CHRONIQUE Specificity or Emphasis in Egyptian and Coptic Nominal Sentences? * Al studies on the nominal sentence, ic. the sentence with substantival or adjectival predicate, have been concerned with what is generally con= sidered to be the crucial matter in the analysis of this pattern: the dis- tinction between subject and predicate :« In every nominal sentence, as {in any other sentence as well, there is @ part that is more important than the other by being the new informative element. This is the predicate, and it is allegedly more stressed in pronunciation than the subject. A. ‘true understanding of the meaning of the sentence depends often on the identification of this element + (Mf, Guivra, JEA 62 [1976], p. 168), ‘The sentence » I am a followers may he the answer to the (implicit) question « who is a follower? », in which case # I» is the predicate. The problem grammarians face Js the lack of decodable signals which would ‘make it possible to infer from the written version of the sentence which member is subject and which predicate. + Lam a follower + Is translation of Sinuhe R 2: jnk dmew. Gilula agrees with Gardiner (Eg. Grammar, § 125) that &msw is the predicate (JA 62 [1976], p. 166). F. Junge con tends the contrary on the basis of his essumption that all Egyptian nominal sentences invariably display the word order Predicate - Subject (Fs, Polotsky, 1981, p. 440), Whereas Gilula's attempts to overcome the lack of morphological indicators are called « almost desperate efforts » by Junge (op. cit, p. 492), every theory defending that» the predicate (or the Subject) was rigidly confined to either tie first or the second place + is deseribed by Gilula as+ pushing matters « little too far + (op. cit, p. 168}. () Review article of J.B. CatsiepEn, Stulles lx the Nominal Sentence in Eaypt- fan and Coptic. Berkeley ~ Los Angeles = Londen, Univerity of California Press, (1986). 1 vol. ins, x221 pp, (Ustvansrry or Curonsia Punticarions; Nea Easruny Srupies, Vol. 24). Price: $ 21.00. Gullendr's study is partly hased on Il Chieago Ph, D. dissertation The Nominal Smience in Coptic and Related Can structions (2970), yet is sufficiently Independent ‘om it to be eonsidered as 8 work smite own right. 358.crmostour W. Schenkel has suggested (ZAS 88 [1963], pp. 123-4) reducing the description of nominal sentences to a statement in Lerms of » first noun » fand + second noun». Although this approach Is methodologically sound, JL satisfies little of our curiosity concerning the semantic foundations of the nominal sentence. In more recent work (2), even Schenlkel has tried to transcend a purely + mechanical » description. 2. SPRCIFICITY AS A CRITERION FOR THE ANALYSIS OF NS. 2.0. John Callender departs from the classical analysis of the NS as out~ lined in 1. above by the use of a criterion which he calls specificity. The discussion of this concept encompasses about half of his recent study on {henominal sentence in Egyptian and Coptic (see p. 338, n. *), namely the ehapters two ( Sentences with noun subjects and nominal predicates +, pp. 7-24; dealing with Coptic) and seven (¢ Specificity in Exyptian «, Dp. 115-203). Echoes of this eriterion may be found in other parts of the book (eg, «42. Neutralization of specificity », pp. 44-45). "An adequate presentation of Callender’s notion of specificity requires an answer to the following three questions 2A. What is specificity according to Callender? 22, How does Callender apply specificity to the analysis of the NS? 23. Im what way does Callender Incorporate the classical categories subject and predicate In his analysis of the NS? 24. A noun may be preceded by an indefinite or a definite article. A. noun phrase with an indefinite article (eg. ou-rome ¢ a man») Is called nonspeefle by Callender, a noun phrase with a definite article (e.g. p-réme ‘the man 9) is called specific (p. 10). An important exception to thls Simple definition is the ease in which @ noun is accompanied by a modity- ing phrase, et. mp-nobe « of sin » in p-diakonos m-p-nobe « the servant of Sin. P-diakonos is nonspecific in spite of the definite article. ‘The pres- ence of the definite article in such cases is explained by Callender as the resull of a transformation : when a» sufficlently detiaitizing modifier» is added to a noun, a definite article is » generated «(p. 14 with reference to fh, 8 on p. 24 listing. published and unpublished papers relating to this topic). ‘This « generated » definite article is therefore ditferent from the definite article found with a noun that is not moditie. ‘The distinction between specific and nonspecific is also deseribed by Callender in logical and semantic terms (see « 2.3, Class logie of the feature ‘specificity’ », pp. 20-21). ‘The following passage is cited in full since it is, the clearest statement concerning the semantic value of the criterion « specificity +, yet it is not found at an obvious place in Une book : (2) Most recent studies by W, Setenkel (Middle Fayptian) and A. Shisha-Halery (Copti) in the Fs. Westendrf (1968), pp. 157-180. 359Gyre cHRETIENNE (P. 101) ¢ A nonspecific noun phrase denotes an abstract represent ative of a class rather than a specific being in the world, -A'specifie ‘noun phrase, in contrast, is a noun phrase that denotes a definite Individual, potentially nameable, who exists in the universe of dis- course. Its specificity is linguistically expressed by referring to it with the definite article or demonstrative adjective (this man’) ‘This contrasts with his nonspecific counterpart. This latter, as an abstract being, usually Is introdueeé by the indefinite article, and ‘ean be preceded only by a definite article as the result of a following modifying phrase, typically a genitive construction, which will describe this abstract, nonnameable being, without positing that it refers to a single, unique, and potentially nameable entity in the referential world of the speaker and hearer » Callender’s « lass logie » can be related to the origin of the indefinite and definite articles. Indefinite articles derive from the numeral « one « and therefore single out one element of a class without specifying which ‘one. Definite articles derive from demonstratives, and therefore indicate (Latin demonstrare) a specific element of a class (ef. B, Lavros, in Fs. Polotsky, 1981, pp. 261-262). As regards the definite article before anoun ‘that is followed by a genitive — the ease in which Callender considers the Aefinite article to be nonspecific —, there may be some evidence from Bohairie that we are dealing here with the generie definite article (ct. eg. French Chomme = «man»), which indicates an entire elass by means of one {deal representative. Bohairic distingulshes between p-, the generic definite article, and pl, the specific definite artic : for instance, plerdme sane (= German der Mensch) is opposed to pi-romesthe man»(~ German also der Mensch). What we find heforea noun that isitselt followed by a genitive is > and not pi, in other words, the article which indicates an entire elass. This tallies with Callender’s opinion that the definite article preceding @ noun ‘modified by a genitive is nonspeeifie (ef. Enchoria 13 (1985), pp. 57-60). 2.2. Im the previous section, we have seen that Callender distinguishes Ddetween specific and nonspecific noun phrases. Noun phrases with finite articles are specific (unless a genitive follows), noun phrases with Indefinitive articles are nonspecific, This criterion is now applied to the analysis of the NS, more speeifically to the ternary NS pattern since the opposition between specific and nonspecific is neutralized in the binary type (ef. 4.2, pp. 44-49) ‘The ternary nominal sentence displays among others the two following patterns : Noun Phrase — Copula — Noun Phrase and Noun Phrase — ‘Noun Phrase — Copula. Dependent upon whieh of these Noun Phrases (NP) are specitic and which are nonspecific in these patterns, Callender diseems two types Tape 1: consisting of two variants (e) and () (@) | Nonspecitic NP — Copata |-NP (©) NP-| Nonspecific NP — Copia 360cunostoue eg. (a) John 4, 97 (cited p. 6) eSoje gar ou-me pe ‘or the saying Is trues (8) Shenoute ed. Leipoldt IV 150, 12-18 (elted p. 10) oteme pe p-Saje et-sth. ‘the saying that is written is true... Type 2 Specific NP — Gopula — Specific NP eg. 1 Tim 1,5 (elted p, 10) PoJOk..pe agape ¢ the culmination is love » ‘The characteristic feature of Type 1 Is the nonspecific NP preceding the copula, Callender observes that, In Type 1, the copula agrees with the other NP (pp. 7, 12). However, what is remarkable in his deseription of {the congruence patterns is that he restores to favor the terms » grammat- {cal predicate » which had been severely eriticized (et. HL J. Pouorsiy, (Or 31 {1962}, p. 413 n. 3). Callender is aware of the unexpected character of this procedure and therefore devotes a special appendix to this issue (pp. 204-207). The noun phrase which agrees with the copula is called by hhim the grammatical subject. ‘The other NP Is ¢ by default» gram- matical predicate nominal» (p. 7). Although Callender sees no rea~ son «why the traditional designations of « subject» and » predicate, ‘understood in a completely formal sense, should be denied {Lhe function of congruence} » (p. 206), it is questionable whether it is really so much ‘more complicated to say: + the copula agrees with NP x, rather than «NP x is the grammatical subject of nominal sentence Xs. Simplicity of expression favors, If any, the flest solution, which, in addition, exactly ‘deseribes what is happening, whereas the second mentioned introduces & needless abstraction : although the Lerm «grammatical» may be applicable to the phenomenon of congruence, the combination « grammatical sub- Jeet» remains what it has been from the very beginning ;@ contradiction in terms. Indeed, subieetum and praedicatum, as adequate Latin equivalents of» topic » and comment », refer only to the logico-semantic relationship between what is known and what fs new in a sentence. This reduces the designations + logical subject + and «logical predieate + to pleanasms. AS ‘A matter of fact, even Callender seems to subscribe tacitly to the view ‘that «subject » and predicate » are in essence not referring to anything formal (thus contradicting his statement on p. 206): throughout his book, he never refers to this logico-semantic relationship with the ex- pressions «logical subject + and elogieal predicates — the expected counter- Part of his « grammatical subject » and + grammatical predicate » — but simply with « subject + and « predicate», 2.8, ‘The previous section 2.2. reported on Callender’s distinction between ‘two types of nominal sentences on the basis of his eriterion of speeificity. 361 2SGyPTe cunériense Itnow remains to be explained how he applies the categories of subject and predicate to these two patterns. ‘As regards Type 1, Callender's assignment of subject and predicate is plainly traditional (ef. K. Sern, Nominabats cited by Callender on p. 198, 2. 2): the nonspecitic NP preceding the copula is the predicate, the other NP is the subject. ‘The Iogico-semantic structure of this pattern therefore Tooks as follows Type 1: consisting of two variants (a) and (b) (@) | Predicate — Copula | - Subject (®) Subject - | Predicate — Copula On the other hand, his treatment of Type 2 opens a totally new perspec- tive. As was seen earlier, this pattern has two specific NPs preceding and following the copula. According to Callender, +n such sentences... any ‘identification of logical subject or predicate becomes intuitionally prob: ematic »(p. 17). He supports this statement with the fact that the agree- ‘ment of the copula fluctuates: it can agroe both with the NP preceding and the NP following the copula. Callender concludes (p. 24, n. 35 of _p.22n, 1 bottom) that «the fluctuating agreement of these identificationat predications result from a neutralization of the distinction of subject and predicate, or more precisely, that both noun phrases funetion as the subject of a predicate predicating the notion of identity » (or stated differently in n. 2 on p. 198: « [have treated such sentences as consisting of double subjects of a predicate be identical»), It is somewhat surprising that Callender decides about the logical structure of his Type 2 an the basis of the fluctuation of agroement or, in his terminology, the absence of a fixed + grammatical subject » or + gram matical predieste ». This step in his argumentation seems dubious, since it involves the assumption that ¢ grammatical subject + (NP agreeing with copula) sometiow correlates or coincides with + logical subject s Callender may have been led to this conclusion by the fact that this tends to be so in Type 1 (see above). Another factor Lying al the origin of his theory secording to which, in Type 2, two NP subjects are in balance may have been the attractive character of treating certain nominal sentences a3 a formula A — B, from which follows that B-— A. ‘This deduction may apply in mathematies, yet, in my opinion, it has no place in ‘the flow of human speech. In language, A — B is unidirectional. Twill return to this issue below, when discussing Callender’s exemple from English: ¢ John is the horse Callender’s theory according to which, in Type 2, two specific NPs are subjects of a predicate » being identical», would be quite clear and artl- culate, were It not for the fact that a competing theory, contradicting the ‘one just mentioned, looms up throughout the book. According to this second theory, Type 2 does have a nominal phrase as predicate (as predl- ceate nominal). ‘The clearest expression of this view ean be found in the 362cunostouE summary at the end of the seventh chapter, which is actually a summary of the whole book (7.6., pp. 194-196) (p. 194) + Underneath the external variety of sentences with nominal predicates ia the various stages of Egyptian, lies the logical concept of the specificity of reference of the predicate nominal. Basieally this distinction is one of whether a predicate nominal refers to an indk- ‘vidual in the world that ie so defined as to preclude any mistake in {dentifieation. If such an individual exists then one is dealing, with ‘a predicate nominal that fs specific in its reference. If not, . Since the nominal sentence is an equation, in the first case the subject is ‘matched with the referent of the predicate nominal (p. 199) «The sentence with speeifie predieate nominal, always the ‘much rarer of the two main types, shows a fairly even development... ‘The term » predicate nominal + is also mentioned in connection with ‘Type 2 on pp. 4-5, 118 and in the tite « Specitic predicate nominals » of 2.1.2. (p. 10) and 7.2.8. (p. 134). Although, aceording to this second theory, the nominal sentence of ‘Type 2s said to have a nominal phrase as its predicate, itis never revealed In Callender’s study which one of the two specifie noun phrases might be the predicate It seems we have arrived at an impasse. Apparently, two views are competing with one another in the same book for the right to serve as the description of one phenomenon, Le, the nominal sentences of the type P:idk... pe Lagapé the culmination is love » (1 Tim 1, 6). ‘What I intend to propose as a way out of the impasse Is defending one of these views, with an Important modification, and rejecting the other. ‘To he defended, in my opinion, is the one mentioned second, aecording to Which the nominal sentences of Type 2 do have a nominal predicate, al- ‘though the question was,notanswered,which NP in a sentence such as PrJok..pe Lagape Is to be taken as the predicate. It is the luck of an ‘answer to this question that may have given this view a subordinate and surreptitious role In Callender's study. Defending this view will therefore require an answer to this question (see 3. below) Indeed, the theory mentioned first definitely carries with it Callender's preference. He also ilustrates it with an example from English : « John is the horse » («suid e.g. at a costume party s, p. 118). According to Callen- der, ¢ John » and ¢ the horse «are both subjects of a predicate « are identic~ aly (el. Fig. 9, p. 120). In my opinion, « John Is the horse » ean only be the answer to ane of the ta following explicit or implicit questions ‘ho isthe horse? » ors who is John ? », with the result that either « Jobn + ore the horse sis the predicate, therefore do not agree with his scheme an 1p 21 illustrating that othe identification may proceed in either direction indifferently » (ib.) 363