Elamite language

Spoken in

Isolated Languages Elamite

Elx

The Elamite or Elamite language is the extinct language of the Elamites, an ancient Near Eastern people in the southwest of present-day Iran. Elamite texts are from the period 2400-350 BCE, making a total result is a two thousand year history of tradition.

The Elamite is related to any other known ancient Near Eastern language: It does not belong to the Semitic languages ( eg Akkadian ) nor to the Indo-European languages ( such as Hittite or the Old Persian ); also with the neighboring Sumerian is not related to security. Most researchers hold Elamite for an isolated language, some see but genetic relationships among the Dravidian languages of the Indian subcontinent.

The tradition of Elamite texts took place in three different writing systems, two of which go back to Mesopotamian forms of writing, while the third (the " linear script ") is an Elamite -house development. The Elamite history can only be inferred been patchy and for certain phases mainly from Mesopotamian ( Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian ) sources; historical texts in Elamite language, there are, however, relatively rare.

The science of the Elamite language, culture and history is called Elamistik.

The Elamites played since at least the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, an important role in southwestern Iran, as in what is now Khuzestan, Lorestan and the central Zagros Mountains. Main locations were Anshan (now Tall- i Malyan ) and Susa ( Shush now ). Economic basis for the development of Elamite States was the then great fertility of Susiana and the early importance as a transit area for the trade routes from Mesopotamia to Iran and the Indus. The Elamite history is marked by the constant political, military but also cultural interaction with the neighboring states of Mesopotamia, who exercised sovereignty over the territory in Elamite long periods and culturally usually the " givers " were. Nevertheless, the Elamites have in many areas compared to Mesopotamia to preserve their independence, for example in a very specific system of succession, in the use and adaptation of Mesopotamian writing systems and the preservation of their language until well into the first millennium AD.

3.1 Protoelamische picture writing
3.2 Elamite linear script
3.3 The adaptation of the Mesopotamian cuneiform writing in Elam
3.4 The decipherment of cuneiform neuelamischen
3.5 The reading and interpretation of the medium and altelamischen cuneiform

4.1 The origin of the texts
4.2 Altelamische texts
4.3 Mittelelamische texts
4.4 Neuelamische texts
4.5 Achaemenid Elamite texts -

5.1 The elamo - Dravidian hypothesis
5.2 Afro-Asiatic and nostra tables hypotheses
5.3 Starostins criticism

6.1 Phonology
6.2 morphosyntax
6.3 Nouns and their importance classes
6.4 personal pronouns and Possessivbildung
6.5 verb stems
6.6 Verbal morphology
6.7 Konjugationsparadigma
6.8 Comments on the modes

Internal and external names of Elam

The Elamite proper name for the country of Elam is haltamti or hatamti, this was to elama Sumerian, Akkadian and Hebrew to elamtu to ' elam. The proper name of the language is not known. The standard modern names Elamite or elamitisch (English and French elamite ) back to A. Sayce, in 1874 the name elamite after akkadischem model coined for people and language.

History of Elam and Elamite language

The Elamite history has only been phased displayed and can be simplified divided into the following five sections:

Protoelamisch

From Proto-Elamite period, about 3100-2600 BC, there is still no direct linguistic evidence of the Elamites. However, the subsequent altelamische period represented a cultural unbroken continuation of this period, which suggests that the carriers of the Proto-Elamite culture in the Susiana Been Elamites. In this period was developed the previously deciphered hieroglyphics protoelamische modeled after the slightly older archaic Sumerian writing and used for economic management ( findings mainly from the period 3050-2800 BC).

Altelamisch

The altelamische time, about 2600-1500 BC, comprises the Elamite dynasties of Anwan, Simas and the Eparti. Since Akkadreich (2340-2200) strengthened the Mesopotamian influence in Elam, and after a short independence under King Puzur - Inšušinak ( 2200 ) won the Sumerian Ur III Dynasty around 2100 again the supremacy, while the Elamites the end of this same dynasty crucial mitbewirkten. Even compared to the empire of Hammurabi and his successors (1900-1600) Elam kept under the Eparti Dynasty relative independence. In the altelamischen period, the Elamites developed their independent linear script ( only a short time to 2200 used) and adapted the Mesopotamian cuneiform script, which they greatly changed over time (for details on the Elamite writings see below).

Mittelelamisch

The mittelelamische period covers approximately the period 1500-1000 BC among the dynasties of Igehalkiden and Šutrukiden with the brilliant climax under Untaš - Napiriša with its capital in founding major Untaš (now Tšogha Zambil ) and perhaps the best preserved ziggurat of the entire Middle East. The Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar I. terminated this phase.

Neuelamisch

In the neuelamischen period, about 1000-550 BC, Elam found a final climax in the so-called neuelamischen Empire ( 760-640 ), which - weakened by the encroachment of Iranian peoples in Elamite areas - was finally destroyed by the Assyrians.

Achaemenid Elamite -

In the Achaemenid period 550-330 BC Elam was an important part of the Achaemenid Empire, its language was one of four national languages (in addition to the Persian, Babylonian and Aramaic ), in Persepolis and Susa managed mainly Elamite scribes the State Chancellery, the accounting was largely conducted in Elamite language. The Elamite capital of Susa was formerly with new big palaces, the administrative center of Achaemenid rule. While the written Elamite tradition 350 BC broke, Elamite probably until the end of the first millennium AD in Khuzistan ( " Cushi ", " Chusisch ") was spoken; the evidence above, however, are controversial.

Elamite writings and their decipherment

Protoelamische picture writing

Shortly after the Sumerian invention of writing can also be found in Elam since 3050 and until 2800 BC a written form, from Uruk is the older archaic Sumerian very similar and how it is used almost only word and number characters that protoelamische picture writing. Main locality is Susa 1600 clay tablets, scattered finds there throughout southwestern, but also scattered in eastern Iran. The writing has not yet been deciphered, but the same panels in their structure and probably also in the content of the archaic Sumerian tablets that were used solely for financial management purposes. The protoelamische font contains about 1000 characters, which occur in about 5000 variants.

The number of these inscriptions system is extremely complex, depending on the count object are - as in the Uruk texts - uses different units. The work of Englund 1989 and 1997 and Damerow 1989 arise following different counting modes:

Different counting systems of Proto-Elamite writing

Since not different characters were used for each unit of different counting systems, the numerical value of each quantity character depends crucially on the context in which they occur.

Reliable identification of these texts to the Elamites would be - even if fully deciphered - due to the high proportion of language-independent word characters hardly possible. The current state of decipherment of this document describes in detail Robinson 2002.

Elamite linear script

In the 23rd century, the Elamites developed an independent syllabary, which is due to its linear characteristic style " linear script " called (English " Linear Elamite "). In 1961 the Göttingen Iranist and Elamist Walther Hinz outlines deciphering the written form and proceeded from a reading of these texts Elamite what is being reported in Hinz 1962, 1964 and 1969. This decipherment was based on an Akkadian - Elamite Bilingue ( the so-called stone inscription A) using the reading of proper names ( " Inšušinak ", " Susa " ) and the knowledge of the Elamite language from the previously deciphered neuelamischen and Achaemenid royal inscriptions. It has been, however, not recognized by all professionals. Texts in Elamite linear script are sparse and almost to the reign Puzur - Inšušinaks (end of 23 th century ) is limited. Found so far about 20 stone and brick inscriptions, one in a silver vase, content is at the bar inscriptions mostly dedicatory inscriptions.

The font has only 103 character shapes - 40 of which only a single time are full - which from the outset their interpretation suggesting a pure syllabary (word - syllabic writings such as the Mesopotamian cuneiform need a much larger character set ). As an example, cited by W. Hinz to the decipherment of Elamite text was in his reading and his Interlinear Translation cites (the numbering corresponds to the columns of this inscription ):

Elamite inscription line (so-called stone letters A, according to Hinz, 1969):

Interlinear translation:

The name " Kutik -I ( n ) šušinak " is now generally read " Puzur - Inšušinak ".

The adaptation of the Mesopotamian cuneiform writing in Elam

In parallel to the linear script and especially after 2200 sat increasingly the Akkadian cuneiform Sumerian- in Elam by, but most of the lyrics were initially written in Akkadian ( the writers may have been Akkadians ). The Mesopotamian cuneiform was then - since the mittelelamischen time - increasingly simplified by the Elamites They reduced the number of characters, sought out the most simple characters with as little wedges and the ideograms ( logograms, word characters) were widely attacked and almost purely phonetic by a syllable letters replaced. The ambiguity of the Mesopotamian character has been greatly reduced, for one and the same syllable a character was usually only used ( see table below). Thus the Elamites managed the creation of an independent, essential " more logical " and simpler form of cuneiform script, but could reflect the " subtleties " of the Elamite phonetics (eg consonant clusters, nasalization, use of double consonants, and others) barely adequate. In Achaemenid Elamite cuneiform finally the time had only 132 characters, including 27 word mark and determinative. The graphical differences between the Elamite key characters and their - now usually identified - Mesopotamian predecessors are considerable.

The late - neuelamischen and Achaemenid Elamite - syllabic signs

Note: / Vh / means that this sign of the syllables / ah, ih, uh / is. Accents or indexes indicate different cuneiform characters with the same syllable phonetic value. Note that only for the syllables / ip, ša / and / tu / two different characters were used, the late Elamite writing so the syllables of the language - quite in contrast to the case of the Sumerian or Akkadian - almost univocally represents. ( The lack of opposition " voiced " to " voiceless " see the section on phonology. )

In addition to the syllabic signs of the table there were the five vowels / a, e, i, u, ú / and some KVK characters (characters with the phonetic value of consonant-vowel -consonant), whose reading was, however, not clearly determined, such as spelling variants tup -pi -ra and ti -pi- ra " writer " show. Sometimes KVK characters were defined by " explanatory overrides ", for example, tan - tan in addition to and as -an or gal -li -lu and gal next gal

The decipherment of the cuneiform neuelamischen

The basis for the decipherment of the cuneiform writings of all - and thus also of other ancient Near Eastern writing systems - the great trilingual inscription of Darius Behistun in the year 519 BC, Elamite in the languages Old Persian and Babylonian. After Georg Friedrich Grotefend and his successors, first deciphered the ancient Persian cuneiform letter and the Old Persian text ( in a language that is closely related to the Awestischen ) had interpreted the Behistun Trilingue for deciphering the other two documents was used.

It offered itself first, to examine the second part of the inscription, because the written form used only 111 different characters and thus was much easier than the third script with its several hundred characters. ( As we now know, this is the third specification, the Babylonian cuneiform, which could be deciphered only after and using the decipherment of Elamite writing). With only 111 characters, it was obvious that this second font - the neuelamische cuneiform, as has been recognized later - essentially represented a syllabary. Grotefend - had been the major contribution to the deciphering of Old Persian cuneiform - succeeded in 1837 to the discovery that males names are characterized by a superior vertical wedge. That opened the door to the basic idea of deciphering, namely the identification of proper names in the Old Persian version neuelamischen and ( an idea that had already been used by Jean-François Champollion in deciphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs ). After the complete publication of the Elamite version of the inscription in 1853 had 90 proper names are available, from which you could by comparing it with the name of the ancient Persian text determine the syllabic values of most neuelamischen characters. Use the translation of the Old Persian version was then also noted the importance of about 700 Elamite words and the Broad Elamite grammar to be clarified.

The reading and interpretation of the medium and altelamischen cuneiform

Based on the now relatively well known neuelamischen writing and language the older Elamite cuneiform inscriptions could gradually be read and interpreted by comparison and combination. The mittelelamische cuneiform contains more Determinative and ideograms than the neuelamische and is altogether more complicated. Help by Akkadian - Elamite bilinguals, there were only a few and insignificant cases. The obtained from the Achaemenid - neuelamischen royal inscriptions limited vocabulary was not enough to open up much more extensive vocabulary of the old and mittelelamischen inscriptions, also the changes in the language over a period of more than a thousand years still leads to considerable difficulties in the interpretation of older Elamite texts. So there Elamite texts in which even gives up every other word puzzles or the meaning of whole sentences remains completely dark.

Textual tradition

Overall, the tradition of Elamite texts in quality and quantity falls far short of the Sumerian and Akkadian texts. The traditional Elamite material is not extensive and versatile enough - despite today's relatively easy reading - to be able to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of Elamite texts. In particular, the development of the vocabulary is still barely managed to only about 700 Elamite words are safely interpreted. As long as you can find no greater Sumerian- Elamite, Akkadian, Elamite or Old Persian, Elamite word list, nothing will change in this state. Nevertheless, the tradition of the Elamite is so extensive that a relatively clear picture of the Elamite grammar and language structure can be extracted.

The origin of the texts

Most Elamite texts are taken from today's southwestern Iranian provinces of Khuzestan and Fars, most important sites are Susa, Persepolis and Anshan (now Tall- i Malyan ). These texts made in the period between the 24th and 4th century BC. Achaemenid multilingual monumental inscriptions, which also contain Elamite versions, can be found in western Iran and eastern Turkey in the area of Lake Van, they date from the period 520-450 BC Elamite clay tablets were from the 6th century BC - outside the Iran - found at Nineveh ( Mosul in today ), in the Urartian fortresses of eastern Turkey and Armenia, some Elamite clay tablet from this period even come from Kandahar in Afghanistan today.

Altelamische texts

Most cuneiform texts of the altelamischen time (about 2400-1500 ) are written in Akkadian or Sumerian language, only a few have survived in Elamite. These include three fragmentary student texts - which could be called in the broadest sense " literary " - a contract of an unknown Elamite king with the Akkadian king Naram-Sin (from the 23rd century, translation see Koch 2005) and four Elamite royal inscriptions from the 18th century. In addition, Elamite names and isolated words in Sumerian and Akkadian texts have survived. Leaves If the Elamite character of the linear script prove definitively (see above ), of course include these few texts to altelamischen stock.

Mittelelamische texts

The mittelelamischen texts (1350 - 1100 BC) The loans are short royal inscriptions, and administrative documents (175 texts mostly from Susa, major Untaš and Malyan in Fars ), written on bricks, stelae, reliefs, statues and Votivobjekten. Among them is a single bilingual Akkadian - Elamite inscription and a longer campaign report of the king Šutruk - nahhunte I (c. 1185-1155 ). Elamite words and titles can be found at this time on Akkadian inscriptions of detention Tepe. The Mittelelamische is considered the "classic" period of the Elamite language and culture.

Neuelamische texts

The Neuelamische is represented by dedicatory inscriptions and administrative and legal texts from the 8th to 6th century BC. From the period 750-650 BC, about 30 king inscriptions are on steles and bricks from Susa and some rock inscriptions local Elamite rulers in Khuzestan. For the period after 650, a small group of legal texts and an archive of 300 short administrative texts from Susa, also some letters from Susa, Nineveh and Armavir Blur have survived in Armenia.

Achaemenid Elamite texts -

The best is handed the Achaemenid Elamite, notably - as mentioned above - by the multilingual royal inscriptions of Darius I and his successors. This royal inscriptions in the languages of Elamite, Old Persian and Babylonian still form the most important documents of the Elamistik ( translation of the three versions in Borger- Hinz 1984, the oldest trilingual inscription of Darius I, is given in Koch 2005). In Behistun initially existed only the Elamite version, the other two were added a little later, which underlines the particular importance of the Achaemenid Elamite. Later monumental inscriptions contain in addition to the Old Persian and Elamite always a Babylonian version, the content of these texts correspond very closely, so that simultaneous translations are possible.

Several thousand Elamite administrative texts have survived from the period 500-450 BC, from the archives of Persepolis, written by the Elamite scribes and accountants of the Achaemenid Empire firm. The wide distribution of these texts show fragments of this text group from Kandahar in Afghanistan.

Relationships with other languages

One reason for the difficulty of interpretation of Elamite texts is that Elamite stands obviously isolated as a language, and thus accounts for etymological comparisons with related languages . Early attempts to connect it to the Sumerian were quickly abandoned; However, a certain structural similarity between the two languages , which is due to their geographical proximity, highlighted again recently ( Steiner 1990), but this says nothing about a genetic relationship between the two languages. A comparison with the likewise derived from the Iranian highlands languages Kassitisch and Gutäisch unnecessary because of the extremely low level of knowledge of these languages. As quite promising, however, was the hypothesis of a relationship with the Dravidian languages.

The elamo - Dravidian hypothesis

RA Caldwell suspected in 1856 a relationship of Elamite to the Dravidian languages. This hypothesis was addressed in the 1970s again, and above all represented by David W. McAlpin, who proceeds in his summarizing major work from 1981 by a elamo - Dravidian language family, which is also called " zagrosisch ", according to their hypothetical ancestral home in the Zagros Mountains. As justification for the elamo - Dravidian kinship following correspondences between the Elamite and Proto - Dravidian are given (the first two are, however, purely typological and can therefore contribute little to the genetic question ):

Both languages are agglutinative, suffixes will be used almost exclusively.
The structure of verbal morphology largely agrees.
Some nominal suffixes are similar for ( pronouns 2nd person, especially case - suffixes ).
The Elamite suffix / -ka / in the formation of nouns actionis has Dravidian reflexes.
The Elamite Perfektsuffix / ta / corresponds to the Dravidian participle suffix.
McAlpin presented over 80 Elamite - Dravidian word equations ( McAlpin 1981).

Nevertheless, the elamo - Dravidian hypothesis of Elamisten and Drawidologen alike with great reluctance, if not with hostility considered ( Reiner 1992 and 2003, Steever 1998, Krishnamurti 2003).

If by other researchers (eg, WA Fairservis 1992 A. Parpola 1994) established thesis is correct, that the - as yet unknown - language of the Indus culture is also Dravidian, would result in a relationship between Elam and the Indus culture, especially as the protoelamische picture writing (see above ) of the early 3rd millennium in the character set many similarities to the - so far also undeciphered - Spirit of the Indus culture has (shown recently at van Driem 2001 detail ).

Afro-Asiatic and nostra tables hypotheses

V. Blazek criticized in the 1990s most of Elamite - Dravidian word equations McAlpins and put his hand over one hundred etymologies, which should prove a relationship of Elamite with the Afro-Asiatic languages. Since he does not deny the found of McAlpin morphological elamo - Dravidian similarities, he puts the Elamite in the larger context of the nostra matic macro family, which also includes the Afro-Asiatic language family with his view in addition to the Dravidian, Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic and Kartvelian languages (the latter is now often considered by Nostra sufferers as standalone). Even this extended hypothesis found few supporters outside the circle of " Nostra sufferers ". (See Blazek in 1999 and 2002).

Starostins criticism

Of great importance is the comprehensive article by George Starostin On the Genetic Affiliation of the Elamite Language ( 2002), which examines and criticizes both the works of McAlpin and the theses of Blazek. The elamo - Dravidian morphological similarities he points also ( as Blazek ) in the context of a much wider nostra relatedness rather than a two-sided elamo - Dravidian relationship. He shows, for example, that the reasons given by McAlpin case suffixes are actually used in a similar form and function in the Uralic, Altaic and Kartvelian languages. The word equations both authors - ie both the elamo - Dravidian McAlpins and the elamo - Afro-Asiatic Blažeks - he held almost all unconvincing.

Instead, he presented on the basis of the 100 -word list of Morris Swadesh an investigation of the 54 terms in this list that appear in the Elamite, and tries to find nostra tables, Afro-Asiatic and Sino- Caucasian parallels. The result is - as expected - very far distance from the Elamite Sino Caucasian, a relatively wide - about the same - both for distance Nostra tables as well as the Afro Asiatic. In particular, however, the Elamite with the Dravidian - a branch of Nostra tables - very little in common, there are only two acceptable word equations. Starostin includes a Urverwandtschaft the Elamite with this macro groupings not out, this would, however, be due to a very distant past. The main result is the factual refutation of the specific elamo - Dravidian hypothesis, which has been claimed McAlpins work also explicitly supported by anyone.

So it is - especially on the results of Starostin, but also the critical work of the Drawidologen and Elamisten - makes sense to first continue to be seen as an isolated Elamite language of the ancient Near East.

Linguistic characteristics

This representation can work out a few key points of the Elamite grammar. It substantially followed M. Krebernik 2005 and MW Stolper 2004.

Phonology

The adapted by the Elamites Mesopotamian cuneiform ( syllable types V, KV, UK and a few KVK - V stands for a vowel, a consonant K ) was only partially able to reproduce the Elamite language adequately. For example, in the Elamite relatively frequent consonant clusters could be realized only approximately and imperfectly by insertion of silent vowels. Nasalization - the existence of which one can imagine from spelling variants te- em -ti and te -ip- ti for tempti "Lord " - is not represented in the rule. Only with difficulty is the phoneme inventory of the Elamite, which differs greatly from that of the apparent Sumerian or Akkadian, reconstructed from the scriptures. There is obviously no opposition " voiceless " to " voiced ", ie no difference in the pronunciation of the characters for / p / - / b /, / t / - / d / and / k / - / g /, which led to variations in the spelling: for example you -ni -h and tu- ni -h for " I gave ". Which debate was actually used by the Elamites, can be seen in the case of Elamite proper names among the Babylonians and Assyrians: rather then the voiced variant is to assume (W. Hinz 1964 comments: ". The Elamites have gesächselt ").

There are only four vowels, namely / a, i, u, e / in Elamite. A simplified overview of the reconstructed consonants ( in [] different debate) shows the following scheme after stumbling in 2004.

The consonants of the Elamite

The Transliterationszeichen / h / represents ancient oriental / ḫ / so it will be like the German / ch / pronounced. ( This is true only for the older language stages, in neuelamischen is / h / often silent and may be omitted. )

In Krebernik 2005, consists mainly in the spelling ( transliteration) the consonants / b /, / d / and / g /, but phonemically relevant double consonants come ( Geminatae ) / pp, tt, kk, hh, ss, ll, rr, mm, nn / attention - not all of which, however, are secured -, also with reservation, the consonant / z / (with / zz / ) and / ŋ / (with / nn / ) and the semi-vowel / j /.

Morphosyntax

The Elamite is used an agglutinative language suffixes, enclitics and post positions. Developed from postpositions case suffixes, there are only spätelamischer in time, the older language stages distinguish a case only with the personal pronoun ( nominative and accusative, see below). An article does not exist. The Elamite is not Ergativsprache, transitive and intransitive sentences for the same subject forms are used. On the other hand, it can not be called typical nominative - accusative language also, as these Kasusunterscheidung initially affects only the pronouns and is occupied only in a very late stage of secondary education for nouns. The question of ergativity of the Elamite was discussed at length.

Syntactic relations are produced by the word order, but especially by the so-called meaning and Kongruenzmarker. An example from the nominal morphology:

In the first phrase is in Sunki - the importance of class Delokutiv ( " he " class, about the king made a statement ), which is marked with the suffix / - r /. This suffix is added hatamti - back on the attribute, so that the noun phrase is stapled to one unit. In the second phrase is the phrase header Sunki - around the Lokutiv ( " I " class ) - marked by / k / -, which is also taken up again at the attribute. The form and function of the different meaning and Kongruenzmarker is explained in detail in the section on nominal morphology and occupied.

Noun phrases are always the order of the phrase header - attribute, wherein the attributes Nouns ( in German " genitive ") may be adjectives, possessive pronouns and relative clauses. Except for the relative clauses attributes with the phrase header in the manner described above are clamped by Kongruenzmarker.

The sentence subsequence is strictly determined because of the lack Kasusunterscheidung and essentially follows the SOV schema ( subject - object - predicate ). Between subject and predicate, direct and indirect objects, adverbials, negation particle and resumptive pronouns can (which has a reference back to the subject or object include ) will be inserted. example:

The enclitic particle / -a / marks the end of phrases and sentences, sentence introductory particles are rarely used in the older language stages.

Nouns and their meaning classes

All nouns are divided in Elamite first into two main classes ( grammatical gender ), namely the class of people (PK) or property class (SK). In addition, they are one or even more importance assigned to classes. This mapping is done implicitly ( without detectable labeling by a suffix ) or explicitly by a Bedeutungsklassensuffix.

Some examples of an implicit ( suffixlose ) assignment are the nouns ruh " man," atta " father " amma "Mother," iki "brother", Sutu " sister," SAK " son," pak " daughter," zana " Mistress " orld ( i) " eye " siri " ear ", kir or short " hand ", pat" foot " kik " heaven ", mur (u ) " earth, " his" name " and hutt " work ". The meaning of this class unlabeled nouns is only visible in congruence with an attribute or predicate.

The explicit meaning markers (suffixes ) are / -k, t, r, -p, -me, -n; -m,- š /. These are all - except the last two / m / and / š / - as Kongruenzmarker used ( explanation and examples see below).

Play a special role in the four marker / -k,- t,- r,- p / in the nouns of the person class: they serve to designate the Lokutivs ( I -Class ), Allokutivs ( du- class) and Delokutivs ( he / she class ), the Delokutiv singular and plural different. The exact use of the following table shows.

The marked importance classes of nouns from the class of people

The marker / -me / has developed an abstract function, as the following examples show:

Use the marker / -n / locations and place names are identified, for example siya -n " Temple" ( to siya "look", so the temple is the "place of seeing " what is exactly the meaning of the Latin templum. ) Many place names - Anwan, Anshan, Shusha (s) - contain the suffix / -n /. The function of the other markers - which are not used for Kongruenzmarkierung - is not generally defined.

Below we show some examples of the application of the meaning and Kongruenzmarker:

Personal pronouns and Possessivbildung

The personal pronouns differ already in altelamischer time two cases, the nominative and the accusative usually by appending a / n / formed. There are older and younger forms, the elderly usually have the vowel / i /, the / merges into the new and spätelamischen forms in / u ( a commonly observed in Elamite sound shift ). The following table shows the younger forms of the personal pronoun.

The younger forms of personal pronouns

/ ir / and / in / standing as resumptive pronouns that provide a reference back to the subject or object, in finite verb forms depending on the conjugation type as the subject or direct object.

Trailing personal pronouns are using the Kongruenzmarker (see above) to possessives. The following examples:

The last example has a double -me- suffix, since both terms of Puhu " offspring " - the self implicitly belongs to me -Class - as well as on takki "life" is taken.

Verbal stems

Many roots can be used in both nominal and verbal in Elamite, for example, me " back " and " follow " tu " property" and "take". Most verbal stems end in a vowel, in the older language stages, there are also consonant -final.

By reduplication of Anlautsilbe can in some verbs pluralisches subject or object, but also " plurality" of the action (ie, their repetition ) are expressed ( Steiner, 1990, however, this interpretation is not universally accepted ). This can lead to phonological changes such as elision of the stem vowel. Some examples of these tribal modifications by reduplication of Anlautsilbe are summarized in the following table.

Examples of verbs with tribal modification

Verbal morphology

The Elamite has three simple conjugations, which are mentioned in the literature conjugation I, II and III. All three conjugations have the categories person (1-2-3 ) and number (singular and plural).

The conjugation I is directly from the verbal stem ( simple or modified) with verb-specific suffixes for person and number formed (which is why it is called " verbal conjugation "). The shapes of the other two conjugations are derived with the nominal Kongruenzsuffixen / -k,- t,- r,- p / (see above) of advanced tribes which are also called participles: the conjugation II is based on a / k / - expansion, Conjugation III on a / -n/-Erweiterung of the tribe.

About the semantic field of the conjugations ( tense, mood, aspect, transitivity, diathesis) today prevails in the Elamistik extensive, but not complete agreement. The following table gives the estimation of trip again in 2004 (similar Krebernik 2005), though the information on the meaning with the addition are " mostly true " to understand.

Formation and significance of the three Elamite conjugations

Konjugationsparadigma

The following tables give the three Elamite Konjugationsparadigmata again. Since there is no plural forms for Lokutiv and Allokutiv (see above, meaning classes) are, omitted in the conjugations II and III, the forms for the 1st and 2nd person plural. ( They were supplemented in Achaemenid time through descriptions. )

Conjugation I kulla the example " pray "

II conjugation example Hutta "do"

Conjugation III the example Hutta "do"

Note: Not all specified forms are found so far.

Comments on the modes

The Elamite also owns the modes optative ( optative ), imperative ( command form) and prohibitive (Prohibition form). Forms of conjugations I and II with suffix / -ni / (or / na / ) have optativische importance, for example kulla -h - š -ni " let them pray ."

In Mittelelamischen the 2nd person conjugation I has imperative function (for example hap -t ( i) ' him hear! " ), In Achaemenid Elamite - 3rd person conjugation I. Prohibitive be from the III conjugation by the prefix (! ) anu or ani - formed, for example horn anu Hutta -nt ( i) "tu the ( horn ) is not".

All other details of the Elamite grammar are the cited literature can be seen.

190742