Lingua aegyptia JournaL of egyptian Language StudieS 26 2018 Widmaier Verlag ∙ Hamburg 2018 Lingua aegyptia – Journal of egyptian Language Studies (Lingaeg) founded by friedrich Junge, frank Kammerzell & antonio Loprieno editorS Heike Behlmer (göttingen) frank Kammerzell (Berlin) Managing editor antonio Loprieno (Basel) gerald Moers (Wien) reVieW editorS Kai Widmaier (Hamburg) eliese-Sophia Lincke (Berlin) daniel a. Werning (Berlin) i n c o L L a B o r at i o n W i t H tilmann Kunze (Berlin) a d V i S o ry B o a r d James p. allen, providence Joris f. Borghouts †, Leiden christopher J. eyre, Liverpool eitan grossman, Jerusalem roman gundacker, Wien Janet H. Johnson, chicago Matthias Müller, Basel elsa oréal, paris richard B. parkinson, oxford Stéphane polis, Liège Sebastian richter, Berlin Kim ryholt, copenhagen Helmut Satzinger, Wien Wolfgang Schenkel, tübingen thomas Schneider, Vancouver ariel Shisha-Halevy, Jerusalem deborah Sweeney, tel aviv pascal Vernus, paris daniel Werning, Berlin Jean Winand, Liège Lingua aegyptia (recommended abbreviation: LingAeg) publishes articles and book reviews on all aspects of egyptian and coptic language and literature in the narrower sense: (a) grammar, including graphemics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, lexicography; (b) Egyptian language history, including norms, diachrony, dialectology, typology; (c) comparative linguistics, including afroasiatic contacts, loanwords; (d) theory and history of Egyptian literature and literary discourse; (e) history of Egyptological linguistics. We also welcome contributions on other aspects of egyptology and neighbouring disciplines, in so far as they relate to the journal’s scope. Short articles on grammar and lexicon will be published in the section “Miscellanies”. authors of articles or reviews will receive electronic off-prints. Periodically, we would also like to put the journal at the colleagues’ disposal for a forum in which an important or neglected topic of egyptian linguistics is treated at some length: in this case, a scholar who is active in this particular area will be invited to write a conceptual paper, and others will be asked to comment on it. authors should submit papers electronically to the managing editor (lingaeg@uni-goettingen.de). please send contributions in both doc/docx and pdf format. further information (incl. guidelines and a template) is available from www.widmaier-verlag.de. the decision whether to publish a manuscript is taken by the editors in agreement with the advisory board. addresses departement altertumswissenschaften: Ägyptologie, universität Basel petersgraben 51, 4051 Basel, Switzerland institut für archäologie: LB archäologie und Kulturgeschichte nordostafrikas, Humboldt-universität zu Berlin unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, germany Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, georg-august-universität göttingen Kulturwissenschaftliches Zentrum, Heinrich-düker-Weg 14, 37073 göttingen, germany institut für Ägyptologie, universität Wien franz-Klein-gasse 1, 1190 Wien, austria the annual subscription rates are 49 € for individual and 69 € for institutional subscribers while single issues are available for 99 € (incl. german Vat, excl. shipping). orders should be sent to the publisher: Widmaier Verlag, Kai Widmaier, Witthof 23f, 22305 Hamburg, germany (orders@widmaier-verlag.de). www.widmaier-verlag.de iSSn 0942-5659 | iSBn 978-3-943955-66-8 ContEnts articLeS francis Breyer Die Etymologie des ägyptischen Suffixpronomens =f: ein kontaktinduziertes Szenario zur Lösung eines alten problems der semitohamitischen Sprachwissenschaft ................................................ 1–31 Marc Brose die ägyptologischen Zwei-Stativ-theorien auf dem prüfstand .................. 33–102 roman gundacker Zu Lesung und Bedeutung von pt 1 § 1a t: grammatik und Morphologie im Zusammenspiel mit Struktur und Stilistik........................ 103–150 Benoît Lurson Le reniement d’aÿ. wsf dans le panégyrique du spéos d’el-Salamouni ............................................................................. 151–165 carsten peust Zur depalatalisierung in ägyptischen Verbalwurzeln ................................. 167–183 Joshua aaron roberson tête-à-tête: Some observations and counter-arguments regarding a contentious phonological Value, dp or tp............................... 185–202 Sami uljas earlier egyptian cataphora ......................................................................... 203–218 MiSceLLanieS Marc Brose Marginalien zum sDm=f-paradigma des Älteren Ägyptisch ........................ 219–227 John gee the etymology and pronunciation of the Late egyptian Word for Horse .. 229–231 Scott B. noegel appellative paronomasia and polysemy in the tale of sinuhe ................... 233–238 iv contents reVieWS Kristina Hutter, Das sḏm=f-Paradigma im Mittelägyptischen: Eine Vergleichsstudie verschiedener Grammatiken (Marc Brose) ............................................................................................... 239–245 antonio J. Morales, The Transmission of the Pyramid Texts of Nut. Analysis of their distribution and role in the Old and Middle Kingdom (Louise gestermann) ................................................................................... 247–253 Monika Zöller-engelhardt, Sprachwandelprozesse im Ägyptischen. Eine funktional-typologische Analyse vom Alt- zum Neuägyptischen (Matthias Müller) ........................................................................................ 255–262 ines Köhler, Rage like an Egyptian: Möglichkeiten eines kognitiv-semantischen Zugangs zum altägyptischen Wortschatz am Beispiel des Wortfelds [WUT] (rune nyord)............................................................................................... 263–270 James p. allen, A Grammar of the Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts i: Unis (carsten peust) ............................................................................................ 271–288 alessandro Bausi et al. (Hrsg.), Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An Introduction (tonio Sebastian richter) ............................................................................ 289–292 BooKS receiVed ...................................................................................... 293 LingAeg – Studia Monographica: Recent Publications and Backlist LingAeg 26 (2018), 263–270 ines Köhler, Rage like an Egyptian: Möglichkeiten eines kognitiv-semantischen Zugangs zum altägyptischen Wortschatz am Beispiel des Wortfelds [WUT], Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur Beiheft 18, Hamburg: Helmut Buske 2016 (iSBn 978-3-87548-785-5, Hardcover, xii + 442 pages, € 178), reviewed by rune nyord1. the use of theories from cognitive linguistics to analyse ancient egyptian sources has slowly but steadily been gaining ground during the last two-and-a-half decades. central notions such as the embodied nature of the human conceptual system, the conceptual (and not merely linguistic) role of metaphor and metonymy, and the tendency of natural language categories to cluster around prototypes rather than being delineated by necessary and sufficient criteria, have all proven valuable in providing new perspectives on egyptological questions.2 the book under review presents an analysis of the ancient egyptian conceptualisation of anger, drawing on such theories and methods from cognitive linguistics. By analysing a comprehensive data set of occurrences of various terms for ‘anger’, it is shown that the underlying conceptual models are based metaphorically and metonymically on embodied experience from a relatively limited number of conceptual domains. the identity of these domains and the general kind of conceptual metaphors they give rise to turn out not in themselves to be markedly different from those found by similar studies of modern European conceptualisations of anger, but a number of details diverge in important ways, reflecting the differences in the social, ecological and religious frameworks from which the models are drawn. The first chapter of the book, ‘Gesellschaft und Sprache’ (pp. 5–23) offers a very general introduction on the one hand to the social constructivist model of language and society that informs the study, and on the other hand to the study of general semantics, complete with classical examples such as Lewis carroll’s Humpty dumpty and inuit words for snow. under the heading ‘Kognition und Sprache’ (25–53), the second chapter presents a brief introduction to cognitive studies in general followed by a more detailed presentation of cognitive linguistics, including the central notions of idealised cognitive models, prototype theory, conceptual metaphor theory and conceptual blending. chapter three, ‘emotion, Kognition und Sprache’ introduces the study of emotions with particular focus on linguistic approaches to the conceptualisation of anger. In the fourth chapter, ‘Lakoff and Beyond: Kognitive Linguistik und Ägyptologie’ (pp. 75–91), the author provides a brief overview of previous employments of cognitive linguistic theories in egyptology before turning to an outline of the methods of the present study focusing on ‘das Wortfeld [Wut]’ in ancient egyptian texts from the old Kingdom to the roman period. the bulk of the volume is taken up by chapter 5, ‘die fallstudie [Wut]: Konzeptuelle Metaphern und Metonymien’ (pp. 93–276), where the occurrences of individual expressions referring to anger are presented, first according to the conceptual metaphors and metonymies they 1 2 emory university (rune.nyord[at]emory.edu). cf. the overview in nyord (2015), to which may now be added the work under review here along with another recent monograph, Hsu (2017). 264 rune nyord exemplify (e.g. conceptualisations of anger as redness, fire, wild animals, illness, and so on), and in chronological order within each of those categories. the sixth chapter, ‘Zur Semantik von emotionsverben’ (pp. 277–314) provides a complementary view of the evidence by grouping it according to individual Egyptian lexemes to elucidate the specific meaning of each egyptian term and its diachronic development. a brief seventh chapter, ‘Fazit’ (pp. 315–318) gives a concise summary of the main findings of the study. As chapter eight is found an ‘appendix’ (319–404) presenting all of the textual examples on which the study draws ordered by egyptian terms for anger, along with a list of sources and an index. Finally, the ‘Bibliografie’ (405–442) is numbered as chapter nine. the choice of the topic of the work is presented as something of a coincidence, as the author’s initial motivation was simply to apply insights from cognitive linguistics to the area of ancient egyptian semantics, and in particular to elucidate ‘wie und was gefühlt wurde’ (p. xi). The specific focus on anger is thus not motivated further, although it is rightly pointed out that this topic is well-suited for a study of this sort for several reasons: it is an example of a domain which is abstract, yet clearly rooted in bodily experience, thus touching upon one of the central tenets of cognitive linguistics; it is a well-attested semantic domain in the extant sources (p. 2); and it can be modelled on similar nowclassical studies of the english concept of anger in cognitive linguistics (p. 69f). on the other hand, the author does not make much of the fact that for similar reasons, a whole host of studies of the conceptualisation of anger in different languages have been carried out during the last three decades, which might not only have motivated this choice of topic further, but also potentially have served as a source of methodological inspiration and/or cross-linguistic comparison.3 Methodologically, the work proceeds from an initial identification of 14 main lemmata belonging to the ‘Wortfeld [Wut]’ (p. 83f), the occurrences of which in egyptian texts are collected based mainly on the thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae and the slip archive of the Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, supplemented with various other word lists (p. 85). the occurrences collected in this way are presented in the appendix in transliteration and translation. the initial step of the analysis consists in classifying the main conceptual metaphors found in the texts, and after each of the sections presenting evidence of a particular metaphor, a usually brief, encyclopaedic presentation of the role and features of the source domain in the egyptian worldview is given. in this way, it is sought to anchor each of the categories of metaphors within the concrete experience of the ancient egyptians to develop the metaphorical entailments. Finally, the different metaphorical models are combined into an overarching prototypical cognitive model for the domain. on the whole, these general presentations of source domains work remarkably well to flesh out the ancient Egyptian conceptual background of the metaphors, and they exemplify a well-chosen methodological consequence of the cognitive linguistic idea of 3 a far from exhaustive list of examples would include akan: ansah (2014); american Sign Language: grushkin (1998); chinese: yu (1998: 52–60); classical Hebrew: Kruger (2000); Japanese: Matsuki (1995); Kiswahili: Kahumburu (2016); Korean: türker (2013); Spanish: Soriano (2003). a comparative study drawing on english, Spanish, turkish, and Hungarian data is found in Kövecses et al. (2015). review of Köhler, Rage like an Egyptian 265 source domains being derived from concrete embodied experience in a given domain. yet, in a few cases, these presentations of ancient egyptian conceptions of the various source domains do not entirely live up to the ideal of providing a balanced and updated discussion of the topic in question. thus, the presentation of conceptions of the heart (pp. 99–103) takes the old conclusions of Piankoff (1931) as its basis, and thus for example makes no mention of the influential (if divisive) suggestion by Bardinet (1995) according to which the jb and H#tj refer to different anatomical entities.4 Similarly, the discussion of egyptian conceptions of the body (pp. 104–107, cf. also the section on the face on pp. 112–113) rests lexicographically on the Wörterbuch (instead of engaging with, or even just citing in passing, newer works such as Walker 1996 or Westendorf 1999) and conceptually mainly on grapow (1954). While in the discussion of rage among gods, a god like Seth (p. 154– 159) receives a relatively thorough and well-referenced discussion, others, such as Horus (p. 162f), get only a highly general presentation with hardly any references backing up the description. the combination of the traditional philological method of collecting and categorising lemma occurrences with the cognitive linguistic concerns with conceptual structure raises some methodological issues that are not resolved completely. With the focus on occurrences of specific lexemes belonging more or less centrally to the domain of anger, in contrast to many of the cognitive studies of anger in other languages,5 the methodology of the present work is not well-poised to pick up purely metaphorical expressions akin to ‘you make my blood boil’ (anger is heat of a fluid in a container) or ‘He thundered his complaint’ (anger is bad weather), where no lexical term for ‘anger’ occurs. the author refers to a few lemmata denoting heat and the colour red that are particular salient in metaphors referring to anger (p. 85), but does not otherwise consider such metaphorical expressions systematically. in practice this means that a trope such as the king being a storm against his enemies (cf. Hsu 2017: 426f) – thus denoting behaviour arguably falling under the heading of ‘anger’ – does not get picked up in the core data set, since no explicit term for ‘anger’ occurs. In this particular case, the phenomenon happens to be mentioned briefly in the discussion of egyptian thoughts about natural phenomena (p. 184), which is taken up because some of the explicit anger terms, notably nSnj, exhibit connections with this source domain. this particular trope thus happens to fall under a metaphorical conceptualisation already identified by other means, so that only some potential details in the conceptualisation, not an entire conceptual metaphor, is missed. However, this raises the question to what extent a more systematic focus on such metaphorical expressions (which have tended to 4 5 cited with approval e.g. by Leitz (1996), Servajean (2001), and assmann (2005: 29), but dismissed categorically e.g. by Westendorf (1999: 109) and ritner (2006: 111 n. 15); cf. nyord (2009: 55–68) for a more detailed discussion. the question of the localisation of the body part becomes particularly pertinent when the author emphasises the bodily location of anger as one of the key differences between modern german (‘Wut im Bauch’) and ancient egyptian (‘im Herzen’) conceptualisations on p. 315. this is likely related to the choice to conceptualise the focus of the study as a ‘Wortfeld’ rather than a broader ‘conceptual domain’ or similar, as is more usual in previous cognitive linguistic analyses. 266 rune nyord form the core of cognitive linguistic studies of anger in other languages) would have led to a different data set, and whether such a wider material basis might have identified additional metaphorical models. the latter possibility is perhaps not particularly likely, but it is a question that is not addressed in the book, but could fruitfully be explored in future studies. the mainly quantitative focus on relatively short passages centred on occurrences of words for ‘anger’ also creates another potential blind spot. thus, on p. 55 the author cogently points out in passing that cultural roles of, and attitudes toward, anger can differ widely between cultures, and need not always be univocal. in principle, a study of the domain of anger in ancient egypt could have raised questions such as what situations were regarded as cause of anger, what were regarded as typical or appropriate reactions to such causes, and how acceptable displays of anger were in different social contexts. In comparison to such questions, the prototype scenario developed on pp. 274–276 presents only a very general picture where there does not seem to be much specifically Egyptian in the event structure. Similarly, the more detailed scenarios for the individual words presented in chapter 6 do not always succeed in providing a nuanced and convincing understanding. For example, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to say that the state of Dnd/ dndn must always (or even just prototypically6) begin with the scenario suggested by the author where ‘Jemand (X) denkt, dass ihm ein schlechtes ereignis (Z), das jemand anders (y) verursacht, geschieht’ (p. 306, similarly with small variations for other terms on pp. 299, 302, 304).7 the implication of this basic scenario would be, for instance, that the deceased is thought to have done something to harm the hostile dead to make them angry in Ct I, 188d [44], which does not seem to find support in the wider passage. In such cases, a closer examination of the occurrences in their context would have been valuable to elucidate what kind of events and situations give rise to the different forms of rage, as well as how and why individual passages may differ from the prototype scenario. Such limitations following from the research design are not necessarily to be regarded as flaws, as any study must naturally choose to focus on certain aspects to the detriment of others, which can in turn be regarded as possible topics for future research. However, one might have wished for a higher degree of methodological reflection, which could have motivated the choice of focus as well as highlighting the areas and questions potentially falling within the area of a cognitive linguistic study of [anger], but not taken up by this particular work. as the use of cognitive linguistics has attained a relatively well-established presence in egyptology by now, recent years have also seen more sceptical reactions resting on more or less clearly articulated misgivings with the conceptual basis and/or employment of such 6 7 While the framework is only presented very cursorily on p. 280f, generally the scenarios presented by natural Semantic Metalanguage are to be thought of as prototypical, so that it is no problem in principle for particular cases to miss one or more of the features. However, no indication is given of the way in which the attestations have given rise to the scenarios suggested, and thus no argument is made to support the identification of certain features as more central than others, which generally limits the cogency of the analyses. cf. also the critique of the use of natural Semantic Metalanguage more generally by riemer 2006. review of Köhler, Rage like an Egyptian 267 theories.8 In the field of ‘classifier’ studies, such criticism has recently led to a new wave of works taking it upon themselves to counter the points raised,9 and it seems the time might be getting ripe for such a ‘next generation’ of more general cognitive linguistic studies taking a reflexive stance on the role and reception of the first wave of studies. It would not be a completely unreasonable objection to this idea that much of the egyptological critique that has appeared so far has tended to be somewhat idiosyncratic and thus offers little basis for a constructive general discussion.10 However, the data available for analysis of ancient Egyptian language and thought are admittedly of a somewhat different order than those employed in the analysis of other (mostly modern) languages, and the integration of traditional philological methods with methodologies derived from linguistics is not always unproblematic, as also seen above. at the same time, a good deal of discussion has taken place outside of egyptology concerning the validity and applicability of cognitive linguistic ideas, and these could be fruitfully engaged with by egyptological work as well.11 it must be said, however, that the book under review shows little interest in developing this side of the egyptological discussion, and in general, previous egyptological dialogues on theory and method play a rather limited role in the book. in a recent review Mcdonald (2014: 518) stated that egyptologists who have been keeping an eye on the literature ‘need no more recaps of Rosch and Lakoff’, and this criticism would in principle be applicable to this volume as well: there are very few ideas presented in chapter 2 that have not already been introduced at some length and employed in previous egyptological monographs, so at best the presentation here means that the book can stand alone as a point of entry for Egyptological readers who may have missed this development in the field. related to this issue is the fact that, whilst the preface is dated ‘Herbst 2016’ (p. xi), it is clear that the bibliography has only been very sporadically updated after the submission of the 2011 doctoral thesis on which the book is based. Thus, recent works with significant relevance for the encounter between cognitive linguistics and egyptology such as Lincke (2011) and Meeks (2015) are mentioned only very briefly without any discussion (p. 79, 279, and 80 n. 363 respectively). even in the case of the works drawing on cognitive linguistics that had appeared before 2011, however, the brief overview (pp. 75–80) seems rather dutiful and shows little engagement with the strengths and weaknesses of previous work, nor any explicit motivations for things that are done similarly or differently here. Likely at least in part because of the temporal distance between the original submission 8 9 See e.g. grossman & polis (2012: 180–182); Meeks (2015); Stadler (2016: 523–525). See particularly Lincke & Kammerzell 2012 (mentioned, but not engaged with, in Mcdonald [2014: 514] whose statement that ‘Objections […] to the use of the term “classifier” remain completely unacknowledged’ is thus not entirely accurate – also in light of earlier contributions such as goldwasser 2006). 10 See for example Stadler (2016) discussed briefly below, but cf. also the somewhat forced dichotomy established by Meeks (2015) between ‘a priori theorisation’ on the one hand and ‘contribution to the study of Egyptian culture’ on the other, where an approach doing one is thus by definition barred from doing the other. 11 Some critical voices and possible ways to make up for weaknesses were included in the discussion in nyord (2009: 5–46), but see more generally Kövecses (2008); gibbs (2007, 2009). 268 rune nyord and the published version, the pioneering status indicated by the subtitle’s reference to ‘Möglichkeiten eines kognitiv-semantischen Zugangs zum altägyptischen Wortschatz’ may now appear somewhat overstated, as this possibility has been demonstrated, albeit generally on a smaller scale and less systematically, by a number of studies in the meantime (and indeed it is largely taken for granted, rather than discussed, in the book).12 together, this relative lack of interest in previous attempts to develop egyptological approaches, along with the slightly dated bibliography, have a noticeable effect on the book. thus, a reader expecting an updated discussion of previous uses of cognitive linguistic ideas in Egyptology, their methodologies, and their reception in this field (or more broadly), followed by an analysis based on the insights gained from such engagement, may be somewhat disappointed. instead, the book presents much more of a direct ‘application’ of a cognitive linguistic framework to ancient egyptian data, with the occasional indication of previous egyptological works in the same vein, but with hardly any discussion of how the book’s methodology relates to that of previous works, and no acknowledgement of the egyptological critics of cognitive linguistics. What the book does offer for the first time is a methodical collection and cognitive linguistic analysis of a well-attested and relatively clearly delineated group of words in the entire chronological span of the pre-coptic history of the egyptian language. this makes it possible not only to elucidate the conceptual structure in a manner similar to the many studies of the conceptualisation of anger in other languages, but also to offer an unprecedented chronological depth of some three millennia to the analysis. in summary, the book presents a solid contribution to the study of ancient egyptian conceptualisations of anger, and it complements previous applications of cognitive linguistic theories and methods in egyptology in particular by the quantitative use of a comprehensive body of evidence and the diachronic depth in the lexical semantic analysis. the latter point is worth emphasising in particular since, apart from the iconicity of the writing system, this is perhaps the main feature offered by the ancient Egyptian material, which makes it stand out from the many other languages studied by cognitive linguistics, thereby providing it with particular relevance and potential interest in a cross-linguistic perspective.13 as such, the work will not only be seminal for future studies of anger, and possibly other emotions, in ancient egypt, thanks to its collection of evidence as well as its analysis, but it also constitutes an important addition to the egyptological literature drawing on cognitive linguistics. on the other hand, the problems outlined above also mean that the work will probably not become a straight-forward model for a new generation of cognitive linguistic approaches, as these will most likely need to a greater extent to combine the strengths and avoid the weaknesses of previous work in this direction and engage with its reception in the field of Egyptology and beyond. 12 See e.g. the studies cited in nyord (2015) and the methodological discussion in nyord (2012). 13 See e.g. the debate summarised in nyord (2009: 33–35) for the call for including diachronic and etymological dimensions in cognitive linguistic analyses. review of Köhler, Rage like an Egyptian 269 Minor Observations More of a peculiarity than a real point of criticism is the author’s fondness of apparently unmotivated anglicisms in headings noticeable already in the book’s title, and including expressions such as ‘Lakoff and beyond’ (p. 75) and ‘Think like an Egyptian’ (p. 213, 225, 230, 235, 245, 250). Is this perhaps evidence of Stadler’s (2016: 525) recent claim that conceptual metaphor theory is problematically ‘vom englischen und seinen denkstrukturen her dominiert’?14 given the large number of textual passages cited, the citation index is naturally highly useful, although unfortunately it has been sorted alphabetically rather than numerically by mistake, so that we get sequences like KRI ii, 86:6–14, followed by KRI ii, 9:4, in turn followed by KRI ii, 94:14 – meaning that if one had sought the middle reference in its expected place in the numerical order, it would not have been found. Bibliography ansah, gladys n. 2014. cognitive models of anger in akan: a conceptual metaphor analysis, in: Cognitive Linguistic studies 1 (1), 131–146. assmann, Jan. 2005. Death and salvation in ancient Egypt, ithaca & London. Bardinet, thierry. 1995. Les papyrus médicaux de l’Égypte pharaonique, paris. Ct = de Buck, adriaan. 1935–1961. The Egyptian Coffin Texts, chicago. gibbs, raymond W. 2007. Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods, in: Monica gonzález-Márquez, irene Mittelberg, Seana coulson & Michael J. Spivey (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics, amsterdam & philadelphia, 2–18. gibbs, raymond W. 2009. Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory?, in: Cognitive semiotics 5 (1–2), 14–36. Goldwasser, Orly. 2006. On the new definition of classifier languages and scripts, in: Lingua Aegyptia 14, 473–484. grapow, Hermann. 1954. Grundriss der Medizin der alten Ägypter: Anatomie und Physiologie, Berlin. grossman, eitan & Stéphane polis. 2012. navigating polyfunctionality in the lexicon: Semantic maps and ancient egyptian lexical semantics, in: eitan grossman, Stéphane polis & Jean Winand (eds.), Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Hamburg, 175–225. grushkin, donald a. 1998. Linguistic aspects of metaphorical expressions of anger in aSL, in: sign Language & Linguistics 1 (2), 143–168. Hsu, Shih-Wei. 2017. Bilder für den Pharao: Untersuchungen zu den bildlichen Ausdrücken des Ägyptischen in den Königsinschriften und anderen Textgattungen, Leiden & Boston. Kahumburu, Monica. 2016. the externality of anger as conceptualized in: Kiswahili, in: Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14 (2), 416–441. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals, in: Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6 (1), 168–184. 14 in Stadler’s view this problem is widespread and serious enough to render the conceptual framework unsuitable for analysing ancient egyptian evidence. it is not clear what kind of examples Stadler has in mind, making this interesting hypothesis difficult to discuss. The hypothesis would, however, seem to entail generations of linguists from many countries working with languages from all over the globe all overlooking this fundamental flaw of the theory depending on English and its ‘denkstrukturen’. this alone seems to this reviewer to make the hypothesis somewhat unlikely, but once it has been clarified, it can be discussed further in future research. 270 rune nyord Kövecses, Zoltán, Veronika Szelid, eszter nucz, olga Blanco-carrion, elif a. akkök & réka Szabó. 2015. anger metaphors across languages: a cognitive linguistic perspective, in: roberto r. Heredia & Anna B. Cieślicka (eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing, cambridge, 341–367. Kruger, paul a. 2000. a cognitive interpretation of the emotion of anger in the Hebrew Bible, in: Journal of northwest semitic Languages 26 (1), 181–193. Leitz, christian. 1996. review of Bardinet 1995, L’Antiquité Classique 65, 432–433. Lincke, Eliese-Sophia & Frank Kammerzell. 2012. Egyptian classifiers at the interface of lexical semantics and pragmatics, in: eitan grossman, Stéphane polis & Jean Winand (eds.), Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Hamburg, 55–112. Matsuki, Keiko. 1995. Metaphors of anger in Japanese, in: John r. taylor & robert e. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world, Berlin & new york, 137–151. Mcdonald, angela. 2014. review of Lincke 2011, in: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 100, 514–519. Meeks, dimitri. 2015. Linguistique et égyptologie: entre théorisation à priori et contribution à l’étude de la culture égyptienne, in: Chronique d’Égypte 110, 40–67. nyord, rune. 2009. Breathing flesh: Conceptions of the body in the ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, copenhagen. nyord, rune. 2012. prototype structures and conceptual metaphor: cognitive approaches to lexical semantics in ancient egyptian, in: eitan grossman, Stéphane polis & Jean Winand (eds.), Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Hamburg, 141–174. nyord, rune. 2015. cognitive Linguistics, in: Julie Stauder-porchet, andréas Stauder & Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los angeles. online at http://digital2.library. ucla.edu/viewitem.do?ark=21198/zz002k44p6 (accessed 22 october 2018). Piankoff, Aléxandre. 1931. Le cœur dans les textes égyptiens dépuis l’Ancien jusqu’à la fin du Nouvel Empire, paris. riemer, nick. 2006. reductive paraphrase and meaning: a critique of Wierzbickian semantics, in: Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 347–379. ritner, robert K. 2006. the cardiovascular system in ancient egyptian thought, in: Journal of near Eastern studies 65 (2), 99–109. Servajean, Frédéric. 2001. Le lotus émergeant et les quatre fils d’Horus: Analyse d’une métaphore physiologique, in: Sydney H. aufrère (ed.), Encyclopédie religieuse de l’univers vegetal: Croyances phytoreligieuses de l’Égypte ancienne II, Montpellier, 261–298. Soriano, cristina. 2003. Some anger metaphors in Spanish and english: a contrastive review, in: International Journal of English studies 3 (2), 107–122. Stadler, Martin. 2016. die größe der nubischen Katze im Mythos vom Sonnenauge: Zur Semantik von demotisch qy “hoch” oder “lang”, in: Sandra L. Lippert, Maren Schentuleit & Martin Stadler (eds.), Sapientia Felicitas: Festschrift für Günther Vittmann zum 29. Februar 2016, Montpellier, 521–538. türker, ebru. 2013. a corpus-based approach to emotion metaphors in Korean: a case study of anger, happiness, and sadness, in: Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11 (1), 73–144. Walker, James H. 1996. studies in ancient Egyptian anatomical terminology, Warminster. Westendorf, Wolfhart. 1999. Handbuch der altägyptischen Medizin, Leiden, Boston & cologne. yu, ning. 1998. The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese, amsterdam & philadelphia.