中期エジプト語の動詞カテゴリーをめぐって

Abstract

In the preface of his grammar book (1997), Erhart Graefe commented on the development of Middle Egyptian grammar, “die ‘Erneuerungszyklen’ erinnern an die der Computer.” A goal of the present paper is to introduce some recent ideas of Middle Egyptian grammar to Japanese readers.Many issues regarding Egyptian verb categorization have been discussed since they were proposed by H. J. Polotsky in 1944, 1965 and 1976. In late 1980's, these proposals led a majority of students to share his concept of Standard Theory. Standard Theory held that with a few exceptions, verbs in Middle Egyptian should be transposed into nouns or adverbs. Yet, since it is no longer considered standard since Mark A. Collier denied the existence of adverbialization in 1990, what is “standard” now?In Japan, Standard Theory has not been clearly understood because no Japanese Egyptologists specialize in Egyptian grammar. First, I will present what has and what has not been established in the Standard Theory to gain a stepping-stone to the newer theory. Among Polotskyan books, I mainly reference those authored by W. Schenkel and E. Graefe, because they have often updated and revised their texts, following the acceptance of latest ideas of the period. Texts by G. Englund (1988), L. M. J. Zonhoven (1992), and J. Hoch (1997) are considered when appropriate.Japanese introductory or popular works by K. Yoshinari (1988) and Sh. Akiyama (1998) are ambivalent with regard to approving the existence of the verbal sentence as A. Gardiner does by following Polotskyan Theory. Today, when the adverbialization of verbs is abandoned, a contradiction between Schenkel and Graefe exists. Schenkel proposes that nominalized verb forms should be regarded as verbal, admitting no room for transposition, while Graefe supports nominalization, which was shared by Ockinga (1998) and Malaise & Winand (1999).Another goal of the paper is to organize the confusing grammatical designations various grammarians have used in different ways in the development of grammar. Complicated terms are also at issue in Japan. “Prospective” is a typical case here. The distinction between prospective and subjunctive has been demonstrated by J. P. Allen (1984) and P. Vernus (1990). Forms that were classified as prospective in the past are now called subjunctive, and the newly approved forms are now referred to as prospective.The present paper comes from a practical perspective, to clarify the somewhat complicated situation of grammatical development for non-grammarian Egyptologists. It is also apparent in Japan that a study of this kind should presuppose a correct understanding of Structural Linguistics, Transformational Grammar and Cognitive Linguistics.