You can build any sḏm.n=f now (The sḏm.n=f). Its meaning is more settled than that of the sḏm=f, but not quite the English past tense.
Key idea
Why it works
| Setting | Example | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| narrative | rdj.n=f t n z | he gave bread to the man |
| a speech | jj.n=j ḫr=k | I have come to you |
| after jr "if" | jr sḏm.n=k | if you have heard |
| with rḫ "learn, know" | rḫ.n=f rn=j | he knows my name (he has learned it) |
Worked example: A past event
- sḏm.n=j: the sḏm.n=f of sḏm, with =j "I".
- ḫrw=f "his voice" is the object.
Answer: "I heard his voice."
Worked example: In a condition
- The first jr is the particle "if".
- jr.n=f is the sḏm.n=f of jrj "do": completed action.
- So the condition is pictured as finished.
Answer: "If he has done what is right."
The verb rḫ shows the idea of completion clearly. Its root means "come to know, learn", so rḫ.n=f "he has learned" amounts to "he knows". Several verbs of knowing and perceiving behave this way; when a past tense makes no sense, try the present state that results from the action.
So when you translate a sḏm.n=f, start with the simple past, then adjust. In a speech where someone reports what they have just done, "I have…" is often better. In a condition, "if… has…". With verbs like rḫ, a present. What you will not need is a future or a wish: those belong to other forms, above all the sḏm=f.
Common mistake