Download Ebook - The Knowledge Den

X [Jntro&ueHoit.
//.;.// .,. od En-lit \ Eniu/.t 'i msen, KB VI, 82, rem. and ZlMMERN,
K.\ 1 , 583
.
actio)
itu 'month .
KioaaQr
t ki-iar 'the lower part of the- universe in the
t cosmogony'; HoAoftofiaQ = mulubabbar 'Jupiter'; —1x1. JENSEN'S
nunication to Leander). Hesychius gi\ 1 ilso PSBA, 1902, 1 ioff.
There can be no doubt, of course, that the Semitic influence on Sumerian
at a wry early find the evidently Semitic ideogram DA-ER = daru 'everlasting,'
in OBI II, pi. 42, 36, an inscription dating from Lugalzaggisi (ca. 4000 B.C.). This is merely
er, that the date of the first Semitic invasion of Babylonia was very early,
which pushes the origins of the Sumerian culture far back into the night of antiquity,
ips as early as loooo— 11000 I'.. C. A very important poinl should be noticed here,
ion of which I am indebted I 1 Dr.
STEPHEN II. LANGDON, viz., if Sumerian
had been a deliberate purely Semitic cryptography, we should find the evidences of Semitic
influence stronger in the earlier stages of the system than towards the height of ita
ment, when it might reasonably be expected that the cryptographers would have striven
more and more to differentiate their artificial idiom from the conventional Semitic language.
Exactly the reverse of this is, however, the case. The farther we go back into the Sume-
rian literature, the more purely linguistic evidences are found, while the later Sumerian
literature is full of traces of apparently deliberate attempts to Semitise the Sumerian. The
fs of the undoubted original linguistic character of Sumerian are to be found in the
copious evidence presented by even the latest and most Semitized Sumerian texts.
§ IV. — Briefly considered, there are six striking proofs that the Sumerian litera-
ture is based on a primitive language:
1 Sumerian
has unmistakable internal phonetic variations, the following list of which
cannot fail to be of interest to the student:
A was differentiated to e (see Lex. s. v. a = A, § D), and note ga = ge (REISNER,
Heft X, 115, line 28. A — i in asilal= isilal; agubbii = egubbu; gagig = gigig = MI-MI.
A— u, cf du=ga, 6140; 6136; utab for adab (see Lex. dit = GATU, and adab).
E, umlaut of a (see s. v. a = e, just above' ; e = i as in de = di, 6714— 6715.
I=a (see s. v. a=i)\ i=u, as in di=dn (see Lex. s. v. di=D\J). This certainly
seems to indicate the it pronunciation of Sum. it.
L'= a (see s. v. a= it) and it = i (see s. v. i== if). Sum. it was probably pronounced
u, as mentioned above.
B=g. Cf. barun = garu, 10242 3; bus = gus, 7503. 7505 isee Lex. s. v. /w = BU\
The sign-name gigurii= giburii, 8629, 8636 (see Lex. bur= corner-wedge). Burit = gurin,
5905—6. Sab (FS) = sag, 7982, 7981. Xote that b=?n and m = g (see below, this list).
( >n the other hand, dab = dax (see Lex. .?. v. DAX) which shows the substitution of a guttural for b.
B = in; barun = marun = garit, 10242 3. With this cf. the modern Arab, ^xo-
nunciation Maalbek for Baalbek. Bar and mal (1722; 1726) are clearly cognates; r=3 (see
below). B = in, prob. = w ; cf. ba = »iit, V, 28, 29*. It is well known that the Sem. Bab.
in had this nasal a»-sound isee Lex. a = PI). It appears highly likely, therefore, that one
b in Sum., at one period at least, was a decidedly nasalized ;v-sound which in some cases
could be represented by g and again by m = w. There was probably another b= g== x
see sub b = g above).
D = g; du=ga, 6140, 6136 (see Lex. s. v. ,//. GATU ;
dit = gin (ES) = DU.
Bar ES) = gar = GAR q. ;.; dis—gis. This change occurs chiefly between EK and
ES g = d, respective!},). I believe that this represents the pure hard g (cf. French