pecially indicating a state; e.g. _ntr.t
sm.ti_, "the goddess goes"; _iw-k wd'.ti_, "thou art prosperous." The
endings were almost entirely lost in New Egyptian. For early times
they stand thus:--

Sing. 3. masc. _i_, late _w_. Dual _wii_. Pl. _w_.
fem. _ti_. _tiiw_ _ti_.
2. masc. _ti_ _tiwny_.
fem. _ti_
1. c. _kwi_. _wyn_.

The pseudo-participle seems, by its inflexion, to have been the
perfect of the original Semitic conjugation. The simplest form being
that of the 3rd person, it is best arranged like the corresponding
tense in Semitic grammars, beginning with that person. There is no
trace of the Semitic imperfect in Egyptian. The ordinary conjugation
is formed quite differently. The verbal stem is here followed by the
subject-suffix or substantive--_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdmw stn_,
"the king hears." It is varied by the addition of particles, &c., _n_,
_in_, _hr_, _tw_, thus:--

_sdm-f_, "he hears"; _sdm-w-f_, "he is heard" (_pl. sdm-ii-sn_, "they
are heard"); _sdm-tw-f_, "he is heard"; _sdm-n-f_, "he heard";
_sdm-n-tw-f_, "he was heard"; also, _sdm-in-f_, _sdm-hr-f_,
_sdm-k'-f_. Each form has special uses, generally difficult to
define, _sdm-f_ seems rather to be imperfect, _sdm-n-f_ perfect, and
generally to express the past. Later, _sdm-f_ is ordinarily expressed
by periphrases; but by the loss of _n_, _sdm-n-f_ became itself
_sdm-f_, which is the ordinary past in demotic. Coptic preserves
_sdm-f_ forms of many verbs in its causative (e.g. [Coptic: tanchof]
"cause him to live," from Egyptian _di.t.nh-f_), and, in its
periphrastic conjugation, the same forms of _wn_, "be," and _iry_,
"do." With _sdm-f_ (_sedmo-f_) was a more emphatic form (_esdomef_),
at any rate in the weak verbs.

The above, with the relative forms mentioned below, are supposed by
Erman to be derived from the participle, which is placed first for
emphasis: thus, _sdm.w stn_, "hearing is the king"; _sdm-f_, for
_sdm-fy_, "hearing he is." This Egyptian paraphrase of Semitic is
just like the Irish paraphrase of English, "It is hearing he is."

The _imperative_ shows no ending in the singular; in the plural it has
_y_, and later _w_; cf. Semitic imperative.

The _infinitive_ is of special importance on account of its being
preserved v