Making a case for Multidimensionality in Ramesside Figurative Language

In this paper we explore whether figurative language such as metaphor occurs at all levels of Egyptian texts – from the graphemic to the thematic level. We are interested particularly in the interaction between metaphorical language in texts and ‚metaphorical classifiers’, in a manner that could perhaps be considered ‚multimodal’ (Forceville & Urios-Aparisi 2009: 4) if classifiers are taken as bearing sufficient connection to metaphors in another mode like art (Goldwasser 1995). The metaphorical potential of classifiers is in itself not unproblematic. First suggested by Goldwasser in 1980 (also 1995, 2002), and expanded by David (2000, 2006, 2007, 2011) and (although she rejects the term ‚classifier’) McDonald (2000, 2002, 2007), it has been recently suggested that quality verbs classified with animals that may metaphorically represent that quality (e.g. qnd ‚to be angry’ with E32: ) could instead be using the animal to represent a prototypical experiencer (Lincke 2011). Nevertheless, that classifiers can be based on metonyms has been amply demonstrated (Lincke & Kammerzell 2012; Lincke & Kutscher 2012). Moreover, the idea that classifiers or various nouns and verbs gain in metaphoricity from the Late Period on has been hypothesised by Chantrain (2014). We therefore use as a point of departure a manuscript from the Late Period, EA 10474, upon which the Teachings of Amenemope was written. This text abounds in lexeme- and text-level metaphors (shown most recently by Di Biase-Dyson, in press). We thus seek out cases in which the semantic value of the lexeme (or phrase) is metaphorical and conduct an analysis of the classifier(s), to see if they deviate from contemporary usage and/or represent something that is in some way abstract or metaphorical. This particular use is then considered in synchronic and where possible, diachronic, perspective. In this manner, we seek to address the following questions: • Can there be a synergy between metaphors at the classifier level, the lexeme level and the text or even thematic levels? In other words, can these metaphors actually ‚work together’? • Can metaphor be considered as a factor driving classifier change (considering also the many co-occurring phenomena like semantic change, script and spelling conventions and genre, amongst others)? • Are some classifiers more indicative of metaphorical usage than others? Some particularly interesting cases we wish to address include, for instance, the verbs wHo ‚to untie/finish a task/solve a problem’ and om ‚to swallow/to understand’. We hope that this contribution can help constitute a roadmap for further studies of metaphor in Egyptian and lend weight to hypotheses about changes in classification systems.