¹ For a recent brief survey of selected manifestations of language contact see Kaufman, Stephen A., “Languages in Contact: The Ancient Near East”, Israel Oriental Studies 20 (2002), 297–306 Google Scholar. On Sumerian structural influence on Akkadian see Edzard, Dietz Otto, Sumerian Grammar (HdO 71), Leiden, 2003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim on the Sumero-Akkadian linguistic area, with refs. On verbal tenses see Streck, Michael P., Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen (CM 5), Groningen, 1995, 221 Google Scholar, on the variety of meanings of the verbal -ta-infix, and more recently, by the same author “The Tense Systems in the Sumerian-Akkadian Linguistic Area”, ASJ 20 (1998), 181–99Google Scholar, with references to broader debates. On lexical borrowing from Akkadian into Sumerian see Steiner, G., “Akkadische Lexeme im Sumerischen” in Studies Fronzaroli, 630–47Google Scholar. The classic work on contact between Akkadian and Aramaic is Kaufman, Stephen A., The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19), Chicago, 1974 Google Scholar, though this is (as the title indicates) very much written from an Aramaic point of view. More recently, see Odisho, Edward Y., “Bilingualism: A Salient and Dynamic Feature of Ancient Civilisations”, Mediterranean Language Review 14 (2002), 71–97 Google Scholar. On a likely Akkadian caique of an Egyptian idiom (rd(j) + prospective sdm=f calqued as nadānu + ana + infinitive + suffix or dependent genitive) see Depuydt, L., “On an Egyptianism in Akkadian”, OLP 27 (1996), 23–7Google Scholar.

² The new standard introduction to Sociolinguistics is: Coulmas, Florian, Sociolinguistics: The Study of Speakers' Choices, Cambridge, 2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The statement which comes closest to apprehending sociolinguistic aspects of admixture of Babylonian and Assyrian in the Kuyunjik correspondence is Parpola's, in Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, part II: Commentary and Appendices (AOAT 5/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1983, 111 Google Scholar: Babylonianisms “used as stylistic devices”. Cf. his complementary realization that stylistic considerations seem not to have weighed with all Babylonianisms (p. 251 apud 5). For studies of sociolinguistic aspects of language and dialect contact in other ancient Near Eastern textual corpora see Izre'el, S., “The Amarna Glosses: Who Wrote What for Whom? Some Sociolinguistic Considerations”, Israel Oriental Studies 15 (1995), 101–22Google Scholar and Gaiter, Hannes D., “Cuneiform Bilingual Royal Inscriptions”, Israel Oriental Studies 15 (1995), 25–50 Google Scholar.

³ Adams, J. N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge, 2003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ E.g. SAA XVII and XVIII.

⁵ Deller, K., “Zur sprachlichen Einordnung der Inschriften Aššurnaṣirpal II. (883-859)”, Orientalia 26, 144–56Google Scholar and “Assyrisches Sprachgut bei Tukulti-Ninurta II. (888–884)”, Orientalia 26, 268–72Google Scholar.

⁶ The normal base dialect of Assyrian royal inscriptions in the first millennium is Standard Babylonian, but Assurnaṣirpal's are so heavily Assyrianized that the base dialect of certain passages may be Assyrian.

⁷ Hermann Hunger, SAA VIII xv. This picture is fairly drawn in outline but refinements are in order, particularly in the “authorial” (i.e. non-quoted) sections.

⁸ Adams, , Bilingualism, 18–29 Google Scholar.

⁹ For instance, while unorthodox syllabification can be interpreted as marking a glottal stop (iš-al for Assyrian iš'al vs. Babylonian išāl), Woodington, Nancy Ruth, A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters in the Kuyunjik Collection, unpublished PhD thesis, Yale University, 1982, 16–17 Google Scholar has suggested it is a mark of length (iš-al for Babylonian išāl). The suggestion is not falsifiable.

¹⁰ Aro, Jussi, “Der Abfall der kurzen Auslautvokale im Spätbabylonischen und seine Einwirkung auf die Formenlehre”, Studia Orientalia 46 (1975), 12 Google Scholar.

¹¹ See Cole, Steven W., The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor's Archive from Nippur (OIP 114), Chicago, 1996, 13 Google Scholar with fn. 120.

¹² Schaudig, Hanspeter, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros' des Großsamt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften: Textausgabe und Grammatik (AOAT 256), Münster, 2001, 300 Google Scholar.

¹³ Whatever its cause, the shift from li- to lu- could have been accomplished relatively painlessly: in scholarly texts, present forms of the G and D stems (3rd person prefixes respectively i- and u-) seem to have been used interchangeably, probably (as argued by Kouwenberg, N. J. C., Gemination in the Akkadian Verb (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32), Assen, 1997, 186 fGoogle Scholar.) owing to the slightness of the formal difference between them.

¹⁴ Woodington, , Grammar, 102 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Woodington supplies no figures, and before the pattern's reliability can be confirmed quantitative investigations are necessary. These cannot be undertaken here.

¹⁶ For an example of the difficulty inherent in assigning a tablet to a base dialect see Deller, K., “Die Verdrängung des Grundstammes von ezēbu durch rammû im Neuassyrischen”, Orientalia 30 (1961), 346 Google Scholar on an erroneous assignation by AHw.

¹⁷ Jeannette Fincke maintains a website cataloguing tablets in the Babylonian script housed in the Assyrian royal library at Nineveh: http://fincke.uni-hd.de/nineveh/suchen.htm (I owe this reference to Dr Eleanor Robson). See now also her published report: “The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh. Report on the British Museum's Ashurbanipal Library Project ”, AfO 50 (2003–2004), 111–49Google Scholar.

¹⁸ E.g. Issar-šumu-ēreš: viii. 15:2, viii. 16:8, viii. 17:8 ke-e-nu; viii.37:3 e-ri-ik; but cf. viii.23:7 i-t[i ^!-iq] (Ass. orthog. e-te-eq). Nabû-ahhē-erība: viii.57:6, viii.65:2, viii.66:2 ke-e-nu.

¹⁹ See already George, A. R. writing in The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Oxford, 2003, 822 Google Scholar that “the spelling e-ma-ru for immarū is Assyrian in its use of the prefix e- and in the non-marking of the gemination but, in the absence of vowel harmony, it is not actually an example of Assyrian dialect”. Gelb in his review of GAG ¹ (“Notes on von Soden's Grammar of Akkadian”, BiOr 12 (1955), 92–111 Google Scholar) maintained that the i/e distinction is phonemic in Akkadian (this would strengthen the case for analysing e- as Assyrian dialect), citing kalbī “my dog” and kalbē “dogs” (p. 97), but this opposition is of restricted validity. It does not, for instance, hold good in Old Babylonian: kalbī “my dog” and kalbī “dogs”. Gelb's citation of ṣi-i-ri (MAH) and ṣe-e-ru (EDIN) within a single source is more convincing, but too slight in itself to be conclusive.

²⁰ George, Gilgamesh, 436 has also noted that forms with e- appear on Late Babylonian tablets, where they do not necessarily betray direct Assyrian influence.

²¹ Adams, , Bilingualism, 84–93 Google Scholar.

²² See possibly xvii.39.5–7 kasilaqqu ša Sîn-dūrī Nabûšuma-iškun u ṭupšarrašunu ina bābili [xxxx] išṭuru-ma “the sealed clay tablet which Sīn-duri, Nabû-šuma-iškun and their scribe […] wrote in Babylon” (thus translated by Dietrich). However, kasilaqqu normally identifies a type of storehouse, possibly a treasury, and this meaning might be retained depending on what is to be restored in the break. See also Oppenheim, A. Leo, “A Note on the Scribes in Mesopotamia”, Studies Landsberger (AS 16), Chicago, 1965, 253–6Google Scholar.

²³ Lines 7-10: ši-pir-ti šá Nabû-taklāk a-na šarri ú-šeb-bi-la ul Nabû-taklāk ki-i i-šaṭ-ṭa-ru-ši LÚ.qí-pa-ni-šú i-šaṭ-ṭa-ru-ši.

²⁴ Sargon seems to have been quite particular about epistolary propriety, to wit his famous letter demanding that correspondence be written in cuneiform and not in Aramaic (xvii.2). It is possible that his correspondent in xvii.59 expected Nabû-taklāk's sloppiness to provoke particular anger from Sargon.

²⁵ xvii.3:r19e–21e dibbī mala Bēl-iqīša šatammu išappa-rakka gabbī ša pi-i[a]. Bēl-iqīša himself assures the king: [xxx]x LUGAL šā pi-[i LUGA]L EN-ía a-šap-[pa-r]a (xvii.26:9). SAA XVII translates “I shall write the king's […] according to the comma [nd of the kin]g, my lord”, though the possibility should also be entertained of translating “I shall write the king's […] verbatim”. In support of this cf. also the phrase ša pī ummānī “of the mouth of the scholars”, i.e. verbatim from the oral tradition of the scholars, x.8.r2.

²⁶ de Vaan, Joop M. C. T., “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs”: die Sprache des Bēl-Ibni (AOAT 242), Münster, 1995, 82–92 and 108, 233 Google Scholar.

²⁷ Nonetheless, in xvii. 169:9–10 Esarhaddon is quoted as having spoken to Babylonians in Babylonian (diagnostic forms: he-pu-ú (Ass. hapû), al-ta-kan (Ass. assakan), ul-te-sib (Ass. ussēšib)).

²⁸ See Westhuizen, J. P. van der, “Word Order Variation of the Verbal Sentences in Amqi Akkadian”, Journal for Semitics 6/2 (1994), 117–53Google Scholar.

²⁹ In discussing a tablet in Standard Babylonian which includes both Neo-Babylonianisms and Neo-Assyrianisms, Livingstone, Alasdair, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA III), Helsinki, 1989, xxii Google Scholar, argues that “the deviations [from SB] cannot be explained away by saying that the [author] was influenced by his own dialect”, and suggests instead that they derive from successive redactions of the text. On dialectal intrusions into the text of SB Gilgameš by copyists of different epochs see George, , Gilgamesh, 435–7Google Scholar (also 349–56).

³⁰ Scribal transmission was enjoyed most frequently by apocryphal letters. Exceptionally, a “real” letter could be copied for several centuries. See for instance the recently published letter to Assurbanipal from the scholars of Borsippa (BM 45642), attested on a copy which may be Seleucid or later: Grant Frame and George, A. R., “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal's Tablet Collecting”, Iraq 67/1 (2005), 266 and 270 Google Scholar note to 1. 23.

³¹ See the discussion by Reynolds, , SAA XVIII, xviGoogle Scholar. For a similar case see Lieberman, Stephen J., Studies Moran (HSS 37), Atlanta, 1990, 310 Google Scholar.

³² Reynolds, , SAA XVIII Google Scholar, xxxvi n. 4 (from the king), n. 5 (to the king).

³³ x.l83.

³⁴ On astrological reports being read aloud to the king see X.76 and viii.316:14–16e.

³⁵ Awareness of this trend exists (see fn. 7), but the phenomenon has not been properly documented. A detailed exposition is however desirable so that e.g. the significance of aberrations (e.g. Assyrianism in viii.82:12) may be assessed, and other patterns established (esp. determinants of code-switching in authorial passages of the reports and letters).

³⁶ For instance, the omens on the obverse of viii. 19 appear, in different sequences and with different spellings, in viii. 15–18.

³⁷ This would tally with the practice of “elegant orthographic variation” documented in letters. See Luukko, Mikko, Grammatical Variation in Neo-Assyrian (SAAS 16), Helsinki, 2004, 14 Google Scholar: “many scribes alternate between the syllabic and the logographic way of writing a word in consecutive lines of the same letter. Thus they did not have to repeat the same sign(s) line after line”. See also p. 170: “the three different ways of writing the plural of parriṣu in this letter also gives a clear idea as to how important it was for some writers to avoid writing a word always in the same way”. On free orthographic variation in Old Assyrian see Veenhof, Klaas R., The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kaniš and its Chronological Implications, Ankara, 2003, 11 ff.Google Scholar, with the comment in Edzard's review, ZA 94/2 (2004), 306 Google Scholar.

³⁸ viii.481:4f, viii.499:1.

³⁹ See Hämeen-Anttila, , A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar (SAAS 13), Helsinki, 88 Google Scholar. M. J. Geller has suggested that this is due to Aramaic influence ( BSOAS 65/3 (2002), 562–4Google Scholar).

⁴⁰ In other contexts, Assyrian happily uses issi ahā'iš/issi aḫêš/issahêš. See Hämeen-Anttila, , SAAS 13, 54 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Despite the translation in SAA VIII, this is likely to be a continuation of the king's question because of the negation lā. To negate a report, which grammatically is a simple statement of fact, one would expect a Babylonian to use ul.

⁴² For the use of amāru N in Babylonian authorial passages see also: viii.294:r5 UD 14 KÁM itti ili it-ta[n-mar], viii.295:3 ša UD 14 KÁM ilu itti ili lā in-[nam-mar-ma], viii.295:6 ša UD 14 KÁM ilu itti ili lā in-nam-[mar-ma] (Nabû-iqīša), viii.323:r8f rēš šarrūtika sagmegar ina manzāzišu ⁹kīni it-tan-mar (Ašarēdu the elder), viii.382:r1–4 tarbāṣu ša … in-na-mar, viii.383:r9 ilu itti ili in-[na-mar], viii.388.7f ultu dilbat ⁸ innam-mar, viii.395:8f [ilu itti ili]⁹ in-n[am-ma-ru], viii.396:r6f 5 arhīannûti ⁷ UD 14KÁM ilu itti ili NU IGI-[mar], viii.397:r2′ UD 15 KÁM ilu itti ili IGI-m[a], viii.404:3f ša UD 14 KÁM ilu itti [ili] ⁴ in-nam-ma-r[u], viii.409:3 UD X KÁM ilu itti ili in-nam-mar, viii.410:9′ ilu itti ili IGI (Rāši-ili), viii.469:r10 sîn UD 16 KÁM itti šamaš it-tan-mar, viii.469:r12 kīma ša lā in-nam-ru, viii.471:8 ilu itti ili in-nam-ma-ru (Bēl-šuma-iškun), viii.486:1f šihṭu ina ereb šamši ² [it-t]i kakkabī it-tan-mar, viii.488:r3′ ša UD 15 KÁM itti šamaš in-nam-ru (Nādinu), viii.499:5 UD 14 KÁM sîn itti šamaš in-nam-mar (Šumāya).

⁴³ Contra SAA VILI (i-man-du).

⁴⁴ This is a very odd line. SAA VIII transliterates 1 ^d dilbat ina ^dUTU.ŠÚ.A ir-[bi] and translates as a statement “Venus se[t] in the west”. It may be easier to presume that the line is (part of) an omen protasis, the rest perhaps being omitted by mistake.

⁴⁵ For the Ass. form used by Issar-šumu-ēreš see x.6:r9.

⁴⁶ The usual Babylonian vernacular form of *išsi current at the time of the letter's composition was ilsi, so theoretically this form could be a hybrid: Assyrian issû + Babylonian -ma. It is, however, at least as plausible that Issar-šumuēreš is simply using the older Babylonian form under the influence of a source (copied or memorized) of Old Baby lonian origin.

⁴⁷ The Assyrian form with a is not attested, but one would expect it to exist by analogy with e.g. nēmal for nēmel. AHw gives Ass. *mēraš. It is possible that the writings with e in Assyrian documents are Babylonianisms.

⁴⁸ Parpola, followed by Lukko, , SAAS 16, 184 Google Scholar with refs., suggests that the gender of Venus depends on whether it represents the evening star or the morning star. In viii.27, however, both occurrences (observation and omen) must surely refer to the same incarnation.

⁴⁹ Nasalization of geminate consonants is attested in Assyrian (see Deller, K., “Old Assyrian Kanwarta, Middle Assyrian Kalmarte and Neo-Assyrian Garmarte”, JEOL 29 (1985–1986), 48 Google Scholar), but rarely, and is a characteristically Babylonian feature (particularly from Middle Babylonian times onward).

⁵⁰ All glosses in SAA VIII and X have been collected by Talon, Ph., “The Use of Glosses in Neo-Assyrian Letters and Astrological Reports”, in Fs Pelio Fronzaroli, Wiesbaden, 2003, 648–65Google Scholar (I am grateful to Uri Gabbay for this reference).

⁵¹ Unless on a late tablet as an Aramaism which crept in under the influence of vernacular Babylonian, but this would be unexpected in a celestial omen, and in any case possible instances of Aramaizing lā in Babylonian are rare. See Streck, , Zahl und Zeit, 121 Google Scholar.

⁵² Line viii. 102:14 [xxx]-ma pur-ru-us [xxx] is so fragmentary that it is not clear whether it represents a quotation or a report in Akkullānu's voice. It contains two Babylonian features (-ma and Bab. purrus vs. Ass. parrus).

⁵³ This line cannot be classified as quotation with absolute certainty, but the presence of Babylonian -ma coupled with the gloss given on a separate line render this likely.

⁵⁴ The other commentary in the reports of Akkullānu (viii. 105:8, viii. 106:r1 e-de-du: ṣa-pa-ru sa qarni) is also probably a quotation (and not a learned interpolation by Akkullānu), for another report (unassigned) quotes the same commentary after the same omen (viii. 190:2′).

⁵⁵ The final -ma in viii.3:r4 šunu lā ēmur, anīnu lā nēmur-ma “they did not see, we did not see” is probably not clause-connective (Babylonian) but emphatic, which is a standard Assyrian usage. Cf. viii.29:4 [iz]-za-az-ma, also by Issar-šumu-ēreš, where -ma must be emphatic because there is no clause to follow.

⁵⁶ The word is so far hapax. If it were a Babylonian or pan-Akkadian lexeme, we might expect to find more attestations of it. Note also that it appears next to unequivocally Ass. il-lu-ku (Bab. illakū).

⁵⁷ According to the dictionaries, only attested in Babylonian for MB.

⁵⁸ SAA VIII's translation of the sentence ki-ma ša a-na LUGAL be-li-ia ú-du-ni ra-man-šú uk-tal-lim 30 ina É i-za-zu-u-ni né-ta-am-ra as “when he whom the king, my lord, knows revealed himself, we saw where the moon was standing” is unsatisfactory, as the editor himself acknowledges with italics. I suggest instead “just as is known to the king, my lord, (the moon) revealed itself, we saw where the moon was standing”. The document (viii.21) is one of a number of replies to queries from the king asking how the astronomer was able to make an observation, given that he said the sky was cloudy (cf. viii.293 and x.147). I would take “just as is known to the king, my lord” to be a diplomatic way of introducing the obvious answer to a stupid question. Note the similarity to another letter by Issar-šumu-ēreš, x.11:13ff [xxxx a]-na EN-iā ú-du-n[i] ¹⁴[xxxx] ra-man-šú ¹⁵[xxxx] uk-ta-lim. The translation suggested for viii.21 supports that given by Parpola for x.11, and the passage could usefully be added to Hämeen-Anttila's grammar (SAAS 13) 102, which books the form ú-du-n[i] in x.11.

⁵⁹ Ass. orthog. viii.48:4 e-[te]-et-iq; viii.48:r2′ e-ti-it-iq.

⁶⁰ Although the non-assimilated form iltibišu is attested in Assyrian (e.g. xiii.21), assimilated forms (in this case issibi(šu), amply attested in the inscriptions of Assurnasirpal II), are more frequent, which argues in favour of the Babylonian restoration iltimišu.

⁶¹ The translation in SAA VIII as “will not be seen” derives in-na-mir from amāru “to see” (a/u), but the N present form of this is innammar. in-na-mir is from namāru “to be bright” (i/i), and should be translated “will not shine”, though it is possible that the scribes themselves were confused.

⁶² On -ma as a mark of explanatory sentences see SAA VIII, xvii. Is this a Babylonian usage?

⁶³ According to the dictionaries only securely attested for Bab. in Middle Babylonian.

⁶⁴ Parpola, , LAS 114 Google Scholar has observed that Assyrian scholars spell the second e plene. However, for a bona fide Assyrian *maprās- form of epēsu, one would expect nēpāš-. Perhaps, given its close association with Babylonian ritual literature, Assyrian scholars wanted to use the word in its Babylonian form, and changed nēpešu into nēpēšu to safeguard it against the pronunciation nēpušu, towards which they would have been led by the word's deep structure (cf. above on i-ha-sa-a-su). For an example of the opposite case, in which Babylonians loaned an Assyrian word with Assyrian pronunciation, see Kaufman, S., The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19), 97 Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ There are also contexts in which the meaning “ritual” is possible, but uncertain, e.g. xiii. 155:4, xiii.182:r2, xiii.146:5, xv.248:7′, xv.97:2', xviii.l64:6′.

⁶⁶ The words sometimes appear side by side (see CAD N/ii 169a).

⁶⁷ The Neo-Babylonian letters in SAA XVII and XVIII are much less helpful. They contain no attestations of nēpešu, but have almost as few attestations of dullu in the meaning “ritual”: XVII only has 20.r6 (ritual so as to be heard by Bel), and XVIII has none. Accordingly, no contrast can be drawn.

⁶⁸ In non-scholarly quotations such as songs and proverbs, diagnostic forms are usually in Babylonian and their location is the end of the letter (e.g. x.56, x.198). This was probably to heighten their rhetorical efficacy. Proverbs did not always have to be in Babylonian, however. Urad-Gula cites what seems to be a proverb in Assyrian in x.290:9–11: ša ina muhhi pī ša bēlišu i-du-lu-ú-ni ilāni sēdu [damqu idd]unūšu harrānu damqu ir-ra-di-šú “The man who runs according to the word of his master — the gods [will give] him a good genie, and a safe road will be guided to him” (Ass. ina muhhi pî, idullūni, irraddišu). For another likely example of a proverb in Assyrian see xiii.45.

⁶⁹ See section 3.3 above for nansuhu and Hämeen-Anttila, SAAS 13, 23 on malṭuru “inscription”, observing that it constitutes the only example of š > l before ṭ in Assyrian and “is clearly a loanword from Babylonian” (though the vowel assimilation is Assyrian).

⁷⁰ Parpola, , LAS II 11 Google Scholar.

⁷¹ See also x.76:12 ú-ìl-a-ti.

⁷² x.67 was studied together with the astrological reports, above.

⁷³ The dialectal affiliation of the form ši-ka-ru (x.74:15) is uncertain. It is certainly not distinctively Assyrian, but it may be distinctively Babylonian. Assyrian syllabic writings are extremely rare, and the forms with a could be Babylonianisms, as they occur in ritual contexts. It is not, therefore, certain that ā should be posited for Assyrian (thus the Helsinki team in the SAA glossaries), and the vernacular Neo-Assyrian form could have been šikuru or šikru (as in Old Assyrian).

⁷⁴ In both documents the author is named, though in viii.41 the name is broken: [ša ^mdNabû(PA)]-ahhē(PAB.MEŠ)-erība (su).

⁷⁵ At x.58.16 né-me-lu is given as an explanation of iš-di-hu. It is not clear whether the explanation is quoted or represents an interpolation by Baiasî. In the latter case, it would be comparable to many other instances in which explanations to Babylonian omens are given in Babylonian. Contrast ka-ku-bu (Bab. kakkabu) as an Assyrian gloss to MUL in an authorial passage x.51.r9.

⁷⁶ As tentatively interpreted by the editor of SAA X, x.89:5 pu-ud-de-e is a hapax Babylonian D stem infinitive (Ass. paddê), but the context is fragmentary and other interpretations are perhaps possible. The form is not discussed here. In x.104 the phrase maqāt ša-ru-ru appears (the ending u is surprising): x.104:13′-14′ ma-qa-at [šá]-ru-ru iq-ṭi-bi, x.104:16′ ma-qa-at šā-ru-ru a-na. The following vowels mean that Sandhi cannot be invoked, however it is possible that RU-RU stands for /rúr/, and that the word has zero ending (as opposed to one which is “wrong”, or Neo-Babylonian).

⁷⁷ x.[289], 290, 292, 293 bear his name. The assignation to his authorship of the other letters is based on orthography (Parpola LAS II 225). x.295 is a letter to him from the king.

⁷⁸ The letters of Adad-šumu-uṣur were previously studied by Deller, Karlheinz: “Die Briefe des Adad-šumu-uṣur”, in Röllig, W. and Dietrich, M., eds., lišān mithurti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden zum 19.VI.1968 gewidmet von Schülern und Mitarbeitern (AOAT 1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969, 45–64 Google Scholar. Deller listed Babylonianisms and noted that there is an unusually literary quality to Adad-šumu-uṭur's letters, but refrained from detailed analysis.

⁷⁹ See LAS II 111.

⁸⁰ Parpola, , LAS II, 111 Google Scholar has suggested that this signifies a sung epic poem.

⁸¹ Though lu- forms were, as discussed above, probably already established in vernacular Neo-Babylonian, the contrast between li- and lu- forms is worth drawing for Adad-šumu-uṣur because he uses the older Babylonian prefix li-.

⁸² On scholars' use of elevated style to impress the king see recently Grant Frame and George, A. R., Iraq 67/1 (2005), 266 Google Scholar.

⁸³ However, Marduk-šākin-šumi uses the N stem quite productively. Further research is required to determine whether Babylonian influence can be detected there.

⁸⁴ Other occurrences of nēpešu in the letters of Nabû-naṣir are x.296.10, x.296.r2, x.298.8, x.298.r9, x.298.r2.

⁸⁵ The form could in principle be a present, but that would yield poor sense in this context.

⁸⁶ A Gt present is excluded because the Gt stem does not exist in Neo-Assyrian (see Hämeen-Anttila, , SAAS 13, 88 Google Scholar).

⁸⁷ The Assyrian phrase is attested e.g. in xiii. 128:8, by Aššur-rēṭūja.

⁸⁸ The expected Assyrian form *pirissu is not yet attested, perhaps because in Assyrian the word is so far only known from elevated contexts, where the Babylonian form is preferred.

⁸⁹ Parpola, , LAS II 351 Google Scholar. It is also possible, however, that the use of the Babylonian form ṣummum was an afterthought, in which case the contrast would be less poignant.

⁹⁰ It is also worth noting that, once a practice of quoting Babylonian scholarly literature in Babylonian had established itself, anyone who converted the quotation into Assyrian would run the risk of seeming lacking in linguistic refinement, though interestingly this does not seem to have troubled Marduk-šākin-šumi.

⁹¹ Akkullānu once uses the word qaqqaru in its Babylonian form in a technical astronomical sense (x. 100:29). The evidence is as yet insufficient to show whether the Babylonian form was always so used (in which case it could be considered a loanword too), or whether this is an ad hoc flourish.

⁹² See Langslow, David, “Latin Technical Language: Synonyms and Greek Words in Medical Terminology”, Transactions of the Philological Society of Great Britain 87 (1989), 33–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Adams, , Bilingualism, 339–41Google Scholar on technical terms loaned from Greek into Latin. Adams suggests that one reason why loans were made is that it was easier to borrow Greek words than come up with Latin equivalents. This explanation does not fit the Akkadian evidence, where it would have been simple for Assyrians to Assyrianize Babylonian words.

⁹³ SAA XVII, xxvii.

⁹⁴ Emendation pe-ta-〈at〉 is also possible but, in view of the large number of Assyrianisms in Lanšê's letters, unnecessary.

⁹⁵ For an example of a dialectically mixed form in a quotation from the king within a letter whose base dialect is Babylonian see the discussion of šu-uh-hi-ir-a' (Ass. šahhirā, Bab. šumhirā) in BM 28825:29 by Frame and George, , Iraq 67/1 (2005), 277 Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ The authorship of xvii.99 is uncertain, and one of the criteria for attribution to Lanšê is precisely the Assyrianism ana muhhi.

⁹⁷ See Frame, Grant, “The God Aššur in Babylonia”, in Parpola, S. and Whiting, R. M., eds., Assyria 1995, Helsinki, 1995, pp. 55–64 Google Scholar. On the (limited) evidence for the cult of Assur in Babylonia see Beaulieu, Paul-Alain, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period (CM 23), Leiden, 2003, 331–3Google Scholar, the same author's “The Cult of AN.ŠÁR/Aššur in Babylonia after the Fall of the Assyrian Empire”, SAAB 11 (1997), 55–73 Google Scholar, and Holloway, Steven W., Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (CHANE 10), Leiden, 2002, 380–8Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ Elsewhere on the very same tablet (xvii.102.r9–10) Badā uses the Babylonian form bēlâ: u šū lil-li-ká[m-ma] LUGAL BE-LÍ-a lip-làh “As for him himself, let him come h[ere] and honour the king, my lord”.

⁹⁹ Some of the spellings be-lí could however be semi-logographic, concealing vernacular Neo-Babylonian pronunciation (see Streck, , ZA 89 (1999), 295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

¹⁰⁰ Calque in xvii.96 identified as such by Dietrich.

¹⁰¹ Though another Babylonian scholar writes reme-nu-ú (Bab.) atta (x.168:r9, Zakir). Compare also the Babylonian form rēmēnītu used by the Assyrian Pulu at xiii. 132:5, as discussed above.

¹⁰² Thus Dietrich, , SAA XVII, xxiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰³ A peculiarity is that it changes register abruptly. See Parpola, , LAS II, 357 Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Adams, , Bilingualism, 399–403 Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Adams, , Bilingualism, 342–7Google Scholar, has shown that Cicero's use of Greek in letters varied with the degree of ambient political turbulence. He used more Greek when things were quiet and less when they were troubled, suggesting that he deemed it unsuitable for use on serious occasions, suggesting in turn that it had a jocular quality.