Pre-Late Egyptian Reconstruction/The Perfect Active Participle

In Egyptological studies the termed Perfect Active Participle, which apparently mirrored an identical internal frame as most other Afroasiatic languages (emitting a sort of adjectival dimension to the verb) is but a rather thorny issue among scholars. The main form of the perfect active participle is generally reconstructed with the pattern CaCiC. In addition, if the CaCiC form ever truly existed (as a templatic form) it would have collapsed alongside other forms at an early period and all the forms would have been indistinguishable from one another presumably at a point in Egyptian history when not only the vowels of unstressed syllables were no longer distinguishable in speech but also when a relocation of stress due to an augmented affix (or word) caused syncopation of the medial vowel. So, for example:

nāfir + af = nǎfraf ...and... nāfar + af = nǎfraf

To add insult to injury, the category of Egyptian adjectives has come into question on numerous occasions by scholars as a grammatical entity within all the phases of the language. Semantically and pragmatically there is also no obvious fine line between an adjective, a noun or a verb (sometimes even an adverb)- noticeably so in the hieroglyphics where attributive roots can most likely be found (in what appears to be an unaltered fashion) in all the aforementioned grammatical categories. Other than a remnant pattern [or two] specific to the defined attributive root, Coptic does not appear to answer many of the unanswered questions of the Egyptian adjective. And any information regarding the adjective is fairly scarce, un-unified and/or speculative leaving enthusiasts and learners to come to our own conclusions. With this being said, I am going to identify some unmentioned developments, with respect to the adjective's templatic patterns and usage, that I noticed while piecing together any information I could find on the adjective which at the least can give me some closure to the subject which I myself have been thrown into circles while trying to understand the ambiguity of the Egyptian adjective. Some of these observations are listed below:

• Just about any root with a logical underlining descriptive element can function as an attributive modifier, this undoubtedly is the ultimate outcome and intended use of the idea of the adjective utilizing natural language progression into Coptic ... but there does appear to be some limitations in Old and Middle Egyptian where statives and other constructions (i.e., passive formations) were used for the more intricate and highly formal expression. So using comparative linguistics within the Egyptian language as a whole (as well as diving the language between the first phase which is Old/Middle Egyptian and the second phase which is Demotic/Coptic), semantics and pragmatics tell us the adjective went through simplification. However, the vocalic inflections of the adjective as shown in Coptic (including Cuneiform and Greek) relate a rather disconnected signal in relation to a unified pattern and this is while comparing the inflectional forms against the categories of the infinitive or the nisbe, which for example, the pair has unification albeit with a few irregularities, on the other hand an identifiable adjectival category is entirely constructed of irregularities. The only other grammatical and inflectional category composed of irregularities is the patterns of the nominal. One logical resolution here would be that in Coptic, all roots stemming from the adjectival attribute somehow merged into the category of nouns and was treated as such- scholars have already come to this conclusion. The question arises as to why was there more than one pattern given to the adjective if in comparison the infinitive had the overall CaC(a)C pattern? ...

• Does Coptic eta < Ⲏ > give us some answers? Disregarding the numerous patterns of the Coptic nominal, < Ⲏ > is majorly regularly used in the Qualitative of 2-radical roots, the plural and when re-situating a historical final /-u/ better analyzed as a /w ~ j/ affix in a word (which is quite possibly also used for one of the patterns of the adjective in Coptic). With this being said, if we saw the phrase nfr ḥr (good of face; fair of face) in the hieroglyphics, we are going to assume the vowels inside are nafar ḥar, same is said for this sentence using the attributive construction: sḫr pn bajan (this bad plan). And the Coptic versions with < Ⲏ > stem from a roots ending in /w/ or /j/ (or some kind of coarticulation) categorizing these words as a separate hieroglyphic abstract marked sub-class which are then lexicalized in Coptic consisting of adjectival and nominal tendencies. J. Vergote does unintentionally hint on this hypothesis in his essay but since many of his research was of the pluralic prototype-pattern for the modern day plural approach, the adjectival theories are more-or-less overlooked. This theory does unearth a problem- was there a divide with a hieroglyphic root form, i.e., CVCVC+aw, where in one direction it turned into CVCVC(e) / CVCVC / CVCVCaw [popular with abstract verbs turned into a nominal] and in another it turned into CuCVC / eCjuC(VC) [popular with abstract verbs that turned into some sort of (attributive-)noun]? Or was the difference based upon some kind of sound change? Or a mixture of the two? This kind of morphological/inflectional division also existed with the plural, as shown in Coptic with the broken plural, and it also existed with limitations in the Egyptian nisba - CVCVCaj ~ CVCVCi ~ CVCCe / CVCeC. Technically speaking, an original /-aw/ abstract marker, may have gone through even more changes then previously believed taking all the above into account.
  

Below are the forms of the Perfect Active Participle:

Templatic Class II: Form 1

The following paradigm equates to Osing and Schenkel's: Subjekts-Nominalisierungen: Nominalbildungsklasse II 1: sādim/sǎdm-t.

Form 1: AaBiC (masc)

Root Class	Formula	Example	Notes
2-lit.	AǎB
2ae-gem.	AǎB	wǎn - someone	ⲞⲨⲞⲚSB, ⲞⲨⲀⲚAA2F - someone
3-lit.	AāBiC	wāɜid - green; fresh
3ae-inf.	AāBij	māsij - who was born	ⲘOⲤⲈS. Copt, ⲘOⲤⲒB. Copt -(qual.) birth
3ae-gem.
4-lit.	AǎBCiD	dǎldil - drop, drip, leak
4ae-inf.	AǎBCij	zǎḫnij - fellow; pair

Form 1: AaBCat (fem)

Root Class	Formula	Example	Notes
2-lit.	AāBat	mānat - root	NOYNE - root
2ae-gem.	AāBat	dābat - brick
3-lit.	AǎBCatLEg AaBǐCatOEg-MEg	nǎfratLEg - the good/beautiful one nǎfiratOEg-MEg - the good/beautiful one bǎjnat - bad (fem)	ⲚⲞϤⲢⲈS, ⲚⲞϤⲢⲒB, ⲚⲀϤⲢⲈAA2 - good, profitable ⲂⲞⲞⲚⲈSA, ⲂⲞⲚⲒB, ⲂⲰⲚⲈO, ⲂⲀⲀⲚⲈSf, ⲂⲀⲚⲒF
3ae-inf.	AǎBjat	gǎbjat - weak, bad
4-lit.	AaBCīDat	daldīlat - drop, drip, leak

Templatic Class II: Form 2

There appeared to be variant perfect active participle vocalizations.

There are two major explanations for this type of participle vocalization:

• One explanation for the following irregularities may have to do with an i-Type Modification (better termed as coarticulation) due to the proximity of specific consonants (i.e., d, š, k, q, m, ect); for example; mǐn - stable, should mechanically be mǎn but 2-rad roots containing unstressed /a/ are going to have an automatic schwa/reduced sound anyway.
  
• Another explanation is that the word may have been borrowed from another Afro-asiatic root consisiting of the ppattern CiCVC and was then used as an adjective as well as a noun in Egyptian. This appears to be the case for ϢⲒⲢⲈ and ⲚⲒϢϮ / ⲚⲈϢⲦⲈ.
  

Oftentimes, more than not, it appears all these forms had an adjectival dimension added to it's internal vocalic structure anyhow, which may have expressed an automatic original adjectival internal vocalic marker no matter how it is looked at.

Form 2: AiBaC (masc)

Root Class	Formula	Example	Notes
2-lit.	AǐB	mǐn - stable (binding)
2ae-gem.	AīBaB	šīrar - small	ϢⲒⲢⲈS.A.A2, ϢⲎⲢⲈS.
3-lit.	AīBaC	ꜥīfad - nail; pin
3ae-inf.	AīBaj	jījaj - has come mīsaj -

Note:
A shift of stress to the final syllable comprises Form 4 (Osing and Schenkel's Subjekts-Nominalisierungen: Nominalbildungsklasse II 4: sidǎm/sidāmat)

(3-lit.) pitǎḥ - creator

(4-lit.) jinbǎɜ - mute (person)

Note: An observation to made here [with all of the shifts of stress of the participles] is that this shift may have been:

• due to the verb originally containing |-aw| or |-uw| where the ending was eventually dropped
  
• the original verb had an adjectival element associated with its meaning, where the shift occurred due to additions pre/su-fixed to the word which were later dropped
  
• there was some sort of phonological priority including but not limited to vocalic metathesis
  

Form 2: AiBCat (fem)

Root Class	Formula	Example	Notes
2-lit.	AǐBat
2ae-gem	AǐB(B)at	šǐrrat - small	ϢⲈⲈⲢⲈS., ϢⲀⲒⲢⲒB.
3-lit.	AǐBCat	qǐbɜat - chest
3ae-inf	AǐBjat	mǐsjat - woman who gave birth	ⲘⲎⲤⲈS. Copt, ⲘⲎⲤⲒB. Copt

Note:
A shift of stress (of the fem form) to the middle syllable comprises Form 4 (Osing and Schenkel's Subjekts-Nominalisierungen: Nominalbildungsklasse II 4: sidǎm/sidāmat)

(3-lit.) jiḥānat - cupped hand

Templatic Class II: Form 3

This form appears to be specialized for adjectives. In the list compiled by Osing, there appears to be only about 17 verbs following this pattern:

Form 3: AūBiC (masc)

Root Class	Formula	Example	Notes
2-lit.
2ae-gem	AūBiB	wūrij/r - big šūrij - son; child	OⲨⲎⲢ ϢⲎⲢⲈS., ϢⲎⲢⲒB., ϢⲎⲖⲒF.
3-lit.	AūBiC	mūɜiꜥ - true mūriš -red	ⲘⲈ, ⲘⲎ ⲘⲎⲢϢS.B.F., ⲘⲈⲢϢS.F.
3ae-inf	AūBij	mūtij - correct

Form 3: AūBCat (fem)

Root Class	Formula	Example	Notes
2-lit.	AūBat	zūfat - knife, sword	ⲤⲎϤⲈ
2ae-gem.	AūBat	wūrat - big šūrat - daughter; child kūmat - Egypt	OⲨⲎⲢⲈ ϢⲈⲈⲢⲈS.A.A2, ϢⲎⲎⲖⲒF. ⲔⲎⲘⲈ
3-lit.	AǔBCat	mǔɜꜥat - true tǔtaf - art pitcher?!	ⲘⲎⲈ ...
3ae-inf.	AǔBjat	mǔt(jat) - correct
4ae-inf.	AǔBCat	šǔpsat - sublime, perfect

Notes

This pattern can be broken down into:

• Dimension - wūri / wūrat - big, šūri / šūrat - small (also defined as 'young' which would then categorize this word as age as well as dimension)
  
• Age (similar to dimension)
  
• Value - šǔpsi / šǔpsat - sublime, precious (can so be considered a qualification)
  
• Colour - kūmi / kūmat - black, dūšir / dǔšrat - red, mūriš / mǔšrat - light red
  
• Qualification - mūɜiꜥ / mūɜꜥat - truth, mūtir / mǔtrat - correct, mūtij / mūtat - correct
  

The (Cu-Ca) pattern is partially discussed in this article, in reference to the place name Ugarita/Agorita ('krjt) and the pattern Ca-Cu, which I will translate in the below words from German to English:

...Regardless of whether it is the Albright mentioned south-Canaanic "Agôret(a)" or similar or there is an inner Egyptian reason, as Helck expresses "Egyptian felt the syllable sequence (Cu-Ca) as unpleasant", and for that very reason, according to the phrase which Helck uses "umvokalisiert" (changing of the vowel). In fact, in the nominal noun formations of the Egyptian language, the initial sequence of syllables (Ca-Cu) is best documented in different nominal classes:

Nominalbildungsklasse II 10: sadūm-w / sadǔm-w-t

Nominalbildungsklasse I 8: sadūm-w / sadǔmwut/sadǔmut

In contrast, the syllable result (Cu-Ca) plays a rather marginal role. It is occupied in a single deverbal nominal formation class, and, if one takes into account the three-syllable of (Ugarit), only in the feminine, and finally, when the syllable structure with initial open syllable is computed, only with two-radicular roots (at least not with three-radical roots):

Nominalbildungsklasse I 7: sǔdmaw / sudmāw-t, Pronounced vocal 'u' from masculine counterpart (in other words, in this class, in Coptic the feminine 'u' is not shown but implied by the masculine 'u')...

Problematic Vocalizations

• Some words appear to have shift of stress to the final syllable which makes it difficult to postulate the vowels in the first syllables- these forms obviously emit a sort of vocalic metathesis:
  

(2ae-gem. fem) ḥat(t)ǎt - armpit ; epaulette [ϪⲞ^S, ⲀϬⲞ^B].

• Some words exhibit not only a final stress but also a vowel quality of |ǔ| in the final syllable:
  

(3-lit. fem) t-wɜǔt ~ tǔɜat > taɜǔt - doorpost [ⲦOⲨⲀ^{S.A. Copt}, ⲐOⲨⲀⲒ,ⲐⲂⲀⲒ ^{B. Copt} - doorpost]
(3ae-inf. fem). p-r(w)ǔt ~ pǔrat > parǔt - seed [ⲠⲢⲰ^SA2F, ⲪⲢⲰ^B, ⲠⲢⲞⲨ^A - winter] [par-/pir-^PAA = fruit, corn] - it is assumed this word belongs to Form 3: sūdim/sǔdm-t.

• And some words exhibit an |ě| in the final stressed syllable:
  

(2-lit. fem) ḥamět - peg; stake
(2-lit. fem) m-rět - painful , bad ; disease [mr^Pyr.OEg - be ill] [ma(Ha)r^PAA - be ill; weak]

Interesting Notations

• Helmut Satzinger, in his essay, states: "Stem vocalization was completely reorganized [corresponding/comparisons to the Egyptian Stative Conjugation); cf. Arabic with CaCaC-, CaCiC- and CaCuC-: ’axaDtu, -ta, -ti, ’axaDa, ’axaDat etc., “I / you / he / she took”; ‘alimtu “I learned” etc.; Hasuna “he has become good” etc. The internal passive is probably another innovation: ’uxiDa “he has been taken”".
  

• Helmut Satzinger also says: "To be exact: we are dealing in Egyptian with two verbal nouns, an unmarked form CaCVC, and a marked form with gemination or reduplication and “pluralic” meaning, as we would say today".
  

• Through more intensive online research it appears the vocalization CaCiC was often-times amended to C(Ⲉ/Ⲁ)CCⲈ in Coptic which shows metathesis of the last syllable expressing the adjectival dimension of a root.. so it can be assumed the process of the adjectival marker went through the following progression:

CaCiC / CaCeC ~ CaCCi

Though it is interesting to note that not all roots went through this process (i.e., ⲚⲞⲨϤⲈ > nfr, ⲚOⲨⲦⲈⲘ > ndm, ect). At the current time the amended adjectival variation appears to be used sparingly and unpredictably mimicking the nisba construction.

• The CaCiC form did not directly surface in Coptic vocabulary, this has caused doubt as to its overall existence in Egyptian grammar and is still considered a speculative reconstruction. Maybe some research on the history on why Semitic languages utilized adjectives with the inflection CaCiC might answer this, as I read somewhere that the reason Hebrew had CaCiC had a lot to do with the final syllable being reduced when appendixed to a word, which at the least shows an overall construct form rather than an actual adjectival inflection but this reduced form was so predictable and specific to adjectives that it began to be termed an adjectival form.

In Hebrew, the qātîl pattern (The patterns are described in more or less their actual shape, rather than in an underlying or historical form, as in many grammars) shapes adjectives (## 9–11) as well as substantives. The pattern is used for professional terms, some passive in sense (## 12–14), some stative or active (## 15–17), although the distinctions should not be pressed. The words for certain agricultural activities also employ this pattern.... The Hebrew Qal stem has (1) qātal/yiqtōl, (2) qātēl/yiqtal, (3) qātōl/yiqtal, (4) qātal/yiqtal, (5) qātal/yēqtēl, and (6) qātēl/yiqtōl as the various stative vowel patterns. The Qal stem distinguishes stative verbs from fientive verbs by demarcating a distinct vowel pattern for the stative.

..... ...... .....