Indo-European linguistics and classical philology
F. A. Eloeva V. V. Emelianov. Katharevousa in the modern Greek fiction – linguistic experimemnt or reflection of diachrony? On the History of Sumerian anzil: Orthography, Semantics and Etymology of the Word (pp. 268–275)
Author
F. A. Eloeva V. V. Emelianov (Saint Petersburg State University Saint Petersburg State University)
Keywords\n modern Greek, Katharevousa, Dimotiki, modern Greek literature. Sumerian, Sumerian words in Akkadian, Akkadian words in Sumerian, semantics, etymology
Pages\n 268–275
Summary\n
The paper deals with growing use of Katharevousa in Modern Greek fiction in the last decades. It is difficult to define Katharevousa which has never been stricto sensu codified (unlike Dimotiki which is the result of codification and language planning). Katharevousa, lit. «puristic [language]», is a conservative form of Greek conceived in the early 19th century as a compromise between Ancient Greek and the spoken form of the language. Roughly speaking, Katharevousa is an idiom combining Modern Greek syntax and Ancient Greek morphology. Katharevousa was used for official and formal purposes, while Dimotiki – 'demotic' or popular Greek, served as the every-day language. This created a diglossic situation whereby most of the Greek population was excluded from the public sphere and advancement in education unless they conformed to Katharevousa. In 1976, Dimotiki became the official language of the Greek state, and in 1981 the polytonic system of writing was abolished. Wikipedia characteristically mentions that «by the end of the 20th century Katharevousa became obsolete». In any case, officially Katharevousa is no longer in use and since 1976 has not been taught in schools. However, we witness the process which nobody could have predicted – on the synchronic level in modern Greek fiction we observe wide use of Katharevousa. Considerable number of Greek writers and poets (including those who have previously declared their preference for Dimotiki) are switching in their writing to Katharevousa. The present article offers an attempt to analyse this situation. We consider the Sumerian word anzil of unknown origin, which occurs in the Sumerian literary texts from the XXI century BC, represents a violation of the magical taboo and has no exact translation. The aim of the article is the hypothesis of its original meaning and etymology. The author found that the word anzil consists of two parts. Its first part is a noun of Sumerian origin, the second is formed from the Akkadian roots šalātu or šalāqu. According to the oldest contexts, the time of its appearance may be Ur III period. Initially, its meaning was prohibition to step to what was erupted from human body (nails, hair, vomit), or what may caused damage to a person (fragments of vessels). Subsequently, the ritual taboo was transmitted to eating, and in the first millennium BC Akkadian anzillu derived from the Sumerian anzil denoted all kinds of sin and crime.
References\n
  1. Emel'yanov V.V. Akkadskie zaimstvovaniya v shumerskom (do III dinastii Ura) [Akkadian Loanwords in Sumerian (before the 3rd Dynasty of Ur)]. Indoevropeyskoe yazykoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya–XIII. Materialy chteniy, posvyashchennykh pamyati professora I.M. Tronskogo. 22-24 iyunya 2009 g. [Indo-European linguistics and classical philology - XIII: proceedings of the International Conference in memory of professor Joseph M. Tronsky, June 22-24, 2009]. St. Petersburg, 2009, pp. 171-183 (In Russ.)
  2. Emel'yanov V.V. Akkadskie zaimstvovaniya v shumerskom (Starovavilonskiy period) [Akkadian Loanwords in Sumerian (the Old Babylonian period)]. Indoevropeyskoe yazykoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya–XV. Materialy chteniy, posvyashchennykh pamyati professora I.M.Tronskogo. 20-22 iyunya 2011 g. [Indo-European linguistics and classical philology - XV: proceedings of the International Conference in memory of professor Joseph M. Tronsky, June 20-22, 2011 g.]. St. Petersburg, 2011, pp. 165-177 (In Russ.)
  3. von Soden W. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden, 1958-1981
  4. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago, 1956-Cooper 1983–Cooper J.S. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore; London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1983
  5. Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (electronic view). Available at: http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html.
  6. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. Available at: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/
  7. Frayne D.R. Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC). Toronto; Buffalo; London, 1990 (= The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. Volume IV)
  8. Gallagher W.R. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies. Leiden, Brill, 1999
  9. Geller M.J. Taboo in Mesopotamia: A Review Article. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1990, no. 42/1, pp. 105-117
  10. Klein J. The God Martu in Sumerian Literature. Sumerian Gods and Their Representation. Groningen, Styx Publications, 1997, pp. 99-116 (= Cuneiform Monographs 7)
  11. Lane, E.W. The Arabic-English Lexicon. London, 1863-1871
  12. Lieberman S. Sumerian Loanwords in Old Babylonian Akkadian. Missoula, 1977
  13. Leslau W. Comparative dictionary of Ge‛ez (Classical Ethiopic): Gg‛gz- English/English-Gg‛gz with an index of the Semitic roots. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 1987
  14. Maul S. 'Herzberuhigungsklagen': die sumerisch-akkadischen Eršahunga- Gebete. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrasowitz Verlag, 1988
  15. Novotny J.R. The Standard Babylonian Etana Epic. Helsinki, 2001 (= State Archives of Assyria. Cuneiform Texts II)
  16. van Soldt W.H. Three Tablets from Tell Hammam et-Turkman. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Leiden, 1995, pp. 275-291