Egyptian: Slave of God

user1988852

New Member
English
Hello.

How would the term/name "Slave of God" and "Abdullah/Obadiah" be translated into Hieroglyphics, seeing as they already have the term hm.nTr?

And, regarding hm.nTr, I see it translated as both "priest" and "prophet". Which is a more correct translation? And whereas the full hieroglyph seems to depict a seated male, in practice is it always 'abreviated' to just an axe and a club?IMG_20171206_133111.jpg IMG_20171206_132955.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    It seems to me you may be trying to create distinctions where the Egyptians wouldn't have recognized one. If prophets and priests were both considered servants of god (Faulkner uses the term "servant" instead of "slave" for Hm), then it may not be possible to say which translation is "more correct" or to distinguish between either of them and the literal phrase "slave of god".

    In addition to Hm, Faulkner gives the following possibilities to translate "servant":
    • bAk - G29 V31 A1
    • Hnwty - V28 U8 N35 W24 Z7 X1 Z4A A1
    The relevant entries in Faulkner show Hm written with the A1 glyph when it appears by itself, but without A1 when it's part of the phrase Hm nTr. But this doesn't have to mean that it would be wrong to include A1 in Hm nTr, as it appears in your example. It may just be that no such spelling occurred in the texts that Faulkner used when compiling his dictionary.
     

    user1988852

    New Member
    English
    Thank you again, kind Sir.

    Do you know why the nTr is written before the Hm and yet is pronounced after?
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    Yes, it's a practice called "honorific transposition". Here's how James Allen described it in his book Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs:
    In the direct genitive, the possessing noun is always second. Although this rule was inflexible in the spoken language, however, hieroglyphic writing sometimes reverses the order of the two nouns. This happens most often when the possessing noun is nTr "god" or nswt "king": in that case, the possessing noun is usually written first, out of respect, even though it was spoken second. This practice is known as "honorific transposition." The transcription of honorific transposition follows the order of speaking, not writing; a dash is often used to connect the two words.
     

    user1988852

    New Member
    English
    The relevant entries in Faulkner show Hm written with the A1 glyph when it appears by itself, but without A1 when it's part of the phrase Hm nTr. But this doesn't have to mean that it would be wrong to include A1 in Hm nTr, as it appears in your example. It may just be that no such spelling occurred in the texts that Faulkner used when compiling his dictionary.
    Thanks. Honorific transposition. Wow. You're a genius.

    To clarify, in the above quote you are saying it is ok to include the A1 hieroglyph, or, only, it is not known to be wrong to include the A1 hieroglyph?

    I would prefer to use A1 if I can (the phrase stands alone, "slave of god", and is not part of a larger phrase), but I will not unless I know it is ok to do so.
     
    Last edited:

    Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    It's ok. I did a little checking, and (in addition to that entry from hieroglyphs.net) there are other sources that show Hm nTr written with A1. For example, it shows up on page 101 of Lambert's Lexique Hiéroglyphique, which you can see here, and page 109 of Erman and Grapow's Aegyptiches Handwörterbuch, here.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top