From: owner-ane To: ane-digest@oi.uchicago.edu Subject: Ancient Near East Digest V3 #181 Reply-To: Errors-To: owner-ane Precedence: bulk Ancient Near East Digest Monday, 10 June 1996 Volume 03 : Number 181 Meroitic Graves incompatibilities of script and language Re: incompatibilities of script and language BOMHARD REVIEW #1 Re: incompatibilities of script and language My last post and apologies Egyptian Inscriptions on Seals Re: Hebrew Etymologies FWD: Goerwitz second-year Hebrew textbook by WWW FWD: Hoch: Syllabaries/Alphabets/Origins interdisciplinary studies Re: trade language? FWD: Hoch: Syllabaries/Alphabets/Origins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kharyssa rhodes Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 19:36:41 -0700 Subject: Meroitic Graves Mr. Winters, may I remind you that prior to the "colonization" of Upper Nubia by Egypt, there is no evidence that a local written language was in use. The Egyptians brought 'glyphs with them not only as a trading language, but as a fact of life, culture and survival that the Nubians had to deal with. They did indeed adopt 'glyphs for their royal/official burials (as would be expected), but there are hundreds of "simple" pan-style gravesites from the time of the 25th dynasty as well as the Meroitic Kingdom which are characteristically identical to those of earlier periods (including pre-Kerma & Kerma, A-Group, and C-Group). It is only during the Meroitic period that a local written language appears. Scholars unanimously agree that cultural diffusion led to the development of the Meroitic alphabets (both 'glyph and cursive) which was used to represent the *local* language which had been superceded by the Egyptian previously. (see Adams, Williams Y. _Nubia: Corridor to Africa_ and O'Connor, David _Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa_.) If the language was used as a widespread trading lingua franca, why is it that this language appears nowhere else ? was the alphabet itself then a completely localized phenomenon ? No disrespect intended, but I find all of your arguments to be weak, based on instinct, and at best inconclusive. Like others on the list, I do not believe that this thread should continue - we obviously do not agree and will not be changing our positions any time soon. I look forward to receive your paper... until then let's break off this fruitless arguing. - -- Kharyssa K. Rhodes University of Colorado at Denver ***************************************************************** snail mail: UCD, Department of Anthropology Campus Box 103, PO Box 173364 Denver, Co 80217-3364 email: rhodes79@mail.idt.net ***************************************************************** "No man can be a pure specialist, without being a complete idiot" ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Doug Taylor Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 21:15:47 -0500 Subject: incompatibilities of script and language A. Leo Oppenheim, in *Ancient Mesopotamia*, on p.49 writes: "It is quite likely that the Sumerians had adapted for their own use an already existing system and technique of writing.This seems to have been the creation of a lost and earlier, either native or alien, civilization, which may or may not have had some relation to the foreign elements in the Sumerian vocabulary, the topographical names of the region, and possibly, the names of the gods worshiped there." on p. 237: "It is fairly certain that the principle of logographic writing was invented by the non-Sumerian predecessors of those Mesopotamians who wrote the earliest intelligible records on clay in Sumerian." In his book *The Ancient Near East*, Cyrus H. Gordon writes on page 34: "Sumerian script was not devised for the Sumerian language, as incompatibilities between the script and language show. Accordingly, there was an earlier literate people from whom the Sumerians borrowed their system of writing. However, we so far have no clearly discernible texts in the language of that earlier people." Samuel Kurinsky, in The Eighth Day*, on p. 28 writes: "Some philologists suggest that cuneiform writing was employed originally for some pre-Akkadian (and pre-Sumerian) language. In any event, it is evident that a precedent literary tradition existed." He then quotes the Gordon footnote above concerning the "incompatibilities between the script and language [of the Sumerians]." C.B.F. Walker, in *Cuneiform*, on p.12 writes: "Because the script does not perfectly suit all the sounds which linguistic experts find in Sumerian, it has been suggested that the cuneiform script was devised by another people." I've been trying to run down the linguistic evidence these "philologists" use to support this theory and have been unsuccessful. Can anyone on the list tell me where I should look? Thanks in advance, Doug Taylor Denny denny@acm.org ------------------------------ From: KNEMET@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 00:04:18 -0400 Subject: Re: incompatibilities of script and language The "source" of these quotes is Benno Landsberger, but, someone else has to supply the reference. Today Miguel Civil is doing interesting work tracking down roots that are Sumerian and substrate; he gave a paper at the last AOS meeting this past spring. Karen Nemet-Nejat ------------------------------ From: Patrick Ryan Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 23:35:45 -0700 Subject: BOMHARD REVIEW #1 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------281A62286FA5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am attaching a portion of my review of Allan Bomhard's new book, _Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis_ (1996). It is about 8 pages and will not be everyone's cup of tea so I have attached it as a file. For those of you who do find some interest in it, I will be glad to discuss it either on the list or in private as you prefer. Pat Ryan - --------------281A62286FA5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BOMREV01" REVIEW OF ALLAN BOMHARD'S INDO-EUROPEAN AND THE NOSTRATIC HYPOTHESIS (SEGMENT 1) Bomhard has just published this book; and everyone who is interested in the longrange comparison of languages should be appreciative of having such a handy compendium of theory and proto-forms for various language families. In spite of the fact that I differ with Bomhard over some rather fundamental issues, I, for one, immensely enjoyed reading the book which contains the important kernel of information that was contained in his much more expensive earlier collaboration with the late John Kerns. I offer this critique not to discredit Bomhard's accomplishments but to provide the, I hope, constructive feedback that we all need to perpetually refine our ideas. One of the issues on which I differ with Bomhard is the Nostratic vowel inventory: a crucial point because it vitally affects the nature of the consonantal inventory which one should expect to find in Nostratic. Bomhard's position is clear. On page 81, he indicates a Nostratic vowel inventory of "i~e...u~o....6~a". I will be using <6> for schwa (mid or high central V). As noted on p. 53 of _A Select Catalog of Language Universals_ (Gyula De'csy), "the most common pattern in the languages of the world is the three level, five unit vowel system of classical Latin.../i/u/o/e/a/". Bomhard's innovation is simply to add /6/ to this very common pattern. Bomhard's Nostratic pattern (with /6/) "is to be found in 7% of the corpus (Ruhlen 1977: 147-148)". Typologically, there cannot be a valid objection. My position is also clear. I believe that Nostratic had modified an inherited vowel system consisting of a low front, central, and back vowel (which I conventionally indicate as even though e/o normally represent mid vocalic articulations) by phonemicizing the glides which occurred before , and neutralizing the front-back contrast. Therefore, I believe that Nostratic had a single vowel, low central with an allophone, mid/high central <6> which occurred in closed syllables. My reasons for believing this are basically threefold: 1) I accept Diakonov's (1975: 134-36) opinion that AA had a "vertical" vowel system consisting of "*6 and *a"; I was astounded to find that Bomhard agrees with this also (p. 73)! 2) I accept Winfred P. Lehmann's analysis for IE. Lehmann takes us carefully step by step through first a pre-stress PIE vowel system (1955:112) in which the only "vowel" is undeterminable, which he notates ^, and terms "syllabicity". Next, a stage with phonemic stress with one vowel, e , with maximum stress, and a number of vocalic resonants with minimum stress, i, u, r*, l*, m* n* (1955:113). After that, a period of non-distinctive stress, with e, e:, and (sub)e, and near "laryngeals" (1955:113). >From this, I abstract that IE originally had a vowel (Lehmann's ^), which I write , with an allophone in closed syllables (Lehmann's [sub]e), which I write <6>. A) Although Bomhard notes Pulleyblank's (1965) effort to show that IE vowel gradation should be interpreted as "*6 (schwa)~*a gradation", and says: "...Pulleyblank came pretty close to the truth, though only for the oldest period of development", he then ends up stating: "For the latest period of development...the traditional system of five long and five short vowels is surely correct" (p. 99). Now, if Bomhard's accepts an IE vowel system "for the oldest period of development", as he seems to be doing, why, when we turn to his Common Nostratic Roots on page 141, do we find that the first PIE ("Proto"=earliest!!!) root reconstructed as *b[h]ew-d[h]-/*b[h]ow-d[h]-/*b[h]u-d[h]- when we might have expected *bhaw or *bha/6w or best *bhaw-/bh6w????? Since he seems to be endorsing that the (P)IE "oldest period of development" had Pulleyblank's , why does he not reflect that in his P(!)IE reconstructions as he correctly does for PAA (*baw-/*b6w)? Perhaps someone who has read this and perhaps understood it better than I can explain this to me. That is but a minor discrepancy compared to the rather large problem I see in Bomhard's PN (Proto-Nostratic) reconstructions. Here, Bomhard reconstructs some roots with a /a-6/ variation, others with /u-o/ and finally also /i-e/. When I discussed this with Bomhard, he kept writing that the Nostratic vowels were determined through their reflexes in the daughter languages. I confess I did not understand what he was driving at. I had the idee fixe that somehow he must be identifying Nostratic vowels from their reflexes in AA or IE, somehow. I think I understand now what he was getting at. In his second root, PN "bur-/*bor-, he reconstructs PAA *bar-*b6r- so PAA cannot be used in determining the Nostratic vowel quality. Surprisingly, he reconstructs PIE *b[h]or-/*b[h]r*-. One might assume that this is based on his table of vocalic correspondences on page 87 where PN u = PIE u,o and PN o = PIE o. If we take this information at face value, we would expect Bomhard to show PIE *b[h]ur-/*b[h]or-, and let the reader elaborate that the in *b[h]or- could, under certain circumstances, become syllabic . There are two problems here. First, if IE Ablaut has any validity at all, NO IE vowel should be predictable as a result of the vowel from which it was derived. Any Nostratic vowel that has not been (later) lengthened or centralized to by a guttural, should show up in PIE as e/o. If Nostratic vowels can be used to predict PIE vowels, this would imply Ablaut for Nostratic, of which we see no indication. Conversely, if PIE vowels can be used to predict Nostratic vowels, then Ablaut is a phantasmagoria that only appears to exist. Second, what happened to Pulleyblank and "the earliest" /a-6/ vowel inventory for IE, which Bomhard seems to accept as a basis for Hittite, at least? It just does not seem to be consistent! But what shocked me when I studied the list of roots more intensely was that it appears, the only consistent predictor for Nostratic vowels seems to be the vowels of proto-forms in languages like Sumerian (bur-3) for Root #2 and PA(ltaic) *bur. Now, regarding his first root, the only language Bomhard has cited beside IE and AA is Sumerian "bu-i (rare) "knowledge, learning"". Here, the Sumerian is, most likely, a contraction of Vw, so it has no predictive value, and Bomhard (correctly, in my opinion) reconstructs reconstructs (PN *baw-). In Root 2, Bomhard's *bu/or-, since the PIE cannot predict (but rather inconsistently "reflects?"), and AA cannot predict; and PU(ralic) *pura, PD(ravidian) *pur-, and PA(ltaic) *bur-, and S(umerian) bur-3, are cited, the only conclusion I can draw is that Bomhard believes that Nostratic /u-o/ can be predicted from the -u- of Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic, and Sumerian. Now, I confess, I am attempting to discern the process whereby Bomhard makes these Nostratic vowel assignments, a process that he has never explicitly explained (that I have read), so I could be overlooking something (and I would be glad for confirmation or clarification). Presumably, Bomhard reasons that since Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic, and Sumerian do not show Ablaut or vowel gradation like IE and AA, the vowels found in them should reflect original Nostratic vowels. Firstly, since the reflex in the four languages is uniformly , does that not cast doubt on a Nostratic reconstruction of ? What language in Root #3 shows any evidence of Nostratic in the original root? Certainly not IE, even though Bomhard inconsistently shows *b[h]or-. If Ablaut theory has any validity, there should be a corresponding *b[h]er-, which accounts for Pokorny's 3. bher-, confirmed, inter alia, by Old Icelandic berja. Other IE forms (*bhor-, *bhar-) therefore have no predictive value for the vowel(s) from which they are derived. And, in view of Bomhard's acceptance of Diakonov's AA vowel system reconstruction, arguing for Nostratic Ablaut would be a Periclean tour de force. *Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic, and Sumerian For Uralic, most Uralicists accept front-back vowel alternations as a root phenomenon, e.g. purka/pirka", twist, turn; sometimes with a slight shift of meaning (including raising): hehe, woman; haha, man, where is a low back vowel opposed to the low front vowel . It would seem that Uralic pura can be expected to have had a *pira" alternative form which may have later shifted (cf. pira", circle), and so, provides no real indication of the root vowel(s) from which it is derived. If Bomhard has noted this characteristic (which seems to be analogous in form [if not function] to IE Ablaut) of Uralic, I am afraid I missed it. - ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Since we have now seen that IE, AA, and Uralic seem to have vowel variation which serves grammatical or derivational rather than semantic purposes, is it not legitimate to suspect that Nostratic also had this feature? In fact, Bomhard seems to be saying that it does: "Indo-European inherited the qualitative ablaut alternations from Nostratic" (p. 98). This means to me that any reconstructed Nostratic form should be reconstructed not on a low/mid-high axis (e/i-a/6-o/u) but on a front-back axis (a"/a^-e/o-i/u). It is hard to understand why Bomhard has not chosen to so reconstruct Nostratic roots; and his approach seems inconsistent and contradictory. If, as I believe, Nostratic (perhaps only earliest) had only one vowel, a low central , it could have provided the platform for the momentous linguistic advance of separating nouns and verbs by an alternation of, resp. back and front vowels, so that the verbal roots of Bomhard's Nostratic reconstructions should all theoretically be built with a front vowel. The discrepancies in the various derived languages could be explained as secondary deverbative and denominative processes. If proves to be a valid component of every Ablaut-process so that every Ablaut variation is potentially e-a-o, a third category, stative, might contrast with nouns (o) and verbs (e). A further consideration is that for IE k to be palatalized to Old Indian c in certain words makes much more sense if we picture an inheritance of palatalized , which retains its palatalization even before back (or central) vowels with which it comes into contact through Ablaut, than supposing that it originates solely from an inherited sequence. This need not have been consistent: a congruent could have de-palatalized to . - --------------------------------------------------------------- If we took Bomhard at his word, we could really stop here but a few more words about the other derived languages that "reflect" the original Nostratic vowel may not be out of place. Altaic, as Bomhard notes, is characterized by vowel harmony. My source for Altaic information is Karl Menges, _Turkic Languages and People_ (1968). For example, the ending of the dative in Altaic is quoted by Menges as -qa/-ka", where represent an unrounded back vowel and an unrounded front vowel. As can be seen, consonants can be grouped in front and back pairs, And although Starostin (who Bomhard cites) (1991) differs, he does reconstruct apparent palatal (c^ [from ky?]) and velar (k) dorsal stops, in parallel with n/ny, l/ly, r/ry. I am certainly not an Altaicist (and I would be glad for some feedback from someone who is knowledgeable) but I suspect that we will find some pairs in PA like oq, arrow : ek-, to sow (cf. IE 2. se:(i)-, sow, throw, *arrow (Old Indian sa:'yaka, arrow), which may be actually cognate with IE 2. ak^-, sharp, which exemplify the effect of Altaic Ablaut, probably inherited from (Late?) Nostratic. This word is also related to Egyptian ik(w/ii) quarry(-man) (cf. also Arabic hakka, spear someone time after time). In any case, an alternation of -qa/-ka", which is perceived by language-speakers, to be semantically identical, does not give me great faith in the integrity of any root vowel. With Dravidian, the situation is somewhat similar, in David McAlpin's _Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and Its Implications_, a fine example of vowel harmony (?) is given on pahe 43. From a root, toD-, wash, with the augment -g-, produces toD6g, wash; toDigindi, it washed; toDugutundi, it washes; toDagadu, it (does) not wash. Although, to my knowledge, Ablaut has not been recognized in Elamo-Dravidian, on page 74, McAlpin mentions: "there is a common confusion of the vowels i and u"...in Middle Elamite. This could be interpreted to mean that theoretical Nostratic nominals in (Dravidian ) were competing with verbals in (Dravidian ) through dialect competition or perhaps even social class differences. For any noun, a form in would have been deverbal; for any verb, a form in would have been denominal. All in all, it does not seem to me that Dravidian can provide any evidence for the determination of the Nostratic vowel. - ------------------------------------------------------------- It may be objected by Bomhard or others that the Dravidian form does, after all, show , meaning that a form with is not attested. A scan of the entire list of roots will quickly show that only a portion of the roots have Dravidian cognates. It is obvious to me that Bomhard has selected that nominal root that goes with his hypothetical but unreal Nostratic vowel and not included Dravidian roots that would indicate a different vowel because "they do not correspond". Let me be clear that I do not accuse Bomhard of knowing manipulation. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, there is the question of the Sumerian cognate, bur-3. For convenience, I will be noting some information from Karl Jaritz' _Schriftarchaeologie der altmesopotamischen Kultur_ (1967), which some friends have criticized as a source. I am well aware that Jaritz had some unusual ideas about compound analysis which have not withstood the test of time but I find the organization of ideas in the book extremely helpful; and the basic information about sign values, forms, and meanings is mostly accurate. I admire his imagination but am sincerely deeply appreciative of his Germanic sense of organization and completeness. Bur-3 is Jaritz Sign #750. The sign itself, as can be seen from its earliest pre-cuneiform shape, depicts a "hole"; it is a simple circular line. It means "hole, depth, deep, open, excavation, hollowness, bore-hole, cellar, boring, passage". Jaritz makes the distinction between bur-3, which he defines only nominally, and buru-3, which has related nominal meanings but includes "bore into" and "burglar", which is more naturally derived from the "verbal" form. Before I begin this discussion, I am well aware that some or many Sumerian scholars may disagree with any point I make. Another Sumerian word of interest is bir-2 (this sign, J. #634, also reads pir), which means "to dig up the earth", and portrays the rising sun seen through a valley. One more Sumerian word that we should notice is bar (this sign, J. #118, also reads par-2), which means "split off", and depicts a hoe. Bomhard does not cite forms from Pokorny so he is free to create his own (P)IE forms and assign meanings. Under PN *bur-/*bor-, "to bore, to pierce", he indicates PIE *b[h]or-/*b[h]r*-, "to bore, to pierce". Here, I am afraid, I must conclude that Bomhard has created a form that seems to conform with his Nostratic reconstruction, and then just assigned it a convenient meaning --- because the only form in Pokorny, that can possibly be involved, is 3. bher-, "mit einem scharfen Werkzeug bearbeiten, ritzen, schneiden, reiben, spalten". Here, I interject Igor Diakonoff's advice to Bomhard: "...if the non-glottalized stop were actually always aspirated, why not tell us so once and for all (?)", with which I heartily agree. A notation of b[h] for a phoneme that always shows up in PIE notated by other folks as bh is cumbersome and meaningless. The great majority of words derived from 3. bher- show that its root meaning is to "create flakes by splitting off some material"; its Nostratic form should be reconstructed, on the basis of the correct Sumerian equivalent, par-2, as Nostratic *pf?ar(y)-. This is the basis for Egyptian b3, "hoe". The in parentheses indicates a palatal glide. Bomhard has another entry which pertains to this item: Root #33, PN *bar-/b6r-, "scrape", etc. A related word, Nostratic pf?(y)ar(y) means "scratch", and can be seen in Egyptian b3, "leopard". This is Sumerian pir, "dig up the earth (with a pick)", and is a second root to be included under IE 3. bher-. Of this second root, I see no trace in Bomhard's dictionary. Interestingly, Bomhard has a root (#69), *p[h]ar-/*p[h]6r-, "to go or pass, - over or across; to go forth or out"; this is clearly what Pokorny records as B. per-, per6- "...force through", seen in Greek pera'o:, "force through"; pei'ro:, "bore through". Obviously, "go through" is what a bit does when boring. But here is something worthy of note. For this word, he gives only Egyptian pri, "come out" (with which I agree); and Sumerian par-3, "go or pass by". Since I do not find this meaning in Delitzsch, Thomsen, or Jaritz, I must ask where it came from. I would suggest for this root, which I reconstruct as Nostratic p(hy)ar(hw)$(w)a ($ is Arabic ain), and read Sumerian bir(i)-2 as "cause to come up out of", equivalent to IE per6-. This can also be seen in Arabic faraĻa, "ascend a mountain, and surpass". Yet, we still have to explain Sumerian bur(u)-3, "hole, bore". Now, "hole" means two basic things: 1) a perforation through the material; and 2) an excavation of part of the material. I suggest that the associations of bur(u)-3 should be interpreted as indicating 2). Nostratic p(?w)aw meant "hollow", and can be seen in IE 2. b(e)u-, "blow up, swell", where we have derivatives like Westfalian po:t, "puddle". However, IE was very unstable, and likely to become . The conditions under which it remained are more in need than those under which it was transformed. Now, the Nostratic root we are looking for is p(?w)awr(y), "make an excavation". This is the source of Sumerian bur-3; and can be seen again in Arabic ba^ra, "to be void", i.e. "hollow"; bu^run, "worthless fellow", i.e. "hollow one". We will not be able to find this composite in IE, which theoretically would be *bewr-, except under the heading 7. wer-, "rip up, engrave"; and with s-mobile: 4. swer-, "cut, stick, fester, secrete". In exactly this form, we see it in Egyptian bw3, "covert for wildfowl"; and probably in Egyptian bi3.t (for *bw3[i].t), "beer-vessel, quarry". So, for root #3, using Bomhard's notation, we should find PN *bawr-/b6wr-; the of PU *pura, PD *pur-, PA *bur-, and Sumerian bur-3, is seen to be a result of a medial ; and PAA *bar- should be revised to *bawr-. Latin foro:, "bore", can only be thought of as "bore" in the sense of "chip out". It remains only to explain that I believe Sumerian left the language that would become Nostratic at about 40,000 BPE. This pre-Nostratic had not yet phonemecized glides, and probably still retained its earliest vowels. Whether Sumerian revocalized glide+vowels (ya[e] -> i; wa[o] -> u) or simply raised to and to or retained Nostratic and though we cannot see it because of the faulty transcription, I do not know but I am fairly certain that in a CVC syllable, Sumerian allows us to predict the pre-Nostratic vowel and the Nostratic glide+vowel. I believe that AA, IE, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvellian, and Dravidian (as well as Elamite) branched from Nostratic much later, certainly after the phonemecization of glides which enabled Ablaut and vowel gradation. When the glides were lost after additional root determinatives made them obsolete for specifying the meaning of the roots, the existent vowels could not be used to reconstruct original (pre-)Nostratic vowels. A final word: Sumerian seems to distinguish aspirated (p/t/k) and unaspirated (b/d/g) consonants. Nostratic had aspirated and glottalic voiceless stops and affricates. The affricates lost the fricative element (mostly), and become Sumerian aspirates. Both the glottalized and aspirated voiceless stops of Nostratic become Sumerian unaspirates. END OF SEGMENT 1 - --------------281A62286FA5-- ------------------------------ From: Patrick Ryan Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 01:29:04 -0700 Subject: Re: incompatibilities of script and language Doug Taylor wrote: > > A. Leo Oppenheim, in *Ancient Mesopotamia*, on p.49 writes: > "It is quite likely that the Sumerians had adapted for their own use an > already existing system and technique of writing.This seems to have been the > creation of a lost and earlier, either native or alien, civilization, which > may or may not have had some relation to the foreign elements in the > Sumerian vocabulary, the topographical names of the region, and possibly, > the names of the gods worshiped there." > > on p. 237: > "It is fairly certain that the principle of logographic writing was invented > by the non-Sumerian predecessors of those Mesopotamians who wrote the > earliest intelligible records on clay in Sumerian." > > In his book *The Ancient Near East*, Cyrus H. Gordon writes on page 34: > "Sumerian script was not devised for the Sumerian language, as > incompatibilities between the script and language show. Accordingly, there > was an earlier literate people from whom the Sumerians borrowed their system > of writing. However, we so far have no clearly discernible texts in the > language of that earlier people." > > Samuel Kurinsky, in The Eighth Day*, on p. 28 writes: > "Some philologists suggest that cuneiform writing was employed originally > for some pre-Akkadian (and pre-Sumerian) language. In any event, it is > evident that a precedent literary tradition existed." He then quotes the > Gordon footnote above concerning the "incompatibilities between the script > and language [of the Sumerians]." > > C.B.F. Walker, in *Cuneiform*, on p.12 writes: > "Because the script does not perfectly suit all the sounds which linguistic > experts > find in Sumerian, it has been suggested that the cuneiform script was > devised by another people." > > I've been trying to run down the linguistic evidence these "philologists" > use to support this theory and have been unsuccessful. Can anyone on the > list tell me where I should look? > > Thanks in advance, > > Doug Taylor > Denny > denny@acm.org Dear Doug: MRI might help at some future date when it is capable of recording the oscillations of an active imagination. The myth that early writing in Mesopotamia is not suited to Sumerian is widespread but untrue. The problems we have we Sumerian are that the Akkadians mastered it imperfectly, and so transmitted information about it in a garbled way. Then again, there is a coterie that seeks to explain every anomaly as a borrowing or a substratum. To give an example, the Sumerian genitive is -ak. It is written with a sign (Jaritz #159) that means "possess". This is about what we should expect in an agglutinative language but would be "highly" coincidental if another ethnic group had originated the pictograms. The earliest sign is somewhat enigmatic but appears to be (possibly) a shore on which mollusks are located. The word for "possession" originated from a term for "wealth", a-ka, "water-mollusk", related to IE e:ik-, "own, be able". Pat Ryan ------------------------------ From: kharyssa rhodes Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 01:08:51 -0700 Subject: My last post and apologies Sorry folks, just to clear up my last post... The point of my last post was merely that to continue the discussion w/Mr. Winters would be a pointless string of disconnected evidence, and that reading his paper in its entirety would be the best approach for now. We simply disagree on too many fundamental points to clog up the list endlessly. My intention is not to save "young minds" from being corrupted by what I feel is erroneous information... it just seems that there are very few of us participating in a discussion that would be better facillitated by email rather than the listserv. I was not trying to be a "censor"... I was merely trying to be considerate of others on the list who may not be interested in this discussion anymore. I also offer my apologies to Dr. DeCaen... seems we both jumped to conclusions. As you say, it can be difficult to sense the nuances of meaning through email ! - -- Kharyssa K. Rhodes University of Colorado at Denver ***************************************************************** snail mail: UCD, Department of Anthropology Campus Box 103, PO Box 173364 Denver, Co 80217-3364 email: rhodes79@mail.idt.net ***************************************************************** "No man can be a pure specialist, without being a complete idiot" ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: CFRBWIL@UCHIMVS1.UCHICAGO.EDU Date: Sun, 09 Jun 96 18:52 CST Subject: Egyptian Inscriptions on Seals A couple of people on the list got the impression I was saying the Egyptians _made_ cylinder seals before the Mesopotamians. No, i said only that they wrote inscriptions on them earlier. The appearance of the cylinder seal as an object is another discussion entirely, and one that might yield some surprises. bruce williams bb-williams@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ From: avigdor horovitz Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:56:37 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: Hebrew Etymologies Dear Seth, I'm afraid I don't have much to add on this one. I asked my colleagues Qimron and D. Talshir and they are familiar only with the contraction theory suggested by Jastrow. Qimron says that `ksyw is actually a He brew form an Aramaic expression. He also noticed that it is now know from Proto-Jubilees in Qumran which would make it the earliest attestation. Avigdor ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:18:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: FWD: Goerwitz second-year Hebrew textbook by WWW >From: "Richard L. Goerwitz III" >To: ane@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu >Subject: new version of Hebrew textbook > >I've been quietly updating the second-year Hebrew textbook used on my >students this last year. It's still short, and pretty dense. It has >a distinctly philological emphasis, as well. > >The textbook is available in PostScript, as well as DVI and TeX format. >Take a look at the files in: > > http://oi.uchicago.edu:1080/pub/stuff/2ndyearheb/ > >Most people will want to use the PostScript file. > >Anyone who wants to use this textbook is welcome to do so. Anyone who >wants to rewrite it is also welcome to do so - the TeX source code is >right there, along with all the necessary adjunct files. If you rewrite >it, be sure to forward a copy to me, so I can merge in stuff that I >like. > > ------------------------------ From: cejo@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles E. Jones) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:10:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: FWD: Hoch: Syllabaries/Alphabets/Origins >From: James_Hoch@campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) >To: ane@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu >Subject: Syllabaries/Alphabets/Origins >Date: 09 Jun 1996 22:36:36 GMT >Organization: CampusLife - University of Toronto > >It was interesting that during the discussion of writing, syllabaries, >alphabets, and possible Egyptian connections not a soul mentioned the Byblos >texts. Of all places in the Levant, that this script should have been devised >in Byblos, with its long and deep Egyptian connections should not be much of >a surprise, nor that it was inspired by Egyptian, both hieroglyphic and >hieratic. In some cases signs were borrowed outright, although the use was >innovative. > >The texts are well known in the field, although they are not widely discussed >in public fora (like the ANE list?), perhaps because of their limited number. >A few words of background may be in order. The texts are generally dated to >the Middle Kingdom (attempts to date them earlier have not been regarded as >successful). There are about the right number of signs to indicate that it >was a syllabary (although not all the signs have been distinguished--there >also appear to be variant signs--which would leave 60-90 signs, depending on >who's counting). The most striking thing is, however, that a number of signs >ended up in the various alphabets--and not just the geometric shapes that any >child could invent. The process of passing from syllabary to alphabet was >apparently not straightforward and probably took place over time. In any >case, *different* combinations of signs form the cores of the different >alphabets. (The development of the Ugaritic alphabet is a separate question, >and is not considered in this post.) The names of the letters of the alphabet >probably derive from the syllable names (as Mendenhall proposed), and some of >the discrepencies between letter shape and name can be explained (a sign can >be borrowed with the "wrong" name). There also appears to be a later or >variant form of the Byblos script that may be transitional to the alphabets, >but it is found on only one or two steles. > >The script is a deliberate invention and is not a borrowing from the Egyptian >writing system. Some signs are borrowed, as it is easy to see, but their use >seems to be quite different. There would seem to be no semantic >determinatives. Attempts have been made to compare some of the signs with >Middle Kingdom hieratic, but some of the forms appear closer to Old Kingdom >hieratic, in my opinion. Since we cannot always identify the signs, there is >a considerable amount of doubt. In any case, many of the signs are local >innovations. > >There is other evidence for Egyptian connections. One stele has a bit of >hieratic text--a dating formula--in the middle of the inscription. >Unfortunately M. Dunand did not realize that it was hieratic, so his hand >copy could possibly be improved upon. (Particularly of interest would be the >names in the nearly "blank" cartouches.) An article of mine dealing with this >stele was published in JARCE 32 (1995), pp. 59-65. > >Sources: M. Dunand, _Bybia Grammata_ (Beirut: 1945). Several unfortunate >attempts at decipherment have been made. George Mendenhall, _The Syllabic >Inscriptions from Byblos_ (Beirut: 1985), presents the reading of many signs, >but the translations are premature at this stage, IMHO. Mendenhall's >methodology has come into question, but regardless of method, some positive >results have been made. Still, being able to identify a number of signs is a >far cry from reading the texts. In spite of the problems outstanding, the >role of the Byblos script in the history of the alphabet cannot be lightly >dismissed. > >James Hoch >james_hoch@campuslife.utoronto.ca > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >CampusLife - University of Toronto http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: cuibono@garnet.berkeley.edu (Chris Hoffman) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:13:43 -0500 Subject: interdisciplinary studies i thought the discussion was going to start a few weeks ago regarding the possibilities for interdisciplinary approaches towards ancient greece/the near east, but, alas, i haven't seen that thread picked up. maybe i've missed it or was mistaken in thinking that a thread was being initiated. but let me say this, that i think a lot could be gained by such approaches, just as a perhaps wacky idea of my own as an example, i think that fruit could be culled by comparing babylonian/sumerian wisdom literature (like that stuff colected by van dijk in la sagesse sumero-accadienne) with debates in aristophanes, such as the clouds between right and wrong. at any rate, is anyone aware of any interdisciplinary conferences that have been held or even collections of essays where some of these possibilities are explored? i for one think a conference/collection would be a wonderful think for both disciplines. chris hoffman ------------------------------ From: "Clyde A. Winters" Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:58:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: trade language? On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Peter Daniels wrote: > > We seem to have a mini-difficulty with the term "trade language". Mr. Winters > was, I think, the first to use it, and he didn't cay what he means by it; then > other s have taken it up also without definition. I don't think "trade language" > is a familiar term from geolinguistics or whatever. Is it meant as an equivalent > of "lingua franca"? Or perhaps of "jargon" innthe sense found in Micahel Siver- > stein's early work on Chi ook [Chinook] Trade Jargon {Language, 1972)? > Daniels: I see Tokharian as a trade language like Chinook, which consisted of vocabulary that is not from a single source. See Hans Henrich Hock, (Mouton de Gruyter,1986). C.A. Winters ------------------------------ From: wesselius@SARA.NL (Jan Wim Wesselius) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 23:21:29 +0200 Subject: FWD: Hoch: Syllabaries/Alphabets/Origins On Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:10:53 -0500 (CDT) cejo@midway.uchicago.EDU (Charles E. Jones) forwarded a message from James_Hoch@campuslife.utoronto.ca (James Hoch) about the enigmatic inscriptions from Byblos published by M. Dunand. >Sources: M. Dunand, _Bybia Grammata_ (Beirut: 1945). Several unfortunate >attempts at decipherment have been made. George Mendenhall, _The Syllabic >Inscriptions from Byblos_ (Beirut: 1985), presents the reading of many signs, >but the translations are premature at this stage, IMHO. Mendenhall's >methodology has come into question, but regardless of method, some positive >results have been made. Still, being able to identify a number of signs is a >far cry from reading the texts. In spite of the problems outstanding, the >role of the Byblos script in the history of the alphabet cannot be lightly >dismissed. > I may be forgiven for drawing attention to a short note I wrote during my student days, which has remained largely unnoticed: 'A Note on the Byblian Inscriptions', Annali dell'istituto orientale di Napoli 40 (1980) 137-138. I attempted to show, among other things, that the language of these inscriptions has suffix-repetition, i.e. that there are a relatively large number of sequences: WORD1-C-SUFFIX WORD2-SUFFIX where WORD1 and WORD2 are various sequences of 2-3 signs, C is one of two distinct signs, and SUFFIX is the same sequence of 1-2 signs (some 5 or 6 of these are attested). I understand that the most likely candidate for a language which behaves in this way would be Hurrian, with C representing two different forms of the genitive marker. It seems rather likely that with enough knowledge of the Hurrian language it ought to be quite easy to decipher the script, as the signs C and those occurring in the suffixes are also found in the WORD's. Any Hurritologists out there who would try their hand? Jan Wim Wesselius Jan-Wim Wesselius, Afdeling Hebreeuws, Aramees en joodse studien p/a Universiteitsbibliotheek, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam tel. + 31 20 525 2784, fax + 31 20 525 2311 t.a.v. J. W. Wesselius e-mail: wesselius@sara.nl ------------------------------ End of Ancient Near East Digest V3 #181 *************************************** Back issues are available by two means: anonymous FTP at oi.uchicago.edu in pub/ane/ OR on the World Wide Web (WWW) at ftp://oi.uchicago.edu/pub/ane/