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

Re: [ANE-2] Gilgamesh XI:5

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.