From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #55 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Thursday, February 25 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 055 ane thanks ane BBC prog: Mesopotamia and irrigation ane SEL: MAGIC IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST ane (long) Conference: THE MIDDLE EAST: ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES ane Etymology 'Chaldee' ane emesal ppps Re: ane Etymology 'Chaldee' ane Weak Verbs in Ugaritic Re: ane Etymology 'Chaldee' à!@ Re: ane Weak Verbs in Ugaritic Re: ane emesal ppps Re: ane eme sal Re: Babylonian m > w (was Re: ane eme sal) ane Hesban 10 ane THE SHELBY WHITE - LEON LEVY PROGRAM FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS APPLICATION INFORMATION ane emesal ane emesal: emegir g~ issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:30:43 +0200 From: Cynthia Edenburg Subject: ane thanks Thanks to all for the PEF address. Cynthia Edenburg The Open University of Israel Tel. 972-3-6460500 fax. 972-3-460767 Dept. of History, Philosophy and Jewish Studies POB 39328 Rehov Klausner 16 Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 61392 ISRAEL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:37:32 -0000 From: Inge Samuels Subject: ane BBC prog: Mesopotamia and irrigation BBC Science programme is trying to find Mesopotamian/Assyrian archaeological sites outside of present day Iraq that are concerned a/ with irrigation/water-management (essential) and b/ with Sennacherib (desirable). Please reply via the list or to me personally. Thanks, Inge Samuels BBC "Secrets of Lost Worlds" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:20:42 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane SEL: MAGIC IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico, 15 (1998) "MAGIC IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST" The current issue of SEL, presents a series of Essays dealing with "magic" in the Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations. Hence this issue continues the monographic nature of SEL 8, 1991, which was devoted to onomastics, and SEL 12, 1995, which was devoted to the lexicography of the Ancient Near Eastern languages. Since our aim was not to cover systematically the different areas and documentations, the essays of this issue offer an up-to-date outline of some selected cultures and their related linguistic and iconographic corpora dealing with the topics "magic". Also from a chronological point of view, the authors had the freedom to choose the general lines of their contributions and their articles represent several approaches to the main theme. S. Ribichini, La magia nel Vicino Oriente antico. Introduzione tematica e bibliografica: 5-16 A. Catagnoti - M. Bonechi, Magic and Divination at IIIrd Millennium Ebla, 1. Textual Typologies and Preliminary Lexical Approach: 17-39 G. Cunningham, Summoning the Sacred in Sumerian Incantations: 41-48 T. Abush, The Internalization of Sufferin and Illness in Mesopotamia: A Development in Mesopotamian Witchcraft Literature: 49-58 A. Livingstone, The Use of Magic in the Assyrian and Babylonian Hemerologies and Menologies: 59-67 G. Torri, Ittita: "Bove, madre del brulicare di formiche". Alcune osservazioni sul rituale di Mashtigga (KUB LVIII 79): 69-76 J.F. Quack, Kontinuit”t und Wandel in der sp”t”gyptischen Magie: 77-94 E.C.D. HJunter, Who Are the Demons? The Iconography of Incantations Bowls: 95-116. Recensioni: 117-128. ********************************************* Sergio Ribichini Istituto per la Civiltý fenicia e punica "Sabatino Moscati" CNR, Via Salaria, km 29,500 - C.P. 10 00016 Monterotondo Stazione (Roma) Tel. (06) 90672.356 - Fax (06) 90672.461 e-mail: ribichi@mlib.cnr.it ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:39:27 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane (long) Conference: THE MIDDLE EAST: ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE MIDDLE EAST: ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES An interdisciplinary conference MARCH 27, 1999 Sponsored by the Humanities Research Institute (Irvine), the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (San Diego), the University of California Office of the President-- Office of Research, & the Interdisciplinary Humanities Center (University of California, Santa Barbara) hosted by the Islamic & Near Eastern Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara at the Interdiscplinary Humanities Center (UCSB) THE MIDDLE EAST: ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMES is an interdisciplinary conference convened with two primary goals: (1) To bring together scholars whose research and/or teaching deals with the Middle East but who are often separated within the larger field of Middle Eastern Studies by divisions in historical periodization (Ancient Near East, Late Antiquity, Medieval, Early Modern, Modern) or traditional disciplinary boundaries (Political Science, History, Religious Studies, and so forth). (2) To provide a context for faculty/scholars to discuss the potential for collaborative research & funding proposals, coordinating teaching programs among different campuses, sharing research resources and teaching materials, coordinating the training of graduate students, and other issues of mutual concern. With an eye towards these twin objectives, the conference has been organized into two different types of sessions: "roundtables" for the presentation of research papers and "working groups" convened for open discussion of areas of potential collaboration. Although the presenters are drawn primarily from the campuses of the University of California and the California State University systems, the conference is open and free of charge to all faculty, students and the general public. Even the parking is free! A preliminary program is included below. Further details about the conference, the program, participants, local hotels, directions and so forth will be posted on the conference website at: http://www.gisp.ucsb.edu/mideastcon Additional queries can be addressed to Dwight Reynolds, Chair, Islamic & Near Eastern Studies, UCSB: dreynold@humanitas.ucsb.edu ************************************************************************* Dwight F. Reynolds Chair, Islamic & Near Eastern Studies University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Office: (805) 893-7143 Department: (805) 893-7136 FAX: (805) 893-2059 Email: dreynold@humanitas.ucsb.edu ************************************************************************* _________________________________________________________________________ CONFERENCE SCHEDULE _________________________________________________________________________ Friday, March 26: Arrival/Hotel Check-in Evening event 7 PM: Documentary Film: "Four Women of Egypt" Multicultural Center Theater, UCSB Saturday, March 27: 7:30-8:00 Registration/Coffee service Interdisciplinary Humanities Center, UCSB 6th floor, Humanities & Social Sciences Building 8:00-8:30 Welcome & Orientation/McCune Conference Room IHC 8:30 -- 10:30 ROUNDTABLES SESSION ONE Roundtable 1: MIDDLE EASTERN LITERATURES Anne Kilmer (UC Berkeley): "Weaving Textual Patterns: Symmetry in Akkadian Poetry" Margaret Larkin (UC Berkeley): "Pre-Modern Vernacular Arabic Poetry: The Voice of the People?" Richard Hecht (UC Santa Barbara): "The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Contemporary Hebrew Literature" Salaam Yousif (CSU San Bernardino): "Literary Responses to the Gulf War: Voices in the Wilderness" Roundtable #2: RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM Ali Gheissari (U of San Diego): "Ideological Orientations of Reformist Tracts in late Qajar and early Pahlavi Iran" Kazem Alamdari (CSU Los Angeles): "The Trend Toward Democracy in Iran" Abdullahi Ali Ibrahim (U of Missouri-Columbia): "Interviewing Hasan al-Turabi: The Fundamentalist Writes Back" [Additional Participant TBA] Roundtable #3: RELIGION AND SOCIETY Michael Cooperson (UCLA): "Social Space and Religious Authority in 3rd/9th century Baghdad" Claudia Rapp (UCLA); "Jews and Muslims in Medieval Constantinople" Hossein Ziai (UCLA): "Exploring the Idea `Sameness of Being and Knowing' in Selected Persian and Arabic Texts of Islamic Philosophy" Juan Campo (UCSB): "Transnational Pilgrimages and Post-Colonial States: the Modern Hajj and Hindu Yatras" Roundtable #4: WOMEN AND AUTHORITY Christine Thomas (UCSB): "Female Synagogue Leaders in Ancient Anatolia: A Historical Record at Karamlidika" Nikki Keddi (UCLA): "Empathy Versus Criticism: Dilemmas of Scholars of Muslim Women and Other Sensitive Topics" Nayereh Tohidi (CSU Northridge): "The Paradoxical Interaction between Islamism and Feminism in the Islamic Republic" Nancy Gallagher (UCSB): "Gender, Culture and Health in the Middle East" 10:30 -- 11:00 COFFEE BREAK 11:00 -- 12:30 WORKING GROUPS SESSION ONE: (1) CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY & THE MIDDLE EAST: Convener Lynn Roller (UC Davis) This group will focus on the interaction of Greek and Roman cultures with those of the eastern Mediterranean, from the pre-Christian through the Christian eras. Discussion topics will include inter- disciplinary methodologies, potential intercampus cooperation, and the possibility of establishing on-going symposia or conferences, and coordinating teaching and graduate student training. (2) UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM IN ISLAMIC STUDIES--COURSES AND MATERIALS: Convener Juan Campo (UCSB) An interdisciplinary workshop concerned with the development and role of Islamic Studies in the undergraduate curriculum. Participants will share their knowledge about the history and future prospects of Islamic Studies on their individual campuses, as well as discuss successful and not-so-successful approaches, courses and readings. Among the questions to be raised: What are the key issues that need to be addressed? What changes are occurring? How essential is the Middle East to undergraduate Islami c Studies courses? How are Muslim voices recognized and accommodated? Participants should bring sampe syllabi to discuss and distribute to seminar participants. (2) ANDALUSIAN/MEDIEVAL IBERIAN STUDIES: Convener Dwight Reynolds (UCSB) This session is divided into two parts: First, two 15-minute research presentations, followed by discussion of the papers; then an open discussion on the status of Andalusian/Medieval Iberian Studies in the University of California and CSU systems. Papers: James Monroe (UC Berkeley): "Doubling and Duplicity in the by al-Saraqusti" Samuel Armistead (UC Davis): "Near Eastern and Balkan Elements in Judeo-Spanish Narrative Poetry" (4) GENDER AND CITIZENSHIP IN MUSLIM COMMUNITIES This session is divided into two parts: First, a 30-minute report from members of the current Humanities Research Institute (UC Irvine) residency research group "Gender and Citizenship in Muslim Communities" including Suad Joseph (UC Davis), Kristy Bright (UC Santa Cruz), Islah Jad (Bir Zeit University), Sondra Hale (UCLA), and Jasamin Rostam (UCLA). The remaining hour will be devoted to a working group entitled: "Women and Gender in the Middle East" 12:30 -- 1:30 LUNCH 1:30 -- 3:30 ROUNDTABLES SESSION TWO: Roundtable #5: COLONIALISM AND NATIONALISM Hasan Kayali (UC San Diego): "Bridging Historiographies: End of Empire, Independence Movements, and Political Identities in Anatolia and Syria" Afaf Marsot (UCLA): "Progress and Colonialism" Daniel Schroeter (UC Irvine): "Jews, Arabs and Colonialism" Sherifa Zuhur (CSU Sacramento/American University of Cairo): "Situating Neonationalism in Contemporary Egypt" Roundtable #6: ANCIENT NEAR EAST Stuart Smith (UCSB): "The Price of Immortality: Gender and Burial in New Kingdom Egypt" Amanda Podany (Cal Poly Pomona): "The Role of Royalty in Legal Contracts from late Bronze Age Syria" Lynn Roller (UC Davis): "The Religious Character of Central Anatolia: Continuity and Change" [Additional participant TBA] Roundtable #7: MIDDLE EASTERN MUSIC Scott Marcus (UCSB): "Them, Those and Us: Documenting Three Musical/Cultural Mizmar (folk oboe) Traditions in Present-day Egypt" Benjamin Brinner (UC Berkeley): "Arab Musicians in Israel and the West Bank: Contrasting Musical Competences and Interactions" Ali Jihad Racy (UCLA): Title TBA Dwight Reynolds (UCSB): "Towards a Musical History of the Muwashshahat in the Mashriq" Roundtable #8: RELIGION, LAW AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS Leslie Peirce (UC Berkeley): "A Child Marriage in Trouble: Dispute Resolution in 16th-century Ottoman Aintab" Stephen Humphreys (UCSB): "The Rise of the Arab Elite in Umayyad Syria" Barbara Metcalf (UC Davis): "Finding a Metanarrative for the Tablighi Jamaat: A 20th-century Apolitical Pietist Movement" Laura Nader (UC Berkeley): Title TBA 3:30 -- 4:00 COFFEE BREAK 4:00 -- 5:30 WORKING GROUPS SESSION TWO: (5) IRAN SINCE THE REVOLUTION: Co-conveners John Foran (UCSB) & Ali Gheissari (USD) An open discussion of all aspects of social, political and cultural change in Iran over the two decades since the revolution. (6) TEACHING MIDDLE EASTERN LANGUAGES: Convener Nabil Abdelfattah (UC Berkeley) This session will include one opening presentation by Nabil Abdelfattah entitled "Teaching Modern Middle Eastern Languages in the University of California," followed by a general discussion on the status of Middle Eastern Language instruction in the UC s ystem. (7) ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES: Convener W. Randall Garr (UCSB) This session will include one opening presentation by Antonio Loprieno (UCLA) followed by a general discussion of the status of Ancient Near Eastern studies with the UC and CSU systems. Antonio Loprieno (UCLA): "The Ancient Near East in the UC System: Challenges and Hopes" (8) MIDDLE EAST MEDIEVALISTS: Convener Stephen Humphreys (UCSB) An open discussion of the topics and issues in medieval Middle Eastern Studies and an exploration of potential areas for colloboration in research, coordination of teaching programs, and sharing resources. 5:00 -- 5:15 BREAK 5:15 -- 6:00 PLENARY SESSION: Guest Speaker: Lynne Withey, Associate Director University of California Press Closing Remarks: Dwight Reynolds (UCSB) 6:15 -- 7:45 DINNER 8:00 -- 10:00 CONCERT: UCSB MIDDLE EAST ENSEMBLE Multicultural Center Theater A lively program of Arab, Armenian, Greek, Sephardic Jewish, Persian and Turkish music and dance. SUNDAY, MARCH 28: DEPARTURE ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:22:39 -0500 (EST) From: manaster@umich.edu Subject: ane Etymology 'Chaldee' Does anybody know if there is a Semitic or other etymology for this ethnonym, which would allow us in particular to tell if the 'l' or the 's' of Hebrew Kasdi is original. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:21:29 -0500 From: Brian Betty Subject: ane emesal ppps I am interested in the material being discussed about possible correlations with Sumerian, but I am highly concerned about the ahistorical attitude being taken ... how can we compare a language no longer spoken by 1500 BCE at the latest with languages spoken 3500y later like Swahili and Bantu? Also, it seems sketchy to compare Burushaski with Bantu, and to pick a handful of words from several dozen languages. I think it worthwhile to compare Sumerian with other African languages, but question the methodologies used in recent posts to ANE ... there seems to be a haphazard picking and choosing of linguistic evidence. BB They call me Coffee 'cause I grind so fine. God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him. Only 315 shopping days left before the end of the world. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:20:48 GMT From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) Subject: Re: ane Etymology 'Chaldee' manaster@umich.edu wrote: >Does anybody know if there is a Semitic >or other etymology for this ethnonym, >which would allow us in particular >to tell if the 'l' or the 's' of >Hebrew Kasdi is original. Lipin'ski ("Semitic Languages", p. 130) says: The name "Chaldaean", in Aramaic and ks2dy in Sabaic, is written Kal-da/da3-a-a in Assyro-Babylonian, where the spelling clearly shows the lateral character of . ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@wxs.nl Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:44:23 -0500 From: Irene Riegner Subject: ane Weak Verbs in Ugaritic Dear List People, I'm trying to find RIH 78/3r. I know where to get the KTU's but what is RIH. Where can I find it? Has it been translated. (I'm looking for occurrences of the stem "yzn" and this is one of the references.) I have read that in Ugaritic and Phoenician, the weak stem in Hebrew, such as the 'nun" of n-t-n, often appears as a a "yod" so that the Ugaritic stem is y-t-n. Does this phenomena also occur with other weak verbs, such as hollow verbs, and with other weak radicals, such as l"he verbs? Where can I get information about the transformation of weak verbs when going from Ugaritic to Hebrew---or vice-versa? Thank you. irene riegner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:44:02 +0100 (MET) From: Tomas.Marik@ff.cuni.cz Subject: Re: ane Etymology 'Chaldee' à!@ >manaster@umich.edu wrote: > >>Does anybody know if there is a Semitic >>or other etymology for this ethnonym, >>which would allow us in particular >>to tell if the 'l' or the 's' of >>Hebrew Kasdi is original. > >Lipin'ski ("Semitic Languages", p. 130) says: > >The name "Chaldaean", in Aramaic and ks2dy in Sabaic, is >written Kal-da/da3-a-a in Assyro-Babylonian, where the spelling >clearly shows the lateral character of . Yes but be careful, Lipin'ski means the lateral character of in Aramaic! I don't know whether the Kaldu are proven already as an Aramaic tribe? Tomas Marik tomas.marik@ff.cuni.cz Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Prague ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:57:48 +0200 (IST) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Weak Verbs in Ugaritic Dear Irene, In the back of KTU2 (=CAT), you will find an "Index of Excavation Numbers". There you will find all the tablets discovered at Ras Ibn Hani listed according to RIH plus year of excavation / consecutive number of text within the texts found during that year. According to that index RIH 78/03 = KTU2 (=CAT) 2.81. The r. stands simply for "reverse". What you are looking for is CAT 2.81:22 where the verb yzn occurs. Note that CAT 2.81 also incorporates RIH 78/30. For this join (RIH 78/03 + 78/30), see already the edito princeps, Bordreuil/Caquot, SYRIA 57 (1980), 356-357. You can find the answers to all your other questions quite conveniently in D. Sivan, A GRAMMAR OF THE UGARITIC LANGUAGE (E. J. Brill: Leiden, 1997). All the best, Chaim Cohen On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Irene Riegner wrote: > Dear List People, > > I'm trying to find RIH 78/3r. > I know where to get the KTU's but what is RIH. Where can I find > it? Has it been translated. (I'm looking for occurrences of the > stem "yzn" and this is one of the references.) > > I have read that in Ugaritic and Phoenician, the weak stem in > Hebrew, such as the 'nun" of n-t-n, often appears as a a "yod" so > that the Ugaritic stem is y-t-n. Does this phenomena also occur > with other weak verbs, such as hollow verbs, and with other weak > radicals, such as l"he verbs? > > Where can I get information about the transformation of weak verbs > when going from Ugaritic to Hebrew---or vice-versa? > > Thank you. > irene riegner > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:31:44 -0500 (EST) From: manaster@umich.edu Subject: Re: ane emesal ppps It is grand to hear a nonlinguist expressing in such clear terms precisely what surely every linguist would say. Comparisons of languages have to be systematic, and pay attention to history. amr On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Brian Betty wrote: > I am interested in the material being discussed about possible correlations > with Sumerian, but I am highly concerned about the ahistorical attitude > being taken ... how can we compare a language no longer spoken by 1500 BCE > at the latest with languages spoken 3500y later like Swahili and Bantu? > Also, it seems sketchy to compare Burushaski with Bantu, and to pick a > handful of words from several dozen languages. > I think it worthwhile to compare Sumerian with other African languages, but > question the methodologies used in recent posts to ANE ... there seems to > be a haphazard picking and choosing of linguistic evidence. > > BB > They call me Coffee 'cause I grind so fine. > God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him. > Only 315 shopping days left before the end of the world. > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:48:00 -0500 (EST) From: manaster@umich.edu Subject: Re: ane eme sal I don't have complete answers. But I think I have the beginnings of answers. Please see below. However, I suggest that Miguel and I take this off-list and review the data in full before going any further. A. On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > manaster@umich.edu wrote: > > [mcv:] > >> The case is > >> especially clear in the alternations that can not be explained as > >> positional variants (g ~ b, g ~ d, g ~ h, n ~ l, n ~ s^). > > > >I already asnwered this. Your examples are either sporadic or > >involve conditioned shifts, whereas like Thomsen (I think) you > >are listing them as though they were UNconditioned. > > So what are the conditions? > > EG /g/ ~ ES /g/ > nugig ~ mugib > g~estug ~ mus^tug > engar ~ mungar > [before front, back; final] > But never word-initial. > EG /g/ ~ ES /d/ > agar ~ adar > -gin ~ -dim > ga- ~ da- > [before front, back; initial] > But never word-final > EG /g/ ~ ES /b/ > dug ~ zeb > dugud ~ zebida > igi ~ ibi > nugig ~ nugib > sig ~ s^eb > s^ag ~ s^ab > [before front, back; final] > Never word-initial. > EG /n/ ~ ES /n/ > engar ~ mungar > Enki ~ Amanki > Enlil ~ mullil > g~es^tin ~ mutin > inim ~ eneg~ > munus ~ nunus > nam ~ nag~ > nag~a ~ nama > unu ~ munu > [before back, front; final, initial] Usually before a back vowel or before a consonant. > > EG /n/ ~ ES /s^/ > anir ~ as^er > en ~ as^ > nigbunna ~ s^enbunna > nin ~ s^en > nir ~ s^er > nirah ~ s^erah > nirg~al ~ s^ermal > nundum ~ s^umdum > [before front, back; final, initial] > Usually before a front vowel. > As to the the last two, even if you can explain away and > (how?), Easy, via vowel harmony. Suppose comes from *Vnim with V = back, while comes from *nVndum with V = front. > I'm not aware of any examples anywhere of > palatalized /n^/ going to /S/. A much more natural change would > be /l^/ > /S/, so there is at least an underlying n ~ l > alternation here. > I am not prepared to accept this. For every sound change ever discovered there was a first time when people would have said the same thing. Hopi changes *w to l next to low back vowels. I still don't know any other lgs that do this, but that is no reason to doubt that it happened. AMR ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:55:51 -0500 (EST) From: manaster@umich.edu Subject: Re: Babylonian m > w (was Re: ane eme sal) On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Robert Whiting wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote: > > > Cuneiform writing of /w/ was defective. In later Babylonian, > > was often used to write /w/, mainly because of the development m > > > w in Babylonian itself. > > This varies between vaguely inaccurate and completely speculative. > In later Babylonian was ALWAYS used to write etymological [w] > (as opposed to the glide between /u/ and /a/). There was no other > way to write it, as the WA sign (previously used for /wa/, /we/, > /wi/, /wu/) was restricted to the values /pi/, /pe/. Initial [w] > simply disappeared from the language (as later happened in Greek). > Intervocalic /w/ was probably never more than an allophone of /m/. > Final /w/ disappeared prehistorically in Akkadian with the reduction > of all diphthongs. > > As for the alleged m > w change in Babylonian, this is simply speculation > based on the graphic replacement of with and graphic mergers do > not necessarily represent phonetic change. If Babylonian m > w then it is > equally likely that Assyrian b > w since Assyrian has a graphic > replacement of with . Yes, and why would that be a bad thing to assume? > If Babylonian m > w then there are instant > problems: /amtu/ > */awtu/ > */u:tu/ 'slave girl' just doesn't happen. Why should it happen? > Nor does /manu^/ > */wanu^/ > */anu^/ 'to count'. And why should this happen? > I will leave it up > to your judgement whether the Hebrew transcription of Merodachbaladan > indicates that Marduk had become Warduk or not. > Does anybody say that m > w word-initially??? > There are very few Akkadian vocalic roots with a strong medial [w], most > roots with medial [w] being weak ("hollow") roots caused by the > instability of [w] in Akkadian with [w] being realized in most instances > as /u:/. What about a word like a awi:lum? > One of the few roots with strong [w] is nawa:ru 'to shine' which > has writings of the [w] with already in Old Babylonian (i.e., before > /w/ has disappeared from the language) when the graphic replacement of > with cannot indicate a shift m > w. Rather, it allows the > preservation of /namru/ 'shining' as opposed to /nu:ru/ 'light'. But nu:ru comes from the same root, doesn't it? > The > fact is that medial /w/ must always have been close to medial /m/ in > Babylonian, so much so that non-native speakers apparently had a hard > time distinguishing them. I don't think that this is a very well-documented phenomenon, the so-called near-merger where native (you do mean native, don't you?) speakers can't tell a real difference, although there is some support for it (and I have even tentatively argued for in a discussion in Jo. of Phonetics). > But this does not mean that at some point > one became the other. English once had signs for and , > both of which have been replaced with . But this graphic merger > does not mean that one sound has changed into the other. Native > speakers still know the difference between the sounds in "this" and > "thin." > This is not a valid parallel because English simply lost the two native signs edh and thorn and replaced them with the Latinate th. If English had replaced all occurrences of thorn with edh or the other way around, IN ONE PARTICULAR position, e.g., between vowels, then we WOULD presume that there had been a sound change. > > It's not unlikely that Emesal words > > written with , corresponding to Emegir (= /g~/), directly > > represent a pronunciation /w/, not /m/. > > This may be true since there is no other way to write /w/ in > later periods, but it has nothing to do with a putative m > w > in Babylonian. This point, on the other hand, I fully agree with. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:53:24 -0500 From: Archaeological Publications Subject: ane Hesban 10 The Institute of Archaeology at Andrews University is pleased to announce the publication of Hesban Series volume 10: THE NECROPOLIS OF HESBAN: A Typology of Tombs by S. Douglas Waterhouse (with contributions by Anne L. Grauer, George J. Armelagos, and Howard P. Krug) 1999; xv + 205 pp.; cloth: 8.5 × 11 inches; ISBN 0-943872-23-5 The tenth volume of the Hesban Final Publication Series sorts the Roman and Byzantine tombs found at Tell Hesban into six architectural types. Each tomb type is described in detail by its architecture (accompanied with top plans) and a listing of pottery readings, objects, and human remains (Chapters 1-7). The biology of the skeletal remains of the Roman and Byzantine populations is examined in Chapter 8. In Chapter 9, 350 Roman and Byzantine tombs found throughout Transjordan are categorized into eight typologies (the six Hesban types plus two). Two appendices list tomb probes and objects. A complete index, 29 figures, 85 plates, and 80 tables are also included. To order, contact: Andrews University Press Information Services Building Phone: 1-800-467-6369 Andrews University Fax: 616-471-6224 Berrien Springs, MI 49104-1700 E-mail: aupress@andrews.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jennifer L. Groves Director, Archaeological Publications Andrews University Voice 616-471-3604 Fax 616-471-3619 E-mail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:03:35 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane THE SHELBY WHITE - LEON LEVY PROGRAM FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS APPLICATION INFORMATION Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE SHELBY WHITE - LEON LEVY PROGRAM FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS APPLICATION INFORMATION For those wishing to apply for grants, please contact the Program office, or our web site, before submitting application materials. You may e-mail, fax or post your materials to the addresses below. If you e-mail, please attach documents so they can be opened in Microsoft Word (v. 6. 0. 1). All applications MUST include: your name (including h/o address(es), h/o telephone, fax, and e-mail), an identification number for tax purposes, a brief abstract of your proposed project (including the precise name and location of the site), a statement of purpose for your project, an outline of your research methodology, the name of your intented publisher, a detailed schedule of your timetable toward publication (i.e., when you will have in hand a camera-ready document to present to the Board), documentation of your legal right to access the materials and to publish them, a proposed budget for the number of years you believe the project will last, and an academic r=E9sum=E9. Final approval of the application wi= ll be determined by the Program Committee. Applications are DUE IN the Program office on February 14, 2000. Contact the Program office for a copy of our Application Protocol. Grants are awarded on a contractual basis allocated over a maximum of three years, with annual re-evaluation and renewal by the Committee. Annual reports of progress towards publication must be submitted in writing to the Committee prior to renewal of the grant. The Shelby White - Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, Harvard University, The Semitic Museum, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-9317 (vm), Fax: (617) 496-8904, amappa@fas.harvard.edu http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/white_levy_program.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:02:43 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane emesal On Tue Feb 23 Miguel Vidal wrote: [EA] >>Why do you limit to those two? ES mungar> EG engar is a classic of its >>type. The prefixless folks know to drop mu which leaves them with ngar, >>which they can't pronounce so they add a vowel. [MV] >Actually, I was considering mu.ul.lil2 / mu.un.gar3 vs. En.lil2 / >engar as circumstantial evidence that the element "en-" in engar >is the same element en "lord, master" (Emesal umun) as in En-lil2 >(mu.ul.lil2 = /mullil/ < *mun-lil2). I realize that I'm taking >some liberties (umun = mun- = mu(l)-, and even = aman if we also >involve En.ki = Aman.ki). We agree on the Umun.ki> Aman.ki at least, I already suggested that. We could also look at Rundi and Rwanda Imana/ God, for which there is a cognate Iman/God in Masai [so probably a Tusi import.] But since En.ki was only a man, wasn't he at first? it seems a little too celestial a meaning for Umun. Of course gods do change turf with the winds of political change. As for engar/farmer meaning Lord gar ? I guess it would tell us whether the EG people despised farmers or not. Or whether this word meant farmer, as in "the guy who gets his hands in the dirt" or farmer as in the sense of gentleman farmer, the guy who lords over it all while the plebs farm for him. Interesting thing is that Bantu languages at least hardly make any of these kinds of class distinctions, e.g. I found nothing resembling any word for "lady" as opposed to "woman" in Bantu... As to your "liberties", from my point of view, you can diddle with prefixes, but the -un /-Vn is the root. When dealing with monosyllabic roots, especially two letter ones, there's not a lot of room for diddling. So since there is no -n in the ES Mu.ul.lil it's just a mu prefix on lil, the middle term being a syllabic convention to make sure you got the u on the first syllable and the l on the last syllable right, no? I'm sounding like Stephen Fryer! [cf Chewa in Malawi: Mlamulili/God...not many of these around! for which I can only find Nyanja: mulika/to give light for any idea of what it might mean! Don't have Chewa dictionary, this is from the Mbiti book on Af Names of God]. If now we reverse derivational directions, maybe Enlil does not mean "lord of the winds" or lord of anything, it can be simply an unpronounceable N-lil which people pronounced and popular etymology interpreted as En-lil. Interesting question is why they didn't say G~lil or G~u.lil !!! Like how they changed mu.du.ru. to g~dru/ scepter! Under what conditions does ES m change to n [ 3 times, 4 if you count Enlil], remain as m [4 times], or change to g~ [20 times] when "modernized" or "creolized" by the EG speakers? Since we don't ever get G~lil, it certainly suggests a common ancestor theory would explain all this much better. [E.A.] >>The Emesal word gashan / "lady" is a variant of the proto >> Bantu root for "woman, female" [snip] >>It is also interesting that about 10 Bantu languages have >>another root for woman similar to nin, the EmeGir form: It is >>-nina among the Zulu and Xhosa (where it coexists with the ES-type root -KAZANA/woman - no wonder Wanger got hung up on Zulu!!) [M.V.] >Well and good, but my premise was that Emesal ~ >(wherever the ga- comes from) is actually the same word as Emegir >, through a proto-form such as *Lin (*s'in for Semiticists) >or *lin ~ *lyin. If anything, as a solution it's more >parsimonious than positing two separate Bantu etyma. How often does the form shen (=nin) occur? I never heard of it before this Thomsen list [ I mean without the Ga- ]. Looking for ga- prefixes in Eme-sal? Are you suggesting there were more prefixes in Eme Sal than just the remnant one I suggested, mu-umu- ? Great! Wonder why it would have changed from shan to shen? But I'm afraid you've got the only attestation in Gashan, doesn't look too promising... Your theory would be parsimonious, if true (see some clues below that would support it in theory ); but I never did posit two separate "Bantu" etyma. Nin- is in no way Proto-Bantu. Only roots with numerically significant scores [i.e. the number of languages they occur in ] can really be called "proto- Bantu" in the sense of ultimate origins, whatever that means. Dates have varied wildly for PB, many now putting it c 2000 BC, which is early compared to what they used to say...they used to say that degree of differentiation between the various languages was so low and the geographical territory covered was so vast, that it must have been a kind of orgasmic explosion associated with the conquest of iron, leading to the world's most rapid linguistic take over of a major subcontinent - - and one that lasted. Nowadays they talk about the different layers of the Bantu diaspora, chronological and linguistic layers. But even 2000 BC is late by Sumerian standards. So an Eme-gir out migration after the fall of Ur could still have carried nin- to, if not "back to" Africa. Every language which was rolled over by the Bantuizing steamroller left lexical items to mark its former existence. Nin is definitely such an "intrusive" (or "subtrusive? -intruding from below!) word in the sense of how few languages it occurs in, and that it can coexist in the same language with a kash-/kat- PB word for woman, probably taking on, if one looked carefully, a range of specialized meanings... For the n/s change that you invoke and AMR's theory that it's always before front vowels (getting ridding of any exceptions with vowel harmony...I'll have to remember that! Is he saying EmeGir had vowel harmony?) I found some examples in Nubian which would confirm his theory: Kenuzi-Dongolawi: new/ to breath; Mahas sew... KD newerti/breath, soul, self, Mahas sewerti. Cushitic: Afar: naw/ breath, Somali ne'aw breeze, air & neif/breath. Anc Eg nfy/ breath, Coptic, nifi, nibi... KD new/ to inherit; Mahas and Old Nubian: sew, ditto. This one has an interesting comparison with Beja Bilen: lau/ inherit, which speaks strongly for your n/l/s shifts. Interesting that there are three different language families here, Nubian, Cushitic, and Beja, which are structurally and genetically diff (Cush and Beja having more heredity in common, but Nubian and Beja having been in close contact and proximity for several milennia, trading suffixs, lexikal items, etc. The most interesting thing is that Old Nubian and its nearest descendant Mahas stand alone with the initial s. This would put them on the EmeSal side of the equation, with all the Eg, Cush, Beja, i.e. all the AfroAsiatic on the Eme Gir side. Not surprising. However the following case is an exception to both AMR's front vowel theory and the above bifurcation: the reverse is the case with Mahas nudti/ KD sod/ which is heir, sister's son, nephew... (the one who inherits in the system which sons do not inherit from their father but from their maternal uncles.) This is before a back vowels, but maybe a little vowel harmony would do the trick here too! (Or sod may originally have been sewd, and nudti/var. dyudti may have been nyudti.) >Sumerian has no adjectives as such. (Thomsen, p. 64: "Adjectives >can therefore also be regarded as a subclass of the category >verb"). I don't think the "archaic" Bantu langs like Kikuyu had adjectives at all either. Here's how the Adjectives chapter in Mareka Gecaga, A Short Kikuyu Grammar begins: First it tells you how to make genitives using the prep. "of"/ -a , with the appropriate class prefix w-a, y-a, ki-a, etc. Next section starts telling you how to make adjectives because there clearly aren't any. "Adj may be formed by using the genitive followed by a noun, verb, or prep." Section 2. "Adj may also be formed by using the present tense of the verb "to have". e.g "a person who has strenth" for "a strong man". Even the ordinal numerals, first, second, etc. which function like adjectives, have to be expressed as a genitive mu-ndu w-a gatatu/ man of three = the third man. A lot of Swahili adjectives are from Arabic. eg. kubwa/ big, rahisi/cheap, huru/ free, aminifu/loyal, ghali/ expensive/ . But many more Arab words are adopted as nouns and then turned into adjectives using genitive -a : heshimu/ honor, jambo la heshimu/ an honorable matter. Others like dogo, small may be from S. Cushitic: tcoko, Proto Cushitic *tigw/to be small. [cf Hurrian zugi]. >The Sumerian conjunction u3 "and" is regarded as a very early >loan from Semitic. Sumerian does have a postfixed copula and >independent forms of the verb "to be". Swahili has an independent form of the verb to be: ku-wa/ to be, nilikuwa/ I was; tumekuwa/ we have been, etc. But this would not tend to be used for place, where the following constructions are preferable. I guess you could say this is a postfixed copula, but it's used mainly for place: mtu yu-po hapa = man he-is (in def place) here. u-ko huko / you- is (in indef place) here. tu-po pale / we - are (in def place) there wa-po kule/ they - are(in indef place) there. But truly there are many situations in which a copula verb is just not expressed at all, and some might protest that -ko, -po in the above examples are really adverbs, not verbs, because one can be very brief and drop the terminal adverb, just saying yu-po/ him -definite place, letting it be understood by context whether it's here or there. But one can also drop the attached copula and just say yu hapa/ he here, a more common construction than the first alternative, which is too ambiguous. >The Sumerian animate/inanimate dichotomy is not really comparable >to Bantu/Niger-Congo noun classes. It looks more like, for >instance, the animate/inanimate scheme of Hittite (and PIE). >Languages having animate/inanimate categories are rather common >on a global scale. I never said Sumerian, i.e. Eme Gir, had Bantu noun classes. It may be a declassed language, with rudimentary clues pointing to a now defunct noun class system in the perhaps extinct proto language. Perhaps the prefix speakers were not even Proto-Sumerian, but pre-Sumerians. They may have been wiped out or driven out.[ The Andaman islanders still have a very complicated noun class prefix system which makes Bantu look streamlined and modern by comparison!] Or long before the arrival of the GIR or foreign folk, the class prefix folks may have committed linguistic suicide by inventing writing, the great simplifier, and could not be bothered writing down so many class particles and prefixes. Instead they developed a system of written determinatives pointing to former class thinking. The determinatives then hung on for centuries, after most prefixes were long forgotten, except for those few we see hanging on in EmeSal. The latter may be comparable to a remnant surviving Anglo-Saxon or a Langue d'oc of the Sumerian world, an archaic distant relative. Just look at the differences between English and Anglo-Saxon in terms of the grammatical particles we have lost. We are a skeleton of our former grammatical complexity. E. Adams PS I think I made a mistake in my last posting on this when I said Swahili mkewe was "your wife" - it's some kind of irregular form I shouldn't have used as an example..where -we is a reduced form of the independently standing pronoun wewe/ you, as also appearing in the prepositional phrase, nawe / with you. The actual regular form of the sequence of suffixed possessives, a prototype of which could have made it into EmeGir because it required no class particles, conjugates as follows: mwenz-angu my comrade mwenz-etu our comrade mwenz- ako your " mwenz-enu y'all's " mwenz - ake his " mwenz-ao their " . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:45:58 -0500 From: nyokabi@kingcon.com Subject: ane emesal: emegir g~ issues >From: mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) >Subject: Re: ane emesal : g/n-g/g~ > >A few clarifications are probably in order: Thanks for your explanation in another posting of how sal can mean both vast and thin -that was illuminating. You had spoken of "several other" meanings of sal. Any others totally unrelated to either this or the pudenda meaning?[I'm not in reach of an MSL at the moment]. >I'd like to reserve the symbol g~ for the hypothetical Sumerian >phoneme that is reflected in the graphical alternation Emegir G ~ >Emesal M. It is not meant to be a general symbol for the velar >nasal, IPA eng, ASCII-IPA [N]. Then what is the general symbol for the velar nasal? In what other language transcriptions other than Sumerian is this g~ used? I notice in the OBO announcement in yesterday's digest ~irsu, which I assume is meant to be Girsu! Will they stop at nothing?? >The existence of the alternation G ~ M between Emesal and Emegir >is the main reason why Sumerologists have postulated a separate >phoneme /g~/. Unlike some of the other Emegir ~ Emesal >alternations which I believe might *also* represent separate >phonemes, at least in some proto-stage of Sumerian, this /g~/ >phoneme has been generally accepted by Sumerologists. But its >exact pronunciation remains a matter of speculation. A >labialized velar nasal [Nw] seems to be the most popular >hypothesis. I have suggested [w] as another possibility, at >least for Emesal. This is your most amazing revelation. You mean they are making up hypothetical pronunciations for Sumerian based MAINLY on the fact that this so-called literary dialect or perhaps late ethnic pocket or archaic remnant has a different pronunciation? How can the same person, Thomsen, both put out the literary dialect theory AND make up a whole new speculative hypothetical pronunciation theory based on that data, about which no one can even agree whether it represents fiction or reality! I thought just YOU were doing it [basing dig~g~ir on dimmer]! I didn't know THEY, the big boppers, were doing it too! I thought they must have other mega-reasons to do something which if nothing else is a total inconvenience to all of us. If the theory proves wrong on some new data of another dialect -- more words from some of the other eme's are dug up -- then we all have to respell the language again. Sorry for people who write books in that interim! I prefer to postulate an initial gb in the proto-language which for whatever reasons lead to g in one and b/mb > m in the other. No need to respell the entire language for a theory. Nw may be popular, but it doesn't convince me. I suggested n-g or ng' as in ng'ombe is more in favor of the evidence [ the possible posterity like Tengri? Evolution of such sounds to n and g,k in other languages, whereas the Akkadians never wrote it as n, etc.]. I don't know why such evidence shouldn't have equal weight with the equally questionable evidence of Eme Sal [even if it is not a fiction, we still don't know the family tree, the chicken or the egg question]. To me all this is based on their still unproven assumption of EG >ES; if they turned it around, or even derived both from a common ancestor they wouldn't need their theory, or they would need another one. >Medial NG can certainly represent /ng/ (= [Ng]), for instance in >a word like , Emesal . The doubtful cases are >those where we have a traditional transliteration with NG (I'm >still assuming that is based on Akkadian lexical lists) which >*does* alternate with M(M) in Emesal. Most notably . >Thomsen writes , but I'm not sure how wide-spread that >practice is. I would prefer . So you prefer Fing'ng'er, and I prefer fing'ger! I never heard a g~g~ in a living language, it would be pretty hard to pronounce! cf. Jamaican nying'i-nying'i [n~ig~i-n~ig~i] which means "nagging, whining"; - if there ever were two of these g~ sounds in a row they would coalesce into one! And aside from dimmer, do we have any evidence that eme-sal even had doubled consonants? Not something one finds in Bantu where most syllabes are CV, i.e. almost all syllables end in vowels. You still haven't given me any reasons why the g in dingir can't be hard - OK your reason is emesal. Ignore the Akkadians. And around we go![Don't bother, if you don't want, I think we should drop this part, we're talking past each other]. Why do we trust these ignorant patois speaking Gutians who wouldn't know Nannar from Nanna, instead of Akkadian scribes who devoted their lives to bilingual studies? :-} >Most other words where /g~/ is supposed to occur medially >(where cuneiform in principle allows a way for NG to be written) >are always written with G in Emegir (M in Emesal). >Dag~al, eg~ir etc. I take it you mean "supposed to", i.e. acc. to Thomsen's or whosever g=g~ theory. You seem to be agreeing with me, or am I agreeing with you? It's clearly totally unwarranted. G~ is not a special cuneiform sign; there is no distinction between the symbols used to spell g~ and g. So why can't we write dagal and egir like the Akkadians did until we find irrefutable evidence that they were wrong? Just on principle, why trust the going modern theories over ancient usages which survived over centuries and must have had some basis in reality, not a scatter of accidentally excavated texts, which is the only reality we have? Suppose we dig up another eme which writes dagal as dankal? or writes dagbal, with variants dagal and dambal! [Some of the Eblaite material would suggest similar phonetic changes or variants within the same language]. >Where Emesal data (or similar evidence from lexical lists, >"unorthographic" texts or Akkadian borrowings) is missing or >doubtful, we can never be sure whether G actually represents /g/ >or /g~/. The Sumerian word for "cow" for instance, GU(D), is >given as g~ud for no good reason in several sources I have seen. RIGHT! Where do they get the chutzpah?? I could probably make a theory deriving both ng'ombe [g~ombe] and g~ud as alternative (m)b and (n)d endings on a 10,000 year old root g~u, but I bet if you checked the posterity which extends to several major language families you would find gutterals gu-/ ku far outnumber nasals, and that many people wouldn't consider nu forms to even derive from the same proto-root! Now anybody can take the ball and run with it, and then we'll have ten more theories about ten other sounds, and then we'll really have pie in the sky which not even we moderns will be able to pronounce because of all the wierd symbols! Since our new construct will be no more based in reality than our old one based on Akkadian scribal practice was, why not stick with the old one? At least we can read write and pronounce it in a commonly agreed system in order to discuss other aspects of the language! >Cuneiform being a logosyllabic writing system, where I write G, >M, NG etc. in the above, those should be understood as >abstractions, which in some cases depend on rare syllabic >spellings where logograms would normally be used. Does logosyllabic mean "uses both logograms and syllabic systems all mixed together" ? Anyway, the "depend on rare syllabic spellings" is exactly my point. The whole structure that modern age people have created is an ananse web, beautiful, useful, necessary, but an ananse web all the same. Fling an archive of drastically divergent "new" tablets through it, and down it all comes. So since it's essentially a tentative and hypothetical construct, why not just take it as a "convention", a language with which to speak about other matters than pronunciation, and stop diddling with it as if it actually represented "reality". Maybe we could agree to revise it once a century if compelling evidence so demanded. E. Adams ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #55 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html