"Normalizing" the Names of Deities

[nocodeyv]

Greetings Enunuru,

Could anybody explain to me the conventions for "normalizing" the names of deities, like they do at the end of ORACC entries?

I already understand the use of superscript and subscript to an extent, with the superscript "d" representing the designation of divinity, while the subscripts determine which variant of the logogram is implied. I have no trouble understanding, for example, what ^dur-bad₃-da-gub-gub-bu implies when written like this, and with the aid of the ePSD I could even likely arrive at a very basic translation of what this deity's name is and means. What I'm unsure of, is how it would be written normally.

Are double letters both written: Urbaddagubgubbu?
Are they combined into single letters: Urbadagubgubu?
Are accents used (when applicable)?
Hyphenation?
Are the rules fluid, or hard and fast?

Thanks for any help and insight!

[hukkana]

From what I've seen people don't usually write out the double letters. Not an expert on this but it does seem to be the case, as some Deity names would look rather weird if all the double letters were kept.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Hello Nocodeyv:


Yes, good question. Well, my answer is that the way divine names, or any names, are rendered in translation should follow the analysis of underlying word structure. Cuneiform script is not formulated to deliver precise phonetic data such as you would use to represent a name in translation (i.e. how it is supposed to sound when a Sumerian said it). Sometimes the number of consonants rendered comes down to orthography, to scribal habit. So for example, there may be a preference to write ki-im rather than use a sign with the value kim, in order to avoid the more difficut CVC (consonant vowel consonant) signs. But this doesn't mean there were two i vowels, phonetically.

In the case of the name ^dur-bad3-da-gub-gub-bu, I believe that the a and the u highlighted are grammatical elements. So I divide the word into these morphemes (morpheme - the tiniest element of a word having grammatical or lexical value): ur.bad.a.gub.gub.u . Note, transcription in Sumerian is basically the division of the word into morphemes. Because I see .a as a morpheme, I consider the sign -da to be an example of 'overwriting' where the scribe has selected a syllablic sign as the most convenient way to write the intended value a - this means that the phonetic realization of the word does not include the additional consonant d.


Of course, today we may think 'why didn't the scribe simply use the a sign' but there was marked and ongoing tendency for Sumerian scribes to repeat the consonant of the previous morpheme such as in this case bad3-da as a matter convention.


My translation of the name at the moment is 'lion standing on the roof' . I think ur is 'lion/dog' ; bad3 'roof' ; .a (grammatical: locative) ; gub.gub.u (this may be a past participle 'standing' , reduplicated for iterative sense (continually), with a final .u (this may be an .a vowel for the participle, undergone vowel harmony and changed to u? not sure).

Since this is my interpretation of the underlying grammar, and subsequent translation, I should render his name: Urbadagubgubu.


In other cases, scholars cannot agree on the proper interpretation of the underlying grammar or language of a name. For example, the name Inanna has generated debate and confusion. As a result, you see that her name is written in some books Inana and in other books Inanna.