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:
> > > > --- 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?

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?

> > If Patrick Ryan thinks the Sumerian
> > grammars force the language into a Semitic mould ..... what is he
> > basing this conclusion on?
>
> I was slightly wrong; Patrick Ryan quotes Black (1991:34) with
> agreement: "All in all, the Sumerian of the causative sections of

the

> paradigms is complicated and awkward. We can only say that the
> Babylonian grammarians seem to have tried to force Sumerian into a
> straitjacket by devising un-idiomatic forms which would correspond

to

> those of the complex and productive causative system possessed by
> their own language. Sumerian has no specific 'causative' morphemes,
> but expresses instrumental agency where necessary by means of
> instrumental or locative infixes. Often it does not incorporate

into

> the verb all the persons present in an action (emphasis added)."

The

> quote is given at
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/SumerianGrammar-2.htm ;

I

> couldn't find the relevant list of references, so I don't know

where

> Black's opinion was published. Richard.

Looks as though Patrick Ryan and Black have placed a bit of blame on
the Babylonian grammarians. Which Black are you referencing: Jeremy
A? Possibly I might be able to assist with references.

Gerry