Lesson 11: Plurals and duals

← Previous

Index

Next β†’

More biliterals

The bad news is that some of these are complicated. The good news is that this is the last set!

𓍱 Ε‘s
Loop of rope with ends up		𓅐 mt or mwt
Griffon vulture		π“Ž˜ wd
Cord wound on stick (2)
π“ž gs
Unknown, front half of 𓐝		π“Ž™ ꜀ḏ, ꜀d
Spool of thread		𓐩 nḏ
Spindle
π“Ž sk or w꜒αΈ₯
Swab of fiber		π“Ž— wḏ, wd
Cord wound on stick (1)		π“Œ‰ αΈ₯ḏ
Mace

There’s a lot to say about some of these:

  • 𓍱 Ε‘s must not be confused with 𓍲 Ε‘n, though they are 180Β° from each other.
  • The object depicted in 𓐝 m is unknown, but its front half is used for π“ž gs, used in the word for “side”, which may explain it, but … yuck.
  • Yes, π“Ž has two values, one which is biliteral and one triliteral. There are other glyphs with this flexibility, but not all are used much in both forms. We will note words containing such glyphs in our vocabularies.
  • Similarly 𓅐 can be mt or mwt.
  • The glyphs π“Ž™, π“Ž—, and π“Ž˜ show another sound change, which we will discuss in the next lesson.

Plurals

The plural of masculine nouns is formed by adding -w to the masculine singular, which is not necessarily just the root, since there may be an added j or w. And if the masculine form ends in a w (whether it’s an added ending, or the ending of the root itself), the -w for plurality is still added:

π“Œ’π“°π“ˆ–π“…±π“€€π“ͺ snw “brothers”
𓏇𓇋𓅱𓅱𓃠π“ͺ mjww “cats”
π“Ž›π“†‘π“°π“„«π“…±π“†šπ“°π“₯ αΈ₯fꜣww “snakes”

The words’ own determinatives are followed by variations of the plural strokes determinative π“₯. It can be written in several configurations to fit the text: π“₯, π“ͺ, 𓏫, 𓏦. Note that in snw and mjww, the plural w is written before both the normal and plural determinatives. Finally, in αΈ₯fꜣww I did not bother to write a second w. Omitting the w of plurality is common since it’s a weak consonant, especially since the plural determinative is there anyhow.

Since their actual roots end in t, the plurals of “bread” and “wood, stick” are tw and αΈ«tw respectively.

The feminine plural, on the other hand, is formed by adding -wt to the root. In practice this means adding a -w to the singular form, but adding it before the feminine marker -t: π“Œ’π“°π“ˆ–π“…±π“΄π“π“π“ͺ snwt “sisters”. As with masculines, this can lead to a double w, if the feminine noun’s root ends with -w: 𓅐𓅱𓏲𓐰𓏏𓁐π“ͺ mjwwt “mothers”. Here are some more variations on how to spell various plurals:

π“Œ’π“°π“ˆ–π“…±π“€€π“ͺ snw “brothers” (or π“Œ’π“ˆ–π“°π“²π“€€π“°π“₯ or just π“Œ’π“°π“ˆ–π“€€π“°π“₯ )
π“ŠΉπ“π“°π“‚‹π“…±π“π“°π“₯ nαΉ―rwt “goddesses” (or π“ŠΉπ“π“°π“‚‹π“²π“°π“π“ͺ or π“ŠΉπ“π“°π“‚‹π“π“°π“₯ or even π“ŠΉπ“π“°π“₯ )
𓏇𓇋𓅱𓅱𓃠π“ͺ mjww “cats” (or 𓏇𓇋𓅱𓃠π“ͺ or even 𓏇𓇋𓃠π“ͺ )
𓅐𓅱𓅱𓏏𓁐π“ͺ mjwwt “mothers” (or 𓅐𓅱𓏏𓁐π“ͺ or 𓅐𓏏𓁐π“ͺ or 𓅐𓁐π“ͺ )

In Old Egyptian it was common to show plurality by writing three copies of the determinative, in words which had one: π“Œ’π“ˆ–π“°π“π“π“π“ snwt “sisters”. The only plural that really continues to be written that way in Middle Egyptian is π“ŠΉπ“ŠΉπ“ŠΉ nαΉ―rw “gods”.

Duals

Egyptian has a dual in addition to the plural, used when there are two of the noun, especially when the two nouns naturally come as a pair, like t꜒wj “The Two Lands” (i.e. Upper and Lower Egypt). The masculine dual is formed by adding -wj to the singular, as you see with t꜒wj. Once again, this can result in a double w: mjwwj “two cats”. The feminine dual is formed by adding -tj to the root, or in practice, adding -j to the singular.

To write the dual, 𓅱𓐴𓏭 -wj, also written 𓏲𓐰𓏭 (masc.) or 𓏏𓐰𓏭 -tj (fem.) were usually used, though –tj could use the “pestle” biliteral as well: π“˜ or π“˜π“‡‹.

Old Egyptian used a doubled determinative for the dual, like the tripled one for plural. This actually survived into Middle Egyptian more frequently than using three for the plural did: π“Œ’π“ˆ–π“°π“π“±π“­π“π“ sntj “two sisters”. But by the peak of Middle Egyptian, the dual was becoming archaic. So finding dual forms to see how they were written (especially in more complicated cases, when pronouns and adjectives are involved) can be difficult.

Plurals and duals of adjectives

If a masculine noun was plural, its adjectives are marked as such too: 𓏇𓇋𓅱𓅱𓃠π“ͺ𓄀𓆑𓐰𓂋𓏲𓐰π“₯ mjww nfrw “good cats”. The weak -w was omitted even more often than on the noun, and so just the plural strokes might be written: 𓏇𓇋𓅱𓅱𓃠π“ͺ𓄀𓆑𓐰𓂋π“ͺ But, sometimes the strokes were omitted from the adjective and the -w was written: 𓏇𓇋𓅱𓅱𓃠π“ͺ𓄀𓆑𓐰𓂋𓅱

Note that we said masculine nouns. In Old Egyptian there were four adjective forms (masc. sing., fem. sing., masc. plu., fem. plu.). But by Middle Egyptian, the feminine plural form was being simplified, and it kept the feminine -t but not the plural -w- before it as with a noun: π“Œ’π“°π“ˆ–π“…±π“΄π“π“π“ͺ𓄀𓆑𓐰𓂋𓐰𓏏 snwt nfrt “good sisters” (rather than snwt nfrwt). Sometimes the plural strokes will be there too, but generally not the -w that a masculine plural would have: π“Œ’π“°π“ˆ–π“…±π“΄π“π“π“ͺ𓄀𓆑𓐰𓂋𓏏𓐰π“₯

Dual-marked adjectives are occasionally seen as well, even for feminine nouns, so -wj for masculine and -tj for feminine: π“Œ’π“ˆ–π“°π“π“±π“­π“π“π“…¨π“°π“‚‹π“π“°π“­ sntj wrtj “two great sisters”.

The j/y question

Egyptologists disagree about whether the “dual strokes” glyph Z4 (𓏭) represents the same sound as 𓇋 j, or the same sound as π“‡Œ y. But they do seem to agree that, whichever of the two sounds the diagonal strokes represent, they are only used at the end of words. So for example, words which are transliterated njwtj and sntj by some authors, would be transliterated njwty and snty by others. I follow Professor Allen’s transliteration of Z4 as j, but I reserve the right to update these lessons to y in future if I am sold on it.

See the Sidebar of this lesson if you’re curious about why this question is hard to answer, and about a proposed “unified” system of transliteration that has a different solution.

More sound changes and disappearing endings

Similarly to how αΉ― merged with t, so did ḏ often merge with d. So, some biliterals with ḏ eventually could be written for words which had a d instead. In our biliterals above, π“Ž— can be wḏ but later wd; there is a later version of the glyph itself, π“Ž˜, from around the time when the ḏ/d merge was just about done.

During the Middle Kingdom, the feminine -t on nouns and adjectives gradually became silent, but it was still written … usually. In later writings, the t is omitted more and more often.

Summary: Plurals and duals

  1. Plurals are formed by adding -w to the masculine singular, or -wt to the root for the feminine.
  2. The extra -w in plurals is often omitted in writing, being a weak consonant.
  3. Plurals are usually written with an extra determinative of three strokes. In Old Egyptian, the word’s own determinative was usually written thrice instead, but this is an archaic practice by Middle Egyptian, with one notable exception being π“ŠΉπ“ŠΉπ“ŠΉ nαΉ―rw “gods”.
  4. Duals are formed by adding -wj to the masculine singular, or -tj to the root for the feminine.
  5. Adjectives modifying masculine nouns also have a -w and plural strokes. Adjectives modifying feminine nouns may have the plural strokes but usually just end in -t, unlike the feminine noun which ends in -wt.
  6. The dual endings have the dual strokes glyph 𓏭, although writing the determinative twice is more common than tripling it is for plurals.
  7. Egyptologists differ on whether the dual strokes glyph should be transliterated as j or y.
  8. Over time, the sound ḏ began to merge with d, which affects the reading of some biliterals.
  9. The feminine ending -t became silent during the Middle Kingdom, but it was usually still written; over time it was omitted more and more often.

Vocabulary

  • 𓄣𓐰𓏀 jb “heart”
    • Used for concepts like “mind”, “center”, “emotions” as well as the organ
  • 𓅨𓐰𓂋 wr “great, important, elder”
  • 𓏇𓇋𓅱𓃠 mjw “(tom)cat”
  • 𓅐𓏏𓁐 mwt (mjwt) “mother”
  • π“ŠΉπ“‚‹π“°π“π“†— nαΉ―rt “goddess”
  • π“Ž›π“†‘π“°π“„«π“…±π“†š αΈ₯f꜒.w “snake”
  • π“ˆŸπ“°π“π“ αΈ₯mt (αΈ₯jmt) “woman, wife”
  • π“Œ’π“ˆ–π“€€ sn “brother, sibling”
  • π“Œ’π“ˆ–π“°π“π“ snt “sister”
    • The words for “brother” and “sister” are sometimes used to mean “beloved”. However, contrary to popular thought, the Egyptians did not often practice sibling incest, except for the royal family, since they had the “royal blood” concept.
  • π“ˆπ“…“π“‚» Ε‘m (Ε‘mj) β€œgo, walk, traverse”
  • π“ŽΌπ“‹΄π“ gs “side” var. π“žπ“°π“€
  • π“Ώπ“°π“Šƒπ“…“π“ƒ‘ αΉ―zm “dog” (greyhound, sighthound)

Exercises

Click here to do the exercises for lesson 11.

The sound of the vowel “ee” and the consonant sound “y” blend into each other. Say the word “yellow”. Now say “ee ello”. If you do this a few times, you’ll hear how similar they can be. This is why the j/y question is a question.

If the Egyptians just thought a word ending in “ee” ended with a vowel, then maybe 𓏭 is the same as j, since that means “There was an important vowel here.” But if Egyptian had that “ee” glide into a consonantal “y” at the very end, then you may think that 𓏭 stands not for the vowel “ee”, but for that final consonant y that it glides into. (The Semitic languages do that; the actual Arabic spelling of the name Ali ends with the sound of “y” in “yet”; it might be more accurately transliterated as Aliy.)

In the previous lesson’s sidebar, I talked about Leiden Unified Transliteration (LUT). One thing about it which is interesting, but also mildly annoying, is how it handles the problem of the 𓏭 glyph (see section above). Rather than either j or y, it treats it as a third thing entirely, and writes it as Γ― (“i-umlaut”). (It’s annoying because that’s yet another non-simple-Roman-letter glyph to add to the set one needs to be able to type. Yes, in 2025, that’s less of a problem than it used to be, but still.)

Until more information about LUT is published, I can only speculate on why they made the decisions they made, but purely speculating, I could guess that it’s one of three options:

  1. Since we can’t agree on the sound of 𓏭, for now it’s safest to treat it as a sound of its own until conclusively shown otherwise.
  2. Or, maybe it’s both of j and y, representing the “ee plus glide” combination at the end of certain words.
  3. Or, maybe it’s neither, but somehow something else entirely.

← Previous

Index

Next β†’