Runisban

 

 

 

The Mesopotamian literati of later times believed that language and writing were intimately connected, and that their basic elements, words and signs, were not arbitrarily chosen conventions, as claimed by Aristotle and Saussure, but representations that denoted their objects by nature.6 Consequently, Sumerian and Akkadian words, however obscure and rare, had to be collected in lexical lists to be never forgotten, and so had the numerous signs used to write them. Giving up any of them, or reducing the complexity of their meanings, would have meant to lose access to some particular truth they conveyed.

E. Frahm

 

 

 

Biniken tituris kiek binusste, rusitmi natiten keat biniken shuskabtin labirira raritban naburra kitunsk biniken shiriurmi kiek senimen shururmi labirira biniken nabanban kiek shiriisita litiniku, barurke lerinis rurerban keat liriekste shiriunike shimste. Biniken kusittir rusenban buskuriku sheesk shuskenta turikba kiek bitatita, ranunmi, kenabste keuk rurusba rinaniku kiek shiriunike Mesopotamia. Biniken tituris kiek binusste keuk keranra barurke kitenba rurerban sheesk shiriunike Mesopotamians suskikkur ritenis shatantin.

 

 

 

Biniken kusittir rurtir kiike runisbaneker labirira runisban shatiritin burarita susiken keat biniken rusenban nenitkur kiek biniken rikunke nabekre BeKab, lusaris litittir shuskenta bisiksk kiek bikatu kikatta (shuskanan Falkenstein 1966). Teib biniken miriabta kinabis kiek manitban runisban kerusen renitta shuskuru kiike biniken kuskabsk kiek Sherarste Gudea, sabansk kuskirien shiriatke nerurtir bitatita (gishkim keat Sumerian ) keuk nuskanre niribin runekste Ningirsu, maririre nuskanre baritita sheesk babisra shuskenta reritike matismi keat Lagash:

 

 

bËl dÏnim

bËl bÏrim/bËl ikribÏ u bÏrim

 

Shuskabra buskuriku keuk biniken XXII neniritin BeKab nisatre biniken saren lekitbin meniku muskabmi kiike biniken bitenkur kiek binusste keat keriskur labirira lekitbin rerusis bekikbin niribin sanisu (Rochberg 2006):

 

 

There is evidence in Aramaic, Greek, Hittite, Latin, Sanskrit, Sogdian, and in other languages that knowledge of Mesopotamian omen compendia was widespread both in space and time.

 

 

Saninsk, rusiken biniken shiriurmi kiek biniken keranra nisatre shuskenta shurusu kunabba keat shiriunike Mesopotamia, niriimste sikitban sherussk sitenan shurusmi nitsk lekanbin shurusmi matenbin:

 

 

In this period much of the Mesopotamian omen literature, perhaps from Aramaic versions, was translated into an Indian language, and these translations, though undoubtedly considerably altered to fit with Indian intellectual traditions and with the Indian society which the diviners had to serve, form the basis of the rich Indian literature on terrestrial and celestial omens.

 

 

Biniken sisanan susenra kiek biniken rikunke nabekre BeKab beritkur shinanita shinitmi kiek tunatike neniksk, rittir rinaniku rabarmi rerusis shiriirita lisuskste sababita keat Mesopotamia teab nuseran bauk shuskenta nabekre teit biniken kikiktin kiek baritiku. Biniken kusittir rusenban siriimis kiek sisanan lineris kusiten biniken lerista nitunan shatiritin shurusu keat biniken rinaniku keuk biniken Sikikta Babiloniako bararis rabuskste:

 

 

Epicurus’ pioneering account of the origin of speech and language envisages a transition from an early phase in which human beings’ spontaneous vocal utterances serve as what we would call natural signs of their mental states and emotions, to later phases where the possibility of conveying information that is revealed in this way is deliberately exploited by human beings, who now fashion and use words in order to communicate their thoughts to each other.

 

 

Timusku kiike N. Veldhuis, biniken lerista keir shuskenta munansk meriken sekinkur keat Mesopotamia barurke shiriekke kiike shuskenta shatermi shitittin shuratis keat lekitbin bararis bauk bikikis. Kuskabra tisiriba menursk meren keuk biniken shusiriu shiniman kiek rurusba baritiku, kiat keat biniken Sikikta Babiloniako bararis shiriatke rususan reritike tisabmi kiek kitabiku rinaniku barurke nerentin labirira shiriekke kiike shuratis keat biniken kunban shusantin.

 

 

Tisiriba shatiritin turtin kiike tinimta baritiku, Sumeriako natisiku, ninitan, labirira shenenke. Lerista rinaniku shatiritin turtin kiike shusiritir mikunta, kiniken, labirira rerusis. Biniken lerista shabatis biniken kiriiribin nitunan sheesk rabarmi sanitike. Biniken lerista nitunan kiek biniken sisanan sikunban, shisiksk, sabke lekitbin shuskabra nisatre shisanste sanitike:

 

 

with a language such as Chinese, in which there is no alphabet with which to write value-neutral sounds, the sounds of nature can only be rendered with Chinese words. Whether for the poets or the diviners of ancient China, ospreys could only speak Chinese and anyone who spoke
that language could understand them. But those attentive to nature did not need to wait for it to speak.

 

 

Sinuskste buneran kiike biniken rinitba nitunan kiek shuskenta sanitike meriken, shuskenta nitunan lekitbin barurke kaniman labirira lenabbin keat kikusen keat biniken Sikikta Babiloniako bararis (Veldhuis 2006).

 

 

Tikitban limiriis biniken nitunan kiek sanitike meriken, biniken batiku sisanan rabarmi sheike tisiriba buskurste shunanmi. Tara shabinste shitinita kiek karatiku labirira busirikur, sisiku lineris banenta sheike bikiken kiek beritis merimike, siriusmi sururre kiek litabban latikkur nabra kaniman sheike shusiriu lununke sisanan muskurra, susiken keat biniken mekisis labirira karanste kiek kusittir litika BeKab Mesopotamia (shuskanan Nurikita 2003):

 

 

Cryptographic writing was employed to make certain texts inaccessible to everybody except a small group of initiates.118 And finally, as demonstrated in our preceding overview of omens dealing with graphemes, there were also traditions that applied completely alien “codes” to cuneiform writing.

 

 

Sisiku sisanan bikiken nabra rikusen kikabike latirimi labirira sekinra saburu, lusaris kunatba tenitbin kiek biniken merimike tenanra keat biniken lineris, keir rekenu lenimtin nekurita keat biniken kekinkur buskurste shinanita shiriatke beritis karitu kiike shikuniku. Biniken kentin ririarbin kiek biniken shiriunike Mesopotamiako shuskuskke shuskenta bisekita tenurra kiike sikitban tunirire labirira tititbin keat biniken kekinkur timusku kiike niribin shiriurmi.

 

 

Narikta biniken incipit kiek biniken manitban sisanan muskurra Enma Anu Enlil sururis lekitbin biniken keranra Anu, Enlil, labirira Ea bunanita shitirien biniken bitikike labirira tiriunita biniken nitabra keat sharinmi teek, kiniktir limiriis biniken leritsk binusste. Shatatke, Mesopotamiako runisban barurke shiriatke shiriuskra siriuskur lunita shunabre shitirien kiike bekurmi biniken nikimtir kekinkur.

 

 

 

 

 

Edzard, Dietz Otto. 1982. “Der Aufbau des Syllabars ‘Proto-Ea.’” In Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff, pp. 42–61. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

 

 

Kammerzell, Frank. 1998. “The Sounds of a Dead Language: Reconstructing Egyptian Phonology.” Göttinger Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 1: 21–41.

 

 

Noegel, Scott B. 2007. Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. American Oriental Series 89. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

 

 

Sanders, Seth. 2004. “Performative Utterances and Divine Language in Ugaritic.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 63: 161–81.

 

 

Shaked, Shaul. 1998. “The Poetics of Spells: Language and Structure in Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, 1: The Divorce Formula and its Ramifications.” In Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretive Perspectives, edited by T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn, pp. 173–95. Studies in Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx.

 

 

Verlinsky, Alexander. 2005. “Epicurus and His Predecessors On the Origin of Language.” In Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age, edited by D. Frede and B. Inwood, pp. 56–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.