Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:11:58.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

XXIII. Sumerian and Georgian: A Study in Comparative Philology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Extract

Since Sumerian studies began Assyriologists and other philologists have tried to compare Sumerian with some known language or group of languages, and thus to solve definitely the important problem of the origin of the primitive civilization of Chaldæa. That the Sumerian race and Sumerian language really existed, and Sumerian was spoken in Babylonia in the most remote epoch, that this language was neither Aryan nor Semitic but an agglutinative language—these are facts now established by the researches of earlier and modern Assyriologists and recognized even officially by science. J. Halévy's theory, denying the very existence of the Sumerians and their language, has now no followers among serious scientists, and the study of Sumerian is based upon such methods and facts that the appearance of another Halévy raising anew “the Sumerian question”, and bringing some new arguments in order to support his theory, seems, if not impossible, at least very improbable.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 792 note 1 I follow here the terminology of Marr.

page 792 note 2 “Where the Svanian Declension is preserved”: Bull. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg, 1911.

page 796 note 1 Lehmann and Hommel (ZK. ii) derive šú from the classical ku; Professor H. Zimmern agrees with them. S. Langdon says that its origin is wholly obscure (Sumerian Grammar, p. 70).Google Scholar

page 797 note 1 I quote almost all the same examples as S. Langdon in his Sumerian Grammar.

page 800 note 1 Adopting this theory of Marr, we meet the same difficulty as in the case of šú = toward, unto, corresponding to Georgian ši(g), and not to Georgian genitive is and dative sa (Sumerian ra), with which Mingrelian-Lazian separative še is connected as derived from the Mingrelian genitive ši. But perhaps this Tubal-Cainian še has nothing to do with genitive ši and is originated from some primitive postposition ?

page 804 note 1 A difficulty again. Professor Marr says that the ablative ιθ, Lazian θе, is a result of the sound-change s(š) > θ, so that, following his theory, the Sumerian ta seems to be connected with Georgian s, Lazian-Mingrelian š, consequently with the Sumerian ra ! Svanian ablative šű, űš (< šo), according to the same theory, must also be connected with Georgian θ, Sumerian ta (see, indeed, ta instrumental and compare with Georgian ιθα, and šú instrumental and compare with Svanian šű, űš). Da, often confused in Sumerian with ta, is consequently also involved in this general confusion. The ta-like function of šú (see šú instrumental) in some cases and its exterior phonetic likeness with Georgian s, Lazian-Mingrelian š, brings this šú, too, into the same general confusion; in this case šú seems to have nothing to do with the Georgian postposition ši(g), but seems to be connected with Georgian dative s, š. One step again and we may arrive at a hypothesis of the primitive unity of all these particles, but this hypothesis would be absolutely untenable. Personally I am inclined to think that the Georgian θ is derived from the postposition θαn = with, and is it really quite improbable to see in the Sumerian ta the primitive tal = twin, comrade, and in da (confused often with ta) dal = to correspond to ? In Georgian tol-i = equal, comrade; αl-ι = one entire half of the unity. Probably θαn is derived from αl-ι, since we have in Mingrelian qimi-al-i = Georgian emisθan-a = like me.