c-SUMERIAN-5_MultipleValues.htm

PL / IE / SUMERIAN MULTIPLE SIGN VALUES by Patrick C. Ryan 2/12/2001 NOTE: In spite of the date above, this is an older essay which contains ideas which have since been refined and corrected. I have made it accessible before updating it completely only in order to generally if imprecisely discuss the problem of Sumerian sign variable readings.

I operate under the following assumptions: 1. the multiple phonological and semantic values of Sumerian signs were motivated; 2. differing semantic values arose from the phonological convergence (or even near convergence) of morphemes that were originally semantically heterogeneous; a. but that, in many cases, the earliest semantic value can be determined from the representational characteristics of the archaic sign that were uninterpretable after the archaic signs were transformed into cuneiform; 3. that differing phonological values arose from the extension of the sign to semantically similar concepts but phonologically dissimilar morphemes.

102

Sign #102 in Jaritz (Jaritz 1967:40), with the primary reading of MU, depicts 'a stalk with leaves sprouting from a seed in a depression in the earth'.

A key reading for determining the original semantic significance of Sign #102, if not its original phonological shape, is šad/t₂ (šád/t), 'seed'.

Proto-Language SE, 'seed ('what is emitted/secreted')', can easily be seen in Sumerian Sign J. #669 (ŠE), še, 'barley, seed, *sowing' (Jaritz 1967:114), which is drawn in the same way as Sign #102 except that the depression in the earth is not indicated (sometimes the stalk and leaves are doubled in height to indicate fuller growth).

It is also easily seen in IE **se[/e:(i)]-, '**seed', which occurs in Middle Welsh se, he, 'seed', listed incorrectly in Pokorny under 1. *seg-, 'sow'; and better in 2. *se/e:(i)-, 'sow'.

It should be very understandable that this word is well-distributed among the daughter-languages since superior agricultural techniques were the main forces behind Indo-European becoming the parent of so many world-languages.

The commoner form for this root in Indo-European is *sei- {from Pontic **say from PL 'SE-¿E), '(be) sowing'}, which is listed in Pokorny as 2. *se/e:(i)-, 'send out . . . seed'.

NOTE: The inanimate definite plural was formed in the Proto-Language by the enclitic addition of -FA, 'circle, number'. Added to SE, this produced SEF, 'seeds', which is a major constituent of 'SEF-K[?]O, 'be scattering seeds, sowing'. The second element is K[?]O, 'be bent/thrown back'. This word can be seen in Sumerian šúg (šug₂), '*seed' (Sign #669 reads šug₂, and means 'seed`). The recorded meaning of šug₂, 'training', is a phonetic borrowing from a Proto-Language word the original form of which we cannot presently certainly reconstruct (but which is probably related to Indo-European 3. *seu-(k-), 'bend, turn, drive').

Combined with a singular, we have 'SE-K[?]O with the same meaning. This form was employed by Egyptian in zT, 'strew, scatter, *sow' (cf. zT.w, 'sower'); and in Indo-European 1. *seg-, 'sow'.

PL SE-'FA-T[?]O, 'cereal grain' , is the form underlying Egyptian zw.t, 'wheat', and Sumerian šad/t₂, '*seed', referred to above. It can also be seen in IE *sa:-d- (from **sewed-) in Old High German sa:t, 'sowing, seed', listed in Pokorny under 2. *se:(i)-, 'release, throw, let fall, sow . . .'

A 'seed' can be regarded from many viewpoints; one of the most important is its employment as a means of generating grain through planting and subsequent growth. A simpler and more original way of looking at it is as an object with certain visual and tactile characteristics divorced from its employment as food or as a means of generating new food.

In the Proto-Language, the original employment of SE characterizes 'seed' as 'something emitted'.

PL ¿A, however, characterizes 'seed' as a '(tiny) stone'; and this word also means 'stone' (Sumerian i₄ (and ia₄), 'stone' {Sign #453 (Jaritz 1967:86)}; and 'tooth' (Sumerian i₅, '*tooth' {Sign #15 (Jaritz 1967:29) reads i₅, and means 'tooth')}. The relationship among these concepts is that they all represent 'something which is under'.

Sumerian ia₅ is a reading of Sign #102; and, we assert, means 'kernel, fruit-pit, seed'.

As we should expect, we can only find ¿A, 'seed', combined in Indo-European from Pontic **yaw- {from PL ¿AF(A)}, 'kernels, barley', in *yewo-, 'grain, above all, barley'.

Thus, there does not seem to be a phonological difference among ia₄, 'stone', i₅ (for variant ia_x), 'tooth', and i_x (ia₅), 'kernel' — all of which represent PL ¿A. Sumerian merely employed three different signs to specify the context (mineral, animal, or plant) in which **ia was to be understood.

Sign #102 reads ia₅; and this should be regarded as **ia, which is a fundamental reading for the sign.

Derived Words

These are words that include the element that is the basal reading of Sign #102.

Proto-Language MA, 'female breast, mound', which is Sumerian ma, 'land' {Sign #639 (Jaritz 1967:109)}, was used in compounds meaning 'place of` — either as a prefix or suffix.

Egyptian m- is known as a prefix forming nomina loci and instrumenti (Edel 1955/64:109). Arabic ma- (mašrabun, 'place for drinking') is also known as a former of nomina loci and temporis while mi- (mibradun, 'file') forms nomina instrumenti (Wright 1967: I, 124-31). In Indo-European, -mo forms nomina loci and temporis as a suffix: Greek keuthmós, 'hiding-place'; dru:mós, 'woodland'; kheimón, 'winter(land(?))'.

574

Sign #574 in Jaritz (Jaritz 1967:100) represents a depression with the double lines indicating the contours of the bordered space.

It thus conforms exactly to the meaning we have advanced for Proto-Language ¿A ('depression'), which in a bodily semantic context means 'optic aperture` or 'eye-slit`.

This original meaning of ¿A explains why words for 'eye`, i.e. 'eye-ball' and 'eye-lid', needed to be suffixed by ¿E: ¿A¿ is 'what is connected with the optic aperture', i.e. 'eye(-ball)'. It also explains why ¿O, 'testicle', also figures in words for 'eye-ball'.

Proto-Language HH, which was the pharyngal sound represented by Arabic H, lengthens a following vowel in Sumerian without otherwise affecting it.

Proto-Language HHA should become Sumerian â (a), /a:/, with the colon indicating vocalic length.

Sumerian Sign #949 reads a; and this should be amended to **â, which is the fundamental reading for the sign.

To simplify comparison, we will interrelate only Sumerian words and Indo-European roots with Proto-Language primary monosyllables.

Proto-Language HHA, 'water-current', came to mean more generally 'moving water'. Because of the centrality of water for human existence, there are a great number of early compounds which can be compared.

Proto-Language was an OV (Object-Verb) language. Accordingly, adjectival modifiers came before their nouns, also in compounds.

The nominal final part of a nominal compound lost its stress- and pitch-accent.

949

1) HHA + P[?]A, 'spot' becomes *"HHA-P[?]A becomes HHAP[?], 'water-hole, watering-spot'; Sumerian ab/p (for **âb), 'sea' (Sign #222 {Jaritz 1967: 59-60}); IE *ab- (for **a:b), 'water, river'.

2) ¿A, 'much' + HHA becomes ¿AHH, 'flood, sea'; Sumerian i₇ (for **ya:, written i₂:), '*ocean' (Sign #949 + Sign #835 {Jaritz 1967: 137-8}); Sign #835 means 'ocean' by itself.

a) ¿AHH + MA, 'area' becomes ¿AHHM, 'sea'; Sumerian am₃ (for **(y)âm), '*sea' (Sign #949 + Sign #14 {Jaritz 1967: 29}); IE *a:m-, 'river', in Latin amnis, 'stream, river-water', listed incorrectly under *ab-, 'water, river' (cf. Egyptian jjm, 'sea'; Arabic yammun, 'sea, ocean').

b) ¿AHH + T[?]O, 'lump' becomes "¿AHH-T[?]O, 'river-bank'; Sumerian id₅, '*river-bank' (Sign #949)

3) HHA + T[?]O becomes 'HHA-T[?]O, 'river-bank'

a) 'HHA-T[?]O + FA, inanimate collective = 'HHA-T[?]OF, 'two river-banks'; IE *ad(u)- (for *a:d6u-), 'watercourse'

b) 'HHA-T[?]O + RO¿, 'part' = 'HHA-T[?]O-RO¿, 'meadow' ; Sumerian *adar_x, 'meadow' (Sign #856 {Jaritz 1967: 140}) reads agar₂, and is composed of Sign #834 {Jaritz 1967: 137}) and Sign #648 {Jaritz 1967: 111}, which reads dar₅; and means 'meadow`; consequently, we add the reading adar_x for Sign #856 ( cf. also Comb. #3634 {Jaritz 1967: 402} = Sign #949 + Sign #629 + Sign #800 = *adar (ugaru), 'steppe, field, meadow'); IE *ad-ro- (for *ad6r6i-; cf. Adria in Venice), 'watercourse', listed under ad(u)-; (cf. Egyptian jtr(.w), 'river (really 'two riverbanks')).

Derived Words

These are words that include one of the elements that comprise the basal reading of Sign #949.

Sign #949 also reads e₄. By the rules we have expounded above, Proto-Language HHA¿, 'moving-water-like', will become Sumerian ê (e), which is the form we see behind Sumerian e₄ for the meanings 'clear, bright'. That e₄ can be connected with 'clear, bright', is substantiated by Sumerian e₃, 'shine', (for *e:) (Comb. 2549 - Sign #684 + Sign #410 {Jaritz 1967: 332), which is derived from a verbal HHA¿, 'be illuminating'. This is Indo-European 4. *a/a:i-, 'burn, illuminate' (cf. the sk-form aisk-, 'clear, bright, illuminating'; a/a:ier, 'day, morning'); and ayos-, 'metal'.

1) HHA¿ + SE, 'cold(ness)' = 'HHAS, 'fog'; Indo-European 2. *ei-s-, *ei-n-, 'ice, frost'; eš₁₀, 'mist, fog, cold, rainy season'. SE, 'be cold', is substantiated embarrassingly richly by Sumerian še₄, 'cold, frost' (Sign #168 {Jaritz 1967: 52}), as well as Sumerian še₇, '*sleet' (Sign #949, 'water' + Sign #14, 'sky'); še₂₁, '*sleet' (Sign #322 reads še₂₁, and means 'rain'); še₁₂, 'icicle, cold, winter' (Sign #167 = Sign #165, 'bundle' + Sign #949, 'water'); eš₁₃, 'cold, winter' (Sign #342 = Sign #339, še₆ + Sign #949, e₄).

Whatever the climate of the Two Rivers in those ancient times, the Sumerians were obviously no strangers to cold!

2) HHA¿ + T[?]O, 'lump' = "HHA¿-T[?]O, 'flood'; Sumerian *ed_x (for ed(a)), 'inundation' (Sign #949). This reading of Sign #949 is based on the fact that Sign #949 means 'inundation`; and the Akkadian equivalent is edû, 'flood'.

Related Words

These are words with unrelated phonetic shapes that are related to HHA or HHA¿ or ¿A¿ only ideationally.

1) I cannot presently find any Indo-European cognates for Proto-Language HHA¿ in the meaning 'watery, juicy' (should yield *a:i-; except in combination: e.g. *aig^wh-, 'be ashamed', i.e. 'swallow saliva' — 'HHA¿-XA — possibly iši, 'cry' {Sign #429}) but Sumerian e₄, which represents it, is the certain cause of Sign #949 also being read at least duru₅, 'juicy, fresh', and probably dur₅, 'anoint', which two Sumerian words I cannot now analyze into their Proto-Language antecedents.

2) Sumerian me₅, 'water', also cannot have been an original reading of Sign 949 because no phonetically related words appear as entries under it.

Those who believe that Sumerian and Akkadian are related only through mutual borrowing (as I do not!) will not be surprised to find Akkadian mê, 'water', to compare with Sumerian me₅.

But why any people should borrow a term as basic as 'water' for their language from another baffles me!

Nonetheless, we can find a suitable prototype for mê/me₅ in the Proto-Language.

MA, 'mound' + ¿AHH, 'flood' = MA-'¿AHH, 'mound of much water'; by the principles we have established, Proto-Language MA-'¿AHH would first become Sumerian *ma-'ya:, which is reduced to me:. Combination 3625 (Sign #949, me₅ + Sign #597, la₆, 'strong, powerful, respected' = Akkadian mîlu, 'flood-crest' - Jaritz 1967: 401) and IE 3. *mei-, 'wander, go, word for river-names' (cf. Middle Irish Moín) leads me to think that me₅ is a likely reading for Sign #949.

Phonetically Related Words (after Reduction)

This opened the door to using Sign #949 for words that were originally semantically quite unrelated but had become phonetically similar or identical.

1) ?A, 'plant-top' + ¿E = ?A¿, 'plant-top-like, sharp'. By the rules above, this should result in Sumerian ê and Indo-European ai. Jaritz includes readings for the signs preceded by /'/; and Sign #949 reads both e₄ and 'e₄. This /'/ represents the lost laryngal.

Therefore, in the meaning 'cry of pain', the best transcription of Sign #949 is 'e₄.

The Indo-European equivalent, *ai, can be seen in 1. *ai, interjection (cf. Greek aî, 'interjection of wonder, amazement or pain'. Other related terms can be seen in aig[^]-, 'goat' ('grass-chewer'); ai-ra:, 'kind of grass' ('grasslike color': ?A¿-R[H](A)); and ai-tro-, 'bitter, tart (sharp)'.

a) The related verb can be seen in Sumerian ea, 'yammer (lament)'. It has been formed simply by adding HHA, a formant of animate perfectives, to the word above: ?A-'¿EHH (cf. Greek aiázo:, 'sigh, complain'). Thus ea represents **e(y)a:.

2) Proto-Language ¿O means 'testicle'. HHA, 'water' + ¿O = HHA-'¿O, 'seminal fluid container'. I propose the reading *a:-a: (for *a:(w)a:) to correspond with it. This reading is substantiated by Sign #954 which is a simple reduplication of Sign #949, and also means 'seminal fluid'. Sign #954 is read a.a. As a reading for Sign #949, it is inappropriate unless we assume that eventually *a:-a: was worn down even further to *a:.

a) One of the meanings of Sign #949 is 'son'. I propose that the meaning of the word metaphorically used for 'son' is the above 'seminal fluid', i.e. 'seed'. The proof of this is that Sign #954 means 'seminal fluid' and 'son'.

b) Proto-Language ¿O¿ means 'testicular'. By the rules above, this would be Indo-European *oi-, and Sumerian ê. This element oi- is found in Indo-European eibh-, oibh-, yebh-, 'cohabit with'; and oid-, 'swell, swelling, strength' (cf. Old Bulgarian isto, 'testicle' — *oid- is '¿O¿-T[?]O, i.e. 'testicular lump'; and probably Sumerian ed/t, 'strength', J. #628). For substantiation of this reading, one may compare Sign #950, esag, 'heir', composed of Sign #949 + Sign #194, 'head'.

1)) With the addition of HHA seen above in ea, 'yammer (lament)', we have ¿O-¿EHH, 'be procreating, procreator' (cf. Egyptian hjj, 'husband'). Thus, we propose ea (for *e(y)a₄), as the reading for Sign #949 in the meaning of 'father'.

3) Sign #949 also reads id₅, 'lamentation'. We have recognized a reading of ed_x for Sign #949 in the meaning 'flood'. This word is a reading of Sign #949 due to the phonetic resemblance of *'ed_x to *ed_x rather than id₅.

*'ed_x, 'lamentation', is Proto-Language '?A¿-T[?]O, i.e. *ed(a). What strongly suggests that this is the correct analysis is the existence of the reading e₈ for Sign #684, among the meanings of which is 'wailing' though not associated with this meaning (instead, we have u₄, for Indo-European 1. *au, 'cry of pain, confusion, helplessness', which is Proto-Language HAF[H], 'howling').

Sumerian e₈ ('lamentation'), on the other hand, is simply ?A¿, 'sharp', which we have seen above — now connected to Sign #684 because it is semantically connected with HAF[H] which is, in turn, connected phonetically with the base meaning 'setting sun', HHO, u₄ (for *u:).

669

Sign #102 in Jaritz (Jaritz 1967: 40) represents a 'stalk with leaves sprouting from a seed in a depression in the earth'.

A key reading for determining the original significance of Sign #102 is šad/t₂, 'seed'.

The meaning 'name' cannot be derived from the concept of 'seed'. The assignment of this meaning to Sign #102 likeliest arose from the phonetic resemblance (or identity) between a word meaning 'name' and another word referring to a 'seed'.

If we think about a seed in another way, i.e. the seed-kernel with its husk or skin, we can reconstruct MA-'¿A, 'place of the seed`, or 'seed(-husk)`.

In Sumerian, 'seed-husks' would have been MA-'¿AF; by the processes described above, MA-'¿AF would become *maíu then *mêu then *mû.

Proto-Language ME, 'tongue', is Sumerian me {Sign 889 (Jaritz 1967: 144)}, meaning 'tongue'; another related derivative is ME-'¿E, '(be) announcing', which results in Sumerian mi₃, 'speak, call' (also Sign #889). This form can be most easily seen in Indo-European *me(i)mei-, which is the basis for Hittite memiya(n), 'word'. In uncombined form, it is not found in Egyptian, but prefixed by S[H]O, a former of causatives, it is seen in smj, 'report, make report, complain, announce, proclaim'.

We have seen that MA-'¿AF would become *maíu then *mêu then *mû; if ME-'¿E was combined with FA into ME-'¿EF ('name(?)'), it may have had the phonetic result of *mû as well. This would explain Sumerian mu as a reading of Sign #102.

What will surprise many readers, are the startling

similarities in correspondences to Proto-Language

phonemes displayed by Basque and Sumerian.

A Sumerian Comparison essay is currently being developed

and should be ready during the autumn of 1998.

NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Combinatory Modifications
for modifications of the vowels and consonants in combination, see the

PROTO-LANGUAGE MONOSYLLABLES

In order for readers to judge the semantic plausibility of the analysis of Proto-Language (PL) compounds suggested here, I am including access to a table of Proto-Language monosyllables and the meanings I have provisionally assigned.

Most assignments can be exhaustively supported by data from actually attested forms but a few animates are very doubtful; and this list does not represent the "final" solution of these questions, which will only be approached when other scholars assist in refining it.

Patrick C. Ryan

Summer 1998

SUMERIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY