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
In June 1849 Hincks read a paper on the Khorsabad inscriptions which
shows a great advance upon any contribution yet made to the decipherment
of the language. There is evidence in his essay on the Van inscriptions
that so early as December 1847 he had practically given up the attempt he
made in the previous January to assimilate the Assyrian writing as far as
possible to the Hebrew—at least as regards the vowel system.[806] He is
now satisfied that the Assyrian maintains a clear distinction between the
vowels, and also between the surd and sonant consonants at the beginning
of a word, though at the end the two sounds were confounded. He points
out that no distinction is made between the sounds of _w_ and _m_, and,
he adds, between _l_ and _r_; but he afterwards correctly admits the
independent existence of these sounds in his Syllabarium.[807] He has
also definitely arrived at the conviction that the Assyrian characters
are wholly syllabic or ideographic—in a large number of cases they
are both. He will not now admit that any of them represents a simple
consonant. He has still no doubt that there are many homophones. Many
characters appear to have precisely the same values, ‘though much fewer
than might be inferred from a mechanical comparison of inscriptions and
observance of interchanges.’ He recognises the existence of polyphones,
already described by Löwenstern in 1847 as ‘homotypes.’
‘Many characters,’ he says, ‘admit of two or more kindred values, the
distinction between which would appear not to have been considered so
great as to require different modes of representing them.’ This discovery
was so perplexing that he doubted how best to present it to the reader:
‘Whether it is more desirable to give different values to the same
character, or to give it one value only, with a warning to the reader
that he may, under certain restrictions, substitute another for it at his
pleasure.’
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