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

12364Re: [ANE-2] Gilgamesh XI:5

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    Apr 1, 2010
      So the question becomes how Oppenheim and Landsberger were able to translate the passage as they did. Is there some parsing under which the 1956 translation is valid?
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...

      >From: Robert M Whiting <whiting@...>
      >To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 2:09:34 PM
      >Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Gilgamesh XI:5

      >I realize that, Victor. I'm just trying to clarify that the two parsings
      >are not equally valid or rather that the first one is actually impossible.
      >Rather than adopting the "he-said/she- said" style of contemporary
      >journalism, it's important to point out which one is false instead of just
      >reporting them as equally valid alternatives.
      >Bob Whiting
      >whiting@... .fi
      >On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, victor avigdor hurowitz wrote:
      >> That's how I parsed it for him although I misparsed the -ka as dative
      >> rather than accusative. His problem is that the stative 3ms is identical
      >> to the infinitive construct and he's confusing them.
      >> Victor Hurowitz
      >> BGU
      >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Robert M Whiting wrote:
      >> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Donald R. Vance, Ph.D. wrote:
      >> >
      >> > > gummurka libbi ana ep?? tuqunti
      >> > > [gummurka libbi ana epe:$ tuqunti]
      >> > >
      >> > > is found in CAD (s.v. gam?ru 3.h), where CAD renders it as "Your heart
      >> > > is wholly given to fighting." It seems to me that CAD here is reading
      >> > > gummur as a D infinitive followed by the genitive of libbu (note the
      >> > > lack of macron over the final i) "Your dedicating of the heart to the
      >> > > making of war" = "your heart is wholly given to fighting"
      >> > <snip>
      >> >
      >> > This is not a valid parsing because in Akkadian (and Semitic languages in
      >> > general) nothing can intervene between a construct and its genitive (and
      >> > that includes pronominal suffixes, which themselves normally stand in a
      >> > construct-genitive relationship with the noun to which they are attached);
      >> > therefore, libbi cannot stand in a genitival relationship to a putative D
      >> > infinitive construct gummur. Hence gummur must be interpreted as a
      >> > stative and libbi must be interpreted as nominative plus first person
      >> > suffix, libbi:.
      >> >
      >> > Bob Whiting
      >> > whiting@... .fi
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic