(PDF) Metaphor, Version 2 (2025)

UCLA UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology Title Metaphor, version 2 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/13n9n0sp Journal UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, 1(1) ISSN 2693-7425 Author Di Biase - Dyson, Camilla Publication Date 2025-01-14 DOI 10.5070/G9.3888 Copyright Information This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License, available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California METAPHOR ‫اﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎرة‬ Camilla Di Biase-Dyson Version 2 EDITORS ANDRÉAS STAUDER Editor, Language, Text and Writing Paris, France SOLANGE ASHBY MENNAT-ALLAH EL-DORRY ANNA HODGKINSON ANNETTE IMHAUSEN CHRISTINE JOHNSTON JUAN CARLOS MORENO GARCÍA MASSIMILIANO NUZZOLO RUNE NYORD TANJA POMMERENING JONATHAN WINNERMAN Los Angeles, USA Cairo, Egypt Berlin, Germany Frankfurt, Germany Bellingham, USA Paris, France Turin, Italy Atlanta, USA Marburg, Germany Los Angeles, USA WILLEKE WENDRICH Editor-in-Chief Turin, Italy Upper Nile Languages and Cultures Natural Environment: Flora and Fauna Material Culture Domains of Knowledge Natural Environment: Landscapes, Climate Economy Geography History of Egyptology Domains of Knowledge Religion Citation: Di Biase-Dyson, Camilla, 2025, Metaphor, Version 2. In Andréas Stauder and Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. ISSN 2693-7425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/G9.3888 [DOI Metaphor, Version 1 https://doi.org/10.5070/G9.3889] 3888 Version 2, January 2025, DOI 10.5070/G9.3888 METAPHOR ‫اﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎرة‬ Camilla Di Biase-Dyson Metapher Métaphore Metaphors are tropes driven by similarity relations that appear in texts, script, images, and even objects from ancient Egypt. When tracing the disciplinary and thematic development of metaphor studies in Egyptology, what can be seen is a change from a typological perspective, which sought to categorize both motifs and metaphor types, to a cognitive perspective, which was more interested in the processes behind the linguistic phenomena. Recently, there has also been increased interest in the development of metaphors in textual and multimodal perspective, and in the usage of metaphors across various media. ‫ ﺗﻈﮭﺮ ﻓﻲ‬.‫اﻻﺳ�ﺘﻌﺎرات ھﻲ "ﺻ�ﻮر ﺑﻼﻏﯿﺔ" )أﺷ�ﻜﺎل ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﯿﺮ اﻟﻤﺠﺎزي( ﺗﺴ�ﺘﻨﺪ إﻟﻰ ﻋﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﺘﺸ�ﺎﺑﮫ‬ .‫ وﺣﺘﻰ ﻓﻲ اﻷﺷ��ﯿﺎء اﻟﻤﺎدﯾﺔ )اﻟﻘﻄﻊ اﻷﺛﺮﯾﺔ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼ��ﺮ اﻟﻘﺪﯾﻤﺔ‬،‫ واﻟﺼ��ﻮر‬،‫ واﻟﻤﺨﻄﻮطﺎت‬،‫اﻟﻨﺼ��ﻮص‬ ‫ ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﺗﺤﻮﻻً ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﺗﺼ��ﻨﯿﻔﻲ ﯾﮭﺪف إﻟﻰ‬،‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺘﺒﻊ ﺗﻄﻮر دراﺳ��ﺔ اﻻﺳ��ﺘﻌﺎرة ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻤﺼ��ﺮﯾﺎت‬ ‫ إﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر إدراﻛﻲ ﯾﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻤﻠﯿﺎت اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻨﺔ وراء‬،‫ﺗﺼ���ﻨﯿﻒ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮﻣﻮز وأﻧﻮاع اﻻﺳ���ﺘﻌﺎرات‬ ‫ زاد اﻻھﺘﻤﺎم ﺑﺘﻄﻮر اﻻﺳ������ﺘﻌﺎرات ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮر ﻧﺼ������ﻲ و"ﻣﺘﻌﺪد‬،‫ ﻓﻲ اﻵوﻧﺔ اﻷﺧﯿﺮة‬.‫اﻟﻈﻮاھﺮ اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺔ‬ .‫ وﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻻﺳﺘﻌﺎرات ﻋﺒﺮ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ اﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻂ‬،"‫اﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻂ‬ etaphor is a trope, found both in linguistic and visual domains (including images and script), that establishes relations of similarity via comparison between two entities (Goatly 2011: 16), for instance, between a king and a wild animal. Metaphors are used for aesthetic and rhetorical purposes (Aristotle, Poetics, 1457b; Fyfe, ed. 1932) although, as Aristotle himself pointed out, metaphorical language is also a pervasive feature of natural discourse (Rhetoric, 3.2.6; Freese, ed. 1926). Via metaphor one can “speak of something as though it were another” (Richards 1936: 116) by comparing a topic (what is being talked about) to a vehicle (how the topic is being talked about), based on common characteristics, the ground (Richards 1936: 99, 117-118). M Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 The relation between topic and vehicle can be seen as scalar in terms of its degree of conventionality. In other words, a metaphor may be entirely fossilized, where the basic meaning might not be accessible to the user, like pr(j), usually “to emerge” in the usage “unpolished, untreated”: Xn pr(j) 4 “4 untreated animal skins” (pMallet = Louvre E 11006, 1.4; Maspero 1877: 47). This meaning may have come from an earlier usage “as has emerged from the quarry” (WB I 524.7-8, see Erman and Grapow 1926-1963). A metaphor may alternatively be highly conventional, like the “path of life” to refer to life choices (WB II 41.15), or potentially novel, like jn(j) pA jH “Bring the ox!” to refer to inviting a person to one’s house (oDeM 303, 4; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions III: 534.11). A metaphor can also be defined at the conceptual level according to its 1 degree of aptness, i.e., the degree to which the figurative meaning describes a relevant feature of the thing being described (Jones and Estes 2006: 19). Metaphor can be identified at the linguistic level via various parts of speech, including names (e.g., Morenz 2004: 46, 79, 86), titles, and epithets (e.g., Blumenthal 1970; Naguib 1992; Franke 1998; Morenz 2004: 119; Windus-Staginsky 2006). At the linguistic level, we can furthermore differentiate a metaphor (an “indirect metaphor” in Steen et al. 2010: 32-33) from a simile (a “direct metaphor”). With simile, the noun or verb is directly likened to another thing or action via a construction with “like” or similar. In Egyptian this role is usually performed by mj “like,” although there also seems to have been an intermediate category between similes and metaphors, comprising metaphors formed with the “identificational” use of the preposition m “as” (Gillen 2009: 183), which mark the vehicle more than other metaphors. Although truly metaphorical phrases can be phrased in this way, this form is mostly used for nonmetaphorical statements in rhetorical-religious texts such as Sms=j sw m 1r-rsj “I will follow him as the Southern Horus” (Stela of Amenemhet, Cairo CG 20040, x+6; Lange and Schäfer 1902: 50). The same can be said for the many non-metaphorical cases of mj, like jw smn.n(=j) xm.n(=j) {j}mj rx.n(=j) “(I) established the one unknown (to me) like the one known (to me)” (Stela of Djari, Brussels E 4985; Landgráfová 2011: 7). Lastly, metaphor is to be distinguished from metonymy (including meronymy or synechdoche, namely, PART FOR WHOLE relations), which establishes a relationship not of similarity but of contiguity between two connected elements of a single domain, like CAUSE FOR EFFECT (Radden and Kövecses 1999: 19). This trope is common to Egyptian linguistic and visual culture (Guglielmi 1986a: 30; Werning 2014), but is not dealt with in detail here. Here and below conceptual Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 methaphors, images, schemas, and metonymic relations are represented in SMALL CAPITALS. Metaphor is not just a linguistic (or visual) expression: it can also be seen as a communicative phenomenon, something that can in effect occur completely unconsciously but that can, even if the metaphor is entirely conventional, have attention drawn to it (Steen 2008: 224 calls this deliberateness; for reactions to this see Gibbs, ed. 2011 and Müller 2011, and for an Egyptological perspective, Di BiaseDyson 2020). Lastly, metaphor can be seen as a cognitive process, based on the human propensity to think in concepts. Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) posits that not only linguistic entities (topics and vehicles), but also the conceptual domains from which they derive, are being compared (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Conceptual domains are regarded as the conceptual structures that represent the coherent organization of experience (Kövecses 2002: 4). By way of example, the Egyptian linguistic metaphor mj.t n anx “path of life” (Amenemope L = pBM EA 10474, 1.7; Laisney 2007: 325) might have its origin in the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY, 1 based on a similarity relation between paths (the source domain) and life progression (the target domain). However, research has matured beyond Lakoff and Johnson to question the literal attribution of language structures to thought structures (McGlone 2007: 115). Today, many scholars acknowledge that it is more likely that “conceptual metaphors underlie the cognitive process by which we interpret figurative language” (McGlone 2007: 116; based on Gibbs 1994, italics mine). Such challenges notwithstanding, this “weak” version of the theory, as McGlone puts it, is fairly robust, being supported by both creative uses of metaphorical language (such as building on specific motifs throughout a text), as well as converging and cross-linguistic 2 evidence. Converging evidence can be derived from psychological research and can be seen, for instance, in slowed processing speed when linguistic and conceptual metaphors are scrambled (Gentner et al. 2002). It can also be noted in metaphors appearing simultaneously in different modes of communication, like spoken language and sign or gesture (Müller 2008). Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural research involves finding the same kinds of conceptual metaphors in a wide range of cultures (Kövecses 2005: 3). This model does not deny that some metaphors are culturespecific (cf. Haikal 1994: 207), nor does it imply that the conceptual metaphors manifest linguistically in the same way. For instance, an Egyptian version of a culturally wellrepresented conceptual metaphor ANGER IS A HOT SUBSTANCE IN A CONTAINER (Kövecses 2005: 68), tA x.t rkH{.t} m X.t=f “The fire rages in his belly” (Amenemope L = pBM EA 10474, 13.7; Laisney 2007: 342), is anchored in a specifically Egyptian complex of metonymically charged body parts: the belly is connected to both the heart and tongue, UNDERSTANDING, and standing for EXPRESSION respectively, both INSTRUMENT FOR ACTION metonymies. It must moreover be recognized that our knowledge of metaphor is undermined by the fact that analysts are external to the cultural system under investigation (Derchain 1976: 7). Although this remark is pertinent for all attempts to appraise ancient cultures, the access to intended meaning demanded by the study of metaphor amplifies the problem in this case. Metaphor Types Metaphors occur in a wide range of genres in Egyptian texts and are apparent already in the earliest language and iconography (cf. Goldwasser 1992, 1995). They are found in all manner of ways in the language, of which the list below gives a mere sample: The verb of a sentence can be a metaphor vehicle (in bold), as in: wn<n>=f sxt m anx.yw n aDA . . . “If he gains (lit. catches with a net) on the basis of false oaths . . .” (Amenemope L = pBM EA 10474, 7.18; Laisney 2007: 334). Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 Metaphors can also be nominal, appearing in what are known as “A is B metaphors,” wherein the first noun, the topic, is A, and the second noun, the metaphor vehicle, is B: (j)m(.j)-r’-pr-wr nb=j ntk Hmw n tA r-Dr=f “Oh High Steward, my lord! You are the steering oar of the entire land!” (Peasant B1 = pBerlin 3023, 298; Parkinson 2005: 37). Some nominal metaphors present only the vehicle, rather than both topic and vehicle, which requires the nature of the metaphor to be deduced from the context. Here the teacher likens a poor student to a piece of wood too bent to be of any particular use: pA xt gwS xAa m sx.t “The crooked wood is left abandoned in the field” (Ani B = pBoulaq 4 r., 23.13; Quack 1994: 337). Metaphors can also be adjectival, as we see, for instance, in metaphors for temperature that express emotional states (Di Biase-Dyson 2018): qb r’ hrw Tz.w “calm (lit. cool) of speech and comforting of words” (stela of Ibi, Cairo JE 46200, 7, in Kubisch 2008: 235-236). Another striking figurative phenomenon, closely tied to metaphoricity, is personification. Here the ground on which the stolen goods have been placed becomes animate and disposes of the contraband: wn pA jwdn r’=f aq(A)=f sw am=f <s>w “The ground opens its mouth and it levels it and it swallows it up” (Amenemope L 9.20; Laisney 2007: 336). Metaphors “marked” with the m of identification form a category somewhere between simile and metaphor, as discussed above. Here an aspect of Thoth (in his manifestation as a baboon) is described: jw pAy=f jb m tx “His heart/understanding is the plummet (of the scales)” (Amenemope L 18.1; Laisney 2007: 348). A simile (direct metaphor) creates an even more direct comparison, which can be further reinforced by other paralinguistic elements. In this case, we see a nominal simile (A is like B), followed by a clarifying subordinate clause: 3 mnmn.t=s mj Say n wDb.w km=sn HH.w “Its [the temple’s] cattle are like riverbank sand: they number in the millions” (Stela of the construction program of Amenhotep III, CG 34025 = JE 31408, 7-8; Helck, ed.: Urk. IV: 1649.14-15). metaphors that serve to emphasise how his son has gone astray, figuratively speaking. In this way, the conventional metaphor of the “path of life,” key to wisdom texts (see Di BiaseDyson 2016b), becomes reactivated and brilliantly exploited for rhetorical purposes. This use of clarification is particularly important in similes, which can otherwise be completely obscure due to a lack of cultural context: tw=k xpr mj wnb “You have become like a wnb-plant [?]” (Menena = oChicago OIC 12074 + oIFAO Inv. 2188, v. 12-13; Guglielmi 1983: 149). Menena starts by asserting to his son that he knows all too well where temptation, personified here by the underworld being “Fierce of Face,” is to be found: mtr=j r mTn nb ntj nHA-Hr m Sfn “I am informed/I have advised about every path (on) which Fierce of Face is in the undergrowth” (Menena, r. 2-3; Guglielmi 1983: 148). Nominal similes can also appear in verbal constructions to highlight the nature of the action: xbA.n=f sj m A.t Sr(j).t mj mAj HzA “He [Amenhotep II] destroyed it instantly like a wild lion” (Memphis Stela of Amenhotep II, JE 86763, 4; Helck, ed.: Urk. IV: 1302.2). Although mj is often used to directly precede verbs, as well as nouns, as in the case of mj wbn Ra(w) “as when Ra shines” (Year 23 Inscription of Thutmose III at Wadi Halfa; Sethe, ed.: Urk. IV: 806.15), the results are, as mentioned above in relation to the Stela of Djari, seldom metaphorical (see Peust 2006). Nevertheless a poignant metaphorical example, with mj preceding an infinitive of the verb pr(j), describes the will of the Lebensmüder to end his life: jw m(w)t m Hr=j {m} mjn <mj> snb mHr mj prj.t r-xnt r-sA jhm.t “Death is before me today <like> the healing of a sick person, like going outside after (a period of) suffering” (Lebensmüder = pBerlin 3024, 130-131; Allen 2010: 303). Extended, text-based metaphorical phenomena are also prevalent in Egyptian literary texts, particularly in scribal encomia, wisdom texts, and love poetry—all rhetorically charged genres. We can measure metaphors across texts via the repetition of lexemes, as well as via the introduction of lexemes within the same semantic field in the course of a text. We see this, for instance, in The “Teachings” of Menena, whereby Menena admonishes his son Pai-iri by drawing on different path-based Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 It is followed by another path metaphor relating to Pai-iri’s errant movements: Sm=k{w} jw nn n=k {tjwt} <Tbw> tm sr.t nb.t jn(j)=k “You have gone off without sandals (because) no thorn has (yet) brought you back” (Menena, r. 3; Guglielmi 1983: 148). Although the text then expands into waterthemed metaphors to emphasise Pai-iri’s deviancy, the father nevertheless re-employs his earlier metaphor of the thorn (which stands for the father’s intervention) later in the text, though he masterfully demonstrates that in this new, nautical domain, the metaphor is no longer apt: ptr jn(j)=j sr.t n mH 1 Hr mT<n> tAH mn a n sx=s “Look, I have brought a thorn a cubit long onto the submerged path, but there is no way of beating it in” (Menena, v. 5-7; Guglielmi 1983: 149). Identifying Metaphors Until very recently in Egyptology there seemed to be a tacit acknowledgement that a “transfer” of one thing to something else (based on Aristotle, Poetics, 1457b; Fyfe, ed. 1932) was something so commonly recognizable that there would be no need to be more explicit about the means by which metaphors are identified. This may in some cases be so, but when a metaphor is contentious, when the meaning is unclear, as is often the case, it is 4 wise to employ a replicable methodological framework. A step forward in this direction was provided by Renata Landgráfová (2008), who, in order to identify metaphorical language in the love poems of the Egyptian New Kingdom, implemented a framework from pragmatics, specifically the “Cooperative Principles” of the language philosopher Paul Grice (1991: 28-30), which outline the conditions under which discourse is maximally comprehensible (quality, quantity, relation, and manner). When one of the communicative maxims is breached, a communicative implicature (i.e., a non-overt meaning, like metaphor) becomes involved. Thus, in the context of the erotic, the “house” of a woman can come to refer to her body (cf. Landgráfová 2008; Vinson 2016). To date, the most explicit approach to metaphor identification has come from Di Biase-Dyson (2016 a; 2017; 2018; also Richardson 2023), whose implementation of MIPVU (Metaphor Identification Procedure VU Amsterdam, for which see Steen 2007: 9, 89; Steen et al. 2010) draws on corpus-based dictionaries to identify basic and contextual senses of lexemes. In this procedure, a metaphor can be identified when the contextual sense differs from the basic sense. Moreover, a conventional metaphor can be identified when that contextual sense is present in the lexicon in the time period of the text. This may also be of use in finding metaphors that have become fossilized, by allowing for some kind of etymological reconstruction (Müller 2008: 11). In this way, one can firstly consider the degree of metaphoricity of a lexeme and secondly make judgments about the metaphor’s conventionality. Metaphors range from conventional, e.g., jt(j) n(.j) nmH(.w) “father of the orphan” (Peasant B1 93; Parkinson 2005: 18), to potentially novel, e.g., kAn.y n(.j) bw-Hwr.w “gardiner of meanness” (Peasant B1 294; Parkinson 2005: 37). As has been emphasized, the dictionary is key to ascertaining conventionality, but this being said, such analysis must be cross-checked with the corpus. For example, when the apparently Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 figurative meaning of kAn.y “gardiner” in the dictionary (WB V 107.9) is cross-checked in the dictionary’s source base (Belegstellen, in Erman and Grapow 1926-1963) and subsequently also in the digital corpora, the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (including the Digitalisiertes Zettelarchiv), the metaphorical meaning is revealed to be attested in only this case. This not uncommon occurrence underscores not only the necessity for a corpus perspective in metaphor research, but also advocates a scalar approach to metaphoricity: things need not be classified as “metaphorical” or “not metaphorical,” but rather as “more” or “less” metaphorical, as well as “more” or “less” conventional (cf. also Nyord 2017). A data collection and annotation procedure specifically for myth-based metaphors has also been proposed by Katja Goebs (2023). Egyptological Approaches to Metaphor Although one can trace a sustained engagement with metaphor in Egyptological research in the last century, it is significant that little attempt has been made to define and describe metaphor as a phenomenon. Beyond preliminary movements towards categorization, in general little explicit discourse has been conducted as to what constitutes a metaphor. Moreover, it is hard to identify specific strains of research into metaphor, given not only the hybridity of approaches adopted by scholars but also the reality that metaphor is multidimensional, occurring at many levels of text, script and image (e.g., Goldwasser 1995; Angenot 2011; Goldwasser and Grinevald 2012; Chantrain and Di Biase-Dyson 2018; Thuault 2020). Motif-based approaches to metaphor The most important early studies of metaphor were focused on collecting and grouping significant metaphorical cases across a range of text types, without an explicit research program to develop a means of identifying or investigating metaphorical language. Hermann Grapow contended that two factors determine the type of metaphor employed: the existence of sufficient common ground between the things being equated and the intentions of the producer (1983: 10). As his focus was 5 exclusively on a typology of what we would now call “metaphor vehicles” or “source domains” (ibid.: 4), he placed little importance on the kind of metaphorical language used, whether simile or metaphor, as was pointed out by Waltraud Guglielmi (1986b: 986). In fact, Grapow (1983: 3) himself argued that the difference between simile and metaphor is “an sich gering und mehr formaler als inhaltlicher Art.” However, the ongoing empirical research by the current author, which considers the semantic environment of similes and metaphors, suggests that only conventional metaphor vehicles can appear interchangeably as either a simile or a metaphor, depending on the syntax. For instance, the metaphor is used for the king’s epithet mAj HzA “the wild lion” (Karnak hypostyle of Seti I: Hittite Campaign, W side of N wall, 12; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions I, 17.16), but following a verb or an adverbial predicate the simile is usual: jw Hm=f m-sA=sn mj mAj HzA “his majesty was after them like a wild lion” (Ramesseum: Battle of Kadesh relief inscription = R2, W wall of 2nd court, 17; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions II, 135.13-15). Where the metaphor is neither conventional nor apt at the conceptual level—in other words, neither well known nor easily comprehensible (Jones and Estes 2006: 19)— similes are employed. We see this, for instance, in the evocative and creative metaphorical language of the love poems: pA nDm m r’=j sw mj sx.w n Apd.w “the sweetness in my mouth [i.e., of wine], it is like the bile of birds” (Song 12 of pHarris 500, ro 5.2; Mathieu 2008: pl. 12). This is very likely because similes more distinctly mark a metaphor vehicle at the linguistic level, which in turn makes the listener/reader more actively consider the comparison at the conceptual level (see Steen et al. 2010: 26). In more recent times, a range of metaphorical motifs (i.e., source domains) have been explored, such as the heart (Brunner 1977), the path (Vittmann 1999; Zehnder 1999; Di Biase-Dyson 2016 a and b), darkness/light (Galán 1999), water (Ogdon 1987; Grimal 1994; Haikal 1994; Moers 2001), sleep (Gerhards 2018, 2021; Apostel 2022) the moon (Altmann-Wendling 2024), and sensory domains (Di Biase-Dyson and Chantrain Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 2022). Other studies take the opposite perspective, the interrogation of specific target domains, and the motifs they attract, such as death (Hsu 2021) and specific emotions (Köhler 2016; Chantrain 2024). Metaphor and genre Other approaches to metaphorical motifs study them in the perspective of a particular genre. For instance, Siegfried Herrmann described a series of connected motifs in the wisdom tradition that represent human behavior: the ship, the scales, the tongue, and the heart (1954: 106-108). The cultural context of the motifs was then considered, such as the weighing of the heart in funerary contexts (1954: 109-112). Such key metaphors in the wisdom corpus in turn influenced literary works, as can be seen in The Eloquent Peasant (Parkinson 2012), and provided impetus for motifs in the Ramesside genre of “scribal texts” (Ragazzoli 2010: 159-164; Allon 2013: 110). Ramesside love poetry has also engendered a range of motif-based studies. Mathieu (2008: 184) identifies 87 comparative structures (metaphors and similes) in the corpus, 69% of which come from the natural world, constituting a link to the theme of fecundity key to this genre (Mathieu 1999: 105-106; 2008: 247). The poetic strategies in this corpus have since then received fairly abundant attention (for which see Landgráfová and Navrátilová 2009; Hsu 2014a; Vinson 2016). The use of animal imagery in pharaonic monumental texts has also had its share of scholarly attention (for which see, among others, Gillen 2007 and 2009; David 2011; Hsu 2013; Khalafallah Safina 2024). Whereas Gillen considers the features from a discourseanalytical perspective (2009: 183), David (2011) emphasizes the connection between royal iconography and figurative language, and Hsu (2013: 15; 2014b) focuses on the relative distribution of metaphor and simile respective to the king and his enemies. New qualitative research is illustrating that metaphorical density is affected by genre constraints (Di Biase-Dyson fc.), that tests hypotheses about 6 the distribution of metaphor posted by Hellmut Brunner (1975: 805-808). Metaphor in its relation to other tropes An analytical and classificational perspective on metaphor was posited, albeit briefly, by Gerhard Fecht (1970: 37). Following this, Waltraud Guglielmi (1986a: 22-41; also 1996: 465-497) provided an exhaustive typology of ancient Egyptian figurative language for the Lexikon der Ägyptologie, and in another contribution, considered the construction of similes and their distribution in comparison with metaphor (1986b: 986). Other key works considering metaphor in relation to other tropes are Eberhard Otto, in relation to abstraction (1975: 21), Jürgen Osing on allegory (1977: 618-624), Thomas Schneider (2000) on analogy, Steve Vinson (2014) on metonymy, Borges Pires (2017) on symbolism, and Pascal Vernus (2020) on euphemism. Metaphor in words (lexicography and lexical semantics) A preoccupation with the meaning spans of words (a key aim of lexical semantics) has long been prominent in Egyptological lexicography, visible, for instance, in the detailed entries of the Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. Though not always explicity tied to metaphor, the role of abstraction in polysemy is an additional long-standing concern in Egyptian lexicographical work (cf. Westendorf 1973). More recent metaphorically based approaches to the lexicon include work by Koemoth on the word wAb, Di Biase-Dyson (2012; 2018), on the diachronic development of spatial metaphors, Daniel Werning (2012: 324; 2014), who provides an overview of body part terminology and its figurative usages (2014: 147-154), Elisabeth Steinbach (2015), who analyzes the semantics of perception verbs, and Gaëlle Chantrain (2023), who looks at verbs of ignorance and forgetfulness. Another direction entirely is offered by Georgakopoulos et al. (2016), who show that semantic maps can visualise the polysemy of words, including figurative (metaphorical, metonymic, etc.) meanings. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 Metaphor and cognitive approaches Closely tied to the lexical semantic approach to metaphor is the cognitive one, which, adopted simultaneously by studies of classification, made its way into the analysis of Egyptian language via prototype theory (Rosch 1978; cf. Goldwasser 2002), lexical semantics (Traugott and Dasher 2002: 27ff.), Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff and Johnson 1980), and cognitive linguistics in general (see Croft and Cruse 2004: 193ff.; also Nyord 2015). This trend was headed by Orly Goldwasser (1980, 1992, 1995, 2005) and Paul John Frandsen (1997), who shared an interest in the role of prototype categorization in metaphor production, both in Egyptian art and in written language. Their cognitive focus, which drew heavily on the models of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980), is applied more directly to textual material by Arlette David (2004: 48), Erika Meyer-Dietrich (2006: 232-233), Ines Köhler (2011, 2016), Rune Nyord (2009, 2012), and Steve Vinson (2014). Significant in Nyord’s research in particular is an awareness of cultural models (particularly tied to embodiment, a mapping of the CONTAINER image schema inside the human body) upon which speakers are presumed to have drawn in their use of metaphorical language (2012: 170; for image schemas see Hampe, ed. 2005). Pan-textual metaphor A more recent approach to metaphor has brought attention to metaphor patterns in whole texts. Linda Steynor takes a lexical and text-based approach (based on Goatly 2011) to the grain-based metaphors in The Eloquent Peasant and shows how these metaphors are tied to crucial points in the narrative (2011: 169). Lurson (2022) reanalysed the windmotifs as political metaphors in Neferti. Di Biase-Dyson (2017) developed a means of analyzing pan-textual metaphor in Egyptian literary texts by applying a typology developed by Elena Semino (2008: 22-30) for English texts. Graphemic metaphor (script and classifiers) In recent times, several scholars have offered significant contributions to the field of 7 metaphor in Egyptology from the perspective of metaphor in written language. In particular, Goldwasser (1995: 40) considers metaphors from the graphemic level through to linguistic and visual levels. Goldwasser claimed that metaphors emerge in classifiers via associations that reflect ad hoc categories rather than stable semantic structures (for which she cites Barsalou 1983; cf. also Smoczyński 1999: 159160; and additionally Goldwasser 1999 and 2006). Thus, an abstract verb like sr “to foresee” is classified with the giraffe (Gardiner’s Sign-list: E27) on the basis of an association between giraffes and THOSE WHO SEE AND KNOW BEFORE ALL OTHERS (Goldwasser 2002: 18). The lexical semantic basis of this example has been called into question by Christian Cannuyer (2010: 545, 601, 613). Arlette David (2000) also considers the role of ad hoc categories on classification, showing how the semantic development of the lexeme nDs from “smallness” to “inferiority” ensures that its bird classifier G37 can be applied, in an ad-hoc metaphorical transfer (“bad like the small bird”), to other negative lexemes by the First Intermediate Period (ibid.: 56-57). Sandro Schwarz (2005) follows this notion in his study of ship classifiers. The connection between metaphor and classifiers is further considered by David (2007 and 2011), Niv Allon (2007: 20–21), and, from a more lexical than cognitive perspective, Angela McDonald (2007, cf. Zandee 1963: 147). Exception has been taken in recent times to the role of metaphor in classification strategies on the grounds that the relation of these lexemes to their classifiers is more likely to be metonymic than metaphorical (Lincke, ed. 2011: 43-59; Kammerzell 2011; Lincke and Kutscher 2012: 19-22; also Chen 2024). For instance, the duck classifier G39, has a meronymic (PART FOR WHOLE) relationship to nominal lexemes, like rzf “the catch (of fowl and fish),” and a metonymic one (AGENT FOR ACTION) with verbs, such as axm “to fly” (Lincke and Kammerzell 2012: 80). This being said, there is still something to be gained by considering metaphors in relation to classification, particularly if there is a Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 concomitant focus on classification as a reflection of semantic change (cf. Chantrain 2014). It is possible that the systematization of classification apparent at the end of the New Kingdom, which seemed to have been carried out to reflect the semantic change of a number of lexemes, may have even been exploited by some scribes to mark metaphorical language across a text (Chantrain and Di Biase-Dyson 2018). Visual metaphor Visual metaphor is hard to qualify as a separate entity in the Egyptian record: it is often tied to metaphor in complementary modes, as a representation of a linguistic metaphor (Morenz 2006: 52-53; 2008: 128-129), or as a complement (and perhaps precursor) of graphemic metaphor (Morenz 2004: 168; 2008: 74). The latter is argued for by Goldwasser (1995: 11ff.), who analyzed the metaphoric elements relating to domination on the Narmer Palette and elsewhere (ibid.: 12-13). She contends that “domination” not only affected the language used to describe the king but also emerged in the classification system of terms describing pharaonic power (Goldwasser 1995: 58; cf. Frandsen 1997: 91-92; David 2011; Hsu 2013: 5-10). However, not all visual-cum-linguistic metaphors have their basis in political ideology. Some are tied to religious motifs or could be perceived as “cultural metaphors” (Angenot 2011: 260): the tree goddess as shelter (Goldwasser 2002: 42), the depiction of a temple as the body of the god (Meyer-Dietrich 2009), or the portrayal of the western mountains as an embodiment of HathorImentet and “the Peak” (tA dhn.t) (Rummel 2016: 48). Others include the lotus in relation to the Four Sons of Horus (Servajean 2001) and the connection between green feldspar and the Eye of Re (Aufrère 2005). Such metaphors are often multimodal: a scene of pouring water accompanied by sTj mw “pouring water” on the small golden shrine of Tutankhamun may be creating a “sexual metaphor”(Angenot 2011: 277) based on the double entendre of this phrase as “sowing semen” (Westendorf 1967: 141; Kessler 1986: 36; in relation to earlier artworks, 8 Altenmüller 1991: 30-34, but cf. Eaton-Krauss and Graefe 1985). It must be acknowledged, however, that the embeddedness of these motifs in the religious sphere may compromise the very metaphoricity of the “transfer” from one entity to another. More precisely, since the Egyptians believed that the western mountains were the goddess tA dhn.t, and as such were ontologically committed to this transfer (see Nyord 2017: 17), then either there is no metaphor as such—since metaphor relies upon there being a literal and a non-literal meaning—or the definition of the term “metaphor” must be expanded to encompass the Aristotelian sense of “transfer.” Since such a broad categorization would adversely affect the precision with which we can define other kinds of metaphor, I would plead for “religious figuration” to be consciously distinguished from mundane uses of figurative language, including metaphor (cf. Di Biase-Dyson 2023b) It also bears mentioning that some visual metaphor is not simply derived from the language, as illustrated by the respective size of human figures relating to their status in relief, painting and sculpture (Di Biase-Dyson 2023a), or by cultural practices like branding (Valerio 2023). Concluding Remarks Egyptian textual and visual material from all time periods indicates that metaphor, like other modes of figurative expression, forms part of the very earliest means through which Egyptian written and visual culture was expressed. This necessity to represent the “unrepresentable” in tangible terms aligns the cultural output of ancient Egypt with that of other world cultures. This overview has illustrated the broad spectrum of applications of metaphor to various media, from a wide chronological span and a variety of perspectives. While studies of metaphor have become increasingly sophisticated, much remains to be done, and the call for a more empirical basis for these analyses (Haikal 1994: 206) must be heeded. Moreover, more multimodal and multidimensional approaches to metaphorical representation will enable a more holistic understanding of this means of cultural expression. Bibliographic Notes The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (Gibbs, ed. 2008) provides a general overview of all key issues in metaphor research. Poetic metaphor is addressed by Lakoff and Turner (1989), and pan-cultural manifestations of metaphor are discussed by Kövecses (2005). Fauconnier and Turner (2002) examine the blending of conceptual domains. The diachronic development of metaphor is explored by Bowdle and Gentner (2005). Crucial work on metaphor identification has been carried out by the Pragglejaz Group (2007) and by Steen et al. (2010). For the consideration of metaphor in pan-textual perspective, the work of Semino (2008) is very useful. Notable Egyptological literature to date includes principally Grapow (1983 [first published 1924]), Goldwasser (1995), and Nyord (2009). For a new focus on metaphor identification see Di Biase-Dyson (2016a) and for discussions of metaphor marking, Di Biase-Dyson (2020). References Allen, James P. 2010 The Debate Between a Man and His Soul: A Masterpiece of Ancient Egyptian Literature. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 44. Leiden: Brill. Allon, Niv 2007 Seth is Baal: Evidence from the Egyptian script. Ägypten und Levante 17, pp. 15-22. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 9 2013 The writing hand and the seated baboon: Tension and balance in Statue MMA 29.2.16. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 46, pp. 93-112. Altenmüller, Hartwig 1991 Zum möglichen religiösen Gehalt von Grabdarstellungen des Alten Reiches. In Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Dwight Daniels, Uwe Gleßmer, and Martin Rösel, pp. 21-35. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Altmann-Wendling, Victoria 2024 Conceptualizations of the moon. UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Tanja Pommerening, Annette Imhausen, and Willeke Wendrich. DOI: 10.5070/G9.3924. Angenot, Valérie 2011 A method for ancient Egyptian hermeneutics (with application to the small golden shrine of Tutankhamun). In Methodik und Didaktik in der Ägyptologie, Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft IV, ed. Alexandra Verbovsek, Burkhard Backes, and Catherine Jones, pp. 255-286. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Apostel, Lilith DEATH IS SLEEP: The Pervasiveness of a Material and Multimodal Conceptual Metaphor in 2022 Ancient Egypt. Journal of Cognitive Historiography 6(1-2), pp 65-97. DOI: 10.1558/jch.21163. Aristotle 1926 The art of rhetoric. Translated by John Freese. Loeb Classical Library 193, Aristotle Volume XXII. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; and London: Heinemann Ltd. 1932 The poetics. Translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe. Loeb Classical Library 199, Aristotle Volume XXIII. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann Ltd. Aufrère, Sydney H. 2005 Mythe de l'œil du soleil 6, 1-17: la métaphore du feldspath vert et du papyrus. In Encyclopédie religieuse de l'univers végétal: croyances phytoreligieuses de l'Égypte ancienne 3, ed. Aufrère, Sydney H., pp. 125-134. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III. Barsalou, Lawrence 1983 Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11(3), pp. 211-227. Blumenthal, Elke 1970 Untersuchungen zum ägyptischen Königtum des Mittleren Reiches. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 61.1. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. Borges Pires, Guilherme 2017 Aquatic symbolism in ancient Egypt: a complex issue. In Thinking symbols: interdisciplinary studies, ed. Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska, and Jadwiga Iwaszczuk, pp. 231-239. Pułtusk: Pułtusk Academy of Humanities. Bowdle, Brian, and Dedre Gentner 2005 The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112, pp. 193-216. Brunner, Hellmut 1975 Bildliche Ausdrücke und Übertragungen. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Vol. I (columns 805-811), ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1977 Herz. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Vol. II (columns 1158-1168), ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Cameron, Lynne, and Alice Deignan 2006 The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics 27(4), pp. 671-690. Cannuyer, Christian : Étude de lexicographie et de symbolique animalière. Acta 2010 La giraffe dans l’Égypte ancienne et le verbe Orientalia Belgica, subsidia 4. Brussels: Société Belge d’Études Orientales. Chantrain, Gaelle 2014 The use of classifiers in the New Kingdom: A global reorganization of the classifiers system? Lingua Aegyptia 22, pp. 39-59. 2023 Ignorance and forgetfulness in Late Egyptian and Classical Egyptian from the New Kingdom until the 26th dynasty: a lexical study. Lingua Aegyptia 31, pp. 53-90. DOI: 10.37011/lingaeg.31.03. 2024 Sadness, anxiety and other broken hearts: the expression of negative emotions in Ancient Egyptian. In Crossroads VI: between Egyptian linguistics and philology, ed. Andreas Dorn, and Sami Uljas, pp. 27-61. Hamburg: Widmaier. DOI: 10.37011/studmon.30.02. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 10 Chantrain, Gaelle, and Camilla Di Biase-Dyson 2018 Making a case for multidimensionality in Ramesside figurative language. In Crossroads: Whence and whither? Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in comparative perspectives, February 17-20, 2016, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica, ed. Frank Kammerzell, Tonio Sebastian Richter, and Daniel Werning. Hamburg: Widmaier. Chen, Yong Sheng 2024 The metonymic determinatives in Egyptian and Chinese writing. Journal of Chinese Writing Systems 8(2), pp. 140-148. DOI: 10.1177/25138502241257956. Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse 2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. David, Arlette 2000 De l’infériorité à la perturbation: L’oiseau du “mal” et la catégorisation en Égypte ancienne. Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 1; Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2004 Composés attributifs exocentriques, hypallage et métaphore. Lingua Aegyptia 12, pp. 45-51. 2007 Ancient Egyptian forensic metaphors and categories. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 134, pp. 1-14. 2011 Devouring the enemy: Ancient Egyptian metaphors of domination. Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 22, pp. 83-100. Derchain, Philippe 1976 Symbols and metaphors in literature and representations of private life. Royal Anthropological Institute News 15, pp. 7-10. Di Biase-Dyson, Camilla 2012 A diachronic approach to the syntax and semantics of Egyptian spatio-temporal expressions with HA-t “front”: Implications for cognition and metaphor. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 247-292. Hamburg: Widmaier. 2016a Spatial metaphors as rhetorical figures: Case studies from wisdom texts of the Egyptian New Kingdom. In Spatial metaphors: Texts and transformations, Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 39, ed. Fabian Horn and Cilliers Breytenbach, pp. 43-65. Berlin: Edition Topoi. 2016b Wege und Abwege: Zu den Metaphern in der ramessidischen Weisheitsliteratur. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 143(1), pp. 22-33. 2017 Metaphor in The Teaching of Menena: Between rhetorical innovation and tradition. In Proceedings of the conference “(Re)productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt,” Université de Liège, 6.-8. February 2013, Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 10, ed. Jean Winand, Stéphane Polis, and Todd Gillen, pp. 163-179. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège. 2018 The figurative network: Tracking the use of metaphorical language in Ramesside literary texts. In The Ramesside Period in Egypt: Studies into cultural and historical processes of the 19th and 20th dynasties: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Heidelberg, 5th to 7th June, 2015, Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 41, ed. Sabine Kubisch and Ute Rummel, pp. 33-44. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2020 Typological approaches to attention-drawing strategies in Ancient Egyptian metaphorical language. In Drawing attention to metaphor. Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities, Figurative Thought and Language 5, ed. Camilla Di Biase-Dyson and Markus Egg, pp. 39-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. 2023a Building ideas out of wood: what ancient Egyptian funerary “models” tell us about thought and communication. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 33(3), pp. 413-429. DOI: 10.1017/S0959774322000385. 2023b The semantics of a parallel reality. Or: What does religion do to metaphor in an Ancient Egyptian context? Metaphor and the Social World 13(1), Special Issue: “Current challenges in metaphor research”, pp. 81-103. fc. A new look at the role of genre in metaphorical density: How ancient Egyptian textual data aligns with modern quantitative studies. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 11 Di Biase-Dyson, Camilla, and Gaëlle Chantrain 2022 Metaphors of sensory experience in Ancient Egyptian texts: Emotion, personality and social interaction. In Handbook of the Senses in the Ancient Near East, ed. Kiersten Neumann, and Alison Thomason, pp. 603–635. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Eaton-Krauss, Marianne, and Erhart Graefe 1985 The small golden shrine from the tomb of Tutankhamun. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow (eds.) 1926- Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache (WB), 13 Vols (1926-1963). Leipzig: Hinrichs. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner 2002 The way we think. New York: Basic Books. Fecht, Gerhard 1970 Stilistische Kunst. In Literatur, Handbuch der Orientalistik I: 1.2, ed. Hellmut Brunner, pp. 19-51. Leiden and Cologne: Brill. Faulkner, Raymond O. 1956 The man who was tired of life. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 42, pp. 21-40. Fecht, Gerhard 1970 Stilistische Kunst. In Literatur, Handbuch der Orientalistik I: 1.2, ed. Hellmut Brunner, pp. 19-51. Leiden and Cologne: Brill. Frandsen, Paul 1997 On categorization and metaphorical structuring: Some remarks on Egyptian art and language. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7, pp. 71-104. Franke, Detlef 1998 orH.t-Geschöpf des “Ersten Tages”: Eine Assoziationstechnik zur Statuserhöhung in der 10. und 11. Dynastie. Göttinger Miszellen 164, pp. 63-70. Galán, José 1999 Seeing darkness. Chronique d’Égypte 74(147), pp. 18-30. Gardiner, Alan 1957 Egyptian grammar: Being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. Third edition, revised. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Gentner, Dedre, Mutsumi Imai, and Lera Borodistsky 2002 As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space—>time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 17(5), pp. 537–565. Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Daniel A. Werning, Jörg Hartlieb, Tomoki Kitazumi, Lidewij E. van de Peut, Annette Sundermeyer, and Gaëlle Chantrain 2016 The meaning of ancient words for “earth”: an exercise in visualizing colexification on a semantic map. eTopoi Journal for Ancient Studies Special volume 6, pp. 418-452. DOI: 10.17169/FUDOCS_document_000000026008. Gerhards, Simone 2018 Funktion und Bedeutung der Metapher [Tod ist Schlaf] im alten Ägypten: eine Kontextualisierung in Text, Bild und Objekt . In Funktion/en: materielle Kultur - Sprache - Religion. Beiträge des siebten Berliner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (BAJA 7), 2.12.-4.12.2016, ed. Alexandra Verbovsek, Burkhard Backes, and Jan Aschmoneit, pp. 9-29. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2021 Konzepte von Müdigkeit und Schlaf im alten Ägypten. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Beihefte 23. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994 Figurative thought and figurative language. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. Morton A. Gernsbacher and Matthew J. Traxler, pp. 411-446. San Diego: Academic Press. 2008 (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011 Are “deliberate” metaphors really deliberate? A question of human consciousness and action. Metaphor and the Social World 1(1), pp. 26-52. Gillen, Todd 2007 “His horses are like falcons”: War imagery in Ramesside texts. In Proceedings of the Fourth Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, Studia Aegyptiaca 18, ed. Kata Endreffy and András Gulyás, pp. 133-146. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University. 2009 Narrative, rhetoric and the historical inscriptions of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 12 Goatly, Andrew 2011 The language of metaphor. London and New York: Routledge. Goebs, Katja 2011 King as God and God as King: Colour, Light, and Transformation in Egyptian Ritual. In Palace and Temple: Architecture—Decoration—Ritual; Cambridge, 5th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology, July 16th-17th, 2007, Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 4(2), ed. Rolf Gundlach, and Kate Spence, pp. 57-101. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2023 “Mythophor”: a digital tool for the collection and analysis of mythical metaphor in ancient Egypt. In Ancient Egypt, new technology: the present and future of computer visualization, virtual reality and other digital humanities in Egyptology, ed. Rita Lucarelli, Joshua Aaron Roberson, and Steve Vinson, pp. 118-129. Leiden; Boston: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004501294_006. 2024 “Destructive Flame,” “Dazzling Beauty,” and “Source of Enlightenment”—Royal Light Terminology and Metaphor from the New Kingdom to the Late Period. In A Master of Secrets in the Chamber of Darkness. Egyptological Studies in Honor of Robert K. Ritner Presented on the Occasion of His Sixty-Eighth Birthday. Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures of the University of Chicago Studies in Ancient Cultures 3, ed. Foy D. Scalf and Brian P. Muhs, pp. 87-119. Chicago: University of Chicago. Goldwasser, Orly 1980 Hekanahte and the “Boat Metaphor.” Göttinger Miszellen 40, pp. 21-22. 1992 The Narmer Palette and the “triumph of metaphor.” Lingua Aegyptia 2, pp. 67-85. 1995 From icon to metaphor. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 142. Freiburg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1999 The determinative system as a mirror of world organization. Göttinger Miszellen 170, pp. 49-68. 2002 Prophets, lovers and giraffes: Wor(l)d classification in ancient Egypt. (With an appendix by Matthias Müller.) Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten 38/3 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2005 Where is metaphor? Conceptual metaphor and alternative classification in the hieroglyphic script. Metaphor and Symbol 20, pp. 95-113. 2006 A comparison between classifier language and classifier script: The case of ancient Egyptian. In A Festschrift for Hans Jakob Polotsky, ed. Gideon Goldenberg, pp. 16-39. Magnes Press: Jerusalem. Goldwasser, Orly, and Colette Grinevald 2012 What are “determinatives” good for? In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 17-53. Hamburg: Widmaier. Grapow, Hermann 1983 Die bildlichen Ausdrücke des Ägyptischen: Vom Denken und Dichten einer altorientalischen Sprache. (First published 1924 by Hinrichs.) Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchesellschaft. Grice, Paul 1991 Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Grimal, Nicolas 1994 Le sage, l’eau et le roi. In Les problèmes institutionnels de l’eau en Égypte ancienne et dans l’antiquité méditerranéenne: Colloque AIDEA Vogüé 1992, ed. Bernadette Menu, pp. 195-203. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Guglielmi, Waltraud 1983 Eine “Lehre” für einen reiselustigen Sohn (Ostrakon Oriental Institute 12074). Welt des Orients 14, pp. 147-166. 1986a Stilmittel. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI (columns 22-41), ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1986b Vergleich. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI (columns 986-989), ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1996 Der Gebrauch rhetorischer Stilmittel in der ägyptischen Literatur. In Ancient Egyptian literature: History and forms, ed. Antonio Loprieno, pp. 465-497. Probleme der Ägyptologie 10. Leiden: Brill. Haikal, Fayza 1994 L’eau dans les métaphores de l’Égypte ancienne. In Les problèmes institutionnels de l’eau en Égypte ancienne et dans l’antiquité méditerranéenne: Colloque AIDEA Vogüé 1992, ed. Bernadette Menu, pp. 205211. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 13 Hampe, Beate (ed.) 2005 From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Helck, Wolfgang (ed.) 1955 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urk. IV): Heft 17. Urkunden des aegyptischen Altertums. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 1957 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urk. IV): Heft 20. Urkunden des aegyptischen Altertums. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Herrmann, Siegfried 1954 Steuerruder, Waage, Herz und Zunge in ägyptischen Bildreden. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 79, pp. 106-115. Hsu, Shih-Wei 2013 Figurative expressions referring to animals in royal inscriptions of the 18th Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian History 6, pp. 1-18. 2014a The images of love: The use of figurative expressions in ancient Egyptian love songs. Orientalia 83(4), pp. 407-416. 2014b The use of figurative language concerning the death of the king. Archív Orientální 82, pp. 201-209. 2017 Bilder für den Pharao: Untersuchungen zu den bildlichen Ausdrücken des Ägyptischen in den Königsinschriften und anderen Textgattungen. Probleme der Ägyptologie 36. Leiden: Brill. 2021 The ancient Egyptian idea of “death” in conceptual metaphor theory. Aula orientalis 39(1), pp. 97107. Jones, Lara L., and Zachary Estes 2006 Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55, pp. 18-32. Khalafallah Safina, Ahmed 2024 Simile and metaphor in the religious propaganda for the king: a case study of Edfou VIII. Archaeological Inscriptions 2, pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.21608/ARCHIN.2023.258242.1015. Kammerzell, Frank 2011 Anhang 2: Auszug aus dem Abschlußbericht des deutsch-israelischen Kooperationsprojekts “Typologie und Gebrauch der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift.” In Die Prinzipien der Klassifizierung im Altägyptischen, Göttinger Orientforschungen, IV; Reihe: Ägypten 38/6 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 6, ed. Eliese-Sophia Lincke. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kessler, Dieter 1986 Zu den Jagdszenen auf dem kleinen goldenen Tutanchamunschrein. Göttinger Miszellen 90, pp. 3543. Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1975 Ramesside inscriptions: Historical and biographical I. Oxford: Blackwell. 1979 Ramesside inscriptions: Historical and biographical II. Oxford: Blackwell. 1980 Ramesside inscriptions: Historical and biographical III. Oxford: Blackwell. Koemoth, Pierre P. 1993 La “racine” wAb: du mythe à la métaphore. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 20, pp. 109-123. Köhler, Ines 2011 Rage like an Egyptian: The conceptualization of anger. In Current research in Egyptology 2010: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium, Leiden University, The Netherlands, January 2010, ed. Maarten Horn, Joost Kramer, Daniel Soliman, Nico Staring, Carina van den Hoven, and Lara Weiss, pp. 81-96. Oxford: Oxbow. 2016 Rage like an Egyptian: die Möglichkeiten eines kognitiv-semantischen Zugangs zum altägyptischen Wortschatz am Beispiel des Wortfelds [WUT]. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Beihefte 18. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Kövecses, Zoltán 2002 Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005 Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubisch, Sabine 2008 Lebensbilder der 2. Zwischenzeit: Biographische Inschriften der 13.-17. Dynastie. DAIK Sonderschrift 34. Berlin: de Gruyter. Laisney, Vincent P.-M. 2007 L’Enseignement d’Aménémopé. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 19. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 14 Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson 1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, and Zoltán Kövecses 1983 The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. Berkeley: Linguistics Department, University of California at Berkeley. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner 1989 More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Landgráfová, Renata 2008 Breaches of cooperative rules: Metaphors and parody in ancient Egyptian love songs. In Sex and gender in ancient Egypt: “Don your wig for a joyful hour,” ed. Caroline Graves-Brown, pp. 71-82. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. 2011 It is My Good Name that You Should Remember. Egyptian biographical texts on Middle Kingdom stelae. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University in Prague. Landgráfová, Renata, and Hana Navrátilová 2009 Sex and the golden goddess I: Ancient Egyptian love songs in context. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University in Prague. Lange, Hans O., and Heinrich Schäfer 1902 Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches I. Catalogue Générale des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Berlin: Reichsdruckerei. Lincke, Eliese-Sophia 2011 Die Prinzipien der Klassifizierung im Altägyptischen. Göttinger Orientforschungen, IV. Reihe: Ägypten 38/6 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lincke, Eliese-Sophia, and Frank Kammerzell 2012 Egyptian classifiers at the interface of lexical semantics and pragmatics. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 55-112. Hamburg: Widmaier. Lincke, Eliese-Sophia, and Silvia Kutscher 2012 Motivated sign formation in hieroglyphic Egyptian and German sign language (DGS): Towards a typology of iconic signs in visual linguistic systems. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 113140. Hamburg: Widmaier. Lurson, Benoît 2022 Du chaos à la métaphore: le régime des vents dans Néferti VIe-VIg. Lingua Aegyptia 30, pp. 201222. DOI: 10.37011/lingaeg.30.07. Maspero, Gaston 1877 Le Papyrus Mallet. Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 1(2), pp. 47-59. Mathieu, Bernard 1999 L’univers végétal dans les chants d’amour égyptiens. In Encyclopédie religieuse de l’univers végétal: Croyances phytoreligieuses de l’Égypte ancienne 1, ed. Sydney H. Aufrère, pp. 99-106. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III. 2008 La poésie amoureuse d’Égypte ancienne: Recherches sur un genre litéraire au Nouvel Empire. Bibliothèque d’étude 115. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. McDonald, Angela 2007 A metaphor for troubled times: The evolution of the Seth deity determinative in the First Intermediate Period. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 134, pp. 26-39. McGlone, Matthew S. 2007 What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language and Communication 27(2), pp. 109-126. Meyer-Dietrich, Erika 2006 Senebi und Selbst: Personenkonstituenten zur rituellen Wiedergeburt in einem Frauensarg des Mittleren Reiches. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 216. Freiburg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2009 Der Tempel als Körper: Das Verhältnis zwischen architektonischer und religiöser Praxis. In 7. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Structuring Religion, Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 3,2, ed. René Preys, pp. 173-190. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 15 Moers, Gerald 2001 Fingierte Welten in der ägyptischen Literatur des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Grenzüberschreitung, Reisemotiv und Fiktionalität. Probleme der Ägyptologie 19. Leiden: Brill. Morenz, Ludwig 2004 Bild-Buchstaben und symbolische Zeichen: Die Herausbildung der Schrift in der hohen Kultur Altägyptens. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 205. Freiburg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2006 Der “Fisch an der Angel”: Die hieroglyphen-bildliche Metapher eines Mathematikers. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 133, pp. 51-55. 2008 Sinn und Spiel der Zeichen: Visuelle Poesie im Alten Ägypten. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag. Müller, Cornelia 2008 Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2011 Are “deliberate metaphors” really deliberate? A question of human consciousness and action. Metaphor and the Social World 1(1), pp. 61-66. Naguib, Saphinaz-Amal 1992 “Fille du dieu”, “épouse du dieu”, “mère du dieu” ou la métaphore féminine. In The intellectual heritage of Egypt: studies presented to László Kákosy by friends and colleagues on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. Ulrich Luft, pp. 437-447. Budapest: Chaire d'Égyptologie. Nyord, Rune 2009 Breathing flesh: Conceptions of the body in the ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. CNI Publications 37. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. 2012 Prototype structures and conceptual metaphor: Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 141-174. Hamburg: Widmaier. 2015 Cognitive linguistics. In Julie Stauder-Porchet, Andréas Stauder, and Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k44p6 2017 Analogy and metaphor in ancient medicine and the ancient Egyptian conceptualization of heat in the body. In The comparable body: Imagination and analogy in ancient anatomy and physiology, Studies in Ancient Medicine, ed. John Wee. Pp. 12-42. Leiden: Brill. Ogdon, Jorge 1987 A hitherto unrecognized metaphor of death in Papyrus Berlin 3024. Göttinger Miszellen 100, pp. 7380. Osing, Jürgen 1977 Gleichnis. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Vol. II (columns 618-624), ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Otto, Eberhard 1975 Abstraktionsvermögen. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Vol. 1 (columns 18-23), ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Parkinson, Richard 2005 The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant. (First published 1991 by Griffith Institute.) Oxford: Griffith Institute Publications. 2012 The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant: A reader’s commentary. Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 10. Hamburg: Widmaier. Peust, Carsten 2006 Die Syntax des Vergleichs mit mj “wie” im Älteren Ägyptisch. In jn.t Dr.w: Festschrift für Friedrich Junge, ed. Gerald Moers, Heike Behlmer, Katja Demuß, and Kai Widmaier, pp. 485-519. Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie. Pragglejaz Group 2007 MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1), pp. 1-39. Quack, Joachim 1994 Die Lehren des Ani: Ein neuägyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem kulturellen Umfeld. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 141. Freiburg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Radden, Günter, and Zoltán Kövecses 1999 Towards a theory of metonymy. Metonymy in Language and Thought 4, pp. 17-60. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 16 Ragazzoli, Chloé 2010 Weak hands and soft mouths: Elements of a scribal identity in the New Kingdom. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 137, pp. 1-14. Richards, Ivor 1936 The philosophy of rhetoric. New York and London: Oxford University Press. Richardson, Sophie 2023 Lost in metaphor: MIPVU and its benefits for translating ancient texts. In ICE XII: proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Egyptologists, 3rd-8th November 2019, Cairo, Egypt 2, ed. Ola el- Aguizy, and Burt Kasparian, pp. 863-870. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale. Rosch, Eleanor 1978 Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization, ed. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd, pp. 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rummel, Ute 2016 Der Leib der Göttin: Materialität und Semantik ägyptischer Felslandschaft. In Gebauter Raum: Architektur - Landschaft – Mensch: Beiträge des fünften Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 5), 12.12. bis 14.12.2014, Göttinger Orientforschungen, IV; Reihe: Ägypten 62, ed. Susanne Beck, Burkhard Backes, I-Ting Liao, Henrike Simon, and Alexandra Verbovsek, pp. 41-74. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schneider, Thomas 2000 Die Waffe der Analogie. Altägyptische Magie als System. In Das Analogiedenken Vorstöße in ein neues Gebiet der Rationalitätstheorie, ed. Karen Gloy, and Manuel Bachmann, pp. 37-85. Baden Baden: Nomos. Schwarz, Sandro 2005 Schiffe und Schiffsteile als Klassifikatoren in der ägyptische Hieroglyphenschrift. Unpublished Masters thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Semino, Elena 2008 Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Servajean, Frédéric 2001 Le lotus émergeant et les quatre fils d'Horus: analyse d'une métaphore physiologique. In Encyclopédie religieuse de l'univers végétal: croyances phytoreligieuses de l'Égypte ancienne 2, ed. Sydney H. Aufrère, pp. 261-297. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III. Sethe, Kurt (ed.) 1907 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urk. IV): Heft 11. Urkunden des aegyptischen Altertums. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Smoczyński, Wawrzyniec 1999 Seeking structure in the lexicon: On some cognitive-functional aspects of determinative assignment. Lingua Aegyptia 6, pp. 153-162. Steen, Gerard 2007 Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2008 The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23, pp. 213-241. Steen, Gerard, A.G. (Lettie) Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma 2010 A method for linguistic metaphor identification. Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Steinbach, Elisabeth 2015 “Ich habe seinen Anblick geschmeckt . . .”: Verben der Wahrnehmung und die semantischen Beziehungen zwischen Perzeption und Kognition. In Text: Wissen - Wirkung – Wahrnehmung: Beiträge des vierten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 4), 29.11. bis 1.12.2013, Göttinger Orientforschungen, IV; Reihe: Ägypten 59, ed. Gregor Neunert, Henrike Simon, Alexandra Verbovsek, and Kathrin Gabler, pp. 209-225. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steynor, Linda 2011 The function of metaphor in The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant: Preliminary considerations. In Current research in Egyptology 2010: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium, Leiden University, the Netherlands, January 2010, ed. Maarten Horn, Joost Kramer, Daniel Soliman, Nico Staring, Carina van den Hoven, and Lara Weiss, pp. 157-173. Oxford: Oxbow. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 17 Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae (TLA), including Digitalisiertes Zettelarchiv (DZA) http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla; https://thesaurus-linguae-aegyptiae.de/(accessed 30.12.2024). Thuault, Simon 2020 L'iconicité des hiéroglyphes égyptiens: la question de la mutilation. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 147(1), pp. 106-114. DOI: 10.1515/zaes-2020-0029. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher 2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valerio, Marta 2023 Human branding practices during the New Kingdom: a form of control between metaphor and reality. In Compulsion and control in ancient Egypt: proceedings of the Third Lady Wallis Budge Egyptology Symposium, ed. Alexandre Loktionov, pp. 179-194. Oxford: Archaeopress. Vernus, Pascal 2020 Sur l'euphémisme en général et sur l'euphémisme par antiphrase (a contrario) en particulier: son incidence sur l'interprétation des textes: la mort de Ramsès III. In Ein Kundiger, der in die Gottesworte eingedrungen ist: Festschrift für den Ägyptologen Karl Jansen-Winkeln zum 65. Geburtstag ed. Shih-Wei Hsu, Vincent Pierre-Michel Laisney, and Jan Moje, pp. 283-316. Münster: Zaphon. Vinson, Steve 2014 Go figure: Metaphor, metonymy and the practice of translation in the First Tale of Setne Khaemwas. In A good scribe and an exceedingly wise man: Studies in honour of W. J. Tait, ed. Aidan Dodson, John J. Johnston, and Wendy Monkhouse, pp. 305-321. London: Golden House. Behind closed doors: Architectural and spatial images and metaphors in ancient Egyptian erotic 2016 poetic and narrative literature. In Sex and the golden goddess II: The world of the love songs, ed. Hana Navrátilová and Renata Landgráfová, pp. 1-23. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. Vittmann, Günther 1999 Altägyptische Wegmetaphorik. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 15. Vienna: Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien. Werning, Daniel 2012 Ancient Egyptian prepositions for the expression of spatial relations and their translations: A typological approach. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 293-346. Hamburg: Widmaier. 2014 Der “Kopf des Beines,” der “Mund der Arme” und die “Zähne des Schöpfers”: Zu metonymischen und metaphorischen Verwendungen von Körperteil-Lexemen im HieroglyphischÄgyptischen. In Synthetische Körperauffassung im Hebräischen und den Sprachen der Nachbarkulturen, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 416, ed. Andreas Wagner and Katrin Müller, pp. 107-161. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Westendorf, Wolfhart 1967 Bemerkung zur “Kammer der Wiedergeburt” im Tutanchamungrab. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 94, pp. 139-150. 1973 Zur Entstehung übertragener und abstrakter Begriffe. Göttinger Miszellen 6, pp. 135-144. Windus-Staginsky, Elka 2006 Der ägyptische König im Alten Reich: Terminologie und Phraseologie. Philippika 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Zandee, Jan 1963 Seth als Sturmgott. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 90, pp. 144-156. Zehnder, Markus 1999 Wegmetaphorik im Alten Testament: Eine semantische Untersuchung der alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Weg-Lexeme mit besonderer Berücksichtgung ihrer metaphorischen Verwendung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 268. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Janne Arp-Neumann and Eliese-Sophia Lincke, as well as the anonymous reviewers, for their insightful commentary on drafts of this contribution. Metaphor v2, Di Biase-Dyson, UEE 2025 18