Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12357Re: [ANE-2] Gilgamesh XI:5

Expand Messages
  • victor avigdor hurowitz
    Apr 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I stand corrected. Sorry.
      Victor Hurowitz
      BGU



      On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Parsa D wrote:

      >
      >
      > Just adding a few points: You are correct that gummurka is not an infinitive construction but -ka is an accusative suffix not a dative suffix(-kum). For other attestation of accusative suffix after gummuru like gummuranni or gummurūšu cf., CAD G, P.29 and CAD Š/III,P.91. Stative in action-verbs gives a passive-sense this is why -ka is translated as "with you". Heidel -following a suggestion made by Thorkild Jackobsen – translated this passage in active-sense: "My heart had pictured thee…"(HEIDEL,1975: 80)
      >  
      > Regards
      >  
      > Parsa Daneshmand(Tehran)
      >
      > --- On Thu, 4/1/10, victor avigdor hurowitz <victor@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: victor avigdor hurowitz <victor@...>
      > Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Gilgamesh XI:5
      > To: "Donald R. Vance, Ph.D." <donaldrvance@...>
      > Cc: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 8:25 AM
      >
      >
      > George translates "I was fully intent on doing battle with you". The
      > subject of the sentence is libbi(-), my heart/mind. The verb gummur is a
      > 3rd person D stative, the -ka is a dative suffix. The sentence means "my
      > mind was made up against/concerning you to do battle". The translations
      > are essentially paraphrases to make the English sound good.
      > Victor Hurowitz
      > BGU
      >
      >
      >
      > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. wrote:
      >
      > > A reading of libbi: (libbī), it seems to me, would produce something 
      > > like "your dedicating my heart to make war." I can't figure out how 
      > > CAD gets "my heart is totally given to make the fight with you" out of 
      > > that. The suffix is on gummur, not epe:sh (epēš). Nor is there a 
      > > prepositional phrase "with you." What am I failing to see?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
      > > Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
      > > Oral Roberts University
      > > dvance@...
      > > donaldrvance@...
      > >
      > >
      > > On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Parsa D wrote:
      > >
      > > > Reading of ana epēš tuqunti/ana epe:sh tuqunti  is correct that is 
      > > > a typical form of status consrtuctus(yes you can read pesh instead 
      > > > of pish). But it seems that you should transcript libbi as libbī/
      > > > libbi:(=my heart) that gives you a meaning like :"my heart is 
      > > > totally given to make the fight with you, or "my heart is wholly 
      > > > given to fight with you" as is attested in CAD T, P.482.
      > > >
      > > > Parsa Daneshmand(Tehran)
      > > >
      > > > --- On Wed, 3/31/10, Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. <donaldrvance@...> 
      > > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > From: Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. <donaldrvance@...>
      > > > Subject: [ANE-2] Gilgamesh XI:5
      > > > To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Date: Wednesday, March 31, 2010, 6:25 PM
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I'm trying to make sense out of Gilgamesh Tablet XI, line 5:
      > > > UNICODE
      > > > gummurka libbi ana epēš tuqunti
      > > > ASCI
      > > > gummurka libbi ana epe:sh tuqunti
      > > >
      > > > The CAD renders this as
      > > > "your heart is wholly given to fighting"
      > > > The Context of Scripture as
      > > > "I imagined you ready for battle"
      > > >
      > > > Is gummurka a D infinitive with 2, m, s, gen. suffix, rendering the
      > > > line "your dedicating the heart to the making of war"?
      > > >
      > > > Thompson has epe:sh (epēš) as e-pish (e-piš) which I initially
      > > > understood to be e:pish (ēpiš), the construct of e:pishu (ēpišu)
      > > > "maker, actor, doer". The CAD's rendering (s.v. gama:ru [gamāru] 3.h)
      > > > seems to be reading it as the construct of the G infinitive. I assume
      > > > that the sign read pish (piš) can also be read pesh (peš). Am I
      > > > understanding the CAD correctly here?
      > > >
      > > > I'd appreciate any comments or corrections.
      > > >
      > > > Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
      > > > Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
      > > > Oral Roberts University
      > > > dvance@...
      > > > donaldrvance@ mac.com
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic