From Sign to Sound: Orthographic Evidence on the Prosody of Akkadian Prepositions
The article studies the prosody of Akkadian prepositions. The placement of prepositions within a written line of cuneiform texts is analyzed. The Old Babylonian data show that with rare exceptions the prepositions of certain type, namely those of (C)V-VC structure, like ana ‘to(wards)’ and ina ‘in’, were never written at the end of a line. This regularity is interpreted as evidence for the proclitic status of these prepositions: as the preposition formed an accentual unit with the following word, the scribes did not want to separate them by placing them on two consecutive lines. This rule was followed in the Old Babylonian texts from South Mesopotamia, but the documents from other regions of the same period treated the corresponding prepositions differently: they either conformed to South Mesopotamian patterns, but with certain exceptions, or they didn’t follow them at all. The writing habits reflected in the documents composed in later dialects, including Middle Babylonian, Middle Assyrian, Western Peripheral Akkadian, Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, do not seem to show any regularity in regard to the placement of prepositions: prepositions could occupy any position within a written line.
In cuneiform writing, there is a little-studied category of signs known as “check marks” (German Merkzeichen or Archivvermerke, French coches or marques de contrôle). They have the shape of simple horizontal, vertical, oblique and angular wedges or scratches, their repetitions, combinations or impressions of the round end of the stylus. The functions of the check marks may be divided into intratextual and extratextual ones. The intratextual marks helped the scribe proofread the text after it had been composed. The extratextual marks pointed at some relation between the text and the real world. The check marks of both kinds appear as early as in archaic texts of Uruk, at the turn of the 3rd millennium BC, and remain in use until the 1st millennium BC. The first part of the study shall provide a brief overview of the check marks that were in use in different cuneiform corpora. The second part shall describe the use of check marks in a particular cuneiform corpus, the archives of Mari (Tell Hariri) dating to the early 18th century BC.
The paper discusses the present stage of the evolution of the initial [n]/[j] stem alternation in Russian third person pronouns. After providing a short overview of the origins of the forms, I focus on their category status, discuss Zalizniak’s ‘adpositionality’ in some detail, and then proceed to considering the cases where the ‘n’-forms are induced by a distant ‘controller’. I will show that the fact that the ‘n’-forms are essentially variants is better accounted for by the notion of ‘trigger’ of a morphological variant. To my eyes, this open ways to a better understanding of the observed evidence than that using the conventional notion of morphosyntactic controller, on the one hand—and certainly than explaining them in (morpho)phonological terms. In the end, I will briefly argue that, in a sense, the evolution of the alternation is similar to degrammaticalization, showing a movement from a morphophonologically conditioned external sandhi to a morphosyntactic category similar to government.
In OB letters, the LÚ sign has three readings: 1) LÚ renders the noun awīlum ‘man human being;’ 2) LÚ is the determinative preceding terms for male human beings; 3) LÚ corresponds to the headless ša in references to human beings. This paper proposes the ways to ascertain the correct reading of LÚ in a given context. First, we have established that in letters from Upper Mesopotamia (Mari etc.) the freely standing LÚ = awīlum greatly outnumbers syllabic spellings of awīlum, while in letters from Southern and Central Mesopotamia syllabic spellings are by far more frequent. This fact may be relevant for the description and history of the written Old Babylonian. Second, LÚ preceding terms for persons or groups of persons either reperesents awīlum as an antecedent in appositive constructions or is the determinative. This study shows that LÚ should be understood as the determinative in the context of occupational and social category terms, as well as in that of collective nouns. LÚ as the determinative is more widely used in Upper Mesopotamia than in Southern and Central Mesopotamia. LÚ = awīlum is plausible when LÚ precedes personal names and kinship terms. This usage is a hallmark of Upper Mesopotamian letters. Yet these results do not allow us to predict the interpretation of the LÚ sign in every case. Third, the LÚ sign appears in the context of occupational terms which etymologically are noun phrases headed by the erstwhile demonstrative pronoun ša (e.g., LÚ.BAN = ša qāštim ‘archer’). Moreover, we show that LÚ preceding place names can also be interpreted as ša, e.g. LÚ ter-qa KI = ša Terqa ‘(that) of Terqa’, i.e. ‘a man related to Terqa’ in one way or another.
L'ouvrage d'I. Arkhipov sur Le vocabulaire de la métallurgie et la nomenclature des objets en métal dans les textes de Mari constitue le troisième volume de la série des Matériaux pour le Dictionnaire de Babylonien de Paris. Après des études portant sur le vocabulaire des habits et textiles (MDBP I) et sur la vaisselle de luxe (MDBP II), cet ouvrage s'intéresse aux techniques et produits de la métallurgie et de l'orfèvrerie. Peu d'objets ont été retrouvés lors des fouilles, mais de nombreux documents administratifs et lettres donnent des descriptions souvent très précises de leur forme, de leur fabrication ou de leur emploi. Une première partie étudie le vocabulaire akkadien et ses éventuelles notations idéographiques, à partir du corpus entier des archives de Mari. Les mots y sont classés en douze catégories. La seconde partie donne l'édition de nombreux textes administratifs en ordre chronologique. Pas moins de 645 textes sont édités: 114 sont entièrement nouveaux, 531 constituent la reprise de textes déjà publiés (essentiellement dans ARM XXV), collationnés et parfois complétés par des joints. L'ensemble est suivi de diverses annexes. L'ouvrage montre le haut niveau technologique atteint par les ateliers syriens à cette époque ancienne. Ces témoignages écrits, issus de l'administration du palais de Mari, sont désormais à la disposition de toutes les personnes intéressées: philologues, archéologues, historiens des techniques, etc.
This paper discusses preposition (P) omission under sluicing (John talked with someone but I don’t know _ who) and the ability of P to take a clitic pronoun as a complement (We talked about’im), correlated with P-stranding (the ability of P to stay in situ when its complement undergoes movement, Who are you talking with_?) through generalizations that were proposed in Merchant (2001) and Abels (2003a,b) respectively. These studies establish Pstranding as a necessary condition for both phenomena, but I show that the correlations may stem instead from the ability of Ps to project independent Prosodic Words in the P-stranding languages.
Analysis of Russian prepositions pod ‘under’ and iz-pod ‘from-under’ in temporal constructions
The paper is focused on the study of reaction of italian literature critics on the publication of the Boris Pasternak's novel "Doctor Jivago". The analysys of the book ""Doctor Jivago", Pasternak, 1958, Italy" (published in Russian language in "Reka vremen", 2012, in Moscow) is given. The papers of italian writers, critics and historians of literature, who reacted immediately upon the publication of the novel (A. Moravia, I. Calvino, F.Fortini, C. Cassola, C. Salinari ecc.) are studied and analised.
In the article the patterns of the realization of emotional utterances in dialogic and monologic speech are described. The author pays special attention to the characteristic features of the speech of a speaker feeling psychic tension and to the compositional-pragmatic peculiarities of dialogic and monologic text.