The document discusses the complexities of negation forms in ancient Egyptian verb conjugations, particularly focusing on the usages of the particle 'n' and its implications for syntactic structure. It presents various verb forms associated with negation and delves into debates about their classification as either rhematic or nominal constructions. The author raises questions about the nature of the negation 'n' and summarises various theories, including traditional views and Polotsky's dilemma on syntactic status categories.

1. Helmut Satzinger
Open questions concerning
verb forms connected with
the negation n
Workshop ‘Negation in Ancient Egyptian’
Paris, December 11–13, 2014

2. The normal negative verbal constructions
mostly employ the short n negation
plus a form of the suffix pronoun “conjugation,” notably
of patterns
• n sḏm·f,
• n sḏm·n·f, and
• n sḏmt·f.

3. Crum Studies:
n sḏm·f (1) present perfect meaning
n sḏm·f (2) past tense meaning
n sḏm·f (3) past perfect meaning
n sḏm·f (4) present tense meaning
n sḏm·f (5) future tense meaning
n sḏm·n·f (1) perfect tense meaning
n sḏm·n·f (2) aorist, ‘cannot’
n sḏmt·f ‘eventually,’ negative ‘not yet’

4. n plus suffix conjugation (Allen [2nd ed.], 413–4 / § 26.29/1)
• the perfect (§ 18.14) nj sḏm·n·f “he does not hear, he cannot hear”
[+ nj sḏm.n.f “he has not heard, he did not hear”]
• the passive (§ 21.13) nj sḏm·f “he is not heard, he cannot be heard
• the perfective (§ 20.5) nj sḏm·f “he did not hear, he has not heard”
• the imperfective (§ 20.15), rare and uncertain
nj sḏm·f “he does not hear”
• the prospective, active and passive (§ 21.15, 21.7)
nj sḏm·f “he will not hear,” nj sḏmm·f “he will not be heard”
• the sḏmt·f (§ 22.13): nj sḏmt·f “before he heard/has heard,
he has not yet heard”

5. Syntactic status of n constructions:
n + verb is attested
• in initial main sentences,
• in sequential (continuing) sentences, and
• in clauses of circumstance.
It obviously belongs to the “rhematic
constructions”; it is not a nominal (substantival)
construction.
BTW—this is true of all n constructions.

6. What is responsible for the rhematic status of
n + verb ?
What is the nature of n ?
A mere particle, without any immediate
syntactic function ?
Then the syntactic status of the Negative Phrase is
based upon the nature of the verb form.
All verb forms preceded by n are then
rhematic

7. What is the nature of n ?
A mere particle, without any immediate
syntactic function ?
Then the syntactic status of the Negative Phrase is
based upon the nature of the verb form.
All verb forms preceded by n are then
rhematic
Or is n originally a noun / verb / etc. with a
syntactic function ?
Then it is nature of n that determines the status of
the Negative Phrase.

8. Traditional opinion:
The negation n : a mere particle—
an element that does not exert any syntactic function
The n constructions are all rhematic
(initial main sentences, sequential, or clauses of
circumstance).
Responsible for this: the verb forms involved ?

9. n sḏm·f, past tense meaning
n sḏm·f, present tense meaning
The verb form involved is obviously the
perfective sḏm·f—
But is it the rhematic or the nominal form ?

10. n sḏmt·f :
Main sentence, “he did not yet hear,”
Clause of circumstance, “before he heard.”
(he did not yet end up hearing)
sḏmt·f “that he eventually heard,
that he ended up hearing”
is only attested as a nominal form

11. n sḏm·n·f (1) perfect tense meaning
Corresponding to positive
sḏm·n·f “he has heard” > “he heard”
n sḏm·n·f (2) aorist, ‘cannot’
No positive counterpart known
Polotsky’s dilemma:

12. It is to be expected that all verb forms with preceding n
are of the same syntactic status category:
• either rhematic,
• or nominal.
Polotsky: n sḏm·n·f is used of all verbs, including the
intransitive verbs of motion —
the formal characteristic of the nominal sḏm·n·f,
the “abstract (or non-attributive) relative form” of
the perfect/preterite, “that he heard.”

13. n sḏm·n·f is a self-sufficient construction, hence
rhematic. Since he regarded the negation n as a particle
—comme tout le monde—, Polotsky had obviously a
problem with attributing nominal nature to sḏm·n·f in
this case.
The sḏm.f form of n sḏm·f, however, seemed to be a
rhematic form allright, judging from the forms of
irregular verbs.
Not a satisfactory result indeed.

14. « Niée par n, chacune des deux formes [sḏm·f and
sḏm·n·f, HS] ressortit à une catégorie différente. Tandis
qu’on reconnaît sans difficulté dans n sḏm.n=f la forme
substantive, n sḏm=f est moin aisé à identifier
positivement. Ses caractères sont surtout négatifs : il est
décidément tout autre chose que la forme substantive, et
il s’écarte en deux points de la forme circonstantielle, à
savoir dans les formes caractéristiques des deux verbes
“donner” et “voir” :
“DONNER” “VOIR”
CIRCONSTANTIEL dj.f m33.f
NÉGATIF n rdj.f n m3.f

15. (When negated, each of the two forms
[sḏm·f and sḏm·n·f, HS] will belong to a different
category. Whereas one will discern without difficulty in
n sḏm.n=f the nominal form, n sḏm=f is less easy to be
positively identified. Its characteristics are particularly
negative: it is decidedly anything else but the noun form,
and it departs in two points from the circumstantial
form, namely in the characteristic forms of the two verbs
"to give" and "to see":) :
“DONNER” “VOIR”
CIRCONSTANTIEL dj.f m33.f
NÉGATIF n rdj.f n m3.f

16. On connaît deux cas où “donner” et “voir” revêtent
précisément les formes rdj.f et m3.f : l’un, en ancien
égyptien (avec des survivances), en fonction de passé
narratif (Edel § 470) ; l’autre, en égyptien classique, se
rapportant à l’avenir, dans l’apodose d’une phrase
introduite par jr, soit que jr amène un substantif (CT II
205a rdj-, Ptahh. 577 m3.f) ou un sḏm.f (Naufragé 72
rdj.j, ibid. 134 m3.k). Ces formes représentent, en toute
probabilité, la catégorie proprement verbale
(“factive”). »
(Polotsky Les transpositions, 46)

17. (Two cases are known in which “to give” and “to see”
show precisely the forms rdj.f et m3.f: one, in Old
Egyptian (with survivals), in the function of narrative
past (Edel § 470); the other, in Classical Egyptian,
referring to the future, in the apodosis of a phrase
introduced by jr, whether jr takes a noun (CT II 205a
rdj-, Ptahh. 577 m3.f) or a sḏm.f (Shipwr. S. 72 rdj.j,
ibid. 134 m3.k). These forms represent in all probability
the proper verbal (“factitive”) category.)
(Polotsky Les transpositions, 46)

18. The only motive which Polotsky could think of, both for
“Gunn’s Rule” and the difference in the structure of the
two constructions mentioned, is the obscure concept of
polarity:
Die einzige Erklärung für das „auffällige“ Fehlen der
„emphatischen“ Bedeutung und überhaupt für die
Verbindung der substantivischen Form mit der Negation
n ist wohl doch die „Polarität“[H. Brunner, ZÄS 72
(1936) 139–141]. Die „Polarität“ ist zwiefach: Tempus
(sḏm·f : sḏm·n·f) und Wortklasse (Umstand, d.h. Adverb :
Substantiv).
(Polotsky „Randbemerkungen,“ FS Westendorf (1984),
117 n. 6.)

19. The only motive which Polotsky could think of, both for
“Gunn’s Rule” and the difference in the structure of the
two constructions mentioned, is the obscure concept of
polarity:
(The only explanation for the conspicuous lack of any
“emphatic” meaning, or more generally speaking, the
connection of the nominal form (sḏm·n·f) with the
negation n is probably, nevertheless, “polarity” [H.
Brunner, ZÄS 72 (1936) 139–141]. This “polarity” is
twofold: it is polarity both in respect to tense (sḏm·f :
sḏm·n·f) and to parts of speach (circumstance, i.e.
adverb : substantive).)
(Polotsky „Randbemerkungen,“ FS Westendorf (1984),
117 n. 6.)

20. There is no Law of Polarity—
nor did Gunn ever phrase “Gunn’s Rule”
Gardiner’s (1962:33) memoirs: “Sethe never tired of
referring in his lectures to die Gunnsche Regel!”).
(quoting from Hannig 1984:63). So it’s a German
invention, after all?
Situations of polarity may arise in a language,
but more as a chance result, like the two forms with
waw-consecutive in Hebrew
(qāṭal : yiqṭōl versus way-yiqṭōl : wǝ-qāṭal).
But yiqṭōl after waw is not imperfect, but rather an
ancient Semitic preterite form.

21. The Arabic Perfect/Preterite:
Positive, a suffix conjugation: kataba “he wrote”
Negative, lam plus prefix conjugation: lam yaktub
“he did not write.”
This yaktub, which resembles a certain modal form, is
historically not an “imperfective” form, but rather
that same ancient preterite form (Akkadian iprus).
No “Law of Polarity” is here operative—mere chance!

22. nn—a thetic negation, “there is no …,” “… does
not exist”
Predicate — Subject
nn sw “he does not exist”
nn m3ˁtyw “There are no righteous”
nn sḏm·f “*that he shall hear does not exist”
(FIP, with voluntary meaning: nn ḏj·f “he is not to give”;
MK, neutral: “he will not give”)
The grammaticalization of nn sḏm.f is obviously
quite recent.

23. n is probably a mere graphic variant of “nn,” at
least originally (Edel); anyway, both negations may be
properly reading nj (Westendorf).
n + verb forms are probably grammaticalizations that are
more ancient than nn sḏm.f.
Originally of the same structure, “it does not exist that
he (has) heard / that he will hear etc.”
With this in mind — verb forms after n having subject
function, hence being nominal (an abstract, or non-attributive,
relative form) — we may try to identify these
verb forms.

24. n sḏmt·f
sḏmt·f is a nominal form:
Complement of prepositions,
r sḏmt·f “until he at last hears”
ḏr sḏmt·f “before he at last heard”
(Zonhoven, Satzinger)
n sḏmt·f
*“it is not that he has ended up hearing”

25. n sḏm·n·f (1)
*“it is not that he has heard”
< **“it is not that to him is hearing”

26. n sḏm·n·f (2)
*“it is not that he can hear”
< **“it is not that to him is hearing”
W. Till, 1931. „Zur Bedeutung der negativen n-Form“,
ZÄS 67, 118-121.
Why is sḏm·n·f here a “that” form?
• It is found of all kinds of verbs, including the
intransitives of motions
• Typical stem forms: rḏ·n·f, IIae red., IIIae-n

27. There is no Law of Polarity.
What about “Gunn’s Rule”?
n sḏm·f can have various time reference.
There are two different uses of n sḏm·n·f:
• Perfect tense (OK; later not many attestations)
• Aorist (“cannot”); no positive counterpart.
n sḏmt·f has no positive (rhematic!) counterpart.
Characteristic dissymmetry