Wurden in Verbindung mit der Negation nj „prädikative“ oder „abstrakt-relativische“ sDm=f-Formen verwendet?

Abstract

“Were predicative or nominal sDm=f forms used in negative constructions of the type nj sDm=f?” This contribution deals with the theoretical question of whether the simple negative con­structions of the type nj + sDm=f contained predicative/circumstantial or nominal/substantival forms. After presenting the research history beginning with the theories of Polotsky, an overview of the matter in the grammars and monographs on Egyptian grammar and also recent contributions to the theme is given. In the main part the problem is discussed on three levels: the morphological level, the syntactic level and the original statement of Polotsky itself. The results are: On the morphological level, it is more likely that the simple negative constructions contained predicative forms. On the syntactic level, it cannot be excluded that the forms were nominal; however, pragmatic reasons make it more probable that there existed a distribution nj + pred. sDm=f for the simple type vs. nj + nom. sDm=f + js for the nominal type. For the original statement of Polotsky it is argued that the evidence for his theory was overgeneralized, and that there is no compelling reason to identify the forms as nominal.