书评:在贝尼哈桑的Khnumhotep II的宇宙

IF 0.6 3区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY
R. Leprohon
{"title":"书评:在贝尼哈桑的Khnumhotep II的宇宙","authors":"R. Leprohon","doi":"10.1177/030751330409001S10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"themselves presented as defining elements in the choice of a syntax. His wide exemplification focuses on the range of sentence patterns that are self-standing ('asyndetic'), and their underlying syntax. Particular emphasis lies on the patterns in which a subject is followed by an adverbial construction ('syntagm'): adverbial sentences, pseudo-verbal constructions and second tenses.! The importance of these constructions is explained as a historical development (pp. 39-42), marking the process by which the characteristic word order of earlier Egyptian-Verb-Subject-Object-was converted to the order of Subject-Verb-Object that characterises the latest stage of the language. Here, in practice, Vernus's eclectic and ad hoc approach wobbles into internal contradiction, since his core presentation is reminiscent of the structuralist paradigm: a structuralist explanation of the syntax as subject + adverb(ial transposition), where surely it would be preferable to account for the variety of forms that can follow a subject as a range of etymologically and structurally varied grammaticalisations. The final section of the book addresses the existence of an 'indicative srjm=f in Middle Egyptian: a declarative present tense srjm=f, that is self-standing and syntactically complete. The collection of examples is large, but problematic, confused by the question of archaism and the often rather peculiar or special registers in which the relevant texts are written. Nevertheless Vernus concludes that there is a small core of real examples. Like all the suffix conjugations that have a word order of Verb-Subject-Object, he defines it as recessive in the language, but with a genuine existence integrated into the discourse register of Middle Egyptian. The great merit of this slim volume lies in its emphasis on linguistic complexity, through its attack on the application of an ahistorical conception of language to the study of Egyptian, and on the habit of teaching Egyptian as a sort of logical construct, claimed to have its roots in a set of structural universals of syntax (pp. 42-3). Vernus largely avoids the trap of appeal to undocumentable etymology in the structuring of his argument, the appeal that has historically informed all attempts to describe a systematic paradigm of Egyptian verb forms according to function, whether that functional organisation is one of tense or aspect or syntactic position. Yet in his emphasis on semantic and syntactic complexity he seems to provide justification for an ad hoc pick-and-mix approach to the use of linguistic theories, and, where convenient, he relies happily on much the same analytical criteria and techniques he criticises so strongly in the 'Standard Theory'. Underlying the book is a particular, often idiosyncratic, and extraordinarily condensed view of the overall structure of classical Egyptian that cannot be satisfactorily summarised in a review; the implied subtleties of its argument, but also the elusive contradictions in its detailed presentation, range too wide. The result, then, is a book that contains a string of highly perceptive fragments. For instance, Vernus is evidently correct to stress that the structure of a living language cannot be entirely reducible to simple binary paradigms, and therefore analysis on such a basis cannot provide a complete explanation for form and function in Egyptian, but he does not then provide a systematic, rule-based structure for dealing with the mass of Egyptian data. In the end it is Pascal Vernus's wonderful eye for a telling example, and the systematic implications that can be pointed out in the analysis of individual examples for the understanding of a (once) living language that compensate for the, one has to say, intellectual evasiveness of the polemic mode. The book is in the final analysis fun, and deeply thought provoking, but without in the end convincing the reader that it has constructed the new paradigm.","PeriodicalId":54147,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"31 1","pages":"22 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/030751330409001S10","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan\",\"authors\":\"R. Leprohon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/030751330409001S10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"themselves presented as defining elements in the choice of a syntax. His wide exemplification focuses on the range of sentence patterns that are self-standing ('asyndetic'), and their underlying syntax. Particular emphasis lies on the patterns in which a subject is followed by an adverbial construction ('syntagm'): adverbial sentences, pseudo-verbal constructions and second tenses.! The importance of these constructions is explained as a historical development (pp. 39-42), marking the process by which the characteristic word order of earlier Egyptian-Verb-Subject-Object-was converted to the order of Subject-Verb-Object that characterises the latest stage of the language. Here, in practice, Vernus's eclectic and ad hoc approach wobbles into internal contradiction, since his core presentation is reminiscent of the structuralist paradigm: a structuralist explanation of the syntax as subject + adverb(ial transposition), where surely it would be preferable to account for the variety of forms that can follow a subject as a range of etymologically and structurally varied grammaticalisations. The final section of the book addresses the existence of an 'indicative srjm=f in Middle Egyptian: a declarative present tense srjm=f, that is self-standing and syntactically complete. The collection of examples is large, but problematic, confused by the question of archaism and the often rather peculiar or special registers in which the relevant texts are written. Nevertheless Vernus concludes that there is a small core of real examples. Like all the suffix conjugations that have a word order of Verb-Subject-Object, he defines it as recessive in the language, but with a genuine existence integrated into the discourse register of Middle Egyptian. The great merit of this slim volume lies in its emphasis on linguistic complexity, through its attack on the application of an ahistorical conception of language to the study of Egyptian, and on the habit of teaching Egyptian as a sort of logical construct, claimed to have its roots in a set of structural universals of syntax (pp. 42-3). Vernus largely avoids the trap of appeal to undocumentable etymology in the structuring of his argument, the appeal that has historically informed all attempts to describe a systematic paradigm of Egyptian verb forms according to function, whether that functional organisation is one of tense or aspect or syntactic position. Yet in his emphasis on semantic and syntactic complexity he seems to provide justification for an ad hoc pick-and-mix approach to the use of linguistic theories, and, where convenient, he relies happily on much the same analytical criteria and techniques he criticises so strongly in the 'Standard Theory'. Underlying the book is a particular, often idiosyncratic, and extraordinarily condensed view of the overall structure of classical Egyptian that cannot be satisfactorily summarised in a review; the implied subtleties of its argument, but also the elusive contradictions in its detailed presentation, range too wide. The result, then, is a book that contains a string of highly perceptive fragments. For instance, Vernus is evidently correct to stress that the structure of a living language cannot be entirely reducible to simple binary paradigms, and therefore analysis on such a basis cannot provide a complete explanation for form and function in Egyptian, but he does not then provide a systematic, rule-based structure for dealing with the mass of Egyptian data. In the end it is Pascal Vernus's wonderful eye for a telling example, and the systematic implications that can be pointed out in the analysis of individual examples for the understanding of a (once) living language that compensate for the, one has to say, intellectual evasiveness of the polemic mode. The book is in the final analysis fun, and deeply thought provoking, but without in the end convincing the reader that it has constructed the new paradigm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"22 - 26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/030751330409001S10\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/030751330409001S10\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/030751330409001S10","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

它们在语法的选择中表现为定义元素。他广泛的例证集中在独立的句型(“asyndetic”)的范围,以及它们的底层语法。特别强调的是主语后跟状语结构(“句法”)的模式:状语句、假动词结构和第二时态。这些结构的重要性被解释为一种历史发展(第39-42页),标志着早期埃及语的特征词序——动词-主语-宾语——转变为表征该语言最新阶段的主语-动词-宾语的顺序。在这里,在实践中,Vernus的折衷主义和特别的方法陷入了内部矛盾,因为他的核心陈述让人想起结构主义范式:结构主义对句法的解释是主语+副词(副词换位),当然,它更可取的是考虑到各种形式,可以跟随一个主语作为一系列词源和结构上不同的语法化。本书的最后一部分论述了中古埃及语中“指示性srjm=f”的存在:一个陈述性现在时srjm=f,它是独立的,句法完整的。例子的收集是大量的,但问题,混淆了古语的问题和往往相当奇特或特殊的寄存器,其中相关的文本是写的。尽管如此,Vernus还是总结说,有一小部分真实的例子。像所有具有动词-主-宾词序的后缀共轭一样,他将其定义为语言中的隐性,但在中古埃及语的话语域中具有真正的存在。这本薄薄的书的最大优点在于它强调语言的复杂性,通过对非历史语言概念应用于埃及语研究的攻击,以及将埃及语教学作为一种逻辑结构的习惯,声称其根源于一套语法结构共性(第42-3页)。在他的论点结构中,Vernus很大程度上避免了求助于不可记录的词源学的陷阱,这种求助在历史上告诉了所有试图根据功能描述埃及动词形式的系统范式的尝试,无论这种功能组织是时态、方面还是句法位置。然而,在他对语义和句法复杂性的强调中,他似乎为使用语言学理论的特别挑选和混合方法提供了理由,并且,在方便的地方,他很高兴地依赖于他在“标准理论”中强烈批评的相同的分析标准和技术。这本书的基础是一种特殊的,通常是特殊的,以及对古典埃及整体结构的非常浓缩的观点,这种观点不能在评论中得到令人满意的总结;它的论点隐含的微妙之处,以及在其详细的陈述中难以捉摸的矛盾,范围太广了。结果就是,这本书包含了一系列高度敏锐的片段。例如,Vernus强调活语言的结构不能完全简化为简单的二元范式,这显然是正确的,因此在这样一个基础上的分析不能为埃及语的形式和功能提供完整的解释,但他没有提供一个系统的、基于规则的结构来处理大量的埃及语数据。最后,帕斯卡尔·维纳斯用绝妙的眼光找到了一个生动的例子,通过对个别例子的分析,可以指出系统的含义,以理解一种(曾经的)活的语言,这弥补了,人们不得不说,辩论模式的智力回避。归根结底,这本书是有趣的,发人深省的,但最终没有让读者相信它已经构建了新的范式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book Review: The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan
themselves presented as defining elements in the choice of a syntax. His wide exemplification focuses on the range of sentence patterns that are self-standing ('asyndetic'), and their underlying syntax. Particular emphasis lies on the patterns in which a subject is followed by an adverbial construction ('syntagm'): adverbial sentences, pseudo-verbal constructions and second tenses.! The importance of these constructions is explained as a historical development (pp. 39-42), marking the process by which the characteristic word order of earlier Egyptian-Verb-Subject-Object-was converted to the order of Subject-Verb-Object that characterises the latest stage of the language. Here, in practice, Vernus's eclectic and ad hoc approach wobbles into internal contradiction, since his core presentation is reminiscent of the structuralist paradigm: a structuralist explanation of the syntax as subject + adverb(ial transposition), where surely it would be preferable to account for the variety of forms that can follow a subject as a range of etymologically and structurally varied grammaticalisations. The final section of the book addresses the existence of an 'indicative srjm=f in Middle Egyptian: a declarative present tense srjm=f, that is self-standing and syntactically complete. The collection of examples is large, but problematic, confused by the question of archaism and the often rather peculiar or special registers in which the relevant texts are written. Nevertheless Vernus concludes that there is a small core of real examples. Like all the suffix conjugations that have a word order of Verb-Subject-Object, he defines it as recessive in the language, but with a genuine existence integrated into the discourse register of Middle Egyptian. The great merit of this slim volume lies in its emphasis on linguistic complexity, through its attack on the application of an ahistorical conception of language to the study of Egyptian, and on the habit of teaching Egyptian as a sort of logical construct, claimed to have its roots in a set of structural universals of syntax (pp. 42-3). Vernus largely avoids the trap of appeal to undocumentable etymology in the structuring of his argument, the appeal that has historically informed all attempts to describe a systematic paradigm of Egyptian verb forms according to function, whether that functional organisation is one of tense or aspect or syntactic position. Yet in his emphasis on semantic and syntactic complexity he seems to provide justification for an ad hoc pick-and-mix approach to the use of linguistic theories, and, where convenient, he relies happily on much the same analytical criteria and techniques he criticises so strongly in the 'Standard Theory'. Underlying the book is a particular, often idiosyncratic, and extraordinarily condensed view of the overall structure of classical Egyptian that cannot be satisfactorily summarised in a review; the implied subtleties of its argument, but also the elusive contradictions in its detailed presentation, range too wide. The result, then, is a book that contains a string of highly perceptive fragments. For instance, Vernus is evidently correct to stress that the structure of a living language cannot be entirely reducible to simple binary paradigms, and therefore analysis on such a basis cannot provide a complete explanation for form and function in Egyptian, but he does not then provide a systematic, rule-based structure for dealing with the mass of Egyptian data. In the end it is Pascal Vernus's wonderful eye for a telling example, and the systematic implications that can be pointed out in the analysis of individual examples for the understanding of a (once) living language that compensate for the, one has to say, intellectual evasiveness of the polemic mode. The book is in the final analysis fun, and deeply thought provoking, but without in the end convincing the reader that it has constructed the new paradigm.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信