This passage would give me another concrete example of how the word "km.t" was used in the language, specifically as an ethnic term. Well, I finally found a sample of this verse in the Coptic:

quote:

---

Anok dé ang oukamê...je ang oukamê anok.
"But as for me (Anok dé), I am (ang) black (ou-kamê)...that (je) I am black."
-- Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, Antonio Lopriano, Cambridge University Press, 1995; P131-5.8 (150)

---

Lopriano uses this passage to demonstrate the rules of the nominal sentence in Ancient Egyptian. So, following the rules of the language:

- Ang ounoute anok (Jng w ntr jnk): "I am a god" - literally "I am a god, I am"

- Ang oukamê anok (Jng w km.t jnk): "I am a black"
which is essentially the same as;
- Ang oukamê anok (Jng w km.t jnk): "I am an 'Egyptian'." -- a native, as opposed to

- Ang ourmnk anok (Jng w rm-n-k jnk): "I am a man from Black" -- a citizen

Now, in this same book there is a passage where Pharaoh's daughter describes Solomon:
"My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." (chap.5:10)

So, if Solomon were to respond in kind with a description of himself in the Egyptian language, he would say;

Anok dé ang oudeshr.t...je ang oudeshr.t anok.
"But as for me (Anok dé), I am (ang) red (ou-deshre)...that (je) I am red."

---
So, if you read such childish stuff such as, "The Egyptians considered themselves as Egyptians(?!)" Just smile to yourself, because that's what they did consider themselves "Kemmou" or;

If you read a 'watered down' (ie, Catholic) version of the "Song of Songs" wherein Pharaoh's daughter describes herself as merely "dark" or "dusky", smile as well, because "kamê"...well because you already know what she really said...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Great find, Wally!

---

and I thank you...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dada Afre:
In The Africans Who Wrote the Bible, Dr. Darkwah points out that Solomon, apparently a foreign king, described himself just like an Egyptian would (black and comely, because the sun hath looked upon me) and even compared the beauty of his women to "a company of horses in Pharoahs chariots". He asked a very interesting question. Why would a king in far off Canaan compare the beauty of his women to another king's horses?

---

The point of my posting this topic was to provide a concrete, verifiable example of the use of the root "kmt" in modern Coptic as an ethnic expression. The discussion was not about Solomon.
However, not only is your referenced source about Solomon besides the point, it is completely wrong.

a) It is the Queen (in some cases referred to as a "Shulamite"), not Solomon, who is stating that she is black. (It may help you if you find versions of this book which is written in the form of a play, wherein, each speaker is identified as to who is saying what).

b) It is inferred by Solomon's comparing this Queen to a "company of horses in Pharaoh's chariot", that she was an Egyptian queen. Solomon is actually bragging. There was an exceptional prestige in being visited by and of having a relationship with an Ancient Egyptian royal, given the elevated status of Ancient Egypt during antiquity. Solomon was a minor king ruling over a minor kingdom...

c) Your source statements totally disregard the Queen's description of Solomon as being White and ruddy.

Your source is completely inconsistent with the flow of the whole narrative. I am afraid that, on this point at least, Dr. Darkwah is confused...

But I will take contention with Wally concerning his belief that it was Pharoah's daughter that said I am black. I believe it was a regular jewish peasant woman. Further reading through the Song of Songs reveal the woman's identity. It says
"
Sgs 6:13 Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies."

The above shows that the woman in the narrative was of shulam.

Further revealing her identity is the following
"Sgs 1:6
Look not upon me, because I [am] black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; [but] mine own vineyard have I not kept"

The following shows that the girl was a peasant laborer and not necessarily royalty.

But what is interesting is the conclusion that it brings, in that, her simply being out in the Judean sun would make her become black as the tents of kedar. If a Jewish woman being out in the sun could make her become as black as the tents of kedar, we have an inkling as to the outward appearance of these people in the Ancient world.

A white person being out in the sun wouldn't make them become as black as the tents of kedar, unless the usage of kedar was hyperbolic, which I think it isn't. It induces in the least that the physical appearance of the body politic in ancient Israel, was not homogenous, but much more eclectic.

reading the Bible, one cannot but come to the conclusion that it was a mixed multitude that went out from Egypt during the Exodus of which this mixed multitude included ethiopians and egyptians. This gives us a cogent basis as which to conclude that the reason as to the variation of physical appearance from Solomon being described as white and ruddy, while the shulamite woman was described as black as the tents of kedar because she was a laborer.

This passage would give me another concrete example of how the word "km.t" was used in the language, specifically as an ethnic term. Well, I finally found a sample of this verse in the Coptic:

quote:

---

Anok dé ang oukamê...je ang oukamê anok.
"But as for me (Anok dé), I am (ang) black (ou-kamê)...that (je) I am black."
-- Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, Antonio Lopriano, Cambridge University Press, 1995; P131-5.8 (150)

---

Lopriano uses this passage to demonstrate the rules of the nominal sentence in Ancient Egyptian. So, following the rules of the language:

- Ang ounoute anok (Jng w ntr jnk): "I am a god" - literally "I am a god, I am"

- Ang oukamê anok (Jng w km.t jnk): "I am a black"
which is essentially the same as;
- Ang oukamê anok (Jng w km.t jnk): "I am an 'Egyptian'." -- a native, as opposed to

- Ang ourmnk anok (Jng w rm-n-k jnk): "I am a man from Black" -- a citizen

Now, in this same book there is a passage where Pharaoh's daughter describes Solomon:
"My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." (chap.5:10)

So, if Solomon were to respond in kind with a description of himself in the Egyptian language, he would say;

Anok dé ang oudeshr.t...je ang oudeshr.t anok.
"But as for me (Anok dé), I am (ang) red (ou-deshre)...that (je) I am red."

---
So, if you read such childish stuff such as, "The Egyptians considered themselves as Egyptians(?!)" Just smile to yourself, because that's what they did consider themselves "Kemmou" or;

If you read a 'watered down' (ie, Catholic) version of the "Song of Songs" wherein Pharaoh's daughter describes herself as merely "dark" or "dusky", smile as well, because "kamê"...well because you already know what she really said...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
I have, for I don't know how long, wanted to see the Coptic version of "The Song of Solomon" (or "Canticle of Canticles), wherein the Pharaoh's daughter says to Solomon,
"I am black...that I am black" (chap.1:5-6).

---

This is a common interpretation among non-Hebrew speakers but actually
the female protagonists is an Israelite female noted in the text as
Shulamite. [Shulamiyth is a popular female name among Jews.]

quote:

---

alTakruri~ wrote:
This is a common interpretation among non-Hebrew speakers but actually
the female protagonists is an Israelite female noted in the text as
Shulamite. [Shulamiyth is a popular female name among Jews.]

---

Alright already! Is there a smiley for jumping up and down and banging ones head against a wall?

a) The Song of Songs is the most eloquently erotic book in the Bible. There's a lot of lickin' and lying betwixt breasts and stuff, and its even an interracial romance at that! OK.
b) "Shulamite" is a kinda title, and is the feminine form of Solomon (as is "Salome"). Don't really care if she's Israeli or Pakistani...

c) "Sooun" is a Mdu Ntr word which means "to be wise"
d) "Shalem" is a Mdu Ntr word which means "to Salaam"

c&d are the only means of relating this stuff to Egypt and Egyptology.

And thank you, rasol, when you wrote:
"Wally is only interested here in the use of the term km [km.t] in the Egyptian texts."

It seems significant that the Coptic uses the noun/adjective "Kame" for Black, the same as it is used for the name of the country "Keme; Kimi; Kheme; Kame" as opposed to using the adjective kem.

Of course you already know the Coptic for black is a variant of KM
so any Coptic biblical text with the word
black from the Hebrew shahhor
is liable to use KM.

The Song of Songs is a Hebrew poem and the word Shulamiyth is not a
title nor the feminine of Shlomo. It is a female personal noun and
also is descriptive of a resident of the town of Shulam.

I think the Hebrews know the most about their own writings just
as I trust the Kmtyw know the most and can
best interpret their own culture too.

All the best in your lingusitic researches!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Et tu alTakruri?

Alright already! Is there a smiley for jumping up and down and banging ones head against a wall?

a) The Song of Songs is the most eloquently erotic book in the Bible. There's a lot of lickin' and lying betwixt breasts and stuff, and its even an interracial romance at that! OK.
b) "Shulamite" is a kinda title, and is the feminine form of Solomon (as is "Salome"). Don't really care if she's Israeli or Pakistani...

c) "Sooun" is a Mdu Ntr word which means "to be wise"
d) "Shalem" is a Mdu Ntr word which means "to Salaam"

c&d are the only means of relating this stuff to Egypt and Egyptology.

And thank you, rasol, when you wrote:[b]
"Wally is only interested here in the use of the term km [km.t] in the Egyptian texts."

[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 11 April 2005).][/B]

---

I see where you wanted to go with this...and I believe that you achieved this... Thanks for the reference..

Altakruri,
I also understand your need to be more correct in how the terms related to the overall meaning of the text...so I see your position..

Luckily, as Rasol pointed out, your clarification doesn't diminish Altakruri's initial objection..