Sami 2009 .a Note on Pronominal Resumption in Earlier Egyptian Relative Clauses

8/16/2019 Sami 2009 .a Note on Pronominal Resumption in Earlier Egyptian Relative Clauses

1/9

gypt xploration Society

A NOTE ON PRONOMINAL RESUMPTION IN EARLIER EGYPTIAN RELATIVE CLAUSES

Author(s): SAMI ULJAS

Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology , Vol. 95 (2009), pp. 141-148Published by: Egypt Exploration Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40645749Accessed: 25-04-2016 14:26 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:26:10 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms


2/9

A NOTE ON PRONOMINAL RESUMPTION IN

EARLIER EGYPTIAN RELATIVE CLAUSES

By SAMI ULJAS

This article presents a reassessment of the evidence of pronominal resumption in Old and Middle

Egyptian relative clauses in which a transitive relative form appears with a similarly transitive event

complement. It is shown that, contrary to what has been argued before, there is a simple rule condi-

tioning the use of resumptive pronouns to express the object of the complement, provided the latter is

infinitival. However, in the case of finite complements, the resumption appears not to be rule governed

and it is suggested that such instances may represent the only true exception to the otherwise very

strict rules of resumption in Earlier Egyptian relative clauses.

Languages are never 'systematic' in the absolute sense of the word. Instead, they can

be seen as occupying a space somewhere between an idealised (and fictional) lingua

geometrica and total chaos. In concrete terms, grammatical systems, such as e.g. the

organisation of a given type of constructions that appear well regulated by rules,

are radial and often include a peripheral 'fringe' where these are not as meticulously

observed as in the 'core'. Such 'grey areas' may be almost completely overshadowed

by the regularity of the larger systems to which they belong, but they are nevertheless

a near-constant feature of the latter.

The purpose of the present paper is to discuss one particular area of Earlier (Old

and Middle) Egyptian grammar seemingly partly free from explicit rules: namely the

use of resumptive pronouns in one particular type of verbal relative clause involving

the so-called 'relative forms'. Although it will be shown that the irregularity here is

much more limited than has been assumed hitherto, there still exists a small subset of

constructions where the efforts of the grammarian seem thwarted, and which perhaps

represents a true example of grammatical irregularity at its most blatant.

Overall, the rules for pronominal resumption in Earlier Egyptian relative clause

constructions are well understood.1 The appearance or non-appearance of a resum-

ptive pronoun in 'real' (as opposed to 'virtual') relative clauses depends on the nature

of semantic coreference between participants in the main and relative clause, as well

as on considerations of locality. In brief, actors of participles and objects of relative

forms remain unexpressed if they are local to (roughly 'immediately following',

or 'governed by') the relative clause-marking expression - the relative verb or the

element nty in its different forms. If this is not the case, they are resumed in the form

of a resumptive pronoun. Yet, when a relative form of a transitive verb appears with

a similarly transitive finite or non-finite complement clause, these rules seem to be

somewhat irregularly observed, as in the locus classicus:

# My thanks are due to Matthias Müller for his comments on a draft version of this paper.

1 For example, M. A. Collier, 'The Relative Clause and the Verb in Middle Egyptian', JEA 77 (1991), 23-42.

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 95 (2009), 141-8

ISSN 0307-5133



3/9

42 SAM ULJA JEA95

(1) Sin. B 144-5: Sinuhe says concerning his victory over the Goliath of Retenu:

ktt.n-f irt st r~i iri.n^i st r-f

What he had planned to do to me, I did it to him.

Here the relative form kit.n-f 'what he had planned' has the transitive verb in 'to do'

as its infinitival object complement, whose own object is expressed as the resumptive

pronoun st. The appearance of the latter here conforms fully to the rules noted above:

st refers to the object of the complement infinitive rather than the relative form kit.n-f

and it is also non-local to the latter. However, sometimes the object of the complement

clause following the relative form is, contrary to expectation, not expressed, although

the syntactic and referential properties in the clausal complex seem identical to (1)

above. The examples below, the first of which has a finite complement, are the most

widely cited instances of this phenomenon:2

(2) Berlin 1204, 3-4: Senwosret III tells his reason for sending his envoy to Abydos:

iw wd.n hm-i di.t(w?)3 hnt-k r U-wr... r smnh bs-f stt m drm di.n-f int 0 hm-i m-hnt

U sty

My majesty has ordered that you be made to sail south to Abydos... to embellish his

(Osiris') secret image with the electrum, which he caused my majesty to bring back

from ti-sty.

(3) Urk. IV, 750.2: Thuthmosis III stresses his loyalty to Amun:

[n mh.n-i hr] wdt.n-f irt 0

I have not neglected what he has ordered to be done.

This variance has mostly been taken as not being governed by any explicit rule(s).

According to Gardiner, in instances where the 'direct objects of the relative form is

a dependent verb (s dm. f or infinitive)' whose object is identical with the antecedent,

a 'resumptive pronoun is sometimes used for the sake of clearness'.4 Yet, and as can

already be seen from the word 'sometimes' in the above quote, Gardiner noted that

the latter could also be absent. According to Collier, object resumptive pronouns

'beyond the local scope of agreement... tend to be overt',5 whereas Allen has argued

that 'there are no hard and fast rules that determine when Egyptian expresses the

coreferent [of the antecedent - SU] in a dependent clause and when it omits it'.6

However, these interpretations have been recently disputed by Landgráfová, who

maintains that the expression and omission of the resumptive pronoun is indeed

at least partly rule governed.7 According to her, resumption is obligatory if the

complement is a finite verb form; in case of infinitival complements, no resumptive

pronoun need appear, although this may happen occasionally. However, the first of

2 In what follows, the omitted/covert resumptive pronoun is indicated by bold text 0 in the transliteration.

3 It is unclear whether one should understand dit as an infinitive or a sdm=j di.tyw). However, the writing rdit

is more common in the first instance.

4 A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar (3rd rev. edn; Oxford, 1957), §385. The superscript s in 'direct object'

stands for 'semantic object'.

5 Collier, JEA 77, 39. However, noting the omission of the resumptive pronoun in the passage cited as example

(2) above, Collier suggests that this may be a lexical-semantic matter characteristic of causatives with rdi. Cf. also

T. F. Borghouts, 'Some Remarks on Relativization in Late Egyptian', GM 31 (1979), 15 for a similar proposal.

6 J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (Cambridge, 2000),

352.

7 R. Landgráfová, 'Resumptive Pronouns in Middle Egyptian: A Means of Avoiding Non-projective Con-

structions?', LingAeg 10 (2002), 269-82.



4/9

2OO9 A NOTE ON PRONOMINAL RESUMPTION 143

these arguments is clearly incorrect. Even if int in (2) above were to be analysed, pace

Landgráfová, as an infinitive (which is most questionable), the Coffin Texts provide

a number of examples like the following, where the complement is clearly a sdm-f

form, but there is no resumptive pronoun:8

(4) CT V, 66e-h: The deceased says to a malevolent spirit:

ii.n-i hr-k swi-i rrw-k nsns-i mdiwt-k hr nn n mrmr dd.n-k iry-k 0 r-i hr ist-i

I have come to you that I may break your pens and tear up your books because of this

double ill, which you said that you would do to me for the sake of my property.

In the following example, the form is an indisputable sdrn.n=f> but again the resumptive

pronoun is absent:

5) CT VII, 232m: The deceased says to gods:

iri.n-i gmt.n-i iri.n-tn 0

I have done what I found that you had done.

Nevertheless, Landgráfová's claim that resumption in the constructions discussed

is partly subject to rules is indeed correct, but the true state of affairs here is in

fact exactly the reverse from that suggested by her. It is actually in the domain of

infinitival complements of the relative form where resumption is completely regular

and follows a simple rule, whereas with the suffix-conjugation forms this does not

seem to be the case.

With the infinitive, the rule governing the use of resumptive pronouns is based,

unsurprisingly, on the referential links between the participants involved in the

situation described. However, the determining link is perhaps not quite what one

might have expected. Below are some further (seemingly)9 infinitival examples

without resumptive pronouns:10

(6) Urk. I, 59.15: Snedjemib boasts of the special recognition of his work:

sk hm-f hz-'f w{i) hr] kit nb wdt.n hm-f irt 0

His majesty used to praise me for every work that his majesty had ordered to be done.

(7) Urk. I, 195.5: Kagemni characterises his conduct in his majesty's service:

sk nht ib n hm-f r ht nb wdt.n hm-f irt 0

His majesty's mind was confident in respect of every work that his majesty had ordered

to be done.

(8) Urk. I, 283.12-13 A new section in a royal decree begins:

sk gr sr nb imy-st-r nb nfr-n irr-f ht hft mdt nt wd pn ssp r shw-hr m-ht nn wd.n hm{-i)

irt 0

Now, any official or functionary who does not carry out matters according to the words

of this decree, accepted in the Hall of Horus and in relation to these things which my

majesty has ordered to be done...

8 For further examples, see below. For the pragmatics of sentences such as this, see S. Uljas, The Modal System

of Earlier Egyptian Complement Clauses: A Study in Pragmatics in a Dead Language (PdÄ 26; Leiden, 2007),

61-6.

9 Here a note must be made of a problem pointed out by an anonymous referee. Unless the complement verb is

of a root-class other than ult. inf., it is well-nigh impossible to distinguish between the infinitive and the passive

written .t(i/w). However, the present hypothesis may provide some distinguishing criteria here; see n. 21 below.

10 In Berlin Leather Roll I, 5 one reads r shpr wd.n-firi 0, where in seemingly stands for irt ('to create what he

had ordered to be done').



5/9

44 SAM ULJA JEA95

9) CT I, 4O2d~4O3a: The deceased triumphs over his enemies:

ip-i sn n ndt swn mi wdt.n hpr-ds-f irt 0 r hftw-i

I allot them to be chattel slaves in accordance to what the Self-created ordered to be

done to my enemies.

(10) CT IV, 91a: Thoth says to Osiris:11

iw 'rdï'.n-i mrwt-k m iw nsrsr mi wdt.n rr irt n-k 0

I have set the love for you in the Island of the Flame, in accordance with what Ra

ordered to be done to you.

11) CT VII, 38g: The deceased is addressed:

iw.n-i iry(-i) n-k ht wrt wdt.n gb irt n-k 0

I have come so that I may prepare for you the great meal, which Geb ordered to be

prepared for you.

(12) Urk. I, 59.13-14: Snedjemib tells of his exalted status in the court:

sk w(i) spss.k(i) hr izzi r 'mit{y-ï) nb m] hr{y)-ssU n hm-f m im(y)-ib n hm-f m ht nb

mrrt hm-f irt 0

I was more valuable before Izezi than any peer of mine in the position of master of

secrets of his majesty and the confidant of his majesty over whatever matter his majesty

would desire to be carried out.

Further examples of infinitival complements, but with a resumptive pronoun, are:

(13) Urk. I, 82.4-6: Sabu describes himself in glowing terms:

spss hr nzw r bïk nb m hr(y)-sstt n kn nbt mrrt hm-f irt * s

One nobler before the king than any servant in (the position of) overseer of secrets of

every work, which his majesty wanted to accomplish.12

(14) Hatnub 17, 6: One of the epithets of Djehutynakht:

mrrw dhwty mi^f m hrt-hrw nt rr nb

One whom Thoth desires to see in the course of every day.

(15) CT VI, 331 o: In a prayer, a wish is uttered for the deceased:

iri-f hprw nb mry-f irt^f

May he make every transformation that he may desire to make.

(16) Ptahhotep 265-7: Ptahhotep gives advice on how to treat petitioners:

ir wnn-k m ssmy hr sdm-k mdw sprw

m gfn sw r skt ht-f m ktt.n-f dd n-f (sic) st

If you are a leader, be calm when you hear a petitioner speak.

Do not prevent him from purging his body from what he had planned to say to you

(lit. 'him').

11 irt n-k 0 is followed immediately by in dhwty, which looks as if it might introduce the agent of irt. However,

since the speaker is Thoth, translation of the passage as 'I have set the love for you at the Island of the Flame, as

Ra ordered to be done to you by Thoth' seems inappropriate. R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts,

I: Spells 1-354 (Warminster, 1973), 234, understood in dhwty as a vocative 'O Thoth', which, given that what

follows is a speech of Horus to Thoth, may be correct. Nevertheless, elsewhere in this spell the vocative is written

as i (e.g. CT IV, 88f: i dhwty 'O Thoth').

12 Exactly parallel in Urk. 1, 52.12-13. However, there has been some disagreement as to the correct rendering ot

the relative clause here. N. C. Strudwick, Texts from the Pyramid Age (WAW 16; Atlanta, 2005), 304 and 307, has

'which the king desires/desired to be done' for these two passages. For Sabu's text, J. Breasted, Ancient Records of

Egypt (Chicago, 1905), I, 133 has 'which his majesty desired should be done' but (p. 118) 'which his majesty desired

to do' for Ptahshepses. For the latter, E. Edel, 'Inschriften des Alten Reichs, II: Die Biographie des Kij-gmjnj

(Kagemni)', MIO 1 (1953), 213, has 'jede Sache, die (mir) Seine Majestät zu tun befohlen hatte' and P. Dormán,

'The Biographical Inscription of Ptahshepses from Saqqara: A Newly Identified Fragment', JEA 88 (2002), 102,

'that his majesty would desire to accomplish'. This latter rendering appears to be correct.



6/9


Looking at the data above, a clear difference emerges between the two groups of

constructions. In examples (6)-(i2) and (2)-(3), which show no resumptive pronoun,

the actors of the relative clauses (the individuals 'ordering' or 'desiring' something)

are not coreferential with (or 'the same as') the complement clause actors. Instead, in

all these instances the latter are generic and referentially opaque. However, in (13)-

(16) as well as in example (1), where resumptive pronouns do appear, the relative

clause actors are coreferential with the actor of the complement, and a resumptive

pronoun appears. On the basis of this correlation, it would seem that the following

rule holds: if the complement clause actor is referentially bound to, or controlled by,

the relative clause actor, the object of the complement is resumed as a pronoun; if

this is not the case, no pronoun occurs. However, the following example shows that

this rule is not yet quite general enough:

(17) CT IV, 97n: The deceased is welcomed to the realm beyond:

iw rdi.n-i mrwt-k m dwtt m-m ihw mi wdt.n n-i rr irt n~k st

I have set the love for you in the netherworld among the spirits, according as Ra ordered

me to do for you.

Here the actor of the relative clause is rr 'Ra', and although it is not coreferential

with the actor of the complement clause irt n-k st, a resumptive pronoun occurs

regardless. However, the relative clause actor is coreferential with the recipient of the

order, which appears in the governing clause in the dative n-i 'to me'. From this it

may be concluded that the rule conditioning the occurrence and non-occurrence of

resumption here should be formulated as follows: if the complement clause actor is

controlled by any of the participants of the relative clause, a resumptive pronoun is

used in the complement. This more generalised rule holds for all the examples above.

In addition, it is clear that the use of the resumptive pronoun here is not conditioned

by e.g. lexical matters, seeing that the same verbs occur with and without resumed

complement clause objects. Similarly, the position of the resumptive element does

not seem to be the determining factor either. For example, in (10) and (11), where no

resumptive pronouns occur, the datives n-k are strictly local to (follow immediately)

the infinitive. Precisely the same locality conditions pertain also to (16) and (17), but

here resumptive pronouns are used.13 What differentiates (10) and (11) from (16)

and (17), however, is the semantically unbound versus bound (or controlled versus

uncontrolled) character of the complement clause actor. Corroborative evidence for

this analysis comes also from instances with passive participles followed by infinitival

subject complement clauses. As can be seen from the following examples, the same

rules posited above also seem applicable here:

(18) PT Ó57d/M: The king receives his monthly and half-monthly offerings:

m wddt irt n=k 0 in it-k gb

Being what was ordered to be done to you by your father Geb.

(19) Urk. I, 282.15-17: The king overrules previous decrees:14

ir nf ddw hr hm(-i) wnt htm wdw nw nzw r smr r irt hi n kit nt nzw mfiw sdt kit nb wdt

irt 0 m smr pn...

13 This shows that the relative clause and its complement do not constitute a unit in terms of agreement.

14 Urk. I, 286.15 has similarly wdt irrt m smr pw 'what has been ordered to be done in this Upper Egypt', where

irrt is clearly an error for irt.



7/9

46 SAM ULJA JEA95

As for it being said to my majesty that royal decrees have been issued concerning

Upper Egypt, namely about performing tasks of royal work, carrying and digging and

whatever work ordered to be done in this Upper Egypt...

Accordingly, the choice between the use or non-use of a resumptive pronoun after

the infinitive is not free, but depends on the semantic relations within the clausal

complex. If the actor of the infinitival complement shares a semantic coreference

relation with a relative clause participant, a resumptive pronoun is used in the former.

This regularity gives rise to the expectation that the same might hold also when the

complement of the relative form is not an infinitive but a finite sdm-f or sdm.n=f

verb form.15 Yet this prediction is, strangely, not borne out by the evidence. In some

examples with the sdm-f, such as {zo)-{zz) below, the resumption seems to fall neatly

in line with that seen in infinitival complements:

(20) CT VI, 92p~93a: The deceased appeals to divine beings:16

hsf=tn pr sdb {r} dw m r n ntr nb ntrt nbt ddw rmt ntrw ihw mwtw iri-sn sw r-i

May you prevent evil opposition, which men, gods, spirits, and the dead say that they

will do to me, from issuing from the mouth(s) of every god and goddess.

(21) CT VI, 93d-e: The deceased expresses his faith in the protection by Atum:

nhm-f w{ï) m-r srt dwt ddw rmt ntrw ihw mwtw iri-sn sw r bi-i

He will save me from the evil slaughter, which men, gods, spirits, and the dead say that

they will do against my soul.

(22) P. Ebers, 1.9- 10: A medical incantation states of the god Thoth:

di- f ih n rhw-ht n swnw imw-ht-f r whr mrrw ntr srnh-f sw ink pw mrrw ntr srnh-fwi

He gives useful things for experts and doctors who are in his following, in order to

release (from illness) the one whom god wants to preserve alive. I am the one whom

god wants to preserve alive.

Here the actors of the complement are coreferential with the relative clause

actors, and a resumptive pronoun appears.17 In the following examples no such

interrelationship obtains, and, as might be expected, there is no resumptive pronoun

after the complement verb:

(23) PT 967c: Osiris is told of the king:

M: i.ir-f n-k nw wd.n gb i.iry n-k 0 M

N: try n-k N nw wd.n gb i.iry-f n-k 0

He/King N will do for you these things, which Geb ordered King M/him to do for you.

(24) Urk. IV, 1 298.9-14 The king is characterised:

iri-f tts-f r mrr-f nn hsf r=/ mi wdt.n it-f imn nb nswt ttwy iri n-f 0 si n ht-f mr-f imn-

htp hki-iwnw-ntr(y)

He sets his boundary as he pleases without opposition, according to what his father

Amun, lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, ordered his beloved bodily son Amenhotep

Heka-Yunu-Netjeru to do for him.

15 Besides (5) above, no further examples with the sdm.n-f seem to be forthcoming.

ddw clearly refers back to sdb here; the exceptional placing 01 the phrase m r n ntr nb ntrt nbt seems to have

been motivated by the length of the relative clause.

17 However, in H. Deines, H. Grapow, and W. Westendorf, Grundriss der Medizin der aler alten Ägypter, IV/i :

Übersetzung der Medizinischen Texte (Berlin, 1958), 308, the first relative clause of the last example above is

translated as ' von dem ein Gott will, daß er (der Arzt) ihn am Leben erhält', i.e. the actor of srnh=fis

not understood to be the preceding ntr.



8/9


A similar situation pertains to examples (2) and (5) above, with di.n-f int 0 hm-i

and gmt.n-i iri.n-tn 0 respectively. Also in passive participial examples with sdm-f

complements but otherwise comparable to the infinitival (18) and (19) above, the

same rules appear to be observed:

(25) BD 149, 19-20: The deceased says to the keepers of the mounds of the Field of Reeds:

swrb Ut-tn wddt iri-tn 0 pw in wsir n dt

Turify your mounds ' That is what you have been ordered to do by Osiris forever.

However, in example (4) above, showing dd.n-k iry-k 0 r=i, the actors of the relative

form and its complement clause are clearly identical, but no resumptive form occurs

regardless. The same holds also for the following very similar examples:

(26) CT IV, 385c-e: The deceased says to a malevolent being:

swt(-i) rr-k thth(-i) mdiwt-k

B3C: hr nn (n) mrmr dd.n-k iry-k 0 r N tn

BiC: hr nn (n) mrmr ddy-k iry-k 0 r-i

I will snap your reed-pen and crumple your books because of this double ill, which you

have said/say that you would do to this N/me.

(27) CT V, 324J: The deceased threatens a deity with decapitation:

hr nw dd.n-k iry-k 0 r-i

because of these things which you said that you would do to me.

(28) CT VI, 3i8d-g: A malevolent deity is threatened:

dd N pn rn-k pw rh.n-k m iw nsrsr n kìgbì 2 swi rr-k sd wdrty-k mm mdiwt-k hr nw

dd.n=k iry-k 0 r N pn

This N will say this your name, which he has come to know on he Island of the Flame,

to the two bull-vultures, who can snap your reed-pen, smash your ink-wells and tear

your books because of these things which you said that you would do to this N.

Conversely, in the following example, the actor of the first relative clause and that

of its complement are not the same, nor is the latter controlled in any other way, but

now a resumptive pronoun appears:18

(29) MMA 57.95, 8-9: Intef relates his outstanding performance in royal service:

ir grt ht nb wd.n hm-f iri(-i) n-fst iw iri.n(-i) st mi wdt.n hm-f irt 0

Now, as for anything that his majesty ordered that I should do for him, I did it according

to what his majesty had ordered to be done.

This last example is particularly noteworthy since the problematic construction is

followed immediately by a sentence containing a transitive relative form with an

infinitival complement irt whose object is unexpressed, in full accordance with the

rule set above for constructions of this type.

Various explanations could be proposed for this state of afïairs, none of which,

however, seems capable of accounting for all the evidence. From a comparison of

(20)^(21) and (2Ó)-(28), it seems that the appearance or non-appearance of resumptive

pronouns here is neither conditioned by referential links between the participants in the

clauses nor by lexical peculiarities. Instead, it could be suggested that considerations

of locality might have affected their use. However, it cannot be the case e.g. that

18 In addition, the same may hold also for example (22), if the interpretation mentioned in n. 17 is accepted.



9/9

48 SAM ULJA JEA95

resumptive pronouns were required (or, alternatively, omitted) if they were local to the

governing verb. In order to account for the difference in resumption between these two

sets of examples in particular, one could speculate that the resumptive pronoun might

have been elided if it came into contact with a one-consonantal suffix subject of the

governing verb but not when the latter was bi-consonantal. However, this hypothesis is

in turn disproved by example (22). Even excluding these instances, it might be proposed

that resumptive pronouns were used at least in cases where something - for example

a pronominal dative - intervened between it and the governing verb. This seems to be

suggested by (29) above, but example (24) and the M-variant in (23) show clearly that

this cannot be correct. It seems thus that, on basis of the available data, it is not possible

to define any particular rule conditioning the use or non-use of resumptive pronouns

expressive of objects of finite complements of relative forms. This does not, of course,

mean that there was no rule or rules involved, but merely that they cannot be observed

in the surviving evidence, which may indicate that they did not exist. Nevertheless,

a lack of rules for resumption in the case of the sdm-f, if real, may in fact have had a

reason.19 With finite verbs there is, of course, never any doubt as to what participant is

to be understood as the actor of the complement clause, nor of the referential relations

between it and the actor of the relative form. Yet the same does not necessarily hold

with the infinitive. In the case of a construction such as wdt.n-firt it is obvious, given

the nature of the relative verb, that the actor of the infinitive cannot be coreferential

with that of wd. However, a mrt.n hm=f irt or a kit.n hm-f irt could, in principle, be

understood as 'what his majesty desired/planned to accomplish' or as 'what his majesty

desired/planned to be accomplished'.20 It may be that the systematic manner in which

resumptive pronouns were used with the infinitive represents a device for actually

clarifying the exact participant (actor) roles in the construction - something that was

not needed with comparable finite complements.21

In sum, the use of resumptive pronouns in complement clauses of relative forms

is not, contrary to earlier beliefs, wholly lacking in principles, nor principled in a

manner suggested in earlier studies. Rather, with infinitival complements resumption

is governed by one simple empirically verifiable rule. However, in case of finite

complements, the rules, if any, are not similarly discernible, which may indicate that

these constructions represent a highly exceptional and perhaps unique gap in the

otherwise regular system of resumption in Earlier Egyptian relative clauses. If the

latter is indeed the case, this is a matter of some interest in itself. Communication

and randomness do not go well together, and 'free choices' in grammar are often

largely illusory. Nevertheless, successful communication does not require everything

in language to be fully systematic. On the contrary, occasional lapses in grammatical

organisation merely serve to underline its essentially human basis and origin.

19 The author wishes to extend his thanks to Friedrich Junge (personal communication) for providing the idea

for the following explanation.

20 Cf. here the diverging interpretations noted in n. 12 above.

21 Here may perhaps also be found a partial solution tor telling apart infinitival and .t{t/w) -passivised hnite

complements of ult. inf. roots written simply as (e.g.) irt.

hi d l d d f 5 6 6

Sami 2009 .a Note on Pronominal Resumption in Earlier Egyptian Relative Clauses

Documents