Difference between revisions of "Epigraphic contact"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Article== | ==Article== | ||
| − | We speak of epigraphic contact when a [[writing system]] influences another one because of the coexistence of two or more [[epigraphic community | epigraphic communities]] 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. | + | We speak of epigraphic contact when a [[writing system]] influences another one because of the coexistence of two or more [[epigraphic community | epigraphic communities]] in an area (with ot without the involvment of [[multilingual document | multilingual documents]]), or because of the presence of a system charachterized by [[digraphia]]. 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. |
==Example== | ==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, which underwent indirect influence, as of course it was never shared with Sumerian (Rieken and Yakubovich 2017): | 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, which underwent indirect influence, as of course it was never shared with Sumerian (Rieken and Yakubovich 2017): | ||
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
Sumerian word order NOUN-GENITIVE:<br> | Sumerian word order NOUN-GENITIVE:<br> | ||
nin kur-kur-ra-ke<sub>4</sub><br> | nin kur-kur-ra-ke<sub>4</sub><br> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The lady of the countries (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta line 67) | The lady of the countries (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta line 67) | ||
| − | Anatolian word order | + | Anatolian word order |
GENITIVE-NOUN: <br> | GENITIVE-NOUN: <br> | ||
| − | ne-pi<sub>2</sub>-sa-as <sup>D</sup>IŠKUR-as <br> | + | <i>ne-pi<sub>2</sub>-sa-as </i><sup>D</sup>IŠKUR<i>-as </i><br> |
(sky.G. Storm-GOD.NOM)<br> The Storm-god of the sky (e.g. KBo 3, 22 passim) | (sky.G. Storm-GOD.NOM)<br> The Storm-god of the sky (e.g. KBo 3, 22 passim) | ||
Order of sumerograms in standard formulas of Cuneiform Hittite | Order of sumerograms in standard formulas of Cuneiform Hittite | ||
NOUN-GENITIVE: <br> | NOUN-GENITIVE: <br> | ||
| − | <sup>D</sup>UTU <sup>URU</sup>PU<sub>2</sub>-na<br> | + | <sup>D</sup>UTU <sup>URU</sup>PU<sub>2</sub><I>-na</I><br> |
(Sun-god(dess) Arinna) <br> | (Sun-god(dess) Arinna) <br> | ||
The Sun-goddess of Arinna (KUB 21, 27 I 4) | The Sun-goddess of Arinna (KUB 21, 27 I 4) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
(Storm-god Hatti) <br> | (Storm-god Hatti) <br> | ||
The Storm-god of Hatti (SÜDBURG §2) | The Storm-god of Hatti (SÜDBURG §2) | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Rieken, E. and Yakubovich, I. 2017. Contacts between scripts in Bronze Age Asia Minor. Unpublished paper presented in Chicago, March 2017. | Rieken, E. and Yakubovich, I. 2017. Contacts between scripts in Bronze Age Asia Minor. Unpublished paper presented in Chicago, March 2017. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 1 March 2021
Contents
Translations
- | - | -
Article
We speak of epigraphic contact when a writing system influences another one because of the coexistence of two or more epigraphic communities in an area (with ot without the involvment of multilingual documents), or because of the presence of a system charachterized by digraphia. It should also be noted that a single e.c. can be interested by the presence of one or more grapholects, meaning that the presence of a single, shared writing system does not exclude that it was applied to recording different idiolects within a language.
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, which underwent indirect influence, as of course it was never shared with Sumerian (Rieken and Yakubovich 2017):
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
Rieken, E. and Yakubovich, I. 2017. Contacts between scripts in Bronze Age Asia Minor. Unpublished paper presented in Chicago, March 2017.
