DOCSLIB.ORG

In Sumerian Proper and Lifiin Sumeri(M) "Tongue of Sumeru" in Akkadian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAPTER ONE THE SUMERIAN LANGUAGE Fiir Olympia, die mir seit 1954 aile meine Arbeiten geschrieben hat und die mir auf drei Kontinenten gefolgt ist. 1.1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS Sumerian was called eme-ki-en-gi-ra "tongue of Kiengir (Sumer)" or eme-gi7(-r) in Sumerian proper and lifiin Sumeri(m) "tongue of Sumeru" in Akkadian. The replacing of [S) by [s] in most modern languages (but not Russian) has its analogue in the change of [S) for [s] in names of the Hebrew bible. Sumerian is characterized by the interaction of a word base (nom­ inal, verbal, other) which may be invariable or subject to variation (e.g., change of vowel, reduction, extension), and an intricate system of prefixed and suffixed morphemes. The word base itself is impen­ etrable by other morphemes. Unlike Semitic, no infixes occur. Cf. ha-ma-ab-sum-mu [ha-m+a-b-sum-e] "he should give it to me" (WO 8, 173: 11 b2): precative-to-me-it-base give-ergative (3rd person sing. person class). The number of prefixed morphemes varies between zero and six for the verb, zero and one for the noun; the number of suffixed morphemes between zero and three for the verb, zero and three for the noun. Words of considerable length may be built up that way, e.g., hu-mu-na-ni-ib-gi4-gi4 "let him return it to him there" (6 syllables, not comparable, however, with Akkadian ittanablakkatUnikkunufim "they will, over and again, revolt against you", 10 syllables). In both strings of morphemes, prefixed or suffixed, the sequence of the individual elements is unchangeable. The morphemes are mostly monofunctional, as is the rule in agglutinating languages, and very rarely multifunctional as the morphemes of Semitic or Indo-European. Instead of gender, Sumerian distinguishes a "person" and a "non­ person" class. The case system includes an ergative, and the verbal 2 CHAPTER ONE inflection is characterized by ergativity (whether there was, or evolved, "split ergativity" is still a matter of debate-see below 12.7.5). There is well developed, but far from perfect, concord between dimen­ sional suffixes of the noun and dimensional indicators prefixed to the verb, e.g., DN-ra object mu-na(-n)-ru "to god NN, object, he­ built-to-him". As for number, singular and non-singular may be opposed; there are different ways to express plurality. The general word order of Sumerian is S - 0 - V, unless some part of speech is taken to the front for focus. The nominal or verbal base is the essential carrier of meaning, and only bases are listed as entries in the lexical lists. Occasionally, meaning is modified by the occurrence of a "frozen" morpheme. Also, the composition of two (rarely more) nominal word bases may lead to a new meaning beyond the sum of the meanings of the individ­ ual parts of the compound, e.g., e-gal "house big" = "palace" (Akk. ekallu) or ma-tur "boat small", a special type of boat (Akk. maturru). In the light of these general aspects, Sumerian may be compared to such languages as Georgian, Basque, or Itelmen and many oth­ ers. Such comparison is, however, purely structural and of no con­ sequence for the question of the linguistic affiliation of Sumerian. 1.2. THE (HOPELESS) QUESTION OF THE LINGUISTIC AFFILIATION OF SUMERIAN Scholars have wasted much effort looking for living cognates of ancient Sumerian, not realizing that the problem is practically insol­ uble for the following reasons: Sumerian must have separated from a hypothetical language fam­ ily of which it was part in the middle or late fourth millennium B.C. at the latest. We know next to nothing about the sound and struc­ ture of Sumerian before the middle of the third millennium. Thus there is a gap of at least two thousand years between that time and the oldest reconstructible form of any of the languages which have been compared to Sumerian (e.g., Turkish, Hungarian, Sino-Tibetan). Efforts to find cognates have been exclusively based on the sound of individual words. Yet according to W. Deeters (1963, 76) who dis­ cussed the problem of Basque-Caucasian affinities, any words in lan-.
Recommended publications
  • Sumerian Lexicon, Version 3.0 1 A

    Sumerian Lexicon, Version 3.0 1 A

    Sumerian Lexicon Version 3.0 by John A. Halloran The following lexicon contains 1,255 Sumerian logogram words and 2,511 Sumerian compound words. A logogram is a reading of a cuneiform sign which represents a word in the spoken language. Sumerian scribes invented the practice of writing in cuneiform on clay tablets sometime around 3400 B.C. in the Uruk/Warka region of southern Iraq. The language that they spoke, Sumerian, is known to us through a large body of texts and through bilingual cuneiform dictionaries of Sumerian and Akkadian, the language of their Semitic successors, to which Sumerian is not related. These bilingual dictionaries date from the Old Babylonian period (1800-1600 B.C.), by which time Sumerian had ceased to be spoken, except by the scribes. The earliest and most important words in Sumerian had their own cuneiform signs, whose origins were pictographic, making an initial repertoire of about a thousand signs or logograms. Beyond these words, two-thirds of this lexicon now consists of words that are transparent compounds of separate logogram words. I have greatly expanded the section containing compounds in this version, but I know that many more compound words could be added. Many cuneiform signs can be pronounced in more than one way and often two or more signs share the same pronunciation, in which case it is necessary to indicate in the transliteration which cuneiform sign is meant; Assyriologists have developed a system whereby the second homophone is marked by an acute accent (´), the third homophone by a grave accent (`), and the remainder by subscript numerals.
  • Amarna Period Down to the Opening of Sety I's Reign

    Amarna Period Down to the Opening of Sety I's Reign

    oi.uchicago.edu STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION * NO.42 THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Thomas A. Holland * Editor with the assistance of Thomas G. Urban oi.uchicago.edu oi.uchicago.edu Internet publication of this work was made possible with the generous support of Misty and Lewis Gruber THE ROAD TO KADESH A HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BATTLE RELIEFS OF KING SETY I AT KARNAK SECOND EDITION REVISED WILLIAM J. MURNANE THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZATION . NO.42 CHICAGO * ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 90-63725 ISBN: 0-918986-67-2 ISSN: 0081-7554 The Oriental Institute, Chicago © 1985, 1990 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published 1990. Printed in the United States of America. oi.uchicago.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS List of M aps ................................ ................................. ................................. vi Preface to the Second Edition ................................................................................................. vii Preface to the First Edition ................................................................................................. ix List of Bibliographic Abbreviations ..................................... ....................... xi Chapter 1. Egypt's Relations with Hatti From the Amarna Period Down to the Opening of Sety I's Reign ...................................................................... ......................... 1 The Clash of Empires
  • Baseandmodifiedcuneiformsigns.Pdf

    Baseandmodifiedcuneiformsigns.Pdf

    12000 CUNEIFORM SIGN A 12001 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES A 12002 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES BAD 12003 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES GAN2 TENU 12004 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES HA 12005 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES IGI 12006 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES LAGAR GUNU 12007 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES MUSH 12008 CUNEIFORM SIGN A TIMES SAG 12009 CUNEIFORM SIGN A2 1200A CUNEIFORM SIGN AB 1200B CUNEIFORM SIGN AB GUNU 1200C CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES ASH2 1200D CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES GIN2 1200E CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES GAL 1200F CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES GAN2 TENU 12010 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES HA 12011 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES IMIN 12012 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES LAGAB 12013 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES SHESH 12014 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES SIG7 12015 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB TIMES U PLUS U PLUS U 12016 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 12017 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES ASHGAB 12018 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES BALAG 12019 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES BI 1201A CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES DUG 1201B CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES GAN2 TENU 1201C CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES GUD 1201D CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES KAD3 1201E CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES LA 1201F CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES ME PLUS EN 12020 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES NE 12021 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES SHA3 12022 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES SIG7 12023 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES SILA3 12024 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES TAK4 12025 CUNEIFORM SIGN AB2 TIMES U2 12026 CUNEIFORM SIGN AD 12027 CUNEIFORM SIGN AK 12028 CUNEIFORM SIGN AK TIMES ERIN2 12029 CUNEIFORM SIGN AK TIMES SAL PLUS GISH 1202A CUNEIFORM SIGN AK TIMES SHITA PLUS GISH 1202B CUNEIFORM SIGN AL 1202C CUNEIFORM SIGN
  • Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the Colony Period : a Luwian-Hattian Symbiosis and the Independent Hittites*

    Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the Colony Period : a Luwian-Hattian Symbiosis and the Independent Hittites*

    1333-08_Dercksen_07crc 05-06-2008 14:52 Pagina 137 CENTRAL ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES IN THE COLONY PERIOD : A LUWIAN-HATTIAN SYMBIOSIS AND THE INDEPENDENT HITTITES* Petra M. Goedegebuure (Chicago) 1. Introduction and preliminary remarks This paper is the result of the seemingly innocent question “Would you like to say something on the languages and peoples of Anatolia during the Old Assyrian Period”. Seemingly innocent, because to gain some insight on the early second millennium Central Anatolian population groups and their languages, we ideally would need to discuss the relationship of language with the complex notion of ethnicity.1 Ethnicity is a subjective construction which can only be detected with certainty if the ethnic group has left information behind on their sense of group identity, or if there is some kind of ascription by others. With only the Assyrian merchant documents at hand with their near complete lack of references to the indigenous peoples or ethnic groups and languages of Anatolia, the question of whom the Assyrians encountered is difficult to answer. The correlation between language and ethnicity, though important, is not necessarily a strong one: different ethnic groups may share the same language, or a single ethnic group may be multilingual. Even if we have information on the languages spoken in a certain area, we clearly run into serious difficulties if we try to reconstruct ethnicity solely based on language, the more so in proto-historical times such as the early second millennium BCE in Anatolia. To avoid these difficulties I will only refer to population groups as language communities, without any initial claims about the ethnicity of these communities.
  • Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of the Sumerian Language

    Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of the Sumerian Language

    Machine Translation and Automated Analysis of the Sumerian Language Emilie´ Page-Perron´ †, Maria Sukhareva‡, Ilya Khait¶, Christian Chiarcos‡, † University of Toronto [email protected] ‡ University of Frankfurt [email protected] [email protected] ¶ University of Leipzig [email protected] Abstract cuses on the application of NLP methods to Sume- rian, a Mesopotamian language spoken in the This paper presents a newly funded in- 3rd millennium B.C. Assyriology, the study of ternational project for machine transla- ancient Mesopotamia, has benefited from early tion and automated analysis of ancient developments in NLP in the form of projects cuneiform1 languages where NLP special- which digitally compile large amounts of tran- ists and Assyriologists collaborate to cre- scriptions and metadata, using basic rule- and ate an information retrieval system for dictionary-based methodologies.4 However, the Sumerian.2 orthographic, morphological and syntactic com- This research is conceived in response to plexities of the Mesopotamian cuneiform lan- the need to translate large numbers of ad- guages have hindered further development of au- ministrative texts that are only available in tomated treatment of the texts. Additionally, dig- transcription, in order to make them acces- ital projects do not necessarily use the same stan- sible to a wider audience. The method- dards and encoding schemes across the board, and ology includes creation of a specialized this, coupled with closed or partial access to some NLP pipeline and also the use of linguis- projects’ data, limits larger scale investigation of tic linked open data to increase access to machine-assisted text processing.
  • The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars Number 2

    The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars Number 2

    oi.uchicago.edu i THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS NUMBER 2 Series Editors Leslie Schramer and Thomas G. Urban oi.uchicago.edu ii oi.uchicago.edu iii MARGINS OF WRITING, ORIGINS OF CULTURES edited by SETH L. SANDERS with contributions by Seth L. Sanders, John Kelly, Gonzalo Rubio, Jacco Dieleman, Jerrold Cooper, Christopher Woods, Annick Payne, William Schniedewind, Michael Silverstein, Piotr Michalowski, Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Theo van den Hout, Paul Zimansky, Sheldon Pollock, and Peter Machinist THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ORIENTAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS • NUMBER 2 CHICAGO • ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu iv Library of Congress Control Number: 2005938897 ISBN: 1-885923-39-2 ©2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published 2006. Printed in the United States of America. The Oriental Institute, Chicago Co-managing Editors Thomas A. Holland and Thomas G. Urban Series Editors’ Acknowledgments The assistance of Katie L. Johnson is acknowledged in the production of this volume. Front Cover Illustration A teacher holding class in a village on the Island of Argo, Sudan. January 1907. Photograph by James Henry Breasted. Oriental Institute photograph P B924 Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, Michigan The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Infor- mation Services — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. oi.uchicago.edu v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................
  • The Epic of Gilgamesh

    The Epic of Gilgamesh

    Semantikon.com presents An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic On the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts By Morris Jastrow Jr., Ph.D., LL.D. Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Pennsylvania And Albert T. Clay, Ph.D., LL.D., Litt.D. Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature, Yale University In Memory of William Max Müller (1863-1919) Whose life was devoted to Egyptological research which he greatly enriched by many contributions PREFATORY NOTE The Introduction, the Commentary to the two tablets, and the Appendix, are by Professor Jastrow, and for these he assumes the sole responsibility. The text of the Yale tablet is by Professor Clay. The transliteration and the translation of the two tablets represent the joint work of the two authors. In the transliteration of the two tablets, C. E. Keiser's "System of Accentuation for Sumero-Akkadian signs" (Yale Oriental Researches--VOL. IX, Appendix, New Haven, 1919) has been followed. INTRODUCTION. I. The Gilgamesh Epic is the most notable literary product of Babylonia as yet discovered in the mounds of Mesopotamia. It recounts the exploits and adventures of a favorite hero, and in its final form covers twelve tablets, each tablet consisting of six columns (three on the obverse and three on the reverse) of about 50 lines for each column, or a total of about 3600 lines. Of this total, however, barely more than one-half has been found among the remains of the great collection of cuneiform tablets gathered by King Ashurbanapal (668-626 B.C.) in his palace at Nineveh, and discovered by Layard in 1854 [1] in the course of his excavations of the mound Kouyunjik (opposite Mosul).
  • NUMERALS 1 0.1. GENERAL the Sumerian Language Had A

    NUMERALS 1 0.1. GENERAL the Sumerian Language Had A

    CHAPTER TEN NUMERALS 10.1. GENERAL The Sumerian language had a "sexagesimal" system in which numer­ ation proceeded in alternating steps of 10 and 6: 1-10, 10-60, 60- 600, 600-3600, 3600-36000, 36000-216000. With sixty as the "hun­ dred", Sumerian numeration had the enormous advantage of being able to divide by 3 or 6 without leaving a remainder. The sexa­ gesimal system has left its traces in our modern divisions of the hour or of the compass. It permeates the metrological systems of the Ancient Near East. Powell 1971; 1989. Since cardinal and ordinal numbers, including fractions, as well as notations of length, surface, volume, capacity, and weight are next to exclusively written with number signs, we are poorly informed on the pronunciation and the morpho-syntactical behaviour of numbers in Sumerian. To what degree were numbers subject to case inflection? If 600 was pronounced ges-u "sixty ten", i.e., "ten (times) sixty", what was the pronunciation of "sixty (plus) ten", i.e., 70? Was there a difference of stress or some other means of intonation, e.g., *[ges(d)u] versus [gd(d)u]? Syntactically, persons or things counted were followed, not pre­ ceded, by numerals so that the position of a numeral corresponds to that of an adjective. For-purely graphic-exceptions to this rule see 5.3.6, note. 10.2. CARDINAL NUMBERS The oldest pronunciation guide for the Sumerian cardinal numbers 2 to 10 is an exercise tablet from Ebla: TM 75.G. 2198: Edzard 1980; 2003b. 62 CHAPTER TEN Ebla later tradition 1.
  • Alfréd Tóth – Are All Agglutinative Languages Related to One Another

    Alfréd Tóth – Are All Agglutinative Languages Related to One Another

    Are all agglutinative languages related to one another? BY PROF . DR. ALFRÉD TÓTH Mikes International The Hague, Holland 2007 ALFRÉD TÓTH : ARE ALL AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGES RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER? Kiadó 'Stichting MIKES INTERNATIONAL ' alapítvány, Hága, Hollandia. Számlaszám: Postbank rek.nr. 7528240 Cégbejegyzés: Stichtingenregister: S 41158447 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken Den Haag Terjesztés A könyv a következő Internet-címről tölthető le: http://www.federatio.org/mikes_bibl.html Aki az email-levelezési listánkon kíván szerepelni, a következő címen iratkozhat fel: [email protected] A kiadó nem rendelkezik anyagi forrásokkal. Többek áldozatos munkájából és adományaiból tartja fenn magát. Adományokat szívesen fogadunk. Cím A szerkesztőség, illetve a kiadó elérhető a következő címeken: Email: [email protected] Levelezési cím: P.O. Box 10249, 2501 HE, Den Haag, Hollandia _____________________________________ Publisher Foundation 'Stichting MIKES INTERNATIONAL', established in The Hague, Holland. Account: Postbank rek.nr. 7528240 Registered: Stichtingenregister: S 41158447 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken Den Haag Distribution The book can be downloaded from the following Internet-address: http://www.federatio.org/mikes_bibl.html If you wish to subscribe to the email mailing list, you can do it by sending an email to the following address: [email protected] The publisher has no financial sources. It is supported by many in the form of voluntary work and gifts. We kindly appreciate your gifts.
  • Talking Neolithic: the Case for Hatto-Minoan and Its Relationship to Sumerian

    Talking Neolithic: the Case for Hatto-Minoan and Its Relationship to Sumerian

    Talking Neolithic: The Case for Hatto-Minoan and its Relationship to Sumerian Peter Schrijver University of Utrecht It is argued that the Minoan language of second-millennium BC Crete stands a good chance of being descended from the language that was imported into Crete by the earliest farmers that colonized the Island in the 7th millennium BC. Evidence is presented that links Minoan to the Hattic language of second- millennium BC northern Anatolia. An analysis of the Hattic verbal system supports the hypothesis that in turn Hattic is related to Sumerian. The existence of a Hatto-Sumero-Minoan language family is posited, which predates the expansions of Semitic and Indo-European in the Near East and which is implicated in the spread of migrant farmers into Europe. A word for ’pig’ is reconstructed for that language family. 1. Language, genes and culture The expansion of a language across a geographical area takes place as a result of two mechanisms: the language is taken along by people who migrate into new territory, or the language is adopted by local populations beside or instead of their original language. Before the times of widespread formal education, mass media and the internet, language spread by acculturation always went hand in hand with spread by migration: only the presence of migrant native speakers in a new territory is capable of exposing the natives to the new language and of creating social pressure to adopt that language. Exposure and social pressure are what it takes for a population to trade its native language for a different one.
  • The Writing Revolution

    The Writing Revolution

    9781405154062_1_pre.qxd 8/8/08 4:42 PM Page iii The Writing Revolution Cuneiform to the Internet Amalia E. Gnanadesikan A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication 9781405154062_1_pre.qxd 8/8/08 4:42 PM Page iv This edition first published 2009 © 2009 Amalia E. Gnanadesikan Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Amalia E. Gnanadesikan to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks.
  • The HA-BI-RU--Kin Or Foe of Israel?

    The HA-BI-RU--Kin Or Foe of Israel?

    Westminster Theological Journal 19 (1956) 1-24. Copyright © 1956 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission. THE HA-BI-RU -KIN OR FOE OF ISRAEL? MEREDITH G. KLINE FIGURING in near eastern history for something over a millennium of Old Testament times was an enigmatic entity called the ha-BI-ru.1 Successful of old in capturing the spoil in biblical lands, they have in modern times been even more successful in capturing the attention of biblical scholars. More than half a century of general scholarly interest cul- minated in a united effort to identify the ha-BI-ru at the fourth Rencontre assyriologique internationale held in Paris in the summer of 1953. But that gathering did not succeed in alter- ing the previous state of the question which has been described in the terms: quot capita tot sententiae.2 The ha-BI-ru, there- fore, continue an enigma, and the curiosity which has prompted the present study may be forgiven though its con- sequence be to confound yet worse the confusion with yet another conclusion.3 Of particular attraction to those concerned with biblical history and faith has been the apparent identity in name between the ha-BI-ru and the Hebrews.4 This has spawned a variety of theories sharing as a common nucleus the idea 1 The syllabification of ha-BI-ru represents the cuneiform orthography and the capitalization of the second syllable designates a particular cuneiform sign without prejudice to the question of which of the two most common values of it, namely bi and pi, is to be adopted.