Akkadian, which is the earliest documentedSemitic language,[11] is named after the city ofAkkad, a major centre of Mesopotamian civilization during theAkkadian Empire (c. 2334–2154 BC). It was written using thecuneiform script, originally used forSumerian, but also used to write multiple languages in the region includingEblaite,Hurrian,Elamite,Old Persian andHittite. The influence of Sumerian on Akkadian went beyond just the cuneiform script; owing to their close proximity, a lengthy span of contact and theprestige 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 asprachbund.[13]
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 asc. 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 asAssyrian andBabylonian respectively.[15] The bulk of preserved material is from this later period, corresponding to theNear EasternIron 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.
In contrast to most other Semitic languages, Akkadian has only one non-sibilantfricative: ḫ[x]. Akkadian lost both theglottal andpharyngeal fricatives, which are characteristic of the other Semitic languages. Until the Old Babylonian period, the Akkadiansibilants were exclusivelyaffricated.[8]
Additionally Akkadian is the only Semitic language to use theprepositionsina andana (locative case, Englishin/on/with, anddative-locative case,for/to, respectively). Other Semitic languages likeArabic,Hebrew andAramaic have the prepositionsbi/bə andli/lə (locative and dative, respectively). The origin of the Akkadian spatial prepositions is unknown.
The Semitic languages are further grouped by most linguists into theAfroasiatic macrofamily of languages, meaning that Akkadian is distantly related toAncient Egyptian, as well as many other languages spoken historically and currently across northern and western Africa andWest Asia.
Old Akkadian is preserved on clay tablets dating back toc. 2500 BC. It was written usingcuneiform, 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) Sumerianlogograms (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 fledgedsyllabic script, and the originallogographic 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 signAN can on the one hand be a logogram for the wordilum ('god') and on the other signify the godAnu or even the syllable-an-. Additionally, this sign was used as adeterminative for divine names.
Another peculiarity of Akkadian cuneiform is that many signs do not have a well defined phonetic value. Certain signs, such asAḪ, do not distinguish between the differentvowel qualities. Nor is there any coordination in the other direction; the syllable-ša-, for example, is rendered by the signŠA, but also by the signNĪĜ. Both of these are often used for the same syllable in the same text.
Cuneiform was in many ways unsuited to Akkadian: among its flaws was its inability to represent importantphonemes in Semitic, including aglottal stop,pharyngeals, andemphatic consonants. In addition, cuneiform was asyllabary writing system—i.e., a consonant plus vowel comprised one writing unit—frequently inappropriate for a Semitic language made up oftriconsonantal roots (i.e., three consonants plus any vowels).
Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian, 1530–1000 BC
Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, 1000–600 BC
Late Babylonian, 600 BC–100 AD
One of the earliest known Akkadian inscriptions was found on a bowl atUr, 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] TheAkkadian Empire, established bySargon of Akkad, introduced the Akkadian language (the "language ofAkkad") as a written language, adaptingSumerian cuneiform orthography for the purpose. During theMiddle 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.
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 dialectMariotic, is clearly more innovative than the Old Assyrian dialect and the more distantly relatedEblaite language. For this reason, forms likelu-prus ('I will decide') were first encountered in Old Babylonian instead of the olderla-prus.[24]
While generally more archaic, Assyrian developed certain innovations as well, such as the "Assyrianvowel harmony". Eblaite was even more so, retaining a productivedual and arelative 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 theKültepe site inAnatolia.Most of the archaeological evidence is typical of Anatolia rather than of Assyria, but the use both ofcuneiform and the dialect is the best indication of Assyrian presence.[24]
Old Babylonian was the language of kingHammurabi andhis code, which is one of the oldest collections of laws in the world. (seeCode 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]
The Middle Babylonian period started in the 16th century BC. The division is marked by theKassite 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 entireAncient Near East, including Egypt (Amarna Period).[26] During this period, a large number of loan words were included in the language fromNorthwest Semitic languages andHurrian. However, the use of these words was confined to the fringes of the Akkadian-speaking territory.
From 1500 BC onwards, the Assyrian language is termed Middle Assyrian. It was the language of theMiddle 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]
A Neo-Babylonian inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II
During the first millennium BC, Akkadian progressively lost its status as alingua franca. In the beginning, from around 1000 BC, Akkadian andAramaic 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 ofNeo-Babylonian andNeo-Assyrian.
Neo-Assyrian experienced an upswing in popularity in the 10th century BC when the Assyrian kingdom became a major power with theNeo-Assyrian Empire. During the existence of that empire, however, Neo-Assyrian began to turn into a chancellery language, being marginalized byOld Aramaic. The dominance of the Neo-Assyrian Empire underTiglath-Pileser III overAram-Damascus in the middle of the 8th century led to the establishment of Aramaic as alingua franca[28] of the empire, rather than it being eclipsed by Akkadian. Texts written 'exclusively' in Neo-Assyrian disappear within 10 years ofNineveh's destruction in 612 BC. Under theAchaemenids, Aramaic continued to prosper, but Assyrian continued its decline. The language's final demise came about during theHellenistic period when it was further marginalized byKoine Greek, even though Neo-Assyrian cuneiform remained in use in literary tradition well intoParthian times.
Similarly, thePersian 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 underAlexander 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.[29] The latest known text in cuneiform Babylonian is an astronomical almanac dated to 79/80 AD.[30] However, the latest cuneiform texts are almost entirely written in Sumerian logograms.[31]Iamblichus, a 2nd century Syrian novelist, may have been one of the last known people to know Babylonian.
The Akkadian language began to be rediscovered whenCarsten 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 particularOld Persian-Akkadian bilinguals, were of great help. Since the texts contained several royal names, isolated signs could be identified, and were presented in 1802 byGeorg Friedrich Grotefend. By this time it was already evident that Akkadian was a Semitic language, and the final breakthrough in deciphering the language came fromEdward Hincks,Henry Rawlinson andJules Oppert in the middle of the 19th century.
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.
Eblaite, formerly thought of as yet another Akkadian dialect, is now generally considered a separate East Semitic language.
Because Akkadian as a spoken language is extinct and no contemporary descriptions of the pronunciation are known, little can be said with certainty about thephonetics andphonology of Akkadian. Some conclusions can be made, however, due to the relationship to the otherSemitic languages and variant spellings of Akkadian words.
The following table presents theconsonants of the Akkadian language, as distinguished in Akkadian cuneiform. The reconstructed phonetic value[8] of aphoneme is given inIPA transcription, alongside its standard (DMG-Umschrift)transliteration in angle brackets⟨ ⟩.
^abcBorrowings from and toSumerian 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.[34][35]
The first known Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual tablet dates from the reign ofRimush. Louvre Museum AO 5477. The top column is in Sumerian, the bottom column is its translation in Akkadian.[36][37]
Akkadian emphatic consonants are typically reconstructed asejectives, which are thought to be the oldest realization of emphatics across the Semitic languages.[38] One piece of evidence for this is that Akkadian shows a development known asGeers'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 attestedassimilations in Akkadian suggest otherwise.[8][39] For example, when the possessive suffix-šu is added to the rootawat ('word'), it is writtenawassu ('his word') even thoughšš would be expected.
The most straightforward interpretation of this shift fromtš toss, 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/.
The rhotic ⟨r⟩ has traditionally been interpreted as avoiced alveolar trill/r/ but its pattern of alternation with ⟨ḫ⟩ suggests it was a fricative (eitheruvular/ʁ/ orvelar/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 auvular trill as ρ).[8]
SeveralProto-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 qualitye not exhibited in Proto-Semitic. Thevoiceless lateral fricatives (*ś,*ṣ́) merged with the sibilants as inCanaanite, leaving 19 consonantal phonemes. Old Akkadian preserved the /*ś/ phoneme longest but it eventually merged with/*š/, beginning in theOld Babylonian period.[8][40] The following table shows Proto-Semitic phonemes and their correspondences among Akkadian,Modern Standard Arabic andTiberian Hebrew:
^abThese are only distinguished from the ∅ (zero) reflexes of/h/ and/ʔ/ by/e/-coloring the adjacent vowel *a, e.g. PS*ˈbaʕ(a)l-um ('owner, lord') → Akk.bēlu(m) (Dolgopolsky 1999, p. 35).
The existence of a back mid-vowel/o/ has been proposed, but the cuneiform writing gives no good proof for this.[41] 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.[42]
All consonants andvowels 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 isphonemic, and is used in the grammar; for example,iprusu ('that he decided') versusiprusū ('they decided').
There is broad agreement among most Assyriologists about Akkadianstress patterns.[43] 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-calledplene spellings (spellings with an extra vowel).[43]
According to this widely accepted system, the place ofstress in Akkadian is completely predictable and sensitive tosyllable weight. There are three syllable weights:light (ending in -V);heavy (ending in -V̄ or -VC), andsuperheavy (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.[44][43] It has also been argued that monosyllabic words generally are not stressed but rather function asclitics.[43] 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.[43]
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 isPaRiS-. Thus the masculine singular nominative isPaRS-um (<*PaRiS-um) but the feminine singular nominative isPaRiStum (<*PaRiS-at-um). Additionally there is a general tendency of syncope of short vowels in the later stages of Akkadian.[citation needed]
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 examplePRS (to decide). Between and around these radicals variousinfixes,suffixes andprefixes, 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.
The consonantsʔ,w,j andn are termed "weak radicals" and roots containing these radicals give rise to irregular forms.
Formally, Akkadian has three numbers (singular, dual and plural) and three cases (nominative,accusative andgenitive). 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 singleoblique case.
Akkadian, unlikeArabic, 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).
The nounsšarrum (king) andšarratum (queen) and the adjectivedannum (strong) will serve to illustrate the case system of Akkadian.
^The oblique case includes the accusative and genitive.
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 asadverbials. These forms are generally not productive, but in the Neo-Babylonian theum-locative replaces several constructions with the prepositionina.
In the later stages of Akkadian, themimation (word-final-m) andnunation (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 importantcontact language throughout this period wasAramaic, which itself lacks case distinctions, it is possible that Akkadian's loss of cases was an areal as well asphonological phenomenon.
Antiochus I Soter with titles in Akkadian on the cylinder of Antiochus: "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 thestatus rectus (the governed state), which is the form as described above, complete with case endings. In addition to this, Akkadian has thestatus absolutus (theabsolute state) and thestatus constructus (construct state). The latter is found in all other Semitic languages, while the former appears only in Akkadian and some dialects of Aramaic.
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.
The 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 theshortest 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:
There 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 likekalbum (dog) andmaḫrum (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 (sošaknum yieldsšakin).
The Akkadian verb has sixfinite verbaspects (preterite,perfect,present,imperative,precative, and vetitive (the negative form of precative)) and threeinfinite forms (infinitive,participle andverbal 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 areinjunctive where the imperative and the precative together form a paradigm for positive commands and wishes, and the vetitive is used for negative wishes. Theperiphrastic prohibitive, formed by the present form of the verb and the negativeadverb lā, is used to express negative commands.
The infinitive of the Akkadian verb is averbal noun, and in contrast to some other languages the Akkadian infinitive can be declined incase. 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 thesemantics of the verb itself[specify]. The participle, which can be active or passive, is another verbal adjective and its meaning is similar to theEnglish gerund.[specify]
The following table shows the conjugation of theG-stem verbs derived from the root PRS ("to decide") in the various verb aspects of Akkadian:
Preterite
Perfect
Present
Imperative
Stative
Infinitive
Participle (active)
Verbal adjective
1st person
singular
aprus
aptaras
aparras
parsāku
parāsum
pārisum (masc.) / pāristum (fem.)
parsum (masc.) / paristum (fem.)
plural
niprus
niptaras
niparras
parsānu
2nd person
singular
masc.
taprus
taptaras
taparras
purus
parsāta
fem.
taprusī
taptarsī (< *taptarasī)
taparrasī
pursi
parsāti
plural
taprusā
taptarsā
taparrasā
pursa
parsātunu (masc.) / parsātina (fem.)
3rd person
singular
iprus
iptaras
iparras
paris (masc.) / parsat (fem.)
plural
masc.
iprusū
iptarsū (< *iptarasū)
iparrasū
parsū
fem.
iprusā
iptarsā (<*iptarasā)
iparrasā
parsā
The table below shows the differentaffixes attached to the preterite aspect of the verb root PRS "to decide"; and as can be seen, thegrammatical genders differ only in the second person singular and third person plural.
Indicative, used in independent clauses, is unmarked.
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.
Venitive orallative, not a mood in the strictest sense, being a development of the first-person dative pronominal suffix-am/-m/-nim. Withverbs 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 thanmorphological orlexical function.
The following table demonstrates the verb moods of verbs derived from the root PRS ("to decide", "to separate"):
Akkadian verbs have thirteen separatederived stems formed on eachroot. The basic, underived, stem is the G-stem (from the German Grundstamm, meaning "basic stem").Causative orintensive 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 prefixš-, and these forms are mostly causatives. The passive forms of the verb are in the N-stem, formed by adding an- prefix. Then- element is assimilated to a following consonant, so the original /n/ is only visible in a few forms.
Reflexive anditerative verbal stems can be derived from each of the basic stems. The reflexive stem is formed with an infix-ta, and thederived 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 theassimilation ofn, the /n/ is only seen in the present forms, and the Xtn preterite is identical to the Xtdurative.
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).
An alternative to this naming system is a numerical system. The basic stems are numbered usingRoman numerals so that G, D, Š and N become I, II, III and IV, respectively. Theinfixes are numbered usingArabic 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.
There is mandatory congruence between the subject of the sentence and the verb. This is expressed byprefixes andsuffixes. 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.
The stems, their nomenclature and examples of the third-person masculine singularstative of the verbparāsum (root PRS: 'to decide, distinguish, separate') is shown below:
A very often appearing form which can be formed bynouns,adjectives as well as byverbal adjectives is thestative.Nominal predicatives occur in the status absolutus and correspond to the verb "to be" in English. The stative in Akkadian corresponds to theEgyptian pseudo-participle. The following table contains an example of using the nounšarrum (king), the adjectiverapšum (wide) and the verbal adjectiveparsum (decided).
šarrum
rapšum
parsum
1st person
singular
šarr-āku
rapš-āku
pars-āku
plural
šarr-ānu
rapš-ānu
pars-ānu
2nd person
singular
masc.
šarr-āta
rapš-āta
pars-āta
fem.
šarr-āti
rapš-āti
pars-āti
plural
masc.
šarr-ātunu
rapš-ātunu
pars-ātunu
fem.
šarr-ātina
rapš-ātina
pars-ātina
3rd person
singular
masc.
šar-Ø
rapaš-Ø
paris-Ø
fem.
šarr-at
rapš-at
pars-at
plural
masc.
šarr-ū
rapš-ū
pars-ū
fem.
šarr-ā
rapš-ā
pars-ā
Thus, the stative in Akkadian is used to convert simple stems into effective sentences, so that the formšarr-āta is equivalent to: "you were king", "you are king" and "you will be king". Hence, the stative is independent of time forms.
Beside the already explained possibility of derivation of different verb stems, Akkadian has numerous nominal formations derived from verbroots. 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 islabial (p, b, m), theprefix 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).
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 examplemaškattum (deposit) from ŠKN (set, place, put),narkabtum (carriage) from RKB (ride, drive, mount).
Thesuffix – ūt is used to deriveabstract 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) fromabum (father),rabûtum (size) fromrabûm (large),waṣûtum (leaving) from WṢY (leave).
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) fromdīšum (grass),šullušum (to do something for the third time ) fromšalāš (three).
Unlike plural relative pronouns, singular relative pronouns in Akkadian exhibit full declension for case. Only the formša (originally accusative masculine singular) survived, while the other forms disappeared in time.
Akkadian hasprepositions 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 withina andana (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 thegenitive case.
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).
Sincenumerals are written mostly as a number sign in thecuneiform script, thetransliteration of many numerals is not well ascertained yet. Along with the counted noun, thecardinal 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 thegrammatical gender. The numerals 3–20, 30, 40 and 50 are characterized bypolarity of gender, i.e. if the counted noun is masculine, the numeral would be feminine and vice versa.
This polarity is typical of theSemitic languages and appears, for example, inclassical 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 thedual form in Akkadian;e.g.,šēpum (foot) becomesšēpān (two feet).
Theordinals are formed (with few exceptions) by adding acase 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. Ametathesis occurs in the numeral "four".[49]
Adjectives,relative clauses andappositions follow the noun.Whilenumerals precede the counted noun.In the following table the nominal phraseerbēt šarrū dannūtum ša ālam īpušū abūya 'the four strong kings who built the city are my fathers' is analyzed:
Akkadian sentence order was Subject+Object+Verb (SOV), which sets it apart from most other ancient Semitic languages such asArabic andBiblical Hebrew, which typically have averb–subject–object (VSO) word order. ModernSouth Semitic languages inEthiopia also have SOV order, but these developed within historical times from the classicalverb–subject–object (VSO) languageGe'ez. It has been hypothesized that this word order was a result of influence from theSumerian 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 asprachbund could have formed.[52] 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 ofAramaic.
The Akkadian vocabulary is mostly ofSemitic origin. Although classified asEast 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).
Due to extensive contact with Sumerian andAramaic, the Akkadian vocabulary contains manyloan 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 ofMesopotamia. Sumerian loan words were spread in the whole linguistic area. Beside the previous languages, some nouns were borrowed fromHurrian,Kassite,Ugaritic and other ancient languages.
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.
The following table contains examples of loan words in Akkadian:
Akkadian was also a source of borrowing to other Semitic languages such asbiṣru "onion" (intoArabic:بَصَل,romanized: baṣal andHebrew:בצל,romanized: betsel),āsu "myrtle" (آسās) and so on,[53] above allSumerian with examples: Sumerianda-ri ('lastingly', from Akkadiandārum), Sumerianra gaba ('riders, messenger', from Akkadianrākibum).
In 2011, theOriental Institute of theUniversity of Chicago completed a 21-volume dictionary, theChicago 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 academicIrving Finkel of the British Museum.[54][55]
^abcdefJohn Huehnergard & Christopher Woods, "Akkadian and Eblaite",The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages. Ed. Roger D. Woodard (2004, Cambridge) Pages 218–280
^Müller-Kessler, Christa (20 July 2009). "Mandaeans v. Mandaic Language".Encyclopædia Iranica (online 2012 ed.).Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasitische Archäologie 86 (1997): 43–95.
^E. Bilgic and S. Bayram.Ankara Kultepe Tabletleri II. Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1995.ISBN975-16-0246-7
^Watkins, Calvert. "Hittite". In:The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Edited by Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge University Press. 2008. p. 6.ISBN978-0-511-39353-2
^abK. R. Veenhof, Ankara Kultepe Tabletleri V, Turk Tarih Kurumu, 2010,ISBN978-975-16-2235-8
^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.
^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.
^John Huehnergard & Christopher Woods, 2004 "Akkadian and Eblaite",The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, pg. 218.
^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.S2CID163700758.
^Gordon, Cyrus H. (1938). "The Dialect of the Nuzu Tablets".Orientalia.7:32–63.JSTOR43581190.
^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.
^Jagersma, Bram. (2010, 4 November). A descriptive grammar of Sumerian. Leiden University. Retrieved fromhttps://hdl.handle.net/1887/16107 . P. 35.
^THUREAU-DANGIN, F. (1911). "Notes Assyriologiques".Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale.8 (3):138–141.ISSN0373-6032.JSTOR23284567.
^Kogan, Leonid (2011). "Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology". In Semitic languages: an international handbook, Stefan Weninger, ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 68.
^Jagersma, Abraham Hendrik (2010).A descriptive grammar of Sumerian (Doctoral thesis). Universiteit Leiden. p. 46.Archived from the original on 16 October 2015. Retrieved20 November 2015.
^Sabatino Moscati et al. "An Introduction to Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages Phonology and Morphology". (section on vowels and semi-vowels)
^Huehnergard & Woods."Akkadian and Eblaite".www.academia.edu: 233.Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved19 November 2015.
^abcdeHelle, Sophus.Rhythm and Expression in Akkadian Poetry. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 2014; 104(1): 56-73. P. 58.Online
^Huehnergard, John (2005).A Grammar of Akkadian (2nd ed.). Eisenbrauns. pp. 3–4.ISBN1-57506-922-9.
Gelb, I.J. (1961).Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. Second edition. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.OnlineArchived 2020-07-31 at theWayback Machine
Huehnergard, John (2005).A Grammar of Akkadian (Second Edition). Eisenbrauns.ISBN1-57506-922-9
Marcus, David (1978).A Manual of Akkadian. University Press of America.ISBN0-8191-0608-9
Mercer, Samuel A B (1961).Introductory Assyrian Grammar. New York: F Ungar.ISBN0-486-42815-X
Sabatino Moscati (1980).An Introduction to Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages Phonology and Morphology. Harrassowitz Verlag.ISBN978-3-447-00689-7.
Soden, Wolfram von (1952).Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. (3rd ed., 1995:ISBN88-7653-258-7)
Woodard, Roger D. The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Aksum. Cambridge University Press 2008.ISBN978-0-521-68497-2
Gelb, I. J. (1961).Old Akkadian writing and grammar. Materials for the Assyrian dictionary, no. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.ISBN0-226-62304-1
Hasselbach, Rebecca.Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 2005.ISBN978-3-447-05172-9
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.
Ignace J. Gelb:Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. Materials for the Assyrian dictionary. Bd 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1952, 1961, 1973.ISBN0-226-62304-1ISSN0076-518X
[2] Gutherz, Gai, et al. "Translating Akkadian to English with neural machine translation." PNAS nexus 2.5, 2023
Markus Hilgert:Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit. Rhema-Verlag, Münster 2002.ISBN3-930454-32-7
Walter Sommerfeld:Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliederung Altakkadisch, Assyrisch und Babylonisch. In:Alter Orient und Altes Testament (AOAT). Ugarit-Verlag, Münster 274.2003.ISSN0931-4296
.jpg)
