zbṯ

Egyptian

(modern Egyptological) IPA^(key): /zɛbɛt͡ʃ/
- Conventional anglicization: zebetj

3-lit.

(intransitive) to laugh
- 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?^[1]

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

infinitival forms			imperative
infinitive	negatival complement	complementary infinitive¹	singular	plural
zbṯ	zbṯw, zbṯ	zbṯt	zbṯ	zbṯ

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

verbal adjectives
aspect / mood	relative (incl. nominal / emphatic) forms	participles
aspect / mood	active	active	passive
perfect	zbṯ.n	—	—
perfective	zbṯ	zbṯ	zbṯ, zbṯw⁵, zbṯy⁵
imperfective	zbṯ, zbṯy, zbṯw⁵	zbṯ, zbṯj⁶, zbṯy⁶	zbṯ, zbṯw⁵
prospective	zbṯ, zbṯtj⁷	zbṯtj⁴, zbṯt⁴
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 hieroglyphic writings of zbṯ

sbt

James P[eter] Allen (2010) Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, →ISBN, page 12.
Erman, Adolf, Grapow, Hermann (1929) Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache‎^[1], volume 3, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, →ISBN, pages 434.5–434.11

^ 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.