--- In
Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <waluk@...> wrote:
> > --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > > --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <waluk@...> wrote:
> > > > --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> > > > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > > > > --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <waluk@...>
wrote:
> > > > > > --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> > > > > > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > > > > > > --- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > > > "Gerry" <waluk@...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 3) Did Sumerian ever exist?
> > > > > > > Why do you think it might not have
> > > > > > > existed? We have writing that
> > > > > > > modern people label as Sumerian.
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I know. Apparently my question arose when certain
> facts
> > > > > about
> > > > > > Sumerian came to light. And the poster clearly
> > indicates "no"
> > > > (in
> > > > > > answer to my query).
> > > > >
> > > > > The continuation of the 'no' removed the clarity. To me it
> > > > > immediately flagged the reply as a witticism.
> > > >
> > > > No, IMO there is no indication of irony.....please specify
how
> > you
> > > > can consider the "no" to be a witticism?
>
> I suppose it's mildly interesting that I understood the reply
> perfectly and you didn't. Maybe it's the context in which we saw
the
> question. I can offer an explanation of my reaction, but it is
> entirely possible that I don't know how rapid thought processes
work.
>
> I have seen many sober references to Sumerian, all taking to be one
> of the first written languages, and so I had no doubts as to its
> existence. Your question was surprising, and the answer, 'No', is
> startling. It needs an explanation. The explanation
offered, 'It's
> just a myth', is far too short for such a startling assertion.
> Sarcasm offers an explanation. Sarcasm would not permit a long
> answer. Sarcasm is not a an usual response to silly questions.
> (Incidentally, I thought it was a 'silly' answer, not a 'stupid'
> answer.) Had the answer been a simple 'No', I would have wondered
if
> it were a serious, but rudely blunt, answer. I did have a slight,
> lingering doubt, which is why I let Tristan know that I did not
take
> his answer seriously. Sorry, Tristan.
>
> > Ah hem. I see you chose not to answer this question. Do I hear
a
> > twang of "academe" shining through? Oh, in case you don't have
any
> > idea what I'm talking about, here's a nifty quote:
> >
> > "You do pay a price for stating it simply, namely it's easier for
> the
> > professionals to misunderstand it." John Searle --The
> Philosophers'
> > Magazine, Autumn 1999
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > Further, Sumerian could have been a "made up"
> > > > > > category to keep others from assuming that Assyrian and
its
> > > > > relatives
> > > > > > were the oldest of languages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aha! You suspect it was an Akkadian con-lang? Inspired by
> > > Elamite
> > > > > or even Meluhhan? >:) I believe we actually have Sumerian
> > > grammars
> > > > > written in Akkadian, or at least fragmentary grammars.
> > (Patrick
> > > > > Ryan's given them an unfavourable review! - He thinks they
> > > wrongly
> > > > > force Sumerian into a Semitic mould.) I'm pretty sure
we've
> > got
> > > > > Akkadian-Sumerian word lists.
> > > >
> > > > Akkadian con-lang? Please explain. Also, I must have
mistyped
> > > when
> > > > I wrote Assyrian.....should have been Akkadian.
By "inspire",
> > you
> > > > must mean "derived, yes?
> > >
> > > Not necessarily any more than Tolkien's Sindarin is from Welsh,
> or
> > > Quenya from Finnish, or the 'Black Tongue' (as used in the
> > > inscription on the ruling ring) is on Turkish. (Tolkien seems
to
> > > have reworked his etymologies to remove a fair number of Celtic
> > > roots. He and C.S. Lewis both demonised Turks, though the
latter
> > > more so.) If anyone wants more details, try websites devoted
to
> > > Tolkien's languages. I was offering an explanation as to why
> > > Sumerian might have similarities with Elamite and Dravidian if
it
> > > were a con-lang, i.e. a fake language. However, I don't
believe
> it
> > > was any more a con-lang than other dead but still used
languages,
> > > such as Latin. (Is there a proper term for this sort of
> language?)
> >
> > I do like using the term "inspired by" rather than "derived
from".
> > The creator of an artificial language certainly is able to vilify
> > whichever language or ethnic group he choses to. Here's a
website
> > you might find of interest:
> > http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/
> > Yes, I now can understand how Sumerian could have been a fake
> > language. Any idea whose brilliant idea that might have been?
> Would
> > there have been a motive for concocting Sumerian?
>
> I think that if it had been concocted, it would seem far more
> Semitic. (I suppose the 'banana' language substrate could be seen
as
> a sign of concoction.) Most concocted languages bear a strong
> resemblance to their concoctors' mother tongue. Remember that
> Tolkien was a professional linguist. There are parallels for the
> position of Sumerian as a ritual language. Hattic at Hattusa
> immediately springs to mind, and Hattic is not an isolate. I've
seen
> references to Etruscan playing a similar role in Rome, but I don't
> know how far to trust them. 'I, Claudius' cannot be used as a
> historical reference! > > Richard.
Why would something concocted be more Semitic .....because most
language scholars are Semitic?
About 'banana' language substrate do you mean the similarity
between "banana and barbarian"?
If Sumerian were a ritual language, then it would only have been
utilized by a few (and not the masses). Who would these "few" be?
The gods?
Gerry