The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptionsBooth, Arthur John
History
The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions
Booth, Arthur John
Achaemenian inscriptions; Cuneiform inscriptions
He was the first to treat the grammar systematically. He pointed out
with sufficient accuracy the case-endings of nouns,[661] and explained
that, in common with Finnish, they distinguished more cases than the
Indo-European languages, such as the allative and the locative. He showed
that there was no distinction of gender, and that the adjectives had the
same case-endings as the nouns. He explained that the plural was formed
by the addition of _pa_ (which, however, ought to have been _p_, _pe_, or
_ip_), and that the case-ending was suffixed to it. He distinguished the
pronouns with tolerable correctness, and showed their relationship to the
Tartar languages. He also proved that the analogies with these languages
are more obvious in the verb than in the other parts of speech.
He has given an admirable transcript of the Median text of the Behistun
inscription in eight plates, accompanied by a transliteration that shows
a remarkable improvement on all previous efforts, though of course it
has since undergone considerable alteration. His translation follows
the rendering of the Persian column made by Rawlinson, and has received
little alteration from later scholars. He brought his essay to a close
by giving the Median transliteration and translation of the remaining
inscriptions, including two that were lately found by Mr. Loftus at Susa,
and which now appear for the first time. The unilingual at Persepolis
was at length intelligibly rendered. Westergaard had made out its
general purport; but even this imperfect result escaped the efforts of
De Saulcy.[662] The last paragraph was, however, found one of unusual
difficulty, and Norris suggested two alternative versions:
1. ‘Ormuzd, protect me, with all the gods, and also this
fortress. Moreover, do not doubt that those confined in this
place are wicked men;’
or
2. ‘Ormuzd, protect me, with all the gods, and also this fortress
and what is enclosed therein. This do not doubt that the wicked
men will be punished.’
In 1879, Oppert reads the same passage:
‘Que me protège Ormazd avec tous les Dieux, et cette forteresse,
et aussi ce qui est dans cette forteresse. Que jamais je ne voie
ce que l’homme méchant souhaite [que je voie]!’
The latest attempt was made by Weisbach, in 1890, and runs thus:
‘Mich möge Ahuramazda mit allen Göttern schützen, und diese
Festung, und wiederum zu diesem Platze...! Das möge er nicht
sehen (?), das, was der feindliche Mann ersinnt!’[663]
The work of Norris excited some controversy, and Holtzmann was especially
concerned to refute the Finnic-Tartar hypothesis. M. Haug revived the
theory of its closer relationship to Turkish, proposed by De Saulcy, and
he suggested that the Persians themselves were originally Tartars.[664]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account