My first instinct was to post a simple message thanking Miguel for a
providing another ray of enlightenment into the abyss. His post(s)
are informational *and* 'on topic', unlike perhaps some others.

Just to make sure that I understand the list's purpose I went and
reread the home page, which states, "This moderated newsgroup is a
relocation of the original unmoderated Nostratic list. In addition
to discussing matters of reconstructing the Nostratic Proto-language
and the historical languages of the Nostratic macrofamily, Nostratica
will cross disciplines and culturel boundaries and explore
similarities between origins of language and origins of species."

Now I realize that perhaps my comment about being 'on topic' may not
be totally justified.

I wonder. What does, "Nostratica will cross disciplines and culturel
boundaries and explore similarities between origins of language and
origins of species" actually mean?

Pete P

--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:20:43 -0400, rmccalli@... wrote:
>
> >
> >Can we see some type of proof of what people are claiming re
Sumerian? Can
> >you be more precise as to which Sumerian you're talking about and
which
> >time period?
> >I would suppose that given that Sumerian was used as a prestige
> >cultural-liturgical written language long after it seems to have
> >disappeared as a spoken language, then it would have picked up
influences
> >from the native languages of those who used wrote it. Since
societies and
> >their commodities change, there would have to have been
neologisms, right?
> >So, I'd like to see concrete examples and proof for your
speculations
> >--given that I know virtually nothing about Sumerian.
>
> An excellent introduction is Marie-Louise Thomsen "The Sumerian
Language",
> Copenhagen 1984.
>
> We can distinguish between Old Sumerian (2600-2200), Neo-Sumerian
> (2200-2000), Old Babylonian Sumerian (2000-1600) and "Post Sumerian"
> (1600-150).
>
> Most Old Sumerian texts are problematical because the langauge was
written
> only very summarily. As an example, Thomsen gives an Old Sumerian
text
> from Abu Salabikh and its equivalent from the Old Babylonian period:
>
> (1) g~es^tug2 inim zu kalam til-la S^uruppak dumu na na-mu-ri
> wise, word(s) know, land liv-ing, Shuruppak son instructions indeed-
gave.
>
> (2) ... S^uruppak g~es^tug2 tuku ... inim zu-a ka-lam-ma ti-la-àm,
> S^uruppak{ki}-e dumu-ni-ra na na-mu-un-ri-ri
> Shuruppak, wisdom having, words knowing, (who) is living in the land
> (=Sumer), Shuruppak-ERG to-his-son instructions indeed-was-giving-
to-him.
>
> The old text is really just shorthand, like Japanese written only
in Kanji.
> The Old Babylonian version is closer to the language as it had
actually
> been spoken: the locative (kalam-a), the copula (-àm), the ergative
> (S^uruppak-e), the dative and possessive (dumu-ni-ra) are all
expressed, as
> is the complete form of the verb <ri> (na-mu-n-ri.ri: particle na-
> "indeed", conjugation prefix mu- (meaning obscure), 3rd. person
indirect
> object -n-, reduplicated root (imperfective aspect) ri.ri. [No
ending,
> because the 3rd. person sg. has a zero ending in the imperfective].
>
> Ironically, Sumerian was already a dead language in the old
Babylonian
> period, and it was written more carefully precisely because it was
not the
> native language of the Babylonian scribes.
>
> The best evidence for Sumerian are the Gudea texts from the Neo-
Sumerian
> period. The language was written in full, and it was still the
native
> language of the writers.
>
> In later texts, more and more errors are evident, and it is clear
that
> those elements of Sumerian grammar which were quite unlike the
Akkadian
> system were not properly understood anymore. Sumerian was still
very much
> part of the curriculum in the scribal schools, but, not
surprisingly,
> Sumerian grammar and pronunciation was more and more fit into an
Akkadian
> mould.
>
> Thomsen gives the example of a royal inscription from Hammurabi:
>
> Akkadian: s^ar-ru in LUGAL-rí ma-na-ma la i-pu-s^u "which no king
among
> kings has ever made"
>
> Sumerian: lugal-lugal-e-ne-er lú na-me ba-ra-an-dím-ma.
>
> In real Sumerian that would mean "for all the kings, no one shall
ever make
> it". The wrong case, and the wrong negative prefix on the verb are
used.
>
> The proper Sumerian translation, according to modern scholarship,
is:
>
> lugal-lugal-e.ne-a lú na.me nu-un-dím-ma (or: nu-mu-na-an-dím-ma)
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...