ḫpr

See also: HPR and hPR

Egyptian

Pronunciation

(reconstructed) IPA^(key): /ˈχaːpaɾ/ → /ˈχaːpaʔ/ → /ˈχaːpa/ → /ˈχoːpə/^[1]

(modern Egyptological) IPA^(key): /xɛpɛr/
- Conventional anglicization: kheper

Verb

3-lit.

(intransitive) to come into being, to start to exist [since the Pyramid Texts]
- c. 1401 BCE, Amduat of Amenhotep II (tomb of Amenhotep II, KV35) First Hour, closing text, lines 1–2:
  
  st n.j jrw.n.j sšm wj ḫprw m ḥꜥw.j
  Illuminate for me, those whom I made! Lead me, those who came into being through my flesh!
(intransitive) to come to exist or take place (in the currently relevant context); to occur, to happen, to appear, to arise (+ m-ꜥ: to happen to) [since the Pyramid Texts]
- c. 2000 BCE – 1900 BCE, Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor (pHermitage/pPetersburg 1115) lines 21–23:
  
  sḏd.j r.f n.k mjtt jrj ḫpr(.w) m-ꜥ.j ḏs.j
  Even so, let me recount to you something similar to this that happened to me myself.
- c. 1900 BCE, The Instructions of Kagemni (pPrisse/pBN 183) line 2.2:
  
  nj rḫ.n.tw ḫprt jrrt nṯr ḫft ḫsf.f
  One cannot know what might come to be or what the god might do when he punishes.
- c. 1600 BCE, Westcar Papyrus, column 4, line 18:^[2]
  
  ḏj.j sḏm ḥm.k bjꜣyt ḫprt […]
  I will let Your Majesty hear a wonder that happened […]
(intransitive) to evolve, to develop, to transform (+ m: to turn into, to become) [since the Pyramid Texts]
- c. 2000 BCE – 1900 BCE, Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor (pHermitage/pPetersburg 1115) lines 67–73:
  
  jw wp.n.f r(ꜣ).f r.j jw.j ḥr ẖt.j m bꜣḥ.f ḏd.f n.j (j)n-mj jn tw zpwj snwj nḏs (j)n-mj jn tw jr wdf.k m ḏd n.j jn tw r jw pn rdj.j rḫ.k tw jw.k m ss⟨f⟩ ḫpr.t(j) m ntj nj mꜣ.t(w).f
  He opened his mouth at me while I was on my belly before him, saying to me:
  ―Who brought you, who brought you, little man? Who brought you? If you delay in telling me who brought you to this island, I will make you know yourself as ashes, transformed into that which cannot be seen.
- c. 2000 BCE – 1900 BCE, Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor (pHermitage/pPetersburg 1115) lines 149–150:
  
  ꜥḥꜥ.n sbt.n.f jm.j m nn ḏd.n.j m nf m jb.f ḏd.f n.j (j)n wr n.k ꜥntjw ḫpr.t(j) ⟨m⟩ nb sntr
  Then he laughed at me – and at this that I’d said – as being wrong to his mind, saying to me: Are you abundant in myrrh, turned into a lord of incense?^[3]
(intransitive, of time) to come, to arrive

Inflection

Conjugation of ḫpr (triliteral / 3-lit. / 3rad.) — base stem: ḫpr, geminated stem: ḫprr

infinitival forms			imperative
infinitive	negatival complement	complementary infinitive¹	singular	plural
ḫpr	ḫprw, ḫpr	ḫprt	ḫpr	ḫpr

‘pseudoverbal’ forms
stative stem	periphrastic imperfective²		periphrastic prospective²
ḫpr	ḥr ḫpr	m ḫpr	r ḫpr

suffix conjugation
aspect / mood	active	contingent
aspect / mood	active	aspect / mood	active
perfect	ḫpr.n	consecutive	ḫpr.jn
terminative	ḫprt	consecutive	ḫpr.jn
perfective³	ḫpr	obligative¹	ḫpr.ḫr
imperfective	ḫpr	obligative¹	ḫpr.ḫr
prospective³	ḫpr	potentialis¹	ḫpr.kꜣ
subjunctive	ḫpr	potentialis¹	ḫpr.kꜣ

verbal adjectives
aspect / mood	relative (incl. nominal / emphatic) forms	participles
aspect / mood	active	active	passive
perfect	ḫpr.n	—	—
perfective	ḫpr	ḫpr	ḫpr, ḫprw⁵, ḫpry⁵
imperfective	ḫpr, ḫpry, ḫprw⁵	ḫpr, ḫprj⁶, ḫpry⁶	ḫpr, ḫprw⁵
prospective	ḫpr, ḫprtj⁷	ḫprtj⁴, ḫprt⁴
Used in Old Egyptian; archaic by Middle Egyptian. Used mostly since Middle Egyptian. Archaic or greatly restricted in usage by Middle Egyptian. The perfect has mostly taken over the functions of the perfective, and the subjunctive and periphrastic prospective have mostly replaced the prospective. Declines using third-person suffix pronouns instead of adjectival endings: masculine .f/.fj, feminine .s/.sj, dual .sn/.snj, plural .sn. Only in the masculine singular. Only in the masculine. Only in the feminine.

Alternative forms

Alternative hieroglyphic writings of ḫpr

ḫpr

Derived terms

Descendants

Bohairic Coptic: ϣⲱⲡⲓ (šōpi)
Sahidic Coptic: ϣⲱⲡⲉ (šōpe)
Fayyumic Coptic: ϣⲱⲡⲓ (šōpi)
Lycopolitan Coptic: ϣⲱⲡⲉ (šōpe)
Proto-Lycopolitan Coptic: ⳃⲱⲡⲉ (çōpe)
Coptic Dialect P: ⳋⲱⲡⲉ (çōpe)
Akhmimic Coptic: ⳉⲱⲡⲉ (xōpe)

Proper noun

m

A serekh name notably borne by Djedefre, a pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty

References

Erman, Adolf, Grapow, Hermann (1926–1961) Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, →ISBN
von Beckerath, Jürgen (1995) “Ḫpr/ḫpr(w)/ḫpr(w)w in den Königsnamen des Neuen Reiches nach griechischer Überlieferung” in Divitiae aegypti: Koptologische und verwandte Studien zu Ehren von Martin Krause, edited by Cäcilia Fluck, Lucia Langener, Siegfried Richter, Sofia Schaten, and Gregor Wurst. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. 15–18.
Atiya, Aziz Suryal, editor (1991), “Protodialect”, in The Coptic Encyclopedia‎^[1], New York: Macmillan, →ISBN
Hoch, James (1997) Middle Egyptian Grammar, Mississauga: Benben Publications, →ISBN, page 84
Leprohon, Ronald (2013) Denise Doxey, editor, The Great Name: Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, →ISBN, page 35
von Beckerath, Jürgen (1984) Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, →ISBN, pages 52, 179

^ Loprieno, Antonio (2001) “From Ancient Egyptian to Coptic” in Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals.
^ Nederhof, Mark-Jan, Papyrus Westcar, page 14
^ Or ‘You aren’t abundant in myrrh …’, if the initial particle is read as negative nj instead of interrogative jn. The expected negative particle for such a clause would be nn, so an interrogative is more plausible. For a detailed discussion see Scalf, Foy (2009) “Is That a Rhetorical Question? Shipwrecked Sailor (pHermitage 1115) 150 Reconsidered” in Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, volume 136, issue 2, pages 155–159.

[1] Loprieno, Antonio (2001) “From Ancient Egyptian to Coptic” in Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals.

[2] Nederhof, Mark-Jan, Papyrus Westcar, page 14

[3] Or ‘You aren’t abundant in myrrh …’, if the initial particle is read as negative nj instead of interrogative jn. The expected negative particle for such a clause would be nn, so an interrogative is more plausible. For a detailed discussion see Scalf, Foy (2009) “Is That a Rhetorical Question? Shipwrecked Sailor (pHermitage 1115) 150 Reconsidered” in Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, volume 136, issue 2, pages 155–159.

[1]

[2]

[3]