Splitting the sDm.n=f? A discussion of written forms in Coffin Texts - part II

Part II of a paper discussing the written forms of II.red in Coffin Texts adduced by Wolfgang Schenkel in support of his hypothesis of two morphologically distinct forms of the sDm.n=f. Also examined are the case of ult .n non-II.red , which had only a secondary role in Schenkel's original proposal, and the case of the high-frequency verb wnn, which is special. The conclusion is that none of these written forms supports the hypothesis of two distinct forms of the sDm.n=f, just as none contradicts it. In the course of the argument, various issues of possibly broader interest are touched upon: the representation of verbal morphology in writing, the assignment of individual verbs to inflectional classes (notably ng i g i /ngg "cackle," originally a N-stem based on an onomatopoietic segment), a possible phenomenon of samdhi in some constructions of wnn, and aspects of the dynamics of textual variation in Coffin Texts (notably the extraordinarily complex case afforded by CT I 73c-74f; Spell 24).