Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Online

49,00 € / $74.00*

* Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.
Publication Date:
January 2007
ISSN:
1613-1150
DOI:
10.1515/ZA.2006.005

See all formats and pricing

Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 49.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 74.00 *
Print
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 228.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 343.00 *
Print + Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 274.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 412.00 *
*Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.

Ed. by Sallaberger, Walther

Together with Cavigneaux, Antoine / Frame, Grant / Otto, Adelheid / van den Hout, Theo P.J.

2 Issues per year

ERIH category INT2

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Interpreting Early Akkadian Orthography: A Note on Pronominal Suffixes in Sargonic Akkadian

Rebecca Hasselbach1

1

Citation Information: Zeitschrift für Assyrologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie. Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages 161–177, ISSN (Online) 1613-1150, ISSN (Print) 0084-5299, DOI: 10.1515/ZA.2006.005, January 2007

Publication History:
Published Online:
2007-01-04

Abstract

The possessive and accusative pronominal suffixes of the 3ms in Sargonic Akkadian (∼2350–2100 BCE) exhibit a peculiar orthographic feature that is otherwise unknown in Akkadian. The possessive pronominal suffix is regularly written with the sign su while the acc. suffix is written with su 4. The latter sign is also used for the nom. and acc. 3ms anaphoric pronoun. No satisfactory explanation for this orthographic distinction has been given so far. The present article suggests that the spelling of the acc. pronominal suffix with the same sign as the anaphoric pronoun was caused by a reanalysis of the acc. suffix as being a reflex of the anaphoric pronoun after a set of sound changes had taken place that rendered these two morphemes nearly identical. In other words, in the mind of the speaker it was the anaphoric pronoun that was attached to verbs in the function of the direct object and not the original acc. suffix that had the same shape as the possessive pronominal suffix.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.