|
Post by anunnaki on Jun 20, 2008 11:46:25 GMT -5
After much scouring, I come before you all prostrate (haha). Is there a Sumerian word for me, I, or mine? Blame my own ignorance, but I have not been able to find a way to express this in Sumerian, Babylonian or Akkadian.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jun 23, 2008 23:57:12 GMT -5
Anunnaki: For this occasion I have dusted of my copy of Dietz Otto Edzard's "Sumerian Grammer", a book I rarely reference. It's not that it isn't well written and essential. it's that yes, Sumerian language and grammer in my opinion ought to be among the very last stops for the Ancient Near East enthusiast - either right before he/she enters studies in the field professinally, or else after many many years of personal study.. Hence I don't consult my Grammer often. I personally am never able to consider anything impossible, but then, productive studies have an order and graduated level of sophistication. In any case referring to Edzard, chapter 9, 9.1 (personal pronouns) we get something of an answer about me myself and I. If you are a linguistic nut, this may even prove sensible! 0_0 I - (1st person singular): ĝá-e (or contracted ĝe24-e) [*other sources give ĝe26-e] You (2nd person singular): za-e (contracted sometimes to zé) He/She (3rd person singular): a-ne or e-neEdzard: "As in many languages, Sumerian personal pronouns has a reduced declension pattern, compared to that of the substantive. There is just one form, at least judgeing by orthography, for absolative and ergative; then there are genitive, dative, comitative, and equative. Locative and abiative are not to be expected because they only occur with non-person class. Terminative is so far unattested, and directive, if it existed, woud have been identical in spelling with the ergative." More About I The above cuneiform image is taken from ePSD, and is the cuneiform for ĝá-e "I". No matter what you enter into the ePSD search bar, you probably won't find this entry so I'll tell you how to find it. Look at the left side of the ePSD page - there is a selection network, the top of which looks like: C T S A E Under T (transliteration) go down to Ĝ with circumflex - click and it is the third entry down (ĝa2-e). At the bottom is a link to all ETCSL instances of ĝa2-e/ĝe26-e as "I". I have copied an instance below for example: ( From Enki and Ninhursaga t.1.1.1, lines 200/201Enki: 200. u2 ĝe26-e nam-bi /li\-bi2-tar-re 201. a-na-am3 ne-e a-na-am3 ne-e
Enki: 200/201: I have not determined the destiny of these plants. What is this one? what is that one? More to follow on me/myself
|
|
|
Post by anunnaki on Jun 24, 2008 12:07:55 GMT -5
Thank you very, very much. As always, you are a boundless fountain of help.
|
|
|
Post by nininimzue on Jan 28, 2011 17:47:33 GMT -5
You can also use the forms '-men, -men, -àm' (me, you, he/she/it) suffixed to express what you want to mean, i.e. silim-ma hé-men "may you be well!" .It might as well mean "I may be well"; all depending on the context. The common reading for ĝá to get a contracted version of the personal pronoun is usually rendered ĝe26; never noticed that he states it's ĝe24 - but what does one know these days, with all those new readings around. 3rd person singular is commonly read with an /i/, making it -ani; making it -ane would indicate not just the 3rd person suffix but also an ergative case (/-e/) or a locative-terminative (/-e/), or a vocative (/-e/) (*-ani+e), as far as I see it... but I may be wrong of course. Just writing from memory. And of course I disagree that Sumerian grammAr should be one's last resort, but alas, that's the philologist in me speaking. ...and yes, sorry for the necroposting.
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Feb 4, 2011 8:53:52 GMT -5
Nininimzue, Which of the cuneiform inscriptions of the example you have given "silim-ma he-men" is correct: with "me-en"? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Feb 4, 2011 8:59:20 GMT -5
or, with "men"? I guess the first should be the correct one but I'm still Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Feb 15, 2011 13:26:05 GMT -5
Well I wouldn't say I hold Sumerian grammar to be a last resort, I mean those words imply it's the thing I'd choose last. I'd choose it first if it were a matter of interest. But assuming there is some sort of logical progression in the struggle to become an Assyriologist .. and I'm not sure where logic fits in to that at all I'm accepting of the need to prove myself with Akkadian as is the norm I suppose. (Should I be even that fortunate).
|
|
|
Post by nininimzue on Feb 17, 2011 4:06:37 GMT -5
enkur: You can use both -me-en and -men, although -me-en is more common. Plus, do not use HI for hé; it must have been a difference between how the vowels were pronounced, for the hé- of 'he-men/hé-me-en' is *always* written with the sign HE2. Bill: I know And still, I will prove the logic of Sumerian once to all the world! *manic laughter*
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Feb 17, 2011 15:45:38 GMT -5
Nininimzue, Thank you very much, but why then he-men hasn't been written with he2? I just followed the Sumerologist convention and found that "he" is written with HI as given in the ETCSL sign list - against HI there are given da10, du10, dub3, dug3, ḫe, ḫi, šar2
|
|
adapa
dubsartur (junior scribe)
Posts: 22
|
Post by adapa on Feb 23, 2011 16:34:07 GMT -5
Hey, sorry to just leap into your posts, but I can't resist a good orthographic discussion. I have been on this board before, but I have been offline for some time, but now I'm back. My Sumerian stage name is Adapa, but you can call me Brian. I remember a little bit about Sumerian. The use of he2 indicating the verbal precative prefix is probably not an indication of phonetics but is an orthographic convention. It is true that different signs are sometimes used to clarify phonetic situations, for example the ga sign indicates the phoneme /g/ , whereas the ga2 sign is used for the /ng/ phoneme. But that is true mostly of consonants, not so much with vowels. Consider the situation with Akkadian u3. U3 is the standard Akkadian word for "and", while the sign u2 is the standard writing for the 3rd person singular verbal prefix. the sign u can occasionally replace both u3 as "and" and (more in later periods) the u2 in the verbs. There is no evidence that these signs are pronounced differently since they can be interchanged, but it is orthographic tradition to use u3 as the copula, u2 for the verbal prefix and the u sign for syllabic spellings. It is interesting to note that the u2 sign is almost never used for the copula.
thus the he2 of the precative is an orthographic tradition dating back to the earliest periods of Sumerian writings. The he reading of the hi sign is more of an Akkadian thing. It is used rarely in sumerian words, and once in a while we see the he sign being interchanged with the he2, further indicating they had the same sound.
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Feb 24, 2011 10:11:04 GMT -5
Adapa, Thank you for your qualified information though I haven't yet the educational qualification to understand it I just try to inscribe some transliterated phrases with their corresponding cuneiform signs by following the Sumerologist convention, but sometimes I get confused when there is some incongruity in this convention. Basically I work with fascination only and follow quite a subjective approach in exploring the Sumerian culture. I need a cuneiform text, its transliteration, and its translation together in order to feel the idea behind. This being neither available nor accessible for me as an amateur, I try to do it myself, so I choose a certain phrase from some text, and try to restore its respective cuneiform signs according to its transliteration. Then, not unlike Sheshki, I inscribe these phrases on clay pieces by stylos. An interesting but difficult exercise indeed. Yet this is my way to get interested in the Sumerian grammar, which I find for necessary anyway, but the way of scholarship and the way of sorcery being so different, to start by reading books on the Sumerian grammatic would mean a spiritual crisis to me
|
|
adapa
dubsartur (junior scribe)
Posts: 22
|
Post by adapa on Mar 2, 2011 14:49:26 GMT -5
hey Enkur, Thanks for your thoughts. I admire you and people like you who tackle the difficulties of Sumerian and Mesopotamian culture on your own, yet I think it might be spiritually easier to approach the Sumerians with a mature and stable spiritual viewpoint first, and then become immersed in their spirituality. I don't really know that, because I approached Sumerian language and religion first from an academic, professional and decidedly unspiritual angle, and then I was spiritually awakened, and that caused many a spiritual crisis.
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Mar 2, 2011 16:35:20 GMT -5
Adapa, As a prerequisite the mature and stable spiritual viepoint means for me developing an emotional intelligence - as a physical criterion, and that's why I seek to make my way of learning interesting and pleasant, however difficult, having a certain experience of the other ways of attainment as well I wouldn't truly do anything without being fascinated thereby - when working being fascinated I could forget eating, drinking, and sleeping, (sometimes even breathing) which means the work pays me by giving me energy, instead of sucking me. However, the work demanded by humanity in general sucks! Was it what really made the gods to create humanity? To do their work which sucks? Yes, the work of life is there, yet Enki suggests alternatives...
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 3, 2011 16:12:23 GMT -5
So, the correct way of inscribing it should be silim-ma he2-me-en , right? Attachments:
|
|