|
|
Post by lahtandim2 on Mar 21, 2022 23:42:33 GMT -5
Hello friends. I have been wondering recently about a certain sign and its various readings. I usually use ePSD when looking up signs and its left me a bit confused in this instance. This sign can be read as ri, which has meanings such as to set down, lay down, imbue, cast, throw down, etc. The semantic commonality is fairly clear. It can also be read as deg, meaning to collect, gather up, pick up, etc. Once again a fairly clear meaning. However, we then have the compound verb na deg which means to explain, make clear, advise, etc. It also comes up in a nominalized form as na-deg, advice. However, this strikes me as so strange because the meaning is very clearly agentive, the one who na degs is actively bestowing advice. So does this not match the semantic range of ri much more than deg? Keep in mind, they are the exact same sign. So does it not make sense that na deg is in reality na ri? Alster, writing in 1992, seems to agree with me when he transliterates the Instructions of Shuruppak.
So I was wondering, on what grounds do ePSD render it na deg? Perhaps they are referencing some lexical lists which give this value? Is it perhaps based on nothing more than deg being the more common reading in non-compound forms? If anyone knows which lexical lists to look up I would appreciate it.
Another interesting thing about the sign and its readings is that both have the same pattern (d/r)(frontal vowel)g, and we know elsewhere in Sumerian phonetics we have phonemes which develop into either d or r. It makes me wonder if this was some kind of proto word like drig that split in pronunciation and then each had acquired a different nuance of meaning, shortly after the orthography took hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by lahtandim2 on Mar 30, 2022 19:15:33 GMT -5
So after dealing with a lot of shenanigans at my local academic library because of lingering covid restrictions, I was able to find Alster's full edition of the text published in 2005 with full commentary. He transcribes na ri, but in the commentary for the line he says na ri(= na de5) and further comments there is one attestation of the variant na di. He then comes to the same conclusion I did, saying the available variants suggest a dr phoneme.
|
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 9, 2022 12:11:02 GMT -5
Hello Lahtandim2- Welcome to enenuru. You've made an excellent comment and its great to see a new poster here who has developed some definite skill in examining Sumerian lexemes in a sophisticated and academic way. This sort of problem, considering the reading of the compound verb na-deg (and more specifically why is the verbal base read deg and not ri), is the sort of thing I would have been pondering here some time ago. However, in the last years almost all of my time and energy has had to go toward finishing my dissertation which is on the somewhat distant topic of Middle Babylonian history and religion. As a starting point, I have checked the bibliography given as the bottom of the ePSD entry from na-deg which is: Bibliography [2005] W. Sallaberger, Studies Klein . [1995] A. Cavigneaux and F. Al-Rawi, ZA 85 41-43. [1980] J. Klein, Studies E.Y. Kutscher XIV-XXII; XVIII-XXII. The reading favored by the ePSD entry seems to follow the findings of Sallaberger 2005, which is in "Studies Klein" by which they mean the Festshrift for Jacob Klein, the full title of which is "An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein." In any case, my impression is that you were on the right track with the dr-phoneme. In discussing the reading of the verb na deg, Sallaberger states (on p. 229): The reading of the verbal base RI-g as de5-g containing the so-called "dr-phoneme"seems to be generally accepted nowadays." A footnote to the above statement adds "The reading de5 instead of ri (thereby avoiding a transliteration ři) conforms to du3 (i.e., řu2)." He then gives a small list of literature of scholars who do not conform to his analysis. But as you inferred, there must be evidence, preferably lexical evidence, to buttress linguistic theory and Sallaberger proceeds to produce about of page of lexical evidence. For example, in Proto-Ea na-deg is written with the verbal element spelled not only de-e but also de3-e (I think is what he is saying - so de3 will be a different sign, and confirm the reading deg for RI in the other instances). So while I think you've made some good deductions, deductions of this sort will likely be trumped by lexical evidence and we would have to acquiesce to Sallaberger here I think. However, I've linked the Fs Klein so you can see the full comment by Sallaberger. It's possible you may be able to extract more from it than I can currently as I am engaged with other projects. So you may yet nuance or contest this opinion. www.enenuru.net/pdfs/Fs%20Klein.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by lahtandim2 on Apr 13, 2022 0:16:44 GMT -5
Ah Us4-he2-gal2, this was exactly the info I was looking for, and then some. Thank you and Im glad to hear you are wrapping things up with the dissertation. Is there something in particular that draws you to the MB period?
Sallaberger's study is very comprehensive, a true blessing to find. Reading through it one can easily see how the EPSD entries can be such a mess. You have an abstract compound verb that was already becoming obscure by the end of the OS period and to make matters worse it has an initial /dr/ phoneme and a bunch of situational Akkadian translations. Its nice to see he agrees with the phoneme, and also the idea that these terms all have a common origin. Looking at all the available evidence it seems the term was na dri(g) in OS before become na de in the late 3rd millennium. Interesting that it had already become this in the Gudea Cylinders, as thats still kinda early and its the exact "dialect" where you would expect the /r/ reflex of the phoneme. Im pretty sure the vulture stele already had some evidence /dr/ had already degenerated to /r/ in Ngirsu/Lagash. Maybe its different because of the initial position?
As for his analysis of the original meaning of the compound as to clear/clarify, I think its brilliant and the data seems to support him. The only thing I found odd was his commentary on the etymology that "to collect stones" = "to clear" makes no sense but "to collect smoke" is an acceptable alternative. If you want to clear an area in an arid climate would clearing stones not be a primary means of doing so? We also have very consistent use of the na sign in the OS period and the pictographic origin for na seems to be a rock. One thing that could support Sallaberger though is that the izi/fire logogram has the reading ne, fairly close to na. Just speculating.
|
|
