Re: Origin of the Sumerian language

--- 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?

> > 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? If Patrick Ryan thinks the Sumerian
grammars force the language into a Semitic mould ..... what is he
basing this conclusion on? And what about the god-lists. Are those
in Akkadian identical to the Sumerian?

Gerry