--- 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.