III. inf. Numerous. III. _w_, and III. _i_ were
unified early. Some very common verbs, "do,"
"give," "come," "bring" are irregular.
IV. inf. Partly derived from adjectival formations in
_y_, from nouns and infinitives:--e.g. _s.ip_,
inf. _sipt_; adj. _sipty_; verb (4 lit.),
_sipty_.
Many verbs with weak consonants--I_y_, I_w_, II. inf. (_m[w]t_), and
those with [Hebrew: alef]--are particularly difficult to trace
accurately, owing to defective writing.
It seems that all the above classes may be divided into two main
groups, according to the form of the infinitive:--with masculine
infinitive the strong triliteral type, and with feminine infinitive
the type of the III. inf. The former group includes all except III.
inf., IV. inf., and the causative of the biliterals, which belong to
the second group.
It is probable that the verb had a special form denoting condition, as
in Arabic. There was a causative form prefixing _s_, and traces of
forms resembling _Pi'el_ and _Niphal_ are observed. Some roots are
reduplicated wholly or in part with a frequentative meaning, and there
are traces of gemination of radicals.
_Pseudo-Participle._--In very early texts this is the past indicative,
but more commonly it is used in sentences such as, _gm-n-f wi
'h'.kwi_, "he found me I stood," i.e. "he found me standing." The
indicative use was soon given up and the pseudo-participle was
employed only as predicate, especially indicating a state; e.g. _ntr.t
sm.ti_, "the goddess goes"; _iw-k wd'.ti_, "thou art prosperous." The
endings were almost entirely lost in New Egyptian. For early times
they stand thus:--
Sing. 3. masc. _i_, late _w_. Dual _wii_. Pl. _w_.
fem. _ti_. _tiiw_ _ti_.
2. masc. _ti_ _tiwny_.
fem. _ti_
1. c. _kwi_. _wyn_.
The pseudo-participle seems, by its inflexion, to have been the
perfect of the original Semitic conjugation. The simplest form being
that of the 3rd person, it is best arranged like the corresponding
tense in Semitic grammars, beginning with that person. There is no
trace of the Semitic imperfect in Egyptian. The ordinary conjugation
is formed quite differently. The verbal stem is here followed by the
subject-suffix or substantive--_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdmw stn_,
"the king hears." It is varied by the addition of particles, &c., _n_,
_in_, _hr_, _tw_, thus:--
_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdm-w-f_, "he is heard" (_pl. sdm-ii-sn_, "they
are heard"); _sdm-tw-f_, "he is heard"; _sdm-n-f_, "he heard";
_sdm-n-tw-f_, "he was heard"; also, _sdm-in-f_, _sdm-hr-f_,
_sdm-k'-f_. Each form has special uses, generally difficult to
define, _sdm-f_ seems rather to be imperfect, _sdm-n-f_ perfect, and
generally to express the past. Later, _sdm-f_ is ordinarily expressed
by periphrases; but by the loss of _n_, _sdm-n-f_ became itself
_sdm-f_, which is the ordinary past in demotic. Coptic preserves
_sdm-f_ forms of many verbs in its causative (e.g. [Coptic: tanchof]
"cause him to live," from Egyptian _di.t.nh-f_), and, in its
periphrastic conjugation, the same forms of _wn_, "be," and _iry_,
"do." With _sdm-f_ (_sedmo-f_) was a more emphatic form (_esdomef_),
at any rate in the weak verbs.
The above, with the relative forms mentioned below, are supposed by
Erman to be derived from the participle, which is placed first for
emphasis: thus, _sdm.w stn_, "hearing is the king"; _sdm-f_, for
_sdm-fy_, "hearing he is." This Egyptian paraphrase of Semitic is
just like the Irish paraphrase of English, "It is hearing he is."
The _imperative_ shows no ending in the singular; in the plural it has
_y_, and later _w_; cf. Semitic imperative.
The _infinitive_ is of special importance on account of its being
preserved very fully in Coptic. It is generally of masculine form, but
feminine in III. inf. (as in Semitic), and in causatives of
biliterals.
There are relative forms of _sdm-f_ and _sdm-n-f_, respectively
_sdm.w-f_ (masc.), _sdm.t-n-f_ (fem.), &c. They are used when the
relative is the object of the relative sentence, or has any other
position than the subject. Thus _sdm.t-f_ may mean "she whom he
hears," "she who[se praises] he hears," "she [to] whom he hears
[someone speaking]," &c. There are close analogies between the
function of the relative particles in Egyptian and Semitic; and the
Berber languages possess a relative form of the verb.
_Participles_.--These are active and passive, perfect and imperfect,
in the old language, but all are replaced by periphrases in Coptic.
_Verbal Adjectives_.--There is a peculiar formation, _sdm.ty-fy_, "he
who shall hear," probably meaning originally "he is a hearer,"
_sdm.ty_ being an adjective in _y_ formed from a feminine (_t_) form
of the infinitive, which is occasionally found even in triliteral
verbs; the endings are: sing., masc. _ty-fy_, fem. _ty-sy_; pl., masc.
_ty-sn_, fem. _ty-st_. It is found only in Old Egyptian.
_Particles_.--There seems to be no special formation for adverbs, and
little use is made of adverbial expressions. Prepositions, simple and
compound, are numerous. Some of the commonest simple prepositions are
_n_ "for," _r_ "to," _m_ "in, from," _hr_ "upon." A few enclitic
conjunctions exist, but they are indefinite in meaning--_swt_ a vague
"but," _grt_ a vague "moreover," &c.
Coptic presents a remarkable contrast to Egyptian in the precision of
its periphrastic conjugation. There are two present tenses, an
imperfect, two perfects, a pluperfect, a present and a past
frequentative, and three futures besides future perfect; there are
also conjunctive and optative forms. The negatives of some of these
are expressed by special prefixes. The gradual growth of these new
forms can be traced through all the stages of Egyptian. Throughout the
history of the language we note an increasing tendency to periphrasis;
but there was no great advance towards _precision_ before demotic. In
demotic there are distinguishable a present tense, imperfect, perfect,
frequentative, future, future perfect, conjunctive and optative; also
present, past and future negatives, &c. The passive was extinct before
demotic; demotic and Coptic express it, clumsily it must be confessed,
by an impersonal "they," e.g. "they bore him" stands for "he was
born."
It is worth noting how, in other departments besides the verb, the
Egyptian language was far better adapted to practical ends during and
after the period of the Deltaic dynasties (XXII.-XXX.) than ever it
was before. It was both simplified and enriched. The inflexions
rapidly disappeared and little was left of the distinctions between
masculine and feminine, singular, dual and plural--except in the
pronouns. The dual number had been given up entirely at an earlier
date. The pronouns, both personal and demonstrative, retained their
forms very fully. As prefixes, suffixes and articles, they, together
with some auxiliary verbs, provided the principal mechanism of the
renovated language. An abundant supply of useful adverbs was gradually
accumulated, as well as conjunctions, so far as the functions of the
latter were not already performed by the verbal prefixes. These great
improvements in the language correspond to great changes in the
economic condition of the country; they were the result of active
trade and constant intercourse of all classes of Egyptians with
foreigners from Europe and Asia. Probably the best stage of Egyptian
speech was that which immediately preceded Coptic. Though Coptic is
here and there more exactly expressive than the best demotic, it was
spoilt by too much Greek, duplicating and too often expelling native
expressions that were already adequate for its very simple
requirements. Above all, it is clumsily pleonastic.