the use for which the
400 men are considered instrumental is not
found in the verb ljnt, nor is it otherwise speci-
fied within the clause. It remains clear, however,
that they are not simply travelling together with
the expedition leader (which would have elicited
the use of the preposition ~ n ' instead), but
brought purposely along by the latter.
This highly abstract use concludes the series
of transformations based on the CONTAINER
and PATH schema, where the latter is directed
out of the CONTAINER. This is clearly the most
important and frequent of the dynamic mean-
41 P. C. Smither, in: Journal of Egyptian Archae-
ol0W 25 (1939),167.
Smi ther, in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25
(1939), 168., ef. also G. Lefebvre, Observations
grammaticales sur Pap. Harris I, in: Revue d'Egyp-
tologie 8 (1951), 121-124 for (Ramesside) examples of
uses with words other than body parts, though several
of Lefebvre's examples could be analyzed as "true"
instrumental uses of the preposition.
ings of the preposition43, but in combination
with a few particular verbs, the preposition
seems also to be capable of being used to desig-
nate the movement into a CONTAINER.
tr
Gardiner mentions the three verbs 'q, "en-
ter", tkn, "be/draw near", and bn, "approach,,44,
all of which have in common the fact that con-
structions with m are neither the only nor the
primary way to designate the destination (or
GOAL of the PATH schema/so Thus to introduce
the GOAL, 'q has the options of using the prepo-
sitions m, n, r, ~ r or taking a direct object
46
; lkn
can be constructed with direct object or with the
prepositions r, n, ~ r or m - M ~ 47; while the GOAL
of the verb bn is introduced with m, n or /8. This
range of options in each of the cases, as op-
posed to the clear-cut ways of using the preposi-
tion to designate movement out of a CONTAINER
discussed above, already signals that m is not
simply used as the standard way of expressing
motion into a CONTAINER with these verbs. The
syntactic and semantic properties of the verb 'q
have been examined in detail by Hafemann
49
,
who concludes "Es werden iiberwiegend die vier
Prapositionen m, n, r und ~ r verwendet, die im-
mer die Richtung bezeichnen, wobei m und r
offenbar je nach folgendem Substantiv wechseln
und n bei Bewegungsrichtung auf belebte Ziele
hin benutzt wird, wiihrend ~ r im Falle h6her
gestellter Personen steht"so. The explanation
43 As also noted by Gardiner, GEG 162, 1 and 8.
44 GEG 162,1.
45 In contrast to e.g. the verb pri, "come forth",
where the prepositions m and r retain their opposite
root meanings, as can be seen by comparing exx. (14)
above and (39) below.
46 Wh. I, 230-232.
47 Wh. V, 333-335.
48 Wh. III, 373, 9-18.
49 Ingelore Hafemann, Zum Zusammenspiel von
Semantik und Syntax agyptischer Verben, in: Lingua
Aegyptia 10 (2002), 169-172.
50 Ibid., p. 172.
zAs 137 (2010) R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 35
why both m and r can be used in a very similar
sense with this verb may be that the root seman-
tics of the verb itself already contains the struc-
ture of both of the image schemata PATH and
CONTAINMENT. In this case, the choice between
the two prepositions would be a choice between
emphasizing one or the other of the two image-
schematic notions:
(25) sgm=sn hmhmwt=k rq m bIbIw, "They [Sc. the
enemies] shall hear your battle cry, making
them
5
! enter the caves" (Urk. IV, 613, 11-12)
(CONTAINER emphasized)
(26) n ~ m n S5=/ rq r rJ;z, "But his (sc. the deceased
king's) son has entered the palace" (Sinuhe B
46) (PATH emphasized)
Thus, Hafemann characterizes the meaning
of m as being "(GOAL) 'in"', while r is used to
designate "(GOAL, gerichtet), 'in",52. However,
the parallelism in the following passage also
shows that this original difference between the
two prepositions can become almost negligible:
(27) m-bnw pr rq=k r=fm nb m sn m bnmsw r-pw r
bw nb rq=k im, " ... inside a house which you
enter - be it as lord, brother or friend - to any
place where
53
you enter" (ptahhotep P 9, 8-9)
It is likely that similar analyses may be applied
to the verbs tkn and bn, though a full discussion
of the semantics of these verbs falls outside the
scope of this paper
54
. However, it is important to
note that the two other verbs share with rq the
basic semantic structure of a movement (PATH)
into a more or less well-defined area (CON-
TAINER), which means that the preposition used
51 Or perhaps "when they have entered" if the sta-
tive is not to be understood as resultative - the concep-
tualization of the caves as CONTAINER remains the
same.
52 Hafemann, in: Lingua Aegyptia 10 (2002),
p.169.
53 The L, manuscript has instead wnn=k im, "where
your are". This parallel raises the question whether the
P text is the result of an erroneous repetition of the
verb rq. In any case, both of the expressions in the P
text are attested elsewhere, so the passage would have
made sense to the reader, whether it originally resulted
from an error of transmission or not.
54 Cf., apart from the study by Hafemann already re-
ferred to, the discussion of the use of different preposi-
tions with a number of other verbs by Junge, in: Got-
tinger Miszellen 6 (1973), 81-84.
to introduce the landmark merely emphasizes
one or the other of the aspects already inherent
in the semantics of the verb. This means again
that we probably do not need to assume a spe-
cific meaning of the preposition as "into", since
its usage with the verbs just discussed can be
accounted for by the combination of the basic
meaning of the verb with the static CONTAIN-
MENT usage of the preposition as designating
the end-point of the movement expressed by the
verb. This hypothesis is corroborated by the fact
that we do not find any literal or metaphorical
extensions of the meaning "into", unlike the
case with the dynamic meaning "out of', as seen
above.
1.3 Idiomatic usages
The main structure of the category of rela-
tions designated with the preposition m outlined
so far leaves a number of usages that Gardiner
labels "idiomatically with verbs,,55 which do not
immediately fit into the main categories, but
which are nonetheless more or less directly de-
rivable from them. Gardiner mentions the con-
structions ini m, "have recourse to"; iri m, "act
according to"; m ~ m, "seize upon"; mdw m,
"speak against"; ro m, "know (something) of
(someone)"; bnm m, "join with"; som m, "gain
control over"; and sbl m, "laugh at". While there
are certainly more expressions that could be
mentioned, for the present purposes this repre-
sentative selection will serve adequately to show
how such idiomatic uses are fit into the category
by deriving them from already-existing mem-
bers. A number of these constructions have
already been discussed by Junge who has in sev-
eral cases suggested possible derivations from
more frequently attested usages of the preposi-
tion
56
. In this relation, Junge makes the impor-
tant observation that the idiomatic usages are
drawn from a very limited repertoire of general
57
usages:
55 GEG 162,9.
56 Junge, in: Gottinger Miszellen 6 (1973), 81-86.
57 Junge, in: Gottinger Miszellen 6 (1973),85 f.
36 R. N yord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
Bemerkenswert ist die Diskrepanz zwischen dem
uberaus haufigen Gebrauch von m in Prapositional-
objekten und der - gegenuber dem direkten Objekt -
geringfugigen semantischen Leistung (aus Gardiners
Liste, GG 162, kommt nur 'partitive', s. v. m of
kind, 162,5, hinzu).
This is also true of the current sample of
idiomatic expression which, as will be seen be-
low, can all be derived from the CONTAINER +
PATH schema discussed above, and the majority
more specifically from the metaphorical projec-
tion CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS correspond-
ing to Gardiner's and Junge's partitive use, in-
cluding the more specifically elative use in the
terminology employed here
58

The usages with rb and mdw are explained by

Junge as being related to the partitive use as
discussed above
59
:
Mochte man bei den obigen Fallen noch
Verleitung dutch das Deutsche vermuten, wird es
klarer etwa bei rb X m Y, 'etw. von jem. wissen' oder
'jem. als etw. erkennen'. Erklarungsfunktion hat
dieses bei mdw m, 'Bose reden uber jem.': 'psycho-
logisch' gesehen: man spricht nut von 'Teilen' einer
Person, man 'beredet' jem.
Thus in our terminology, the CONTAINER
schema is projected metaphorically to the per-
son of whom something is known or who is
being spoken badly of. Just as with the more
clearly partitive uses cited above, the following
examples may thus be analyzed as referring to
only a (more or less separate) part of the whole
constituted by the abstract category of a PER-
SON. More dynamically, one might understand
the examples as focusing specifically on that
particular part as being removed from the
whole, so that the use might be characterized
more precisely as elative:
(28) im=k rj ib=k r=f ~ r rbt.n=k im=f bntw, "You
must not be haughty against him because of
what you know about him from earlier"
(ptahhotep P 7, 7-8)
58 In the collection of problematic cases discussed
by Leo Depuydt, 'Of their Monuments they Made
One for an Esteemed Colleague ... ': On the Meaning
of a Formulaic Expression in Egyptian, in: Lingua
Aegyptia 9 (2001),94-96, the partitive m also accounts
for a significant part, though others can be explained
with reference to the static CONTAINER schema.
59 Junge, in: Gottinger Miszellen 6 (1973), p. 85.
(29) mdw=fim=i gww m gjgjt, " ... that he (Sc. the
enemy) should speak ill of me in the tribunal"
(CT I, 173g [40])
In the second example, Junge's analysis that
the negative meaning arises from the combina-
tion of the partitive m with a PERSON is sup-
ported by the fact that the expression means
neutrally "talk about" when the landmark is an
INANIMATE OBJECT rather than a PERSON
6o
. Evi-
dently, in this case speaking of only a select part
does not entail speaking ill of the object in
question.
Somewhat similar analyses can be applied to
the constructions with m ~ , "grasp", sbm, "gain
power" and sbt, "laugh".
In the first case, the preposition is used to
show that the person is not as a whole "held",
but rather that he is "seized upon,,61, which in
physical terms entails grasping a salient part of
the person, e.g. an arm, though as in English
"seize upon" some of the examples are to be
understood less literally as in military contexts
where the expression is used of taking booty62 or
the military "taking" of a city63. The following
example, however, is definitely to be understood
literally:
(30) r ~ r . n m ~ . n = f m p3 ntis [... J, "Then it (sc. the
crocodile) seized the commoner [...J" (West-
car 3,14)
In relation to this example, it should be noted
that the context shows that the man is not eaten
or swallowed by the crocodile, but rather
grabbed and dragged into the water, which is
consistent with the analysis suggested here of
the preposition as partitive.
With sbm, "gain power", one might argue that
the use is again partitive, since gaining control of
or power over something never affects the
landmark in its entirety, making the use similar
60 Dows Dunham, The Biographical Inscriptions
of Nekhebu in Boston and Cairo, in: Journal of Egyp-
tian Archaeology 24 (1938), 5 n. 2.
61 The verb may in fact be etymologically related to
the verb ml;, "fill". In this case, the m in this construc-
tion might be alternatively explained as that of instru-
ment, signifying originally "fill (one's hand) with".
62 E.g. Urk. IV, 686, 13.
63 Urk. IV, 660, 8.
zAs 137 (2010) R. N yord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 37
to the one found in m. A divergent, but
closely related understanding would be to see in
the m here also a nuance of "taking power from"
the landmark, which would entail a slightly dif-
ferent take on the basic notion of outward
movement inherent in the preposition, again
being closer to elative than to partitive:
(31) n sbm=t(w) m "One shall not gain control
of your ba" (CT I, 196h [45])
The case with sbl, "laugh" is probably to be
seen as closely similar to that of mdw m, in that
the act does not involve the whole category de-
signated as the landmark, because only a certain
part is taken into consideration:
(32) sbt.n=f im=i m nn gd.n=i, "Then he
laughed at me, at these things I had said"
(Shipwrecked Sailor 149)
The idiom ini m is most likely to be explained
as a case of ellipsis, based again on the CON-
TAINER + PATH meaning of the preposition,
which gains a more abstract meaning, "Fetching
(help, advice or sim.) from someone" > "having
recourse to someone":
(33) iw sw m cq-ib inn=tw m bmm r srbt n=f, "A
trustworthy person is lacking, one must have
recourse to a stranger to have council with
him" (Man and ba 123-125, sim. 117)
A slightly different explanation is probably
behind the expression iri m, "act according to,,64.
Here, the use of the preposition appears to be
closer to the instrumental use as analyzed above
as an expression of a potential emerging from
the landmark, providing a slightly different use
of the image-schematic CONTAINER + PATH
structure of the preposition:
(34) ir swt (c. w.s.) m mrwt=f, "But his Person
a.p.h.) will act according to his will" (Sinuhe
AOS 36)
The expression bnm m, "join with" can be ex-
plained along the same lines as the verbs of
movement (rq, tim, bn) discussed above, since it
shares with them the distribution where the
M Cf. Alan H. Gardiner, The Inscription of Mes.
A Contribution to the Study of Egyptian Judicial Pro-
cedure, in: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Alter-
tumskunde Aegyptens 4/3, Leipzig 1905, 21 [107].
GOAL, in this case the entity with which one
unites, can be expressed both as direct object
and with the preposition m. The latter is gener-
ally used originally in its locative (CONTAINER)
sense as can be seen most clearly when the goal
is a bounded area:
(35) sbr=f r pt !Jnm m Un, "00. he (sc. the king)
ascended to the sky to unite with the sun
disk" (Sinuhe R 6-7)
Similarly when a person is admitted into a
group of other beings:
(36) !Jnm=k m smrw, "(come home to Egypt. 00)
that you may join the courtiers" (Sinuhe B
189)
A similar analysis can be applied when the
landmark is a noun in the singular, in which case
the trajector enters and joins the category of the
landmark:
(37) !Jnm.n sbm.ty m tp=f, "00. when the Double
Crown has joined with his (Sc. the king's)
head" (pKahun LV.l, Recto 3, 1)65
Here, the notion that the crown becomes one
with the head is expressed as the crown entering
the category of - or less abstractly, the spatial
area occupied by - the head, which can explain
the use of the locative sense. Most problematic
to this analysis are the cases with both direct
object and the preposition m, where the role of
trajector and landmark are apparently reversed
compared to the examples cited so far:
(38) !Jnm=sn tw m "May they (sc. the gods)
provide you (Sc. the king) with their gifts"
(Sinuhe B 211)
Here it hardly makes sense to say that the
king is incorporated into the category of gifts.
As Gulyas has recently argued, however, we are
probably dealing here with a different, and
essentially non-idiomatic, sense of the verb
which may refer prototypically to "touching" or
"embracing" someone or something
66
. In this
65 Mark Collier and Stephen Quirke, The ueL
Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literary, Legal, Mathematical
and Medical, Oxford 2004, British Archaeological Re-
ports International Series 1209, pI. 2, col. 2, I. 1.
66 Andras Gulyas, Die Bedeutung des Verbs !Jnm
in Ritualinschriften, in: Studien zur Altagyptischen
Kultur 32 (2004), 159-169.
38 R. Ny0 r d: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
a: UNITS OF TIME ARE
CONTAINERS
b: EVENTS ARE OBJECTS
c: CATEGORIES ARE
CONTAINERS
d: STATES ARE CONTAINERS
e: + PATH
f: End-point focus
g: MATERIALS ARE
CONTAINERS
h: INSTRUMENTS ARE
CONTAINERS FOR
POTENTIALS
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
m of part '.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
c
m of predication
m of time
b
m of state
a
CONTAINER
(1)-(4) +
(25), (27)
e
CONTAINER
+PATH
h
(14)-(15)
c
m ofinstrument
m of separation
Idiomatic uses m of exemption m of kind
Fig. 1. Radial structure of the preposition m.
case, passages such as (38) above would be
examples of the simple instrumental use of the
preposition, i.e. "touching someone with some-
thing" > "providing someone with something",
the notion of physical contact being the key to
understanding the development into the mean-
ing "unite", which requires a different use of the
67
preposltlon .
1.4 Overview (Fig. 1)
The central relationship denoted by the
preposition m was suggested to be that of CON-
TAINMENT, accounting for the usages exempli-
fied in exx. 1-4 above and also seen to be the
basis of exx. 25 and 27. This basic static mean-
ing of the preposition gives rise to a number of
further usages via the metaphorical projections
UNITS OF TIME ARE CONTAINERS (exx. 5-7),
67 Gulyas, in: Studien zur Altagyptischen Kultur 32
(2004), 169 refers to this as using the verb "in einem
ubertragenen Sinne".
CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS (12-13) and
STATES ARE CONTAINERS (8-11). Occasionally,
the preposition acquires a more grammaticalized
function via the metaphor EVENTS ARE OBJECTS
(6-7 and 11).
The other main function of the preposition
(the lower half of Fig. 1) is derived from its basic
meaning by the addition of a PATH schema, de-
noting a movement out of the CONTAINER.
Again, this combination of image schemata can
be understood literally (exx. 14-15) or it can be
projected metaphorically. One of the metaphors
was also found in the static part of the category,
namely CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS (16-17),
which, when combined with the dynamic mean-
ing, gives rise to the partitive and elative uses of
the preposition. These important uses can be
further specified by the process of e n d ~ p o i n t
focus (18) or by the additional metaphor MATE-
RIALS ARE CONTAINERS (19-20), as well as a
number of more specific extensions giving rise
to idiomatic expressions (28-38). A separate
development is apparently based on a metaphor
like INSTRUMENTS ARE CONTAINERS FOR PO-
zAs 137 (2010) R. N yo rd: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 39
TENTIALS, which gives rise to the instrumental
use of the preposition (21-24).
2. The preposition r
68
2.1 Spatial use
In many ways, the preposition r forms a
complementary category to that of m, denoting
basically dynamic directionality. As with the
preposition just discussed, the most likely candi-
date for a central meaning of the category signi-
fied by r is the basic spatial sense of the preposi-
tion, in this case "to" or "towards,,69. In image-
schematic terms, this corresponds to the PATH
schema
70
:
tr
1m
A literal PATH structure is found in the usage
that Gardiner terms "ofplace", where, with verbs
of movement, the preposition marks the land-
mark as the goal of the movement undertaken
by the trajector:
(39) n{n} pr.n=k r mj=k rr, "You cannot come
up to see the sun" (Man and Ba 59-60)
(40) hjy IJty sj nut IJn
r
sj-nb-niwt r pr-M5, "... that
Hety's son Nakht and Sanebnut go down to
Perha'a" (Heqanakht 1, 3)
In such examples, there is focus both on the
PATH itself and on the GOAL forming the end-
point of the movement. With other verbs, the
meaning of the preposition is sometimes trans-
formed by means of end-point focus so that it
acquires the meaning of "at" or "attached to,,71:
(41) rdi.t(i) n s r !J!J=f, "(an amulet ...) placed for a
man at his neck" (CT II, 46c [83])
68 The most complete treatment is still Gunther
Roeder, Die Praeposition r in der Entwicklung der
aegyptische Sprache, Berlin 1904.
69 Thus also GEG 168, "Original signification ap-
parently 'to', 'towards"'. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 85
instead sees the abstract meaning "with respect to" as
the basic one.
70 Johnson, The Body in the Mind, 113-117.
71 For the relationship between this use and the
locative use of m, ef. H. W. Fairman and Bernhard
Grdseloff, Texts of Batshepsut and Sethos I inside
Speos Artemidos, in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
33 (1947), 26 n. 3.
(42) ir=tw n=k mrlJrt r rd n nir rj nb jbgw, " ... that a
tomb was constructed for you at the terrace
of the Great God, the Lord of Abydos" (Urk.
IV, 45, 16-17)
Here, the preposition focuses on the move-
ment as having been completed, i.e. the amulet
has been moved to the neck and attached there,
while the movement in (42) is less literal, but
still clearly envisaged. Correspondingly, other
verbs, especially such as do not denote literal
movement, instead use the preposition with
path-focus so that the landmark comes to indi-
cate a direction rather than a literal GOAL. In
such cases, the preposition can be rendered as
"directed towards":
(43) gmlJ=k r ntt "You should look at
what is front ofyou" (ptahhotep P 6, 11)
The context of this example shows that it
does not refer to looking at anything in particu-
lar, but instead instructs the guest to direct his
gaze forwards rather than making his host un-
comfortable by staring at the latter. Similarly
also with the verb ejd, "speak", where the lack of
both end-point focus and the dative nuance that
could have been achieved by using the preposi-
tion n appears to result in a construal best suited
where the speaker is of higher rank than the
72
person spoken to :
(44) ir r gdt nb=k r=k, "Act according to what your
lord says to you" (ptahhotep P 19,3)
Most often, however, the "direction" denoted
by the preposition with such verbs is understood
differently, namely as introducing the entity
spoken if, via the metaphors DISCOURSE SPACE
IS PHYSICAL SPACE, and more specifically DIS-
COURSE ELEMENTS ARE ENTITIES
73
:
72 Hanna J en ni, 'Sagen zu' im Agyptischen, in: Lin-
gua Aegyptia 10 (2002), 241 suggests that the preposi-
tion after cjd expresses "Sprechen ohne Aufnahmebe-
reitschaft oder ohne Zuh6ren des Adressaten". In
example (44) it is certainly expected that the message is
heard and received, so that here the point may be that
no answer is expected. More generally, Jenni character-
izes cjd r as expressing an "Unechte Komrnunikations-
situation", in: Lingua Aegyptia 10 (2002), 259, which
seems to cover usages like the one in (44) as well.
73 Cf. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous
Things, 517-518.
40 R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
(45) #.in=k r=s, "Then you should say con-
cerning it (sc. the medical case described): ... "
(pEbers 108, 11 [873])
This usage is also the likely basis of the ety-
mological connection between the preposition r
and the particle ir, "as for" > "if'.
Another shade of meaning of the "directional"
understanding of the path focus is found with
various verbs where the preposition acquires a
hostile sense (Gardiner's "r of opposition,,7):
(46) k5 r nn n b"Jstyw, "Then we will fight
against these foreigners" (Urk. N, 655, 3)
(47) m 3d ib=k r=f, ''Your interior must not be
aggressive towards him" (ptahhotep P 6, 1)
(48) nn r=i, "There were no arrears against
me" (Urk. VII, 15, 20)
Again in these cases, the preposition marks
the landmark as the direction in which the action
is intended without putting stress on it as being
the actual GOAL. In example (46) it is likely that
a literal movement is involved, as it may con-
ceivably, but not necessarily, be in (47) as well.
In example (48), however, we are unequivocally
dealing with a metaphorical understanding of
directionality along the lines of SOCIAL RELA-
TIONS ARE PHYSICAL RELATIONS. In common
between the actions, emotions and legal claims
exemplified is that they are all conceptualized as
being directed against a particular person or
group of persons, corresponding to the basic
PATH structure.
Since the central meaning of the preposition r
denotes the PATH travelled when an object
moves from one place to another, we also find
another kind of path focus, which centers on the
distance between the SOURCE and the GOAL rather
than the direction ("r of separation,,7). In Eng-
lish, this seems to entail a completely opposite
meaning, as the preposition basically moves
from meaning "to" to meaning "from,,76, but in
74 GEG 163,9.
75 GEG 163,8.
76 As also pointed out (with reference to translation
into German) by Dedef Franke, Das Entfernen eines
Sprachtabus: Nochmals zur Konstruktion w5j r, in:
Gattinger Miszellen 165 (1998), 52, who argues that this
is the origin of the two apparent meanings of the word
w3i, "fall (into a bad state)" and "be far away (from)".
The debate of which that paper forms part does not
image-schematic terms it is only a small trans-
formation of the basic PATH schema:
(49) nn nb ist p3 W5 r=f, "No one was
with him (Sc. the king), as his army was far
away from him" (Urk. N, 1307, 16-17)
(50) Wb5W n=f ntt m ib m r rml nbt, " ... one who
opens up for himself what is in the interior,
even that which is hidden from all people"
(Stela of Amun-wosre, 1. 9")
Note that even though we must translate the
preposition with "from" in such cases, they still
mean something different from similar (though
much rarer) uses with m, which, as always, entail
a notion of CONTAINMENT not present when r is
used
78
. In examples (49) and (SO), the meaning
inherent in the Egyptian preposition might be
glossed "in relation to" or "at distance from", as
the r here focuses on the interval between trajec-
tor and landmark without really envisaging a
movement of the former towards the latter. This
meaning is also a likely origin for the specific use
of the preposition in designations of areas or
volumes, where it corresponds to the English
"by". In this use, the focus is again on the actual
discrete distance without indicating a movement
or even in this case a destination:
challenge the central meaning of w3i r as "be far away
from", and will not be summarized here, but see
Joachim F. Quack, Ein altagyptisches Sprachtabu, in:
Lingua Aegyptia 3 (1993),59-79 and Leo Depuydt,
'Far toward': A common hieroglyphic idiom, in: Journal
of Ancient Civilizations 13 (1998), 39-46.
77 William K. Simpson, The Stela of Amun-Wosre,
Governor of Upper Egypt in the Reign of Ammenemes
lor II, in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51 (1965),
pI. 14,1.9.
78 Sometimes the use of the preposition m with w3i
has been taken as indication of a completely different
verb of movement (d. Silvia Wiebach-Koepke,
Phanomenologie der Bewegungsablaufe im Jenseits-
konzept der Unterweltsbucher Amduat und Pforten-
buch und der liturgischen 'Sonnenlitanei', (= Agypten
und Altes Testament 55), Wiesbaden 2003, vol. I, 53
with refs.). An example is found in CT I, 252e [60] (also
quoted in this connection by Depuydt, in: Journal of
Ancient Civilizations 13 (1998),41), "The day breaks so
that the god may be far from the tent of embalming (w3
m wryt)", where the preposition denotes not so much
the distance between the god and the tent (which would
have been expressed with r), as the god coming out of
the tent where he has dwelt and subsequendy moving
away from it.
zAs 137 (2010) R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 41
(51) h3t r3 n nbJnl] pn m inr 4 r 8 r 2,
"Bringing back (lit. descend ot) a lid for this
sarcophagus, a block of stone of 4 cubits by 8
cubits by 2 cubits" (Hammamat 192, 19)
In examples (49) and (51) the distance on
which the preposition focuses is quite concrete,
and slightly less so in (50). Even more abstract
uses of the same sense of the preposition occur
. h th 11 d" f . ,,79 H h
Wlt e so-ca e r 0 companson . ere, t e
physical distance is projected by means of the
metaphor DIFFERENCE IS DISTANCE to distinc-
tion in terms of particular attributes:
(52) nfr st r bt nbt, "It is better than anything"
(Shipwrecked Sailor 134)
In this usage, we may gloss the preposition as
"in relation to" or perhaps more precisely "at a
distance from", which is what gives the expres-
sion its comparative sense.
2.2 Temporal projection
A large group of usages of the preposition r is
based on the projection of the directionality
from the spatial into the temporal domain. The
basic metaphor here is TIME IS SPACE, also seen
to playa role in the extended meaning of m as
"m of time' above. Unlike the latter preposition
which, as was seen above, conceptualizes units
of time as CONTAINERS, the preposition r retains
its basic meaning of directionality, which when
transferred to the domain of time generally re-
sults in a future meaning by way of a more spe-
cific metaphor like TIME PASSING IS AN OB-
SERVER'S MOTION OVER A LANDSCAPE
8o
For this
reason, r is not generally used to neutrally desig-
nate the time during which something occurs
(which is expressed with m) but instead to point
the direction towards future times and the
events taking place there, which are conceptual-
ized as GOALS. Thus, it can refer to the comple-
tion of a task which has taken some time but is
finished at a particular time, where both PATH
and GOAL remain in focus:
79 GEG 163, 7.
80 Kovecses, Metaphor, 33f.
(53) sw r tr n b3wy, "They reached him only
at the time of evening" (Sinuhe R 20)
This sense of the preposition is frequent with
verbs (with the metaphor EVENTS ARE OBJECTS)
in the sgm=j, sgm.t=f and more rarely sgm.n=j,
where it gains the meaning "until":
(54) m brw r wsd=f tw, ''Your face must be
downcast until he addresses you" (ptahhotep
L
2
2, 15)
(55) I:m
r
prt ntsn m-s3 s3l]t=fr
n "... and they are to go out
following the ka-servant glorifying him until
they reach the northern corner of the temple"
(Siut I, 278)
(56) r bpr.n s3=s m nl]t r, " ... until her son has
become a strong-armed man" (Siut V, 29)
As with the purely spatial use, the preposition
can be used with end-point focus to include the
background notion of waiting for the right mo-
ment:
(57) smi.n=i lJtm lJtmw r nw wn st r nw, "I announ-
ced the sealing of the sealed rooms only at the
(right) moment and their opening only at the
(right) moment" (Urk. IV, 1106,9-10)
Again similarly to the literal use of the PATH
structure inherent in the preposition, its tempo-
ral sense can also have path focus, which in this
case comes to focus on the distance between the
trajector and landmark:
(58) ir.in slJty pn r hrw 10 spr n nmty-nlJt pn,
"This peasant spent a period amounting to
10 days applying to this Nemti-nakht" (pea-
sant Bl 62-63)
A comparison with the similar expression in
(19) above illustrates the different meanings of
the prepositions. In such expressions, m is used
to describe what the designated period consists
of in rather neutral terms, whereas r stresses the
interval from the beginning to the end of the
period, thereby emphasizing its length.
Another main usage of the preposition, the "r
ofpurpose or futuriry' ,81, is also derived by abstrac-
tion from the basic PATH schema via a couple of
central metaphors. Depending on the landmark,
the very general ontological metaphor TIME IS
SPACE is further specified by means of other
81 GEG 163,4.
42 R. N yord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
metaphors. Thus, by adding the metaphor CATE-
GORIES ARE DESTINATIONS (closely related to
CATEGORIES ARE CONTAINERS discussed above),
the GOAL of the schema becomes a category into
which the landmark is on its way, thereby ex-
pressing a future state:
(59) iw=fr smr, "He will be a courtier" (Sinuhe B
280)
Instead of categories, verbs can also be used
in this construction via the metaphor EVENTS
ARE OBJECTS which allows the designation of an
action to serve as the temporal destination:
(60) mk wi r nlJm '5=k, "Look, I am going to take
your donkey" (peasant B1, 42)
Again, this construction can have an end-
point focus parallel to the one found with literal
uses in exx. (41)-(42), especially when used to-
gether with verbs:
(61) rdit Ifm=f di.t(w)=i r smsw n IJIfJ, "His Person
caused me to be appointed (lit. placed at)
follower of the ruler" (Sebekkhu 14)
Closely related are two further metaphors
that give rise to related usages of the preposi-
tion. The first is the metaphor PURPOSES ARE
DESTINATIONS
82
, which transfers the directed-
ness inherent in the preposition into a domain
which is not only temporal but modal as well:
(62) iw pr-!Jcj r m m-!Jmt b5kw=j, "What is the
treasury (good) for without its taxes?" (Ipuwer
3, 12)
(63) mk rdi.n=i iwt Ibw Iftpi r=fi!J di=k n=j, "Look,
that is what I sent the sandal-maker Hotpe
for, so you are to give (it) to him" (pBerlin
10014 =Sethe, Lesestiicke, 97,12-13)
(64) 'If'.n sm.kwl r smit st, "I went to report it"
(Shipwrecked Sailor 157)
A further development along these lines re-
tains the basically directional meaning as a way
of expressing purpose, but it also carries a nu-
ance of extent and may be rendered "to the full
extent" or simply (as conventionally) "according
as":
82 Cf. Johnson, The Body in the Mind, 116f.
(65) il m ~ F f g t = f r mrr=j, "(a bird of prey) who takes
from
B
what he sees as much as he wishes"
(Urk. IV, 617, 9)
The second related metaphor used in this
connection is CONSEQUENCES ARE DESTINA-
TIONS, where the main focus of the target do-
main becomes causal rather than temporal or
modal, though in practice the distinction is often
not completely clear-cut:
(66) wt mnt nbt st
J
nbt nlr nlrt r nrjm=f Ifr 'wy,
"Bandage every wound and every stroke of a
god or goddess, so that (or: in order that)
he becomes well immediately" (pEbers 46,
21-22 =Eb [244])
2.3 Overview (Fig. 2)
The central PATH schema, extended meta-
phorically or specified by path or end-point
focus, accounts for all the members of the cate-
gory denoted by the preposition r. Thus the
basic use of the schema (exx. 39-40) leads to
the static usage with end-point focus (41-42)
and to various directional meanings (including
the "r of opposition") with path focus (43-48).
The latter process is also at work with extended
usages focusing on the notion of distance lead-
ing to the literal use termed the "r of separation"
(49-51) and the metaphorical projection of this
use in the "r of comparison" (52). The second
main group of usages results from the meta-
phorical projection of the spatial PATH schema
into the domain of TIME (53ff.), including the
grammaticalized use of the preposition with
verbs (54-56 and 60) and, via CATEGORIES ARE
DESTINATIONS, the "r of futurity" (59). As with
the literal use, special usages result from the
processes of end-point focus (57 and 61) and
path focus (58). Further metaphorical projec-
tions, related to the TIME IS SPACE metaphor,
account for the last two subgroups of examples.
Both of these focus on the metaphorical use of
the DESTINATION or GOAL of the PATH schema.
With the metaphors PURPOSES ARE DESTINA-
83 Most probably the partitive use of the preposition
m rather than an idiomatic expression *111 m, cf.
Depuydt, in: Lingua Aegyptia 9 (2001),95.
zAs 137 (2010) R. Ny0 r d: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions 43
a: End-point focus
b: Path focus
c: DISCOURSE ELEMENTS
ARE ENTITIES
d: SOCIAL RELATIONS ARE
PHYSICAL RELATIONS
e: TIME IS SPACE
f: EVENTS ARE OBJECTS
g: CATEGORIES ARE
DESTINATIONS
h: PURPOSES
(CONSEQUENCES) ARE
DESTINATIONS
f
rofpurpose
roftime
r of futurity
PATH
(39)-(40)
a
Static usage
r of comparison
r of separation
Directional usage
r of opposition
Fig. 2. Radial structure of the preposition r.
TIONS and CONSEQUENCES ARE DESTINATIONS,
the preposition comes to signify events which
are not only subsequent in TIME, but which are
further marked as either modal PURPOSES or
causal CONSEQUENCES (62-66).
3. Conclusion
The suggested analysis of the two Middle
Egyptian prepositions rand m has shown that it
is possible to relate the different meanings of the
prepositions in a radial structure with a cogni-
tively salient prototype and a number of ex-
tended meanings arising from a process of
chaining. The advantages of such an approach
to Egyptian categories are threefold.
First, the suggested radial structure improves
our understanding of the category by suggesting
central and less central members as well as inter-
connections between members of the category.
In some cases, this can improve our understand-
ing of individual expressions, since their mean-
ing is motivated with reference to more basic or
central meanings of the preposition, rather than
simply being listed as separate possible uses of
the preposition.
Secondly, the cognitive linguistic approach to
categories has important pedagogical implica-
tions. It is much easier for the language learner
to acquire a basic, prototypical meaning of a
preposition along with various motivated exten-
sions than to learn a list of 10-15 different (and
more or less unrelated) meanings by rote memo-
. . 84
nzatlOn .
Thirdly, the principles behind the suggested
extensions of the categories reveal important
84 See further John R. Taylor, Some pedagogical
implications of cognitive linguistics, in: R. A. Geiger
and B. Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Conceptualization and
Mental Processing in Language (= Cognitive Linguistic
Research 3), Berlin and New York 1993, 201-223 (a
revised version of which can be found in S. de Knop
and T. de Rycker [eds.], Cognitive Approaches to
Pedagogical Grammar. A Volume in Honour of Rene
Dirven [= Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 9],
Berlin and New York 2008,37-65) and several of the
contributions in M. Achard and S. Niemeier (eds.),
Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition,
and Foreign Language Teaching (= Studies on Lan-
guage Acquisition 18), Berlin and New York 2004,
especially A. Tyler and V. Evans, Applying Cognitive
Linguistics to Pedagogical Grammar: The Case of Over,
257-280, and S. de Knop and T. de Rycker (eds.),
Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar.
44 R. Nyord: Radial Structure of Middle Egyptian Prepositions zAs 137 (2010)
facets of ancient Egyptian thought, not least
when making reference to ontological meta-
phors. Some of the metaphors are exceedingly
widespread and probably near universal and thus
it comes as no surprise to fmd them as structur-
ing principles of Middle Egyptian categories.
Even so, their specific use offers insight into the
ancient Egyptian conceptualizations of very
central domains like time and space. This is the
case e.g. with the very general metaphors TIME IS
SPACE and EVENTS ARE OBJECTS. Other meta-
phors may be less widespread cross-linguisti-
cally, but can be documented elsewhere in an-
cient Egyptian culture as well, and in such cases
the fact that they are used to extend the highly
frequent prepositions examined here add further
to our understanding of the metaphors in ques-
tion. An example of this group of ontological
metaphors would be SOCIAL RELATIONS ARE
PHYSICAL RELATIONS
85
Finally, some of the
metaphors are not known from elsewhere and
have been introduced ad hoc as suggested ways of
accounting for well-documented extensions of
the categories. These metaphors are the most
controversial, but also potentially the most in-
teresting to the extent that they are accepted.
This is the case with such a metaphor as IN-
STRUMENTS ARE CONTAINERS FOR POTENTIALS,
for which I cannot readily cite examples outside
the categories under discussion here, but which
seems nonetheless to be necessary in one form
or another to link the locative uses of the prepo-
sition m with the instrumental ones
86

85 Compare e.g. the designation of enemies as bftyw,

lit. "those who are opposite", a nisbe of the spatial
preposition bft.
86 But ef. n. 36 above for an alternative suggestion.
Thus, a cognitive linguistic approach can of-
fer advantages on the lexicographical, the peda-
gogical as well as the conceptual level. This
study has further exemplified that the theoretical
background of cognitive linguistics is an impor-
tant tool to study ancient Egyptian language, in
addition to the well-known advances based on
this approach in the study of the ancient Egyp-
87
tlan Wrlt1ng system.
Summary
Prepositions are traditionally treated in dictiona-
ries and grammars by giving a list of usages, often
corresponding more or less to the way the preposi-
tion is translated in the language of the modern
work. This paper suggests an alternative way of
approaching prepositions, derived from cognitive
linguistics where prepositions are regarded as cate-
gories centered on a salient prototype from which
various peripheral members of the category are de-
rived. This perspective has the advantage of pre-
senting the meaning of each preposition as a unified
category with a specific central meaning and various
extensions, instead of merely listing a number of un-
related senses. It is argued that Middle Egyptian
prepositions can fruitfully be studied in this frame-
work, and the method is exemplified by examining
the conceptual structure of the two frequent preposi-
tions m and r.
Keywords
r - m - Cognitive Linguistics - Middle Egyptian -
Prepositions
87 Cf. n. 2 above.