This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Akkadian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wonder why has somebody posted all these woefully outdated XIX and early XX century grammars here. It can be of no use to anyone. Instead it creates an impression to somebody unfamiliar with the subject that all the grammatical and vocabulary readings in these books are correct which is simply not true. Yet someone has deleted the link to a very useful collection of scholarly oriented and accurate set of cuneiform fonts. ( http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/cuneifont/). I can't understand the logic behind this.
It's confusing to people to first see the official language box, but then read that it was official, and isn't currently. I recommend removing that box and placing the information on another section in the article, or rename if former official status at least. Il Studioso 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that there has been/is a revert war on BCE/BC in this article, and so I'm not going to do anything to it, but having both systems present in the one article is confusing and looks unprofessional. Could the next person who changes sets about to change it, for whatever reason, please be systematic? Zjanes ( talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed from article:
Professial Akkadian reference books:
This article seems contradictory because it says of the Akkadian language: "...it used the cuneiform writing system derived ultimately from ancient Sumerian, an unrelated language isolate". How can it be "derived ultimately from ancient Sumerian", but then Sumerian is referred to as "an unrelated language isolate". If it is derived from the Sumerian, then how can the Sumerian be unrelated ?
Are the earliest written samples of Akkadian found at Akkad in Mesopotamia or at Mari, Syria? The Mari article states that the inhabitants spoke Akkadian, and the tablets there are apparently pretty old.
The oldest attestations come from Muqaiyir according to Dr. Jonathan Taylor of the curator (Cuneiform Collections)The Department of the Middle East The British Museum. He has also said, "There are no clear traces of pre-Sumerian influence on Akkadian."-- Standforder ( talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added some new information to the grammar section, but it still needs a lot of work. Feel free to clean it up however you see fit.
As a linguist who knows nothing about Akkadian, I have a couple questions/ requests for clarification.
Under "Writing system", the article says "cuneiform was a syllabary writing system — i.e. a consonant plus vowel comprised one writing unit — frequently inappropriate for a Semitic language made up of triconsonantal roots (i.e. three consonants minus any vowels)." I'm not understanding what the form of roots has to do with writing texts in the language. Sentences are not normally formed with verb roots, but with inflected verbs. As such, a verb would have at least some vowels (well, you can have vowel-less words in languages like Salish or Berber, even occasionally in English, but it's not typical of Semitic languages to have vowel-less conjugated words). So the point about roots being (usually) triconsonantal seems irrelevant. What *might* be relevant (although I'm sure it's hard to tell with an extinct language) is the existence of geminate consonants or consonant clusters in conjugated verbs; but that has nothing to do with the roots, AFAIK. Or am I missing something?
Under "Grammar", it says "[Akkadian had] unique verb conjugations for each first, second, and third person pronoun." I'm not sure what it means to have verb conjugations for *pronouns*, or what it means to have *unique* verb conjugations for each person. Maybe what is meant is that verbs were conjugated for the person of the subject? ("Subject" is relevant here, since there are many languages that also conjugate transitive verbs for the person of the object or other verbal arguments.)
Also "Adjectives are declined exactly like nouns." Is there any indication that adjectives differed from nouns in any way (in the syntax maybe)? There are plenty of languages in the world which do not distinguish adjectives as a part of speech distinct from nouns (or distinct from verbs), and for all I know, Akkadian might be one. (Remember, I know nothing about Akkadian!)
"There are three tenses: present, preterite and permansive. Present tense indicates incomplete action and preterite tense indicates complete action, while permansive tense expresses a state or condition and usually takes a particle." It sounds to me like Akkadian did not have tense, it had aspect: maybe completive vs. incompletive aspect. I'm not sure what this "permansive" is, but maybe a stative aspect? And I don't understand what it means for the permansive to "take" a particle--on the assumption that there were many particles, is it known what caused a particular permansive verb to take one or the other particle? Lexical? Or is there a distinction in meaning? Are the particles functioning something like auxiliary verbs do (like modals in English, maybe)?
Mcswell ( talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
According to "Extinct Languages" (Friedrich, Johannes - ISBN 0-88029-338-1, 1993 translation of the 1957 German edition), symbols can be an ideogram, a determinative or a phonetic symbol sign. He goes on to say that another form of polyvariance - less common in earlier Akkadian but more frequent in later forms - was "polyphony", where the same sign represented phonetically different syllables. (Thus the sign meaning "kid" could also represent "sab" or "lil".)
I've updated the references section with a few current editions. I'll takle an expansion of the gramar section soon.
Genesis 03:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The grammar section seems to contradict itself:
"Akkadian [...] possesses two genders (masculine and feminine), distinguished even in second person pronouns (you-masc., you-fem.) and verb conjugations [...]
Akkadian nouns are declined according to gender, number and case. There are three genders; masculine, feminine and common. Only a very few nouns belong to the common gender. [...]"
So does Akkadian have two genders or three?
Khepidjemwa'atnefru 04:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Answer: Akkadian has two genders, masculine and feminine. Common gender refers to words or forms that do not distinguish gender (i.e., are used for both genders), such as the first person pronouns (anāku, etc.) or the third person singular verbal forms (in Babylonian; e.g., iprus for both masculine and feminine contrasted with the Assyrian and Old Akkadian iprus/taprus distinction between masculine and feminine (the third person singular stative/permanisive forms, however, do distingish gender: paris [m.] / parsat [f.]). "Common" is not a gender but is a "both/either" category, not a "neither" category as "neuter" would be.
Robert Whiting, 28 JUL 2006
The "Akkadian litterature" links include Enheduanna. She was called the daughter of Sargon of Akkad, but she wrote in Sumerian, as far as I know, and "Akkadian litterature" in an article on the Akkadian language would mean "litterature in the Akkadian language". So I think Enheduanna shouldn't be listed here. -- 85.187.203.123 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I find Akkadian language close to arabic languages from words (unsigned IP)
I'm considering replacing the current article with a translation of the one from Norwegian wikipedia ( Akkadisk). As far as I can make out, the article is ultimately derived from the German article, by way of Swedish. All three articles have been featured articles on their respective Wikipedias, and look like high-quality articles to me. Any comments? — Arnsholt ( talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
this article has as its scope the entire history of the language, not just its earliest "Akkadian" phase (2300 to 2000 BC). In the Old Assyrian/Babylonian to Neo-Assyrian/Babylonian period (2000 to 600 BC), it isn't usually known as "Akkadian". I don't object to the article residing at this title, but the relations need to be made clear. dab (𒁳) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy has been fairly uniform now for a couple of years. If an article is "historically" BC it stays BC. If an article is "historically" BCE it stays BCE. This article has been BCE for at least a couple of years now. It is a BCE article. ( Taivo ( talk) 13:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
The article seemed to add a reference to the affricate theory as an afterthought. Tried to clarify the one cited piece of evidence that points to the "traditional" š, etc. sibilant reconstructions as incorrect and better described as affricates, but I didn't want to paste in all of Dyakonov's work, which also compares loanword interchange all pointing to most of the relevant cuneiform symbols referring to affricate sounds.
( http://archives.conlang.info/gae/ghoenqhu/gaubholpian.html is an abbreviated translation of the relatively dense and impenetrable originals: I. M. Dyakonov, Akkadskij jazyk, - in: Jazyki Azii i Afriki/Semitskie jazyki. No. IV/1 in the series: Jazyki Azii i Afriki, Moskva, Glavnaja redakcija vostochnoj literatury, 1991 and Vvedenije. Afrazijskie jazyki--ibid.
In the translation, which is in ASCII(!), "s" represents a sibilant, "c" an affricate, "c." an emphatic affricate, and "3" a voiced affricate, while the place information is given by the following "`" for lateral and "^" for palatal. One practically has to know Russian to glean this from the English translation!)
A slightly more comprehensible version, though nothing like as comprehensive, is found in The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum, by Roger D. Woodard, sec. 2.4/2.5 of the description of Akkadian (pp. 89-94). Mellsworthy ( talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that there are broken plurals in Maltese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 13:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In the table under the section "Proto-Semitic phonemes and their correspondences among Akkadian, Arabic and Tiberian Hebrew" there are places where several proto-Semitic phonemes have the same reflex in Akkadian, and this simplified correspondence is made clear by the removal of the proto-Semitic separation-lines, but in the case of the other languages, especially Hebrew, the proto-Semitic separation-lines are still there, thus making it a bit more difficult to compare with Akkadian or other columns. Can those unnecessary horizontal lines be removed, please? Jakob37 ( talk) 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The apostrophe certainly appears tiny, but that's how the ayin is transliterated according to the DMG and ISO 259. I have also added the IPA character to clarify things.-- Xevorim ( talk) 03:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1) The transcriptions in the table do not seem to be standard; e.g. instead of tˤ, shouldn't it be tˀ ? - And there is some controversy, is there not, about the actual pronunciation: were they ejectives, as your preferred symbols seem to indicate, or pharyngeals (the symbols in parentheses)? Perhaps a short discussion of the controversy would help; I'd work on it, but it's hard to get the materials here in Taiwan. Jakob37 ( talk) 00:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Akkadian emphatics are reconstructed as ejectives. Hetzron writes: "The dissimilatory change of one emphatic consonant to its non-emphatic counterpart in Akkadian roots containing two emphatics suggests that Akkadian emphatics were ejectives". As such I have corrected the table and added a citation. --
Xevorim (
talk) 03:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it correct to term it in such a manner? I don't think semitic languages were spoken in North Africa during the times of the Akkadian Empire. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the title to Assyro-Babylonian as it appears to be far more common.
Izzedine 06:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Iraq did not exist in antiquity and using its modern boundaries as measures of extent when the ancient language was used beyond its borders is not really helpful. There is no such thing as "Ancient Iraq"--it was "Mesopotamia" or part of the "Near East". Iraq came into being in the modern era. Assyria and Babylonia extended outside the boundaries of modern Iraq (as did the Akkadian Empire), so equating these regions with the boundaries of the modern country is not accurate. The most common usage among historians, etc., for this region is Near East or Mesopotamia (the latter term is less Eurocentric if that is a concern). ( Taivo ( talk) 08:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
In reality, it is fair to use "Iraq" for periods after about AD 1200, but in medieval times the term must be used with care, as it was not coterminous with the area of modern Iraq, there was ʿIrāq ʿArabī and ʿIrāq ʿajamī, which included much of modern Iraq and als much of modern western Iran, but not modern Northern Iraq. "Iraq" can only be used unambiguosly and without debate from periods after AD 1700 or so, or preferably only for times after 1921. Why? Because this is English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia. The meaning of Arabic ʿIrāq is irrelevant for usage of English Iraq, which is a loanword and as such does not necessarily have the same meaning as the source term in the original language. The OED defines the meaning of the English term Iraqi as "A native or inhabitant of Iraq, a republic in the Persian Gulf, formerly (before 23 Aug. 1921) known as Mesopotamia", unambiguously stating that in English usage, "Mesopotamia" is the term of choice for referring to the region in contexts of periods predating 1921. Thank you. -- dab (𒁳) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) As far as I'm concerned, this version is acceptable to me and the matter can be closed. ( Taivo ( talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
it is not acceptable to me, for a number of perfectly good reasons. If Izzedine wants to make controversial changes to this article, let him present an argument and seek consensus under WP:BRD like everyone else. -- dab (𒁳) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The vowel chart seems inverted with respect to "open" and "closed" vowels. Typically 'i' and 'u' refer to closed vowels while 'a' refers to some type of open vowel. I don't know enough to know where the mistake is, but there seems to be a problem there. Artificialintel ( talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have Unicode fonts activated and quite a good multilingual font installed but akkadian is one of those rare times the foreign characters don't display for me, so I assume this would be the case for many readers too. Is there a free / open-source font we could put as a recommendation to install? | Moemin05 ( talk) 10:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
According to an article on sciencedaily.com, Canaanitic is the oldest attested of the Semitic languages.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129100250.htm
Hebrew is a Canaanite language not a separated as you have mentioned, the only known Canaanite languages are Hebrew and Phoenician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.99.212 ( talk) 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I was querying Dr. Cornelia Wunsch about an article that mentioned the book she wrote with Dr Pearce, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer. The article called the language Akkadian and I thought, as this article says, that Akkadian was a dead language by then. Her answer was that the language of Nebuchadnetsar and later, a living language, is now called the Neo-Babylonian dialect of Akkadian. Read the book and update your article. 71.163.117.143 ( talk) 12:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please add the cuneiform written form of the numbers given in the Akkadian language#Numerals section? It would be great to have something equivalent to this description of Sumerian number-writing. HLHJ ( talk) 19:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The Etruscan obsession with haruspicy (their liver-reading priests were called 'maru') (Akkadian 'baru') and certain name forms seem to indicate a possible link with Akkadian or Sumerian. Maybe they were refugees or settlers from Babylon who came to italy via Lemnos (based on Lemnian language links and their patheon). ??who knows. It may be a fruitful avenue of enquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.190.193 ( talk) 09:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13715296
the BBC reports the chicago oriental institute has completed a 21 volume dictionary of akkadian.
It's probably worth some content in the article -- Patbahn ( talk) 23:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Without any details other than I guess a disagreement, this was marked as dubious. Looking at page 37, it uses mid-3rd millennium and not the specific 27th century BC. As such, I'll adjust the language to 3rd millennium broadly. Would that suffice? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Akkadian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 10:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Akkadian →
Akkadian language – to prevent the readers to be confused for a demonym.
newroderick895 (
talk) 10:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)).
I propose to move this article to
Akkadian language because if left unchanged, many readers would confuse it for a demonym of peoples of Akkadian Empire, it will be [possibly] easier to readers as if they read the title, they [possibly] can successfully understand that this page is about an extinct language, not a demonym.
newroderick895 (
talk) 10:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Newroderick895, In ictu oculi, Xezbeth, Katolophyromai, Iazyges, Benwbrum, Rreagan007, Paintspot, and AjaxSmack: DAB has been created by Gherkinmad, and we have retargetted all links in articlespace (but not generally elsewhere). Akkadian language remained the most common target by far, but it was used not only where Akkadian Empire was intended but also (at least) Akkadians, Akkadian mythology, Akkadian literature, and Akkadian cuneiform. There are still a number of links to this page where another target might be better such as Akkadian literature for some instances of "Akkadian tablets". I believe that it's an attractive enough nuisance that DAB at basename would be better. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 10:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The statement about the Akkadian word order in section 5.1 is confusing. I understand (see also Wikipedia:Semitic Languages) that it was mainly SOV, influenced by Summerian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nir 1953 cohen ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Several letters in many words of this language are written with a circumflex, but I can't find anything about what this diacritic represents. At least under 'Vowels' it explains that the macron indicates length, but what does the circumflex represent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.181.191 ( talk) 21:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
How do we know they had no 'Ayin with a glottal sound?
Or do we? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought two previous sections on the TP identified the original writing of this article used the "BCE/CE" system? If users of original articles utilizing BC/AD want to have their views respected, stop going around Wiki reverting things to your preferred style. 50.111.1.232 ( talk) 17:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Why was the logographic spelling of the native name of the language removed? Until a few days ago we had: akkadû, 𒀝 𒅗 𒁺 𒌑 ak-ka-du-u2; logogram: 𒌵 𒆠 URIKI; now we have only: Akkadian: 𒀝𒅗𒁺𒌑 akkadû . Panglossa [ Talk ] 22:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
In my reading of his Grammar, the rules for stress are slightly different then the ones presented in this article.
I quote the article:
In his syllable typology there are three syllable weights: light (V, CV); heavy (CVC, CV̄, CV̂), and superheavy (CV̂C). If the last syllable is superheavy, it is stressed, otherwise the rightmost heavy non-final syllable is stressed. If a word contains only light syllables, the first syllable is stressed.
CV̂ should be classed as superheavy (although he uses the term ultraheavy), and CV̄C as well. As in the example ibnû with the stress on nû.
The final rule applies not only when a word contains only light syllables, but also when its only heavy syllable is the final syllable, as in the example zikarum with the stress on zi.
Unless the edition I am reading has been updated in a new edition. EricPiphany ( talk) 11:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I know youtube is highly suspicious and nonstandard, but every channel teaching whichever ANE language systematically and in earnest is extremely rare - he is an Asyriology graduate, and seems to be up to the task. Video and audio add depth to learning any language, especially for self students who may have no ability to consult and check their progress in any other way. I have no connection to the guy, but I admit that I also want to boost his confidence, and spread the news about his channel, so that he won't decide to stop one day Anyway, please review it:
https://www.youtube.com/@learnakkadian 193.27.210.15 ( talk) 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In a 2006 Article "Sibilants in the Old Babylonian texts of Hammurapi and of the governors in Qaṭṭunān" [11], Streck makes a pretty solid argument that /š/ was, at least most of the time, realized as a lateral affricate [tɬ]. A lateral realization was also posited by Steiner in 1977. [12]
Should we mention either or both of these in the article, or is more academic consensus required? 2003:E5:B713:79F2:70E0:F820:1527:F842 ( talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Akkadian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wonder why has somebody posted all these woefully outdated XIX and early XX century grammars here. It can be of no use to anyone. Instead it creates an impression to somebody unfamiliar with the subject that all the grammatical and vocabulary readings in these books are correct which is simply not true. Yet someone has deleted the link to a very useful collection of scholarly oriented and accurate set of cuneiform fonts. ( http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/cuneifont/). I can't understand the logic behind this.
It's confusing to people to first see the official language box, but then read that it was official, and isn't currently. I recommend removing that box and placing the information on another section in the article, or rename if former official status at least. Il Studioso 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that there has been/is a revert war on BCE/BC in this article, and so I'm not going to do anything to it, but having both systems present in the one article is confusing and looks unprofessional. Could the next person who changes sets about to change it, for whatever reason, please be systematic? Zjanes ( talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed from article:
Professial Akkadian reference books:
This article seems contradictory because it says of the Akkadian language: "...it used the cuneiform writing system derived ultimately from ancient Sumerian, an unrelated language isolate". How can it be "derived ultimately from ancient Sumerian", but then Sumerian is referred to as "an unrelated language isolate". If it is derived from the Sumerian, then how can the Sumerian be unrelated ?
Are the earliest written samples of Akkadian found at Akkad in Mesopotamia or at Mari, Syria? The Mari article states that the inhabitants spoke Akkadian, and the tablets there are apparently pretty old.
The oldest attestations come from Muqaiyir according to Dr. Jonathan Taylor of the curator (Cuneiform Collections)The Department of the Middle East The British Museum. He has also said, "There are no clear traces of pre-Sumerian influence on Akkadian."-- Standforder ( talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added some new information to the grammar section, but it still needs a lot of work. Feel free to clean it up however you see fit.
As a linguist who knows nothing about Akkadian, I have a couple questions/ requests for clarification.
Under "Writing system", the article says "cuneiform was a syllabary writing system — i.e. a consonant plus vowel comprised one writing unit — frequently inappropriate for a Semitic language made up of triconsonantal roots (i.e. three consonants minus any vowels)." I'm not understanding what the form of roots has to do with writing texts in the language. Sentences are not normally formed with verb roots, but with inflected verbs. As such, a verb would have at least some vowels (well, you can have vowel-less words in languages like Salish or Berber, even occasionally in English, but it's not typical of Semitic languages to have vowel-less conjugated words). So the point about roots being (usually) triconsonantal seems irrelevant. What *might* be relevant (although I'm sure it's hard to tell with an extinct language) is the existence of geminate consonants or consonant clusters in conjugated verbs; but that has nothing to do with the roots, AFAIK. Or am I missing something?
Under "Grammar", it says "[Akkadian had] unique verb conjugations for each first, second, and third person pronoun." I'm not sure what it means to have verb conjugations for *pronouns*, or what it means to have *unique* verb conjugations for each person. Maybe what is meant is that verbs were conjugated for the person of the subject? ("Subject" is relevant here, since there are many languages that also conjugate transitive verbs for the person of the object or other verbal arguments.)
Also "Adjectives are declined exactly like nouns." Is there any indication that adjectives differed from nouns in any way (in the syntax maybe)? There are plenty of languages in the world which do not distinguish adjectives as a part of speech distinct from nouns (or distinct from verbs), and for all I know, Akkadian might be one. (Remember, I know nothing about Akkadian!)
"There are three tenses: present, preterite and permansive. Present tense indicates incomplete action and preterite tense indicates complete action, while permansive tense expresses a state or condition and usually takes a particle." It sounds to me like Akkadian did not have tense, it had aspect: maybe completive vs. incompletive aspect. I'm not sure what this "permansive" is, but maybe a stative aspect? And I don't understand what it means for the permansive to "take" a particle--on the assumption that there were many particles, is it known what caused a particular permansive verb to take one or the other particle? Lexical? Or is there a distinction in meaning? Are the particles functioning something like auxiliary verbs do (like modals in English, maybe)?
Mcswell ( talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
According to "Extinct Languages" (Friedrich, Johannes - ISBN 0-88029-338-1, 1993 translation of the 1957 German edition), symbols can be an ideogram, a determinative or a phonetic symbol sign. He goes on to say that another form of polyvariance - less common in earlier Akkadian but more frequent in later forms - was "polyphony", where the same sign represented phonetically different syllables. (Thus the sign meaning "kid" could also represent "sab" or "lil".)
I've updated the references section with a few current editions. I'll takle an expansion of the gramar section soon.
Genesis 03:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The grammar section seems to contradict itself:
"Akkadian [...] possesses two genders (masculine and feminine), distinguished even in second person pronouns (you-masc., you-fem.) and verb conjugations [...]
Akkadian nouns are declined according to gender, number and case. There are three genders; masculine, feminine and common. Only a very few nouns belong to the common gender. [...]"
So does Akkadian have two genders or three?
Khepidjemwa'atnefru 04:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Answer: Akkadian has two genders, masculine and feminine. Common gender refers to words or forms that do not distinguish gender (i.e., are used for both genders), such as the first person pronouns (anāku, etc.) or the third person singular verbal forms (in Babylonian; e.g., iprus for both masculine and feminine contrasted with the Assyrian and Old Akkadian iprus/taprus distinction between masculine and feminine (the third person singular stative/permanisive forms, however, do distingish gender: paris [m.] / parsat [f.]). "Common" is not a gender but is a "both/either" category, not a "neither" category as "neuter" would be.
Robert Whiting, 28 JUL 2006
The "Akkadian litterature" links include Enheduanna. She was called the daughter of Sargon of Akkad, but she wrote in Sumerian, as far as I know, and "Akkadian litterature" in an article on the Akkadian language would mean "litterature in the Akkadian language". So I think Enheduanna shouldn't be listed here. -- 85.187.203.123 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I find Akkadian language close to arabic languages from words (unsigned IP)
I'm considering replacing the current article with a translation of the one from Norwegian wikipedia ( Akkadisk). As far as I can make out, the article is ultimately derived from the German article, by way of Swedish. All three articles have been featured articles on their respective Wikipedias, and look like high-quality articles to me. Any comments? — Arnsholt ( talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
this article has as its scope the entire history of the language, not just its earliest "Akkadian" phase (2300 to 2000 BC). In the Old Assyrian/Babylonian to Neo-Assyrian/Babylonian period (2000 to 600 BC), it isn't usually known as "Akkadian". I don't object to the article residing at this title, but the relations need to be made clear. dab (𒁳) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy has been fairly uniform now for a couple of years. If an article is "historically" BC it stays BC. If an article is "historically" BCE it stays BCE. This article has been BCE for at least a couple of years now. It is a BCE article. ( Taivo ( talk) 13:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
The article seemed to add a reference to the affricate theory as an afterthought. Tried to clarify the one cited piece of evidence that points to the "traditional" š, etc. sibilant reconstructions as incorrect and better described as affricates, but I didn't want to paste in all of Dyakonov's work, which also compares loanword interchange all pointing to most of the relevant cuneiform symbols referring to affricate sounds.
( http://archives.conlang.info/gae/ghoenqhu/gaubholpian.html is an abbreviated translation of the relatively dense and impenetrable originals: I. M. Dyakonov, Akkadskij jazyk, - in: Jazyki Azii i Afriki/Semitskie jazyki. No. IV/1 in the series: Jazyki Azii i Afriki, Moskva, Glavnaja redakcija vostochnoj literatury, 1991 and Vvedenije. Afrazijskie jazyki--ibid.
In the translation, which is in ASCII(!), "s" represents a sibilant, "c" an affricate, "c." an emphatic affricate, and "3" a voiced affricate, while the place information is given by the following "`" for lateral and "^" for palatal. One practically has to know Russian to glean this from the English translation!)
A slightly more comprehensible version, though nothing like as comprehensive, is found in The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum, by Roger D. Woodard, sec. 2.4/2.5 of the description of Akkadian (pp. 89-94). Mellsworthy ( talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that there are broken plurals in Maltese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 13:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
In the table under the section "Proto-Semitic phonemes and their correspondences among Akkadian, Arabic and Tiberian Hebrew" there are places where several proto-Semitic phonemes have the same reflex in Akkadian, and this simplified correspondence is made clear by the removal of the proto-Semitic separation-lines, but in the case of the other languages, especially Hebrew, the proto-Semitic separation-lines are still there, thus making it a bit more difficult to compare with Akkadian or other columns. Can those unnecessary horizontal lines be removed, please? Jakob37 ( talk) 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The apostrophe certainly appears tiny, but that's how the ayin is transliterated according to the DMG and ISO 259. I have also added the IPA character to clarify things.-- Xevorim ( talk) 03:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1) The transcriptions in the table do not seem to be standard; e.g. instead of tˤ, shouldn't it be tˀ ? - And there is some controversy, is there not, about the actual pronunciation: were they ejectives, as your preferred symbols seem to indicate, or pharyngeals (the symbols in parentheses)? Perhaps a short discussion of the controversy would help; I'd work on it, but it's hard to get the materials here in Taiwan. Jakob37 ( talk) 00:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Akkadian emphatics are reconstructed as ejectives. Hetzron writes: "The dissimilatory change of one emphatic consonant to its non-emphatic counterpart in Akkadian roots containing two emphatics suggests that Akkadian emphatics were ejectives". As such I have corrected the table and added a citation. --
Xevorim (
talk) 03:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it correct to term it in such a manner? I don't think semitic languages were spoken in North Africa during the times of the Akkadian Empire. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the title to Assyro-Babylonian as it appears to be far more common.
Izzedine 06:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Iraq did not exist in antiquity and using its modern boundaries as measures of extent when the ancient language was used beyond its borders is not really helpful. There is no such thing as "Ancient Iraq"--it was "Mesopotamia" or part of the "Near East". Iraq came into being in the modern era. Assyria and Babylonia extended outside the boundaries of modern Iraq (as did the Akkadian Empire), so equating these regions with the boundaries of the modern country is not accurate. The most common usage among historians, etc., for this region is Near East or Mesopotamia (the latter term is less Eurocentric if that is a concern). ( Taivo ( talk) 08:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
In reality, it is fair to use "Iraq" for periods after about AD 1200, but in medieval times the term must be used with care, as it was not coterminous with the area of modern Iraq, there was ʿIrāq ʿArabī and ʿIrāq ʿajamī, which included much of modern Iraq and als much of modern western Iran, but not modern Northern Iraq. "Iraq" can only be used unambiguosly and without debate from periods after AD 1700 or so, or preferably only for times after 1921. Why? Because this is English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia. The meaning of Arabic ʿIrāq is irrelevant for usage of English Iraq, which is a loanword and as such does not necessarily have the same meaning as the source term in the original language. The OED defines the meaning of the English term Iraqi as "A native or inhabitant of Iraq, a republic in the Persian Gulf, formerly (before 23 Aug. 1921) known as Mesopotamia", unambiguously stating that in English usage, "Mesopotamia" is the term of choice for referring to the region in contexts of periods predating 1921. Thank you. -- dab (𒁳) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) As far as I'm concerned, this version is acceptable to me and the matter can be closed. ( Taivo ( talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
it is not acceptable to me, for a number of perfectly good reasons. If Izzedine wants to make controversial changes to this article, let him present an argument and seek consensus under WP:BRD like everyone else. -- dab (𒁳) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The vowel chart seems inverted with respect to "open" and "closed" vowels. Typically 'i' and 'u' refer to closed vowels while 'a' refers to some type of open vowel. I don't know enough to know where the mistake is, but there seems to be a problem there. Artificialintel ( talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have Unicode fonts activated and quite a good multilingual font installed but akkadian is one of those rare times the foreign characters don't display for me, so I assume this would be the case for many readers too. Is there a free / open-source font we could put as a recommendation to install? | Moemin05 ( talk) 10:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
According to an article on sciencedaily.com, Canaanitic is the oldest attested of the Semitic languages.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129100250.htm
Hebrew is a Canaanite language not a separated as you have mentioned, the only known Canaanite languages are Hebrew and Phoenician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.99.212 ( talk) 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I was querying Dr. Cornelia Wunsch about an article that mentioned the book she wrote with Dr Pearce, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer. The article called the language Akkadian and I thought, as this article says, that Akkadian was a dead language by then. Her answer was that the language of Nebuchadnetsar and later, a living language, is now called the Neo-Babylonian dialect of Akkadian. Read the book and update your article. 71.163.117.143 ( talk) 12:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please add the cuneiform written form of the numbers given in the Akkadian language#Numerals section? It would be great to have something equivalent to this description of Sumerian number-writing. HLHJ ( talk) 19:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The Etruscan obsession with haruspicy (their liver-reading priests were called 'maru') (Akkadian 'baru') and certain name forms seem to indicate a possible link with Akkadian or Sumerian. Maybe they were refugees or settlers from Babylon who came to italy via Lemnos (based on Lemnian language links and their patheon). ??who knows. It may be a fruitful avenue of enquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.190.193 ( talk) 09:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13715296
the BBC reports the chicago oriental institute has completed a 21 volume dictionary of akkadian.
It's probably worth some content in the article -- Patbahn ( talk) 23:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Without any details other than I guess a disagreement, this was marked as dubious. Looking at page 37, it uses mid-3rd millennium and not the specific 27th century BC. As such, I'll adjust the language to 3rd millennium broadly. Would that suffice? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Akkadian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 10:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Akkadian →
Akkadian language – to prevent the readers to be confused for a demonym.
newroderick895 (
talk) 10:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)).
I propose to move this article to
Akkadian language because if left unchanged, many readers would confuse it for a demonym of peoples of Akkadian Empire, it will be [possibly] easier to readers as if they read the title, they [possibly] can successfully understand that this page is about an extinct language, not a demonym.
newroderick895 (
talk) 10:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Newroderick895, In ictu oculi, Xezbeth, Katolophyromai, Iazyges, Benwbrum, Rreagan007, Paintspot, and AjaxSmack: DAB has been created by Gherkinmad, and we have retargetted all links in articlespace (but not generally elsewhere). Akkadian language remained the most common target by far, but it was used not only where Akkadian Empire was intended but also (at least) Akkadians, Akkadian mythology, Akkadian literature, and Akkadian cuneiform. There are still a number of links to this page where another target might be better such as Akkadian literature for some instances of "Akkadian tablets". I believe that it's an attractive enough nuisance that DAB at basename would be better. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 10:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The statement about the Akkadian word order in section 5.1 is confusing. I understand (see also Wikipedia:Semitic Languages) that it was mainly SOV, influenced by Summerian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nir 1953 cohen ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Several letters in many words of this language are written with a circumflex, but I can't find anything about what this diacritic represents. At least under 'Vowels' it explains that the macron indicates length, but what does the circumflex represent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.181.191 ( talk) 21:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
How do we know they had no 'Ayin with a glottal sound?
Or do we? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought two previous sections on the TP identified the original writing of this article used the "BCE/CE" system? If users of original articles utilizing BC/AD want to have their views respected, stop going around Wiki reverting things to your preferred style. 50.111.1.232 ( talk) 17:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Why was the logographic spelling of the native name of the language removed? Until a few days ago we had: akkadû, 𒀝 𒅗 𒁺 𒌑 ak-ka-du-u2; logogram: 𒌵 𒆠 URIKI; now we have only: Akkadian: 𒀝𒅗𒁺𒌑 akkadû . Panglossa [ Talk ] 22:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
In my reading of his Grammar, the rules for stress are slightly different then the ones presented in this article.
I quote the article:
In his syllable typology there are three syllable weights: light (V, CV); heavy (CVC, CV̄, CV̂), and superheavy (CV̂C). If the last syllable is superheavy, it is stressed, otherwise the rightmost heavy non-final syllable is stressed. If a word contains only light syllables, the first syllable is stressed.
CV̂ should be classed as superheavy (although he uses the term ultraheavy), and CV̄C as well. As in the example ibnû with the stress on nû.
The final rule applies not only when a word contains only light syllables, but also when its only heavy syllable is the final syllable, as in the example zikarum with the stress on zi.
Unless the edition I am reading has been updated in a new edition. EricPiphany ( talk) 11:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I know youtube is highly suspicious and nonstandard, but every channel teaching whichever ANE language systematically and in earnest is extremely rare - he is an Asyriology graduate, and seems to be up to the task. Video and audio add depth to learning any language, especially for self students who may have no ability to consult and check their progress in any other way. I have no connection to the guy, but I admit that I also want to boost his confidence, and spread the news about his channel, so that he won't decide to stop one day Anyway, please review it:
https://www.youtube.com/@learnakkadian 193.27.210.15 ( talk) 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In a 2006 Article "Sibilants in the Old Babylonian texts of Hammurapi and of the governors in Qaṭṭunān" [11], Streck makes a pretty solid argument that /š/ was, at least most of the time, realized as a lateral affricate [tɬ]. A lateral realization was also posited by Steiner in 1977. [12]
Should we mention either or both of these in the article, or is more academic consensus required? 2003:E5:B713:79F2:70E0:F820:1527:F842 ( talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)