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

JHS - article by R. Kletter and G. Solimani and 18 new reviews

Expand Messages
  • Ben Zvi, Ehud
    Dear all, I am glad to announce the recent publication of an article and 18 new reviews in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (http://www.jhsonline.org) Journal
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear all,

      I am glad to announce the recent publication of an article and 18 new reviews in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (http://www.jhsonline.org)

      Journal of Hebrew Scriptures - Volume 10: Article 4 (2009)

      Raz Kletter and Gideon Solimani, "Archaeology and Professional Ethical Codes in Israel in the mid 80s: The Case of the Association of Archaeologists in Israel and Its Code of Ethics."

      Abstract:

      This article deals with the (relatively) short-lived Association of Archaeologists in Israel and its Code of Ethics. By doing so, it sheds light on an episode in the history of Israeli archaeology that has not received much attention in research.

      To access the article directly please go to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_132.pdf

      Recently Published Reviews:

      · Borgman, Paul, David, Saul, & God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford and New York: OUP, 2008). (Reviewed by Benjamin J.M. Johnson)

      · Coogan, Michael D., A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in its Context (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). (Reviewed by Glen A. Taylor)

      · Cuéllar, Gregory Lee, Voices of Marginality: Exile and Return in Second Isaiah 40-55 and the Mexican Immigrant Experience AUS Series 7, 271; New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang, 2008). (Reviewed by Lee Beach)

      · Echols, Charles L., "Tell Me, O Muse": The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) in the Light of Heroic Poetry (LHBOTS, 487; New York, London: T. & T. Clark, 2008). (Reviewed by Brian Peterson)

      · Eidevall, Göran, Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah (Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series, 56; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009). (Reviewed by Matthew Forrest Lowe)

      · Forti, Tova L., Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (SVT, 118; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008). (Reviewed by Timothy J. Sandoval)

      · Garrett, Duane A., Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (BHHB; Waco: Baylor University Press,2008). (Reviewed by Karl Möller)

      · Geller, Markham J. and Mineke Schipper (eds), Imagining Creation (IJS Studies in Judaica, 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008). (Reviewed by Shawn W. Flynn)

      · Gilbert, Christopher, A Complete Introduction to the Bible (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist Press, 2009). (Reviewed by Glen A. Taylor)

      · Gravett, Sandra L., Karla G. Bohmbach, F.V. Greifenhagen, Donald C. Polaski, An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: A Thematic Approach (Louisville and London: Westminster/John Knox, 2008). (Reviewed by Glen A. Taylor)

      · Kelso, Julie, O Mother, Where Art Thou?: An Irigarayan Reading of the Book of Chronicles (London/Oakville, Conn.: Equinox, 2008). (Reviewed by Christine Mitchell)

      · LaCocque, André, Onslaught Against Innocence: Cain, Abel, and the Yahwist (Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2008). (Reviewed by Theodore Hiebert)

      · Lemmelijn, Bénédicte, A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called 'Plagues Narrative' in Exodus 7:14-11:10 (OTS , 56; Leiden: Brill 2009. (Reviewed by Edgar Kellenberger)

      · Mason, Steven D., "Eternal Covenant" In the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase (LHBOTS, 494; New York, London: T&T Clark, 2008). (Reviewed by Richard J. Bautch)

      · Porzig, Peter, Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009). (Reviewed by Yvonne Szedlàk-Michel)

      · Reiterer, Friedrich V., Tobias Nicklas, Karin Schopflin (eds), Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings - Origins, Development and Reception (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). (Reviewed by Heather Macumber)

      · Stott, Katherine M., Why Did They Write This Way? Reflections on References to Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature (LHBOTS, 492; New York: T&T Clark, 2008). (Reviewed by Lisbeth S. Fried)

      · Zaman, Luc, Bible and Canon: A Modern Historical Inquiry (SSN, 50; Leiden: Brill, 2008). (Reviewed by Stephen Dempster)

      To access JHS reviews directly please go to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews_vol.html.

      Please note that you can set the reviews in alphabetic order by authors. Just click on "authors" at the head of the "authors" column.

      Regards,

      Ehud

      -------------------------------

      The printed version of volume 8 (2008) has been released by Gorgias Press. For information please go to http://www.gorgiaspress.com/BOOKSHOP/pc-56678-10-ben-zvi-ehud-perspectives-on-hebrew-scriptures-v.aspx

      For information about the other volumes, please go to

      http://www.gorgiaspress.com/BOOKSHOP/pc-56678-10-ben-zvi-ehud-perspectives-on-hebrew-scriptures-v.aspx

      For information about the Logos version of the Journal (vols. 1-7), please go to http://www.logos.com/products/details/4336

      The Logos version of volume 8 of the journal is being prepared.

      Regards,

      Ehud


      Ehud Ben Zvi
      History and Classics
      University of Alberta
      2-28 HM Tory Building
      Edmonton AB Canada T6G 2H4


      ** This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and/or privileged information. Please contact me immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.**


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
      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
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 31, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        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@...
      • Parsa D
        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
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 31, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          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]
        • Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
          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
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 31, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            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]
          • victor avigdor hurowitz
            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
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 31, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              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]
              >
              >
            • Parsa D
              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
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 1, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                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]
              • Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
                Thanks to Victor and Parsa for their comments. They were very helpful. The normalization of the line as gummurka libbi ana epēš tuqunti [gummurka libbi ana
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 1, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks to Victor and Parsa for their comments. They were very helpful.
                  The normalization of the line as

                  gummurka libbi ana epēš tuqunti
                  [gummurka libbi ana epe:$ tuqunti]

                  is found in CAD (s.v. gamāru 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"

                  CAD, however, also normalizes the line as

                  gummurka libbī ana epēš tuqunti
                  [gummurka libbi: ana epe:$ tuqunti]

                  s.v. tuqumtu b.1'. This fits Victor's treatment of gummur as a D
                  stative 3, m, s, with dative sx. -ka, the subject of which is libbī
                  with 1, c, s, gen. sx. "my heart." (GAG §42j lists -ka as a dative
                  ending in later forms of the language.) CAD here renders this as "My
                  heart is wholly given to fight with you."

                  The later translations (the CAD T volume is copyrighted 2006 and the G
                  volume is 1956) including the Context of Scripture seem to go with
                  this second understanding which was found already in Heidel (1949):
                  "My heart had pictured thee as one as one perfect for the doing of
                  battle."

                  Again thanks to Victor and Parsa. It is fun to get back into Akkadian!

                  Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
                  Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
                  Oral Roberts University
                  dvance@...
                  donaldrvance@...


                  On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:07 AM, 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]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • victor avigdor hurowitz
                  I stand corrected. Sorry. Victor Hurowitz BGU
                  Message 8 of 13 , 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]
                    >
                    >
                  • Robert M Whiting
                    ... This is not a valid parsing because in Akkadian (and Semitic languages in general) nothing can intervene between a construct and its genitive (and
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 1, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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@...
                    • victor avigdor hurowitz
                      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
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 1, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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@...
                        >
                      • Robert M Whiting
                        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
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 1, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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@...

                          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@...
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Peter T. Daniels
                          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
                          Message 12 of 13 , 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
                          • Donald Vance
                            I knew that to be the case for constructs in Hebrew; I was not so sure for Akkadian. I also recognized that the D inf and the D stative 3 m s are identical. I
                            Message 13 of 13 , Apr 1, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I knew that to be the case for constructs in Hebrew; I was not so sure
                              for Akkadian. I also recognized that the D inf and the D stative 3 m s
                              are identical. I was trying to make sense of the apparent genitive
                              form libbi in the earlier CAD normalization. Is the lack of the macron
                              in this normalization a typo?

                              Sent from my iPhone

                              Donald R. Vance
                              donaldrvance@...

                              On Apr 1, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Robert M Whiting <whiting@...>
                              wrote:

                              > 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@...
                              >
                              > 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@...
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ------------------------------------
                              > >
                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.