Epigraphic community - Revision history

Admin: /* Article */

2021-01-20T10:53:31Z

Article

Admin at 15:20, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T15:20:08Z

Admin at 14:49, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T14:49:10Z

Admin at 14:42, 19 January 2021

2021-01-19T14:42:32Z

Admin at 14:04, 21 August 2020

2020-08-21T14:04:30Z

Admin at 15:52, 24 July 2020

2020-07-24T15:52:10Z

Admin at 15:48, 24 July 2020

2020-07-24T15:48:20Z

Admin at 07:26, 15 July 2020

2020-07-15T07:26:08Z

Admin: Created page with "==Translations== Comunità epigrafica | communauté épigraphique | epigraphische Gemeinschaft ==Article== Concept proposed by Martti Leitvo (2002) for “a community, which..."

2020-07-06T10:11:24Z

Created page with "==Translations== Comunità epigrafica | communauté épigraphique | epigraphische Gemeinschaft ==Article== Concept proposed by Martti Leitvo (2002) for “a community, which..."

New page

==Translations==
Comunità epigrafica | communauté épigraphique | epigraphische Gemeinschaft

==Article==
Concept proposed by Martti Leitvo (2002) for “a community, which is attested through inscriptions which share some linguistic idiosyncracies typical of [a] speech community”. The boundaries of the area that is defined by an e.c. do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of linguistic areas. The definition, as provided by Leitvo (cit.) is glottocentric, as it derives from a conception of writing as a model strictly representing a language or a set of languages. As such, an e.c. seems to be defined only in those cases in which two or more speech communities share a graphic system. However, while the case of [[language contact]] and [[interference]] is scientifically relevant, there is no reason not to generalize the notion of e.c. in order to indicate any group of people who share the same [[writing system]].
While the term was created in order to describe communities of the Ancient Mediterranean world, it was successfully applied to the analysis of later scenarios (e.g. Safran 2011).
In the Ancient Near East, the notion of epigraphic community is extremely important, as the very definition of the historical area can and should be based as the set of cultures that all belonged to the Cuneiform e.c.
The concept of e.c. is of the utmost importance for the study of epigraphic contact, when writing systems influence each other because of the coexistence of two or more e.c.’s in an area.

==Example==
An example can be the influence of Akkadian and Sumerian on the order of nouns and modifiers in the Akkadographic or Sumerographic graphic chains in Cuneiform Hittite and, again, the penetration of unusual orders in the construction of compound logograms in the Anatolian Hieroglyphic writing system:

Sumerian word order NOUN-GENITIVE:
nin kur-kur-ra-ke4
(lady lands.PL.G.ERG).
The lady of the countries (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta line 67)

Anatolian word order
GENITIVE-NOUN:
ne-pi2-sa-as DIŠKUR-as
(sky.G. Storm-GOD.NOM) The Storm-god of the sky (e.g. KBo 3, 22 passim)

Order of sumerograms in standard formulas of Cuneiform Hittite
NOUN-GENITIVE:
DUTU URUPU2-na
(Sun-god(dess) Arinna)
The Sun-goddess of Arinna (KUB 21, 27 I 4)

Order of Anatolian Hieroglyphic compound logograms
NOUN-GENITIVE:
(DEUS)TONITRUS HATTI
(Storm-god Hatti)
The Storm-god of Hatti (SÜDBURG §2)

==References==
Leitvo, M. 2002. From contact to mixture. J.N. Adams, M. Janse, S. Swain, eds., Bilingualism ad Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word, Oxford, OUP, 168-194.
Safran, L. 2011. Public Textual Cultures: A Case Study in Southern Italy. W. Robins, ed., Textual Cultures of Medieval Italy: Essays from the 41st Conference on Editorial Problems, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 115-144.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Article==
-<p>Concept proposed by Martti Leitvo (2002) for “a community, which is attested through inscriptions which share some linguistic idiosyncracies typical of [a] speech community”. The boundaries of the area that is defined by an e.c. do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of linguistic areas. The definition, as provided by Leitvo (cit.) is glottocentric, as it derives from a conception of writing as a model strictly representing a language or a set of languages. As such, an e.c. seems to be defined only in those cases in which two or more speech communities share a graphic system. However, while the case of [[language contact]] and [[interference]] is scientifically relevant, there is no reason not to generalize the notion of e.c. in order to indicate any group of people who share the same [[writing system]].</p><p>
+<p>Concept proposed by Martti Leitvo (2002) for “a community, which is attested through inscriptions which share some linguistic idiosyncracies typical of [a] speech community”. The boundaries of the area that is defined by an e.c. do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of linguistic areas. The definition, as provided by Leitvo (cit.) is glottocentric, as it derives from a conception of writing as a model strictly representing a language or a set of languages. As such, an e.c. seems to be defined only in those cases in which two or more speech communities share a graphic system. However, while the case of [[language contact]] and interference is scientifically relevant, there is no reason not to generalize the notion of e.c. in order to indicate any group of people who share the same [[writing system]].</p><p>
 While the term was created in order to describe communities of the Ancient Mediterranean world, it was successfully applied to the analysis of later scenarios (e.g. Safran 2011).</p><p>
 In the Ancient Near East, the notion of epigraphic community is extremely important, as the very definition of the historical area can and should be based as the set of cultures that all belonged to the Cuneiform e.c.</p><p>

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Article==
-Concept proposed by Martti Leitvo (2002) for “a community, which is attested through inscriptions which share some linguistic idiosyncracies typical of [a] speech community”. The boundaries of the area that is defined by an e.c. do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of linguistic areas. The definition, as provided by Leitvo (cit.) is glottocentric, as it derives from a conception of writing as a model strictly representing a language or a set of languages. As such, an e.c. seems to be defined only in those cases in which two or more speech communities share a graphic system. However, while the case of [[language contact]] and [[interference]] is scientifically relevant, there is no reason not to generalize the notion of e.c. in order to indicate any group of people who share the same [[writing system]].
+<p>Concept proposed by Martti Leitvo (2002) for “a community, which is attested through inscriptions which share some linguistic idiosyncracies typical of [a] speech community”. The boundaries of the area that is defined by an e.c. do not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of linguistic areas. The definition, as provided by Leitvo (cit.) is glottocentric, as it derives from a conception of writing as a model strictly representing a language or a set of languages. As such, an e.c. seems to be defined only in those cases in which two or more speech communities share a graphic system. However, while the case of [[language contact]] and [[interference]] is scientifically relevant, there is no reason not to generalize the notion of e.c. in order to indicate any group of people who share the same [[writing system]].</p><p>
-While the term was created in order to describe communities of the Ancient Mediterranean world, it was successfully applied to the analysis of later scenarios (e.g. Safran 2011).<br>
+While the term was created in order to describe communities of the Ancient Mediterranean world, it was successfully applied to the analysis of later scenarios (e.g. Safran 2011).</p><p>
-In the Ancient Near East, the notion of epigraphic community is extremely important, as the very definition of the historical area can and should be based as the set of cultures that all belonged to the Cuneiform e.c.<br>
+In the Ancient Near East, the notion of epigraphic community is extremely important, as the very definition of the historical area can and should be based as the set of cultures that all belonged to the Cuneiform e.c.</p><p>
-The concept of e.c. is of the utmost importance for the study of [[epigraphic contact]].
+The concept of e.c. is of the utmost importance for the study of [[epigraphic contact]].</p>
 ==Examples==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 While the term was created in order to describe communities of the Ancient Mediterranean world, it was successfully applied to the analysis of later scenarios (e.g. Safran 2011).<br>
 In the Ancient Near East, the notion of epigraphic community is extremely important, as the very definition of the historical area can and should be based as the set of cultures that all belonged to the Cuneiform e.c.<br>
-The concept of e.c. is of the utmost importance for the study of epigraphic contact, when a [[writing system]] influences another one because of the coexistence of two or more e.c.’s in an area (with ot without the involvment of [[multilingual document | multilingual documents]]). It should also be noted that a single e.c. can be interested by the presence of one or more [[grapholect|grapholects]], meaning that the presence of a single, shared writing system does not exclude that it was applied to recording different [[idiolect|idiolects]] within a language.
+The concept of e.c. is of the utmost importance for the study of [[epigraphic contact]].
 ==References==
 Leitvo, M. 2002. From contact to mixture. J.N. Adams, M. Janse, S. Swain, eds., Bilingualism ad Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word, Oxford, OUP, 168-194.
 Safran, L. 2011. Public Textual Cultures: A Case Study in Southern Italy. W. Robins, ed., Textual Cultures of Medieval Italy: Essays from the 41st Conference on Editorial Problems, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 115-144.