Considerations on the Proto-Euphratic Language (PE)
- -
- 100%
- +
3. Pronunciation
c (Ayin); a voiced pharyngeal fricative (Arabic) ç ch in church (in Turkish words) ǧ j in journal ĝ ng in ring ḥ an unvoiced pharyngeal fricative [a rasping H-sound] (Arabic) ḫ ch in Scottish Loch Ness (“kh”) ṣ emphatic s (Arabic) š English “sh”4. Transcriptions
Since the PE pronunciation of cuneiform signs is unknown, PE readings are given by their “sign names” (after Borger, ABZ); approximate pronunciation indications are enclosed in “/ /” (e.g., NUN.ME (=) /abgal/). Sumerian words are written in normal Roman type (but not spaced, as was customary in the past), Babylonian words in italics.
In some cases, full stops are placed between logograms to indicate that the logograms form a separate unit compared to another logogram (example: GÁN EN, GÁN BU.KI: EN and BU.KI are [functionally] equivalent); in some cases hyphens are used to identify units as such (EN-É-TI). These designations are inevitably subject to a certain arbitrariness.
Sign variants (ENa vs. ENb) will only be marked if they are necessary.
The distinction between g and ĝ has been dispensed with, apart from a few exceptions (especially in the index).
Generally, a “conventional” transcription is used in order to also offer interested lay people the possibility of verification (Inanna instead of Innana, etc.; only professionals will know that, in Civil’s opinion, ḫirinx should be read instead of ŠAGAN [Civil 2013, 58]). This means that by and large the transcription offered in ATU 2 has been adopted23.
The line/‘case’ designations used by Englund (passim; → chapter II, note 1) such as O0102 etc. (see m1/p10) have mostly been simplified, in the given example to obv. i2. Line numbers are only given if the search would take longer in the case of larger texts (exception: entries in → VII). Englund’s convention of marking the first preserved line of a text with “1” (instead of “1'” if lines are broken before it) has been adopted.
Minor breaks are only marked in the transcription, not in the translation.
5. General Information
In order not to overload the study, OBO 160/1 is quoted if possible (i.e. usually Englund, even if Englund refers to other authors there).
The attached illustrations are for guidance only; they have been drawn “free-hand” from copies or photographs; in case of doubt the reader should consult the original sources.
Since this study is based on the assumption that PE was not only a spoken but also a written language, “assumed” or “postulated” is not added at every occurrence of the word/(abbreviation) “PE”. Sometimes “PE” and “from the Uruk period” are used synonymously; the entire Uruk period is never meant, but always only the (time of the) writing phases Uruk IV and III.
II. THE “PE QUESTION”
The title of this chapter is borrowed from Englund, who wrote a sub-chapter (4.4) called “The Sumerian Question” in OBO 160/1, 73–81. In principle, it is about one and the same thing, only PE instead of Sumerian comes to the fore here. All questions that are necessary or could be useful in order to “pin down” those who created cuneiform (‘proto-cuneiform’) are addressed by Englund. Among other things, he deals with numerical systems, the sequence of signs in ‘cases’1, Sumerian readings in general, the “inadequacy of cuneiform in representing the phonetic structure of Sumerian words”, possible multivalent signs, phonetic elements, the conceivable adoption of PE readings into Sumerian, the “verbs” BA and GI as well as the Uruk III period personal names, which usually cannot be interpreted as Sumerian. Reference is always made to Englund where relevant.
1. General Information
Most of the texts (or expressions) of the Uruk period do not make sense when translated as Sumerian texts (examples: → III–1–h and VI–1; texts: a7/21914, m4/79). Yet almost all scholars adhere to the opinion that they are written in the Sumerian language. In addition to the passage quoted in the preface, explicit reference shall be made to § 6 in the RlA, article “Sumer, Sumerisch”.
When working with a pictographic writing system (the first known script besides the Egyptian hieroglyphic script) where only the essentials are recorded in a kind of telegram style, it is not easy to distinguish two languages from each other. As late as in the ED I–II period, hardly any grammatical elements were written (cf. among others Burrows 1935, 22f. and Lecompte 2013, 9), which – not surprisingly – shows that for a Sumerian the texts were understandable even without (written) grammatical elements. There is a tendency to classify the records from Uruk as “readable in any language” if the meaning of the individual signs is known; the (document) form is considered “the grammar” (for example, cf. Nissen et al. 159; Englund 1998, 79). This is not entirely correct, as the order of the signs (in the Uruk period almost always corresponding to the spoken language [→ III–3–g], in the following ED I–II period “sloppy” [Burrows 1935, 27]) definitely allows conclusions to be drawn about the language. In Japanese, for example, the standard word sequence is subject – object – predicate, whereas in Chinese it is subject – predicate – object. It is well known that the same characters (with different pronunciation) are used for writing in both languages; in Japanese syllable characters are additionally used for writing grammatical elements. A Japanese person can roughly understand a Chinese text; it should also be the case the other way round.
In the Uruk period, no bilingual texts are to be expected, since there were presumably only PE scribes (and possibly Sumerian pupils) and no literature existed yet (an exception could be the lexical list a3/TRIBUTE, → III–1–h). Glosses might exist; unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify one yet. It seems rather likely that glosses do not exist. Just think of the Middle Ages in Europe – the monks wrote Latin; the Old High German gloss “diutisce gellit” (“in German: ‘Schale’ [bowl]”), which explains galeola, seems to be a “fortunate” exception. Bilingual dictionaries are not known (→ Index of Terms, Words–3b [PE]).
Three examples in which one and the same fact is represented in the language of the Uruk period texts by different sign combinations are discussed in → III–note 4 (EN.KID/É vs. EN.NUN), V–2 (HAL.GAR vs. NAGAR) and V–3 (UB.ŠÀ vs. ŠÀ.URI).
In the ED I–II period there seem to have been no glosses (and certainly no Sumerian–PE bilingual texts); the document form of the texts is different; they were almost certainly only written by Sumerians. The aforementioned kudurrus pose certain difficulties (→ I–3; Gelb et. al.1989; 1991).
Therefore PE must be made accessible more or less “from out of itself” (compare NABU 2018/93 and 2019/58).
2. Criteria that could argue for a change from PE to Sumerian
The following selection is to be understood as an anticipatory look ahead with cross-references. With a few exceptions (in my view), the criteria set out below are not necessarily conclusive as one could always argue that there has been a development over time (though the temporal gap between the PE and the ED I–II texts is, as already mentioned, not that significant).
–Calendar: the leap year probably existed already in the Uruk period, names of months did not exist yet (→ IV–7 and ~ 9).
–Document form changes (externally: the ‘subcases’ disappear, apart from a few exceptions [Lecompte 2013, 8]; internally: there are – again apart from a few exceptions – no more subscripts [Lecompte 2013, 8]).
–The numerical and metrological systems change (Lecompte 2013, 15–20; cf. also Englund 1998, 77f. and a3/p35 top).
–With few exceptions (cf. c1/70 “U4 GIBIL” vs. c1/83 “GIBIL U4”; → III–2–b ad GAL.SANGA.SANGA; → III–3–c ad Enlilti), the order of the signs in the cases was strictly regulated in the Uruk period (cf., for example, the sign sequence BA-AB.APIN in m1/97–99 or the boustrophedon subscript in m1/20); in the ED I–II period, however, it was relatively free (Burrows 1935, 27).
–The old “realm of the gods” (MÙŠ.U4/SIG – Venus as morning and evening star [→ IV–7]) disappears; from the ED III period onwards, the Sumerian pantheon is established (SF 1: long list of gods from Fara); in the time in between (ED I–II) only a few deities are attested (UET 2, pp. 19–21; ATFU, p. 11). In the Uruk period there were probably no “gods” yet – there was also no sign for the abstract term ‘god’ (‘AN’, later ‘god’, means ‘star’ in the Uruk period, → III–2–f; IV–7). The “gods” of the Uruk period (MÙŠ = Venus, possibly BU+DU6 = snake deity, Niraḫ [cf. ATFU, p. 65 with note 26]) are more likely to have been elves, nymphs and satyrs (nature spirits). The religion was probably a nature religion, comparable to the Minoan or Old Hellenic. The Greek god Pan still bears features of this archaic religion. Apart from the “standard deities”, the Sumerian pantheon gives the impression of having been “conceived” by scholars in the Fara period.
–Disappearance of the former occupational names (apart from a few exceptions); the lexical list a3/Lú A is “replaced” by Lú E (Englund 1998, 85 and 88–89; ATFU, p. 15 top).
–Changes in the onomasticon that cannot be overlooked (for the Uruk period cf. Englund 2009, for the later periods Th. E. Balke, Das altsumerische Onomastikon. Namengebung und Prosopografie nach den Quellen aus Lagas, dubsar 1, Münster 2017; M. Krebernik, Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons, AOAT 296 [2002] 1–74). In addition to a structural comparison (PE vs. Sumerian names), Englund offers a list of approximately 440 PE personal names of “slaves/prisoners”, which can be easily identified by their designations MÍ and KUR (Englund 1998, 176–179; → VII). The fact that there were slaves/prisoners at that time is clearly proven by the so-called prisoner seals (figure in Englund 1998, p. 44). As foreigners, prisoners may have had names in a non-native language (cf. Englund 1998, note 407), but they may also have been given PE names. In the first case, it should be considered whether they could be written with the PE script (cf. also Englund 1998, 79–80). A list of personal names (personal names cannot always be strictly separated from occupational names) that are not necessarily names of slaves or captives can be found in → chapter VII2. It is indicated whether the name can also be found among the slave names in Englund’s list; this allows certain conclusions to be drawn about the language behind the names.
–ABGAL, written NUN.ME; the element ME occurs eleven times in the list of occupational names, a3/Lú A, in compounds with other signs (in four of them, however, apart from NUN.ME itself, NUN.ME is a constituent of the compound); a Sumerian explanation can hardly be found; → III–1–g.
–Disappearance of PE verbs (e.g. GI; see NABU 2018/93; cf. → IV–11, note 51).
–Reduplications of signs lose their meaning (ŠE.ŠE in m1/1 and many others); the reduplication as such is given a new function (e.g. designation of the plural), → III–2–b.
–Non-designation of the plural (passim without any exception; 14 MÍ+ZATU751b [m1/215], 13 UDU [m1/208], 7 SUḪUR [m1/116], ...), → III–3–d.
–The adjective is placed before the noun in the PE texts, and after the noun in the Sumerian texts of the ED period, as is customary in the Sumerian language (Englund 1998, note 170; → III– 3–g); this fact can hardly be dismissed as a “development”.
–Sign substitutions in Sumerian (AN [star; → IV–7] → AN.AN.AN = MUL [AN is assigned the meaning “deity”]; EN → PAD.AN.MÙŠ or ĝeš-tag-ga, respectively; → V–1–a).
–In Sumerian, an animal head is used for the word “foot” instead of the sign for foot (DU): GÌR /ĝìri/; → III–2–c.
–Inexplicable reading of the sign for beer (KAŠ /kaš/) as /bi/ in Sumerian; → III–2–c.
–Appearance of previously undocumented syllabic spellings (áš-gàr; Lecompte 2013, 9) in the ED I–II period (Sumerian); presumably the PE language was not suitable for this “technique” because of its word structure; otherwise those spellings should have occurred before (PE people must have possessed a high ability to abstract; think of the sophisticated number systems), cf. → III–1–g and ~h.
–Special cases: EN = “sacrifice” and “the one who offers up the sacrifice (= priest)” in PE, “priest” and “Lord” in Sumerian (→ V–1); GÁN EN (m1/2–6) denotes a quality of the field, not the field and its owner (→ V–1–d); there is no evidence for EN = “Lord” in PE.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.