The current widely-accepted view of the suffix conjugation is that developed by Polotsky, according to which verb-forms are seen as transpositions of the verb, behaving as the substitutional equivalents of the non-verbal parts of speech (noun, adjective, or adverb). However, it is argued that the circumstantial sdm(.f)/sdm. n(.f) after mk and ist do not submit to a substitutional analysis as adverbial forms. In this construction, the circumstantial sdm(.f)/sdm.n(.f) (with the bare sentence with adverbial predicate and the bare pseudo-verbal construction) belong substitutionally with initial main clause formations, which are unconverted/non-transposed patterns, and contrast with genuinely converted/transposed (true subordinate) clause formations, which cannot occur after mk and ist. This suggests that the circumstantial sdm(.f)/ sdm.n(.f) should be analysed as unconverted/non-transposed forms: i.e. as the Middle Egyptian verbal sdm(.f)/sdm.n(.f). This analysis is shown to account for the well known ‘adverbial’ properties of these forms without invoking adverbial substitution.
