We must rethink the status of Hume's science of emotions. Contemporary philosophers typically dismiss Hume's account on the grounds that he mistakenly identifies emotions with feelings. But the traditional objections to Hume's feeling theory are not as strong as commonly thought. Hume makes several important contributions, moreover, to our understanding of the operations of the emotions. His claims about the causal antecedents of the indirect passions receive support from studies in appraisal theory, for example, and his suggestions concerning the social dimensions of self-conscious emotions can help guide future research in this field. His dual-component hypothesis concerning the processing of emotions, furthermore, suggests a compromise solution to a recalcitrant debate in cognitive science. Finally, Hume's proposals concerning the motivational influences of pride, and the conventional nature of emotional display rules, are vindicated by recent work in social psychology.

BrIef CommuNICatIoNSJEA 96 which he rarely published. It was Harris, for instance, who recorded the rock-drawings of [17][18] more than 35 years before they were published by Golenischeff, 23 and the demotic quarry-inscription at Sheikh el-Haridi on 21 february 1856 (notebook 5) 55 years before Spiegelberg. 24 Gottfried Hamernik P. BM EA 10052, Anthony Harris, and Queen Tyti recently rediscovered text copies of what is now P. Bm ea 10052, 6.22-23 by anthony Harris from his Notebook 5, in conjunction with surviving unpublished fragments from this section of the papyrus, identify a Queen tyti as a King's Wife of ramesses III, helping to resolve a long-standing conundrum in the study of the twentieth Dynasty royal family.anthony Harris was not simply a collector, he had an intellectual interest in the antiquities he possessed. this is attested amply not only through publications issued during his lifetime, but also now in his Notebooks, lodged since 1896 in the Graeco-roman museum in alexandria, and studied for the first time by Hamernik. 1 In Notebook 5, Harris made notes on the tomb robbery papyri then in his possession, labelled by him Papyrus No. 1 (now P. Bm ea 10053), Papyrus No. 2 (now P. Bm ea 10052), and Papyrus No. 3 (now P. Bm ea 10054). 2 In these notes, Harris provided a brief description of the documents as a whole, focusing on the division into pages and lines, and also copied the hieratic of brief sections of interest to him, usually focusing on dates or royal names which he was able to spot. one such copy, from P. Bm ea 10052, 6.22-23, preserves a section of the papyrus not seen by Peet and now only partially preserved in fragments. this provides data that helps to resolve a long-standing conundrum in the study of the twentieth Dynasty royal family.P. Bm ea 10052 was first published in transcription and translation by t. e. Peet in 1930. Peet's pioneering work was outstanding, and the quality of his transcription work in particular leaves little room for improvement. However, the papyrus as seen by Peet was lacking approximately a quarter of the lower section across the papyrus, as well as the completion of the lines for the final page of the verso (Peet's page 16). more than two decades later, apparently in 1953, 3 I. e. S. edwards identified a significant number of additional fragments from the Harris tomb robbery papyri in the British museum's papyrus collection. for P. Bm ea 10052, edwards found additional fragments from all 16 pages of the papyrus (7 pages recto and the 9 pages verso), 4 allowing a closer reconstruction of the papyrus as a whole and its series of testimonies. 5 In his Notebook 5, Harris provides an overview of his

No abstract

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.

In Book I, Part I, Section VII of the Treatise, Hume sets out to settle, once and for all, the early modern controversy over abstract ideas. In order to do so, he tries to accomplish two tasks: (1) he attempts to defend an exemplar-based theory of general language and thought, and (2) he sets out to refute the rival abstraction-based account. This paper examines the successes and failures of these two projects. I argue that Hume manages to articulate a plausible theory of general ideas; indeed, a version of his account has defenders in contemporary cognitive science. But Hume fails to refute the abstraction-based account, and as a result, the early modern controversy ends in a stalemate, with both sides able to explain how we manage to speak and think in general terms. Although Hume fails to settle the controversy, he nevertheless advances it to a point from which we have yet to progress: the contemporary debate over abstract ideas in cognitive science has stalled on precisely this point.