230 likes | 578 Views
Indo-European languages outside of Europe:. Euphratic 28 Oct. 2014. The Issues. When did the Indo-European (i.e. Indo-Anatolian) continuum end? Alternatively, when did Indo-European migrations begin? Where was the (final) Indo-European homeland ?
E N D
Indo-European languages outside of Europe: Euphratic 28 Oct. 2014
The Issues • When did the Indo-European (i.e. Indo-Anatolian) continuum end? • Alternatively, when did Indo-European migrations begin? • Where was the (final) Indo-European homeland? • How early are Indo-European languages attested? • How likely is it that some migrations have gone undetected? • Can loanwords be used as evidence? • Does Mesopotamia offer a pertinent case study?
The Sumerian Question • What do we know, or can surmise, about the early linguistic landscape of Mesopotamia? • From what period on are Sumerians present in Mesopotamia? • Are they the original inhabitants of Southern Mesopotamia? • Was the linguistic landscape of Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium B.C. less complex than in later periods? • If the Sumerians were not the only or earliest population, what other speech communities may have been present or have preceded them?
Relevant Evidence • Names, especially place names • Lexical data • Elements in the writing system • References in written documents • The language of written documents
Place Names • Landsberger (1974 [1944]): “None of the ancient cities had a Sumerian name” • Edzard (2003): “It cannot be excluded that, within Mesopotamia proper, Sumerian had neighbours who spoke a language – or languages – […] which left their traces in Sumerian proper names (gods, places) and vocabulary” • Michalowski (2005): “One must admit, however, that most of the toponyms in Southern Mesopotamia are neither Sumerian nor Semitic”
Lexical Data • Landsberger (1974 [1944]): lists 30 alleged polysyllabic technical loans, including one brewing term, from a suspected substrate • Salonen (1968): assigns polysyllabic terms to loanword strata on basis of meaning and ending • Civil (1996): “practically all” brewing terms are “foreign” • Rubio (1999): “all” brewing terms are “foreign”
Syllable Structure in Sumerian • Monosyllabic or polysyllabic? • Edzard (2003) and others have sharply criticized what he calls the “monosyllabic myth” • Phonotactic structure of Sumerian (Whittaker 2005): Category A: mono- and sesquisyllabic terms Category B: polysyllabic • In the Ninmešara of Enheduanak (ca. 2285-2250 B.C.): Category A: 810 words Category B: 54 words (incl. names, loans)
Phonotactic Circularity • Rubio (1999): claims Landsberger’sšidim‘mason’ has a “well-attested Sumerian pattern” but fails to note that silim ‘peace’ (from Akkadian) does, too • Edzard (2003) dismisses the “monosyllabic myth” but states: “divine names such as Nanšeor ĝatumdu… may belong to a substratum … because these names defy all efforts to explain them by way of Sumerian etymology”, failing to notice that it is their polysyllabic shape that disturbs him
Potential Loanwords in Sumerian • Polysyllabic, yet morphologically unsegmentable: hanzalub ‘reed pulp’ • Medial cluster: uktin ‘appearance; facial features’ • Disharmonic vowels (subject to vowel harmony): tabira ‘joiner; artisan’ > tibira • Multiple variants: lu-um-gi~ lu-un-ga~ ni-in-gi-in ‘brewer’ uk-ra~ u2-še-ra ‘reed bundle’
Elements in the Writing System • Early signs with phonetic values lacking motivation in Sumerian • Sign order not consistent with Sumerian word order • Early sign compounds or groups unexplainable within Sumerian • Lack of correspondence between sign usage in proto-cuneiform and historical Sumerian documents
Where the Debate Stands • Englund(2007: 5-6): “The discussion about the ‘Sumerian Question’ continues, at least in my mind, and has taken a rough edge of late, the more so with publication of contributions to a Leiden Rencontrethat, particularly with contributions by Rubio and Wilcke, added wild speculation to the fairly stale list of ‘proofs’ that Sumerian phoneticismswere a clear element in Late Uruk documents.”
Dassnichtseinkann, was nichtseindarf • Rubio (1999) mocked: “Indo-European before the Indo-Europeans” • Melchert(n.d., “The Position of Anatolian,” 1st draft): “Suffice it to say that I find most of the claimed instances of lexical borrowing [in Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995] wholly unconvincing, […]. There is even less merit to the claims of Whittaker (1998 and elsewhere) of an Indo- European “substrate” [sic] in Sumerian. For a detailed refutation of his proposal see Rubio 2005.” • Cf. Melchert(1998) on an unrelated matter: “I would like to see a genuine debate on this issue, not a summary dismissal based on … prejudice”
Euphratic and the Euphrateans • Scenario 1a: A pre-Sumerian language and population (present by the mid-4th millennium B.C. at the latest, and a Sumerian-period substrate or superstrate) • Scenario 1b: Or a Sumerian-period superstrate from the beginning of Uruk IV (ca. 3400-3100 B.C.) onwards • Scenario 2: Involved in the so-called Uruk expansion (ca. 3700-3200 B.C.) and thus responsible for early Indo-European loanwords in Egyptian and Semitic • Scenario 3: Influenced or initiated the development of proto-cuneiform (ca. 3400-2900 B.C.)
Gender • Is there any evidence for gender in Euphratic? • If so, was it an animate-inanimate opposition, as in Anatolian? • Or was there a further differentiation of animate into masculine and feminine? • Sumerian preserves a series of polysyllabic (mostly disyllabic) terms ending in –ah
Terms in -ah • Almost all of these are nouns: nerah ‘snake; Nerah (god); Nerah (city)’ • But there is also an adjective: dara4(h) ‘dark-coloured, dark red’ (cf. Old Sumerian derih in sign name derihum at Ebla) • Thus, concord indicating the presence of (feminine) gender
Case MarkingSingular • Nominative (-s, -os): semed ‘(value of sign ONE)’ < *sem-s ‘one’ lugud ‘pus (written BLOOD+WHITE)’ < *louk-ó-s ‘bright’ lugud2 ‘miscarriage’ < *lógh-o-s ‘childbirth’ lugud4 ‘place to put things’ < *lógh-o-s ‘storage place’ • Accusative (-i-m, -o-m, -eh2-m): gilim2 ‘rat (Old Sum., Ebla); mongoose’ < *glh1-i-m ‘rodent’ aktum‘garment’ < *h2nt-ko-m ‘garment, cloak’anzam‘large drinking vessel’ < *h2ens-eh2-m ‘strap handle’ • Vocative (-e): lu-bi/be2‘o dear, o darling’ < *léubh-e ‘o dear, o darling’
Case MarkingPlural • Locative (-su): apsu‘subterranean waters (used in divine epithets such as ‘child of the waters’; ‘king of the waters’)’ < *h2ep-su ‘in the waters’ (cf. Vedic divine epithets ‘child in the waters’; ‘king in the waters’) • Instrumental (-bhi): -BI ‘(Old Sum. scribal convention for -da with instrumental/comitative plural)’ < *-bhi‘(instr. pl.)’
EYE(der.) (IGIgunû) • sig7‘(phonetic value)’ < *sekw- ‘follow’ (cf. Germ. see) • agar4/ugur2/ukur5‘(phonetic values)’ < *h3okw- ‘eye’ • imma3‘physiognomy, (facial) features’ < *h2im- ‘copy’ (cf. Hittite himma- ‘imitation, substitute, replica’ < *h2im-no-?; Lat. imāgō ‘image’)
EYE(der.)+FORM(IGIgunû.ALAN) • uktin‘appearance, facial features’ < *h3kw-ti-m (acc.) ‘appearance; expression; sight’ • ulutim2/ulutin2‘appearance, form, facial features’ < *wl-ti-m (acc.) ‘appearance, facial features’ (cf. ulutim/ulutin‘written notice, notice of intentions’ < *wlh1-ti-m (acc.) ‘wishes’)
NAIL/CLAW • umbin‘nail, claw’ < *h3ngwh- ‘nail, claw’ • umbin‘(container for animal fat)’ < *h3ngw-en- ‘fat, salve’ • umbin‘wheel’ < *h3nbh-en- ‘navel’
DUNG • šed6‘shit’ < *skeid- ‘shit (vb.)’ • šurum‘dung, droppings’ < *skor-(o-m) ‘shit, dung’