Attributive vs predicative participle : Matching forms and functions of the (Pseudo)participle
Résumé
This contribution addresses a question remained insufficiently explored : the possible function characterizing endings that appear with the form called Pseudoparticiple, but also with forms considered as mere ‘participles’, mainly but not only with ult. inf. verbs. Having first developped this analysis on participles in Oréal 2014, I want to draw its crucial consequences on the understanding of the Pseudoparticiple forms to which Prof. Schenkel has devoted groundbreaking studies. The proposed analysis consists in establishing a correlation between these endings and the function of the participles at a syntactic and referential level. It results in a new distinction between a participle with 3MS ending having basically resultative semantics and mainly attributive syntax, and a participle with 3MS ending having classifying/indefinite semantics and mainly predicative syntax, be it as main predicate in a S-V construction or as secondary predicate. From a diachronic point of view, this approach involves a clarification of the evolution that happens in Earlier Egyptian. Contrary to traditional presentation, the ending succeeds to <Ø>, while gradually falls out of (productive) use. While it is true that the form replaces in some way the older form, there is a phase when both coexist with distinct functions. From a systemic point of view, cases where the form does take over former uses of the form happen in a different configuration of adnominal vs. predicative functions that confirms their respective original function.