# Egyptian: Slave of God



## user1988852

Hello.

How would the term/name "Slave of God" and "Abdullah/Obadiah" be translated into Hieroglyphics, seeing as they already have the term hm.nTr? 

And, regarding hm.nTr, I see it translated as both "priest" and "prophet". Which is a more correct translation? And whereas the full hieroglyph seems to depict a seated male, in practice is it always 'abreviated' to just an axe and a club?


----------



## Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

It seems to me you may be trying to create distinctions where the Egyptians wouldn't have recognized one.  If prophets and priests were both considered servants of god (Faulkner uses the term "servant" instead of "slave" for _Hm_), then it may not be possible to say which translation is "more correct" or to distinguish between either of them and the literal phrase "slave of god".

In addition to _Hm_, Faulkner gives the following possibilities to translate "servant":

 _bAk_  - G29 V31 A1
 _Hnwty_ - V28 U8 N35 W24 Z7 X1 Z4A A1
The relevant entries in Faulkner show _Hm _written with the A1 glyph when it appears by itself, but without A1 when it's part of the phrase _Hm nTr_.  But this doesn't have to mean that it would be wrong to include A1 in _Hm nTr_, as it appears in your example.  It may just be that no such spelling occurred in the texts that Faulkner used when compiling his dictionary.


----------



## user1988852

Thank you again, kind Sir.

Do you know why the nTr is written before the Hm and yet is pronounced after?


----------



## Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

Yes, it's a practice called "honorific transposition".  Here's how James Allen described it in his book _Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs_:


> In the direct genitive, the possessing noun is always second.  Although this rule was inflexible in the spoken language, however, hieroglyphic writing sometimes reverses the order of the two nouns.  This happens most often when the possessing noun is _nTr _"god" or _nswt _"king":  in that case, the possessing noun is usually written first, out of respect, even though it was spoken second.  This practice is known as "honorific transposition."  The transcription of honorific transposition follows the order of speaking, not writing; a dash is often used to connect the two words.


----------



## user1988852

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said:


> The relevant entries in Faulkner show _Hm _written with the A1 glyph when it appears by itself, but without A1 when it's part of the phrase _Hm nTr_.  But this doesn't have to mean that it would be wrong to include A1 in _Hm nTr_, as it appears in your example.  It may just be that no such spelling occurred in the texts that Faulkner used when compiling his dictionary.



Thanks. Honorific transposition. Wow. You're a genius.

To clarify, in the above quote you are saying *it is ok* to include the A1 hieroglyph, or, only, it *is not known to be wrong* to include the A1 hieroglyph?

I would prefer to use A1 if I can (the phrase stands alone, "slave of god", and is not part of a larger phrase), but I will not unless I know it is ok to do so.


----------



## Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

It's ok.  I did a little checking, and (in addition to that entry from hieroglyphs.net) there are other sources that show _Hm nTr _written with A1.  For example, it shows up on page 101 of Lambert's _Lexique Hiéroglyphique_, which you can see here, and page 109 of Erman and Grapow's _Aegyptiches Handwörterbuch, _here.


----------



## user1988852

Thank you so very much, Mr. Hercules . Much appreciated.


----------

