Studies in Neo-Babylonian Onomastics: The Use of the Sign DÙ (original) (raw)
One of the readings of the Sumerogram DÙ is banû (to create), but the proper transcription is not always clear. Especially when it turns up in combination with other bivalent signs, the reading of names may be ambiguous. This article will treat the following questions: I. How should we read the sign DÙ in different names? II. Was DÙ-a(-a(-a) for Ibnaja and DÙ-ia for Bānija used consistently? III. Were Bānija, Ibnaja and Tabnēa hypocoristics and, if so, for what types of names? IV. Are there clear rules how to read sentence-type names that use logograms only? The example of DN-DÙ-ŠEŠ/URÙ. Conclusions. Neo-Babylonian names with the element DÙ were written very consistently. DÙ-a(-a(-a)) only designated Ibnaja, DÙ-ia only designated Bānija and DÙ was never used to transcribe tabni. Hypocoristics were used alternately with the long name but this was rare. DÙ-a(-a(-a)) could be a hypocoristic of DN-ibni and Ibni-DN, DÙ-ia could replace DN-bāni-zēri and DN-bāni-ahi, and Tabnēa could be a hypocoristic of DN-tabni-uṣur. The transcription of (Ea-)DÙ-eš-DINGIR(.MEŠ) should be (Ea-)Ēpeš-ilī “(Ea,) artisan/sorcerer among/of the gods”, not (Ea-)Eppēš-ilī. DN-DÙ-ŠEŠ is sometimes written DN-ba-ni-ŠEŠ or DN-DÙ-a-hi or could be shortened to Bānija. Therefore, DN-DÙ-ŠEŠ must be read DN-bāni-ahi and not DN-tabni-uṣur. Keywords: DÙ, Ea-ēpeš-ilī, DN-bāni-ahi, DN-tabni-uṣur Published in Akkadica 135/2 p.145-171. If you are interested in getting a copy, please e-mail me. Errata & additions: see download.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
The authors claim that the complex heterogramm D.UTU.AŠ ‘the Sungod’ in Hittite texts must be read with an Akkadian complement D.UTU-AŠ (= Šamaš), but not as traditional D.UTU-aš, where the last sign is syntactically incorrectly treated as a Hittite complement of the gen. sg. (= *Ištanuwaš).
UET 6, 124 = U 16900E CDLI P346209 Lamentation over Sumer and Ur 1f., Michalowski MC 1, source BB, Attinger La lamentation sur Sumer et Ur (2.2.3) obverse 1. ud šu bal ke3 -de3 [...]-lam? -e-de3 In order to overturn the day, in order to destroy the plans 2. ud -de3 mar-rux(TE)-gin7 [...] x-gu7-e The storm ravages like a stormwind 3. me ki -en-gi-ra šu bal ke3-de3 In order to overturn the cosmic powers of Sumer 4. bal sag9-ga e2 -ba gi4-gi4-de3 In order to confine the good reign in its house 5. iri gul -gul-u3-de3 e2 gul-gul-u3-de3 In order to destroy the city, in order to destroy the temple 6. tur3 gul-gul-u3-de3 amaš tab-tab-be2-de3 In order to destroy the cattlepen, in order to flatten the sheepfold 7. gud-bi tur3-bi-a nu-gub-bu-de3 So that the ox does not does not stand in its cattlepen 8. udu-bi amaš-bi-a nu-daĝal-e-de3 So that the sheep does not expand (in number?) in its sheepfold 9. id2-bi a mun4-na tum3-u3-de3 So that the canal irrigates with (only) brackish water 10. gan2-ne2 zid-de3 u2 hirim mu2-mu2-de3 So that hirin grass grows in the fertile field 11. eden-e u2 a-nir mu2-mu2-de3 So that the "lamentation plant" grows in the plain 12. ama dumu-ni-ir ki nu-kiĝx-kiĝx(UR4-UR4)-de3 So that the mother does not seek the whereabouts of her child 13. ad-da a dam-ĝu10 nu-di-de3 So that the father does not say "ah, my wife" 14. dam banda3 ur2-ra nu-hul2-le-de3 So that the junior spouse does not delight in (his) lap 15. TUR-TUR dub3-ba nu-buluĝ3-ĝe26-e-de3 So that the little ones do not grow on the knee 16. emeda da -e u5-a nu-di-de3 So that the nursemaid does not sign a lullaby 17. nam-lugal-la ki -tuš-bi kur2 -ru-de3 So that the dwelling of kingship is changed 18. eš-bar kiĝx(UR4)-ĝa2 [...]-e-de3 In order to paralyze/actively diminish(?) decision making note: For the debated meaning of eš-bar kiĝ₂ (... dug₄), see Attinger ELS, 508, Steinkeller RAI 60, 8-9.
2020
M.A. Thesis in Indo-European linguistics, University of Helsinki, 15.12.2020. Original abstract is available in separate document. This is a revised version 0978 of the MA thesis document, uploaded on 8.2.2021 with the following major corrections: - IE root for ON dís changed to mirror full ablaut grade as recommended by the inspectors. - corrections and upgrade to the language and typos. - harmonization to the presentations of IE roots in the text. - an erroneous footnote with Gödecke's trl. to Völuspá 7 was corrected. - corrections to the *stél- derivations, as presented in chapter 4 and Appendix 2, to correspond with the dictionary entries *stḗlo- *stól-no- as given in §4.7.1. - minor additions and corrections to clarify the sections discussing agnícayana and pravárgya. - the extra spaces after diacritics and accents removed from reference texts (condensed MS Word text -> pdf processing error). There were still few in version 0977 --> corrected to v. 0978. - The notation error with second laryngeal and long accented ī́ and ā́ could not be fully erased from the document preview mode. ***Changes TBD: In addition, a requirement for a major revision to the Part I is acknowledged regarding the inference of ablaut rule for Ved. dhíṣṇya. The current inference under §1.4 is acknowledged as erroneous, (or at least incomplete), however I decided to keep it intact in the M.A. thesis, as a reminder. There are options to tackle the open issues which will be investigated separately in the PhD. thesis. The five most plausible inferences, and therefore likely to be included in the PhD, are listed below: 01) There are actually two nouns present in RV, dhíṣan and dhíṣ(a)ṇya, which have analogous declension with rā́jan, rā́janya. 02) There are only three nouns in RV that are affixed with -san i.e. dhíṣan, rā́jan (*h₃rḗǵ-ōn) and pū́ṣan (*péh₂us-ōn). The Skt. affix -san is recognized by Panini and defined as sanādyantā dhātavaḥ "to belong to dhātu" (A 1.3.1), for which Patañjali comments that "signifiers (vādi) of what comes into being (bhū) are called dhātu". In Balto-Slavic, the equivalent suffix *-snь < *-sni- is related to verbal nouns related exclusively to speaking or singing (Matasovic 2014:45 /§2.4.8). 03) Analogous declination between pū́ṣan and rā́jan was recognized and investigated by Oettinger 2000:397. Dhíṣan declines in the same manner: in the inventory that I run in Jan-Feb 2021, no forms emerged in RV, AV, that could _not_ be placed under the particular declension for rā́jan available f.ex in Macdonell VG§90. 04) The verbal noun/denominative dhíṣan (m.) is based on accented root dhí-s which represents reduced grade instead of full grade. The accented reduced grade had an impact to the unaccented -a-, on the second syllable, which manifests as /0 on the unaccented second syllable in the masculine form dhíṣ(a)ṇ-ya, yet appears as accented á in the feminine dhiṣáṇ-ā, where the accent has moved from the root to the second syllable. The vowel *n̥ > a on the second syllable thus becomes pronounced only when accented, namely in the feminine forms. 05) In addition, RV & AV display peculiar reduplicate forms in dual and plural, i.e. Pl. loc. didhiṣ-ú, didhiṣ<ú>vo; Du.nom. dídhiṣ-āṇā, gen. didhiṣ-ós, for which the declension is not corresponding with that of rā́jan - dhíṣan. Based on the context, the reduplicate forms could be explained out by declension of a personal name/family name Dídhis- instead of forms built on dhíṣan /dhíṣ(a)ṇ-ya.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
Some Observations on Late Urukean Theophoric Names
Kleber, K. / Neumann, G. / Paulus, S. (Hg.), unter Mitarbeit von Ch. Möllenbeck, Grenzüberschreitungen. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Hans Neumann zum 65. Geburtstag am 9. Mai 2018 (dubsar 5. Münster 2018) 349-363