« King of Saudi Arabia Becomes Pope!
Main
A Forty Five Year Conversation Continues »
June 5, 2009
Playing With Signs And Signs
The other day I wrote about a line in an Akkadian prayer that one might only understand fully in its written form. I didn't say it as the time, but it made me wonder if this prayer was ever really indented to be spoken. Now, in a different prayer, BMS 6:97-132, to Shamash this time, I've seen something, somewhat different but still depending on the writing system, that makes me wonder a bit about the same thing.
114:; šimtī šīm alaktī dummiq
115/116: lîširra idatūa lidmiqā šunātūa
117: šunāt aṭṭula ana damiqāti šukna
114: Decree my destiny; make my course good.
115/116: May my signs be prosperous; may my dreams be good.
117: Make the dream I had good news.
In another context, I would have translated these lines a little differently but this rather mechanical translation helps the point of this post. Some day I should do a post on the varying goals of translation but not today.
In three lines consecutive lines (physical lines 115 and 116 belong together) the prayer uses three differencing forms built on Akkadian damāqu. Line 114 has is the word dummiq, written dum-mi-iq, an imperative form meaning, "Make (something) good." Lines 115/116 has lidmiqā, written lid-mi-qa, a wish form meaning, "May (something) be good." And finally line 117 has damqāti, written SIG5-ti, a noun this time, meaning, "good mews" or the like.
One the one hand, all three of these forms could have been written using the Sumerogram SIG5 with or without phonetic determinatives. On the other hand, all three forms could have been spelled out just as the first two were. Scribes knew how to do both and did on other occasions. In line 117, the phonemic determinative -ti indicates that we should understand the Sumerogram here as the feminine noun in the genitive. In general, it also tells us how to pronounce the represented word. Why did the scribe use the Sumerogram here and not elsewhere? I'm far from sure. A casual look through CAD makes me think that using the Sumerogram was a little more common with the nominal forms than with the verbal forms. So, one explanation might be that our scribe followed conventional writing methods in all three cases. But there may be another, literary, reason too. In so doing, the scribe may have strengthened the tie with first two lines by reminding us that the same Sumerogram used with the noun could represent the verbal forms also. To be sure, the pronunciation and semantic ranges of the three forms would do their own major part in building this relationship. But the use of the Sumerogram may have added a subtle element binding them even more closely. Why didn't the scribe write all three with the Sumerogarm? Wouldn't that be an even stronger binding? Yes, but it would be less subtle. And it may not have occurred to a professional copyist to do this until he or she got to the last of the three cases. If my hypothesis is correct, this added element only works with the written text as read by a trained scribe. It does not work when spoken by an illiterate or semiliterate supplicant. Whatever you think of my hypothesis, it should be clear that these three lines form a tight linguistic unit held together by theme, vocabulary and structure.
By the way, the supplicant is not so much worried about having nightmares as he is about having dreams that portend nightmarish outcomes. Think oneiromancy.
Posted by Duane Smith at June 5, 2009 8:27 PM | Read more on Akkadian |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2896
Comments
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.