Location: Period: Code:LocationTempleXXYYY -- XX and YYY are the room/structure number and the case number in the room/structure that need to be fixed later. A whole table about the correspondence between these numbers and the naming system of them in other publications will be given later in a seperate table -- # Reference ## hieroglyph: ## transliteration: ## translation: ... # Scene motif: # P_Topic: # Topic: # F_Topic: -- In one scene there might be more than one topic. The topic of the previous sentences which are not related to the discussion of mounds and are not mentioned below are summurized in "P_Topic", while the following ones are summurized in "F_Topic". The "P/F_Topic" may be empty when there are no more sentences, which are not discussed in the below parts, in the whole scene. -- # Transliteration: -- Explation for this part: -- -- It is possible that "=" and "." exist in the beginning of a tokenized word. They should be retained as part of the token. For example, we may have "=j" and ".tw" as individual tokens. "." can also exist in the middle of a token like "m#h.jt". "(?) in the end of a token should also be retained as part of the token. -- -- Punctuation marks ":", "," , "?" and "." in the end of a line should not be taken as a token in the table. They can just be omitted. -- -- The capitalization information is important and should be retained -- -- Each new line marks a new sentence. In One example, there might be several sentences and they may be tokenized or not. Each line is marked with a sentence no. in the beginning -- -- A line beginning with "*" is a line describing what happens in a sentence which needs not to be tokenized and recorded word-by-word in the table. Such lines do not have corresponding lines in the translation part. -- -- In one example, there might be lines with "*" between tokenized sentences. Therefore, I suggest that we should also give a seperate row to the sentences with "*". But this row of course does not contain information of a tokenized word. Instead, we can write the whole sentence with "*" in a seperate column "context". To make a difference between such context row and other rows, in this row, I suggest that a sentence no. is still given as usual while the token no. is given as 0. Becuase when we do not give a sentence no. to such row, then later if we want to order the rows in sequence according to the sentence no., a problem will occur that the rows represented to us are not organized in same sequence as in the original texts. -- -- COLUMN CONTEXT: [[ ]] is used to mark the context (what happens before and after the tokenized sentence in its sentence block) of the immediate following tokenized sentence . Therefore, I suggest that this information can be stored in the column "context". If [[]] exists at the beginning of a tokenized sentence, then the content within [[ ]] should be written at the row of the first token of the following tokenized sentence. If [[]] exists at the end of a tokenized sentence, then the content within [[ ]] should be written at the row of the last token of the following tokenized sentence. This is a little different from the line with *, since the "context" here is a seperate information attached to a tokenized sentence. -- -- An example could look like this (NULL here is just used to say that nothing should be written): -- --sentence no.-- --token no.-- --token-- --context-- --1-- --1-- --#H#a.t-- --NULL-- --1-- --2-- --m#h.jt-- --NULL-- --2-- --0-- --NULL-- --* the King brings to Horus-Behedeti the-First-Fish nome, Mendes, the and the four Living-Bas from anp-- --3-- --0-- --NULL-- --* xpr-#h#a.t barge moors in agnw channel-- --4-- --1-- --j#sd-- --Edfou I, 334, 6-- --4-- --2-- --#sn#d.t-- --NULL-- --4-- --3-- --nbs-- --NULL-- -- Another example for a sentence with previous and folloing context-- --[[(E VII, 153, 18. Sentences said by the king to Horus-of-Edfu (edge line))"I have come to you, ⸢the-Protector⸣, the-One-Who-Protects-His-Father, the-One-Who-Is-with-Strong-Arm, the-One-Who-Grasps-with-(all)-[his]-strength"]] {s#t#a} =j n =k mr.{w}

t m j#a.wt n.{t}

t#a. [["I (the king) offer to you (Horus-of-Edfu) perfection, because you (Horus-of-Edfu) are the god who rules others from his throne (ns.t) in the-Throne-of-Edfu (W#tz.t-#hr)"]]-- --3-- --1-- --s#t#a-- --(E VII, 153, 18; Sentences said by the king to Horus-of-Edfu (edge line)) "I have come to you, ⸢the-Protector⸣, the-One-Who-Protects-His-Father, the-One-Who-Is-with-Strong-Arm, the-One-Who-Grasps-with-(all)-[his]-strength"-- --3-- --2-- --=j-- --NULL-- --3-- --3-- --n-- --NULL-- ... --3-- --9-- --t#a-- --"I (the king) offer to you (Horus-of-Edfu) perfection, because you (Horus-of-Edfu) are the god who rules others from his throne (ns.t) in the-Throne-of-Edfu (W#tz.t-#hr)"-- ... -- COLUMN PHRASE: Words with inner "-" should be seperated as several tokens. For example, "#H#a.t-m#h.jt" should be written seperately as "#H#a.t" and "m#h.jt". I further suggest that a new column named "phrase" be created for these phrases. If a token is linked with another token by "-" in the original texts, then we can mark in the column "phrase" for the rows of the tokens with "p". This column exists as a reminder for me now. These phrases are mostly epithets and toponyms which need to be marked by specific tags. Later I can mannualy add in tags here like "the-Mound-of-Ba", "the-Daugher-of-Re" to replace "p". -- -- A phrase marked within a {{}} is within a cartouch (a sign used to circling the King's name) and all the tokens in this phrase should be marked as "c" in the column phrase. -- COLUMN COMMENT: A sign group { }< > is used to mark special words which need specific comment. {} incorporates the tokenized word or part of the tokenized word, while <> includes the comment information. For example, {=j} or nb{.wt}. I suggest that in the token column, we just ignore the mark {} and write out the token. We add a new column "comment" in which we include the information in < >. -- But problem exists when only part of the token is within {} like nb{.wt} and we can not seperate the token itself. For this circumstance when {} is inside one token, I wonder whether we can move the information within {} to the end of <> to indicate which part of the token belongs to the comment <>.-- -- an example for nb{.wt} is formed like this:-- -- token-- --comment-- --nb.wt-- --person/gender addition{.wt}-- -- Another problem is for the token marked as {x}. This situation normally happens when an alphabet x was actually written by the Egyptians by mistake. In this case, the correct reading should not include the content x within {x}. I wonder whether it is possible to set such a rule: when what is written in <> is "not to be read", we omit the content x within the {x} in the token column and we fill in the comment column the information as "not to be read-{x}token". We write {x}token instead of just what x within {x} to indicate the position of this redundant x written in the token. -- an example for S.t-{s}sn#dm is formed like this:-- --token-- --comment-- --phrase-- --S.t-- --NULL-- --p-- --sn#dm-- --not to be read-{s}snDm-- --p-- # Translation: -- I suggest this part will not be placed in the tokenized table. A specific word's lemma and meaning will be marked out by me manually since they do not correspond to the translation word by word. I think this translation part may just stay here in the txt file-- # Specific mound: -- (x,y) marks the position of the first token in the phrase of a mound. X is sentence no., y is token no. -- -- "I" means that the mound is an individual phrase in the sentence. -- -- "E" means that the mound is "in" part of an epithet, which is used "for" a divinity. -- -- The mounds marked here in the five txt files are all the A-mound types. More possibility of the E/K mounds which are probably equated or comparbale to a sacred mound will be marked by me later directly in the table. -- -- It might be easier that I manually mark out the mounds and related epithets. This part of "specific mound" may be added in the table later. --