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

SV: [ANE-2] Canaanite in Cuneiform

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    I think that the EA letters Akkadian (the ones from Syria and Palestine) are in a kind of hidden Amorite or better NW-Semitic. But I do not think that it is a
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 30, 2006
      I think that the EA letters Akkadian (the ones from Syria and Palestine) are in a kind of hidden Amorite or better NW-Semitic. But I do not think that it is a kind of crypto-language. If that was the case, I see no reason why sometimes truly NW-Semitic words are placed next to their Akkadian equivalent, like zuruch in one of ÌR-Heba's letters.

      NPLemche

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Yigal Bloch
      Sendt: 30. juli 2006 22:48
      Til: ane-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: [ANE-2] Canaanite in Cuneiform

      Dear ANErs--

      In JAOS 124 (2004): 641-74, there is an article by Eva von Dassow,
      "Canaanite in Cuneiform." Von Dassow's thesis is that the El-Amarna letters
      from Canaan (and to some extent, from Egypt to Canaan as well) were not
      written in a Canaanized Akkadian but rather in Canaanite, using the
      syllabologographic cuneiform Akkadian by the way of
      alloglottography/xenography -- the writing technique whereby words written
      ostensibly in one language were actually intended to be read in another
      language, as in the writing of Iranian languages with Aramaic words in the
      1st millennium CE.
      Has there been any reaction to von Dassow's proposal? What do the
      participants of this list think of it?

      Yigal Bloch,
      Jerusalem




      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Yigal Bloch
      Dear ANErs-- In JAOS 124 (2004): 641-74, there is an article by Eva von Dassow, Canaanite in Cuneiform. Von Dassow s thesis is that the El-Amarna letters
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 30, 2006
        Dear ANErs--

        In JAOS 124 (2004): 641-74, there is an article by Eva von Dassow,
        "Canaanite in Cuneiform." Von Dassow's thesis is that the El-Amarna letters
        from Canaan (and to some extent, from Egypt to Canaan as well) were not
        written in a Canaanized Akkadian but rather in Canaanite, using the
        syllabologographic cuneiform Akkadian by the way of
        alloglottography/xenography -- the writing technique whereby words written
        ostensibly in one language were actually intended to be read in another
        language, as in the writing of Iranian languages with Aramaic words in the
        1st millennium CE.
        Has there been any reaction to von Dassow's proposal? What do the
        participants of this list think of it?

        Yigal Bloch,
        Jerusalem
      • Niels Peter Lemche
        This is true, but I still get the feeling that it is simply bad Akkadian. Do we really expect the Egyptian recipient of these letters from Asia to read North
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 31, 2006
          This is true, but I still get the feeling that it is simply bad Akkadian. Do we really expect the Egyptian recipient of these letters from Asia to read North West Semitic?

          NPLemche



          -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
          Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Yigal Bloch
          Sendt: 1. august 2006 00:02
          Til: ane-2@yahoogroups.com
          Emne: RE: [ANE-2] Canaanite in Cuneiform

          On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 12:42 pm, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

          > I think that the EA letters Akkadian (the ones from Syria and Palestine)
          are in a kind of hidden Amorite or better NW-Semitic. But I do not think
          that it is a kind of crypto-language. If that was the case, I see no reason
          why sometimes truly NW-Semitic words are placed next to their Akkadian
          equivalent, like zuruch in one of ÌR-Heba's letters.
          >
          > NPLemche

          Von Dassow claims that the glosses in El-Amarna letters were intended to
          tell the scribe, who would be reading a letter to the addressee, how to read
          a particular sign or series of signs. For example, when the signs
          li-ih-$u-u$-mi in EA 228:18 (from Hazor) are followed with a Glossenkeil and
          the signs ia-az-ku-ur-mi, this tells the scribe to read li-ih-$u-u$-mi as
          *yazkur-mi.
          Of course, this is somewhat problematic, since there are also glosses giving
          Akkadian equivalents for (originally)Sumerian logograms, which would imply
          that some of the EA letters were intended to be read in Akkadian rather than
          in some Canaanite dialect. But to treat this question fully, one has of
          course to consult a complete list of glosses of different kinds and to
          consider the distribution of glosses of various kinds.

          Yigal Bloch,
          The city of ÌR-Heba




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • George F Somsel
          No more than I expect someone in the U.S. State Department to read Arabic or Russian or German. George F Somsel ____________ Niels Peter Lemche
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 31, 2006
            No more than I expect someone in the U.S. State Department to read Arabic or Russian or German.

            George F Somsel
            ____________


            Niels Peter Lemche <npl@...> wrote:
            This is true, but I still get the feeling that it is simply bad Akkadian. Do we really expect the Egyptian recipient of these letters from Asia to read North West Semitic?

            NPLemche

            -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
            Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Yigal Bloch
            Sendt: 1. august 2006 00:02
            Til: ane-2@yahoogroups.com
            Emne: RE: [ANE-2] Canaanite in Cuneiform

            On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 12:42 pm, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

            > I think that the EA letters Akkadian (the ones from Syria and Palestine)
            are in a kind of hidden Amorite or better NW-Semitic. But I do not think
            that it is a kind of crypto-language. If that was the case, I see no reason
            why sometimes truly NW-Semitic words are placed next to their Akkadian
            equivalent, like zuruch in one of ÌR-Heba's letters.
            >
            > NPLemche

            Von Dassow claims that the glosses in El-Amarna letters were intended to
            tell the scribe, who would be reading a letter to the addressee, how to read
            a particular sign or series of signs. For example, when the signs
            li-ih-$u-u$-mi in EA 228:18 (from Hazor) are followed with a Glossenkeil and
            the signs ia-az-ku-ur-mi, this tells the scribe to read li-ih-$u-u$-mi as
            *yazkur-mi.
            Of course, this is somewhat problematic, since there are also glosses giving
            Akkadian equivalents for (originally)Sumerian logograms, which would imply
            that some of the EA letters were intended to be read in Akkadian rather than
            in some Canaanite dialect. But to treat this question fully, one has of
            course to consult a complete list of glosses of different kinds and to
            consider the distribution of glosses of various kinds.

            Yigal Bloch,
            The city of ÌR-Heba

            Yahoo! Groups Links






            george
            gfsomsel
            _________
            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Yigal Bloch
            ... are in a kind of hidden Amorite or better NW-Semitic. But I do not think that it is a kind of crypto-language. If that was the case, I see no reason why
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 31, 2006
              On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 12:42 pm, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

              > I think that the EA letters Akkadian (the ones from Syria and Palestine)
              are in a kind of hidden Amorite or better NW-Semitic. But I do not think
              that it is a kind of crypto-language. If that was the case, I see no reason
              why sometimes truly NW-Semitic words are placed next to their Akkadian
              equivalent, like zuruch in one of ÌR-Heba's letters.
              >
              > NPLemche

              Von Dassow claims that the glosses in El-Amarna letters were intended to
              tell the scribe, who would be reading a letter to the addressee, how to read
              a particular sign or series of signs. For example, when the signs
              li-ih-$u-u$-mi in EA 228:18 (from Hazor) are followed with a Glossenkeil and
              the signs ia-az-ku-ur-mi, this tells the scribe to read li-ih-$u-u$-mi as
              *yazkur-mi.
              Of course, this is somewhat problematic, since there are also glosses giving
              Akkadian equivalents for (originally)Sumerian logograms, which would imply
              that some of the EA letters were intended to be read in Akkadian rather than
              in some Canaanite dialect. But to treat this question fully, one has of
              course to consult a complete list of glosses of different kinds and to
              consider the distribution of glosses of various kinds.

              Yigal Bloch,
              The city of ÌR-Heba
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.