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

Re: [ANE-2] Gilgamesh XI:5

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Apr 1 12:07 AM
    • 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 2 of 13 , Apr 1 9:52 AM
      • 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 3 of 13 , Apr 1 9:53 AM
        • 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 4 of 13 , Apr 1 10:47 AM
          • 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 5 of 13 , Apr 1 11:00 AM
            • 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 6 of 13 , Apr 1 11:09 AM
              • 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 7 of 13 , Apr 1 11:54 AM
                • 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 8 of 13 , Apr 1 12:48 PM
                  • 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.