The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Re: Hear Ancient Assyrian Being Spoken

Re: Hear Ancient Assyrian Being Spoken
Posted by Don (Guest) - Wednesday, May 10 2006, 22:10:05 (CEST)
from 68.116.91.185 - 68-116-91-185.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com Commercial - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Kris:
"I find your comments troubling and too simple. I am yet to hear that any dialect within our plethora of dialects can be closer to the original because the original had dialects as well. Assyrians always want to convene to a stronger side. A single and “pure” source to gravitate to. This is how small and insignificant we are. We can’t even understand the diversity among our own.

Urmia dialects have been greatly influenced by the Persians just as the other dialects have been influenced by Arabs, Turks, etc. I have heard this theory many many many times by many different people who have said the following:

1. The Jacobites are the closest to the ancient dialect than any other Assyrian dialect
2. Most Assyrian text is written in the Urmi dialect so therefore Urmi dialect is the closest.
3. The Assyrian villages who escaped into the mountains thousands of years ago were far removed from other influences and maintained a stable and unhindered dialect.
4. The Arameans of the West (Suryoyo) had more similarities with the ancient language than any other dialect.

So let me ask you which dialect we are speaking about? Akkadian? Sumerian? Assyrian? Aramaic? Etc? So in this hodge-podge of languages and dialects, what were are saying is somewhere there is a “TRUE” language. Then the there must be a time in which the language was recorded and the single “purest” language. Was that time, pre or post the fall of any of these empires? Is there a single text?

These in my eyes are ridiculous claims. I hate to break this to you but, it is "leshana khata" just as mine is and it becomes even more "khata" everyday.

Dr. Robert, if you are reading feel free to chime in and enlighten."


---To answer your question, we must define dialect and language. In linguistics, "language" (leshana) is the umbrella term and dialect refers to the same language but a regional/social variation of that same language that's different in pronunciation and sometimes grammar or vocabulary.

Now, you mentioned Sumerian. I am reluctant to discuss that b/c Assyriologists themselves are not sure whether to call Akkadian a dialect of Sumerian, or to separate them completely. I am also reluctant to discuss them b/c I have no access to Sumerian tablets. I occasionally get pictures of tablets written in cuneiform script of the so-called Akkadian language. It then takes me a little bit to sit down and transliterate the text as it's easier for me right now to do so. I need a guide sometimes to distinguish the characters. I would memorize them more but I'm still in school and only do this for a hobby for myself.

Anyway, you asked when there was a time in which Assyrians had a uniform language. There was a long time where the language was uniform. There were some regional dialects but they were just that, dialects. It would not be difficult to read them or for one from one region to understand another from another region. It's the same as me saying "ktawa" or "ktava" and Western Assyrian or a white person who doesn't know our Eastern pronunciation to say "ktaba" (or with an "o"). The time I am referring to was the time when Sargon Agida defeated the Kassites. Up until that time, Assyrians had been living in city-states and tribes. Once the Kassites (who lived around Ur - Kasdim) were defeated, Sargon implemented the language of the king. All documents were to be written and spoken in that language.

The language called "Aramaic" was really a mixture of Akkadian, new Assyrians words that the northern Assyrians and Aramaeans were using, and even Canaanitish. It is designated as language and not a dialect of the Akkadian language because it had a different syntax, grammatic structure, etc. It began to be used around 950 B.C. and a centuries long academic battle ensued in which Aramaic began to be used more - not because it was better, but because of trade and the eventual simplifying of letters into 22. There was a time when Akkadian was written in those 22 letters and Aramaic was written in cuneiform. It was a period of transition.

By 800-750 BC Aramaic had overtaken Akkadian and Assyrians had made that the official langauge. It, too, began to have its various dialects. However, it did stay uniform enough to where people could understand each other (except in Canaan). That was a mess because one sees Canaanites living there with Hebrews. Regardless, Assyrians continued to use Akkadian and the cuneiform script even after Aramaic became the language in major use and even after the fall of the empire. It was typically use by priests, scientists, and other academics.

Even though Aramaic is another language, that does not mean it hasn't taken much of its substance from Akkadian. Otherwise, the transition would not have been made in such little amount of time. It's like comparing Arabic, especially that of Baghdad to ACOTE's and CCC's liturgical Aramaic, they're quite similar. Aramaic uses many if not most of the roots from Akkadian.

So what I am saying is that while there were strong king and empires to hold the language together, there was uniform language. After the fall of our northern and southern empires (Nineveh and later Babel), hell broke lose because we went back to that primitive system of city-states. Regardless, the Aramaic langauge didn't change much. It was written exactly the same by people but pronounced differently. To retain pronunciation, Urhai, Nisibin and others developed the vowel system. Thus, one might see the same letters (cap-taw-beith-alap) but ACOTE will say ktawa and SOC will say it with "o."

As far as the Urmia dialect goes. It is not really Aramaic as used by the major churches. It uses some similar pronunciation and words but does not have the same grammar and syntax. The syntax and grammar resembles the Akkadian langauge. For example, people of Urmia don't say "ma" for "what" like in Aramaic. We say "mu." That is exactly how it is said in Akkadian. We have still retained many of the things from that language. When you say that it has been influenced by Persian you are referring to the spoken language. The written language is preserved in writing and has not been influenced until recently when people started writing like they spoke after the mixing. If you don't believe me, read some of the books/writings by Kurush Benyamin of Sporghan (Mata d'Mar Gewargis) or Benyamin Arsanus. They were in that transition period when people began to write like how they talked after working with non-Assyrians (because Assyrians were conversing with Persians more and started moving to Tehran and Abadan, etc.). Because of the decrease in the amount of schooling in recent years, you see that literary Urmia dialect only in some older books.

If you were to see that literary Urmia dialect, it is the closest to Akkadian that any of the dialects that any Assyrians speak (whether they are ACOTE, CCC, SO, SC, or MC). I don’t need some scholar to tell me about my language, I see the differences and similarities when I read them myself.

Aside from that, if you know where I can get a hold of clear digital images of Sumerian language tablets, please let me know. Thank you.


KHAYA ASHUR,

Donald



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 7966
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf4/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Hear_Ancient_Assyrian_Being_Spoken-9guz.01MU.REPLY
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9