\n
\n![\"icon\"](\"/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg\") | This article needs more citations. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: \"Akkadian language\" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2026) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Akkadian | |
|---|---|
| Babylonian, Assyrian | |
| 𒀝𒅗𒁺𒌑(𒌝) Akkadû(m) | |
![](\"/wiki/File:GilgameshTablet.jpg\") | |
| Region | Mesopotamia |
| Era | c. 2600–500 BC; academic or liturgical use until AD 100[1] |
| Dialects | \n\n |
| Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform | |
| Official status | |
Official language in | Initially Akkad (central Mesopotamia); lingua franca of the Middle East and Egypt in the late Bronze and early Iron Ages |
| Language codes | |
| ISO 639-2 | akk |
| ISO 639-3 | akk |
| Glottolog | akka1240 |
| This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA. |
Akkadian (/əˈkeɪdiən/ ə-KAY-dee-ən; Akkadian: 𒀝𒅗𒁺𒌑(𒌝), romanized: Akkadû(m))[7][8][9][10] is an East Semitic language that is attested in ancient Mesopotamia (Akkad, Assyria, Isin, Larsa, Babylonia) from the mid-third millennium BC until its gradual replacement in common use by Old Aramaic among Mesopotamians by the 8th century BC.\n
Akkadian, which is the earliest documented Semitic language,[11] is named after the city of Akkad, a major centre of Mesopotamian civilization during the Akkadian Empire (c. 2334–2154 BC). It was written using the cuneiform script, originally used for Sumerian, but also used to write multiple languages in the region including Eblaite, Hurrian, Elamite, Old Persian and Hittite. The influence of Sumerian on Akkadian went beyond just the cuneiform script; owing to their close proximity, a lengthy span of contact and the prestige held by the former, Sumerian significantly influenced Akkadian phonology, vocabulary and syntax.[12] This mutual influence of Akkadian and Sumerian has also led scholars to describe the languages as a sprachbund.[13]\n
Akkadian proper names are first attested in Sumerian texts in the mid-3rd millennium BC, and inscriptions ostensibly written in Sumerian but whose character order reveals that they were intended to be read in East Semitic (presumably early Akkadian) date back to as early as c. 2600 BC.[14] From about the 24th century BC, texts fully written in Akkadian begin to appear. By the 20th century BC, two variant forms of the same language were in use in Assyria and Babylonia, known as Assyrian and Babylonian respectively.[15] The bulk of preserved material is from this later period, corresponding to the Near Eastern Iron Age. In total, hundreds of thousands of texts and text fragments have been excavated, covering a vast textual tradition of religious and mythological narrative, legal texts, scientific works, personal correspondence, political, civil and military events, economic tracts and many other examples.\n
Centuries after the fall of the Akkadian Empire, Akkadian, in its Assyrian and Babylonian varieties, was the native language of the Mesopotamian empires (Old Assyrian Empire, Babylonia, Middle Assyrian Empire) throughout the later Bronze Age, and became the lingua franca of much of the Ancient Near East by the time of the Bronze Age collapse c. 1150 BC. However, its decline began in the Iron Age, during the Neo-Assyrian Empire, by about the 8th century BC (Tiglath-Pileser III), in favour of Old Aramaic. By the Hellenistic period, the language was largely confined to scholars and priests working in temples in Assyria and Babylonia. The last known Akkadian cuneiform document dates from the 1st century AD.[16]\nMandaic and Suret are two (Northwest Semitic) Neo-Aramaic languages that retain some Akkadian vocabulary and grammatical features.[17]\n
Akkadian is a fusional language with grammatical case. Like all Semitic languages, Akkadian uses the system of consonantal roots. The Kültepe texts, which were written in Old Assyrian, include Hittite loanwords and names, which constitute the oldest record of any Indo-European language.[18][19]\n
\n\nClassification
[edit](c. 2200 BC)
![](\"/wiki/File:Sumero-Akkadian_cuneiform_syllabary.jpg\")
![](\"/wiki/File:Inscription_of_Naram-Sin.jpg\")
Akkadian is a Semitic language of the East Semitic branch. Its relatives in the East Semitic branch include Eblaite. This group differs from the Northwest Semitic languages (such as Aramaic) and South Semitic languages (such as Geʽez) in its subject–object–verb word order, while the other Semitic languages usually have either a verb–subject–object or subject–verb–object order.\n
In contrast to most other Semitic languages, Akkadian has only one non-sibilant fricative: ḫ [x]. Akkadian lost both the glottal and pharyngeal fricatives, which are characteristic of the other Semitic languages. Until the Old Babylonian period, the Akkadian sibilants were exclusively affricated.[8]\n
Additionally Akkadian is the only Semitic language to use the prepositions ina and ana (locative case, English in/on/with, and dative-locative case, for/to, respectively). Other Semitic languages like Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic have the prepositions bi/bə and li/lə (locative and dative, respectively). The origin of the Akkadian spatial prepositions is unknown.\n
The Semitic languages are further grouped by most linguists into the Afroasiatic macrofamily of languages, meaning that Akkadian is distantly related to Ancient Egyptian, as well as many other languages spoken historically and currently across northern and western Africa and West Asia.\n
\nHistory and writing
[edit]Writing
[edit]![](\"/wiki/File:AkkadischLand.png\")
(1 = Logogram (LG) \"mix\"/syllabogram (SG) ḫi,
2 = LG \"moat\",
3 = SG aʾ,
4 = SG aḫ, eḫ, iḫ, uḫ,
5 = SG kam,
6 = SG im,
7 = SG bir)
Old Akkadian is preserved on clay tablets dating back to c. 2500 BC. It was written using cuneiform, a script adopted from the Sumerians using wedge-shaped symbols pressed in wet clay. As employed by Akkadian scribes, the adapted cuneiform script could represent either (a) Sumerian logograms (i.e., picture-based characters representing entire words), (b) Sumerian syllables, (c) Akkadian syllables, or (d) phonetic complements. In Akkadian the script practically became a fully fledged syllabic script, and the original logographic nature of cuneiform became secondary[citation needed], though logograms for frequent words such as 'god' and 'temple' continued to be used. For this reason, the sign AN can on the one hand be a logogram for the word ilum ('god') and on the other signify the god Anu or even the syllable -an-. Additionally, this sign was used as a determinative for divine names.\n
Another peculiarity of Akkadian cuneiform is that many signs do not have a well defined phonetic value. Certain signs, such as AḪ, do not distinguish between the different vowel qualities. Nor is there any coordination in the other direction; the syllable -ša-, for example, is rendered by the sign ŠA, but also by the sign NĪĜ. Both of these are often used for the same syllable in the same text.\n
Cuneiform was in many ways unsuited to Akkadian: among its flaws was its inability to represent important phonemes in Semitic, including a glottal stop, pharyngeals, and emphatic consonants. In addition, 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 plus any vowels).\n
\nDevelopment
[edit]Akkadian is divided into several varieties based on geography and historical period:[22]\n
\n- Old Akkadian, 2500–1950 BC \n
- Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian, 1950–1530 BC \n
- Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian, 1530–1000 BC \n
- Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, 1000–600 BC \n
- Late Babylonian, 600 BC – 100 AD
One of the earliest known Akkadian inscriptions was found on a bowl at Ur, addressed to the very early pre-Sargonic king Meskiagnunna of Ur (c. 2485–2450 BC) by his queen Gan-saman, who is thought to have been from Akkad.[23] The Akkadian Empire, established by Sargon of Akkad, introduced the Akkadian language (the \"language of Akkad\") as a written language, adapting Sumerian cuneiform orthography for the purpose. During the Middle Bronze Age (Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian period), the language virtually displaced Sumerian, which is assumed to have been extinct as a living language by the 18th century BC.\n
Old Akkadian, which was used until the end of the 3rd millennium BC, differed from both Babylonian and Assyrian, and was displaced by these dialects. By the 21st century BC Babylonian and Assyrian, which were to become the primary dialects, were easily distinguishable. Old Babylonian, along with the closely related dialect Mariotic, is clearly more innovative than the Old Assyrian dialect and the more distantly related Eblaite language. For this reason, forms like lu-prus ('I will decide') were first encountered in Old Babylonian instead of the older la-prus.[24]\n
While generally more archaic, Assyrian developed certain innovations as well, such as the \"Assyrian vowel harmony\". Eblaite was even more so, retaining a productive dual and a relative pronoun declined in case, number and gender. Both of these had already disappeared in Old Akkadian. Over 20,000 cuneiform tablets in Old Assyrian have been recovered from the Kültepe site in Anatolia.\nMost of the archaeological evidence is typical of Anatolia rather than of Assyria, but the use both of cuneiform and the dialect is the best indication of Assyrian presence.[24]\n
Old Babylonian was the language of king Hammurabi and his code, which is one of the oldest collections of laws in the world. (see Code of Ur-Nammu.) Old Assyrian developed as well during the second millennium BC, but because it was a purely popular language—kings wrote in Babylonian—few long texts are preserved. It was, however, notably used in the correspondence of Assyrian traders in Anatolia in the 20th–18th centuries BC and that even led to its temporary adoption as a diplomatic language by various local Anatolian polities during that time.[25]\n
The Middle Babylonian period started in the 16th century BC. The division is marked by the Kassite invasion of Babylonia around 1550 BC. The Kassites, who reigned for 300 years, gave up their own language in favor of Akkadian, but they had little influence on the language. At its apogee, Middle Babylonian was the written language of diplomacy of the entire Ancient Near East, including Egypt (Amarna Period).[26] During this period, a large number of loan words were included in the language from Northwest Semitic languages and Hurrian. However, the use of these words was confined to the fringes of the Akkadian-speaking territory.\n
From 1500 BC onwards, the Assyrian language is termed Middle Assyrian. It was the language of the Middle Assyrian Empire. However, the Babylonian cultural influence was strong and the Assyrians wrote royal inscriptions, religious and most scholarly texts in Middle Babylonian, whereas Middle Assyrian was used mostly in letters and administrative documents.[27]\n
\n![](\"/wiki/File:Cuneiform_script.jpg\")
During the first millennium BC, Akkadian progressively lost its status as a lingua franca. In the beginning, from around 1000 BC, Akkadian and Aramaic were of equal status, as can be seen in the number of copied texts: clay tablets were written in Akkadian, while scribes writing on papyrus and leather used Aramaic. From this period on, one speaks of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian.\n
Neo-Assyrian experienced an upswing in popularity in the 10th century BC when the Assyrian kingdom became a major power with the Neo-Assyrian Empire. During the existence of that empire, however, Neo-Assyrian began to turn into a chancellery language, being marginalized by Old Aramaic. The dominance of the Neo-Assyrian Empire under Tiglath-Pileser III over Aram-Damascus in the middle of the 8th century led to the establishment of Aramaic as a lingua franca[28] of the empire, rather than it being eclipsed by Akkadian. Texts written 'exclusively' in Neo-Assyrian disappear within 10 years of Nineveh's destruction in 612 BC. Under the Achaemenids, Aramaic continued to prosper, but Assyrian continued its decline. The language's final demise came about during the Hellenistic period when it was further marginalized by Koine Greek, even though Neo-Assyrian cuneiform remained in use in literary tradition well into Parthian times.\n
Neo-Assyrian was used in some surviving tablets containing poetry and also more prominently in surviving letters of royal correspondence.[29] Because of the multilingual nature of the empire, many loan words are attested as entering the Assyrian language during the Neo-Assyrian period.[30] The number of surviving documents written in cuneiform grew considerably fewer in the late reign of Ashurbanipal, which suggests that the language was declining since it is probably attributable to an increased use of Aramaic, often written on perishable materials like leather scrolls or papyrus.[31] The Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language did not disappear completely until around the end of the 6th century BC however, well into the subsequent post-imperial period.[32]\n
Similarly, the Persian conquest of the Mesopotamian kingdoms contributed to the decline of Babylonian, from that point on known as Late Babylonian, as a popular language. However, the language was still used in its written form. Even after the Greek invasion under Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, Akkadian was still a contender as a written language, but spoken Akkadian was likely extinct by this time, or at least rarely used. The last positively identified Akkadian text comes from the 1st century AD.[33] The latest known text in cuneiform Babylonian is an astronomical almanac dated to 79/80 AD.[34] However, the latest cuneiform texts are almost entirely written in Sumerian logograms.[35] Iamblichus, a 2nd century Syrian novelist, may have been one of the last known people to know Babylonian.\n
\nDecipherment
[edit]![](\"/wiki/File:Georg_Friedrich_Grotefend.jpg\")
![](\"//thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Edward_Hincks.jpg/250px-Edward_Hincks.jpg?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail\")
![](\"//thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Henry_Creswicke_Rawlinson.jpg/250px-Henry_Creswicke_Rawlinson.jpg?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail\")
The Akkadian language began to be rediscovered when Carsten Niebuhr in 1767 was able to make extensive copies of cuneiform texts and published them in Denmark. The deciphering of the texts started immediately, and bilinguals, in particular Old Persian-Akkadian bilinguals, were of great help. Since the texts contained several royal names, isolated signs could be identified, and were presented in 1802 by Georg Friedrich Grotefend. By this time it was already evident that Akkadian was a Semitic language, and the final breakthrough in deciphering the language came from Edward Hincks, Henry Rawlinson and Jules Oppert in the middle of the 19th century.\n
In the early 21st century it was shown that automatic high-quality translation of Akkadian can be achieved using natural language processing methods such as convolutional neural networks.[36]\n
\nDialects
[edit]The following table summarises the dialects of Akkadian identified with certainty so far.\n
\n| Dialect | \nLocation\n |
|---|---|
| Assyrian | \nNorthern Mesopotamia\n |
| Babylonian | \nCentral and Southern Mesopotamia\n |
| Mariotic | \nCentral Euphrates (in and around the city of Mari)\n |
| Nuzi | \nNorthern Tigris (in and around the city of Nuzi)[37]\n |
| Tell Beydar | \nNorthern Syria (in and around Tell Beydar)\n |
Some researchers (such as W. Sommerfeld 2003) believe that the Old Akkadian variant used in the older texts is not an ancestor of the later Assyrian and Babylonian dialects, but rather a separate dialect that was replaced by these two dialects and which died out early.\n
Eblaite, formerly thought of as yet another Akkadian dialect, is now generally considered a separate East Semitic language.\n
\nPhonology
[edit]\nBecause Akkadian as a spoken language is extinct and no contemporary descriptions of the pronunciation are known, little can be said with certainty about the phonetics and phonology of Akkadian. Some conclusions can be made, however, due to the relationship to the other Semitic languages and variant spellings of Akkadian words.\n
\nConsonants
[edit]The following table presents the consonants of the Akkadian language, as distinguished in Akkadian cuneiform. The reconstructed phonetic value[8] of a phoneme is given in IPA transcription, alongside its standard (DMG-Umschrift) transliteration in angle brackets ⟨ ⟩.\n
| \n | \nLabial\n | \nAlveolar\n | \nPalatal\n | \nDorsal\n | \nGlottal\n | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasal\n | \nm ⟨m⟩\n | \nn ⟨n⟩\n | \n\n | \n\n | \n\n | ||
| Stop/ Affricate\n | \nvoiceless\n | \np ⟨p⟩[a]\n | \nt ⟨t⟩[a]\n | \nt͡s ⟨s⟩\n | \n\n | \nk ⟨k⟩[a]\n | \nʔ ⟨ʾ⟩\n |
| emphatic\n | \n\n | \nt’ ⟨ṭ⟩\n | \nt͡s’ ⟨ṣ⟩\n | \n\n | \nk’ ⟨q⟩[b]\n | ||
| voiced\n | \nb ⟨b⟩\n | \nd ⟨d⟩\n | \nd͡z ⟨z⟩\n | \n\n | \nɡ ⟨g⟩\n | ||
| Fricative\n | \nvoiceless\n | \n\n | \ns ⟨š⟩[c]\n | \nʃ ⟨š⟩[c]\n | \nx ⟨ḫ⟩[d]\n | \n\n | |
| voiced\n | \n\n | \n\n | \n\n | \nʁ ⟨r⟩[e]\n | \n\n | ||
| Approximant\n | \n\n | \nr ⟨r⟩[e]\n | \nl ⟨l⟩\n | \nj ⟨y⟩[f]\n | \nw ⟨w⟩\n | \n\n |
- \n
- ^ a b c Borrowings from and to Sumerian have been interpreted as indicating that Akkadian voiceless non-emphatic stops were originally unaspirated /p/, /t/, and /k/, but became aspirated /pʰ/, /tʰ/ and /kʰ/ around 2000 BCE.[38][39]\n \n
- ^ Alternatively transcribed as ⟨ḳ⟩.\n \n
- ^ a b ⟨š⟩ represented the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ in the Assyrian dialect and a voiceless postalveolar fricative /ʃ/ in the Babylonian dialect. Alternatively transcribed as ⟨s̱⟩.\n \n
- ^ Alternatively transcribed as ⟨x⟩, ⟨ġ⟩, or simply ⟨h⟩.\n \n
- ^ a b Akkadian ⟨r⟩ is usually interpreted as an alveolar [r], but some authors reconstruct it as a guttural [ʁ] (see below).\n \n
- ^ Alternatively transcribed as ⟨j⟩.\n \n
Reconstruction
[edit]![](\"/wiki/File:AO_5477_(photograph_and_transcription).jpg\"){kind=spacer}
Akkadian emphatic consonants are typically reconstructed as ejectives, which are thought to be the oldest realization of emphatics across the Semitic languages.[42] One piece of evidence for this is that Akkadian shows a development known as Geers's law, where one of two emphatic consonants dissimilates to the corresponding non-emphatic consonant. For the sibilants, traditionally ⟨š⟩ has been held to be postalveolar /ʃ/, and ⟨s⟩, ⟨z⟩, ⟨ṣ⟩ analyzed as fricatives; but attested assimilations in Akkadian suggest otherwise.[8][43] For example, when the possessive suffix -šu is added to the root awat ('word'), it is written awassu ('his word') even though šš would be expected.\n
The most straightforward interpretation of this shift from tš to ss, is that ⟨s, ṣ⟩ form a pair of voiceless alveolar affricates /t͡s/ /t͡sʼ/, ⟨š⟩ is a voiceless alveolar sibilant /s/, and ⟨z⟩ is a voiced alveolar affricate or fricative /d͡z/~/z/. The assimilation is then [awat+su] > /awatt͡su/. In this vein, an alternative transcription of ⟨š⟩ is ⟨s̱⟩, with the macron below indicating a soft (lenis) articulation in Semitic transcription. Other interpretations are possible. /ʃ/ could have been assimilated to the preceding /t/, yielding /ts/, which would later have been simplified to /ss/.\n
The rhotic ⟨r⟩ has traditionally been interpreted as a voiced alveolar trill /r/ but its pattern of alternation with ⟨ḫ⟩ suggests it was a fricative (either uvular /ʁ/ or velar /ɣ/). In the Hellenistic period, Akkadian ⟨r⟩ was transcribed using the Greek ρ, indicating it was pronounced similarly as an alveolar sound (though Greeks may also have perceived a uvular trill as ρ).[8]\n
\nDescent from Proto-Semitic
[edit]Several Proto-Semitic phonemes are lost in Akkadian. The Proto-Semitic glottal stop *ʔ, as well as the fricatives *ʕ, *h, *ḥ are lost as consonants, either by sound change or orthographically, but they gave rise to the vowel quality e not exhibited in Proto-Semitic. The voiceless lateral fricatives (*ś, *ṣ́) merged with the sibilants as in Canaanite, leaving 19 consonantal phonemes. Old Akkadian preserved the /*ś/ phoneme longest but it eventually merged with /*š/, beginning in the Old Babylonian period.[8][44] The following table shows Proto-Semitic phonemes and their correspondences among Akkadian, Modern Standard Arabic and Tiberian Hebrew:\n
\n![](\"/wiki/File:Inscription_in_Babylonian,_in_the_Xerxes_I_inscription_at_Van,_5th_century_BCE.jpg\")
| Proto-Semitic\n | \nAkkadian\n | \nArabic\n | \nAramaic\n | \nHebrew\n | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *b\n | \nb\n | \nب | \nb\n | \n𐡁\n | \nb/ḇ\n | \nב | \nb/ḇ\n |
| *d\n | \nd\n | \nد | \nd\n | \n𐡃\n | \nd/ḏ\n | \nד | \nd/ḏ\n |
| *g\n | \ng\n | \nج | \nǧ\n | \n𐡂\n | \ng/ḡ\n | \nג | \ng/ḡ\n |
| *p\n | \np\n | \nف | \nf\n | \n𐡐\n | \np/p̄\n | \nפ | \np/p̄\n |
| *t\n | \nt\n | \nت | \nt\n | \n𐡕\n | \nt/ṯ\n | \nת | \nt/ṯ\n |
| *k\n | \nk\n | \nك | \nk\n | \n𐡊\n | \nk/ḵ\n | \nכ | \nk/ḵ\n |
| *ʔ\n | \n(∅)/ ʾ\n | \nء | \nʾ\n | \n𐡀\n | \nʾ\n | \nא | \nʾ\n |
| *ṭ\n | \nṭ\n | \nط | \nṭ\n | \n𐡈\n | \nṭ\n | \nט | \nṭ\n |
| *ḳ\n | \nq\n | \nق | \nq\n | \n𐡒\n | \nq\n | \nק | \nq\n |
| *ḏ\n | \nz\n | \nذ | \nḏ\n | \n𐡆 ,𐡃\n | \nḏ, d/ḏ\n | \nז | \nz\n |
| *z\n | \nز | \nz\n | \n𐡆\n | \nz\n | |||
| *ṯ\n | \nš\n | \nث | \nṯ\n | \n𐡔 ,𐡕\n | \nṯ, t/ṯ\n | \nשׁ | \nš\n |
| *š\n | \nس | \ns\n | \n𐡔\n | \nš\n | |||
| *ś\n | \nش | \nš\n | \n𐡔 ,𐡎\n | \nś, s\n | \nשׂ\n | \nś\n | |
| *s\n | \ns\n | \nس | \ns\n | \n𐡎\n | \ns\n | \nס\n | \ns\n |
| *ṱ\n | \nṣ\n | \nظ | \nẓ\n | \n𐡑 ,𐡈\n | \nṯ̣, ṭ\n | \nצ | \nṣ\n |
| *ṣ\n | \nص | \nṣ\n | \n𐡑\n | \nṣ\n | |||
| *ṣ́\n | \nض | \nḍ\n | \n𐡒 ,𐡏\n | \nṣ́, ʿ\n | |||
| *ġ\n | \nḫ\n | \nغ | \nġ\n | \n𐡏\n | \nġ, ʿ\n | \nע | \nʿ\n |
| *ʕ\n | \nḫ / (e)[t2 1]\n | \nع | \nʿ\n | \nʿ\n | |||
| *ḫ\n | \nḫ\n | \nخ | \nḫ\n | \n𐡇\n | \nḫ, ḥ\n | \nח | \nḥ\n |
| *ḥ\n | \n(e)[t2 1]\n | \nح | \nḥ\n | \nḥ\n | |||
| *h\n | \n(∅)\n | \nه | \nh\n | \n𐡄\n | \nh\n | \nה | \nh\n |
| *m\n | \nm\n | \nم | \nm\n | \n𐡌\n | \nm\n | \nמ | \nm\n |
| *n\n | \nn\n | \nن | \nn\n | \n𐡍\n | \nn\n | \nנ | \nn\n |
| *r\n | \nr\n | \nر | \nr\n | \n𐡓\n | \nr\n | \nר | \nr\n |
| *l\n | \nl\n | \nل | \nl\n | \n𐡋\n | \nl\n | \nל | \nl\n |
| *w\n | \nw\n | \nو | \nw\n | \n𐡅\n | \nw\n | \nו | \nw\n |
| *y\n | \ny\n | \nي | \ny\n | \n𐡉\n | \ny\n | \nי | \ny\n |
| Proto-Semitic\n | \nAkkadian\n | \nArabic\n | \nAramaic\n | \nHebrew\n |
Vowels
[edit]| \n | Front | \nCentral | \nBack\n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Close\n | \ni | \n\n | u\n |
| Mid\n | \ne | \n\n | \n |
| Open\n | \n\n | a | \n\n |
The existence of a back mid-vowel /o/ has been proposed, but the cuneiform writing gives no good proof for this.[45] There is limited contrast between different u-signs in lexical texts, but this scribal differentiation may reflect the superimposition of the Sumerian phonological system (for which an /o/ phoneme has also been proposed), rather than a separate phoneme in Akkadian.[46]\n
All consonants and vowels appear in long and short forms. Long consonants are transliterated as double consonants, and inconsistently written as such in cuneiform. Long vowels are transliterated with a macron (ā, ē, ī, ū) or a circumflex (â, ê, î, û), the latter being used for long vowels arising from the contraction of vowels in hiatus. The distinction between long and short is phonemic, and is used in the grammar; for example, iprusu ('that he decided') versus iprusū ('they decided').\n
\nStress
[edit]There is broad agreement among most Assyriologists about Akkadian stress patterns.[47] The rules of Akkadian stress were originally reconstructed by means of a comparison with other Semitic languages, and the resulting picture was gradually amended using internal linguistic evidence from Akkadian sources, especially deriving from so-called plene spellings (spellings with an extra vowel).[47]\n
According to this widely accepted system, the place of stress in Akkadian is completely predictable and sensitive to syllable weight. There are three syllable weights: light (ending in -V); heavy (ending in -V̄ or -VC), and superheavy (ending in -V̂, -V̄C or -V̂C). 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.[48][47] It has also been argued that monosyllabic words generally are not stressed but rather function as clitics.[47] The special behaviour of /V̂/ syllables is explained by their functioning, in accordance with their historical origin, as sequences of two syllables, of which the first one bears stress.[47]\n
A rule of Akkadian phonology is that certain short (and probably unstressed) vowels are dropped. The rule is that the last vowel of a succession of syllables that end in a short vowel is dropped, for example the declinational root of the verbal adjective of a root PRS is paris-. Thus the masculine singular nominative is parsum (< *paris-um) but the feminine singular nominative is paristum (< *paris-at-um). Additionally there is a general tendency of syncope of short vowels in the later stages of Akkadian.[citation needed]\n
\nGrammar
[edit] | This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
![](\"/wiki/File:Nebuchadnezzar_II_bronze_step_inscription.jpg\")
Morphology
[edit]Consonantal root
[edit]Most roots of the Akkadian language consist of three consonants, called the radicals, but some roots are composed of four consonants, so-called quadriradicals. The radicals are occasionally represented in transcription in upper-case letters, for example PRS (to decide). Between and around these radicals various infixes, suffixes and prefixes, having word generating or grammatical functions, are inserted. The resulting consonant-vowel pattern differentiates the original meaning of the root. The middle radical can be geminated, which is represented by a doubled consonant in transcription, and sometimes in the cuneiform writing itself.\n
The consonants ʔ, w, j and n are termed \"weak radicals\" and roots containing these radicals give rise to irregular forms.\n
\nCase, number and gender
[edit]Formally, Akkadian has three numbers (singular, dual and plural) and three cases (nominative, accusative and genitive). However, even in the earlier stages of the language, the dual number is vestigial, and its use is largely confined to natural pairs (eyes, ears, etc.). Adjectives are never found in the dual. In the dual and plural, the accusative and genitive are merged into a single oblique case.\n
Akkadian, unlike Arabic, has only \"sound\" plurals formed by means of a plural ending. Broken plurals are not formed by changing the word stem. As in all Semitic languages, some masculine nouns take the prototypically feminine plural ending (-āt).\n
The nouns šarrum (king) and šarratum (queen) and the adjective dannum (strong) will serve to illustrate the case system of Akkadian.\n
\n| \n | \nNoun\n | \nAdjective\n | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number / Case\n | \nmasc. | \nfem.\n | \nmasc. | \nfem.\n | |
| Singular\n | \nNominative\n | \nšarr-um | \nšarr-at-um | \ndann-um | \ndann-at-um\n |
| Genitive\n | \nšarr-im | \nšarr-at-im | \ndann-im | \ndann-at-im\n | |
| Accusative\n | \nšarr-am | \nšarr-at-am | \ndann-am | \ndann-at-am\n | |
| Dual\n | \nNominative\n | \nšarr-ān | \nšarr-at-ān | \n\n | |
| Oblique[t3 1]\n | \nšarr-īn | \nšarr-at-īn\n | |||
| Plural\n | \nNominative\n | \nšarr-ū | \nšarr-āt-um | \ndann-ūt-um | \ndann-āt-um\n |
| Oblique\n | \nšarr-ī | \nšarr-āt-im | \ndann-ūt-im | \ndann-āt-im\n |
- \n
- ^ The oblique case includes the accusative and genitive.\n \n
As is clear from the above table, the adjective and noun endings differ only in the masculine plural. Certain nouns, primarily those referring to geography, can also form a locative ending in -um in the singular and the resulting forms serve as adverbials. These forms are generally not productive, but in the Neo-Babylonian the um-locative replaces several constructions with the preposition ina.\n
In the later stages of Akkadian, the mimation (word-final -m) and nunation (dual final -n) that occurred at the end of most case endings disappeared, except in the locative. Later, the nominative and accusative singular of masculine nouns collapsed to -u and in Neo-Babylonian most word-final short vowels were dropped. As a result, case differentiation disappeared from all forms except masculine plural nouns. However, many texts continued the practice of writing the case endings, although often sporadically and incorrectly. As the most important contact language throughout this period was Aramaic, which itself lacks case distinctions, it is possible that Akkadian's loss of cases was an areal as well as phonological phenomenon.\n
\nNoun states and nominal sentences
[edit]![](\"/wiki/File:Antiochus_cylinder_with_transcription.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
![](\"/wiki/File:Antiochus_I_Soter_with_titles_on_the_cylinder_of_Antiochus.jpg\")
\"Antiochus, King, Great King, King of multitudes, King of Babylon, King of countries\"
As is also the case in other Semitic languages, Akkadian nouns may appear in a variety of \"states\" depending on their grammatical function in a sentence. The basic form of the noun is the status rectus (the governed state), which is the form as described above, complete with case endings. In addition to this, Akkadian has the status absolutus (the absolute state) and the status constructus (construct state). The latter is found in all other Semitic languages, while the former appears only in Akkadian and some dialects of Aramaic.\n
The status absolutus is characterised by the loss of a noun's case ending (e.g. awīl < awīlum, šar < šarrum). It is relatively uncommon, and is used chiefly to mark the predicate of a nominal sentence, in fixed adverbial expressions, and in expressions relating to measurements of length, weight, and the like.\n
\nAwīl-um
man.NOM
šū
3SG.MASC
šarrāq
thief.ABSOLUTUS
Awīl-um šū šarrāq
man.NOM 3SG.MASC thief.ABSOLUTUS
This man is a thief
\nšarrum
king.NOM.RECTUS
lā
NEG
šanān
oppose.INF.ABSOLUTUS
šarrum lā šanān
king.NOM.RECTUS NEG oppose.INF.ABSOLUTUS
The king who cannot be rivaled
\nThe status constructus is more common by far, and has a much wider range of applications. It is employed when a noun is followed by another noun in the genitive, a pronominal suffix, or a verbal clause in the subjunctive, and typically takes the shortest form of the noun which is phonetically possible. In general, this amounts to the loss of case endings with short vowels, with the exception of the genitive -i in nouns preceding a pronominal suffix, hence:\n
\nmāri-šu
son.CONSTRUCTUS-3SG.POSS
māri-šu
son.CONSTRUCTUS-3SG.POSS
His son, its (masculine) son
\nbut\n
\nmār
son.CONSTRUCTUS
šarr-im
king.GEN.SG
mār šarr-im
son.CONSTRUCTUS king.GEN.SG
The king's son
\nThere are numerous exceptions to this general rule, usually involving potential violations of the language's phonological limitations. Most obviously, Akkadian does not tolerate word-final consonant clusters, so nouns like kalbum (dog) and maḫrum (front) would have illegal construct state forms *kalb and *maḫr unless modified. In many of these instances, the first vowel of the word is simply repeated (e.g. kalab, maḫar). This rule, however, does not always hold true, especially in nouns where a short vowel has historically been elided (e.g. šaknum < *šakinum \"governor\"). In these cases, the lost vowel is restored in the construct state (so šaknum yields šakin).\n
\nkalab
dog.CONSTRUCTUS
belim
master.GEN.SG
kalab belim
dog.CONSTRUCTUS master.GEN.SG
The master's dog
\nšakin
governor.CONSTRUCTUS
ālim
city.GEN.SG
šakin ālim
governor.CONSTRUCTUS city.GEN.SG
The city's governor
\nA genitive relation can also be expressed with the relative preposition ša, and the noun that the genitive phrase depends on appears in status rectus.\n
\nsalīmātum
Alliances.NOM.RECTUS
ša
which
awīl
man.CONSTRUCTUS
Ešnunna
Ešnunna.GEN
salīmātum ša awīl Ešnunna
Alliances.NOM.RECTUS which man.CONSTRUCTUS Ešnunna.GEN
The alliances of the Ruler of Ešnunna (lit. \"Alliances which man of Ešnunna (has)\")
\nThe same preposition is also used to introduce true relative clauses, in which case the verb is placed in the subjunctive mood.\n
\nawīl-um
man.NOM
ša
that
māt-am
land.SG.ACC
i-kšud-∅-u
3-conquer.PRET-SG.MASC-SJV
awīl-um ša māt-am i-kšud-∅-u
man.NOM that land.SG.ACC 3-conquer.PRET-SG.MASC-SJV
The man who conquered the land.
\nVerbal morphology
[edit]Verb aspects
[edit]The Akkadian verb has six finite verb aspects (preterite, perfect, present, imperative, precative, and vetitive (the negative form of precative)) and three infinite forms (infinitive, participle and verbal adjective). The preterite is used for actions that are seen by the speaker as having occurred at a single point in time. The present is primarily imperfective in meaning and is used for concurrent and future actions as well as past actions with a temporal dimension. The final three finite forms are injunctive where the imperative and the precative together form a paradigm for positive commands and wishes, and the vetitive is used for negative wishes. The periphrastic prohibitive, formed by the present form of the verb and the negative adverb lā, is used to express negative commands.\n
The infinitive of the Akkadian verb is a verbal noun, and in contrast to some other languages the Akkadian infinitive can be declined in case. The verbal adjective is an adjectival form and designates the state or the result of the action of the verb, and consequently the exact meaning of the verbal adjective is determined by the semantics of the verb itself[specify]. The participle, which can be active or passive, is another verbal adjective and its meaning is similar to the English gerund.[specify]\n
The following table shows the conjugation of the G-stem verbs derived from the root PRS (\"to decide\") in the various verb aspects of Akkadian:\n
\n| \n | \nPreterite\n | \nPerfect\n | \nPresent\n | \nImperative\n | \nStative\n | \nInfinitive\n | \nParticiple (active)\n | \nVerbal adjective\n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st person\n | \nsingular\n | \naprus | \naptaras | \naparras | \n\n | parsāku | \nparāsum | \npārisum (m.) / pāristum (f.) | \nparsum (m.) / paristum (f.)\n |
| plural\n | \nniprus | \nniptaras | \nniparras | \nparsānu\n | |||||
| 2nd person\n | \nsingular\n | \nmasc.\n | \ntaprus | \ntaptaras | \ntaparras | \npurus | \nparsāta\n | ||
| fem.\n | \ntaprusī | \ntaptarsī (< *taptarasī) | \ntaparrasī | \npursi | \nparsāti\n | ||||
| plural\n | \ntaprusā | \ntaptarsā | \ntaparrasā | \npursa | \nparsātunu (m.) / parsātina (f.)\n | ||||
| 3rd person\n | \nsingular\n | \niprus | \niptaras | \niparras | \n\n | paris (m.) / parsat (f.)\n | |||
| plural\n | \nmasc.\n | \niprusū | \niptarsū (< *iptarasū) | \niparrasū | \nparsū\n | ||||
| fem.\n | \niprusā | \niptarsā (< *iptarasā) | \niparrasā | \nparsā\n |
The table below shows the different affixes attached to the preterite aspect of the verb root PRS \"to decide\"; and as can be seen, the grammatical genders differ only in the second person singular and third person plural.\n
\n| \n | \nG-stem\n | \nD-stem\n | \nŠ-stem\n | \nN-stem\n | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st person\n | \nsingular\n | \na-prus | \nu-parris | \nu-šapris | \na-pparis\n | |
| plural\n | \nni-prus | \nnu-parris | \nnu-šapris | \nni-pparis\n | ||
| 2nd person\n | \nsingular\n | \nmasc.\n | \nta-prus | \ntu-parris | \ntu-šapris | \nta-pparis\n |
| singular\n | \nfem.\n | \nta-prus-ī | \ntu-parris-ī | \ntu-šapris-ī | \nta-ppars-ī\n | |
| plural\n | \nta-prus-ā | \ntu-parris-ā | \ntu-šapris-ā | \nta-ppars-ā\n | ||
| 3rd person\n | \nsingular\n | \ni-prus | \nu-parris | \nu-šapris | \ni-pparis\n | |
| plural\n | \nmasc.\n | \ni-prus-ū | \nu-parris-ū | \nu-šapris-ū | \ni-ppars-ū\n | |
| plural\n | \nfem.\n | \ni-prus-ā | \nu-parris-ā | \nu-šapris-ā | \ni-ppars-ā\n |
Verb moods
[edit]Akkadian verbs have three moods:\n
\n- Indicative, used in independent clauses, is unmarked. \n
- Subjunctive, used in dependent clauses, is marked in forms which do not end in a vowel by the suffix -u (compare Arabic and Ugaritic subjunctives) but is otherwise unmarked. In the later stages of most dialects, the subjunctive is indistinct, as short final vowels were mostly lost. \n
- Venitive or allative, not a mood in the strictest sense, being a development of the first-person dative pronominal suffix -am/-m/-nim. With verbs of motion, it often indicates motion toward an object or person (e.g., illik, \"he went\" vs. illikam, \"he came\"). However, this pattern is not consistent, even in earlier stages of the language, and its use often appears to serve a stylistic rather than morphological or lexical function.
The following table demonstrates the verb moods of verbs derived from the root PRS (\"to decide\", \"to separate\"):\n
\n| \n | \nPreterite[t4 1]\n | \nStative[t4 1]\n |
|---|---|---|
| Indicative\n | \niprus | \nparis\n |
| Subjunctive\n | \niprusu | \nparsu\n |
| Venitive\n | \niprusam | \nparsam\n |
Verb patterns
[edit]Akkadian verbs have thirteen separate derived stems formed on each root. The basic, underived, stem is the G-stem (from the German Grundstamm, meaning \"basic stem\"). Causative or intensive forms are formed with the doubled D-stem, and it gets its name from the doubled-middle radical that is characteristic of this form. The doubled middle radical is also characteristic of the present. The forms of the D-stem use the secondary conjugational affixes, so a D-form will never be identical to a form in a different stem. The Š-stem is formed by adding a prefix š-, and these forms are mostly causatives. The passive forms of the verb are in the N-stem, formed by adding a n- prefix. The n- element is assimilated to a following consonant, so the original /n/ is only visible in a few forms.\n
Reflexive and iterative verbal stems can be derived from each of the basic stems. The reflexive stem is formed with an infix -ta, and the derived stems are therefore called Gt, Dt, Št and Nt, and the preterite forms of the Xt-stem are identical to the perfects of the X-stem. Iteratives are formed with the infix -tan-, giving the Gtn, Dtn, Štn and Ntn. Because of the assimilation of n, the /n/ is only seen in the present forms, and the Xtn preterite is identical to the Xt durative.\n
The final stem is the ŠD-stem, a form mostly attested only in poetic texts, and whose meaning is usually identical to either the Š-stem or the D-stem of the same verb. It is formed with the Š prefix (like the Š-stem) in addition to a doubled-middle radical (like the D-stem).\n
An alternative to this naming system is a numerical system. The basic stems are numbered using Roman numerals so that G, D, Š and N become I, II, III and IV, respectively. The infixes are numbered using Arabic numerals; 1 for the forms without an infix, 2 for the Xt, and 3 for the Xtn. The two numbers are separated using a solidus. As an example, the Štn-stem is called III/3. The most important user of this system is the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary.\n
There is mandatory congruence between the subject of the sentence and the verb. This is expressed by prefixes and suffixes. There are two different sets of affixes, a primary set used for the forms of the G and N-stems, and a secondary set for the D and Š-stems.\n
The stems, their nomenclature and examples of the third-person masculine singular stative of the verb parāsum (root PRS: 'to decide, distinguish, separate') is shown below:\n
\n| # | \nStem | \nVerb | \nDescription | \nCorrespondence\n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I.1 | \nG | \nPaRiS | \nthe simple stem, used for transitive and intransitive verbs | \nArabic stem I (fa'ala) and Hebrew pa'al\n |
| II.1 | \nD | \nPuRRuS | \ngemination of the second radical, indicating the intensive | \nArabic stem II (faʿʿala) and Hebrew pi'el\n |
| III.1 | \nŠ | \nšuPRuS | \nš-preformative, indicating the causative | \nArabic stem IV ('afʿala) and Hebrew hiph'il\n |
| IV.1 | \nN | \nnaPRuS | \nn-preformative, indicating the reflexive/passive | \nArabic stem VII (infaʿala) and Hebrew niph'al\n |
| I.2 | \nGt | \nPitRuS | \nsimple stem with t-infix after first radical, indicating reciprocal or reflexive | \nArabic stem VIII (iftaʿala) and Aramaic 'ithpe'al (tG)\n |
| II.2 | \nDt | \nPutaRRuS | \ndoubled second radical preceded by infixed t, indicating intensive reflexive | \nArabic stem V (tafaʿʿala) and Hebrew hithpa'el (tD)\n |
| III.2 | \nŠt | \nšutaPRuS | \nš-preformative with t-infix, indicating reflexive causative | \nArabic stem X (istafʿala) and Aramaic 'ittaph'al (tC)\n |
| IV.2 | \nNt | \nitaPRuS | \nn-preformative with a t-infix preceding the first radical, indicating reflexive passive | \n\n |
| I.3 | \nGtn | \nPitaRRuS | \n\n | |
| II.3 | \nDtn | \nPutaRRuS | \ndoubled second radical preceded by tan-infix\n | |
| III.3 | \nŠtn | \nšutaPRuS | \nš-preformative with tan-infix\n | |
| IV.3 | \nNtn | \nitaPRuS | \nn-preformative with tan-infix\n | |
| \n | ŠD | \nšuPuRRuS | \nš-preformative with doubled second radical\n |
Stative
[edit]A very often appearing form which can be formed by nouns, adjectives as well as by verbal adjectives is the stative. Nominal predicatives occur in the status absolutus and correspond to the verb \"to be\" in English. The stative in Akkadian corresponds to the Egyptian pseudo-participle. The following table contains an example of using the noun šarrum (king), the adjective rapšum (wide) and the verbal adjective parsum (decided).\n
\n| \n | \nšarrum | \nrapšum | \nparsum\n | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st person\n | \nsingular\n | \nšarr-āku | \nrapš-āku | \npars-āku\n | |
| plural\n | \nšarr-ānu | \nrapš-ānu | \npars-ānu\n | ||
| 2nd person\n | \nsingular\n | \nmasc.\n | \nšarr-āta | \nrapš-āta | \npars-āta\n |
| fem.\n | \nšarr-āti | \nrapš-āti | \npars-āti\n | ||
| plural\n | \nmasc.\n | \nšarr-ātunu | \nrapš-ātunu | \npars-ātunu\n | |
| fem.\n | \nšarr-ātina | \nrapš-ātina | \npars-ātina\n | ||
| 3rd person\n | \nsingular\n | \nmasc.\n | \nšar | \nrapaš | \nparis\n |
| fem.\n | \nšarr-at | \nrapš-at | \npars-at\n | ||
| plural\n | \nmasc.\n | \nšarr-ū | \nrapš-ū | \npars-ū\n | |
| fem.\n | \nšarr-ā | \nrapš-ā | \npars-ā\n |
Thus, the stative in Akkadian is used to convert simple stems into effective sentences, so that the form šarr-āta is equivalent to: \"you were king\", \"you are king\" and \"you will be king\". Hence, the stative is independent of time forms.\n
\nDerivation
[edit]Beside the already explained possibility of derivation of different verb stems, Akkadian has numerous nominal formations derived from verb roots. A very frequently encountered form is the maPRaS form. It can express the location of an event, the person performing the act and many other meanings. If one of the root consonants is labial (p, b, m), the prefix becomes na- (maPRaS > naPRaS). Examples for this are: maškanum (place, location) from ŠKN (set, place, put), mašraḫum (splendour) from ŠRḪ (be splendid), maṣṣarum (guards) from NṢR (guard), napḫarum (sum) from PḪR (summarize).\n
A very similar formation is the maPRaSt form. The noun derived from this nominal formation is grammatically feminine. The same rules as for the maPRaS form apply, for example maškattum (deposit) from ŠKN (set, place, put), narkabtum (carriage) from RKB (ride, drive, mount).\n
The suffix -ūt is used to derive abstract nouns. The nouns which are formed with this suffix are grammatically feminine. The suffix can be attached to nouns, adjectives and verbs, e.g. abūtum (paternity) from abum (father), rabûtum (size) from rabûm (large), waṣûtum (leaving) from WṢY (leave).\n
Also derivatives of verbs from nouns, adjectives and numerals are numerous. For the most part, a D-stem is derived from the root of the noun or adjective. The derived verb then has the meaning of \"make X do something\" or \"becoming X\", for example: duššûm (let sprout) from dīšum (grass), šullušum (to do something for the third time ) from šalāš (three).\n
\nPronouns
[edit]Personal pronouns
[edit]Independent personal pronouns
[edit]Independent personal pronouns in Akkadian are as follows:\n
\n| \n | Nominative | \nOblique | \nDative\n | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person | \nsingular | \nplural | \nsingular | \nplural | \nsingular | \nplural\n | |
| 1st\n | \nanāku \"I\" | \nnīnu \"we\" | \nyâti | \nniāti | \nyâšim | \nniāšim\n | |
| 2nd\n | \nmasculine\n | \natta \"you\" | \nattunu \"you\" | \nkâti (kâta) | \nkunūti | \nkâšim | \nkunūšim\n |
| feminine\n | \natti \"you\" | \nattina \"you\" | \nkâti | \nkināti | \nkâšim | \nkināšim\n | |
| 3rd\n | \nmasculine\n | \nšū \"he\" | \nšunu \"they\" | \nšātilu (šātilu) | \nšunūti | \nšuāšim (šāšim) | \nšunūšim\n |
| feminine\n | \nšī \"she\" | \nšina \"they\" | \nšiāti (šuāti, šâti) | \nšināti | \nšiāšim (šâšim) | \nšināšim\n |
Suffixed (or enclitic) pronouns
[edit]Suffixed (or enclitic) pronouns (mainly denoting the genitive, accusative and dative) are as follows:\n
\n| \n | Genitive | \nAccusative | \nDative\n | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person | \nsingular | \nplural | \nsingular | \nplural | \nsingular | \nplural\n | |
| 1st\n | \n-i, -ya[t5 1] | \n-ni | \n-ni | \n-niāti | \n-am/-nim | \n-niāšim\n | |
| 2nd\n | \nmasculine\n | \n-ka | \n-kunu | \n-ka | \n-kunūti | \n-kum | \n-kunūšim\n |
| feminine\n | \n-ki | \n-kina | \n-ki | \n-kināti | \n-kim | \n-kināšim\n | |
| 3rd\n | \nmasculine\n | \n-šu | \n-šunu | \n-šu | \n-šunūti | \n-šum | \n-šunūšim\n |
| feminine\n | \n-ša | \n-šina | \n-ši | \n-šināti | \n-šim | \n-šināšim\n |
- \n
- ^ -ni is used for the nominative, i.e. following a verb denoting the subject.\n \n
Demonstrative pronouns
[edit]Demonstrative pronouns in Akkadian differ from the Western Semitic variety. The following tables show the Akkadian demonstrative pronouns according to near and far deixis:\n
\n| \n | \nMasculine\n | \nFeminine\n | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singular\n | \nNominative\n | \nannûm | \nannītum\n |
| Accusative\n | \nanniam | \nannītam\n | |
| Genitive\n | \nannîm | \nannītim\n | |
| Plural\n | \nNominative\n | \nannûtum | \nanniātum\n |
| Accusative/Genitive\n | \nannûtim | \nanniātim\n |
| \n | \nMasculine\n | \nFeminine\n | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singular\n | \nNomiative\n | \nullûm | \nullītum\n |
| Accusative\n | \nulliam | \nullītam\n | |
| Genitive\n | \nullîm | \nullītim\n | |
| Plural\n | \nNominative\n | \nullûtum | \nulliātum\n |
| Accusative/Genitive\n | \nullûtim | \nulliātim\n |
Relative pronouns
[edit]Relative pronouns in Akkadian are shown in the following table:\n
\n| \n | \nNominative\n | \nAccusative\n | \nGenitive\n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singular\n | \nmasc.\n | \nšu\n | \nša\n | \nši\n |
| fem.\n | \nšāt\n | \nšāti\n | ||
| Dual\n | \nšā\n | |||
| Plural\n | \nmasc.\n | \nšūt\n | ||
| fem.\n | \nšāt\n |
Unlike plural relative pronouns, singular relative pronouns in Akkadian exhibit full declension for case. Only the form ša (originally accusative masculine singular) survived, while the other forms disappeared in time.\n
\nInterrogative pronouns
[edit]The following table shows the interrogative pronouns used in Akkadian:\n
\n| Akkadian\n | \nEnglish\n |
|---|---|
| mannum | \nwho?\n |
| mīnum, minûm | \nwhat?\n |
| ayyum | \nwhich?\n |
Prepositions
[edit]Akkadian has prepositions which consist mainly of only one word. For example: ina (in, on, out, through, under), ana (to, for, after, approximately), adi (to), aššum (because of), eli (up, over), ištu/ultu (of, since), mala (in accordance with), itti (also, with). There are some compound prepositions which are combined with ina and ana (e.g. ina maḫar (forwards), ina balu (without), ana ṣēr (up to), ana maḫar (forwards). Regardless of the complexity of the preposition, the following noun is always in the genitive case.\n
Examples: ina bītim (in the house, from the house), ana dummuqim (to do good), itti šarrim (with the king), ana ṣēr mārīšu (up to his son).\n
\nNumerals
[edit]Since numerals are written mostly as a number sign in the cuneiform script, the transliteration of many numerals is not well ascertained yet. Along with the counted noun, the cardinal numerals are in the status absolutus. Because other cases are very rare, the forms of the status rectus are known only by isolated numerals. The numerals 1 and 2 as well as 21–29, 31–39, 41–49 correspond with the counted in the grammatical gender. The numerals 3–20, 30, 40 and 50 are characterized by polarity of gender, i.e. if the counted noun is masculine, the numeral would be feminine and vice versa.\n
This polarity is typical of the Semitic languages and appears, for example, in classical Arabic. The numerals 60, 100, and 1,000 do not change according to the gender of the counted noun. Counted nouns more than two appear in the plural form. Body parts that occur in pairs appear in the dual form in Akkadian; e.g., šēpum (foot) becomes šēpān (two feet).\n
The ordinals are formed (with few exceptions) by adding a case ending to the nominal form PaRuS. The P, R and S must be substituted with the suitable consonants of the numeral. It is noted, that in the case of the numeral \"one\", the ordinal (masculine) and the cardinal number are the same. A metathesis occurs in the numeral \"four\".[53]\n
\n| #\n | \nCardinal\n | \nCongruence\n | \nOrdinal\n | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (masculine)\n | \n(feminine)\n | \n(Gender agreement of the cardinal numeral)\n | \n(masculine)\n | \n(feminine)\n | |||
| (absolute)\n | \n(free)\n | \n(absolute)\n | \n(free)\n | ||||
| 1 | \ništēn | \n(ištēnum) | \ništeat, ištēt | \n(ištētum) | \nCongruent (no gender polarity) | \npānûm maḫrûm (ištīʾum) ištēn | \npānītum maḫrītum (ištītum) išteat\n |
| 2 | \nšinā | \n— | \nšittā | \n— | \nCongruent | \nšanûm | \nšanītum\n |
| 3 | \nšalāšat | \nšalāštum | \nšalāš | \nšalāšum | \nGender polarity | \nšalšum | \nšaluštum\n |
| 4 | \nerbet(ti) | \nerbettum | \nerbe, erba | \nerbûm | \nGender polarity | \nrebûm | \nrebūtum\n |
| 5 | \nḫamšat | \nḫamištum | \nḫamiš | \nḫamšum | \nGender polarity | \nḫamšum | \nḫamuštum\n |
| 6 | \nšeššet | \nšedištum | \nšediš? | \nšeššum | \nGender polarity | \nšeššum | \nšeduštum\n |
| 7 | \nsebet(ti) | \nsebettum | \nsebe | \nsebûm | \nGender polarity | \nsebûm | \nsebūtum\n |
| 8 | \nsamānat | \nsamāntum | \nsamāne | \nsamānûm | \nGender polarity | \nsamnum | \nsamuntum\n |
| 9 | \ntišīt | \ntišītum | \ntiše | \ntišûm | \nGender polarity | \ntešûm | \ntešūtum\n |
| 10 | \neš(e)ret | \nešertum | \nešer | \neš(e)rum | \nGender polarity | \nešrum | \nešurtum\n |
| 11 | \ništēššeret | \ništēššer | \nGender polarity | \ništēššerûm | \ništēššerītum\n | ||
| 12 | \nšinšeret | \nšinšer | \nGender polarity | \nšinšerûm | \nšinšerītum\n | ||
| 13 | \nšalāššeret | \nšalāššer | \nGender polarity | \nšalāššerûm | \nšalāššerītum\n | ||
| 14 | \nerbēšeret | \nerbēšer | \nGender polarity | \nerbēšerûm | \nerbēšerītum\n | ||
| 15 | \nḫamiššeret | \nḫamiššer | \nGender polarity | \nḫamiššerûm | \nḫamiššerītum\n | ||
| 16 | \nšeššeret? | \nšeššer? | \nGender polarity | \nšeššerûm? | \nšeššerītum?\n | ||
| 17 | \nsebēšeret | \nsebēšer | \nGender polarity | \nsebēšerûm | \nsebēšerītum\n | ||
| 18 | \nsamāššeret | \nsamāššer | \nGender polarity | \nsamāššerûm | \nsamāššerītum\n | ||
| 19 | \ntišēšeret | \ntišēšer | \nGender polarity | \ntišēšerûm | \ntišēšerītum\n | ||
| 20 | \nešrā | \nNo gender distinction | \nešrûm | \nešrītum?\n | |||
| 30 | \nšalāšā | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n | ||||
| 40 | \nerbeā, erbâ | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n | ||||
| 50 | \nḫamšā | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n | ||||
| 60 | \nabsolute šūš(i), free šūšum | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n | ||||
| 100 | \nabsolute sg. meat, pl. meât[55] (free meatum) | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n | ||||
| 600 | \nabsolute nēr, free nērum | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n | ||||
| 1000 | \nabsolute līm(i), free līmum | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n | ||||
| 3600 | \nabsolute šār, free šārum | \nNo gender distinction | \n(as with 20?)\n |
Examples: erbē aššātum (four wives) (masculine numeral), meat ālānū (100 towns).\n
\nSyntax
[edit]Nominal phrases
[edit]Adjectives, relative clauses and appositions follow the noun.\nNumerals precede the counted noun.\nIn the following table the nominal phrase erbēt šarrū dannūtum ša ālam īpušū abūya 'the four strong kings who built the city are my fathers' is analyzed:\n
\n| Word\n | \nMeaning\n | \nAnalysis\n | \nPart of the nominal phrase\n |
|---|---|---|---|
| erbēt | \nfour | \nmasculine (gender polarity) | \nNumeral\n |
| šarr-ū | \nking | \nnominative plural | \nNoun (subject)\n |
| dann-ūtum | \nstrong | \nnominative masculine plural | \nAdjective\n |
| ša | \nwhich | \nrelative pronoun | \nRelative clause\n |
| āl-am | \ncity | \naccusative singular\n | |
| īpuš-ū | \nbuilt | \n3rd person masculine plural\n | |
| ab-ū-ya | \nmy fathers | \nmasculine plural + possessive pronoun | \nApposition\n |
Sentence syntax
[edit]Akkadian sentence order was subject–object–verb (SOV), which sets it apart from most other ancient Semitic languages such as Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, which typically have a verb–subject–object (VSO) word order. Modern South Semitic languages in Ethiopia also have SOV order, but these developed within historical times from the classical verb–subject–object (VSO) language Ge'ez. It has been hypothesized that this word order was a result of influence from the Sumerian language, which was also SOV. There is evidence that native speakers of both languages were in intimate language contact, forming a single society for at least 500 years, so it is entirely likely that a sprachbund could have formed.[56] Further evidence of an original VSO or SVO ordering can be found in the fact that direct and indirect object pronouns are suffixed to the verb. Word order seems to have shifted to SVO/VSO late in the 1st millennium BC to the 1st millennium AD, possibly under the influence of Aramaic.\n
\nVocabulary
[edit]The Akkadian vocabulary is mostly of Semitic origin. Although classified as East Semitic, many elements of its basic vocabulary find no evident parallels in related Semitic languages: mārum 'son' (Semitic *bn), qātum 'hand' (Semitic *yd), šēpum 'foot' (Semitic *rgl), qabûm 'say' (Semitic *qwl), izuzzum 'stand' (Semitic *qwm), ana 'to, for' (Semitic *li).\n
Due to extensive contact with Sumerian and Aramaic, the Akkadian vocabulary contains many loan words from these languages. Aramaic loan words were limited to the 1st centuries of the 1st millennium BC and primarily in the north and middle parts of Mesopotamia. Sumerian loanwords were spread in the whole linguistic area. Beside the previous languages, some nouns were borrowed from Hurrian, Kassite, Ugaritic and other ancient languages.\n
Since Sumerian and Hurrian, two non-Semitic languages, differ from Akkadian in word structure, only nouns and some adjectives (not many verbs) were borrowed from these languages. Some verbs were borrowed, along with many nouns, from Aramaic and Ugaritic, both of which are Semitic languages.\n
The following table contains examples of loan words in Akkadian:\n
\n| Akkadian\n | \nMeaning\n | \nSource\n | \nWord in the language of origin\n |
|---|---|---|---|
| dûm | \nhill | \nSumerian | \ndu\n |
| erēqum | \nflee | \nAramaic | \nʿRQ (root)\n |
| gadalûm | \ndressed in linen | \nSumerian | \ngada lá\n |
| isinnum | \nfirmly | \nSumerian | \nezen\n |
| kasulatḫum | \na device of copper | \nHurrian | \nkasulatḫ-\n |
| kisallum | \ncourt | \nSumerian | \nkisal\n |
| laqāḫum | \ntake | \nUgaritic | \nLQḤ (root)\n |
| paraššannum | \npart of horse riding gear | \nHurrian | \nparaššann-\n |
| purkullum | \nstone cutter | \nSumerian | \nbur-gul\n |
| qaṭālum | \nkill | \nAramaic | \nQṬL (root)\n |
| uriḫullum | \nconventional penalty | \nHurrian | \nuriḫull-\n |
Akkadian was also a source of borrowing to other Semitic languages such as biṣru \"onion\" (into Arabic: بَصَل, romanized: baṣal and Hebrew: בצל, romanized: batsal), āsu \"myrtle\" (آس ās) and so on,[57] above all Sumerian with examples: Sumerian da-ri ('lastingly', from Akkadian dārum), Sumerian ra gaba ('riders, messenger', from Akkadian rākibum).\n
In 2011, the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago completed a 21-volume dictionary, the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, of the Akkadian language. The dictionary took 90 years to develop, beginning in 1921, with the first volume published in 1956. The completion of this work was hailed as a significant milestone for the study of the language by prominent academic Irving Finkel of the British Museum.[58][59]\n
\nSample text
[edit]The following is the 7th section of the Hammurabi law code, written in the mid-18th century BC:\n
\nšumma
if
awīl-um
man-NOM
lū
or
kasp-am
silver-ACC
lū
or
ḫurāṣ-am
gold-ACC
lū
or
lū
or
šumma awīl-um lū kasp-am lū ḫurāṣ-am lū ward-am lū amt-am
if man-NOM or silver-ACC or gold-ACC or slave-M.ACC or slave-F.ACC
If a man has bought silver or gold, a male or a female slave,
\nlū
or
alp-am
cattle/oxen-ACC
lū
or
immer-am
sheep-ACC
lū
or
imēr-am
donkey-ACC
ū
and
lū
or
mimma šumšu
something
ina
from
lū alp-am lū immer-am lū imēr-am ū lū {mimma šumšu} ina
or cattle/oxen-ACC or sheep-ACC or donkey-ACC and or something from
an ox, a sheep, or a donkey—or anything for that matter—
\nqāt
hand-CONST
mār
son-CONST
awīl-im
man-GEN
ū
and
lū
or
warad
slave-CONST
awīl-im
man-GEN
balum
without
šīb-ī
witnesses-GEN
u
and
qāt mār awīl-im ū lū warad awīl-im balum šīb-ī u
hand-CONST son-CONST man-GEN and or slave-CONST man-GEN without witnesses-GEN and
from another man or from another man's slave without witnesses or contract,
\nriks-ātim
contracts-GEN
ū
and
lū
or
ana
for
maṣṣārūt-im
safekeeping-GEN
riks-ātim i-štām-∅ ū lū ana maṣṣārūt-im i–mḫur-∅
contracts-GEN bought-3.SG.PERF and or for safekeeping-GEN received-3.SG.PRET
or if he accepted something for safekeeping without same,
\nawīl-um
man-NOM
šarrāq
stealer-ABS
awīl-um šū šarrāq i-ddāk
man-NOM he-3.M.SG stealer-ABS is_killed-3.SG.PASS-PRS
then this man is a thief and hence to be killed.
\nAkkadian literature
[edit]- Atrahasis Epic (early 2nd millennium BC) \n
- Enûma Elish (c. 18th century BC) \n
- Amarna letters (14th century BC) \n
- Epic of Gilgamesh (Sin-liqe-unninni', Standard Babylonian version, 13th to 11th century BC) \n
- Ludlul Bel Nemeqi
References
[edit]- \n
- ^ \"Neo-Assyrian\". Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 5 March 2024.\n \n
- ^ \"Akkadian\".\n \n
- ^ I.J. Gelb. \"Old Akkadian writing and grammar\" (PDF). uchicago.edu. Retrieved 25 June 2023.\n \n
- ^ \"Babylonian dialect | Akkadian dialect | Britannica\".\n \n
- ^ Shlomo Izre'el (2007). \"Canaano-Akkadian\" (PDF). tau.ac.il. Retrieved 25 June 2023.\n \n
- ^ von Dassow, Eva, \"Canaanite in Cuneiform\", Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 641–74, 2004\n \n
- ^ Black, Jeremy A.; George, Andrew; Postgate, J. N. (1 January 2000). A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 10. ISBN 978-3-447-04264-2. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2020.\n \n
- ^ a b c d e f John Huehnergard & Christopher Woods, \"Akkadian and Eblaite\", The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Ed. Roger D. Woodard (2004, Cambridge) Pages 218–280\n \n
- ^ Huehnergard 2011: xxiii\n \n
- ^ George (2007: 31)\n \n
- ^ Woodard, Roger D. (10 April 2008). The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-521-68497-2.\n \n
- ^ Hasselbach-Andee, Rebecca (2020). A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 132. ISBN 978-1-119-19380-7.\n \n
- ^ Deutscher, Guy (2007). Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford University Press US. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-19-953222-3.\n \n
- ^ George (2007: 37)\n \n
- ^ Huehnergard, John (2011). A Grammar of Akkadian, 3rd edition. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-1-57506-941-8.\n \n
- ^ Geller, Markham Judah (1997). \"The Last Wedge\". Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie. 87 (1): 43–95. doi:10.1515/zava.1997.87.1.43. S2CID 161968187.\n \n
- ^ Müller-Kessler, Christa (20 July 2009). \"Mandaeans v. Mandaic Language\". Encyclopædia Iranica (online 2012 ed.).\nZeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasitische Archäologie 86 (1997): 43–95.\n \n
- ^ E. Bilgic and S. Bayram. Ankara Kultepe Tabletleri II. Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1995. ISBN 975-16-0246-7\n \n
- ^ Watkins, Calvert. \"Hittite\". In: The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Edited by Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge University Press. 2008. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-511-39353-2\n \n
- ^ Krejci, Jaroslav (1990). Before the European Challenge: The Great Civilizations of Asia and the Middle East. SUNY Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7914-0168-2. Archived from the original on 9 March 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.\n \n
- ^ Mémoires. Mission archéologique en Iran. 1900. p. 53.\n \n
- ^ Caplice, p.5 (1980)\n \n
- ^ Bertman, Stephen (2003). Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Oxford University Press. p. 94. ISBN 978-019-518364-1. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 16 May 2015.\n \n
- ^ a b K. R. Veenhof, Ankara Kultepe Tabletleri V, Turk Tarih Kurumu, 2010, ISBN 978-975-16-2235-8\n \n
- ^ Vita, Juan-Pablo (1 January 2020). \"Akkadian as a Lingua Franca\". R. Hasselbach-Andee (Ed.), A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Hoboken 2020, 357-372.: 358–359.\n \n
- ^ Vita, Juan-Pablo (1 January 2020). \"Akkadian as a Lingua Franca\". R. Hasselbach-Andee (Ed.), A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Hoboken 2020, 357-372.: 360.\n \n
- ^ Kouwenberg, Bert (2019). \"A Descriptive Middle Assyrian Grammar, by J. J. De Ridder, Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018). Pp. 628. $133.00 (Cloth)\". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 78 (2): 348–351. doi:10.1086/704717.\n \n
- ^ Bae, Chul-hyun (2004). \"Aramaic as a Lingua Franca During the Persian Empire (538-333 B.C.E.)\". Journal of Universal Language. 5: 1–20. doi:10.22425/jul.2004.5.1.1. Archived from the original on 21 December 2018. Retrieved 20 December 2018.\n \n
- ^ Luukko & Van Buylaere 2017, p. 317.\n \n
- ^ Luukko & Van Buylaere 2017, p. 321.\n \n
- ^ Luukko & Van Buylaere 2017, p. 318.\n \n
- ^ Luukko & Van Buylaere 2017, p. 314.\n \n
- ^ John Huehnergard & Christopher Woods, 2004 \"Akkadian and Eblaite\", The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, pg. 218.\n \n
- ^ Hunger, Hermann; de Jong, Teije (30 January 2014). \"Almanac W22340a From Uruk: The Latest Datable Cuneiform Tablet\". Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie. 104 (2). doi:10.1515/za-2014-0015. S2CID 163700758.\n \n
- ^ Walker, C. B. F. (1987). Cuneiform. Reading the Past. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-520-06115-6. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2020.\n \n
- ^ Gutherz, Gai; Gordin, Shai; Sáenz, Luis; Levy, Omer; Berant, Jonathan (2 May 2023). Kearns, Michael (ed.). \"Translating Akkadian to English with neural machine translation\". PNAS Nexus. 2 (5) pgad096. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad096. ISSN 2752-6542. PMC 10153418. PMID 37143863.\n \n
- ^ Gordon, Cyrus H. (1938). \"The Dialect of the Nuzu Tablets\". Orientalia. 7: 32–63. JSTOR 43581190.\n \n
- ^ Kogan, L., Krebernik, M. 2021: A history of the Akkadian lexicon. In: J.-P. Vita (ed.), History of the Akkadian Language. Vol. I. Leiden–Boston, 366–476. P. 418-419.\n \n
- ^ Jagersma, Bram. (2010, 4 November). A descriptive grammar of Sumerian. Leiden University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/16107 . P. 35.\n \n
- ^ THUREAU-DANGIN, F. (1911). \"Notes Assyriologiques\". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. 8 (3): 138–141. ISSN 0373-6032. JSTOR 23284567.\n \n
- ^ \"Site officiel du musée du Louvre\". cartelfr.louvre.fr. Archived from the original on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2020.\n \n
- ^ Hetzron, Robert. The Semitic Languages.\n \n
- ^ Kogan, Leonid (2011). \"Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology\". In Semitic languages: an international handbook, Stefan Weninger, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 68.\n \n
- ^ Jagersma, Abraham Hendrik (2010). A descriptive grammar of Sumerian (Doctoral thesis). Universiteit Leiden. p. 46. Archived from the original on 16 October 2015. Retrieved 20 November 2015.\n \n
- ^ Sabatino Moscati et al. \"An Introduction to Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages Phonology and Morphology\". (section on vowels and semi-vowels)\n \n
- ^ Huehnergard & Woods. \"Akkadian and Eblaite\". www.academia.edu: 233. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 19 November 2015.\n \n
- ^ a b c d e Helle, Sophus. Rhythm and Expression in Akkadian Poetry. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2014; 104(1): 56-73. P. 58. Online\n \n
- ^ Huehnergard, John (2005). A Grammar of Akkadian (2nd ed.). Eisenbrauns. pp. 3–4. ISBN 1-57506-922-9.\n \n
- ^ Haubold, Johannes (2013). Greece and Mesopotamia: Dialogues in Literature. Cambridge University Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-107-01076-5. Archived from the original on 17 March 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2019.\n \n
- ^ Andrade, Nathanael J. (2013). Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-107-24456-6. Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2019.\n \n
- ^ \"Antiochus cylinder\". British Museum. Archived from the original on 1 April 2019. Retrieved 24 March 2019.\n \n
- ^ Wallis Budge, Ernest Alfred (1884). Babylonian Life and History. Religious Tract Society. p. 94.\n \n
- ^ Huehnergard, 3rd ed., §19.2\n \n
- ^ Huehnergard, 3rd ed., §23.2\n \n
- ^ E.g. šalāš meât '300'\n \n
- ^ Deutscher 2000, p. 21.\n \n
- ^ Levey, Martin (1973). Early Arabic pharmacology: An introduction based on ancient and medieval sources. Leiden: Brill. pp. 64–5. ISBN 90-04-03796-9.\n \n
- ^ Hebblethwaite, Cordelia (14 June 2011). \"Dictionary 90 years in the making\". BBC News. Archived from the original on 29 October 2018. Retrieved 21 June 2018.\n \n
- ^ Wilford, John Noble (6 June 2011). \"After 90 Years, a Dictionary of an Ancient World\". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 1 May 2021. Retrieved 7 May 2021.\n \n
Sources
[edit]- Aro, Jussi (1957). Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. Studia Orientalia 22. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. \n
- Buccellati, Giorgio (1996). A Structural Grammar of Babylonian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. \n
- Buccellati, Giorgio (1997). \"Akkadian\", The Semitic Languages. Ed. Robert Hetzron. New York: Routledge. Pages 69–99. \n
- Bussmann, Hadumod (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-20319-8 \n
- Caplice, Richard (1980). Introduction to Akkadian. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. (1983: ISBN 88-7653-440-7; 1988, 2002: ISBN 88-7653-566-7) (The 1980 edition is partly available online Archived 2006-05-07 at the Wayback Machine.) \n
- Dolgopolsky, Aron (1999). From Proto-Semitic to Hebrew. Milan: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici di Milano. \n
- Deutscher, G. (2000). Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-154483-5. Archived from the original on 16 March 2020. Retrieved 26 August 2018. \n
- Gelb, I.J. (1961). Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. Second edition. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. \n
- George, A. (2007). \"Babylonian and Assyrian: A History of Akkadian\". In: Postgate, J. N., (ed.), Languages of Iraq, Ancient and Modern. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, p. 37. Online Archived 2020-07-31 at the Wayback Machine \n
- Huehnergard, John (2005). A Grammar of Akkadian (Second Edition). Eisenbrauns. ISBN 1-57506-922-9 \n
- Luukko, Mikko; Van Buylaere, Greta (2017). \"Languages and Writing Systems in Assyria\". In E. Frahm (ed.). A Companion to Assyria. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-32524-7. \n
- Marcus, David (1978). A Manual of Akkadian. University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-0608-9 \n
- Mercer, Samuel A B (1961). Introductory Assyrian Grammar. New York: F Ungar. ISBN 0-486-42815-X \n
- Sabatino Moscati (1980). An Introduction to Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages Phonology and Morphology. Harrassowitz Verlag. ISBN 978-3-447-00689-7. \n
- Soden, Wolfram von (1952). Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. (3rd ed., 1995: ISBN 88-7653-258-7) \n
- Woodard, Roger D. The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press 2008. ISBN 978-0-521-68497-2
Further reading
[edit]General description and grammar
[edit]- Gelb, I. J. (1961). Old Akkadian writing and grammar. Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-62304-1 \n
- Hasselbach, Rebecca. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 2005. ISBN 978-3-447-05172-9 \n
- Huehnergard, J. A Grammar of Akkadian (3rd ed. 2011.) Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 45. ISBN 978-1-57506-922-7 \n
- Huehnergard, J. (2005). A Key to A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies. Eisenbrauns. \n
- Soden, Wolfram von: Grundriß der Akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia. Bd 33. Rom 1995. ISBN 88-7653-258-7 \n
- Streck, Michael P. Sprachen des Alten Orients. Wiss. Buchges., Darmstadt 2005. ISBN 3-534-17996-X \n
- Arthur Ungnad: Grammatik des Akkadischen. Neubearbeitung durch L. Matouš, München 1969, 1979 (5. Aufl.). ISBN 3-406-02890-X \n
- Woodard, Roger D. The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press 2008. ISBN 978-0-521-68497-2 \n
- Ikeda, Jun. Early Japanese and Early Akkadian Writing Systems. University of Tsukuba. 2007 [1]
Textbooks
[edit]- Basics of Akkadian: A Grammar Workbook and Glossary, By Gordon P. Hugenberg with Nancy L. Erickson, 2022. \n
- Rykle Borger: Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke. Rom 1963.(3., revidierte Auflage, 2006 Teil. I-II)\n
- Part I: Elemente der Grammatik und der Schrift. Übungsbeispiele. Glossar. \n
- Part II: Die Texte in Umschrift. \n
- Part III: Kommentar. Die Texte in Keilschrift.
\n - Richard Caplice: Introduction to Akkadian. Biblical Institute Press, Rome 1988, 2002 (4.Aufl.). ISBN 88-7653-566-7 \n
- Kaspar K. Riemschneider: Lehrbuch des Akkadischen. Verlag Enzyklopädie, Leipzig 1969, Langenscheidt Verlag Enzyklopädie, Leipzig 1992 (6. Aufl.). ISBN 3-324-00364-4 \n
- Martin Worthington: \"Complete Babylonian: Teach Yourself\" London 2010 ISBN 0-340-98388-4
Dictionaries
[edit]- Jeremy G. Black, Andrew George, Nicholas Postgate: A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Harrassowitz-Verlag, Wiesbaden 2000. ISBN 3-447-04264-8 \n
- Wolfram von Soden: Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 Bde. Wiesbaden 1958–1981. ISBN 3-447-02187-X \n
- Martha T. Roth, ed.: The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. in 26. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago 1956–2010. (available free online Archived 18 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine)
Akkadian cuneiform
[edit]- Cherry, A. (2003). A basic neo-Assyrian cuneiform syllabary. Toronto, Ont: Ashur Cherry, York University. \n
- Cherry, A. (2003). Basic individual logograms (Akkadian). Toronto, Ont: Ashur Cherry, York University. \n
- Rykle Borger: Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Alter Orient und Altes Testament (AOAT). Bd 305. Ugarit-Verlag, Münster 2004. ISBN 3-927120-82-0 \n
- René Labat: Manuel d'Épigraphie Akkadienne. Paul Geuthner, Paris 1976, 1995 (6.Aufl.). ISBN 2-7053-3583-8
Translations
[edit]- Shin Shifra, Jacob Klein (1996). In Those Far Days. Tel Aviv, Am Oved and The Israeli Center for Libraries' project for translating Exemplary Literature to Hebrew. This is an anthology of Sumerian and Akkadian poetry, translated into Hebrew.
Technical literature on specific subjects
[edit]- Ignace J. Gelb: Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. Materials for the Assyrian dictionary. Bd 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1952, 1961, 1973. ISBN 0-226-62304-1 ISSN 0076-518X \n
- [2] Gutherz, Gai, et al. \"Translating Akkadian to English with neural machine translation.\" PNAS nexus 2.5, 2023 \n
- Markus Hilgert: Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit. Rhema-Verlag, Münster 2002. ISBN 3-930454-32-7 \n
- Walter Sommerfeld: Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliederung Altakkadisch, Assyrisch und Babylonisch. In: Alter Orient und Altes Testament (AOAT). Ugarit-Verlag, Münster 274.2003. ISSN 0931-4296
External links
[edit]![\"Wikimedia](\"/wiki/File:Commons-logo.svg\"){kind=logo}
![\"Wikisource](\"/wiki/File:Wikisource-logo.svg\"){kind=logo}
![\"Wiktionary](\"/wiki/File:Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg\"){kind=logo}
- Introduction to Cuneiform Script and the Akkadian language on The Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus (Oracc) \n
- electronic Babylonian Library: includes a dictionary and a corpus of Akkadian texts with translations \n
- Akkadian cuneiform on Omniglot (Writing Systems and Languages of the World) \n
- Assyrian grammar with chrestomathy and glossary (1921) by Samuel A B Mercer \n
- Akkadian-English-French Online Dictionary \n
- Old Babylonian Text Corpus (includes dictionary) \n
- The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CAD) \n
- Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar, by I. J. Gelb, 2nd Ed. (1961) \n
- Glossary of Old Akkadian, by I. J. Gelb (1957) \n
- List of 1280 Akkadian roots, with a representative verb form for each Archived 11 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine \n
- Unicode Fonts for Ancient Scripts and Akkadian font for Ubuntu Linux-based operating system (ttf-ancient-fonts) \n
- The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CAD) \n
- Akkadian in the wiki Glossing Ancient Languages (recommendations for the Interlinear Morphemic Glossing of Akkadian texts)
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other |
![\"Edit](\"//thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8a/OOjs_UI_icon_edit-ltr-progressive.svg/20px-OOjs_UI_icon_edit-ltr-progressive.svg.png?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail\"){kind=icon}