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
Löwenstern, as we have said, considered that Rawlinson was fundamentally
wrong in applying the laws derived from Indo-European languages ‘to a
writing and a language that are Semitic.’ He absolutely denied that the
vowel is inherent.[791] The signs are simple consonants, and they may
be used in connection with any vowel sound. The vowels may or may not
be expressed, and the signs for them are to a large extent expressive
of any vowel sound. One sign he mentions may convey the sound of _hou_,
_a_, and _ya_; another of _a_ or _ha_, _w_ and _ü_.[792] The vowels are,
he says, by no means limited to the _a_, _i_ and _u_ of the Sanscrit,
but include also the _e_ and _o_ and the diphthong _ao_. He entirely
disagrees with the opinion of Rawlinson that the equivalent signs have
any modified value. He compares Assyrian with Egyptian, and regards the
signs that are apparently interchangeable as simple ‘homophones.’ He
shows the different ways in which the names of the Achaemenian kings are
written; and draws the apparently inevitable inference that the different
signs have one and the same sound. ‘The variants,’ he says, ‘may be used
indifferently without violating the phonetic laws of the language.’[793]
He was apparently the first to observe that some signs ‘express different
sounds’; and these he calls ‘homotypes.’[794] As was natural, he does
not appear to have had any idea of the importance of this discovery. His
homotypes seem limited to the signs for vowels, any one of which may
express almost any vowel sound, and also aspirates and liquids; and he
observed that _m_ and _w_, and _y_ and _i_, are each expressed by the
same signs.
His present pamphlet indicates how rapidly the study was progressing. He
now relies entirely upon the analysis of proper names, in accordance with
the suggestion of Longpérier; and he abandons his attempted comparison
with the form of the Hebrew letters. He surrenders his reading of
‘Ashdod,’ and suggests ‘No Kaschzar’ in place of it; and he even doubts
the identity of Arsak and Sargon. He thinks he has discovered from the
Naksh-i-Rustam inscription that the sign he mistook for _r_ is really
_s_, and that his _k_ is certainly _n_. Accordingly he reads the word _s_
_ch(kh)_ _n_ which somewhat revives his confidence in Sargon.
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