Sumerian and Akkadian

[Steve Whittet]

I have heard that Sumerian is an isolate. I expect that should mean it is
*definitely not related* to any other language yet I have read that it is
*thought to be related* to other languages but that linguistically speaking
*no proven relationship* exists.

Maybe you could tell me what the actual evidence or lack thereof might be.

What specific differences are there between Old Akkadian and Sumerian?

I would expect that if Sumerian is an isolate there should be no relation
to Old Akkadian if Old Akkadian is a semitic language.

I say "if Old Akkadian is a semitic language" because archaeologically
there is no evidence for semitic cultures reaching southern Mesopotamia
until the time of Sargon, (except perhaps in the form of an occasional
stray nomad wandering in from the desert to the outscirts of some city).

http://saturn.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/Welcome_akkadian.html

"Akkadian (or Babylonian-Assyrian) is the collective name for
the Semitic dialects spoken in the three millenia BC in Mesopotamia."

"Old Akkadian.

Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts (ca. 2800 BC)."

Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language
spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC
as some suggest, where and when is it best evidenced as a semitic language?

1.) Sumerian and Old Akkadian between c 3100 and c 2500 BC

I expect that there is some archaeological evidence of Sumerians
in the region before there is any evidence of Akkadians in the region

http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/fajardo/teaching/ENG120/gilgames.htm

Sumerian civilization (5000-2000 BC)
Sumerians came from Iran or Persian gulf
"the dark-headed," heavy bones, short, long and narrow heads,
huts in marshes, clay blades, dikes and canals, houses of mud bricks,
terraced temples, sailboats, wheeled vehicles, animal-drawn plows,
potter's wheel,
City of Eridu before 4000 BC
3300 BC, temples
3300-2990 BC, earliest Sumerian texts, pictographic characters
2800 BC, metal tools in graves at Ur, cuneiform writing
2700 BC, Gilgamesh of Uruk, fifth ruler of first post-diluvian dynasty of Uruk

So far as I can determine, other than the mention of a king of Kish,
in a text from Surupak (near Fara) c 2800 BC there is no clue to the
existence of Old Akkadian in this period.

http://www.piney.com/BabKingList.html (Sumerian king list)

This king has a semitic name (Ubara-Tutu?) which is apparently
spelled out in Ebalite (the semitic language in which some texts
from Ebla are written), but found in an in otherwise Sumerian
document, written in Sumerian, using a Sumerian script, Sumerian
rules of grammer etc; What is there about it linguistically that
makes it "Old Akkadian"?

I understand that Summerian is considered an agglutinative language,
what makes Old Akkadian different in this period?

2.) The next evidence of Old Akkadian is supposedly a fully Akkadian
text from c 2500 BC. Whats the difference between Old Akkadian
and Akkadian in this period?

A.) "From ca. 2500 BC one finds texts fully written in Akkadian.

What texts evidence Old Akkadian rather than Akkadian?

B.) "The language attested in documents of the third millenium
is called Old Akkadian."

What documents "attest" to Old Akkadian rather than Akkadian?

C.) "It is the language spoken in the central parts of Mesopotamia
(the city Akkad is near present day Bagdad).

What evidence is there Old Akkadian was spoken as opposed to written?

What evidence is there that Akkad, built by Sargon after c 2340 BC
even existed prior to c 2500 BC?

D.) "The number of tablets in Old Akkadian is not very large.
What tablets are written in Old Akkadian prior to c 2500 BC?

E.) "Most scholars in those days did not write in their native
language, but in Sumerian, which at that time was the
lingua franca and medium of communication between scholars.

How is Old Akkadian different from Summerian and Akkadian?

3.) In the time of Sargon of Akkad there is a period of 150 years
when there is some evidence (from bi-lingual texts in Sumerian
and Akkadian) that Akkadian exists as a language in some cities
such as Mari, Kish and Akkad, but Sumerian continues to be used
for royal business, commercial transactions and every sort of
mundane everyday corresponance. Whats the linguistic difference
between Sumerian and Akkadian in this period and what texts
best evidence it?

A.) "The name Akkadian --so called in ancient time-- is derived
from the city-state of Akkad, founded in the middle of the
third millenium BC and capital of one of the first great
empires at the dawn of human history."

Of the two dozen some odd cities loosely confederated by Sargon
as a part of his empire in Southern Mesopotamia how many preserve
evidence of Akkadian as a semitic language?

B.) "The Old Akkadian language period is at its height when Sargon
the Great (2350-2330) ruled over Akkad and most of the surrounding
city-states, the first empire with a central gouvernment.It ends
with the downfall of the Ur-III period (the 3rd dynasty of Ur)."

Is this a language that is spoken for a millenium or written bi-lingually
in some texts that cover a twenty year period?

What evidence is there of Old Akkadian in this twenty year period?

4.) After the Sumerian renaissance Akkadian apparently becomes a
dead language replaced by dialects of Akkadian such as Babylonian
and Assyrian in geographically different areas. What's the
difference between the Akkadian of the court of Sargon and the
Babylonian or Assyrian which together are refered to as
standard Babylonian?

Are there any linguistic connections between Sumerian, Elamite and Dravidian
or is the evidence for a linkage entirely archaeological as some suggest?

I think I have read or was told by someone that even in the Jemdet Nasr
Sumerian was written or Spoken in Dilmun, Elam (Susa and Anshan) and
Elamite in Tepe Yahya (across the straits of Hormuz from Umm al-Nar)
and Shari-i Sokhte (in Iran adjacent to Baluchistan)

What's the difference between Sumerian, Elamite and northern Dravidian
linguistically in the Jemdet Nasr period?

How do the languages of the transcaucasian cultures such as the Hurrians
and Hittites relate to Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millenium?

Are they related by anything more than their use of Cuneiform scripts?

regards,

steve

[Peter T. Daniels]

Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> I have heard that Sumerian is an isolate. I expect that should mean it is
> *definitely not related* to any other language yet I have read that it is
> *thought to be related* to other languages but that linguistically speaking
> *no proven relationship* exists.

It is DEFINITELY NOT RELATED to any other known language. WHERE did you
read it was "thought to be related"?

> Maybe you could tell me what the actual evidence or lack thereof might be.
>
> What specific differences are there between Old Akkadian and Sumerian?
>
> I would expect that if Sumerian is an isolate there should be no relation
> to Old Akkadian if Old Akkadian is a semitic language.

THAT IS CORRECT.

> I say "if Old Akkadian is a semitic language" because archaeologically
> there is no evidence for semitic cultures reaching southern Mesopotamia
> until the time of Sargon, (except perhaps in the form of an occasional
> stray nomad wandering in from the desert to the outscirts of some city).

WHAT THE BLOODY FUCKING HELL would "evidence for semitic cultures" have
to do with whether Old Akkadian is a Semitic language or not???

> http://saturn.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/Welcome_akkadian.html
>
> "Akkadian (or Babylonian-Assyrian) is the collective name for
> the Semitic dialects spoken in the three millenia BC in Mesopotamia."
>
> "Old Akkadian.
>
> Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts (ca. 2800 BC)."
>
> Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language
> spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC
> as some suggest, where and when is it best evidenced as a semitic language?

You really don't understand English, do you. Old Akkadian is a period of
the Akkadian language -- the Old period, in fact.

> 1.) Sumerian and Old Akkadian between c 3100 and c 2500 BC
>
> I expect that there is some archaeological evidence of Sumerians
> in the region before there is any evidence of Akkadians in the region

SO WHAT???? Do you have some secret way to discover what language was
spoken by people who (a) are dead and (b) didn't leave written (or
audio) records?

> So far as I can determine, other than the mention of a king of Kish,
> in a text from Surupak (near Fara) c 2800 BC there is no clue to the
> existence of Old Akkadian in this period.

So how is that not a clue?

> This king has a semitic name (Ubara-Tutu?) which is apparently
> spelled out in Ebalite (the semitic language in which some texts
> from Ebla are written), but found in an in otherwise Sumerian
> document, written in Sumerian, using a Sumerian script, Sumerian
> rules of grammer etc; What is there about it linguistically that
> makes it "Old Akkadian"?

There are hundreds of texts in Old Akkadian [Eblaite dialect] from Ebla.

> I understand that Summerian is considered an agglutinative language,
> what makes Old Akkadian different in this period?

Well, for one thing, it's not agglutinative. That, of course, has no
bearing on whether they're related. But it *does* exhibit all the
regular phonological and morphological regularities with the other
Semitic languages one could possibly want. Old Akkadian is very close to
Proto-Semitic as reconstructed by I. J. Gelb, who took into account the
evidence from Akkadian (unlike previous generations of scholars, who
based their Proto-Semitic on Arabic, and then tried fitting Akkadian
into the patterns as they became familiar with it). Gelb's Old Akkadian,
by the way, coheres well with e.g. Diakonoff's reconstructions of
Afro-Asiatic (or, as he called it, Afrasian).

> 2.) The next evidence of Old Akkadian is supposedly a fully Akkadian
> text from c 2500 BC. Whats the difference between Old Akkadian
> and Akkadian in this period?

The adjective "Old" in front of its name.

> A.) "From ca. 2500 BC one finds texts fully written in Akkadian.
>
> What texts evidence Old Akkadian rather than Akkadian?

None. Old Akkadian is Akkadian that's Older than other forms of
Akkadian.

> B.) "The language attested in documents of the third millenium
> is called Old Akkadian."
>
> What documents "attest" to Old Akkadian rather than Akkadian?

None.

> C.) "It is the language spoken in the central parts of Mesopotamia
> (the city Akkad is near present day Bagdad).
>
> What evidence is there Old Akkadian was spoken as opposed to written?

Hunh?

> What evidence is there that Akkad, built by Sargon after c 2340 BC
> even existed prior to c 2500 BC?

I haven't the slightest idea, but what would that have to do with the
existence or linguistic relationships of Old Akkadian?

> D.) "The number of tablets in Old Akkadian is not very large.
> What tablets are written in Old Akkadian prior to c 2500 BC?

Check Borger's Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur, or Gelb's grammar of
Old Akkadian.

> E.) "Most scholars in those days did not write in their native
> language, but in Sumerian, which at that time was the
> lingua franca and medium of communication between scholars.
>
> How is Old Akkadian different from Summerian and Akkadian?

Asked and answered.

> 3.) In the time of Sargon of Akkad there is a period of 150 years
> when there is some evidence (from bi-lingual texts in Sumerian
> and Akkadian) that Akkadian exists as a language in some cities
> such as Mari, Kish and Akkad, but Sumerian continues to be used
> for royal business, commercial transactions and every sort of
> mundane everyday corresponance. Whats the linguistic difference
> between Sumerian and Akkadian in this period and what texts
> best evidence it?

The same as in any other period; all of them.

> A.) "The name Akkadian --so called in ancient time-- is derived
> from the city-state of Akkad, founded in the middle of the
> third millenium BC and capital of one of the first great
> empires at the dawn of human history."
>
> Of the two dozen some odd cities loosely confederated by Sargon
> as a part of his empire in Southern Mesopotamia how many preserve
> evidence of Akkadian as a semitic language?

As many as have been excavated and yielded tablets or other
inscriptions.

> B.) "The Old Akkadian language period is at its height when Sargon
> the Great (2350-2330) ruled over Akkad and most of the surrounding
> city-states, the first empire with a central gouvernment.It ends
> with the downfall of the Ur-III period (the 3rd dynasty of Ur)."
>
> Is this a language that is spoken for a millenium or written bi-lingually
> in some texts that cover a twenty year period?

Hunh? (I doubt your source says "the Old Akkadian language period." It
probably says "the Old Akkadian period," which refers to a
dynasty/empire or kingdom, not a language.)

> What evidence is there of Old Akkadian in this twenty year period?

I know that volumes and volumes of Sargonic texts have been published. I
have no idea how many unpublished Sargonic texts may be known.

> 4.) After the Sumerian renaissance Akkadian apparently becomes a
> dead language replaced by dialects of Akkadian such as Babylonian
> and Assyrian in geographically different areas. What's the
> difference between the Akkadian of the court of Sargon and the
> Babylonian or Assyrian which together are refered to as
> standard Babylonian?

Akkadian never "becomes a dead language" until the 2nd or 3rd c. of the
Common Era.

Babylonian and Assyrian are not "together ... refer[r]ed to as standard
Babylonian." Standard Babylonian is the label for the literary dialect
used in a late period when Akkadian was probably no longer a spoken
language, but only a learned, scholarly language.

> Are there any linguistic connections between Sumerian, Elamite and Dravidian
> or is the evidence for a linkage entirely archaeological as some suggest?

No.

> I think I have read or was told by someone that even in the Jemdet Nasr
> Sumerian was written or Spoken in Dilmun, Elam (Susa and Anshan) and
> Elamite in Tepe Yahya (across the straits of Hormuz from Umm al-Nar)
> and Shari-i Sokhte (in Iran adjacent to Baluchistan)
>
> What's the difference between Sumerian, Elamite and northern Dravidian
> linguistically in the Jemdet Nasr period?

They are utterly different languages.

> How do the languages of the transcaucasian cultures such as the Hurrians
> and Hittites relate to Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millenium?

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for them in the third
millennium.

> Are they related by anything more than their use of Cuneiform scripts?

NN NN OOOO
NNN NN OO OO
NNNN NN OO OO
NN NN NN OO OO
NN NN NN OO OO
NN NNNN OO OO
NN NNN OO OO ooo
NN NN OOOO ooo
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A8575...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>> I have heard that Sumerian is an isolate. I expect that should mean it is
>> *definitely not related* to any other language yet I have read that it is
>> *thought to be related* to other languages but that linguistically speaking
>> *no proven relationship* exists.
>
>It is DEFINITELY NOT RELATED to any other known language. WHERE did you
>read it was "thought to be related"?

http://saturn.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/Welcome_akkadian.html

"Sumerian has *no known relation* to any other language.
*There seems to be a remote relationship with Dravidian languages*
(like spoken by the Tamils, now in the south of India).
[or the Brahui in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran]
There is evidence that the Dravidian languages were spoken in the north of India"

[we discussed this earlier in reference to Asko Parpola, the IVC language,
and the cylinder seals of the Gulf]

"being displaced by the arrival of the Indo-European invaders around 1500 BCE."

[a statement that most would no longer agree with]

"Because of the term 'the black-headed ones', *it is possible (but far from proven)
that the Sumerians are an early branch of one of the people now living in southern India*."

[Apparently this has something to do with Southern Mesopotamians being represented
with shaven heads or close fitting caps. People are represented with shaven heads
or close fitting caps on the Narmer palette and the Phaistos Disk as well]

"this linkage is suggested by a text from Eshnunna, a Mesopotamian city on the
Diyala river. In this text most likely dated to Is'aramas'u (c. 1970 BC) MAR-TU
are arranged by segmented lineage affiliation (babtum). The total states that
twenty-six MAR-TU are e-lu-tum-me, a term perhaps best translated as meaning'
trustworthy' or 'reliable' vis-a-vis the local Eshnunna officials. One MAR-TU
from the lineage of Bas'anum is said to be a-ab-ba-ta or 'from the sea (lands)'
or the land across the sea (Gelb 1968:"

Gelb in his study of Hurrian names shows some additional relationships to
Sumerian and Akkadian.

>> Maybe you could tell me what the actual evidence or lack thereof might be.
>>
>> What specific differences are there between Old Akkadian and Sumerian?
>>
>> I would expect that if Sumerian is an isolate there should be no relation
>> to Old Akkadian if Old Akkadian is a semitic language.
>
>THAT IS CORRECT.
>
>> I say "if Old Akkadian is a semitic language" because archaeologically
>> there is no evidence for semitic cultures reaching southern Mesopotamia
>> until the time of Sargon, (except perhaps in the form of an occasional
>> stray nomad wandering in from the desert to the outscirts of some city).
>
>WHAT THE BLOODY FUCKING HELL would "evidence for semitic cultures" have
>to do with whether Old Akkadian is a Semitic language or not???

1.) No contact with people who speak semitic languages would make it hard
for someone to learn their language
2.) No Old Akkadian texts exist in southern mesopotamia prior to the arrival
of semitic cultures c 2340 BC
3.) Old Akkadian appears in ANE usage to apply to a period rather
than a language.
4.) A period couldn't be considered semitic without evidence for semitic cultures.

>> http://saturn.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/Welcome_akkadian.html
>>
>> "Akkadian (or Babylonian-Assyrian) is the collective name for
>> the Semitic dialects spoken in the three millenia BC in Mesopotamia."
>>
>> "Old Akkadian.
>>
>> Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts (ca. 2800 BC)."
>>
>> Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language
>> spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC
>> as some suggest, where and when is it best evidenced as a semitic language?
>
>You really don't understand English, do you. Old Akkadian is a period of
>the Akkadian language -- the Old period, in fact.

1.) What date do you assign to Old Akkadian. What texts best exemplify it?
2.) What date do you assign to Akkadian? What texts best exemplify it?

>
>> 1.) Sumerian and Old Akkadian between c 3100 and c 2500 BC
>>
>> I expect that there is some archaeological evidence of Sumerians
>> in the region before there is any evidence of Akkadians in the region
>
>SO WHAT???? Do you have some secret way to discover what language was
>spoken by people who (a) are dead and (b) didn't leave written (or
>audio) records?

By process of elimination. In the Old Akkadian period there is no archaeological
evidence of semitic peoples in southern Mesopotamia. Why we should expect people
who have been speaking and writing Sumerian to suddenly take up speaking a semitic
language prior to a period when there is regular contact with semites?

>
>> So far as I can determine, other than the mention of a king of Kish,
>> in a text from Surupak (near Fara) c 2800 BC there is no clue to the
>> existence of Old Akkadian in this period.
>
>So how is that not a clue?

1.) Ebla is geographically as far from Southern Mesopotamia as Egypt.
2.) Ebalite is not considered ancestral to Old Akkadian or Akkadian
3.) How much linguistic evidence can you expect to find in a single name
separated by half a millenia from the next bit of evidence, when
balanced against it you have tens of thousands of texts in Sumerian
from all over southern Mesopotamia indicating the people were speaking
and writing in Sumerian?
4.) The name itself (Ubara-Tutu?) doesn't seem to have any characteristics
that would be definitively either Old Akkadian or Akkadian. Can you say
what those characteristics would be?

http://www.bartleby.com/61/10.html
http://www.bartleby.com/61/JPG/proto.jpg

>> This king has a semitic name (Ubara-Tutu?) which is apparently
>> spelled out in Ebalite (the semitic language in which some texts
>> from Ebla are written), but found in an in otherwise Sumerian
>> document, written in Sumerian, using a Sumerian script, Sumerian
>> rules of grammer etc; What is there about it linguistically that
>> makes it "Old Akkadian"?

>There are hundreds of texts in Old Akkadian [Eblaite dialect] from Ebla.

Are any of them dated to the period prior to c 2500 BC? My understanding
is that Ebalite is associated with Akkadian rather than Old Akkadian, ie;
the texts are dated after c 2300 BC

>
>> I understand that Summerian is considered an agglutinative language,
>> what makes Old Akkadian different in this period?
>
>Well, for one thing, it's not agglutinative. That, of course, has no
>bearing on whether they're related. But it *does* exhibit all the
>regular phonological and morphological regularities with the other
>Semitic languages one could possibly want. Old Akkadian is very close to
>Proto-Semitic as reconstructed by I. J. Gelb,

http://www.bartleby.com/61/JPG/proto.jpg
See I. J. Gelb, Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (2d ed. 1961)

>who took into account the
>evidence from Akkadian (unlike previous generations of scholars, who
>based their Proto-Semitic on Arabic, and then tried fitting Akkadian
>into the patterns as they became familiar with it). Gelb's Old Akkadian,
>by the way, coheres well with e.g. Diakonoff's reconstructions of
>Afro-Asiatic (or, as he called it, Afrasian).

See I. J. Gelb, Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (2d ed. 1961)

Apparently there is no real evidence for an "Old" Akkadian prior to the
time of Sargon with the exception of one Akkadian text dated c 2500 BC.

>
>> 2.) The next evidence of Old Akkadian is supposedly a fully Akkadian
>> text from c 2500 BC. Whats the difference between Old Akkadian
>> and Akkadian in this period?
>
>The adjective "Old" in front of its name.
>
>> A.) "From ca. 2500 BC one finds texts fully written in Akkadian.
>>
>> What texts evidence Old Akkadian rather than Akkadian?
>
>None. Old Akkadian is Akkadian that's Older than other forms of
>Akkadian.

Ok, if there is no "Old" Akkadian to speak of dated to the first half
of the third millenium BC, then it ought to be fair to say that in that
period up to c 2500 BC Sumerian continues to be both the written and
spoken language of Southern Mesopotamia and whatever semitic languages
there may be that date back to that period are still somewhere to the
south and west of the Euphrates.

>
>> B.) "The language attested in documents of the third millenium
>> is called Old Akkadian."
>>
>> What documents "attest" to Old Akkadian rather than Akkadian?
>
>None.
>
>> C.) "It is the language spoken in the central parts of Mesopotamia
>> (the city Akkad is near present day Bagdad).
>>
>> What evidence is there Old Akkadian was spoken as opposed to written?
>
>Hunh?

John was saying "Old" Akkadian, a semitic language was the spoken language
of the central parts of Mesopotamia in the third millenium. It rather appears
that outside of a single text in Akkadian there is no evidence that any language
other than Sumerian or possibly Hurrian was spoken in central Mesopotamia prior
to the time of Sargon in a period of perhaps 150 years at the end of the third
millenium.

>
>> What evidence is there that Akkad, built by Sargon after c 2340 BC
>> even existed prior to c 2500 BC?
>
>I haven't the slightest idea, but what would that have to do with the
>existence or linguistic relationships of Old Akkadian?

Supposedly Sargons conguest brought with it a new language, Akkadian,
which then became the language that was spoken in his empire. So far
as I can tell Sumerian continued to be spoken in the south and Hurrian
in the north. After the five kings of Sargons Dynasty whose compined
rules lasted about a century and a half there was a Sumerian renaissance
and Sumerian once again became the lingua franca of southern Mesopotamia.

>
>> D.) "The number of tablets in Old Akkadian is not very large.
>> What tablets are written in Old Akkadian prior to c 2500 BC?
>
>Check Borger's Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur, or Gelb's grammar of
>Old Akkadian.
>
>> E.) "Most scholars in those days did not write in their native
>> language, but in Sumerian, which at that time was the
>> lingua franca and medium of communication between scholars.
>>
>> How is Old Akkadian different from Summerian and Akkadian?
>
>Asked and answered.

If I understandd you correctly "Old" Akkadian is Akkadian that is old, ie;
dates back to slightly before the time of Sargon. The number of such texts
is not large (One) and it differs from Sumerian in that its not an
agglutinative language, and uses semitic roots. John Heise adds"

"Akkadian words short (two or three letter) syllables, like paräsum,
pa-rä-sum ('to separate', 'to decide'), a word structure common to
Semitic languages."

"The syllables are called open or closed. Open syllables have a consonant
(c) and a vowel (v): c-v, like bi, lä. Closed syllables have the form c-v-c,
like in bab, sum, lim. As a consequence of the syllable structure a word never
starts nor ends with two consonants,"

I think those forms also exist in Sumerian however
http://www.sumerian.org/sumcvc.htm

"unlike e.g. English and other Germanic languages. A Dutch word like
'angstsschreeuw' ('cry of fear') has a cluster of seven consonants and
the word 'kraaieeieren' (crow's eggs) stacks seven vowels. Such words
are impossible in Semitic languages."

"The two or three syllable structure in Semitic languages is still seen
in Anglicized semitic proper names, such as Je-ru-za-lem, Ne-bu-kad-ne-zar,
Ja-cob etc. Avoiding three consonants is very strict. If the formation of
a word according to the exact application of a grammatical rule would
lead to three consecutive consonant, additional vowels (auxiliary vowels)
are added. We will see examples of this in the formation of some grammatical
forms, such as the status constructus of a noun. Adding an initial vowel
is called prothesis."

>
>> 3.) In the time of Sargon of Akkad there is a period of 150 years
>> when there is some evidence (from bi-lingual texts in Sumerian
>> and Akkadian) that Akkadian exists as a language in some cities
>> such as Mari, Kish and Akkad, but Sumerian continues to be used
>> for royal business, commercial transactions and every sort of
>> mundane everyday corresponance. Whats the linguistic difference
>> between Sumerian and Akkadian in this period and what texts
>> best evidence it?
>
>The same as in any other period; all of them.

I guess what I had reference to was the borrowing not only of large
amounts of vocabulary, but apparently also many of the Sumerian rules
for grammar. Are words only borrowed or idioms and phrases as well?

>
>> A.) "The name Akkadian --so called in ancient time-- is derived
>> from the city-state of Akkad, founded in the middle of the
>> third millenium BC and capital of one of the first great
>> empires at the dawn of human history."
>>
>> Of the two dozen some odd cities loosely confederated by Sargon
>> as a part of his empire in Southern Mesopotamia how many preserve
>> evidence of Akkadian as a semitic language?
>
>As many as have been excavated and yielded tablets or other inscriptions.

Apparently many cities in the south and perhaps also in Elam continued
to speak and write in Sumerian throughout Sargon's reign, not just in
royal documents but in business and commercial texts as well.

>
>> B.) "The Old Akkadian language period is at its height when Sargon
>> the Great (2350-2330) ruled over Akkad and most of the surrounding
>> city-states, the first empire with a central gouvernment.It ends
>> with the downfall of the Ur-III period (the 3rd dynasty of Ur)."
>>
>> Is this a language that is spoken for a millenium or written bi-lingually
>> in some texts that cover a twenty year period?
>
>Hunh? (I doubt your source says "the Old Akkadian language period." It
>probably says "the Old Akkadian period," which refers to a
>dynasty/empire or kingdom, not a language.)

It says it is at its height; ie; c 2800 BC the name of a king of Kish
is mentioned in a text from Shurupak found in the library at Ebla...
c 2500 BC there is a text in Akkadian. "Old" Akkadian (OAkk) 2500-1950
is at its height during a 20 year period during the reign of Sargon.

to quote it again at more length...

http://saturn.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/dialects.html

"Section from Chapt. 5 of John Heise's 'Akkadian language',
about Akkadian dialects: Babylonian and Assyrian"

Akkadian (or Babylonian-Assyrian) is the collective name for
the Semitic dialects spoken in the three millenia BC in Mesopotamia.

The name Akkadian --so called in ancient time-- is derived from the
city-state of Akkad, founded in the middle of the third millenium BC
and capital of one of the first great empires at the dawn of human history.

Old Akkadian. Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts
(ca. 2800 BC). From ca. 2500 BC one finds texts fully written in Akkadian. The

language attested in documents of the third millenium is called Old Akkadian.

It is the language spoken in the central parts of Mesopotamia (the city Akkad

is near present day Bagdad). The number of tablets in Old Akkadian is not very
large. Most scholars in those days did not write in their native language, but
in Sumerian,which at that time was the lingua franca and medium of communication
between scholars. *The Old Akkadian language period* is at its height when Sargon

the Great (2350-2330) ruled over Akkad and most of the surrounding city-states,

the first empire with a central gouvernment. It ends with the downfall of the

Ur-III period (the 3rd dynasty of Ur).
>

>> What evidence is there of Old Akkadian in this twenty year period?
>
>I know that volumes and volumes of Sargonic texts have been published. I
>have no idea how many unpublished Sargonic texts may be known.

What would make you think it was the language spoken during this
twenty year period when it is at its height?

>
>> 4.) After the Sumerian renaissance Akkadian apparently becomes a
>> dead language replaced by dialects of Akkadian such as Babylonian
>> and Assyrian in geographically different areas. What's the
>> difference between the Akkadian of the court of Sargon and the
>> Babylonian or Assyrian which together are refered to as
>> standard Babylonian?
>
>Akkadian never "becomes a dead language" until the 2nd or 3rd c. of the
>Common Era.
>
>Babylonian and Assyrian are not "together ... refer[r]ed to as standard
>Babylonian." Standard Babylonian is the label for the literary dialect
>used in a late period when Akkadian was probably no longer a spoken
>language, but only a learned, scholarly language.
>
>> Are there any linguistic connections between Sumerian, Elamite and Dravidian
>> or is the evidence for a linkage entirely archaeological as some suggest?
>
>No.
>
>> I think I have read or was told by someone that even in the Jemdet Nasr
>> Sumerian was written or Spoken in Dilmun, Elam (Susa and Anshan) and
>> Elamite in Tepe Yahya (across the straits of Hormuz from Umm al-Nar)
>> and Shari-i Sokhte (in Iran adjacent to Baluchistan)
>>
>> What's the difference between Sumerian, Elamite and northern Dravidian
>> linguistically in the Jemdet Nasr period?
>
>They are utterly different languages.

In this period Sumerian is spoken in Elam, Susa, Anshan, Dilmun, Tepe Yahya;
and of course the cylinder seals and artifacts show there is a homogeneous
culture, why would you think they are different languages rather than dialects
of the same language?

>> How do the languages of the transcaucasian cultures such as the Hurrians
>> and Hittites relate to Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millenium?
>
>There isn't the slightest bit of evidence for them in the third
>millennium.

http://www.clarkson.edu/~melville/ls195/gchron.html

[The standard ANE chronology gives
"Basic political periods

Early Dynastic I (2900-2700)
Early Dynastic II (2700-2500)
Early Daynastic III (2500-2350)
Akkadian/Sargonic (2350-2200)
*Third Dynasty of Ur (2100-2000)*
Old Babylonian (1800-1600)
Middle Babylonian (1600-1000)
Neo-Babylonian (1000-538)
late Babylonian (538-Christian era)

Basic linguistic periods

*Old Akkadian (2500-2000).*
After 2000 there are two main regional dialects:
Assyrian in the north and Babylonian in the south.

Old Assyrian (2000-1750)------------Old Babylonian (1900-1500)
Middle Assyrian (1500-1000)---------Middle Babylonian (1500-1000)
Neo-Assyrian (1000-600)-------------Neo-Babylonian (1000-600)
--------------------------------------Late Babylonian (600-Christian era)

Old Akkadian, Akkadian and Ur III apparently overlap eachother

http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/KURDICA/1999/SEP/hurrian-names.html

"Hurrian Personal Names of the UR III period

This is the third appendix in the book "Hurrians and Subarians" by famous
Assyrialogist Ignance J. Gelb, published in 1944 by the university of Chicago press.

Gelb in his book claims that the Hurrians are separate from Subarians.
We have chosen the appendix which lists the person and place names of
Hurrians. In the future issues we will have a closer look at the
linguistic links between Kurdish and Hurrian and shed some light
on the origin of the Kurds. The appendix gives the Hurrian etymology
of Baban and Erbil. The etymology of Erbil (as proved by others) shows
that the Erbil city has a Hurrian name and not as claimed before an
Assyrian name derived from arba-ela (4 Gods). (KURDICA editor)"

>
>> Are they related by anything more than their use of Cuneiform scripts?
>
>NN NN OOOO
>NNN NN OO OO
>NNNN NN OO OO
>NN NN NN OO OO
>NN NN NN OO OO
>NN NNNN OO OO
>NN NNN OO OO ooo
>NN NN OOOO ooo

(Nice ASCII but...)

" Intersting is the suffix -am (later -a) found in the Old Akkadian name Hapiram
(p. 54, n. 37), in the Ur III names Hupitam (p. 110), ^Sehlam (p. 111), and Pu^sam
(pp. 113f.), and in several later Chagar Bazar names: Ap^sam, Hupitam, ^Seham, ^Sennam,
and Zip^sam."

"Another name, ^Sul-gi-a-tal l'u Gu-ma-ra-^siKI, is evidently a hybrid.
Since the last part , atal or ari , cannot be explained as Akkadian or
Sumerian, it is probably the Hurrian element atal attached to the name
^Sulgi, that of a deified king of the 3d dynasty of Ur."

also interesting

http://www.mediasense.com/athena/Urkesh.htm

"Urkesh and the Metal Trade in the Mid to Late Third Millennium
Ong Kar Khalsa, ANE161B, Elizabeth Carter, June 13, 1999"

"The urban mesopotamian core was dependant on the raw materials
of the periphery, chief among them metals. It has even been suggested
that this demand for raw materials is a major reason for expansion and
foreign contacts in the Sumerian, Akkadian and Ur III empires."

"The evidence for this is very clear by the time of the late Sargonic Dynasty,
with Naram-Sin's campaign to the "silver mountains" and "cedar forests" and
the establishment of a palace at Tell Brak. But the mesopotamian core was
never able to fully control the highlands, so access to the Anatolian and
Iranian highlands was contingent on the strength of the mesopotamian empire
and the co-operation of the highland communities."

"By the late third millennium, foreign ethno-linguistic groups such as the Hurrians,
Gutians, Lullubi and Amorites disrupted the power of the Akkadian and Ur III dynasties
and may have had a discouraging effect on access to Iranian and Anatolian metal sources.'

" Hurrian presence in the "Hurrian ledge" is generally established beginning
about a generation before Naram-Sin, through the fragmentary inscription of
Naram-Sin's campaign to "Subaru"

"The two major phases of occupation in the mid and late third millennium date
approximately to the Early Dynastic III and Akkadian periods. The mid-third
millennium structures are the Temple BA and a temple ramp, about 2450 B.C.,
and the peripheral administrative sector of the outer city."

"A sounding was excavated in the outer city in 1998, and revealed a new
building with a number of seal impressions and pottery consistent with that
found in Temple BA. The mid-third millennium horizon appears to have been
the period of maximum expansion of the city, to a size of 150 hectares
(Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 1998c: 11)."

"The late third millennium structures are the Building AK, a rebuild phase
of Temple BA, and Building F1. Building F1 is where a number of cuneiform
tablets were found, including a lexical tablet
(Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 1997: 94)."

"Building AK was probably the royal palace of Tupkish, dated to 2250 B.C.
The large quantities of seal impressions found in the storage area contain
Hurrian inscriptions relating to King Tupkish, Queen Uqnitum and her courtiers.
It is interesting to note that the names of the king and the nurse are Hurrian,
whereas the names of the queen and another of her courtiers are Akkadian in origin.
The glyptic style is distinctive, including a few examples of mirror imaging and
mirror writing which, it has been suggested, may be read as Hurrian -- and then
Sumero-Akkadian of the reverse noun order (Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 1997:88)."

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[Peter T. Daniels]

Who the hell is John Heise, and why do you copy all his nonsense?

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A85FE...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Who the hell is John Heise, and why do you copy all his nonsense?

He is an interested amateur (professional astrophysicist)
who has taken the time to put up an interesting online
book on Akkadian (last updated in 98)

As to why I "copy all his nonsense", and the other "information" I find in print
or on the web ... good question... who other than Gelb, whose book is presently
out of print or you, who art most knowledgable in these matters, would
you recomend I should be reading?

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[Peter T. Daniels]

There are dozens of reliable books on the early history of Mesopotamia.
Currently, the most acclaimed general history is by Amélie Kuhrt; it's
two volumes, called something like *A History of Mesopotamia, 3000 - 300
B.C.E.*, published by Routledge (that might not be the exact title, but
the author's name is correct). She's a specialist in the Persian Empire,
so her main interest is toward the end of the book. Nicholas Postgate
not so long ago published a history of early Mesopotamia. He's an
Assyriologist, and I don't know whether it's accessible to the
layperson.

But you could have found these by going to a library, or to a bookstore,
and paying attention to the date of publication and to the authors'
credentials.

You might also, for instance, derive some value from the Cambridge
Ancient History, 2nd ed., vols. 1-2, but the chapters were written in
the early 1960s and are very out of date.

[Chris Borillo]

Steve Whittet wrote:

[snipping for brevity]

> "Old Akkadian.
>
> Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts (ca. 2800 BC)."
>
> Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language
> spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC
> as some suggest, where and when is it best evidenced as a semitic language?

Anyone who is familiar with the root-and-pattern system of the other
Semitic languages in their respective morphology and word derivation,
coupled with the observation that Akkadian shares the same basic
vocabulary that you can see in Arabic, Hebrew, and other Semitic
languages, would have readily concluded that Akkadian **is** indeed a
Semitic language.

-- Chris

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discourage inbreeding. Outlaw country music.
For every moral absolute there is a qualification.

To reply by email, remove the 'd' in my address.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A868B...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A85FE...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...
>> >
>> >Who the hell is John Heise, and why do you copy all his nonsense?
>>
>> He is an interested amateur (professional astrophysicist)
>> who has taken the time to put up an interesting online
>> book on Akkadian (last updated in 98)
>>
>> As to why I "copy all his nonsense", and the other "information" I find in print
>> or on the web ... good question... who other than Gelb, whose book is presently
>> out of print or you, who art most knowledgable in these matters, would
>> you recomend I should be reading?
>
>There are dozens of reliable books on the early history of Mesopotamia.

I wasn't really looking for a history book, but rather a book on linguistics.

A book that starts with the usual Fertile Crescent perimeter of Arabia but
then expands its attention into the center of Arabia to pick up on whats
happening as the climate dries up and the gazelle hunting semitic tribes
of the interior are forced out into the cities that have grown up to
surround them.

A book that starts with Summerian linguistics in the Jemdet Nasr,
more than touches on Old Akkadian linguistics c 2500 BC, and Akkadian
linguistics in the time of Sargon, then provides some specific examples
of the effect on the languages spoken in southern Mesopotamia as the MAR-tu
and the Hurrians enter the region toward the end of the third millenium BC.

I want a book that adresses the linguistics along with the history and archaeology.
One that adresses the linguistic relation or lack thereof between Meluhha and Makkan,
Dilmun, Tepe Yahya, Anshan, Susa, and both Northern and Southern Mesopotamia comparing
the cylinder seals of the Gulf Trade with the cylinder seals of Mesopotamia and Syria.

A sort of BTTA expanded to pay more attention to Mesopotamia, Syria and Anatolia.
that individually addresses the interactions between the cities on the Euphrates
that are engaged in the Gulf trade up the Euphrates to Syria and Anatolia and
how they are affected linguistically by the inroads of the MAR-tu, or Amurru
or for that matter the Hurrians?

Is there a book that talks about the Mitanni and the Hittites relations
with their trading partners? Mari in particular would be interesting
to know more about in relation to its trade with Byblos, Allepo and Dilmun,
interactions with the MAR-tu, Mitanni, Hurrians, Hatti, Hittites and Akkadians.

>Currently, the most acclaimed general history is by Amélie Kuhrt; it's
>two volumes, called something like *A History of Mesopotamia, 3000 - 300
>B.C.E.*, published by Routledge (that might not be the exact title, but
>the author's name is correct). She's a specialist in the Persian Empire,
>so her main interest is toward the end of the book. Nicholas Postgate
>not so long ago published a history of early Mesopotamia. He's an
>Assyriologist, and I don't know whether it's accessible to the
>layperson.

After reading Pritchard, McNeil and Sedlar, Parpola, Gelb, Potts, Joshi,
Tosi, Bibbi, Weizberger, Cleuzio, Edens, Zarins, Amiet, Kjaerum, Caspers,
Reade, Nissen, Kohl, Rao, Dani, Dostal, Nayeem, and Roaf I have a wall
of archaeology and history books, with long bibliographies that all
seem to say there was trade along the Gulf in the Jemdet Nasr period.

>But you could have found these by going to a library, or to a bookstore,
>and paying attention to the date of publication and to the authors'
>credentials.

I am not having a lot of luck with libraries, book stores, Amazon,
or on line references. All I seem to get are little tid bits of
information that are contradictory, speculative, questionable
and generally not well connected together.

One of the problems I have is finding a book that defines Mesopotamia
linguistically and culturally in the second and third millenium with
its sphere of influence and trade routes to include:

1.) India, Iran, central Arabia, Syria, Anatolia, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt.
2.) The Gulf Trade with Meluhha, Makkan, Dilmun, Susa, Anshan, Tepe Yahya.
2.) The mountainous regions inhabited by Kurds from India to Turkey
3.) The Transcaucasian culture and the bronze age trade in metals.
4.) A focus on each individual city states trade and linguistic relationships
5.) The sudden appearence of the domesticated horse c 2000 BC
6.) The MAR-tu, Mitanni, Hurrians, Hittites, Hyksos, and Apiru.

>You might also, for instance, derive some value from the Cambridge
>Ancient History, 2nd ed., vols. 1-2, but the chapters were written in
>the early 1960s and are very out of date.

As you point out, the books I have seen were dependent on other
older books for much of their material and were bordering on obsolete
by the time they were published.

The original cuneiform, dictionary, grammar, transcription, comparison city by city,
for all the ancient texts placed in cultural context in the way Egyptian texts are done
still eludes me.

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A86C678...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>[snipping for brevity]
>
>> "Old Akkadian.
>>
>> Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts (ca. 2800 BC)."
>>
>> Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language
>> spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC
>> as some suggest, where and when is it best evidenced as a semitic language?
>
>Anyone who is familiar with the root-and-pattern system of the other
>Semitic languages in their respective morphology and word derivation,
>coupled with the observation that Akkadian shares the same basic
>vocabulary that you can see in Arabic, Hebrew, and other Semitic
>languages, would have readily concluded that Akkadian **is** indeed a
>Semitic language.

Ok, here is a transcription of a text from the period when Old Akkadian
is supposed to be at its height. Can you point out where you see the
usual pattern of Semitic roots? Perhaps by reference to:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html

MAD-4

"Texts from: I.J. Gelb, "Sargonic texts in the Louvre Museum",
Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 4, Chicago 1970.
Typed and adapted by: Bram Jagersma

1) 0.0.1 iku [...] us2
2) USZ-[da]-[da
3) [...]
4) kur2 [...]
5) inim-ma?
6) mu na-ra-am-{d}EN.ZU
7) in-da-[pa
8) DI.IGI-mu dumu e2-mah-da-ke4
9) bar nin-ra-ka
10) USZ-da-da
-
11) mu na-ra]-[am-{d}EN.ZU
12) in-da-pa kur2 KA nin-ra
13) inim-ma nu-na-ga2-ga2-sze3
(double line)
14) igi 1 ur-du-du
15) dumu ur-PA
16) igi 1 e2-zi
17) lu2 ur-zu
18) igi 1 za3-mu a-ba-{d}en-lil2
19) igi 1 ur-PA DINGIR-ba-ni
(double line)
20) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
21) ur-kalag-ga
22) lu2 eren2 durunx (KU.KU) IN{ki} (Krecher: suh5-suh5)
le) mu gi4-de3 pa
MAD 4:014=ZA 63 p.258f (ISN)~
1) 10.0.0 zu2-lum gur ku3-ta
2) u4 zu2-lum 1 ku3 gin2-a?
3) 0.3.2 al-ag2-ga2
4) USZ dumu sag-du5-ke4
5) USZ dumu sagi-mah-ra
6) ku3 10 ku3 gin2-sze3
7) i3-na-sum
8) ku3 aszag-ka sze aszag-bi
9) 30.0.0 sze gur ku3-ta gu2 ba-gar
10) mu sar-ka3-li2-LUGAL-ri2
11) lugal a-ga-de3{ki}-ka
12) USZ dumu sagi-mah
13) ME-an-ne2
-
14) dumu lugal-kalag-zi-pi
15) USZ dumu sag-du5-ka-ra? (SZE3)
16) in-da-pa
17) u4 buru14!-ka sze-zu 1 ku3 gin2 (GANA2)
18) 3.0.0 sze gur-ta 30.0.0 sze-pi gur
19) ga-ra-ag2]
20) in-na-du11? (AK)
21) inim-bi [al-til]?
(double line)
22) igi 1 nin-du11-ga
23) igi 1 lu2-[x]-x
24) igi 1 {d}en-lil2-[la2] nu-[kiri6
le) ME-szesz-szesz dub-sar-pi
MAD 4:015=JESHO 15 p.24f=ZA 63 p.247f~
1) 20 siki ma-na
2) ama-e2-e
3) barag-nita-ra
4) sa6-ma i3-na-du11
5) 15 siki ma-na
6) ama-e2-e
7) barag-nita-ra
8) i3-na-sum
9) 20 la2 2 siki ma-na
-
10) ama-e2-e
11) barag-nita-ra
12) zabalam6{ki}-sze3
13) DU-ni i3-na-sum
14) 8 siki ma-na
15) ama-e2-e
16) barag-nita-da u4-bi-ta
17) i3-da-tuku-am3
(double line)
18) szu-nigin2 1 siki gu2 1c ma-na
MAD 4:017=pl.v (UMy)~
...
1') i3-da-sig7
(blank line)
2') 6 mu 3 iti
MAD 4:018 (UMy)~
1) 32 u8-ama
2) 40 la2 1 udu-nita
3) 11 kir11 sza3-du10
4) 10 la2 1 sila4-nita sza3-du10
5) 14 ud5 KU
6) 5 masz2 gal-gal
7) 8 {munus}as2-<gar3> sza3-du10
8) 2 masz2-nita sza3-du10
-
(space)
9) szu-nigin2 91 udu
10) szu-nigin2 30 la2 1 ud5
11) udu ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
12) en-an-ne2 e-da-sig7
13) udu ur4-ra e2-gu4-DISZ ra-am3
14) 10 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:019 pl.vii (UMy)~
1) 50 la2 3 ud5-ama
2) 10 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
3) 10 masz2 sza3-du10
4) 15 masz2 gal-gal
(double line)
5) szu-nigin2 82 ud5 gub-ba
6) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
7) {d}utu-mu sipa-da
8) i3-da-sig7
-
9) barag-si-ga a-gar-ra-bi ba-ak
(space)
10) 11 mu 7 iti
MAD 4:020 (UMy)~
1) 60 la2? 13? sze [gur]-sag-gal2
2) ur-{d}en-dim2-gig]?
3) 15.0.0 ur-sa6-ga] sagi
4) 10.0.0 ur-{d}nagar gala
5) 46.2.0 me-zu dub-sar
6) 6.0.0 ur-gu ur-du-du
7) 16.0.0 u2-da
8) 10.0.0 ama-e2-e
9) szu ba-ti
-
10) 5.0.0 id2-hi-nun nu-gig
11) 20.0.0 ur-szubur azlag4
(space)
12) szu-nigin2 175?.2.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
13) sze zi-ga
14) ur-zu? szitim?
(space)
15) 5? mu 4 iti
MAD 4:021 (UMy)~
1) 10.3.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) ur-{d}en-lil2-la2
3) 520or580.0.la2 2 sze gur
4) ur-dam
5) 190 la2 1.0.0 sze gur
6) lugal-an-ne2
7) 16.0.0 sze gur
8) inim-zi-da
9) sze gisz ra-a
-
10) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
11) gala szu-i
12) szu ba-ti
(space)
13) 4 iti
MAD 4:022 (UMy)~
1) 31+ [u8-ama]
2) 13+ [udu]-nita
3) [x sila4]-[nita sza3-du10
4) 10+ [kir11 sza3-du10
5) 23+ ud5-ama
6) 3 {munus}SI-as2-gar3 sza3-du10
7) 31? masz2
(double line)
8) szu-nigin2 125 ud5 udu
9) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
10) 6 u8-ama
-
11) 2 udu-nita
12) 10 ud5-ama
13) 7 masz2
(double line)
14) szu-nigin2 25 ud5 udu
15) ur-{d}suen-ka-kam
16) udu ME.NI
17) {d}utu-mu sipa
(space)

18) 6 mu 3 iti
MAD 4:023 (UMy)~
1) 2 kusz ud5 za3 szu4
2) 1 kusz masz2 za3 szu4
3) 1 masz2 za3 nu-szu4
4) 1 sila4-nita za3 nu-szu4
5) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
6) 1 udu-nita za3 szu4
7) lugal-KA-kam
8) 1 {munus}SI-as2-gar3 za3 nu-szu4
9) si-du3 sipa
10) 1 kusz ud5 za3 szu4
-
11) ur-{d}suen-kam
12) 1 masz2 ur-{d}szara2 dub-sar dingir-ra
13) {d}utu-mu sipa
14) na-esz5-du3-a
(space)
15) 5 mu 4 iti
MAD 4:024 (UMy)~
1) 34.0.0 ME-{d}iszkur
2) 16.0.0 muszen-du3
3) 15.0.0 lugal-AB
4) 10.0.0 KA-sze3
5) 20 la2 2.0.0 da-da
6) ur-{d}TUR
7) 30 la2 2.0.0 lugal-si
8) 25.0.0 ur-{gisz}gigir
9) 10.0.0 ur-{d}TUR
10) lugal-KA
-
11) 10.0.0 ur-mes
12) ur-du6
MAD 4:025 (UMy?)~
1) 50+[x.x.x sze] gur-sag-[gal2]
2) gala ama-UM+ME-ga
3) 65.0.0 x sze gur
4) lugal-nig2
5) 55.0.0 sze gur
6) a2-kal-le
7) 66.0.0 sze gur
8) e2-e
-
MAD 4:026 (UMy?)~
1) 16 u8
2) 21 udu-nita
3) 8 ud5
4) 4 masz2-nita
5) 50c la2 1c siki ma-na
6) la2-NI-am3
7) en-an-ne2
8) [...]
-
9) SU-[...]
10) a-sza3 de2-a ur-e? tum2-ma
11) udu a-la2-a 20c la2 1c
12) [ib2]-[ta-zi
13) da-da? szesz-mu
14) [...]
15) [...]
16) lu2 ki inim-[ma-me]
le) nig2-kas7-bi i3-til 15 mu 10 iti
MAD 4:027 pl.viii (UMy)~
1) 3 gu4 gisz
2) 1 gu4 3
3) 3 ab2
4) 1 ab2 1
5) 3 amar da-ba
6) 5 u8-ama
7) 1 kir11 sza3-du10
8) 33 ud5-ama
9) 3 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
10) 1 masz2 sza3-du10
-
(space)
11) szu-nigin2 43 udu ud5 gub-ba
12) ur-{d}suen-kam
MAD 4:028 (UMy)~
1) 11 u8-[ama]
2) 3 kir11 sza3-du10
3) 3 sila4-nita sza3-du10
4) 35 ud5-ama
5) 15 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
6) 3 masz2 sza3-du10
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 70 la2 1 ud5 udu
8) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
9) 26 ud5-ama
10) 13 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
11) 2 masz2 sza3-du10
-
12) 7 u8-ama
13) 2 kir11 sza3-du10
14) 1 sila4-nita sza3-du10
(double line)
15) szu-nigin2 51 ud5 udu
16) udu gub-ba e2-a-si4-na
17) ur-{d}suen-ka-kam
18f) a-bi2-NAR sipa-/da i3-da-sig7
19) ur-sipa-da sipa
21) na-ga-da
22) 2 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:029 (UMy)~
1) 60 ud5-ama
2) 30 la2 1 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
3) 5 masz2-nita sza3-du10
4) 20 la2 1 u8-ama
5) 3 kir11 sza3-du10
6) 4 sila4-nita
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 120 <la2 1> ud5 udu
8) im si-sa2-am3
9) a-bi2-NAR-da
10) i3-da-sig7
11) ur-sipa sipa
-
[...]
1') [2 mu 8] iti
MAD 4:030 (UMy)~
1) [x udu-nita] e2 [...]
2) 2? udu-nita uru-sig4]-[?]
3) [x] udu-nita da gisz-HAR
4) en-an-ne2 ba-DU.[DU]
5) [x] udu-nita e2 du6-ka
6) nam-ti-la-ra e-na-sum]
7) 1 udu-nita GISZ.ASZ {d}nisaba e2 nam-zu ESZ2.KA
8) nam-ti-la-ra e-na-sum
9) 2 udu-nita 1 masz2 gana2-mah
10) geme2-e3-a ba-DU.DU
11) 1 kir11 1 sila4]-[nita]
-
[...]
1') [17 mu x iti]
MAD 4:031 (UMy)~
1) 56.0.1/4 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) ur-TAR
3) 70.0.1/4 sze gur
4) ama-barag
5) 77.0.0 sze gur
6) lu5-gu-ak
7) 53.0.0 sze gur
8) lugal-asz-ni
9) 63.0.0 sze gur
10) [x]-[szesz
[...]
-
[...]
1') [...]
2') 61.0.0 sze gur
3') lugal-[...]
MAD 4:032 pl.ix (UMy)~
1) 3 udu-nita
2) a-ur3-ra in-TUG2-a
3) ga2 udu-ta mu-lah4 (DU/DU)
4) nam-ti-la-ni e-zu
5) 1 masz2
6) uru-a e-lu5-ka-am3
7) dingir-ra-na-sze3 e-gen
8) 1 udu-nita en-an-ne2
9) geme2 x dub kaskal-ra e-na-sum
-
10) 1 u8 geme2-e3-a
11) da-da-ra
12) e-na-sum
13) 1 udu-nita geme2-e3-a
14) nam-ti-la-na-ra
15) e-na-sum
MAD 4:033 (UMy)~
1) la2-NI 16 u8-ama
2) 11 [udu]-nita
3) 20 [la2 1] [kir11
4) 8 ud5-ama
5) 5 [masz2 gal-gal]
6) 3 {munus}as2-gar3 [sza3-du10]
7) 8 masz2 sza3-du10
8) ur-{d}szara2
9) 6 ud5-ama
10) 5 masz2 [sza3-du10]
-
11) 2 u8-ama
12) ur-{d}suen
(double line)
13) szu-nigin2 83 udu
14) 2 siki gu2 la2 4c ma-na
15) 1 i3-nun dug 4c sila3
(space)
16) la2-NI 1c mu-a-kam
17) {d}utu-mu-da
18) i3-da-gal2
19) 25 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:034 (UMy)~
1) [20.0.0 gur-sag-gal2 ku3
2) GUR8-gu-LUM
3) 6.0.0 KA-ku3
4) 6.0.0 da-da dumu-kar
5) 5.0.0 barag-ga-ni lu2-tir
6) 5.0.0 du-du ki-TIL
7) 5.0.0 KA-sze3
8) 5.0.0 ur-e2 ugula e2
9) 5.0.0 lugal-DU
-
10) 5.0.0 ur-lu2 lu2-bappir
(space)
11) szu-nigin2 52.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 ku3
12) tir ur-{d}suen-ka-kam
13) i3-neda-gal2
(space)
14) x mu x iti
MAD 4:035 (UMy)~
1) 8 ku3 gin2]
2) lugal-KA-e
3) ur-ki dumu nin-u2-sze3
4) i3-sze3-la2
5) nin-nig2-zu
6) szu-du8-a-bi
7) in-de6
8) 1 ur-KUN sipa

9) 1 {d}?x-x-isz?-ta2-[kal2]
-
10) 1 {d}utu-GAR
11) 1 szesz-tur
12) 1 gissu du6?-ba-al
13) 1 ur-temen lu2-bappir3
14) 1 KA-zi bahar3
15) 1 lugal-AB.URI3{ki}
16) 1 sza3-ga-ni dub-sar
17) lu2 ki inim-ma-me
MAD 4:036=RA 65 p.176=ZA 63 p.252f (UMy?)~
1) 1 {d}SZESZ-sipa
2) {d}nanna-e-zu-a
3) i3-tusz
4) du11-ga-ni
5) i3-da-ti
(double line)
6) 1 {urudu}szen
7) lu2-nimgir-da
8) i3-da-gal2
9) 3.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
-
10) ama-na-nam
11) dam lugal-nig2-du7
12) e-da-gal2
(double line)
13) im gissu-na-kam
MAD 4:037 (UMy?)~
1) [x] ab2 mah2
2) [x] ab2 3c
3) [x] ab2 2c
4) 2 amar-gu4 2c
5) 3 amar da-ba
6) ur-{d}szara2-kam
7) 3 ab2 mah2
8) 1 ab2 2c
9) 3 amar da-ba
10) ur-{d}suen-kam
-
11) ur-{d}nin-ildum3 unu3-da
12) i3-da-sig7
(space)
13) +1 mu 4 iti
MAD 4:038 (UMy)~
1) 230+.0.0 [sze] gur-sag-gal2] dul3
2) 10.0.0 ziz2 gur
3) ur-TAR
4) 203.2.0 sze gur
5) lugal-barag
6) [140.2.0 sze gur
7) lugal-asz-ni
8) 148.2.0 sze gur
9) 4.0.0 ziz2 gur
10) ba-bi x
11) [zi-ga]
-
(space)
12) szu-nigin2 721+.0.0 [sze] gur-[sag-[gal2 [dul3]
13) szu-nigin2 14].[0.0 ziz2 gur]
14) sze gisz ra-a
15) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 {d}en-lil2]-[la2]
16) sze hal-bi ib2-ta-zi
17) ziz2 us2-bi sza3-ba i3-gal2
18) ugula sag-du5
(space)
19) 4 iti
MAD 4:039 pl.x (UMy)~
1) 7? u8-ama
2) 2? kir11 sza3-du10
3) 4? sila4-nita sza3-du10
4) 46 ud5-ama
5) 6 {munus}SI-as2-gar3 sza3-du10
6) 7 masz2-nita
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 72 udu ud5 gub-ba
8) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
9) 5 u8-ama
-
10) 2 sila4-nita sza3-du10
11) 31 ud5-ama
12) 7 {munus}SI-as2-gar3 sza3-du10
13) [20] masz2 sza3-du10
(double line)
14) [szu-nigin2] [64 udu ud5 gub-ba
15) [ur-{d}suen-ka-kam
16) 7 u8-ama
17) 3 udu-nita 1 masz2 ud5-da
18) lugal-KA-kam
19) la2-NI-bi bar-ta [ba]-gal2
20) [zi]-zi-bi i3-ta-zi
21) im [si-sa2]-am3
22) a-bi2-NAR sipa
re) 4 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:040 pl.xi (UMy)~
1) 11 i3-eren bar6-bar6 sila3
2) 3 la2 igi-4-gal2 i3-szim tur-tur sila3
3) 10 eren bar6-bar6 ma-na
4) 10.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
5) 1.0.0 sum gur-sag-gal2
6) 10 bappir
7) 10 bar-si gada
8) 5 kusz UD.GA
-
(space)
9) 1 {gisz}szu-kar2 szu-du7-a gu4-apin
10) ama-e2-a
11) sza3-da dub-sar-da
12) i3-da-tuku
MAD 4:041 pl.x (UMy)~
1) 11 ab2-ama
2) 1 ab2 3c
3) 1 ab2 2c
4) 1 gu4 2c
5) 3 ab2 1c
6) 1 gu4 1c
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 18 ab2 amar
8) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
9) 3 ab2-ama
10) 1 [...]
[...]
-
(double line)
1') szu-nigin2 10 ab2 amar
2') ur-{d}suen-ka-[kam]
3') ki nir-da?]-[...]
4') lugal-KA]-[e]?
5') i3-[...]
6') ur-{d}[nin-ildum3] unu3]-[da]
7') [i3-da-sig7]
(space)
8') 7c [mu x] iti
MAD 4:042 (UMy)~
1) 200.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) ama-barag
3) 190.0.0 sze gur
4) ur-sa6-ga
5) 190.0.0 sze gur
6) al-la
7) 184.0.0 sze gur
-
8) mu-ni
(space)
9) szu-nigin2 764.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
10) sze zi-ga
11) ur-ur
12) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
13) 5 mu 3 iti
MAD 4:043 (UMy)~
1) 63 u8-<ama>
2) 20 udu-nita
3) 7 sila4-nita sza3-du10
4) 10 kir11 sza3-du10
5) 53 ud5-ama
6) 8 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
7) 3 masz2-sag
8) 3 masz2 sza3-du10
9) ur-{d}szara2
10) 23 u8-ama
-
11) 6 udu-nita
12) 4 sila4-nita sza3-du10
13) 6 kir11 sza3-du10
14) 35 ud5-ama
15) 6 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
16) 4 masz2-nita sza3-du10
17) ur-{d}suen
18) udu e2-a-si4-na
19) {d}utu-mu-<<na>>-kam
20) na-esz-du3-a ba-ur4
21) ad-da-bi
22) ba-DU.DU
le) 25 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:044 pl.xii (UMy)~
1) 32?.2.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) nin-mes-e szu ba-ti
3) 7.0.0 [sze] gur
4) sze anszu gu7-a
(space)
5) 3.0.4 sze gur
6) gu4-e gu7 TUG2.TAG
7) A.LU3.ZA
8) lugal-tir
-
9) [x].0.2 sze gur
10) sze gu4-e gu7
11) TUG2.TAG A.LU3.ZA
12) ur-{d}nin-ildum3
MAD 4:045 (UMy)~
1) 11 u8-ama
2) 20 la2 3 ud5-ama
3) e2-gu4
4) 1 u8 8 ud5
5) igi-nin
6) 2? u8 x ud5
7) {d}utu-hi-li
8) x u8 3 ud5
-
9) nigin3
10) x u8 x ud5
11) ur-{d}utu
12) x u8 5 ud5
13) ur-LI
MAD 4:046 (UMy)~
1) 0.0.4 zid2
2) da-asz2-lul
3) 0.0.1 ab-KID
4) 0.0.3 ur-du6
5) 0.0.2 nig2-du8-du8
6) 0.0.1 na-na
-
7) 0.0.1 um-mi-mi
8) 0.0.1 DINGIR-ma-LU2
9) 0.0.1 szesz-a
(double line)
10) szu-nigin2 0.2.2 zid2 gur
11) zid2 zi-ga
12) szesz-a
MAD 4:047 (UMy?)~
1) [1464.2.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3]
2) 16[7.2.0 ziz2] [gur

3) 11.2.0 gig gur
4) ur-{d}ab-u2
5) 1390.1.2 sze gur
6) 50] la2 2.0.0 ziz2 gur
7) sag-du5
8) 1025.1.0 sze gur
9) 16.0.0 ziz2 gur
10) ur-dam
11) 240 la2 10.0.0 sze gur
12) lugal-nagar-zi
-
(space)
13) szu-nigin2 1 guru7 1510.0.la2 4 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
14) [szu-nigin2] 231.2.0 ziz2 gur
15) 11.2.0 gig gur
16) sze gisz ra-a
17) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
MAD 4:048 (UMy)~
1) 41.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) ur-ab
3) 40 la2 2.0.0 sze gur
4) lugal-SAG
-
5) sze gisz ra-a
6) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 gibil
7) ugula ur-dam
(space)
8) 4 iti
MAD 4:049 (UMy)~
1) 1/2? ku3 ma]-[na ...]
2) 1 nig2-luh eme]? [...]
3) ki-la2-bi 2 ma-na 12 gin2
4) 30 la2 2 udu masz2 hi-a
5) 1 ma2-gur8 szu du7-a
6) 2 {gisz}umbin USZ
7) +1 {gisz}umbin mar
[...]
-
[...]
1') ur-mes sukkal-da
2') i3-da-gal2
MAD 4:050 (UMy?)~
1) 1 anszu kunga2 nita2
2) gala dumu lugal-kar-e-si lu2 ma2-gur8-ka-sze3
3) lugal-KA-e
4) i3-sze3-sa10
5) 11 ku3 gin2
6) i3-na-la2
-
7) [1 PN]
8) [dumu PN]
9) 1 A.BU.HA.DU
10) dumu ur-zu
11) 1 lugal-nig2-BA.BARA3-du10 dam-gara3
12) 1 ama-UM+ME-GA
13) lu2 ki inim-ma-me
MAD 4:051=pl. 13=ZA 63 245f (UMy)~
1) la2-NI 5 masz2
2) 3 u8-ama
3) 2 udu-nita
4) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
5) la2-NI
6) {d}utu-mu
-
7) sipa-da
8) i3-da-sig7
(space)
9) 4 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:052 (UMy)~
1) 13 u8-ama
2) 3 udu-nita
3) 4 kir11 sza3-du10
4) 40 la2 1 ud5-ama
5) 12 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
6) 1 masz2 sza3-du10
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 72 udu ud5 gub-ba
8) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
9) 6 u8-ama
-
10) 1 kir11 sza3-du10
11) 40+ [ud5]-[ama
12) 4+ [{munus}as2-gar3 sza3]-du10
13) 1+ [masz2 sza3]-du10
(double line)
14) szu-[nigin2 x udu] ud5 [gub]-ba
15) ur-[{d}suen]-ka-kam
16) la2-[NI]-[bi bar-ta ba-gal2
17) zi-zi-ga-bi i3-ta-zi
18) im si-sa2-am3
19) a-bi2-NAR sipa
le) 3 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:053 (UMy)~
1) 220.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 si-sa2
2) 140 la2 3.0.0 ziz2 gur si-sa2
3) lu2-{d}ba-u2-ke4
4) lugal-KA-ra
5) i3-na-bala
-
MAD 4:054 (UMy)~
1) 8 u8-ama
2) 11 kir11 sza3-du10
3) 3 kir11 e3-li
4) 14 udu-nita
5) udu ur4-ra
6) e2-a-si4-na
-
MAD 4:055 (UMy)~
1) 13 udu-nita
2) 10 u8-ama
3) 16 sila4 sza3-du10
4) 4 ud5
5) 4 masz2 sza3-du10
6) 1 masz2 gal
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 46 udu hi-a
8) la2-NI 2 [udu hi-a]
9) [...]
-
10) [...]x-ma-sur-ra
11) [...]-ta-x-ta-ra-a
12) x-ma i3-la2
13) udu zi-ga kusz za3 szu4 kusz nu-szu4 du3-a-bi ib2-ta-zi
14) ur-{d}[asznan? KA.SAR.RA
15) nig2-kas7-bi i3-ak
16) 16 mu 7 iti til-la
MAD 4:056 pl.xiii (UMy)~
1) 6.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) lugal-KA
3) 71.0.0 sze gur
4) lugal-TUR.SZE3
5) 66.0.0 sze gur
6) nigin3
7) 173.0.0 sze gur
8) ur-sa6
9) 700.0.0 sze 8.0.0 ziz2 gur
10) si-du3
11) 281.0.0 sze gur
-
12) lugal-nagar-zi
13) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 {d}en-lil2-la2
14) 130.0.0 sze gur
15) ne-sag
16) 60.0.0 sze gur
17) gala sipa
18) ugarx a-sza3 {d}inanna
19) sze gisz ra-a
20) bar-DU
(space)
21) +3 iti
MAD 4:057 (UMy)~
1) la2-NI 10 ud5-ama
2) 7 masz2-nita
(double line)
3) szu-nigin2 20 la2 3 ud5
4) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
5) 4 ud5-ama
6) 1 masz2-nita
7) ur-{d}suen-kam
8) la2-ni
-
9f) {d}utu-mu sipa-/da-kam
(space)
11) 6 mu 3 iti
MAD 4:058 (UMy)~
1) la2-<NI> 3 u8-ama
2) 2 udu-nita
3) 2 kir11 sza3-du10
4) 12 masz2
(double line)
5) szu-nigin2 20 la2 2 udu la2-NI
6) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
-
7) a-bi2-NAR sipa
(space)
8) 2 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:059 pl.xiii (UMy)~
1) 600 udu sukkal 3c
2) UN.IL2 szitim
3) lugal-szu-mah sipa
4) 480 udu ASZ-RU 3c
(blank space)
-
MAD 4:060 (UMy?)~
1) 2 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
2) 1 masz2 nu-szu4
3) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
4) 1 masz2 ur-{d}szara2 dub-sar
5) 1 ud5 za3-szu4
6) si-du3 sipa
7) ur-{d}suen
-
8) 1 kusz ud5
9) 1 kusz masz2 za3-szu4
10) 1 udu-nita za3-szu4
11) 1 sila4 za3-szu4
12) {d}utu-mu sipa
13) na-ESZ-du3-a
14) 5 mu 4 iti
MAD 4:061 (UMy)~
1) 10.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) lugal-KA
3) 10 lugal-TUR.SZE3
4) 10 nigin3
5) sze gisz ra-a
6) ugarx (SIG7) A.LU3.ZA
-
7) ugula lugal-KA
8) ma2 dub-sag
(space)
9) 16 mu 4 iti
MAD 4:062 (UMy)~
1) 6 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
2) 3 kusz ud5 za3 nu-szu4
3) 1 kusz u8 za3-szu4
4) ur-{d}suen-kam
-
MAD 4:063 (UMy)~
1) [20 la2 1.0.0 sze gur-sag]-gal2
2) [2] urudu zabar
3) [1] tug2 ti
4) [1] tug2 ib2-ba-du3
5) [1] tug2 sza3-ge-dab6
6) [2] tug2 gu2 anszu
7) [2] bara2 gibil
8) [1]2 kusz UD.GA]
9) [2] kusz A.EDEN.NA]
10) [1] kusz anszu-eden]
-
11) [30 la2 1 gisz-ur3]
12) [120] gi sa mes
13) 1 {gisz}KA.UMBIN
14) 1 SILA3.SA.KA
15) da-sa6
16) i3-da-[gal2
MAD 4:064=pl. 14 (UMy)~
1) 4 ku3 gin2
2) sze3-bi-ir-tum e2-kam
3) ama-e2 dam ur-{d}szara2-ka-ke4
4) ur-mes
5) dumu du-du-ra
-
6) i3-na-la2
MAD 4:065 pl.xiv (UMy)~
1) 61.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) e2-e
3) 16.2.0 sze gur
4) a2-kal-le
5) 47.0.0 sze gur
6) ur-{d}TUR
7) ugula e2-e
8) 61.1.0 sze gur
9) lugal-sze
10) [x.x.x sze] gur
11) [PN]
-
12) +22.0.0 sze gur
13) ur-{gisz}gigir
14) ugula lugal-sze
15) sze gisz ra-a
16) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 gibil
17) du6 NISABA(inversum){sar}
(space)
18) 4/5 iti
MAD 4:066 (UMy)~
1) 384.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) 52.0.0 ziz2 gur
3) 4.0.0 gig gur
4) ugarx (SIG7) A.LU3.ZA
5) 202.2.0 sze gur
6) ugarx a-sza3 {d}nin-tu
7) 45.2.0 sze gur
-
8) ugarx a-sza3 {d}en-lil2-la2
(double line)
9) szu-nigin2 632.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
10) szu-nigin2 52.0.0 ziz2 gur
11) [szu-nigin2 4.0.0] [gig gur
12) sze [gisz] [ra-a
13) lugal-KA
MAD 4:067 (UMy)~
1) 8 ku3 gin2
2) ku5-ra2 us2-a-bi
3) 4 ku3 gin2
4) ama-[e2-e]
5) i3-li
6) dam dingir-an-dul3-da
7) i3-da-tuku
8) a-[...]
9) lugal-an-[ne2]?
-
10) dumu ur-{d}suen
11) lugal-KA-gu-la
12) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
13) u4-ba en-an-na-tum2
14) ensi2 umma{ki}
MAD 4:068=pl.14=ZA 63 p.254f (UMy)~
1) 20 la2 1.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) 2 urudu zabar
3) 1 tug2 bal
4) 1 tug2 ib2-ba-du3
5) 1 tug2 sza3-ge-dab6
6) 2 tug2 gu2 anszu
7) 2 bara2 gibil
8) 12 kusz UD.GA
9) 2 kusz A.EDEN
10) 1 kusz anszu-eden
11) 30 la2 1 gisz-ur3
-
12) 120 gi sa mes
13) 1 {gisz}KA.UMBIN
14) 1 SAL.SA.[KA]
15) da-[sa6]
16) i3-da-gal2
MAD 4:069=pl. 15 (UMy)~
1) 2.0.1 i3-KAL sila3
2) 2 1/2 ku3 gin2-bi
3) 0.1.0 sze musz
4) nig2-gu7-a
5) {d}en-lil2-le-kam
6) e2 za3-mu-ta
7) AN a-ta e3
(space)
-
8) 1 lugal-sa6
9) dumu ur-PA
10) 1 bar-ra-ni-sze3
11) dumu mes-kisal-le
12) 1 ur-abzu santana
13) 1 ka-ku3 ugula uru
14) 1 a-ba-an-da-sa2
15) dumu KUM.KU.SZE3
16) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
le) inim-ma-ni maszkim
MAD 4:070=pl. 16 (UMy)~
1) <1> numun-sa6-ga
2) 3 ku3 gin2-kam
3) ha-zi-gu2-bir5-ka
4) ab-gar
5) 1 gur8-gur8 bala-a urudu
6) 5 ku3 gin2-kam
7) sag lu2-gisz-sze3
8) lugal-sar2?-ra? ba-de6
9) 1 ku3 gin2 ur-gu
10) nu-banda3 ba-de6
11) 1 udu-nita
12) [ku3] [igi-4-gal2-kam
-
(erasure)
13) [lu2-gisz-e ba-de6
14) [lu2-gisz dumu lu2-bara2-[ge-da
15) lu2-na-nam simug
16) an-da-tuku
17) 16.0.0 sze gur-sag
18) e2 lugal-KA-sze3 simug-ta
19) dam e2-da-lu muhaldim-ke4
20) ur5-sze3 szu ba-ti
21) nu-su
MAD 4:071=pl. 15 (UMy)~
1) [x] la2 1.0.0 sze gur]-[sag-gal2 [dul3?]
2) [x.x.x] ziz2 gur
3) da?-da
4) 74.0.1/4 sze gur
5) gala
6) 82.0.0 sze gur
7) ur-ab
8) 80 la2 2.0.0 sze gur
9) lugal-SAG
10) 76.0.0 sze gur
11) ur-da?
12) [sze] [gisz ra-[a]
-
13) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
14) gala szu-i
15) szu ba-ti
MAD 4:072 (UMy)~
1) 10 la2] [1 ku3 gin2]
2) 1.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
3) ama-sze-numun-zi
4) 1 ku3 ur2-ku3-ge
5) 1 ku3 me-nigin3
6) szu-nigin2 11 ku3 gin2
7) 1.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
8) ama-e2-da
9) i3-da-tuku
10) 1 ku3 gin2
-
11) ur-{d}nin-ildum3 sipa
12) 2 ku3 gin2 e2-ur2
13) ad-KID
14) 1 ku3 gin2 da-bu-a
15) 1 [ku3 gin2] [lugal-e
16) 1 [ku3 gin2] x-du
17) 1 ku3 [gin2] ur-mes zadim
18) 1 ku3 gin2 szu-me
19) ama-e2-e i3-neda-tuku
MAD 4:073 pl.xvii (UMy)~
1) [x.x.x] sze gur-[sag-gal2
2) [lugal]-ab
3) 71.0.1/4 sze gur
4) du-du
5) 70 la2 2.0.0 sze gur
6) ba-za
7) 70.0.1/4 sze gur
8) gala dumu da-da
(double line)
9) sze gisz ra-a
10) ur-PA dub-sar
11) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
-

MAD 4:074 (UMy)~
1) 71 u8-[ama
2) 15 kir11 sza3-du10
3) 56 udu-nita
4) 30 la2 1 ud5-ama
5) 5 {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10 5c
6) 13 masz2-nita
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 142 udu
8) szu-nigin2 50 la2 3 ud5
9) la2-NI 5 u8 8 udu-nita 2 ud5
-
10) la2-NI-am3 sza3-ba i3-szid
11) udu zi-ga ib2-ta-zi
12) im si-sa2-am3
13) udu ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
14) en-an-ne2 e-da-sig7
15) 16 kir11 16 sila4 6 {munus}as-gar3 4 masz2 sza3-du10 mu-a-kam
16) en-an-ne2 sag udu gal-gal-sze3
17) sza3 udu-ka mi-ni-gi4
18) 15 mu 7 iti sze-ba sze-KIN-[ku5]
19) A.LU3.ZA-ka ba-ur4
MAD 4:075 (UMy)~
(i)
1) 11 u8-ama
2) 3 kir11 sza3-du10
3) 3 sila-nita sza3-du10
4) 34 ud5-ama
5) 15 {munus}SI-as2-gar3
6) 3 masz2 sza3-du10
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 70 la2 <x> ud5 udu
8) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
(ii)
1) 26 ud5-ama
2) 13 {munus}SI-as2-gar3 sza3-du10
3) 2 masz2 sza3-du10
4) 7 u8-ama
5) 2 kir11 sza3-du10
6) 1 sila4-nita sza3-du10
(double line)
7) szu-nigin2 51 ud5 udu
8) ur-{d}suen-ka-kam
(Riii)
1) udu gub-ba e2-a-si4-na
2f) a-bi2-NAR sipa-/da i3-da-sig7
4) ur-sipa-da sipa
5) na-gada
(Riv)
1) 2 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:076 (UMy)~
1) 10 la2 1 ku3 gin2
2) nig2-sam2{am3}
3) nin-masz-e-kam!
4) nin-masz-e
5) nin-pa3-da ama-ni
6) szu-ne-ne ab-si
7) inim-ma-ni
8) i3-ne-la2
9) gisz-gan-na ab-ta-bala
10) i3-sag zid2-sag-bi a-ba-sum
-
11) nin-pa3-da
12) lu2 nig2-[sam2] [gu7-am3
13) inim-[ma-ni]
14) lu2 [nig2-sam2 ak-am3]
(double line)
15) 1 {d}[...]
16) dumu [...]
17) 1 [...]
18) dumu [...]
19) 1 ur2?-[ni?] [aszgab?
20) dumu tir?-ku3 sipa
21) 1 {d}en-lil2-le
22) dumu ka-ku3 ugula unu3
le) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
MAD 4:077=pl. 18=ZA 63 p.235f (UMy)~
1) 6 ku3 gin2
2) nig2-sa10-a ki-sar-sze3
3) e2-ug3-e
4) sag-{d}en-lil2-da
5) dumu-ni
6) szu-ne-ne ab-si
7) inim-ma-ni
8) i3-ne-la2
9) 1 lugal-TUG2.MAH
-
10) igi-du santana
11) 1 lugal-gisz
12) be6-li-li
13) 1 lugal-engar-du10 dam-gara3
14) 1 za3-mu [dumu a]-[zu-zu
15) 1 ur-sa6-[ga]
16) 1 lugal-ug3-ge26
17) dumu ur-AB.KID.KID
18) 1 e2-szir3-re2-e
19) gala
le) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
MAD 4:078=pl. 19=ZA 63 p.237f (UMy)~
1) 2 masz2
2) 1 ud5-ama
3) ur-{d}utu sipa
4) 1 u8-ama
5) 1 udu-nita
6) {d}dumu-zi-an-dul3 ba-DU.DU
7) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
8) 2 masz2
9) lu-lu
-
10) 1 masz2 za3 nu-szu4
11) a-bu-ha-DU
12) 2 kusz ud5-ama
13) {d}utu-mu sipa mu-DU
14) zi-zi-ga-am3
(space)
15) 7 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:079 (UMy)~
1) 5 ku3 gin2
2) nig2-sam2
3) a2-ni-ta
4) KA ur-{d}inanna
5) {d}en-lil2-an-zu
6) dumu ka-ku3
7) ba-de6
-
8) 1 ur-{d}da-mu
9) aga3-us2 ugula e2
10) maszkim di si sa2-a-bi
11) 1 ur-{d}iszkur
12) 1 mes-abzu
13) 1 lugal-sza3
14) 1 ur-mes gab2?-ra?
15) 1 {d}en-lil2-KU]?
16) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi
MAD 4:080=pl. 20=ZA 63 p.256f (UMy)~
1) 6 ku3 gin2
2) nig2 sa10-a za3-mu-[kam]
3) ku3 MUNU4 TUR x] [...]
4) za3-mu] [dumu] a-zu-[zu]
5) nin-GAR.KP509-e ama-ni]
6) szu-ne-ne ab]-[si]
7) inim-ma-ni lu2 nig2 [sa10-a ak-am3]
8) nin-GAR.KP509-e lu2 nig2 [sa10-a] gu7-am3]
(double line)
9) 1 ur-sa6-ga
-
10) lu2 ur-{d}szara2
11) 1 da-sa6
12) 1 ne-sag
13) dumu me-lam2-an-ne2-[me
14) 1 ur-{d}dumu-zi-da
15) 1 lu2-ti-an-zu
16) dumu ka-ku3-me
(space)
17) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
MAD 4:081=pl. 17=ZA 63 p.239f (UMy)~
1) 1 ud5-ama
2) 1 masz2 za3-szu4
3) 1 masz2 sza3-du10
4) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
5) {d}utu-mu-gi4 sipa
-
6) ezem {d}:dumu-zi-ka
7) i3-DU
(space)
8) 5 mu
MAD 4:082 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5-ama
2) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
3) 1 kusz ud5-ama
4) ur-{d}suen-kam
5) {d}dumu-zi-an-dul3-e
-
6) mu-DU
7) {d}utu-mu sipa
(space)
8) 5 mu 10 la2 1 iti
MAD 4:083 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz u8
2) 1 kusz udu-nita
3) na-ESZ-du3-a{ki}
4) en-za-bar-e
-
5) mu-DU
(space)
6) 25 mu 10 la2 1 iti
MAD 4:084 (UMy)~
1) 25.0.0 sze hal-la gur-sag-gal2
2) [ur-dam
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
-
5) gala szu-i
6) szu ba-ti
MAD 4:085 (UMy)~
1) 223.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) en-ANSZU sag apin
3) gu4 {d}szara2
-
MAD 4:086 (UMy)~
1) 2 masz2 HUR.HUR-ra2
2) 1 masz2 a-la2-a
3) ur-{d}suen ba-usz2-a
4) ba-zi
-
5) masz2 ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
(space)
6) 23 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:087 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz u8
2) an-za-gar3-du11-ga-ka
3) gala-tur-e
4) ur-{d}suen-ra
5) i3-na-gid2
-
6) ur-{d}suen
(space)
7) 22 mu 10 la2 1 iti
MAD 4:088 (UMy)~
1) 1 udu-nita
2) a-a-<bi>-NAR-e
3) e2-a-masz-zu-ta
4) mu-DU
5) 1 masz2-nita
-
6) 1 udu-nita
7) udu a-bi2-GI4
8) 22 mu 10 iti
MAD 4:089 (UMy)~
1) 10.la2 1.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) sze gisz ra-a
3) ur-igi
4) ugarx (SIG7) amar-u2-ga
-
MAD 4:090 (UMy)~
1) 84.0.0 sze hal-la gur-sag-gal2
2) sze gisz ra-a
3) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
4) gala szu-i
-
5) szu ba-ti
MAD 4:091 (UMy)~
1) 1c kusz ud5 za3-szu4
2) ur-zu-kam
3) {d}utu-mu-gi4
4) sipa
(space)
5) 4 mu 10 iti
-
MAD 4:092 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5
2) lugal-e-ge
3) nag-ku5
4) inim-ma-ni-zi-da-sze3
5) mu-gid2
-
6) ur-{d}szara2
(space)
7) 23 mu 4 iti
(space)
8) 1c kusz masz2 sza3-du10 AN.A
MAD 4:093 (UMy)~
1) 3 masz2 za3 nu-szu4
2) 1 sila4-nita
3) ur-{d}szara2-kam
4) 1 masz2 za3 nu-szu4
-
5) ur-{d}suen-kam
6) masz2 zi-ga
7) {d}utu-mu sipa
(space)
8) 5 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:094 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
2) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
3) {d}utu-mu-gi4 sipa
(space)
4) 4 mu 11 iti
-
MAD 4:095 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5
2) ur-{d}suen-kam
3) a-bi2-NAR-e sipa
-
4) AN.KI.KI-sze3
5) ezem nesag-ka
6) mu-gid2
7) 5 mu 4 iti
MAD 4:096 (UMy)~
1) 40.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) 15.0.0 ziz2 <gur>
-
3) 7.2.0 gig gur
4) sze gisz ra-a
5) a-sza3 gana2 gid2-a
6) a-DU ba-ak
re) 4 mu 5 iti
MAD 4:097 (UMy)~
1) 1 udu-nita
2) a-a-bi2-NAR-e
3) ga2 udu-ta
4) mu-DU
5) uru-a ba-szum
-
6) ur-{d}szara2
(space)
7) 23 mu 3 iti
MAD 4:098 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz u8
2) nag-ku5 inim-ma-ni-zi-da-ka
3) lugal-e-ge
-
4) mu-gid2
5) ur-{d}szara2
6) 23 mu 3 iti
MAD 4:099 (UMy)~
1) 2 kusz ud5
2) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
3) 1 kusz u8
4) lugal-KA-kam
5) 2 kusz ud5
-
6) ur-{d}suen-ka-kam
7f) {d}utu-mu sipa-/de3 mu-DU
9) 4 mu 12 iti
MAD 4:100 (UMy)~
1) 1.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 si-sa2
2) ur-zu
3) sze zi-ga
4) DINGIR-ga-li2
-
(space)
5) 6 mu 7 iti
MAD 4:101 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5
2) ur-{d}suen-kam
3) a-bi2-NAR-e
4) lugal-KA-ra
-
5) i3-na-gid2
(space)
6) 3 mu 10 la2 1 iti
MAD 4:102 (UMy)~
1) 63.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) ur-A.LU3.ZA
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 en-lil2-la2
-
5) lugal-KA
6) szu ba-ti
7) ugula ra-bala
8) 4 iti
MAD 4:103 (UMy)~
1) 100 la2 1.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) 5.0.0 ziz2 gur
3) sze lugal-tar-kam
4) lugal-KA-e
-
5) szu ba-ti
6) gala dub-sar
7) e2-gal bahar2
8) +6 mu 6 iti
MAD 4:104 (UMy)~
1) 380.0.0 [sze] gur-sag-gal2
2) e2-kiszib gu-la-a
3) i3-si
4) 95.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
5) e2-kiszib banda3-a
6) i3-si
MAD 4:105 (UMy)~
1) 3 u8
2) a-a-bi2-NAR
3) a-sza3 ur-sag-pa-e3-ta
-
4) mu-DU
(space)
5) 25 mu 12 iti
MAD 4:106 (UMy)~
1) 2 masz2
2) a-bi2-NAR-da
3) <nig2>-kas7 ba-da-ak
-
4) bar-bi ba-lah4
(space)
5) 3 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:107 (UMy)~
1) 971.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 si-sa2
2) ur-{d}ki-nu2
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
-
5) lugal-KA-e
6) szu ba-ti
MAD 4:108 (UMy)~
1) 1c kusz ud5 za3-szu4
2) ur-zu-kam
3) {d}utu-mu sipa
(space)
4) 4 mu 11 iti
-
MAD 4:109 (UMy)~
1) 3.2.0 ziz2 gur-sag-gal2
2) ur-TAR
3) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 {d}en-lil2-la2-kam
-
MAD 4:110 (UMy)~
1) 2 kusz u8
2) 1 kusz ud5
3) ur-{d}szara2
4) 1 kusz ud5
5) ur-{d}suen
6) lugal-e-ge
-
7) ki GUR8-gu-LUM-ma-sze3
8) mu-gid2
(space)
9) 22 mu 12 iti til-la
MAD 4:111 (UMy)~
1) 286.1.3 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) 10.2.3 ziz2 gur
3) ur-sa6
-
4) sze gisz [ra-a]
5) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3] [{d}en-lil2-la2]
(space)
6) [x mu x] iti
MAD 4:112 (UMy)~
1) 4 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
2) 2 kusz ud5 za3 nu-szu4
3) ensi2 nidba-ka
-
4) mu-ti-la-a
5) {d}dumu-zi-an-dul3-e
6) mu-DU
7) 3 mu 10 iti
MAD 4:113 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5
2) su7 us2-su-da
3) ba-a-usz2
4) a-hu-hu-e
5) a-sar-AN.TI.LA-sze3
-
6) szu-e im-mi-us2
(space)
7) ur-{d}szara2
8) 23 mu 2 iti
MAD 4:114 (UMy)~
1) 81+.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 si-sa2
2) UD-bi
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 {d}en-lil2-la2
-
5) ugula sag-du5
(space)
6) mu 9?
MAD 4:115 (UMy)~
1) 1 masz2 za3 nu-szu4
2) 1 masz2 za3-szu4
3) ur-{d}szara2-ka
4) 1 masz2 za3 nu-szu4
5) 1 kusz u8 za3-szu4
-
6) 1 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
7) ur-{d}suen
8) ezem {d}dumu-zi-da
9) {d}utu-mu
le) 8 mu 1 iti
MAD 4:116 (UMy)~
1) 13?.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) ensi2-gal
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
-
[...]
1') [6 mu 7 iti]
MAD 4:117 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5
2) udu ur4-ra
3) bar-bi
4) a-bi2?-NAR?-e
-
5) mu-DU
6) 3 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:118 (UMy)~
1) 1 udu-nita
2) ur-{d}szara2
3) 1 masz2-nita
4) ur-{d}suen
5) lugal-e?-ge-e?
-
6) ba?-DU?
(space)
7) 21+ [mu x] iti
MAD 4:119 (UMy)~
1) 360 la2 11.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 si-sa2
2) ur-{d}ki-nu2
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 {d}en-lil2-la2
-
5) lugal-KA-e
6) szu ba-ti
(space)
7) 4 iti
MAD 4:120 (UMy)~
1) 105.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) lugal-KA
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 gibil
-
5) uru?-a ba-si
(space)
6) [x mu] +4 iti
MAD 4:121 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz ud5-ama za3-szu4
2) ur-{d}szara2-kam
3) a-bi2-NAR-e
4) mu-DU
-
5) umma{ki}
(space)
6) 4 mu
MAD 4:122 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz udu-nita za3-szu4
2) 1 sila4-nita sza3-du10
3) lugal-KA-kam
4) {d}utu-mu sipa
5) 6 mu 3 iti
-
MAD 4:123 (UMy)~
1) 1 la2 igi-4-gal2: ku3 gin2
2) ur-e2 AB tu-tu-da
3) lugal-KA-e
4) i3-da-tuku
5) [x-gi simug
-
6) ur-zu aszgab
7) lu2 ki inim-ma-me
8) 4 mu 12 iti
MAD 4:124 pl.xix (UMy)~
1) 190.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 si-sa2
2) ra-bala-e
3) szu ba-ti
4) [sze] zi-ga
5) lugal-KA
-
(space)
6) 5 mu 6? iti
MAD 4:125 (UMy)~
1) 3 kusz?] [u8]
2) na-ESZ-du3-a
3) [en-za-bar
4) za3-mu x-da-[(...)]
-
5) mu-lah4-he-esz2 (DU.DU)
(space)
6) 25 mu
MAD 4:126 (UMy)~
1) 1 kusz udu-nita
2) za3-szu4
3) ur-{d}szara2
4) {d}dumu-zi-an-dul3
-
5) [mu-DU]
(space)
6) 4 mu
MAD 4:127 (UMy)~
1) [x] kusz udu]?
2) ama-e2
3) [x] kusz u8
4) [PN]?
-
5) [ki a?]-[sar-[AN.TI.LA]?-a-ta
6) mu-gid2?-de3?-esz2
7) 23+ mu [x] iti]
MAD 4:128 (UMy)~
1) 450 sum-bala sa
2) 270 sum sa
3) e2-a i3-gal2
[...]
MAD 4:131 (UMy)~
1) 1 ur-{d}szara2
2) 1 da-da
3) ur-sa6-ga nu-banda3 ba-lah4
4) 1 ur-ku-ma
5) szubur dub-sar ba-de6
6) 1 ur-ur
7) da-da dumu sipa-de3 ba-de6
8) 1 gala
9) i-ku-ku dam-gara3 ba-de6
-
10) lu2-szu ba-de6-me
11) e2-ur2 ugula-bi
MAD 4:132 (UMy)~
1) 5 masz2
2) 2 udu-nita
3) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
4) 3 u8-ama
5) lugal-KA-kam
-
6f) bar zu2-si-/ka-ta
8) {d}utu-mu-gi4
9) sipa-de3
10) ba-DU.DU
11) 4 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:133 (UMy)~
1) 5 {urudu}szum
2) e2-ku3
3) dam ur-{d}SZE3.NIR
4) 2 kur-ra
5) 1 ur-du6
6) {urudu}szum a2
7) szu ba-ti
8) {urudu}szum zi-ga
-
9) ama-e2
10) dam ur-{d}szara2-ka
(space)
11) 3 mu
MAD 4:134 (UMy)~
1) 26 udu u8-ama
2) 26 udu-nita
3) 7 kir11 sza3-du10
4) 6 sila4-nita sza3-du10
5) udu lugal-KA-kam
-
6) e2-gu4-da
7) i3-da-sig7
MAD 4:135 (UMy)~
1) 186.2.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) 10.la2 2.0 ziz2 gur
3) 4.2.0 gig <gur>
4) [sze gisz ra-a
-
5) {d}szara2-an-dul3
6) a-sza3
7) lagasz{ki}
(space)
8) 4 mu 5 iti
MAD 4:136 (UMy)~
1) 5 masz2 sza3-du10
2) gizzu szu-i?
3f) a-sza3 am3-ma-/ta mu-DU/DU
5) ur-sipa-da udu
6) a-bi2-NAR
-
7) masz2 zi-ga
MAD 4:137 (UMy)~
1) 1? udu-nita
2) ur-{d}szara2
3) [udu]? ur-{d}suen
4) ba-szum
5) 2 masz2-nita
6) 1 ud5
7) ga2 udu-ka
-
8) {d}utu-mu-gi4-e
9) bi2-gi4
10) udu zi-ga
11) lugal-e
12) 22 mu 10 la2 1 iti
MAD 4:138 (UMy)~
1) 2 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
2) 1 kusz ud5 za3 nu-szu4
3) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
4) 3 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
5) 1 kusz ud5 za3-szu4
6) ur-{d}suen-kam
7) ensi2 nidba-ka
-
8) mu-ti-la-a
9) {d}dumu-zi-an-dul3-e
10) mu-DU
(space)
11) 3 mu 10 iti
MAD 4:139 (UMy)~
1) 372.2.0 <sze> gur-sag-gal2
2) a-sza3 i3-ku6
3) <{d}>gesztin-an-ka
4) 141.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
5) e2:duru5 lugal-sza3-ga
-
MAD 4:140 (UMy)~
1) 1c kusz masz2 za3-szu4
2) ur-{d}szara2-ka-kam
3) {d}utu-mu-gi4 sipa
(space)
4) 4 mu 10 iti
-
MAD 4:141 (UMy)~
1) 90 la2 1.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2 dul3
2) 25.0.0 ziz2 da-da
3) 91.0.1/4 sze gur
4) ur-zu! (SU)
5) ugula lugal-nagar-zi
6) 20.0.0 ziz2 gur
7) szesz-tur
-
8) sze gisz ra-a
9) ugarx (SIG7) sug-gal
(space)
10) 5 iti
MAD 4:142 pl.xx (UMy)~
1) 10.0.0 gig gur-sag-gal2
2) 20.0.0 ziz2 gur
3) du-du nu-banda3 e2-sikil
4) 5.0.0 ziz2 gur
5) du11-ga nu-banda3
-
6) 10.0.0 ur-{d}lum-ma sanga
MAD 4:143 (UMy)~
1) 66.0.0 sze gur-sag-gal2
2) e2-e
3) 120 la2 5.0.0 sze gur
4) KA-ma-DINGIR
5) sze gisz ra-a
-
6) ugarx (SIG7) a-sza3 {d}en-lil2-la2
7) ugula ur-{d}ab-u2
(space)
8) 4 iti
MAD 4:144 (UMy)~
1) 127+.0.0 [sze gur]-sag-gal2 dul3]
2) ur-id2
3) sze gisz ra-a
4) ugarx (SIG7) bar-DU
5) lu2-pa3-da
6) szu ba-ti
7) a-pi4-sal4
-
(space)
8) 5 mu 4 iti]
MAD 4:145 (UMy)~
1) la2-NI 135 udu-nita
2) 22 u8-ama
3) 31 ud5-ama
4) 13 masz2-nita
(double line)
5) szu-nigin2 201 udu hi-a
6) la2-NI en-an-ne2 sipa-da
7) i3-da-sig7
8) 50c la2 1c siki la2-NI ma-na
-
9) en-an-ne2 sipa-da i3-da-gal2
MAD 4:146 (UMy)~
1) 3c ud5-ama
2) 1c masz2
3) su7-e ba-gu7
4) 1c masz2
5) lu-lu
6) masz2 zi-da
7) {d}utu-mu sipa
-
(space)
8) 7 mu 8 iti
MAD 4:147 (UMy)~
1) 12c u8-ama
2) 6c udu-nita
3) 14c ud5-ama
4) 6c {munus}as2-gar3 sza3-du10
5) ki-tusz-lu2 sipa-da
6) i3-da-sig7
7) lugal-KA-e
8) i3-szid
-
9) gaba-ru e2-gal bahar3-ka
10) a-sza3 gibil
(space)
11) 11 mu 1 iti
MAD 4:148 (UMy)~
1) 3.0.0 a-sza3 gana2
2) a-sur2-du7-ra2
3) 4.0.0 a-sza3 {d}dumu-zi-da
4) 2.0.0 a-sza3 a-suhur?-ra
5) 4.0.0 SZA-gal
6) 3.0.0 lugal-ra-mu-gi4
7) 2.0.0 da ki-guru7-ka
(double line)
8) szu-nigin2 20 la2 2.0.0 a.sza3 gana2
9) ama-e2 dam
-
10) ur-{d}szara2-ka
MAD 4:149 (UMy)~
1) 8 ku3 gin2
2) nig2 sa10-a ur-LI-kam!
3) ur-LI si4-si4 ama-[ni]
4) lugal-iti-da szu-ne-ne [ab-si]
5) gisz-gan-na ab-ta-bala]
6) i3 sag-ga2 zid2 sag-ga2-[bi
7) a-ba-sum inim-ma-ni
8) lu2 nig2 sa10-a ak-am3]
9) si4-si4 lu2 nig2 sa10-a gu7-[am3]
-
10) 1 ka-ku3]
11) dumu lugal-nig2-zu
12) 1 {d}en-lil2-la2-mu-gi4
13) dumu il2
14) 1 lugal-szud3 dub-sar
15) 1 lugal-gisz
16) be6-li-li
17) ur-{d}asznan
18) dumu ur-{d}en-ki-ka
19) 1 za3-mu dumu a-zu-zu
20) 1 lugal-ka-gi-na dam-gara3
le) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
MAD 4:150=pl. 21=ZA 63 p.233f (UMy)~
1) 0.0.2 iku da pa5 dub-sar-ka
2) an-gal2
3) nig2-sam2-bi
4) 4 ku3 gin2
5) u4 sze ku3-ga 0.2.0 gur al-ag2!-ga2
6) 3.0.0 sze gur
7) 0.0.2 zid2-ba 1/2 i3 sila3
8) ne-sag nin nu-nu-ke4
9) szu ba-ti
10) u4 aszag-ga lu2 u3-ma-a-du3-a
-
11) 0.0.2 iku-bi-sze3
12) 0.0.4 iku ab-szi-ga2-ga2
13) inim-ma an-gal2
14) 1 lugal-la2 ur-szul
15) lu2 inim-ma-bi
16) lu2-na-nam simug
17) lu2 sam2 ak-am3
18) ne-sag nin nu-nu
19) lu2 sam2 gu7-am3
MAD 4:151=pl. 20=ZA 63 p.215f~
(i)
1) 0.1.2 iku
2) pa5 dub-sar-ka
3) nig2-sam2-pi
4) 1/2 ku3 ma-na 2 gin2
5) 2.0.0 sze gur
6) 1 bar-dul5
7) 0.2.0? sze-ba
8) e2-ki-du10-ga
9) da-pi-re6-re6
10) ur-PA
11) dumu-ni szu ba-ti
(ii)
1) aszag-pi lugal-mu-[x]
2) x] [...]
3) mu-[x]
4) 1 a-ba-[{d}en-lil2? dumu]?
5) lugal-[...]
6) 1 har-AN]-[... dumu]?
7) amar-[...]
8) lu2 [ki inim]-ma-[pi-me]
9) lugal]-[...]
10) [...]
11) [...]
(Ri)
[...]
(rest uninscribed)
MAD 4:152=pl. 22=ZA 63 p.217f~
(i)
1) 0.1.0 iku e2-ad
2) nig2-sam2-bi
3) 10 la2 1 ku3 gin2
4) 7.0.0 sze gur
5) 1 bar-dul5 2.0.0 sze gur-kam
6) lu2-he2-gal2
7) dumu szi-mi-mi-ke4
8) szu ba-ti
9) 2c ku3 gin2
(ii)
1) a-ba-{d}en-lil2
2) dumu sza3-an-zu-ke4
3) ba-de6 sam2-ISZ?]-am6
4) u4 lu2 am6-ma-du3-da-a
5) dingir-ga2-ab-e
6) ir11 szi-mi-mi-ke4
7) dam dumu-ni
8) igi ba-a-DU-a
9) inim-ma i3-gar
10) lugal-KA-sze3
(Ri)
1) simug
2) lu2 sam2 ak-am6
3) utu-anzu2{muszen}
4) dumu ba-za
5) temen-an-ne2
6) dumu amar-ki
(Rii)
1) lu2 ki inim-ma-[bi]-me
[(...)]
MAD 4:153=pl. 23=ZA 63 p.222f (UMy)~
1) 1.0.0 iku
2) lugal-TUR.SZE3
3) 1.0.0 nigin3
4) 0.1.0 sag-hul-a
5) 0.1.0 lu2-{d}szara2
6) 1.0.0 ka-ku3
7) 1.0.0 {d}en-lil2-da
8) 0.1.0 gala
9) 0.1.0 lugal-GAR
10) [x.x.x] [inim-ma-ni-zi
11) [x.x.x da]?-sa6
12) [x.x.x] [lugal-KA
-
13) [x.x.x] ur-igi
14) [x.x.x x]-ni
15) [0].[2.0 ur-LI
16) 1.0.0 sag-a-DU
17) 0.2.0 gala szu-ku6
18) 0.1.0 szu-BAPPIR.A
19) 0.1.0 da-da
20) 0.2.0 {d}dumu-zi-da
21) 0.1.0 PAP
22) 0.1.0 ur-{d}nin-tu
MAD 4:154 (UMy)~
1) 0.0.1 1/2 iku
2) gana2 da e2 tu-tu-ka-kam
3) nig2 sa10-a-bi
4) 2 1/2 ku3 gin2
5) lugal-nig2-zu
6) szu ba-ti
7) inim-ma-ni
8) i3-na-la2
9) lugal-nig2-zu
-
10) lu2 nig2 sa10-a gu7-<am3>
11) inim-ma-ni
12) lu2 nig2 sa10-a ak-am3
13) 1 da-sa6
14) dumu me-lam2-an-ne2
15) 1 lugal-en-nu
16) dumu ama-zu-zu
17) 1 a-ra2-nu2 nagar
18) 1 lugal-iti-da
19) be6-li-li
le) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-me
MAD 4:155=pl. 24=JESHO 15 p.20f=ZA 63 p.219f (UMy)~
1) 10 udu-nita za3-szu4
2) 2 ud5 za3-szu4
3) 6 masz2-nita za3-szu4
4) 5c masz2 sza3-du10 za3 nu-szu4-am3
5) udu zi-ga-am3
6) e2-lu2 sipa
7) 7 masz2 gal-gal
8) masz2 e2-gal-kam
9) masz2 sag-ba ba-an-il2-esz2
-
(space)
10) ur-{d}szara2-ke4
11) masz2 zi-da
12) i3-ku4-ra2-a
13) ad-da sagi
14) du6 AB-ta
15) mu-lah4
16) 20 la2 1 mu 10 iti
MAD 4:156 pl.xxi (UMy)~
1) 1 [PN]
2) 1 ma-ni
3) 1 ka5-a
4) 1 me-a
5) 1 EREN-da-ni
(double line)
6) dumu nigin3-me
7) [(...)]
-
MAD 4:157 (UMy)~
[...]
1') szu-ne-ne ab-si
2') inim-ma-ni-e
3') i3-ne-la2
4') ka-ku3 ama-ni
5') lugal-TUG2.MAH ugula-ni
6') lu2 nig2 sa10-a gu7-am3-me?!
7') inim-ma-ni-e
-
8') lu2 sa10-a ak-am3
9') mu lugal-sze3
10') mu nam-mah-[sze3?]
11') inim]-[bi] [al-til
12') [la-ba-gi4-gi4]?-da
13') [...]-[mu?
[...]
le) lu2 ki [inim-ma-bi-me]
MAD 4:158=pl. 22=ZA 63 p.241f (UMy)~
1) 1 [kusz ...]
2) ur-[...]
3) ur-{d}x-[(x)]-ke4
4) ba-DU
5) 1 kusz masz2 za3-szu4 ur-{d}szara2
6) lugal-kur sipa-e mu-DU
7) 1 masz2 za3 nu-szu4
-
8) a-bi2-ra
9) ur-{d}suen-ka-kam
10) lugal-kur sipa
(space)
11) 8 [mu ...]
MAD 4:159 (UMy)~
1) ur-nigin3
2) bu-zu-zu
3) szu-ma-ma
4) PU3.SZA-an-ni
5) DINGIR-isz-da-gal
6) da-gi-zi
-
7) [x-x-x
8) SIKIL?-NE?
MAD 4:160 (UMy)~
1) 21 6c lu2
2) A.URI?-me
3) 4 2c eme-gi7
-
MAD 4:161 (UMy)~
1) 3 gada bar-si
2) lugal-nig2-du7
3) 3 ur-dam
4) 3 ur-sa6-ga
5) 2 ur-sag
6) 7 e2-zi
7) 3 ur4-sza3
-
(space)
8) szu-nigin2 20 gada bar-si
9) a-ga-de3{ki}
10) ba-DU
(space)
11) 4 mu 11 iti
MAD 4:162 (UMy)~
1) 115 nig2-ra2 us2 sig-ta
2) 70 nig2 us2 igi-nim
3) 66 nig2 sag igi-nim
4) 56 nig2 <sag> sig-ta
(space)
-
5) 0.2.0 0.1.0 iku
MAD 4:163 (UMy)~
1) 110 [1/2 <nig2> sig?-ta?
2) 85 nig2 2 kusz3 numun igi-nim-ma
3) 540 la2 50 us2
4) 30+ sag
-
(8 horizontal lines)
MAD 4:164 (UMy)~
1) 20 tug2 nig2-lam2 [?]
2) 11 tug2 sza3-ge-dab6
3) 20 la2 3? tug2 sza3-ga-du3
4) 7 tug2 aktum
-
MAD 4:165 (UMy)~
1) 63 1/2c nig2-ra2 us2
2) 22 1/2c sag id2-da
3) 90 us2 sig-ta
4) 22 1/2c sag a gar-ra
5) 0.2.0c 1/2c 1/8c iku gisz ur3-ra
6) ka5-a aszgab
-
MAD 4:166=pl. 23 (UMy)~
1) 30c la2 1c gurusz 24c
2) ad?]-[x]
3) e2?-e
4) 20c la2 3c lu2-{d}szara2 16c
5) lugal-sze
6) 15c gala szu-i 13c
7) lugal-nagar-zi
8) 23c ab-kid 20c
9) 22c gala e2-li 25c
10) ur-{d}ab-u2
(double line)
11) 20c+ ur-lu2 15c
-
12) gu4 {d}[...]
13) 15c [...]
14) lugal]-[...]
15) 22c+ [...]
16) ur-{gisz}gigir [...]
17) 15c] u2?-na-ap-[...]
(double line)
18) 14c ur-esz2-lil2]
19) ur-PA
MAD 4:167 (UMy)~
1) szubur dub-sar
2) tir-ku3-ge
3) si-ku3-e2
4) du-bi gala
5) gala ba-al-ni
6) lugal-e sipa
7) en-an-na-tum2
8) lugal-za3-ge-si
9) ensi2 szurupak{ki}
10) GAL.ZU-{d}?[...]
11) ME-{d}[...]
[...]
-
[...]
1') [amar-lu2 ugula
MAD 4:168=pl. 24 (UMy)~
1) 0.1.0 iku da ki-sza-nu-dar-ra-ni
2) nig2 sa10-a-bi 10 ku3 gin2
3) lugal-al-e
4) szu ba-ti
5) 0.1.0 iku da ki-sza-nu-dar-ra-ni
6) nig2 sa10-a-bi 10 ku3 gin2
7) ab-zu
8) igi-zi-bi
9) szu ba-ti-[esz2
10) inim-ma-ni
11) i3-na-[la2]
12) lugal-al]
13) ab-zu]
14) igi-zi
15) dumu ne-sag aszgab-me
16) lu2 nig2 sa10-a gu7-a-me
-
17) inim-ma-ni
18) lu2 nig2 sa10]-[a ak]-am3
19) [1 x]-lu5-lu5 x
20) 1 lugal-gisz
21) dumu ne-sag ugula
22) 1 ka-ku3
23) dumu lugal-nig2-zu
24) 1 ur-nigin3 dumu-ni
25) 1 da-sa6
26) dumu me-lam2-an-ne2
27) 1 ur-sa6-[ga]
28) [dumu] e2?-a?
29) 1 {d}en-lil2-le-an-zu
30) dumu ka-ku3
31) 1 e2-szir3-re2-e engar?
(double line)
32) lu2 ki inim-ma-bi-[me]
MAD 4:169=pl. 25=ZA 63 p.220ff (UMy)~
1) [mu lugal-sze3
2) [mu sanga IN{ki}-sze3
3) e2-ur2 dumu lugal-uru-na-[ke4]?
4) [lu2-na-nam dumu lugal-[KA? simug-da
5) [gisz i3-da-ku5
6) lu2-lu2 la-ba-gi4]-[da]
7) ne-sag aszgab
8) ka-ku3-ga-ni dumu kur-ri2-x]-[...]
9) ur-si4-si4 dumu nin-ga2
10) lu2 ki inim-ma-pi-me
MAD 4:170=pl. 25 (UMy)~"

>
>
>-- Chris

regards,

steve

[grap...@my-deja.com]

In article <Khih6.5319$JG.6...@news.shore.net>,
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:

> >
> >WHAT THE BLOODY FUCKING HELL would "evidence for semitic cultures" have
> >to do with whether Old Akkadian is a Semitic language or not???
>
> 1.) No contact with people who speak semitic languages would make it hard
> for someone to learn their language
> 2.) No Old Akkadian texts exist in southern mesopotamia prior to the arrival
> of semitic cultures c 2340 BC

> >

> > Old Akkadian is a period of
> >the Akkadian language -- the Old period, in fact.

> >> I expect that there is some archaeological evidence of Sumerians

> >> in the region before there is any evidence of Akkadians in the region
> >
> >SO WHAT???? Do you have some secret way to discover what language was
> >spoken by people who (a) are dead and (b) didn't leave written (or
> >audio) records?
>
> By process of elimination. In the Old Akkadian period there is no archaeological
> evidence of semitic peoples in southern Mesopotamia. Why we should expect people
> who have been speaking and writing Sumerian to suddenly take up speaking a semitic
> language prior to a period when there is regular contact with semites?
> >

> >Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
>
> regards,
>
> steve
>

Steve goes on turning round and round in circle !... His POSTULATE is :
" Semitic languages ORIGINATED in Arabia. They were SPREAD by peoples
having a NOMADIC CIVILIZATION ". He CANNOT even IMAGINE that peoples
having ANOTHER civilization than the Arabian Nomads COULD have spoken a
SEMITIC tongue... From his postulate, it is therefore "impossible" that
the peoples with the Jemdet Nasr Culture, for instance, MAY have spoken
some kind of "Semitic language". His argument : "The Jemdet Nasr Culture
is NOT similar to the Arabian Nomadic Civilization !...Q.E.D. !

ALL his posts are just variations about this theme : "Semitic Language =
Arabic Civilization", and therefore : "Semitic = Arabic" !..
Don't try to explain him that this is his POSTULATE, and that it leads to
absurdity, like denying the semitic character of Old Akkadian, under the
pretext that the people speaking this language have'n't had the time or
the opportunity to "LEARN" Arabic !.. He is unable to understand !...

grapheus

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

[Thomas Martin Widmann]

whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:

> I have heard that Sumerian is an isolate. I expect that should mean
> it is *definitely not related* to any other language yet I have read
> that it is *thought to be related* to other languages but that
> linguistically speaking *no proven relationship* exists.

Technically speaking, the zero hypothesis in historical lingustics is
that all languages are isolates; one then goes on to prove that a
language is related to another. Any language for which you can prove
no relationship to another is considered an isolate. If a historical
linguist says that Sumerian is an isolate, s/he therefore means that
so far no relationship with any other language has been proven. One
may very well say that it looks so much like some other language(s)
that there is ground for trying to prove their relationship, but until
this relationship has been proven, Sumerian technically remains an
isolate.

/Thomas
--
Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C
Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465
<mailto:vira...@daimi.au.dk> <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus>
MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK

[grap...@my-deja.com]

In article <cPzh6.5349$JG.6...@news.shore.net>,

SNIP

> Steve

Steve, when will you understand 1)- the difference between SCRIPT and
LANGUAGE 2)- the CONVENTIONS used by Assyriologists to transcript a
text ?... Are you really unable to understand that WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE
(Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, etc.) the scholars - BY CONVENTION - do
transcript ideograms like LUGAL, KUR, NINDA, NISHUM, NITAH, etc.. by the
SUMERIAN WORD ?... So that you may find transcriptions like : LUGAL-u or
LIDUM or GAN or etc. in a text WRITTEN and TO BE READ IN HITTITE, for
instance... Why do the scholars such a thing ?.. Essentially when they
DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE the exact word in the said language... So, using the
SUMERIAN word does not PREJUDGE of this EXACT word. In other words, if I
have to transcript a Hittite text, writing LUGAL will not get objections
from anybody. Writing KHATTI instead ( "probably" "KING" in Hittite) may
be criticized by some who don't accept this reading in Hittite of the
ideogram. Please, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ?...

[Steve Whittet]

>> >WHAT THE BLOODY FUCKING HELL would "evidence for semitic cultures" have
>> >to do with whether Old Akkadian is a Semitic language or not???

>> 1.) No contact with people who speak semitic languages would make it hard
>> for someone to learn their language
>> 2.) No Old Akkadian texts exist in southern mesopotamia prior to the arrival
>> of semitic cultures c 2340 BC

>> > Old Akkadian is a period of the Akkadian language -- the Old period, in fact.

>> >> I expect that there is some archaeological evidence of Sumerians
>> >> in the region before there is any evidence of Akkadians in the region

>> >SO WHAT???? Do you have some secret way to discover what language was
>> >spoken by people who (a) are dead and (b) didn't leave written (or
>> >audio) records?

>> By process of elimination. In the Old Akkadian period there is no archaeological
>> evidence of semitic peoples in southern Mesopotamia. Why we should expect people
>> who have been speaking and writing Sumerian to suddenly take up speaking a semitic
>> language prior to a period when there is regular contact with semites?

>Steve goes on turning round and round in circle !... His POSTULATE is :

>" Semitic languages ORIGINATED in Arabia.

Why shouldn't semitic cultures be associated with semitic texts?
That is what the archaeological evidence indicates?
Why would that suprise you?

Here I am refering to things like certain pottery styles, types of loom weights,
and other archaeological indicators of culture being associated with semitic
texts found in those contexts in certain places at certain periods.

>They were SPREAD by peoples having a NOMADIC CIVILIZATION "

The people who lived in central Arabia c 8,000 BC developed semitic languages.
As the climate dried out in the center of Arabia and it changed from savannah
to desert they were driven toward the edges of the Arabian penninsula. Their
languages accompanied them. What is so odd about that?

>He CANNOT even IMAGINE that peoples having ANOTHER civilization than the
>Arabian Nomads COULD have spoken a SEMITIC tongue...

If you mean to propose that the same language was independently invented
by people living thousands of miles apart and having no contact, I suppose
I would want to see some evidence of that before accepting it.

>From his postulate, it is therefore "impossible" that the peoples with
>the Jemdet Nasr Culture, for instance, MAY have spoken some kind of
>"Semitic language".

The Jemdet Nasr is a period not a culture. There is no evidence that
any people living in Southern Mesopotamia, Northern Mesopotamia, Syria,
Palestine, Egypt, Anatolia, or Iran, spoke a semitic language in the
Jemdet Nasr period. (c 3100-2900 BC).

You might make the case that there begins to be some evidence for semitic
languages shortly thereafter with a semitic name for the king of Kish being
found in an inscription dated c 2800 BC, but the cultural associations within
Mesopotamia in the Jemdet Nasr period are in no way semitic.

In the Jemdet Nasr period pottery associates cultures from Northern Babylonia
with the Hafti culture in Oman. There are bevel rimmed bowls found from Eridu
to Eshunna.

In the Uruk IV period there are 600 inscribed tablets at Uruk and
one at Kish.

In Uruk III there are 3300 inscribed tablets at Uruk, 240 at
Jemdet Nasr, 4 at Tell Uguair and 2 at Eshunna.

There are 1400 inscribed tablets written in proto-Elamite at Susa
one at Tepe Sialk, 25 at Anshan, 26 at Tepe Yahya and one at Shari-i Sokhte.

The distribution of impressed tablets is impressive. 5 at Jebel Arouda
on the Euphrates about 25 mi south west of Carchemish,10 at Habuba Kabira,
2 at Mureybet, 1 at Mari, 1 at Khafaieh, 36 at Godin Tepe,
17 at Uruk, 90 at Susa, 5 at Choga Mish.

Hollow clay spheres likewise are found from Mureybet to Tepe Yahya.

Carved stone vessels made of chlorite from Tepe Yahya are found
1 at Mohenjo Daro in Pakistan (Meluhha),1 at Dasht in Balluchistan (Meluhha)

In Iran there are 3 at Bampur 1 at Shari-i Sokht, 114 at Tepe Yahya,
7 at Shadad, 1 at Tall i-Qaleh, 40 at Susa, 4 at Anshan.

Across the Gulf there is 1 at Umm al-Nar (Makkan), 222 at Tarut (Dilmun)
6 at Failaka (Dilmun)

They are found at every city in Southern Mesopotamia and their distribution
continues on up the Euphrates into Syria with 23 at Mari and 1 at Palmyra.

The three major pottery styles are Scarlet ware which is found north of
the Tigris from Susa to Eshunna, Ninevite 5 found from Nuzi to Chagar Bazar
and Transcaucasian ware found to the north and west of everything else
from Tepe Giyan and Godin Tepe in Iran to Arstantepe in Anatolia and
along the coast of Palestine from Ugarit to Megiddo inland as far as
the Jordan and the Orontes.

(taken off distribution maps in CAM by Michaeol Roaf)

His argument : "The Jemdet Nasr Culture
>is NOT similar to the Arabian Nomadic Civilization !...Q.E.D. !

Of the thirteen regions mapped by Nayeem in Volume I of
"The Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Penninsula"
I have personally familiarity with eight.

Based on what I have seen the culture described above is very
different from that of interior Arabia. One reason may be that
in the neolithic, the Tigris and Euphrates still flowed as rivers
as far south as the Indus. The extremely shallow Persian Gulf
didn't finish flooding until the Chalcolithic leaving first,
India (Meluhha), then Oman (Makkan), and then Bahrain (Dilmun)
as the river delta for the Tigris and Euphrates at different periods.

Interior Arabia was a different culture in the neolithic.

Comparing the sites from the lower, middle and upper pleistocene,
evidenced by a few lithics going back to the Acheulian with those
from the mesolithic and neolithic which are evidenced by the kites
and cairns of gazelle hunters and the sites from the chalcolithic
and bronze age where you begin to see standing stones, burials and
extensive rock art its clear that you have people evolving from
small bands of gazelle hunters located on a vast central savannah,
to tribes of nomadic pastorialist shepards clustered in the oasis
of the high country like Wadi ad Wasir, Hawtah, al Kharge and Yabrin
and along the mountains that line the eastern shores of the Red Sea.

>ALL his posts are just variations about this theme : "Semitic Language =
>Arabic Civilization", and therefore : "Semitic = Arabic" !..

Up to the point at the end of the third millenium BC when people
begin wandering out of the desert and establishing semi-permanent
shanty towns around cities its a fair assessment that semitic
people live in Arabia.

If you focus in on the Ubaid period (c 5900-4300 BC) sites that
Masry found you can establish a northern perimeter south of
a line from the head of the Gulf of Aquaba to Uruk.

The easternmost is Zubalah on the northern border of Saudi Arabia.
The westernmost is Quarayya at the head of the Gulf of Elat.

From there as the sites gradually move northward
the dates get progressively later.

Tayma is reached c 2,705 BC+/- (charcoal date from burnt bone) Atal
Dahrahn is reached c 2,395 BC +/- 600 years ( tombs + charcoal) Zarins
Thaj is reaced c 2,000 BC +/- 160 Zarins
Maidain Salah is reached c 1,915 BC =/- 95 (burnt bread) Atal
Al Jubbail is reached c 1,740 BC (charcoal) Atal

>Don't try to explain him that this is his POSTULATE, and that it leads to
>absurdity, like denying the semitic character of Old Akkadian, under the
>pretext that the people speaking this language have'n't had the time or
>the opportunity to "LEARN" Arabic !.. He is unable to understand !...

I wouldn't want to confuse you with facts, but if you can't show some
evidence of semitic people living in an area or connected to it in some
way, how would you expect to defend your claim that the people of that
region were speaking a semitic language?

>grapheus

steve

[Steve Whittet]

...

>> http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html

>> MAD-4

What do conventions for ideograms have to do with observations of
the root and pattern system used in semitic languages. Are you
claiming the entirity of a Sargonic text is composed of ideograms?

>So that you may find transcriptions like : LUGAL-u or
>LIDUM or GAN or etc. in a text WRITTEN and TO BE READ IN HITTITE, for
>instance...

Sure, you often find that. So what?

>Why do the scholars such a thing ?.. Essentially when they
>DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE the exact word in the said language... So, using the
>SUMERIAN word does not PREJUDGE of this EXACT word.

Are you saying that not a single word of the MAD 4 text is known?

>In other words, if I
>have to transcript a Hittite text, writing LUGAL will not get objections
>from anybody. Writing KHATTI instead ( "probably" "KING" in Hittite) may
>be criticized by some who don't accept this reading in Hittite of the
>ideogram. Please, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ?...

MAD 4 is clearly written in Sumerian, can you understand that?
>
>grapheus

steve

[grap...@my-deja.com]

In article <ieDh6.5357$JG.6...@news.shore.net>,

whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
> >> >WHAT THE BLOODY FUCKING HELL would "evidence for semitic cultures" have
> >> >to do with whether Old Akkadian is a Semitic language or not???
>
> >> 1.) No contact with people who speak semitic languages would make it hard
> >> for someone to learn their language
> >> 2.) No Old Akkadian texts exist in southern mesopotamia prior to the arrival
> >> of semitic cultures c 2340 BC
>
> >> > Old Akkadian is a period of the Akkadian language -- the Old period, in fact.
>
> >> >> I expect that there is some archaeological evidence of Sumerians
> >> >> in the region before there is any evidence of Akkadians in the region
>
> >> >SO WHAT???? Do you have some secret way to discover what language was
> >> >spoken by people who (a) are dead and (b) didn't leave written (or
> >> >audio) records?
>
> >> By process of elimination. In the Old Akkadian period there is no archaeological
> >> evidence of semitic peoples in southern Mesopotamia. Why we should expect people
> >> who have been speaking and writing Sumerian to suddenly take up speaking a semitic
> >> language prior to a period when there is regular contact with semites?
>
> >Steve goes on turning round and round in circle !... His POSTULATE is :
> >" Semitic languages ORIGINATED in Arabia.
>
> Why shouldn't semitic cultures be associated with semitic texts?

You are confusing SEMITIC with ARABIC. That is exactly what I said.

> That is what the archaeological evidence indicates?

Archaeological evidence can't indicate NOTHING sure concerning languages.
At the maximum, it can give some hint. No more.

> Why would that suprise you?

I would'n't be "surprised". I just say that IT IS A POSTULATE, not a sure
thing .

>
> Here I am refering to things like certain pottery styles, types of loom weights,
> and other archaeological indicators of culture being associated with semitic
> texts found in those contexts in certain places at certain periods.

That is what I said : you are identifying LANGUAGE and CULTURE and
"SEMITIC CRADLE" with ARABIA

>
> >They were SPREAD by peoples having a NOMADIC CIVILIZATION "
>
> The people who lived in central Arabia c 8,000 BC developed semitic languages.
> As the climate dried out in the center of Arabia and it changed from savannah
> to desert they were driven toward the edges of the Arabian penninsula. Their
> languages accompanied them. What is so odd about that?

That SEMITIC LAGUAGES may have existed 1)-long before 8,000 BC and 2)-
outside the ARABIC PENINSULA. But THAT, you CANNOT understand it !..

>
> >He CANNOT even IMAGINE that peoples having ANOTHER civilization than the
> >Arabian Nomads COULD have spoken a SEMITIC tongue...
>
> If you mean to propose that the same language was independently invented
> by people living thousands of miles apart and having no contact, I suppose
> I would want to see some evidence of that before accepting it.

Why "thousands of miles apart" ?.. Canaan, for instance, or to-day
Jordan, are not that far from Arabia !...

>
> >From his postulate, it is therefore "impossible" that the peoples with
> >the Jemdet Nasr Culture, for instance, MAY have spoken some kind of
> >"Semitic language".
>
> The Jemdet Nasr is a period not a culture.

It is both.

> There is no evidence that
> any people living in Southern Mesopotamia, Northern Mesopotamia, Syria,
> Palestine, Egypt, Anatolia, or Iran, spoke a semitic language in the
> Jemdet Nasr period. (c 3100-2900 BC).

Excepted that in later periods, the peoples living there were ALL
speaking SEMITIC languages. But, of course, with your POSTULATE, they
"MUST" have "LEARNED" these languages from the Nomadic Arabians !...
Impossible, of course, with your POSTULATE, that these SEMITIC LANGUAGES
did EXIST, in an archaďc form, BEFORE !.. Can't you see that this is the
whole problem ?...Accepting or not your POSTULATE ?...

>
> You might make the case that there begins to be some evidence for semitic
> languages shortly thereafter with a semitic name for the king of Kish being
> found in an inscription dated c 2800 BC, but the cultural associations within
> Mesopotamia in the Jemdet Nasr period are in no way semitic.

Translation of what you say : "in no way ARABIC".

So what ?.. Nobody has denied that SCRIPT was invented FIRST by
SUMERIANS!.. Your statistics is no surprise !.. But it has NO MEANING
concerning the LANGUAGES.

>
> His argument : "The Jemdet Nasr Culture
> >is NOT similar to the Arabian Nomadic Civilization !...Q.E.D. !
>
> Of the thirteen regions mapped by Nayeem in Volume I of
> "The Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Penninsula"
> I have personally familiarity with eight.
>
> Based on what I have seen the culture described above is very
> different from that of interior Arabia. One reason may be that
> in the neolithic, the Tigris and Euphrates still flowed as rivers
> as far south as the Indus. The extremely shallow Persian Gulf
> didn't finish flooding until the Chalcolithic leaving first,
> India (Meluhha), then Oman (Makkan), and then Bahrain (Dilmun)
> as the river delta for the Tigris and Euphrates at different periods.
>
> Interior Arabia was a different culture in the neolithic.
>
> Comparing the sites from the lower, middle and upper pleistocene,
> evidenced by a few lithics going back to the Acheulian with those
> from the mesolithic and neolithic which are evidenced by the kites
> and cairns of gazelle hunters and the sites from the chalcolithic
> and bronze age where you begin to see standing stones, burials and
> extensive rock art its clear that you have people evolving from
> small bands of gazelle hunters located on a vast central savannah,
> to tribes of nomadic pastorialist shepards clustered in the oasis
> of the high country like Wadi ad Wasir, Hawtah, al Kharge and Yabrin
> and along the mountains that line the eastern shores of the Red Sea.

Good. Look now at the geographical extend of the Acheulean Culture ...

>
> >ALL his posts are just variations about this theme : "Semitic Language =
> >Arabic Civilization", and therefore : "Semitic = Arabic" !..
>
> Up to the point at the end of the third millenium BC when people
> begin wandering out of the desert and establishing semi-permanent
> shanty towns around cities its a fair assessment that semitic
> people live in Arabia.

Yes. And in OTHER COUNTRIES, and with OTHER type of CULTUREs !..

>
> If you focus in on the Ubaid period (c 5900-4300 BC) sites that
> Masry found you can establish a northern perimeter south of
> a line from the head of the Gulf of Aquaba to Uruk.
>
> The easternmost is Zubalah on the northern border of Saudi Arabia.
> The westernmost is Quarayya at the head of the Gulf of Elat.
>
> From there as the sites gradually move northward
> the dates get progressively later.
>
> Tayma is reached c 2,705 BC+/- (charcoal date from burnt bone) Atal
> Dahrahn is reached c 2,395 BC +/- 600 years ( tombs + charcoal) Zarins
> Thaj is reaced c 2,000 BC +/- 160 Zarins
> Maidain Salah is reached c 1,915 BC =/- 95 (burnt bread) Atal
> Al Jubbail is reached c 1,740 BC (charcoal) Atal

It just prove an extension of the NOMADIC CIVILIZATION. It is ONLY with
your POSTULATE equating "NOMADIC ARABIAN CIVILIZATION" with "SEMITIC
LANGUAGE" that you may INTERPRET that with an "extension of the Semitic
languages". Can't you understand that ?..

>
> >Don't try to explain him that this is his POSTULATE, and that it leads to
> >absurdity, like denying the semitic character of Old Akkadian, under the
> >pretext that the people speaking this language have'n't had the time or
> >the opportunity to "LEARN" Arabic !.. He is unable to understand !...
>
> I wouldn't want to confuse you with facts, but if you can't show some
> evidence of semitic people living in an area or connected to it in some
> way, how would you expect to defend your claim that the people of that
> region were speaking a semitic language?

I already told you : In the absence of WRITTEN documents, from purely
linguistical reasons. These reasons are not decisive, I recognize it. But
your concurrent THEORY is no more decisive : It is based, as I told you
ten times at least, upon a POSTULATE : SEMITIC LANGUAGE = ARABIAN
CULTURE... And moreover, the way you are defending it goes largely
beyond the reasonable, with statements as absurd as 2 + 2 does not equal
4 !...

>
> >grapheus
>
> steve

[Chris Borillo]

Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> In article <3A86C678...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...
> >
> >Steve Whittet wrote:
> >
> >[snipping for brevity]
> >
> >> "Old Akkadian.
> >>
> >> Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts (ca. 2800 BC)."
> >>
> >> Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language
> >> spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC
> >> as some suggest, where and when is it best evidenced as a semitic language?
> >
> >Anyone who is familiar with the root-and-pattern system of the other
> >Semitic languages in their respective morphology and word derivation,
> >coupled with the observation that Akkadian shares the same basic
> >vocabulary that you can see in Arabic, Hebrew, and other Semitic
> >languages, would have readily concluded that Akkadian **is** indeed a
> >Semitic language.
>
> Ok, here is a transcription of a text from the period when Old Akkadian
> is supposed to be at its height. Can you point out where you see the
> usual pattern of Semitic roots? Perhaps by reference to:
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html
>
> MAD-4
>
> "Texts from: I.J. Gelb, "Sargonic texts in the Louvre Museum",
> Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 4, Chicago 1970.
> Typed and adapted by: Bram Jagersma
>

[snip transcribed logograms]

Impressive list, but Grapheus has already answered that question
regarding the WRITING system, and why, for instance, the logogram LUGAL
should be read in Akkadian as $arrum.

You don't seem to believe that Akkadian is a Semitic language. Ok, then
how do you explain this:

NOUNS
==================================================================================
Akkadian Arabic
==================================================================================
nom.sg. kalbum kalbun/al-kalbu
gen.sg. kalbim kalbin/al-kalbi
acc.sg. kalbam kalban/al-kalba

nom.pl. kalbu: (al-) kalbu:na
obl.pl. kalbi: (al-) kalbi:na

VERBS
==================================================================================
Akkadian Arabic
==================================================================================
1st.sg a$kun askunu
2nd.masc.sg. ta$kun taskunu
2nd.fem.sg ta$kuni: taskuni:na
3rd.masc.sg i$kun yaskunu
3rd.fem.sg i$kun taskunu

1st.pl na$kun naskunu
2nd.masc.pl ta$kuna: taskunu:na
2nd.fem.pl ta$kuna: taskunna
3rd.masc.pl i$kunu: yaskunu:na
3rd.fem.pl i$kunu: yaskunna

Wow. Those Akkadian nouns and verbs sure do look like **SUMERIAN**
nouns and verbs....no relation whatsoever to the Arabic ones.

Silly me....someone told me that Sumerian was aggluginative and didn't
use that root-and-pattern system you inconveniently find in Arabic. I
**must** be wrong, since Akkadian and Sumerian ARE related in **your**
eyes. I mean, the morphological structure above just **proves** this.
<Rolleyes>

[Steve Whittet]

>> >> >..."evidence for semitic cultures" have
>> >> >...whether Old Akkadian is a Semitic language or not???

>> >> 1.) No contact with people who speak semitic languages would make it hard
>> >> for someone to learn their language
>> >> 2.) No Old Akkadian texts exist in southern mesopotamia prior to the arrival
>> >> of semitic cultures c 2340 BC

>> >> >...way to discover what language was spoken
>> >> >...by people who didn't leave written records?

>>
>> >> By process of elimination. In the Old Akkadian period there is no archaeological
>> >> evidence of semitic peoples in southern Mesopotamia. Why we should expect people
>> >> who have been speaking and writing Sumerian to suddenly take up speaking a semitic
>> >> language prior to a period when there is regular contact with semites?

>> >" Semitic languages ORIGINATED in Arabia.

>>
>> Why shouldn't semitic cultures be associated with semitic texts?
>
>You are confusing SEMITIC with ARABIC. That is exactly what I said.
>

>>That is what the archaeological evidence indicates.

>
>Archaeological evidence can't indicate NOTHING sure concerning languages.
>At the maximum, it can give some hint. No more.

Archaeology can tell you more than you think. What people ate, what crops they
grew, how they wove cloth, what fibers were in the cloth they wove, what animals
they domesticated, what tools they used, what their pottery looked like, how it
was decorated, where they went, who they were in contact with, how long they
stayed in one place, their religious icons, or tribal markings in a petroglyph
all these can be indications of what language they spoke.

>
>> Why would that suprise you?
>
>I would'n't be "surprised". I just say that IT IS A POSTULATE, not a sure thing .
>

The more you learn about archaeology the better you will understand it.

>> Here I am refering to things like certain pottery styles, types of loom weights,
>> and other archaeological indicators of culture being associated with semitic
>> texts found in those contexts in certain places at certain periods.
>
>That is what I said : you are identifying LANGUAGE and CULTURE and
>"SEMITIC CRADLE" with ARABIA

All I am telling you is that you can look at a cluster of sites
and the artifacts that are present in those sites and tell whether
or not the people who inhabited them are from the same culture
and period or whether they aren't. The people who live in central
Arabia are semitic. They don't begin to expand out of central
Arabia until the Ubaid and they don't come in contact with
Southern Mesopotamia as a culture until after the Jemdet Nasr.

>> >They were SPREAD by peoples having a NOMADIC CIVILIZATION "

Yes. There is a word in Arabic for the range a nomadic tribe
can consider its territory. Very few tribes control a territory
larger than 2500 square miles.

>>
>> The people who lived in central Arabia c 8,000 BC developed semitic languages.
>> As the climate dried out in the center of Arabia and it changed from savannah
>> to desert they were driven toward the edges of the Arabian penninsula. Their
>> languages accompanied them. What is so odd about that?
>
>That SEMITIC LAGUAGES may have existed 1)-long before 8,000 BC and 2)-
>outside the ARABIC PENINSULA. But THAT, you CANNOT understand it !..

1.) There are no groups larger than families in Arabia c 8,000 BC
2.) Those family groups rarely encounter one another
3.) They don't begin to share a common culture or language family
until the neolithic
4.) They developed in central Arabia in the neolithic and had no contact
with anyplace outside central Arabia until the chalcolithic

>>
>> >He CANNOT even IMAGINE that peoples having ANOTHER civilization than the
>> >Arabian Nomads COULD have spoken a SEMITIC tongue...
>>
>> If you mean to propose that the same language was independently invented
>> by people living thousands of miles apart and having no contact, I suppose
>> I would want to see some evidence of that before accepting it.
>
>Why "thousands of miles apart" ?.. Canaan, for instance, or to-day
>Jordan, are not that far from Arabia !...

Canaan and Jordan are a part of Arabia, but not central Arabia.
During the period in question their pottery indictes they are
a part of the Transcaucasian culture. They are also a long way
from Southern Mesopotamia

Hawtah, SA is in the center of the Crystal plateau where semites first
began to hunt gazelle together and form a language group. It's 1000 miles
from Amman, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Oman and Southern Mesopotamia.

>
>> >From his postulate, it is therefore "impossible" that the peoples with
>> >the Jemdet Nasr Culture, for instance, MAY have spoken some kind of
>> >"Semitic language".
>>
>> The Jemdet Nasr is a period not a culture.
>
>It is both.

No. In that period there are many cultures. Some are in direct contact
like Summer, Elam, and Dilmun, and are also part of a trading network
with Makkan and Melluha. Other cultures in Syria and Anatolia are part
of a trading network that runs from Kanesh to the Euphrates and on down
the Euphrates to the Gulf.

>
>> There is no evidence that
>> any people living in Southern Mesopotamia, Northern Mesopotamia, Syria,
>> Palestine, Egypt, Anatolia, or Iran, spoke a semitic language in the
>> Jemdet Nasr period. (c 3100-2900 BC).
>
>Excepted that in later periods, the peoples living there were ALL
>speaking SEMITIC languages.

Yes, as I have patiently explained to you several times, as the
climate changed and central Arabia dried out, the people who had
hunted gazelle in a savannah now found themselves living in a desert.

> But, of course, with your POSTULATE, they
>"MUST" have "LEARNED" these languages from the Nomadic Arabians !...

I don't think nomads are good candidates for organizing a language group.
Its a better bet that the first people to speak semitic languages hunted
gazelle co-operatively using low stone walls called kites.

>Impossible, of course, with your POSTULATE, that these SEMITIC LANGUAGES
>did EXIST, in an archaďc form, BEFORE !.. Can't you see that this is the
>whole problem ?...Accepting or not your POSTULATE ?...

All I ask is that you accept that the archaeology tells you who did what
where and with whom. Its not really that difficult a concept.

>
>> You might make the case that there begins to be some evidence for semitic
>> languages shortly thereafter with a semitic name for the king of Kish being
>> found in an inscription dated c 2800 BC, but the cultural associations within
>> Mesopotamia in the Jemdet Nasr period are in no way semitic.
>
>Translation of what you say : "in no way ARABIC".

They are in a way Arabic, you can easily consider everything up to
the Euphrates a part of Arabia, what you can't do is make the case
that the cultures of southern Mesopotamia are semitic in the Jemdet Nasr

For the slower students in the class what all those statistics are
is a part of the evidence archaeologists use to connect cultures.

For example there is a very high number of chlorite vessels
(114) in Tepe Yahya where the blocks of steaite are quarried and
(222) in Tarut where the rough forms are worked into finished carved
steaite vessels. That tells you both that people were sailing across
the Gulf in the Jemdet Nasr and that Tarut and Tepe Yahya are connected.

>> His argument : "The Jemdet Nasr Culture
>> >is NOT similar to the Arabian Nomadic Civilization !...Q.E.D. !
>>
>> Of the thirteen regions mapped by Nayeem in Volume I of
>> "The Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Penninsula"
>> I have personally familiarity with eight.
>>
>> Based on what I have seen the culture described above is very
>> different from that of interior Arabia. One reason may be that
>> in the neolithic, the Tigris and Euphrates still flowed as rivers
>> as far south as the Indus. The extremely shallow Persian Gulf
>> didn't finish flooding until the Chalcolithic leaving first,
>> India (Meluhha), then Oman (Makkan), and then Bahrain (Dilmun)
>> as the river delta for the Tigris and Euphrates at different periods.
>>
>> Interior Arabia was a different culture in the neolithic.
>>
>> Comparing the sites from the lower, middle and upper pleistocene,
>> evidenced by a few lithics going back to the Acheulian with those
>> from the mesolithic and neolithic which are evidenced by the kites
>> and cairns of gazelle hunters and the sites from the chalcolithic
>> and bronze age where you begin to see standing stones, burials and
>> extensive rock art its clear that you have people evolving from
>> small bands of gazelle hunters located on a vast central savannah,
>> to tribes of nomadic pastorialist shepards clustered in the oasis
>> of the high country like Wadi ad Wasir, Hawtah, al Kharge and Yabrin
>> and along the mountains that line the eastern shores of the Red Sea.
>
>Good. Look now at the geographical extend of the Acheulean Culture ...

Lets begin with what the Acheulian culture represents. Its about
the highest level of civilization at which every artifact in a
site can be explained by independent invention.

The Acheulian culture extends from Africa into Arabia, India and Europe
between c 75,000 and c 200,000 years BP. There are probably 200 Acheulean
sites in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Palestine and Syria, mostly places where
one or two pebble choppers or handaxes have been found.

Jeddah, Ayn Quanay, Abu Bahr north of the Rub al Khali, Al Kuhayfiyah
on the northern border of Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem and other sites
indicate people were present in the Acheulian who used stone tools.

Its possible there were hunters who crossed the Red Sea from
Ethiopia to Yemen at the Bab al Mandab. They may have followed
along the Gulf of Aden to the straits of Hormuz and crossed the
Gulf where it passes from Oman into Baluchistan.

There is some evidence of people being present in the Rub al Khali
by c 36,300 BC (McClure 1976) and at Mundafin near Wadi Ad Wasir
by c 28,750 BC. The evidence of a human presence in Arabia remains
limited to that area until c 8,000 BC - 7000 BC when the evidence
of a human presence begins to work its way up both coasts of the
Red Sea and the Gulf.

In Africa there are people occupying Paleolithic sites in Egypt
by c 15,000 BC, and the Kebaran period in Palestine dates to
c 18,000 BC. Acheulian people are hunter gatherers.

The extent of the Acheulian culture and the infrequency of
Acheulian sites tells you quite a lot about how small populations
of people were and how isolated from one another those people were.

About all they had in common was the ability to walk erect, use fire,
make stone tools, hunt and gather. There is no way they belonged to
language groups larger than an extended family because there were
no groups larger than an extended family.

>
>> >ALL his posts are just variations about this theme : "Semitic Language =
>> >Arabic Civilization", and therefore : "Semitic = Arabic" !..
>>
>> Up to the point at the end of the third millenium BC when people
>> begin wandering out of the desert and establishing semi-permanent
>> shanty towns around cities its a fair assessment that semitic
>> people live in Arabia.
>
>Yes. And in OTHER COUNTRIES, and with OTHER type of CULTUREs !..

Sorry, the archaeology doesn't support the conclusion that the
people of the epi-paleolithic were semites. There is no connection
whatsoever to the Acheulian distributions.

>
>> If you focus in on the Ubaid period (c 5900-4300 BC) sites that
>> Masry found you can establish a northern perimeter south of
>> a line from the head of the Gulf of Aquaba to Uruk.
>>
>> The easternmost is Zubalah on the northern border of Saudi Arabia.
>> The westernmost is Quarayya at the head of the Gulf of Elat.
>>
>> From there as the sites gradually move northward
>> the dates get progressively later.
>>
>> Tayma is reached c 2,705 BC+/- (charcoal date from burnt bone) Atal
>> Dahrahn is reached c 2,395 BC +/- 600 years ( tombs + charcoal) Zarins
>> Thaj is reaced c 2,000 BC +/- 160 Zarins
>> Maidain Salah is reached c 1,915 BC =/- 95 (burnt bread) Atal
>> Al Jubbail is reached c 1,740 BC (charcoal) Atal
>
>It just prove an extension of the NOMADIC CIVILIZATION. It is ONLY with
>your POSTULATE equating "NOMADIC ARABIAN CIVILIZATION" with "SEMITIC
>LANGUAGE" that you may INTERPRET that with an "extension of the Semitic
>languages". Can't you understand that ?..

Try and pay attention. Semitic sites are sites that share the same
assemblage of artifacts, pottery, loom weights, garbage and trash.

There are very different assembleges of artifacts associated with
the eastern region, with Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and the
Transcaucasian culture.

>> >Don't try to explain him that this is his POSTULATE, and that it leads to
>> >absurdity, like denying the semitic character of Old Akkadian, under the
>> >pretext that the people speaking this language have'n't had the time or
>> >the opportunity to "LEARN" Arabic !.. He is unable to understand !...
>>
>> I wouldn't want to confuse you with facts, but if you can't show some
>> evidence of semitic people living in an area or connected to it in some
>> way, how would you expect to defend your claim that the people of that
>> region were speaking a semitic language?
>
>I already told you : In the absence of WRITTEN documents, from purely
>linguistical reasons. These reasons are not decisive, I recognize it. But
>your concurrent THEORY is no more decisive : It is based, as I told you
>ten times at least, upon a POSTULATE : SEMITIC LANGUAGE = ARABIAN
>CULTURE... And moreover, the way you are defending it goes largely
>beyond the reasonable, with statements as absurd as 2 + 2 does not equal
>4 !...

Don't close your mind to the evidence of cultures provided by archaeology.

>>
>> >grapheus
>>
>> steve
>
>grapheus

steve

[Steve Whittet]

>> >> Akkadian is first attested in proper names in Sumerian texts (ca. 2800 BC)."
>> >>
>> >> Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language
>> >> spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC

>> >> as some suggest, *where and when* is it best evidenced as a semitic language?

>> >Anyone who is familiar with the root-and-pattern system of the other
>> >Semitic languages in their respective morphology and word derivation,
>> >coupled with the observation that Akkadian shares the same basic
>> >vocabulary that you can see in Arabic, Hebrew, and other Semitic
>> >languages, would have readily concluded that Akkadian **is** indeed a
>> >Semitic language.

>> Ok, here is a transcription of a text from the period when Old Akkadian
>> is supposed to be at its height. Can you point out where you see the
>> usual pattern of Semitic roots? Perhaps by reference to:
>>
>> http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html
>>
>> MAD-4
>>
>> "Texts from: I.J. Gelb, "Sargonic texts in the Louvre Museum",
>> Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 4, Chicago 1970.
>> Typed and adapted by: Bram Jagersma

>[snip transcribed logograms]
>
>Impressive list, but Grapheus has already answered that question
>regarding the WRITING system, and why, for instance, the logogram LUGAL
>should be read in Akkadian as $arrum.

That entire text (MAD-4) is written in Sumerian. You can if you wish
look it up and verify that. If you would prefer, provide an Akkadian
text of your choice. What I want to know is when does it date to,
where was it found, and how can it be used to evidence Akkadian was
spoken as opposed to being written in the place where it was found.

>You don't seem to believe that Akkadian is a Semitic language. Ok, then
>how do you explain this:

It isn't a question of Akkadian being a semitic language, its a question
of *when is there evidence of this language being spoken in Akkad*.
Was there a period when the people of Summer and Akkad spoke the
same language? It would appear that there was.

The evidence appears to support the people of Summer and Akkad speaking
the same language, Sumerian, from the start of the Jemdet Nasr to the
time of Sargon and then again 150 years later in the Sumerian Renaissance.

That is an extremly short period for a spoken replacement language to
hang around. What's more, it would appear that of the two dozen some odd
cities Sargon brought together, most of those in the south continued to
speak Sumerian while some of those in the North began to speak Hurrian
immediately after the end of Sargons reign.

Furthermore Peter tells me there is no difference betwen Old Akkadian and
Akkadian, that Old Akkadian is simply Akkadian thats old. What about the
dialects that follow Akkadian Babylonian and Assyrian are both in play
in different geographic areas at the end of the Sumerian Renaissance

Those look like semitic nouns and verbs that are related to Arabic.

Care to show what the evidence of them being used in a spoken language
in Akkad prior to c 2500 BC is?

Can you produce a text that uses them from a period prior to
the time of Sargon? Can you say for certain whether they are
Akkadian or one of its later dialects such as Babylonian or Assyrian?

What can you provide as to details about what text they are taken from
where it was found and when it was dated to?

>Silly me....someone told me that Sumerian was aggluginative and didn't
>use that root-and-pattern system you inconveniently find in Arabic.

Yes Summerian is agglutinative. But apparently some Old Akkadian names
written in Sumerian texts use Sumerian rules rather than semitic
patterns and roots.

>I **must** be wrong, since Akkadian and Sumerian ARE related in **your**
>eyes. I mean, the morphological structure above just **proves** this.
><Rolleyes>

Suppose we have a single semitic proper name evidenced by the addition
of affixes to perfectly good Sumerian agglutinative words.

How can a single proper name in a text written five centuries before anything
else written in Akkadian, a name that is written in Sumerian script in a
Sumerian text using Sumerian rules evidence an Akkadian language exists
in a place hundreds of miles away from where the text is found?
>
>-- Chris

steve

[Peter T. Daniels]

That was not "a text," that was approx. 150 texts.

Since you can't read cuneiform and don't know how to read an
Assyriological transliteration, why are you even looking at these, let
alone inflicting hundreds of lines on the newsgroup?

[Peter T. Daniels]

grap...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Steve, when will you understand 1)- the difference between SCRIPT and
> LANGUAGE 2)- the CONVENTIONS used by Assyriologists to transcript a
> text ?... Are you really unable to understand that WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE
> (Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, etc.) the scholars - BY CONVENTION - do
> transcript ideograms like LUGAL, KUR, NINDA, NISHUM, NITAH, etc.. by the
> SUMERIAN WORD ?... So that you may find transcriptions like : LUGAL-u or
> LIDUM or GAN or etc. in a text WRITTEN and TO BE READ IN HITTITE, for
> instance... Why do the scholars such a thing ?.. Essentially when they
> DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE the exact word in the said language... So, using the
> SUMERIAN word does not PREJUDGE of this EXACT word. In other words, if I
> have to transcript a Hittite text, writing LUGAL will not get objections
> from anybody. Writing KHATTI instead ( "probably" "KING" in Hittite) may
> be criticized by some who don't accept this reading in Hittite of the
> ideogram. Please, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ?...

Luvianists and Myceneanists get around that little awkwardness by
identifying the logograms via Latin glosses, rather than glosses in some
version of the languages they actually record.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Steve Whittet wrote:

> What do conventions for ideograms have to do with observations of
> the root and pattern system used in semitic languages. Are you
> claiming the entirity of a Sargonic text is composed of ideograms?

No. Most of it is WRITTEN WITH logograms, to which signs used for their
phonetic values are added, which indicate the grammatical morphemes
(rather like the kana in a Japanese text).

Really clever people (they're called Assyriologists) can make sense of
these texts, almost as well as the scribes who wrote them nearly 5000
years ago could.

> >So that you may find transcriptions like : LUGAL-u or
> >LIDUM or GAN or etc. in a text WRITTEN and TO BE READ IN HITTITE, for
> >instance...
>
> Sure, you often find that. So what?

So when you find that in an Akkadian text, it's read "sharru," not
LUGAL.

> >Why do the scholars such a thing ?.. Essentially when they
> >DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE the exact word in the said language... So, using the
> >SUMERIAN word does not PREJUDGE of this EXACT word.
>
> Are you saying that not a single word of the MAD 4 text is known?

How can you possibly get that from what Grapheus wrote??

> >In other words, if I
> >have to transcript a Hittite text, writing LUGAL will not get objections
> >from anybody. Writing KHATTI instead ( "probably" "KING" in Hittite) may
> >be criticized by some who don't accept this reading in Hittite of the
> >ideogram. Please, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ?...
>
> MAD 4 is clearly written in Sumerian, can you understand that?

MAD 4, being a book by I. J. Gelb, is clearly written in English. The
texts published in it are written in the Semitic language Old Akkadian,
using lots of logograms.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:48:24 -0800, Chris Borillo
<cbor...@erols.com> wrote:

>Steve Whittet wrote:

[...]

>> Ok, here is a transcription of a text from the period when Old Akkadian
>> is supposed to be at its height. Can you point out where you see the
>> usual pattern of Semitic roots? Perhaps by reference to:

>> http://www.bartleby.com/61/Sroots.html

>> MAD-4

>> "Texts from: I.J. Gelb, "Sargonic texts in the Louvre Museum",
>> Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 4, Chicago 1970.
>> Typed and adapted by: Bram Jagersma

>[snip transcribed logograms]

I wondered what the hell was 2200 lines long! Steve is known for
emitting vast clouds of squink, but that's about three times as long
as I've seen from him before.

[...]

Brian M. Scott

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Peter T. Daniels (gram...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:

: >
: > Is Old Akkadian a period or a language? If Old Akkadian was a semitic language

: > spoken in a part of Southern Mesopotamia throughout the third millenium BC
: > as some suggest, where and when is it best evidenced as a semitic language?

: You really don't understand English, do you. Old Akkadian is a period of
: the Akkadian language -- the Old period, in fact.

well, there are some popular misnomers like "ancient egyptian" which
doesn't refer to an early period of the language but is merely to
distinguish it from egyptian arabic. also some bulgarian authors use
"proto-bulgarian" to mean the language of the turkic bulghars.

[Steve Whittet]

>MAD 4, being a book by I. J. Gelb, is clearly written in English.

I thought the portion of Gelb's book which I cited was written in transcription
which means letters and symbols are used to replace the cuneiform signs but the
language is not changed.

>The texts published in it are written in the Semitic language Old Akkadian,
>using lots of logograms.

Some texts from his book are written in Akkadian this collection is apparently
written is Sumerian since the notes say the Akkadian portions have been removed.

I admit I could be wrong but I went and got a list of semitic roots and checked
as best I humbly could and didn't find any. Now its possible that its a semitic
text and that it just appears to be Sumerian because a Sumerian logogram was used
in every case, but in that case the semitic affixes should still be there and would
themselves be evidence of a semitic language being used even if the roots and patterns
were not evident, ...or is that incorrect?

I didn't see any semitic affixes but perhaps you could take a few lines
and point out where you observe them to be.

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[grap...@my-deja.com]

In article <sdHh6.5371$JG.6...@news.shore.net>,
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:

> >You are confusing SEMITIC with ARABIC..

> >Archaeological evidence can't indicate NOTHING sure concerning languages.
> >At the maximum, it can give some hint. No more.

> >That is what I said : you are identifying LANGUAGE and CULTURE and
> >"SEMITIC CRADLE" with ARABIA
>
> All I am telling you is that you can look at a cluster of sites
> and the artifacts that are present in those sites and tell whether
> or not the people who inhabited them are from the same culture
> and period or whether they aren't.

If you were telling just that, it would be OK. But you are telling a lot
more : you are identifying SEMITIC LANGUAGE with ARABIAN CULTURE !

> The people who live in central
> Arabia are semitic.

Yes. But your POSTULATE is that they were, in the remote past, THE ONLY
ONES to speak a SEMITIC LANGUAGE !

> They don't begin to expand out of central
> Arabia until the Ubaid and they don't come in contact with
> Southern Mesopotamia as a culture until after the Jemdet Nasr.

What does'n't mean that SEMITIC LANGUAGES did not exist in Mesopotamia
BEFORE this expansion... Nobody is obliged to adopt your POSTULATE, that
Semitic languages were SPREAD by peoples coming FROM ARABIA .

>
> Canaan and Jordan are a part of Arabia, but not central Arabia.
> During the period in question their pottery indictes they are
> a part of the Transcaucasian culture. They are also a long way
> from Southern Mesopotamia
>

So, what ?.. Why the peoples in these countries could not have spoken,
since a remote past, Semitic languages ?..

> Hawtah, SA is in the center of the Crystal plateau where semites first
> began to hunt gazelle together and form a language group.

This is just a theory of yours, with a new gratuitous equation : Peoples
speaking a Semitic Language = gazelle hunters..

> It's 1000 miles
> from Amman, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Oman and Southern Mesopotamia.

>> > There is no evidence that

> >> any people living in Southern Mesopotamia, Northern Mesopotamia, Syria,
> >> Palestine, Egypt, Anatolia, or Iran, spoke a semitic language in the
> >> Jemdet Nasr period. (c 3100-2900 BC).
> >
> >Excepted that in later periods, the peoples living there were ALL
> >speaking SEMITIC languages.
>
> Yes, as I have patiently explained to you several times, as the
> climate changed and central Arabia dried out, the people who had
> hunted gazelle in a savannah now found themselves living in a desert.
>

You are going back, again and again, to your theory of an expansion of
the Semites from Central Arabia !..

> > Can't you see that this is the
> > whole problem ?...Accepting or not your POSTULATE ?...
>
> All I ask is that you accept that the archaeology tells you who did what
> where and with whom. Its not really that difficult a concept.

Archaeology tells us about CULTURE. In the absence of written documents,
it cannot tell us about LANGUAGE. Is it so difficult for you to
understand that ?.. Here is an illustration you should (?) understand :
There is to-day a great similarity of culture between Germany and Belgium
: same cars, same television sets, same fast-food restaurants, etc.. But
the peoples living there do not speak the same language, as you may find
from the WRITTEN documents ( news papers, etc.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

And the relevance of that to the case of Akkadian????

[Peter T. Daniels]

Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> >MAD 4, being a book by I. J. Gelb, is clearly written in English.
>
> I thought the portion of Gelb's book which I cited was written in transcription
> which means letters and symbols are used to replace the cuneiform signs but the
> language is not changed.
>
> >The texts published in it are written in the Semitic language Old Akkadian,
> >using lots of logograms.
>
> Some texts from his book are written in Akkadian this collection is apparently
> written is Sumerian since the notes say the Akkadian portions have been removed.

That's absurd.

> I admit I could be wrong but I went and got a list of semitic roots and checked
> as best I humbly could and didn't find any. Now its possible that its a semitic
> text and that it just appears to be Sumerian because a Sumerian logogram was used
> in every case, but in that case the semitic affixes should still be there and would
> themselves be evidence of a semitic language being used even if the roots and patterns
> were not evident, ...or is that incorrect?

That is exactly the case.

> I didn't see any semitic affixes but perhaps you could take a few lines
> and point out where you observe them to be.

No, I couldn't. I'm not an Assyriologist.

Did you consult Gelb's grammar and dictionary of Old Akkadian?

Are you familiar with the story about the drunkard looking for his keys
not over there where he dropped them, but over here where the street
light is?

GO WHERE THE KEYS ARE.

[Steve Whittet]

In article <968h7o$ph9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, grap...@my-deja.com says...

>
>In article <sdHh6.5371$JG.6...@news.shore.net>,
> whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>
>> >You are confusing SEMITIC with ARABIC..
>> >Archaeological evidence can't indicate NOTHING sure concerning languages.
>> >At the maximum, it can give some hint. No more.
>> >That is what I said : you are identifying LANGUAGE and CULTURE and
>> >"SEMITIC CRADLE" with ARABIA
>>
>> All I am telling you is that you can look at a cluster of sites
>> and the artifacts that are present in those sites and tell whether
>> or not the people who inhabited them are from the same culture
>> and period or whether they aren't.
>
> If you were telling just that, it would be OK. But you are telling a lot
>more : you are identifying SEMITIC LANGUAGE with ARABIAN CULTURE !
>
>> The people who live in central
>> Arabia are semitic.
>
>Yes. But your POSTULATE is that they were, in the remote past, THE ONLY
>ONES to speak a SEMITIC LANGUAGE !

It is doubtful that the semitic languages were independently invented
by people living thousands of miles apart from each other, with no contact,
and different cultures. The semites of central Arabia enjoyed a relatively
homogeneous nomadic culture for millenia before central Arabia dried out
and forced them into Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, and Syria. Their is no
evidence of their artifacts or language in southern Mesopotamia
until c 2340 BC.

>
>> They don't begin to expand out of central
>> Arabia until the Ubaid and they don't come in contact with
>> Southern Mesopotamia as a culture until after the Jemdet Nasr.
>
>What does'n't mean that SEMITIC LANGUAGES did not exist in Mesopotamia
>BEFORE this expansion...

That's exactly what it means.

Nobody is obliged to adopt your POSTULATE, that
>Semitic languages were SPREAD by peoples coming FROM ARABIA .
>>
>> Canaan and Jordan are a part of Arabia, but not central Arabia.
>> During the period in question their pottery indictes they are
>> a part of the Transcaucasian culture. They are also a long way
>> from Southern Mesopotamia
>>
>So, what ?.. Why the peoples in these countries could not have spoken,
>since a remote past, Semitic languages ?..

Because the archaeology indicates that the cultures that spoke
semitic languages lived elsewhere in the remote past.

>
>> Hawtah, SA is in the center of the Crystal plateau where semites first
>> began to hunt gazelle together and form a language group.
>
>This is just a theory of yours, with a new gratuitous equation : Peoples
>speaking a Semitic Language = gazelle hunters..

I'm sorry, but the earliest semitic assemblages I have seen are associated
with kites or cairns used for hunting gazelle at a time when the central
Arabian deserts were still savannah.

>
>> It's 1000 miles
>> from Amman, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Oman and Southern Mesopotamia.
>
>>> > There is no evidence that
>> >> any people living in Southern Mesopotamia, Northern Mesopotamia, Syria,
>> >> Palestine, Egypt, Anatolia, or Iran, spoke a semitic language in the
>> >> Jemdet Nasr period. (c 3100-2900 BC).
>> >
>> >Excepted that in later periods, the peoples living there were ALL
>> >speaking SEMITIC languages.
>>
>> Yes, as I have patiently explained to you several times, as the
>> climate changed and central Arabia dried out, the people who had
>> hunted gazelle in a savannah now found themselves living in a desert.
>>
>You are going back, again and again, to your theory of an expansion of
>the Semites from Central Arabia !..

Its not exactly my theory. Its what the body of evidence going back
half a century demonstrates. I have given you abundant cites for
places where you can read about this. Why don't you do that and
then get back to me?

>
>> > Can't you see that this is the
>> > whole problem ?...Accepting or not your POSTULATE ?...
>>
>> All I ask is that you accept that the archaeology tells you who did what
>> where and with whom. Its not really that difficult a concept.
>
>Archaeology tells us about CULTURE. In the absence of written documents,
>it cannot tell us about LANGUAGE. Is it so difficult for you to
>understand that ?..

People who share a homogeneous culture and language leave evidence behind
them in the form of artifacts that shows the extent of the range of their
language. How can you argue with that?

>Here is an illustration you should (?) understand :
>There is to-day a great similarity of culture between Germany and Belgium
>: same cars, same television sets, same fast-food restaurants, etc.. But
>the peoples living there do not speak the same language, as you may find
>from the WRITTEN documents ( news papers, etc.)

Germany and Belgium are cultures that are in contact with one another.

If you can show me some evidence of semities in contact with southern
Mesopotamia prior to the time of Sargon, why don't you do so?
>
>> >grapheus
>>
>> steve
>>
>grapheus

steve

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A87D1...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>> >MAD 4, being a book by I. J. Gelb, is clearly written in English.
>>
>> I thought the portion of Gelb's book which I cited was written in transcription
>> which means letters and symbols are used to replace the cuneiform signs but the
>> language is not changed.
>>
>> >The texts published in it are written in the Semitic language Old Akkadian,
>> >using lots of logograms.
>>
>> Some texts from his book are written in Akkadian this collection is apparently
>> written is Sumerian since the notes say the Akkadian portions have been removed.
>
>That's absurd.

"Version: February 29th, 1996

Texts from: I.J. Gelb, "Sargonic texts in the Louvre Museum",
Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 4, Chicago 1970.
Typed and adapted by: Bram Jagersma

*Note: Texts 1-13 and 16 have been omitted as they are in Akkadian.
Texts 129-130 were omitted as they do not contain coherent text.*"

The Akkadian texts were omitted from the transcription.
What remains is Sumerian.

>
>> I admit I could be wrong but I went and got a list of semitic roots and checked
>> as best I humbly could and didn't find any. Now its possible that its a semitic
>> text and that it just appears to be Sumerian because a Sumerian logogram was used
>> in every case, but in that case the semitic affixes should still be there and would
>> themselves be evidence of a semitic language being used even if the roots and patterns
>> were not evident, ...or is that incorrect?
>
>That is exactly the case.

Obviously there is some contradiction between what you are telling me
and Mr. Jagersma's note. That's why I thought perhaps you might help
by pointing out all the evidence of the text being Akkadian that
everyone seems to feel must be there somewhere.

>
>> I didn't see any semitic affixes but perhaps you could take a few lines
>> and point out where you observe them to be.
>
>No, I couldn't. I'm not an Assyriologist.
>
>Did you consult Gelb's grammar and dictionary of Old Akkadian?

I must admit to a little confusion with the difference between
"Old" Akkadian and Akkadian. You say its just Old.

When I read Loprieno's "Ancient Egyptian" it is very clear that there
are huge differences between Ancient Egyptian and the Middle Egyptian
of Faulkner and Gardiner.

If I read Silvia Luraghi's Old Hittite Sentence Structure"
again there is a difference.

Old English,isn't much like what we are using here,...

Old or Ancient seems to indicate a period when the language
has a different form such as for example Akkadian writen
using Sumerian rules of grammar.

>
>Are you familiar with the story about the drunkard looking for his keys
>not over there where he dropped them, but over here where the street
>light is?
>
>GO WHERE THE KEYS ARE.

What good is a light if it doesn't illuminate anything.
Come along with me and bring the light over where the keys are.

http://www.clarkson.edu/~melville/ls195/ggloss.html

There are apparently structural ways of determining an Akkadian text
perhaps you could say if you agree or not.

"Much of the following is based upon Ben Foster's fabulous analysis
of Akkadian literary forms in his introduction to Before the Muses
(Bethesda, MD, CDL Press, 1993).

PARALLELISM. "This refers to repeated formulation of the same message
such that subsequent encodings of it restate, expand, complete, contrast,
render more specific, complement, or carry further the first message"
(Foster, p.14).

In other words things often get said more than once in slightly different
ways, from the less specific to the more specific.

For example, in Tablet 1 lines 233ff: "The Land of Uruk was standing
around it/ the whole land was assembled about it/ the populace was
thronging around it/ the Men clustered about it".

The device is often used to create suspence or for emphasis.

REPETITION. This is one of the most popular devices employed in
Akkadian literature. You will find that whole sections are repeated.

This is not lack of imagination on the part of the author, but is
done consciously. You will notice in Gilgamesh that things are repeated
from tablet to tablet and serve not only to help the reader remember
what has happened but to focus our attention on what is important.

Note, for example, that much of the dream told at the end of tablet 1 is
repeated as it comes true in tablet 2, just as it was foretold.

FORMULAE AND WORD PAIRS. Phrases such as "day and night" or "heaven and earth"
are frequently found in Akkadian literature as, indeed, they are found in
our own. Also common are number progressions such as, "Take a second,
Gilgamesh, a third and a fourth pole..." (tablet 10)

SIMILE AND METAPHOR. This type of figurative language is the core
of Akkadian literature. Take care to notice the similes and metaphors.
They are exceptional in their power of expression and their power derives
from the fact that they are so mundane.

For example, "the gods...collected like flies over a sacrifice" (tablet 11)
is a powerful image because it is so unexpected.

INTERTEXTUALITY. You should be aware of the fact that the author of
the Standard Babylonian version of Gilgamesh borrowed from various
other works of literature. This was done not as plagiarism but as
one would consciously make a clever literary reference.
It shows how erudite the author was.

TIME. You may notice in reading Gilgamesh that the exact passage of time
is given little, if any, attention. More on this in class.

PLACE. Again, you may notice that in Gilgamesh there is very little
description of locale. In fact, location is seldom described at all
and is only identified when it supplies a specific meaning.

For example, the "steppe" and "the mountains" in Akkadian literature
represent barbarism and chaos. Hence Enkidu is born in the wilderness
and only becomes civilized when he comes to a city.

Likewise, the forest is a place of chaos and frightening disorder.
The city, palace, temple and home represent order and civilization.

SPEECH, ACTION, CLAMOR AND SILENCE. As B. Foster so aptly puts it,
"Direct speech is used to bring about or to explain action, to predict it,
or to advance it" (Foster, p. 30). Noise is generally a negative thing.

On the other hand silence can be eerie and frightening. Note that Enkidu
is said to have been "born of silence" (tablet 1, ln. 85).

Speech usually denotes action, that is action is narrated, rather
than described by an omniscient narrator.

KNOWLEDGE. One of the main themes of Akkadian literature is the nature
and acquisition of knowledge/wisdom. This is an important theme in the
epic of Gilgamesh and it is noteworthy that in line 9 of tablet 1 Gilgamesh
is described as having written all his toils on a stone stela.

This is a very important point, for anything worth knowing was worth
writing down. Or, to put it differently and perhaps better, nothing
was really important unless it had been written down. This is an
extremely important aspect of the Mesopotamian point of view.
Think about it."

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[Chris Borillo]

Steve Whittet wrote:

> Archaeology can tell you more than you think. What people ate, what crops they
> grew, how they wove cloth, what fibers were in the cloth they wove, what animals
> they domesticated, what tools they used, what their pottery looked like, how it
> was decorated, where they went, who they were in contact with, how long they
> stayed in one place, their religious icons, or tribal markings in a petroglyph
> all these can be indications of what language they spoke.

I don't follow.

How can a cloth fiber or petroglyph can tell me what language a
particular collection of old hominid bones spoke? The only thing I know
that could tell me what X-people spoke are records of their speech (e.g.
writing), or contemporaneous observation, recording, and data collection
of their actual speech.

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A88B813...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>> Archaeology can tell you more than you think. What people ate, what crops they
>> grew, how they wove cloth, what fibers were in the cloth they wove, what animals
>> they domesticated, what tools they used, what their pottery looked like, how it
>> was decorated, where they went, who they were in contact with, how long they
>> stayed in one place, their religious icons, or tribal markings in a petroglyph
>> all these can be indications of what language they spoke.
>
>I don't follow.

Ok. Here is an example. People used to say there was no evidence of
an Exodus across the Red Sea from Egypt.

That was because they were looking in the wrong place. They thought
the time of the Exodus was when Ramesses was Pharoah and the capital
of Egypt was at that time near the old Hyksos capital of Avaris located
in the delta . What they thought they knew influenced where they thought
to look for evidence.

They looked for evidence of an Exodus in the bitter lakes or sea of reeds
between Egypts delta and the Sinai and when they didn't find it concluded
the story was a myth made up millenia later.

An Exodus through the sea of reds never made much sense archaeologically.
In the 18th Dynasty the Egyptians had fortified and garrisoned every well
from the Delta to the brook of Egypt, possibly even as far north as
Jerusalem and Beth Shean.

Stripped of its religious baggage the story still was tantalizingly close
to appearing to make some sense with mentions of apiru and destroyed cities
in the Egyptian records making people really wonder about it.

The only problem was that all these occured at what was considered to be
the wrong time, long before the time some early 18th century scholars
determined should be considered the correct date.

From time to time people re-considered the story from the perspective of
its textual artifacts. People showed that the stations of the Exodus were
shown in the same sequence in the lists of towns the Egyptians considered
to be their vassels in Midian, Edom, Moab and Amor.

Ken Kitchen showed that the price of slaves and the form of contracts
matched the chronology of the story.

In the late sixties Arab archaeologists began excavating Timnah near Elat
at the head of the Gulf of Aquabah. Elat was one of the stations of the Exodus.

What they found was Egyptian style pottery, Egyptian faience jewelry
and a Hathor temple, all dated to the 13th and 14th centuries BC.
Then they found Egyptian inscriptians that had been scratched out
by Midianites, and Midianite (Quarayeh) pottery.

The pottery and its dates moved up the Arabah into Canaan.

It turned out that in the 18th Dynasty of Egypt there was a copper
boom in the Arabah. At that time the capital of Egypt was at Thebes.
People called Apiru left inscriptions in the wadi leading from Thebes
to the Red Sea that indicated they had been employed mining gold there.

Archaeology showed that there was evidence that people from Egypt
had crossed the Red Sea and moved up the Arabah into Canaan skirting
the borders of Moab and Edom. Nothing all that suprising about it really
The Egyptians had been importing the bitumen, frankincense and myhr
they used to wrap their mummies across the Red Sea since predynastic
times and paying for it with gold from Thebes wadi.

Once the right time frame (c 1400 BC) was established it became apparent
that the Egyptians had campaigned against Apiru that were from their
perspective bandits at Beth Shean and Hammath.Archaeology established
that cities like Ai, Jerico and Hazor had been destroyed c 1400 BC.

Someone had destroyed the Egyptian statues at Hazor, smashed them to bits.

Then it became clear that references expeditions into the djadi,
(Canaan and Palestine) and expeditions to upper retnu (Syria) all
through the 18th Dynasty had spoken of Kadesh (high country) in
the mountains.

The Egyptian documents refered to a Kadesh in the mountains where
c 1285 BC when the Sons of Israel were living among the Hittites
on the Syrian border, both the Egyptian and OT accounts spoke of
a battle of Kadesh between the Egyptians and Hittites where the
waters of the Jordan met the waters of the Orontes. Crossing the
Orontes could be understood as a reference to crossing the border
into Syria.

>How can a cloth fiber

The woven fibers of people who wrapped their deeds and contracts
in them before burying them in a cave above the Dead Sea helped
associate the writing with the cloth. The decorative patterns
of weaving are known from inscriptions such as the cloak of
many colors associated with Sidon.

>or petroglyph

The Yah glyph is a petroglyph of Northern Arabia. it represents
a sun rising above a horizon with rays or yods descending from it
it turns up frequently in Egyptian documents. (Akhenaten and his
wife bath in its rays in one well known example)

The glyph is also associated with Asherah, Yahs consort.
Yah is a symbol of absolute power and Asherah is a symbol
of desire, both physical desire and desire in the sense
of an eros for wisdom. Together they are a symbol of Power
tempered with wisdom or the doing of what is right and proper.

There are many petroglyphs associated with the kilwa culture
of northern Arabia that end up as Egyptian and Akkadian icons.

The figure striding forward with raised mace and bowling pin helmet
holding the head of a defeated enemy in what is known as the Narmer
pose is duplicated by Naram Sin and also found at Hazor.

petrogyphs are as identifiable as the logos of coca cola or pepsi.

>can tell me what language a particular collection of old hominid bones spoke?

Suppose I show you a skull that has been deformed and elongated or
a foot that has been bound, or perhaps bones that shown evidence
of yaws or syphlis, trepanning, healed wounds that indicate surgery,
teeth that have been filled by a dentist c 2600 BC, do those ring
any bells? Can you match them up with their cultures?

>The only thing I know that could tell me what X-people spoke

>are records of their speech (e.g.writing), or contemporaneous

>observation, recording, and data collection of their actual speech.

Think of it like this. Almost everything that people do provides
a record that tells a story, if you know how to read it...

Pottery is one of the best known ways of determing cultures and
their dates, but bones and the diseases they evidence, tool wear
that shows what sorts of crops were harvested, tooth wear that
shows a horse had a bit and so was domesticated, woven cloth
that uses patterns similar to what we find among the pot shards,
even architecture can tell us what language a people spoke.
>
>-- Chris

regards,

steve

[Jim Heckman]

>From: whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>Date: 2/12/01 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ak1i6.5453$JG.7...@news.shore.net>

>
>In article <3A88B813...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...
>>
>>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>>> Archaeology can tell you more than you think. What people ate, what crops
>>> they
>>> grew, how they wove cloth, what fibers were in the cloth they wove, what
>>> animals
>>> they domesticated, what tools they used, what their pottery looked like,
>>> how it
>>> was decorated, where they went, who they were in contact with, how long
>>> they
>>> stayed in one place, their religious icons, or tribal markings in a
>>> petroglyph all these can be indications of what language they spoke.
>>
>>I don't follow.

[massive snippage]

>>How can a cloth fiber

[more snippage]

>>or petroglyph

[and more]

>>can tell me what language a particular collection of old hominid bones
>>spoke?

[and yet more]

Impressive -- about a zillion lines, all to say, basically, "You're right,
there's no way a cloth fiber or petroglyph can tell us what specific
language a people spoke, as opposed to telling us something about
their culture."

--

Jim Heckman

[Alan Dunsmuir]

In article <nj%h6.5445$JG.7...@news.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
<whi...@shore.net> writes

>Old or Ancient seems to indicate a period when the language
>has a different form such as for example Akkadian writen
>using Sumerian rules of grammar.

Oh God - Here we go again!
--
Alan Dunsmuir

[Steve Whittet]

In article <20010212230538...@ng-ma1.news.gateway.net>, jamesr...@gateway.netnospam says...

If you think that is what I or archaeology generally would tell you
you are mistaken.

Cloth fiber tells you what plant or animal the fiber came from, twisted bits of
flax, hemp, grass, wool are all related to agriculture and the domestication of animals
then there are the pollens, seeds, insects and pieces of skin cell or blood or hair
found in the fibers, which can be analyzed to tell you more about a person.

From those tiny microscopic contaminations you may determine age, sex, occupation,
perhaps even get a sample of their DNA and their history of disease or drug use.

After looking at the fibers you can go on to look at the weave of its cloth,
its color, dyes, pattern, the number of stitches used to embroider it.

In the case of the mummies of the Tarim basin the fiber analysis reveals
quite a lot more than you might expect and is of great interest to linguists.

In the case of petroglyphs, well sometimes glyphs turn out to be words
and when you put the words together you discover you have a language.
Asko Parpola and the IVC glyphs for example, or Gelb at Kilwa and Tayima.

Petroglyphs that match the glyphs on cylinder seals, kuderru cattle brands,
potters marks and written inscriptions can say a lot about a cultures language.

>--
>
>Jim Heckman

steve

[Chris Borillo]

Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> In article <3A88B813...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...

[snip]

> >How can a cloth fiber ([restored context - cborillo 2/13/01]...can tell me what
> >language a particular collection of old hominid bones spoke?)

>
> The woven fibers of people who wrapped their deeds and contracts
> in them before burying them in a cave above the Dead Sea helped
> associate the writing with the cloth. The decorative patterns
> of weaving are known from inscriptions such as the cloak of
> many colors associated with Sidon.

Sorry, I was asking about the woven fibers per se, **not** about any
articles such as deeds and contracts, WHICH HAVE WRITING in them and
thus indicate the language that was used.

Based on any archealogical remains, WITHOUT any writing, how am I
supposed to conclude that the original inhabitants used the Arabic Form
X verb or not? Do archealogical remains, WITHOUT any script associated
with it, tell me the declension system of their nouns? Can I reasonably
conclude that the occurrance of a particular pottery style that has no
writing on it is associated with speakers who used a broken plural as
opposed to a sound plural?

[snip]

> Suppose I show you a skull that has been deformed and elongated or
> a foot that has been bound, or perhaps bones that shown evidence
> of yaws or syphlis, trepanning, healed wounds that indicate surgery,
> teeth that have been filled by a dentist c 2600 BC, do those ring
> any bells? Can you match them up with their cultures?

Culture...does not equal Language.

Suppose an alien race came here millenia after the human race had passed
on, and uncovered a skull with braces still attached to the teeth.

Using **only** the remains as a guide, is it reasonable for that
extraterrestial archealogist to conclude that the original owner spoke
English?

> >The only thing I know that could tell me what X-people spoke
> >are records of their speech (e.g.writing), or contemporaneous
> >observation, recording, and data collection of their actual speech.
>
> Think of it like this. Almost everything that people do provides
> a record that tells a story, if you know how to read it...

But unless if the pottery has any script written on it, or is
accompanied by any articles that have writing in it, you cannot make a
LINGUISTIC conclusion based on archeaological evidence. Unless if you
are making massive inferential leaps....

-- Chris

[Peter T. Daniels]

Steve Whittet wrote:

> I'm sorry, but the earliest semitic assemblages I have seen are associated
> with kites or cairns used for hunting gazelle at a time when the central
> Arabian deserts were still savannah.

The phrase "semitic assemblage" means nothing at all. "Semitic"
designates a language family. "Assemblage" denotes a characteristic
group of archeological remains. The two things are incompatible.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Steve Whittet wrote:

> >> Some texts from his book are written in Akkadian this collection is apparently
> >> written is Sumerian since the notes say the Akkadian portions have been removed.
> >
> >That's absurd.
>
> "Version: February 29th, 1996
> Texts from: I.J. Gelb, "Sargonic texts in the Louvre Museum",
> Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 4, Chicago 1970.
> Typed and adapted by: Bram Jagersma
>
> *Note: Texts 1-13 and 16 have been omitted as they are in Akkadian.
> Texts 129-130 were omitted as they do not contain coherent text.*"
>
> The Akkadian texts were omitted from the transcription.
> What remains is Sumerian.

In other words, you lied when you claimed that the notes in the book
publishing the collection said the Akkadian portions were "removed"; and
you lied by claiming that what you posted represented Old Akkadian.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:04:45 GMT, whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
wrote:

>In article <20010212230538...@ng-ma1.news.gateway.net>, jamesr...@gateway.netnospam says...

>>>From: whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>>>Date: 2/12/01 6:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <ak1i6.5453$JG.7...@news.shore.net>

[...]

>>Impressive -- about a zillion lines, all to say, basically, "You're right,
>>there's no way a cloth fiber or petroglyph can tell us what specific
>>language a people spoke, as opposed to telling us something about
>>their culture."

>If you think that is what I or archaeology generally would tell you
>you are mistaken.

Whittet, Inc., Dealer in Squink; sensible admissions instantly
retracted.

[snip squink]

Brian M. Scott

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Peter T. Daniels (gram...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:

not relevant, but perhaps to what the poster had in mind.

: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A8923CD...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A88B813...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...
>
>[snip]
>
>> >How can a cloth fiber ([restored context - cborillo 2/13/01]...can tell me what
>> >language a particular collection of old hominid bones spoke?)
>>
>> The woven fibers of people who wrapped their deeds and contracts
>> in them before burying them in a cave above the Dead Sea helped
>> associate the writing with the cloth. The decorative patterns
>> of weaving are known from inscriptions such as the cloak of
>> many colors associated with Sidon.
>
>
>Sorry, I was asking about the woven fibers per se, **not** about any
>articles such as deeds and contracts, WHICH HAVE WRITING in them and
>thus indicate the language that was used.

An association of fibers or pottery with writing at one site can be
extrapolated to other similar artifacts at other sites without writing.

The fibers and pottery can tell you what language the writing is in or,
the language can tell you something about the fibers or pottery.

Eventually you begin to build a catalog of what is found at certain sites
and you can compare the entire catalog to other sites.

>Based on any archealogical remains, WITHOUT any writing, how am I
>supposed to conclude that the original inhabitants used the Arabic Form
>X verb or not?

You don't need the entire catalog of artifacts to identify a site
in most cases the pottery alone or a few fibers of woven material
or other artifacts can tell you definitively what group was present
at the site, and when they were there.

Then you can run down the list of things you already know about those
people. That's a list which generally includes their language.

>Do archealogical remains, WITHOUT any script associated
>with it, tell me the declension system of their nouns?

Sure. If you can identify the culture you should be able to determine
from the known data about that culture what language or languages that
culture spoke. If you can put a date on the site the chances are pretty
good you can say exactly who spoke what language with what grammatical
features even when you have a site where there are occupants from
different language families.

For example at the site of Custers last stand if you find denim or a
leather boot with a heel the chances are the bones belong to a person
who spoke English. If you find beads and feathers, the chances are the
bones belong to an Indian. To be sure whether that Indian was Cheyenne
that spoke a Caddoan language rather than a Sioux who spoke Siouan you
might need to determine whether he ate corn regularly or carried a bundle.

To an archaeologist the transcaucasian and semitic cultures are
just as distinctive.

>Can I reasonably conclude that the occurrance of a particular pottery
>style that has no writing on it is associated with speakers who used
>a broken plural as opposed to a sound plural?

Yes. The pottery would give you both date and provenence. Depending
on where and when we are talking the association of pottery with
language is pretty good.

Having said that, there are some instances of bilingual speakers
whose languages extend across language families.

The sons of Israel living among the Hitites, might be such an example.

At a date before such assimilation occurs I would see no problem with
making the distinction except that at a very early date semitic speakers
might not yet have developed the broken plural.

>
>[snip]
>
>> Suppose I show you a skull that has been deformed and elongated or
>> a foot that has been bound, or perhaps bones that shown evidence
>> of yaws or syphlis, trepanning, healed wounds that indicate surgery,
>> teeth that have been filled by a dentist c 2600 BC, do those ring
>> any bells? Can you match them up with their cultures?
>
>
>Culture...does not equal Language.

Our modern societies are a bit more complex than those of the bronze age
or the chalcolithic. Can you give me an example from prior to c 2500 BC?

>
>Suppose an alien race came here millenia after the human race had passed
>on, and uncovered a skull with braces still attached to the teeth.
>
>Using **only** the remains as a guide, is it reasonable for that
>extraterrestial archealogist to conclude that the original owner spoke
>English?

Heck he's an Alien. Aliens from the future always have advanced technology
he would probably just clone the remains and see what language the clone
had patterned into his synapses. (I think I read that story in the fifties)

More seriously, Maybe. The teeth contain a lot of information, he might
get DNA from the dentin. The skull contains a lot of information also.
He might be able to tell a lot about the individual from his dental work.

The presence of braces might date the skull to a period when the chances
of an individual speaking English were pretty good regardless of what
culture he came from. he would have to consult with his historians.

Or he might look for would be something that excluded the individual
from speaking English (like being another Alien, a BEM whose mouth
parts couldn't pronounce the words properly...)

>> >The only thing I know that could tell me what X-people spoke
>> >are records of their speech (e.g.writing), or contemporaneous
>> >observation, recording, and data collection of their actual speech.
>>
>> Think of it like this. Almost everything that people do provides
>> a record that tells a story, if you know how to read it...
>
>But unless if the pottery has any script written on it, or is
>accompanied by any articles that have writing in it, you cannot make a
>LINGUISTIC conclusion based on archeaological evidence. Unless if you
>are making massive inferential leaps....

"But unless if" ???

Archaeology has become focused on the methadology of using a database.
An archaeological database works a lot like an insurance companies database.
Given enough data you can make very profitable predicitions.

Archaeology can tell what languages people spoke in the bronze age
without any great difficulty.
>
>-- Chris

steve

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A892B...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but the earliest semitic assemblages I have seen are associated
>> with kites or cairns used for hunting gazelle at a time when the central
>> Arabian deserts were still savannah.
>
>The phrase "semitic assemblage" means nothing at all.

It may mean nothing to you, but can you give an example of a
site with a kite that isn't semitic?

>"Semitic" designates a language family.

Yes, thats one valid classification. Another might be calenders.
From an archaeological and historical perspective its perfectly
permissable to speak of western semitic calenders.

Other common semitic classifications include sites with collar rimmed jars
sites with bamaats, sites with kites, sites with torahs...

>"Assemblage" denotes a characteristic group of archeological remains.

Yes. Are there groups of archaeologicical remains characteristic
of semitic cultures? Archaeologists would say yes.

>The two things are incompatible.

Linguistics and archaeology? Not at all.

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A892C...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>> >> Some texts from his book are written in Akkadian this collection is apparently
>> >> written is Sumerian since the notes say the Akkadian portions have been removed.
>> >
>> >That's absurd.
>>
>> "Version: February 29th, 1996
>> Texts from: I.J. Gelb, "Sargonic texts in the Louvre Museum",
>> Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 4, Chicago 1970.
>> Typed and adapted by: Bram Jagersma
>>
>> *Note: Texts 1-13 and 16 have been omitted as they are in Akkadian.
>> Texts 129-130 were omitted as they do not contain coherent text.*"
>>
>> The Akkadian texts were omitted from the transcription.
>> What remains is Sumerian.
>
>In other words, you lied when you claimed that the notes in the book
>publishing the collection said the Akkadian portions were "removed"; and

I told you the Akkadian portions were removed. That was the result
of the person doing the transcription having omitted them along with
the portions that did not contain coherent text. Apparently what
remained was just the Sumerian with coherent text.

>you lied by claiming that what you posted represented Old Akkadian.

I don't believe I ever said it represented Old Akkadian.

I said it was a text from the period when Old Akkadian
was at its height, apparently even in that period, the
majority of texts continued to be written in Sumerian.

What I was looking for was evidence of idiom (paired opposites,
repetition of statements with increased levels of detail, an
Akkadian literary tradition) that would betray that despite
being written in Sumerian the author spoke Akkadian and
thought in terms of an Akkadian structural composition.

I guess we didn't see that.

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards

steve

[Chris Borillo]

Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> In article <3A8923CD...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...
> >
> >Steve Whittet wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3A88B813...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >How can a cloth fiber ([restored context - cborillo 2/13/01]...can tell me what
> >> >language a particular collection of old hominid bones spoke?)
> >>
> >> The woven fibers of people who wrapped their deeds and contracts
> >> in them before burying them in a cave above the Dead Sea helped
> >> associate the writing with the cloth. The decorative patterns
> >> of weaving are known from inscriptions such as the cloak of
> >> many colors associated with Sidon.
> >
> >
> >Sorry, I was asking about the woven fibers per se, **not** about any
> >articles such as deeds and contracts, WHICH HAVE WRITING in them and
> >thus indicate the language that was used.
>
> An association of fibers or pottery with writing at one site can be
> extrapolated to other similar artifacts at other sites without writing.

You still misunderstand. When I said "woven fibers PER SE", I meant
precisely that, **without** any association to any script at all. Not
at this site, not at that site, and not at the next site 3,000 miles
away.

Since I've already stated the parameters of the argument, "How can
fibers PER SE tell me what language a particular collection of old
hominid bones spoke?", it's really misleading when you answer: "An
association of fibers or pottery WITH WRITING at one site can be

extrapolated to other similar artifacts at other sites without writing."

You're changing the parameters of the argument by re-introducing writing
back into the argument.

> The fibers and pottery can tell you what language the writing is in or,
> the language can tell you something about the fibers or pottery.

[snip]

So again, WITHOUT ANY written script or other sort of linguistic record
at all, how can fibers or pottery ALONE tell me what language the
long-dead inhabitants of an archealogical site spoke?

> >Can I reasonably conclude that the occurrance of a particular pottery
> >style that has no writing on it is associated with speakers who used
> >a broken plural as opposed to a sound plural?
>
> Yes. The pottery would give you both date and provenence. Depending
> on where and when we are talking the association of pottery with
> language is pretty good.

This hypothesis would be seem to be very difficult to prove without any
written script of the target language. If you had no written script
whatsoever of the Arabic language after its extinction, how are you
going to reconstruct what a Form X Verb sounded like? How would you even
know that such a thing even existed? How can you reconstruct it from
fibers or pottery alone?

> >> Suppose I show you a skull that has been deformed and elongated or
> >> a foot that has been bound, or perhaps bones that shown evidence
> >> of yaws or syphlis, trepanning, healed wounds that indicate surgery,
> >> teeth that have been filled by a dentist c 2600 BC, do those ring
> >> any bells? Can you match them up with their cultures?
> >
> >
> >Culture...does not equal Language.
>
> Our modern societies are a bit more complex than those of the bronze age
> or the chalcolithic. Can you give me an example from prior to c 2500 BC?

????

Can I give you an example of a culture prior to c2500 BC? Is that your
question?

> >Suppose an alien race came here millenia after the human race had passed
> >on, and uncovered a skull with braces still attached to the teeth.
> >
> >Using **only** the remains as a guide, is it reasonable for that
> >extraterrestial archealogist to conclude that the original owner spoke
> >English?
>
> Heck he's an Alien. Aliens from the future always have advanced technology
> he would probably just clone the remains and see what language the clone
> had patterned into his synapses. (I think I read that story in the fifties)
>
> More seriously, Maybe. The teeth contain a lot of information, he might
> get DNA from the dentin. The skull contains a lot of information also.
> He might be able to tell a lot about the individual from his dental work.

That "maybe" doesn't seem so certain.

**Maybe** your previous assertions wrt archeaology and linguistics need
to be re-thought out?

> The presence of braces might date the skull to a period when the chances
> of an individual speaking English were pretty good regardless of what
> culture he came from. he would have to consult with his historians.

????

Are you telling me that the chances that French-speaking Canadians wear
braces is highly unlikely? What about Japanese? Don't they have
orthodontics where they live?

Doesn't your archealogy-linguistics paradigm suffer from confounding
variables?

-- Chris

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discourage inbreeding. Outlaw country music.
For every moral absolute there is a qualification.

To reply by email, remove the 'd' in my address.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jim Heckman]

>From: sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)
>Date: 2/13/01 5:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3a893754...@enews.newsguy.com>

In all fairness to Mr. Whittet, I summarized his *content*, not his
*intent*. There was no explicit admission in his squink of the
conclusion I drew from it.

--

Jim Heckman

[Jim Heckman]

>From: whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
>Date: 2/13/01 3:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <hx8i6.5462$JG.7...@news.shore.net>

Perhaps I am, but you do nothing below to show that.

>Cloth fiber tells you what plant or animal the fiber came from, twisted bits
>of
>flax, hemp, grass, wool are all related to agriculture and the domestication
>of animals
>then there are the pollens, seeds, insects and pieces of skin cell or blood
>or hair
>found in the fibers, which can be analyzed to tell you more about a person.

Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.

>From those tiny microscopic contaminations you may determine age, sex,
>occupation,
>perhaps even get a sample of their DNA and their history of disease or drug
>use.

Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.

>After looking at the fibers you can go on to look at the weave of its cloth,
>its color, dyes, pattern, the number of stitches used to embroider it.

Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.

>In the case of the mummies of the Tarim basin the fiber analysis reveals
>quite a lot more than you might expect and is of great interest to linguists.

All linguists who are "greatly interest[ed]" in the fiber analysis of the
Tarim basin mummies, please raise your hands.

>In the case of petroglyphs, well sometimes glyphs turn out to be words

By definition, this does not include ideographic glyphs, which were
strongly implied to be the ones under consideration in this thread.

>and when you put the words together you discover you have a language.
>Asko Parpola and the IVC glyphs for example, or Gelb at Kilwa and Tayima.
>
>Petroglyphs that match the glyphs on cylinder seals, kuderru cattle brands,
>potters marks and written inscriptions can say a lot about a cultures
>language.

With the exception of the glyphs matching written inscriptions, which I
still don't think were the type under consideration here, what precisely is
this "a lot" that these other types of petroglyphs can say about a culture's
*language*?

--

Jim Heckman

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A8A18CB...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A8923CD...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...
>> >
>> >Steve Whittet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <3A88B813...@erols.com>, cbor...@erols.com says...
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> >How can a cloth fiber ([restored context - cborillo 2/13/01]...can tell me what
>> >> >language a particular collection of old hominid bones spoke?)
>> >>
>> >> The woven fibers of people who wrapped their deeds and contracts
>> >> in them before burying them in a cave above the Dead Sea helped
>> >> associate the writing with the cloth. The decorative patterns
>> >> of weaving are known from inscriptions such as the cloak of
>> >> many colors associated with Sidon.
>> >
>> >
>> >Sorry, I was asking about the woven fibers per se, **not** about any
>> >articles such as deeds and contracts, WHICH HAVE WRITING in them and
>> >thus indicate the language that was used.
>>
>> An association of fibers or pottery with writing at one site can be
>> extrapolated to other similar artifacts at other sites without writing.
>
>You still misunderstand. When I said "woven fibers PER SE", I meant
>precisely that, **without** any association to any script at all. Not
>at this site, not at that site, and not at the next site 3,000 miles
>away.

If you have two sites separated by 3000 miles (say an ocean or a desert)
and at both sites you find the artifacts of the same culture, even if
there is no direct association to any script or language there will
still be cultural associations to whatever scripts or languages that
culture uses.

The artifacts found at a site put it into that much broader context
of the culture as a whole. Thats why archaeologists can look at a site
in Nova Scotia and connect it to other sites in Greenland, Iceland
Scandinavia, Russia and Turkey and conclude they all belong to the
same group.

They can give a name to the group they belong to and they can determine
if a linguistic artifact found in Minnesota has characteristics that
would certify it as having belonged to that group in the 14th century.

They can look at fibers found in China and connect them to a group
that lived in Scotland in the early iron age in a manner that despite
the intervening distance and time frame would be considered conclusive
by most experts.

>
>Since I've already stated the parameters of the argument, "How can
>fibers PER SE tell me what language a particular collection of old
>hominid bones spoke?", it's really misleading when you answer: "An
>association of fibers or pottery WITH WRITING at one site can be
>extrapolated to other similar artifacts at other sites without writing."

Fibers associated with hominid bones can be examined under a microscope.
How they are twisted, knotted or woven, what they are died with and if
they have been sewn, embroidered, perforated or used as for example a
sail, garment, tent, horse blanket, or the wrappings of a mummy, what
materials they are impregnated with, blood, bitumen, fragrent resins,
tell archaeologists a story.

>You're changing the parameters of the argument by re-introducing writing
>back into the argument.

Sooner or later most cultures are associated with writing.

>
>> The fibers and pottery can tell you what language the writing is in or,
>> the language can tell you something about the fibers or pottery.
>
>[snip]
>
>So again, WITHOUT ANY written script or other sort of linguistic record
>at all, how can fibers or pottery ALONE tell me what language the
>long-dead inhabitants of an archealogical site spoke?
>
>
>> >Can I reasonably conclude that the occurrance of a particular pottery
>> >style that has no writing on it is associated with speakers who used
>> >a broken plural as opposed to a sound plural?
>>
>> Yes. The pottery would give you both date and provenence. Depending
>> on where and when we are talking the association of pottery with
>> language is pretty good.
>
>This hypothesis would be seem to be very difficult to prove without any
>written script of the target language. If you had no written script
>whatsoever of the Arabic language after its extinction, how are you
>going to reconstruct what a Form X Verb sounded like? How would you even
>know that such a thing even existed? How can you reconstruct it from
>fibers or pottery alone?

I didn't say you would know what it sounded like, but you would know
what culture it belonged to. Egyptian case in point, reconstructed from
Coptic.

>
>> >> Suppose I show you a skull that has been deformed and elongated or
>> >> a foot that has been bound, or perhaps bones that shown evidence
>> >> of yaws or syphlis, trepanning, healed wounds that indicate surgery,
>> >> teeth that have been filled by a dentist c 2600 BC, do those ring
>> >> any bells? Can you match them up with their cultures?
>> >
>> >
>> >Culture...does not equal Language.
>>
>> Our modern societies are a bit more complex than those of the bronze age
>> or the chalcolithic. Can you give me an example from prior to c 2500 BC?
>
>????
>
>Can I give you an example of a culture prior to c2500 BC? Is that your
>question?

No can you give me an example of a culture prior to c 2500 BC that can't
be associated with a language.
...
>
>-- Chris

regards,

steve

[Brian M. Scott]

On 14 Feb 2001 08:07:54 GMT, jamesr...@gateway.netnospam (Jim
Heckman) wrote:

I know; I'm never quite sure whether he even realizes what he's
saying. Think Ross Finlayson with less naiveté. (He actually brought
this thread over to sci.lang largely in hopes of getting some
ammunition to use against me in sci.archaeology.)

Brian M. Scott

[Alan Dunsmuir]

In article <WPti6.5550$JG.7...@news.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
<whi...@shore.net> writes

>No can you give me an example of a culture prior to c 2500 BC that can't
>be associated with a language.

The culture that built Stonehenge.

The culture that laid out Carnac.
--
Alan Dunsmuir

[Steve Whittet]

>Perhaps I am, but you do nothing below to show that.
>
>>Cloth fiber tells you what plant or animal the fiber came from,
>>twisted bits of flax, hemp, grass, wool are all related to
>>agriculture and the domestication of animals then there are
>>the pollens, seeds, insects and pieces of skin cell or blood
>>or hair found in the fibers, which can be analyzed to tell
>>you more about a person.
>
>Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.

Look closer. The set of possible language groups a speaker
in the Near East can belong to c 2500 BC is small. The people
of the cultures that speak those languages are distinct from
one another.

Suppose you found in the fibers of a bit of cloth woven from
flax, with evidence of einkorn wheat, in the form of a grain
that had been ground for flour plus a group of pollens such
as Alnus, Betula, Corylus, Hedera Helix, Quercus, Salix, Tilia
Somniferent Popover and Ulmus stuck to the fibers.

>>From those tiny microscopic contaminations you may determine age, sex,
>>occupation, perhaps even get a sample of their DNA and their history
>>of disease or drug use.
>
>Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.

Look closer, the evidence you need to make a decision is there

From what is given above alone you can make a choice between Anatolia,
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt and central Arabia as a
point of origin...if you are observant enough.

>
>>After looking at the fibers you can go on to look at the weave of its cloth,
>>its color, dyes, pattern, the number of stitches used to embroider it.
>
>Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.

Given a choice between Dravidian, Summerian, Hurrian and Akkadian
and knowing the provenence of your asemblage from the information
given above which languages is it obvious you can exclude?

>
>>In the case of the mummies of the Tarim basin the fiber analysis reveals
>>quite a lot more than you might expect and is of great interest to linguists.
>
>All linguists who are "greatly interest[ed]" in the fiber analysis of the
>Tarim basin mummies, please raise your hands.

Try a Deja search of sci.lang for threads on the Tasrim basin mummies.

>
>>In the case of petroglyphs, well sometimes glyphs turn out to be words
>
>By definition, this does not include ideographic glyphs, which were
>strongly implied to be the ones under consideration in this thread.

Suppose for example you see a petroglyph of the sun over a horizon
with rays streaming down from it like rain and with it you see a
harp or a dotted pubic triangle. Tell me if that is too obscure
for you to recognize.

>
>>and when you put the words together you discover you have a language.
>>Asko Parpola and the IVC glyphs for example, or Gelb at Kilwa and Tayima.
>>
>>Petroglyphs that match the glyphs on cylinder seals, kuderru cattle brands,
>>potters marks and written inscriptions can say a lot about a cultures
>>language.
>
>With the exception of the glyphs matching written inscriptions, which I
>still don't think were the type under consideration here, what precisely is
>this "a lot" that these other types of petroglyphs can say about a culture's
>*language*?

From the arrangement of petroglyphs in pictures of people hunting
or plowing or even in protogeometric abstracions could you recognize
symbol and interaction?

What does the body language of human or animal figures and their
weapons or tools tell you about whether the scene is formally or
ritually symbolic (as a tribal totem or emblem) stating tribal
presence or differs in being a creative personal expression
of emotion.

In the composition and focus of the scene is there something
forshadowing word order, SOV, OSV, VSO etc;

If you can get that out of an inscription aren't you in fact
able to read and analyze it?

>--
>
>Jim Heckman

regards,

steve

[Peter T. Daniels]

Steve Whittet wrote:

> Look closer. The set of possible language groups a speaker
> in the Near East can belong to c 2500 BC is small.

How could you possibly know that? Hundreds of languages were spoken at
that time around that place of which not the slightest trace has
survived.

> The people
> of the cultures that speak those languages are distinct from
> one another.

How could you possibly know that?

> >>In the case of the mummies of the Tarim basin the fiber analysis reveals
> >>quite a lot more than you might expect and is of great interest to linguists.
> >
> >All linguists who are "greatly interest[ed]" in the fiber analysis of the
> >Tarim basin mummies, please raise your hands.
>
> Try a Deja search of sci.lang for threads on the Tasrim basin mummies.

Ah -- I might have known you didn't read Elizabeth Barber's book
yourself, but you are referring to what I wrote here about it a couple
of years ago; but if you could summarize it as above, then clearly you
didn't understand what she said or what I said she said.

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A8B5D...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>> Look closer. The set of possible language groups a speaker
>> in the Near East can belong to c 2500 BC is small.
>
>How could you possibly know that? Hundreds of languages were spoken at
>that time around that place of which not the slightest trace has
>survived.

Are those statments contradictory? A small number of language groups
might still contain hundreds of languages of which not the slightest
trace has survived. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think those
languages might still share similarities with other languages in
their groups and differences from languages in other groups.

>
>> The people of the cultures that speak those languages are distinct
>> from one another.
>
>How could you possibly know that?

Because cultures are a lot like language groups. They have certain
characteristics. One group buries large numbers of mummified dogs
while other people living close enough to be in contact bury large
numbers of mummified cats.

>
>> >>In the case of the mummies of the Tarim basin the fiber analysis reveals
>> >>quite a lot more than you might expect and is of great interest to linguists.
>> >
>> >All linguists who are "greatly interest[ed]" in the fiber analysis of the
>> >Tarim basin mummies, please raise your hands.

Peter raises his hand

>>
>> Try a Deja search of sci.lang for threads on the Tasrim basin mummies.
>
>Ah -- I might have known you didn't read Elizabeth Barber's book
>yourself, but you are referring to what I wrote here about it a couple
>of years ago; but if you could summarize it as above, then clearly you
>didn't understand what she said or what I said she said.

We had this discussion. Elizabeth Barber is a specialist in fiber arts
who found examples of woven cloth on mummies in the Tarim Basin.

Her analysis of those fibers turned out to be of interest to both
archaeologists and linguists.

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[Peter T. Daniels]

Steve Whittet wrote:

> >> >>In the case of the mummies of the Tarim basin the fiber analysis reveals
> >> >>quite a lot more than you might expect and is of great interest to linguists.
> >> >
> >> >All linguists who are "greatly interest[ed]" in the fiber analysis of the
> >> >Tarim basin mummies, please raise your hands.
>
> Peter raises his hand
> >>
> >> Try a Deja search of sci.lang for threads on the Tasrim basin mummies.
> >
> >Ah -- I might have known you didn't read Elizabeth Barber's book
> >yourself, but you are referring to what I wrote here about it a couple
> >of years ago; but if you could summarize it as above, then clearly you
> >didn't understand what she said or what I said she said.
>
> We had this discussion. Elizabeth Barber is a specialist in fiber arts
> who found examples of woven cloth on mummies in the Tarim Basin.
>
> Her analysis of those fibers turned out to be of interest to both
> archaeologists and linguists.

No, "fiber analysis" had nothing to do with it.

The _techniques of weaving_ used in _one group_ of the "mummies" was
inexplicably similar to that found in the textiles of the "Hallstadt
culture" of Western Europe, which is widely believed to represent
Celtic-speakers (since its distribution corresponds with the
distribition of Celtic toponyms). Thus it is postulated that _that
group_ of "mummies" were Tocharian-speakers, since Tocharian is closer
to Celtic than to other IE languages.

[Steve Whittet]

In article <3A8BDB...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...

>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>> >> >>In the case of the mummies of the Tarim basin the fiber analysis reveals
>> >> >>quite a lot more than you might expect and is of great interest to linguists.
>> >> >
>> >> >All linguists who are "greatly interest[ed]" in the fiber analysis of the
>> >> >Tarim basin mummies, please raise your hands.
>>
>> Peter raises his hand
>> >>
>> >> Try a Deja search of sci.lang for threads on the Tasrim basin mummies.
>> >
>> >Ah -- I might have known you didn't read Elizabeth Barber's book
>> >yourself, but you are referring to what I wrote here about it a couple
>> >of years ago; but if you could summarize it as above, then clearly you
>> >didn't understand what she said or what I said she said.
>>
>> We had this discussion. Elizabeth Barber is a specialist in fiber arts
>> who found examples of woven cloth on mummies in the Tarim Basin.
>>
>> Her analysis of those fibers turned out to be of interest to both
>> archaeologists and linguists.
>
>No, "fiber analysis" had nothing to do with it.

Fiber analysis (wool rather than vegetable fiber) was a key datum.
She also looked at the fabric patterns, dyes, bits of grain trapped
in the fibers, all the things I mentioned.

http://www.crystalinks.com/china2.html

"For 13 years, Barber had rummaged through Europe from England to Iran,
examining the oldest textiles she could find. Outside of Egypt, that
consisted of just thumbnail-size fragments.

Even those tiny samples yielded clues about the laborious chore of
creating clothing. She learned what kinds of looms they used to
weave which patterns, and what raw materials they used.

So when she arrived in Urumqi, she came with a wealth of understanding,
but nothing had prepared her for what she saw. "It was like handling 19th
century fabric," she says. The mummies had been buried in a salt basin,
and the salt kept the material dry. Clothing Was Non-Native Wool

"The first thing that struck me was that it was all sheep's wool,
and that really surprised me. I had expected most of it to be plant fiber,"
she says.

Sheep aren't indigenous to that part of the world, so those early travelers
must have brought sheep with them from the west. The fabric patterns must
have been woven on looms similar to those used to create the scraps she
found in eastern Europe."

>The _techniques of weaving_ used in _one group_ of the "mummies" was
>inexplicably similar to that found in the textiles of the "Hallstadt
>culture" of Western Europe, which is widely believed to represent
>Celtic-speakers (since its distribution corresponds with the
>distribition of Celtic toponyms). Thus it is postulated that _that
>group_ of "mummies" were Tocharian-speakers, since Tocharian is closer
>to Celtic than to other IE languages.

The techniques of weaving, the use of wool as a fiber where sheep are
not indiginous to the region, the height of the mummies, the color of
their hair, all suggest they might be western.

The fact that they were buried c 2000 BC makes an extension of the
range people could travel using horses a possible explanation for
the presence of westerners in China at an early date, but it also
excludes any connection with Tocharian from which the burial is
separated by several millenia.

Tocharian is probably best explained by the presence of an army
of westerners in the Tarim Basin rather than three or four individuals
and at a date closer to c 200 BC than c 2000 BC.

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

regards,

steve

[Peter T. Daniels]

No idea where you got the crap you copied here, but it's not what Barber
says.

The next to last paragraph is utterly wrong.

The group she links by weaving patterns with presumed Celtic weaving
patterns are NOT from "c 2000 BC."

[Herman Rubin]

In article <RRFi6.5587$JG.7...@news.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:

...............

>>>After looking at the fibers you can go on to look at the weave of its cloth,
>>>its color, dyes, pattern, the number of stitches used to embroider it.

>>Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.

>Given a choice between Dravidian, Summerian, Hurrian and Akkadian
>and knowing the provenence of your asemblage from the information
>given above which languages is it obvious you can exclude?

There are lots of other language POSSIBILIIES which are not
that easy to exclude. How do we know that the language was
not a branch of the Iranian group, or even of one of the
Caucasus languages, or some othe Semitic branch, or similar
to Egyptian or Ethiopian? The reduction of languages to a
small number is based on the assumption that the ones which
are not explicitly known to be there are not there.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[Steve Whittet]

In article <96jae9$p...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu says...

>
>In article <RRFi6.5587$JG.7...@news.shore.net>,
>Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote:

>>>>After looking at the fibers you can go on to look at the weave of its cloth,
>>>>its color, dyes, pattern, the number of stitches used to embroider it.
>
>>>Oh dear, I don't see "language" anywhere in that paragraph.
>
>>Given a choice between Dravidian, Summerian, Hurrian and Akkadian
>>and knowing the provenence of your asemblage from the information
>>given above which languages is it obvious you can exclude?
>
>There are lots of other language POSSIBILIIES which are not
>that easy to exclude. How do we know that the language was
>not a branch of the Iranian group, or even of one of the
>Caucasus languages, or some othe Semitic branch, or similar
>to Egyptian or Ethiopian?

Go back and look at the pollens again

The reduction of languages to a
>small number is based on the assumption that the ones which
>are not explicitly known to be there are not there.

The reduction of languages to a small group is based to an
arbitrary limit on the ones I wanted to list for you to choose
between. In practice the choices are reduced by the sucesssive
application of multiple filters like the set of pollens
the weave of the cloth its color, dyes, pattern, the
number of stitches used to embroider it...
>
>
>Herman Rubin,

regards,

steve