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

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

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    Apr 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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