Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian 9781575066646

Citation preview

MOST PROBABLY

L A N G UA G E S O F TH E A NC I E N T N E A R E A S T Editorial Board Gonzalo Rubio, Pennsylvania State University Editor-in-Chief James P. Allen Gene B. Gragg John Huehnergard Manfred Krebernik Antonio Loprieno H. Craig Melchert Piotr Michalowski P. Oktor Skjærvø Michael P. Streck

Brown University The Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago Harvard University Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Universität Basel  University of California, Los Angeles University of Michigan Harvard University Universität Leipzig

1.  A Grammar of the Hittite Language, by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. and H. Craig Melchert Part 1: Reference Grammar Part 2: Tutorial 2.  The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background, by N. J. C. Kouwenberg 3.  Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian, by Nathan Wasserman 4.  Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian, by Eran Cohen

Most Probably Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian

by

N athan Wasserman The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2012

© 2012 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wasserman, Nathan Most probably : epistemic modality in Old Babylonian / by Nathan Wasserman.     p.  cm. — (Languages of the ancient Near East; 3) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-198-6 (alk. paper) 1. Akkadian language—Modality.  2. Akkadian language—Verb.  I. Title. PJ3291.W37 2012 492′.156—dc23 2011045654 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê

To Hillel-Alexander and Amalia-Helena, the two particles who modified me, with love.

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xiii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1 What is Modality? A Preliminary Definition  2 Sketching the Outlines of Modality: Deontic vs. Epistemic Modality  3 Verbal Modes and Modality in Old Babylonian  5 Root Modality in Old Babylonian: Will, Ability, and Obligation  6 Mental State Modal Verbs (verba sentiendi ) in Old Babylonian  6 Deontic Modality in Old Babylonian Expressed Lexically  7 Epistemic Modality Expressed Periphrastically  8 Modal Polysemy  9 Co-occurrence of Modal Expressions  10 The Uniqueness of Each Modal System  11 Modal Particles in General Linguistic Literature   12 Epistemic Modal Particles in Semitic Studies  13 The Corpus of the Study    14 1.  The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  17 Previous Studies of pīqat 17 A Semantic and Functional Definition of pīqat 18 1. Weak Doubter  18 2. Disjunctive Construction: Optative  20 3. Semiconditional Constructions  22 4. Lowering the Level of Certitude: from Presumption to Doubt  23 5. Vox populi: pīqat in Public Opinion as Reported Speech  25 The Syntactic Profile of pīqat 26 1. Discourse Domains  26     Excursus: Subjectification and Perspectivization  29 2. Verbal Tenses  30 3. Negation  32 4. Position of the MP within the Clause  32 5. Phrasal Arrangement  33 6. pīqat and Other Particles  34 The Etymology of pīqat 37 Grammaticalization   38 vii

viii

Contents

The Grammaticalization of pīqat 39 List of Attestations of pīqat 41 2.  The Modal Particle midde. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  44 Previous Studies of midde 45 A Semantic and Functional Definition of midde 47      Excursus: Unilateral vs. Bilateral Possibility:     The Case of the Latin Modal System  48 1.  midde Between “Probably” and “No Doubt”  49 2.  Quasiconditional Constructions  52 3.  Disjunctive Construction: Optative  53 The Syntactic Profile of midde 54 1.  Discourse Domains­  54 2.  Verbal Tenses  55 3. Negation  57 4.  Position of the MP within the Clause  58 5.  Phrasal Arrangement  59 6.  midde and Other Particles  60 The Grammaticalization of midde 61 List of attestations of midde 63 3.  The Modal Particles wuddi and anna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  65 Previous Studies of  wuddi 65 A Semantic and Functional Definition of wuddi 66 1.  Past Certainty  66 wuddi vs. anna: Doubt-and-Denial vs. Promissory-Declarative Particles  69 2.  Future Certainty: Promissory  71 3.  Conterfactual Certainty  72 The Syntactic Profile of wuddi 73 1.  Discourse Domains  73 2.  Verbal Tenses  74 3. Negation  74 4.  Position of the MP within the Clause  74 5.  Phrasal Arrangement  76 6.  wuddi and Other Particles  78 The Grammaticalization of wuddi 79 List of Attestations of wuddi and anna 80 4.  The Modal Expression lū ittum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  82 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  82 Previous Studies of lū ittum 83

Contents

ix

A Semantic and Functional Definition of lū ittum 83 The Syntactic Profile of lū ittum 85 1.  Discourse Domains  85 2.  Verbal Tenses  87 3. Negation  87 4.  Position of the Expression within the Clause  88 5.  Phrasal Arrangement  88 6.  lū ittum and Other Particles  89 The Grammaticalization of lū ittum 89 List of attestations of lū ittum 93 5.  The Modal Particle tuša . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  94 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  95 Previous Studies of tuša 95 A Semantic and Functional Definition of tuša 97 tuša vs. -man 97 The Syntactic Profile of tuša 99 1. Discourse Domains  99 2. Verbal Tenses  102 3. Negation  104 4. Position of the MP within the Clause  106 5. Phrasal Arrangement  106 6. tuša and Other Particles  111 tuša vs. tuša-ma 112 The Etymology of tuša 112 List of attestations of tuša 114 6.  The Modal Particle -man and the Irrealis Constructions ibašši, lū, and ašar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Preliminaries 115 Types of Irrealis  116 Irrealis and Tense: Future and Past Irrealis  116 Irrealis in Old Babylonian: The Modal Particle ‑man 118 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  118 Previous Studies of the Modal Particle ‑man 118 A Semantic and Functional Definition of -man 119 The Syntactic Profile of -man 119 1. Verbal Tenses: Tense Relations Between Protasis and Apodosis  120 2. Irrealis and Precative  125 3. Position of the MP within the Clause  129      Excursus: A Typological Comparison with the Irrealis Particle     by in Russian  130 4.  ‑man and Other Particles  131

x

Contents

Other Expressions of Potentialis and Irrealis   132 The Particle lū Expressing Irrealis  133 The Conjunction ašar Expressing Irrealis  135 7.  The Modal Particle kīša and the Expressions kī ša and kīma ša . . . . . . . . 138 Synthetic kīša or Analytic kī ša? 138 Etymology 141 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution   143 Previous Studies of kīša 143 A Semantic and Functional Definition of kīša 143 1. kīša Denoting Irony and Sarcastic Objection  144 2. kīša as a Certifier  146 kīša and kī/kīma ša vs. tuša 148 The Syntactic Profile of kīša 150 1.  Discourse Domains  150 2.  Verbal Tenses  152 3. Negation  152 4.  Position of the MP within the Clause  152 5.  Phrasal Arrangement  153 6.  kīša and Other Particles  153 8.  The Modal Particle assurrē . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  154 Previous Studies of assurrē 155 A Semantic and Functional Definition of assurrē 156 Is assurrē an Epistemic Modal Particle?  160 The Syntactic Profile of assurrē   162 1.  Discourse Domains  162 2.  Verbal Tenses  163 3. Negation  166 4.  Position of the MP within the Clause  166 5.  Phrasal Arrangement  167 6.  assurrē and Other Particles  169 Special Meaning of assurrē in Royal Letters and in Governors’ Speech  170 The Etymology of assurrē   172 The Grammaticalization of assurrē 175 9.  The Modal Particle -mi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution  179 Previous Views Regarding -mi 180 Direct Speech, Indirect Speech, Style indirecte libre: Some Clarifications  182 A Semantic and Functional Definition of -mi  182

Contents

xi

1. ‑mi in Epistolary Texts: A Spacer  184 2. ‑mi in Literary Texts: Apostrophe  188 3.  -mi and verba dicendi in Literary Texts and in Letters  193 4.  A Test Case: ‑mi in the Code of Hammurabi  196 The Syntactic Profile of -mi 198 1. Negation  198 2.  Position of ‑mi in the Clause  199 Average number of occurrences of -mi in the Clause  203 10.  Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Some Less-Attested Modal Particles in Akkadian  206 Summary 208 An Outline of the Epistemic Modal System in Old Babylonian  215 Axis I: Possibility → Certainty  215 Axis II: Refutation ←→ Affirmation  216 Axis III: Nonrealization ←→ Realization  216 Axis IV: Subjectification → Perspectivization  217 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 List of Texts Cited in the Study (with the MP indicated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Index of Topics  240 Index of Personal Names and Akkadian Words  243 Index of Texts Cited  243

Preface The journey into the field of epistemic modality that terminates in the present volume began with an article on the particle assurrē (Wasserman 1994) written during my postdoctoral stay in Paris. Surprised by the lacunas I blithely traversed while writing that article and the potential scholarly importance of the subject, a more systematic approach to researching modal particles seemed necessary. Consequently, with the help of a generous three-year grant from the Israel Science Foundation (ISF grant 782/98, 1998–2001), the project “Studies in Old-Babylonian Epistolary Syntax: Modal Particles in the Mari Letters” was launched, allowing me to examine the entire published body of Mari letters, to analyze the relevant passages syntactically, and to create the a database holding the hundreds of passages pertaining to the research. In the course of this largely preparatory work, it became clear that the complexity of the subject requires a thorough examination of the entire Old Babylonian epistolary and literary corpora—not only the Mari letters. This led to a wider examination in which the results of the 1998–2001 research were incorporated into a more extensive and comprehensive study, which is presented here. In bringing this work to conclusion, it is a pleasant duty to thank those who helped me throughout this long period. First among these is Jean-Marie Durand, who set me on my journey by inviting me to participate in the M. Birot Memorial Volume, where the assurrē article, the starting point of this study, was published. More than ten years later, it was again Durand who, together with Dominique Charpin, provided the necessary impetus to conclude this work by inviting me to deliver a course on the subject in the spring of 2006 at the École pratique des hautes études. This book owes much to Durand’s sagacity, generosity, and unwavering readiness to discuss all sorts of problems, both on and off the subject. Dominique Charpin shared willingly and often his vast knowledge of Old Babylonian texts and his acute historical understanding of the period. To both of them—to Durand and Charpin—I am deeply grateful for their scientific support, trust, and, above all, for their abiding friendship. I am happy to acknowledge the help of other colleagues and friends. Marten Stol sent me his list of references of various modal particles, thus helping me to complete my database, and Nele Ziegler discussed various Mari passages with me and allowed me to incorporate them into my study prior to their publication. I also wish to extend my thanks to the late Dietz Otto Edzard, who supported this research in its early stages. Regrettably, he did not see it accomplished. Michael P. Streck and Gonzalo Rubio have both carefully read the manuscript, offering very valuable remarks. I have also benefited xiii

xiv

Preface

from the assistance of my students, Guy Ron-Gilboa, Rani Shlivinski, and Zhang Bo, who helped me in various technical matters and offered useful remarks. Eran Cohen of the Department of Linguistics at the Hebrew University assisted me in the early stages of compiling the database for this study. As always, Doron Narkiss offered me much needed help in all editorial matters in an experienced and sensitive way. Last, but not least, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Anastasia Keshman, my true companion through life, for her perceptiveness, sharp criticism, and enduring patience. Despite the help I have received, and although striving to present for the first time a systematic examination of epistemic modality in Akkadian, this study does not pretend to answer all questions, leaving not a few of them unresolved. In the slippery reaches of modality, where philology, linguistics, and psychology intertwine, definitive answers are not always attainable. I hope that others will deal with these issues in the future. Nathan Wasserman, Jerusalem

“Ceux qui veulent combatre l’usage par la grammaire se moquent” — Michel de Montaigne, Essais, Au lecteur III, 5

INTRODUCTION The focus of this study is to present the main components of the system of epistemic modality in Old Babylonian (OB), mostly expressed by means of modal particles (MPs). The aim is to delineate a large, though not complete, set of MPs and other modal expressions, one by one, in order to achieve a broad perspective of epistemic modality in OB. The “Introduction” contains preliminary remarks on modality in general and on the corpus used for this research. Nine chapters follow, each of which is dedicated to a particular MP or to a MP and related modal sentential expressions. Concluding observations regarding the system of epistemic modality in OB, as laid out in this study, are found in the last chapter, “Conclusions.” Something must be said about the nature of the examples used in this book. This study is corpus-driven. The majority of the examples are taken from epistolary sources, because this kind of text supplies most of the examples of MPs in OB. In this sense, the present volume intends to shed new light on the syntax, style, and etiquette of OB letters. Nonetheless, nonepistolary genres in which MPs are found are also part of the corpus, and special attention was given to literary texts, including incantations and royal inscriptions. I tried to find suitable examples to illustrate the employment of the different MPs. At times, a wide context seemed appropriate; at other times, the citation was limited to the bare minimum. Following the saying “nur das Beispiel führt zum Licht; vieles reden tut es nicht,” my main purpose was to gain the best insight possible into the use and meaning of the MP under discussion. Some of the examples are quite opaque, and I do not claim always to have interpreted them with absolute success. This is, in fact, precisely one of the characteristics of modality: modal sentences are often open to more than one interpretation, even in real-life circumstances. This monograph is intended mainly for Assyriologists, fully acquainted with the various Akkadian genres, especially with epistolary and literary texts. However, philological commentaries have been reduced to a bare minimum, and the focus of the study is unequivocally linguistic. In many cases, my conclusions regarding the OB corpus are framed with a more general linguistic audience in mind, drawing attention, where possible, to similarities or differences between OB and other modal systems. Thus, at least some of the discussions will, it is hoped, be relevant also to linguists not specializing in Akkadian. 1

2

Introduction

To facilitate the use of this study, which contains about 600 different passages as examples, 1 all the references relevant to each MP discussed are listed at the end of every chapter. A general index of the entire body of the registered examples is found at the end of the volume. All references, except for text series, are given in social-science (“author-date”) style. The latter are referred to by their common abbreviation. When a passage is cited from a text series (such as AbB or ARM) or from a text edition where texts are numbered consecutively (e.g., Shemshara Letters), the reference, in bold characters, relates to the text number and the relevant lines (e.g., AbB 1, 37: 8–10). When a study is not part of a series and it contains successively numbered texts, the number of the text is specifically indicated (e.g., Ellis 1972: 67, No. 70: 2′–4′). Finally, when a passage stems from a study that is not part of a series and does not contain consecutively numbered texts, then it is the page number that is cited (e.g., Falkenstein 1963: 57: ii 13–17). In ambiguous cases, as when a text is found in a series but is not consecutively numbered, then the page is clearly indicated (e.g., ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (2): 6–17). Akkadian readings that are confirmed by collation, often changing the readings found in earlier editions, are marked by a small circle (e.g., a°-ka°-aš-ša-ad-ma ṭup°-pa°-tim°  ). The English sentences that are used to illustrate general aspects of modality are my inventions. I tried to keep these constructed sentences as simple as possible, without any pretension to hide their artificial character (e.g., John may come on Tuesday). What is Modality? A Preliminary Definition Though often described in textbooks, for the sake of completeness, a short general description of the linguistic category of modality is not out of place. In order to tackle modality in a systematic manner, one turns first to the “doyen of modality studies,”  2 Frank Palmer, and his Mood and Modality (1986), published in the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics series. Though first published in the mid nineteen-eighties (and extensively modified in 2001), this lucid and balanced cross-linguistic typological study remains, as many scholars agree, the best available presentation of the subject of modality in modern linguistics. 3 Other studies dealing specifically with different languages and language families were also consulted: Mitchell and Al-Hassan’s (1994) treatment of modality in colloquial Arabic, which is helpful in explicating modality in the framework of the Semitic languages; and Shlomper’s (2005) perceptive monograph, Modality in Hindi, which—although treating Hindi, a language remote from Akkadian by any standard—is also of much use in its methodological discussions. Both of these studies are especially refreshing because they divert from the ever-present emphasis in linguistic literature on English as the exclusive language used to provide examples of modality. In addition, Hoye’s (2005) review article contains a comprehensive survey of current directions in the field of modality. 1.  Known unpublished texts were analyzed but not presented, nor included in this account. 2.  Hoye 2005a: 1300. 3.  See, e.g., Hoye’s evaluation (2005a: 1317).

Sketching the Outlines of Modality

3

Sketching the Outlines of Modality: Deontic vs. Epistemic Modality What, then, is modality? Along with the linguistic category of tense, which, broadly speaking, captures grammatically the notion of time and aims at placing the action on the time-axis and the category of grammatical aspect (not to be confounded with Aktionsart), which generally describes different manners in which the action is performed, there is—in all languages 4—the category of modality. These three categories are not separate or mutually exclusive; ample data proves their interdependence. As a preliminary definition, I claim that modality concerns personal stances and attitudes. Where aspect and tense are used to define a specific state of affairs through the categories of time and manner, modality is used to present the speaker’s attitude(s) toward this state of affairs, toward the addressee, and expectation of the addressee’s attitudes in response. Hence, a modal statement springs out from some kind of reflection, of introspection of the speaker vis-à-vis a given state of affairs, and aims to convey his notion regarding the situation, often trying to affect the addressee’s opinions toward the state of affairs at stake. Modality revolves around the individual subject: “Modality . . . [is] concerned with subjective characteristics of an utterance [. . .], subjectivity is an essential criterion for modality.” 5 A wide range of linguistic means can serve this purpose: specific verbal forms, words, phrases, and certain syntactic formations. In fact, one must remember that, in actual utterances, modality is often not encoded grammatically but expressed prosodically: by stress, intonation, gesture, and mimicry. 6 These important means of expressing modality are rarely echoed in written form. Hence, they are virtually untraceable in languages—modern and living, ancient and extinct—that are recorded only in written sources. Plene-writing in Akkadian, however, may furnish some indications of this almost transparent stratum of modal expression. Modality will be treated here from a cognitive-pragmatic theoretical perspective. This approach is especially useful when dealing with epistemic modality. Pragmatics and modality are closely related, since “modality is an inherently pragmatic phenomenon. It involves the many ways in which attitudes can be expressed toward the ‘pure’ referenceand-predication content of an utterance.” 7 Accordingly, the cognitive–pragmatic approach “focuses on the cognitive mechanisms that become activated once speakers express evaluations of given states of affairs. . ..” 8 Specifically, in many cases, epistemic modality is concerned with “the linguistic expression of . . . [the] concepts of possibility, probability, certainty, and necessity [and how they] are actually deployed in everyday human thought and talk.” 9 4.  Palmer 1986: 7; Shlomper 2002: 21. 5.  Palmer 1986: 16. 6.  Lyons 1996: 331; Shlomper 2002: 21–22. 7.  Verschueren 1999: 129. 8.  Hoye 2005a: 1295. 9.  Hoye 2005a: 1298.

4

Introduction

Historically, modality entered the arena of linguistic discussion, as did other productive concepts, through the gate of philosophical and logical inquiry into language. The Danish linguist Otto Jespersen’s 1924 study, The Philosophy of Grammar, is a convenient starting point for the description of the development and acceptance of the concept of modality in modern linguistics. 10 Jespersen and others identified a linguistic class, modality, that gathers utterances that do not contain propositions on reality (i.e., John is married ) but deal with opinions, evaluations, attitudes, and feelings of the speaker regarding such propositions (i.e., I am afraid John is married, or John is obviously married, or John cannot be married ). Crucial to this dichotomy is the question whether a proposition can or cannot be examined and valued as true or false. Take for instance John is married. After talking to John himself and even going through the municipal archives, one may say that this nonmodal statement is wrong, since John is still a bachelor. Modal statements, on the other hand, do not yield easily to such true-false examination. The statement I am positive that John is married cannot be easily classified as true or false, unlike the statement John is married (unless one is deliberately lying, an option that linguistic mechanisms do not usually account for). Modality, following Jespersen, is divided into two subcategories: the deontic set, which comprises different elements of will and obligation regarding reality, and the epistemic set, which contains no element of will but of judgments and assessments regarding reality. 11 Palmer defines deontic modality as including directives—“where we try to get our hearers to do things,” and commissives—“where we commit ourselves to do something.” 12 Epistemic modality concerns “the speaker’s knowledge and belief.” It comprises evidentials—“commitment of the speaker to the truth of what he is saying” 13 (i.e., It must be John who broke up the marriage) and judgments—where one presents hesitations vis-à-vis the contents of one’s utterance 14 (i.e., I wouldn’t be so sure that it was really John who caused their marriage to break up). The definition of the two orders of modality provided by Mitchell and Al-Hassan (1994: 44) is worth citing in full: Deontic modality has to do with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by oneself or others in response to some recognizable source of authority, moral or legal, or simply to physical or psychological need. It concerns the use of languages to express intentions, wants, desires, needs, etc., all subsumable under the heading ‘desiderative,’ and since one is unable to intend or will a state of affairs to come about in the past, this modal category has much to do with imperatives and, more generally, with statements of permission and obligation relating to future occurrences.  . . . Epistemic modality, for its part, relates to what one knows to be in fact the case or to what one judges to be possible or likely on the basis of prior experiential knowledge. It concerns statements which assert or imply that a state of affairs is known to exist or is believed to exist. As deontic modality is concerned with making a state of affairs possible, so epistemic modality relates to one’s understanding of what is or may be assumed to be. 10.  Palmer 1986: 9–10. See also Cohen 2005: 10. 11.  Palmer 1986: 18–20, 96. 12.  Palmer 1986: 97. 13.  Palmer 1986: 21. 14.  Cf. Palmer 1986: 51–53, 58–61.

Sketching the Outlines of Modality

5

Rubio (2007: 1340), in his introductory remarks on Sumerian modality, mentions another partition of the field of modality. Beginning with the traditional distinction between epistemic and deontic modality, he remarks that [A]lthough very productive in modal logic, the deontic modality has proven to be more difficult to translate into linguistic categories than the epistemic one. Thus, many linguists prefer to distinguish three general modal categories instead of two: (a) agent-oriented modality, which expresses the conditions of an agent with regard to the completion of an action (obligative, desiderative, potential, etc); (b) speaker-oriented modality, in which the speaker tries to cause the addressee to do something (as expressed with the imperative and optative moods); and (c) epistemic modality.

Despite splitting the deontic into agent-oriented versus speaker-oriented, Rubio does not follow this tripartite model, and in his description of Sumerian modality he adheres “for practical reasons” to the long-established duality of deontic versus epistemic modality. This approach is taken in this study as well. Verbal Modes and Modality in Old Babylonian This leads to an associated distinction, the distinction between mood and modality. The term mood, Latin modus, is restricted in Akkadian, as is common in Indo-European and Semitic grammars, to verbal paradigms and involves mainly the contrast between the indicative and other verbal forms, like the subjunctive. 15 With von Soden’s GAG, Edzard (1973), Cohen (2005), and others, the following modi can be distinguished in Akkadian: the Indicative (imḫaṣ: “he has hit”), the Precative (limḫaṣ: “let him hit!,” “may he hit!,” “so that he will hit,” etc.), the Cohortative (i nimḫaṣ: “let us hit!”), the Imperative (maḫaṣ: “hit!”), the Prohibitive (lā tamaḫḫaṣ: “do not hit!”), the Vetitive (ē tamḫaṣ: “may you not hit!”), the Positive Affirmative (lū amḫaṣ: “I did hit”) and the Negative Affirmative (lā amḫaṣu: “verily, I did not hit”). In general, the indicative in Akkadian is nonmodal. Yet, in specific circumstances, some indicative forms do carry modal meanings. The present-future indicative tense imaḫḫaṣ, “he will hit,” bears at times clear modal functions such as obligation, will, possibility, and eventuality, 16 and in other cases past tense forms are assigned to denote the performative. 17 It is further noticeable that in the precative, cohortative, imperative, prohibitive, and in the vetitive, there is an essential component of will—therefore, they all belong to the deontic set of modality. Only two verbal modi in Akkadian belong to the epistemic set of modality: those that denote a strong commitment of the speaker to the validity of a proposition that was said or to an action that was done: the positive affirmative (lū amḫaṣ: “I did hit”) and the negative affirmative (lā amḫaṣu: “verily, I did not hit”). As Hoye (2005a: 1300) sensibly notes, “it is useful to distinguish between the ‘modal system’—the various lexico-grammatical and prosodic means by which modal contrasts 15.  See Hoye 2005a: 1486; Mitchell and Al-Hassan 1994: 12 (§2.3.2); and recently Rubio 2007: 1338 n. 21. 16.  Streck 1995: 94–98. 17.  For performative in Akkadian, see Wasserman 2003: 168–69 (and further bibliography there).

6

Introduction

are made—and to contrast this term with ‘mood’, where such contrasts may be signaled through verbal inflection.” Furthermore, as suggested by Palmer (2003: 3) and summarized by Hoye (2005b: 1486): [M]ood and modality represent two types of modality and these are mutually exclusive: languages either opt for the subjunctive (mood) or modality (the modal system, comprising the modal auxiliaries). Thus, for instance, whilst Romanian, in line with French and Italian, would tend to use the subjunctive mood as a generalized marker of modality, English deploys a select group of auxiliary verbs.

Where does Akkadian stand in this typological divide? Since the subjunctive in Akkadian does not function modally (with the clear exception of oath sentences, where it is clearly modal) but as a syntactic marker of subordination, it seems that Akkadian ought to be placed among the group of languages in which modality is operated through a modal system and modal auxiliaries. Root Modality in Old Babylonian: Will, Ability, and Obligation In Akkadian, as in other languages, there is a group of verbs whose basic lexical meaning is modal. These verbs are commonly subsumed under the rubric of root modality. 18 In many European languages, root modality verbs constitute a fundamental triad of will – ability – obligation: e.g., German wollen – können – müssen/dürfen; French vouloir – pouvoir – devoir ; English will – can – must. Such a triad of verbs, it is important to note, cannot be fully found in OB. The main operative verbs in OB that belong to root-modality are: leʾûm, “to be able to,” lemûm, “to be unwilling,” and muāʾum (used with the negation lā), “not to want (to)”—all treated by Veenhof (1986). Other verbs that generally mean “to wish” are: erēšum, ḫašāḫum, ṣabûm, ṣamārum, and ṣummû. 19 It turns out that the set of modal verbs in OB is incomplete: there is no direct correspondence in OB to müssen / devoir / must. Obligation in OB is expressed only by means of the imperative and not with the help of a special auxiliary modal verb. The nearest candidates for root modality verbs denoting obligation in OB are the pair (lā) wasāmum and (lā) naṭû, “to be (un)fitting, (un)suitable for, 20 “to be (in)appropriate,” but these fall short of true obligation verbs, since their use is restricted and they resemble adverbs. Mental State Modal Verbs (verba sentiendi) in Old Babylonian Another domain that deserves attention in the field of epistemic modality in Akkadian is that of mental state modal verbs, or verba sentiendi: “to know, to believe, to doubt, to guess, to suppose, to think,” etc. 21 This set of verbs plays an important role in epistemic modality in any language. From a bird’s-eye view, it is clear that the OB modal system leans especially on the epistemic verb par excellence idûm, “to know,” less strongly on ḫasāsum “to think,” and much less on qiāpum “to believe” and takālum “to trust.” Another set of verbs relevant here are those whose basic meaning is “seeing,” hence 18.  See, e.g., Papafragou 1998 and Quattara 2001: 5, who uses the term modalité factuelle. 19.  See ARM 28, 52: 5. 20.  E.g., AbB 6, 76: 4; AbB 9, 198: 10; AbB 11, 51: 5. 21.  See Deutscher 2000: 102–23,

Sketching the Outlines of Modality

7

“understanding,” “assessing,” and “comprehending.” 22 There are sufficient attestations of amārum, naṭālum, sanāqum, and ṣubbû being employed with modal coloring. To the verbs that designate evaluation one ought to add the verb kânum, whose basic meaning “to be firm, solid,” often carries the meaning of “being reliable, true,” 23 (and in D-stem “to prove, establish”). 24 The role that these verbs play in Akkadian modality warrants an in-depth lexical exploration, which is beyond the scope of this study. Deontic Modality in Old Babylonian Expressed Lexically Modality can be expressed not only by grammatically-marked forms (specific verbal forms, particles, etc.) but also indirectly, by periphrastic means. 25 One may say, e.g.: I really want Manchester United to win tonight. Similarly, one could say: If only Manchester United would win tonight! Both sentences carry the same meaning, and they are both modal, reflecting the speaker’s wishes and hopes. Yet only in the second sentence is there a grammatically-assigned deontic modal form (if only . . . would ). In many languages, nonassigned grammatical ways to express modality are just as productive as, if not more than, the grammatically encoded ones. In Akkadian, as was mentioned above, verbal paradigms are the main channels through which deontic modality is expressed, especially when obligation is concerned. However, deontic modality in OB can also be constructed not by verbal forms but with the help of specific lexical expressions such as, e.g., kīma lā libbi ila, “alas! unfortunately!”, 26 or the interjections aḫulap, “mercy!,” and apputtum, “please!,” “it is urgent!,” to quote to the most common. Why is OB deontic modality so reliant on verbal paradigms—in fact, integrated into them—while epistemic modality is expressed mainly through lexical means? The explanation may ultimately lie in the natural evolution of human language. It seems sound to assume that in Akkadian, as in other languages, deontic modality developed prior to the epistemic modality, although this claim is not easy to prove. 27 Yet intuitively it is plausible to imagine that notions that involve will, such as permission (do / don’t do it! ) 22.  Often observed. See, e.g., Wittgenstein 1974 (1949): §90: “‘I know’ has a primitive meaning similar to and related to ‘I see’ (‘wissen’, ‘videre’).” 23.  A few examples for the epistemic meaning of kânum will suffice. Shemshara Letters 70: 6–7 reads: ki-na-˹tim˺ a-na [ pi-i] ˹a-wa˺-ti-ka {x} / a-n[a-ku a-na°] li-[i]l-li-im ˹a˺-tu-˹úr˺, “Trusting your words (taking them for solid, true) I turned out to be a fool!”; Shemshara Letters 71: 4′: a-wa-tum ši-i ki-na-at, “this matter is correct,” or, ARM 1, 47: 9–18: i-na a-wa-a-tim ši-na-ti / 1 a-wa-tum ki-it-tum / [ú]-ul i-ba-aš-ši / [k]a-lu-ši-na wa-at-ra-[a] / . . . a-wa-a-tum ši-na / ka-lu-ši-na re-qa / mi-im-ma [(1) a-wa-tum k]i-it-tum / ú-u[l i-ba-aš-ši ], “In these words there is even not a single true word, all of them are exaggerated. . . . These words, all of them are empty; there is not even a [single] true [word] (in them)” (cf. CAD R 372 e). Note the expression ša kinnātim, “for real” (FM 9, 4:19–20), and the term takittum, “confirmation.” The concept of truth in Mesopotamian was examined extensively in Lämmerhirt 2010. 24.  For more on proving verbs (kunnum and burrum) and their syntax, see Deutscher 2000: 54–57; 168–69. 25.  Palmer 1986: 5. 26.  For this expression, see now AbB 14, p. 208. 27.  See, however, Shlomper 2002: 22 and Papafragou 1998. The corollaries of this statement in the cognitive development of children are complicated and go beyond the scope of this study, see Matsui, Yamamoto, and McCagg 2006.

8

Introduction

and wish (I want to do it!  ) preceded notions that involve judgment (I believe that this is so and so), or doubt (is it possible that this is so and so?). Epistemic Modality Expressed Periphrastically OB mainly uses specific particles in order to express epistemic modality. But here too, as in the case of deontic modality, there are ways to denote evaluations and judgments that are not grammatically encoded but periphrastically constructed. A case in point is the curious declaration found in some OAkk royal inscriptions: DN1 u DN2 ūma lā surrātum lū kīniš, “I swear by DN1 and DN2: (all this) is not false! It is true!” 28 An almost identical Sumerian assertion is found in Šulgi’s and Išme-Dagan’s royal hymns: DN1 . . . DN4 lul ba-ra-na ḫé-ge-en, “(By the names of) the gods . . . : this is not false! It is true!” 29 I am not convinced by Ludwig (1990: 56) that these statements are devoid of truth-value meaning and that they were intended only to stress that the specific text adheres to royal archetypes and writing norms, without referring to external historical facts. Although the exact ideological background of these propagandist statements is hard to fathom, and even if such periphrastic formulas as “(all this) is not false! It is true!” function occasionally as “dead” modals, they still derive from and contain the structure of epistemic modal statements. 30 The origin of these declarations in public historiographic records supports the assumption that they had genuine epistemic functions. The Sumerian proverb (SP 13:42) lú-gab-b a k á -dIn an n a-k a ù -b í -i n -g u b d u m u m unus - a- ni érin-na a n-na -a b-bé ˹inim?˺ am a-g u10 l u l -aš g e-n a-à[m ]-e-š e, “When the ecstatic stood at Inanna’s gate, his daughter said: ‘my mother’s word is not false, it is true!’” points in the same direction. 31 As I understand it, the proverb is sarcastic: the performance at Inanna’s gate receives a support from a woman who presents herself as the daughter of the goddess, while she is no other than the diviner’s daughter whose motivation to help her father’s divinatory act is clear. The irony of the proverb only strengthen the notion that statements like “it is not false, it is true” were meant at their face value. A letter of Samsī-Addu bolsters the suggestion that the OAkk and Ur III expressions just mentioned carry modal significance, made deliberate by repetition. In the letter, Samsī-Addu assesses the reliability of another person, making use of clear-cut epistemic terms: Shemshara Letters 4:3–12: tup-pa-ka ša tu-ša-bi-lam eš-me / a-wa-[t]u-ka ma-al ta-aš-pu-ra-am sà-an-qa / a-wa-at ia-šu-ub-d IM li-il / qa-at ˹dingir˺ e-li-šu ṭe4-em-šu ma-qí-˹it˺ / a-wa-ti-šu ú-ul i-di / ù ni-iš dingir ša i-za-ka-ru / ú-ul i-di / ki-ma ša i-na šu-ut-ti-šu / ni-iš dingir i-za-ka-ru / i-na-ša li-il-lu ù ṭe4-em-šu ma-˹aq˺-[t]u, 28.  Attestations conveniently collected in Kienast and Sommerfeld 1994: 272 s.v. surrātum. 29. E.g., Šulgi B: 319, see Ludwig 1990: 54–55. 30.  Liverani’s (1995) discussion is a convenient summary of the problems involved in the “false” statements in royal inscriptions. 31.  Alster 1997: vol. 1, 212. ETCSL 6.1.13 somewhat differently.

Sketching the Outlines of Modality

9

I heard your letter which you have sent to me. Your words, as much as you have written to me, are accurate. (As for) the words of Yašub-Addu—he is mad! The hand of the god (is) on him. His reason has diminished. He doesn’t know his (own) words. Truly he doesn’t know the oath he takes: as if he took the oath in his sleep—he keeps forgetting (it). A mad man: truly (u) his wits are diminished. 32 An interesting case in which the writer raises the hypothetical option of lying to the king is found in a letter from Mari: ARM 27, 26:28–29: [a-na mi-ni]m i-na sà-ar-tim an-ni-tam a-na ṣe-er / [be-lí-ia aš ]-pu-ra-am . . . “[Why] would I write such lies to my [lord]? . . .” Modal Polysemy Modality, therefore, can be elusive. The same form or expression can be interpreted as modal and as nonmodal, depending on the speech-situation. If we know from a given context that John has a wife and that polygamy is illegal in John’s culture, than the verb can in the sentence John cannot be married may carry a nonmodal—more precisely—a root-modality meaning: John cannot be married (in the sense of an objection to an action) simply because he is already married. Can in this case presents an extralinguistic fact, just like dogs cannot fly. But if John is seen in the company of many different women, then the verb can in John cannot be married, carries a modal epistemic meaning, by which the speaker evaluates John’s behavior and commits himself to the unlikelihood of a particular fact: John’s being married. Moreover, modal forms can carry also different modal meanings. Other mental-state verbs are also prone to this sort of ambiguity. Let us imagine our John running accidentally into a woman whom he dated a year ago:—You wouldn’t believe me, but I was thinking about you all that time. The woman replies:—You are right. I don’t believe you. Thus, believe is used as an epistemic modal verb in John’s words, an assertion that was meant to overcome a possible rejection form the woman, a tactical withdrawal intended to gain a common ground that would allow a safe advancement in the course of the discussion. The same verb, believe, in the woman’s response was nonmodal. It was used at its lexical meaning, as a root modality verb—hence the sarcastic effect. 33 Consider also the following anecdote, cited in more than one study on modality: 34 Castro visits Moscow and is taken on a tour by Brezhnev. First they go for a drink and Castro praises the beer. ‘Yes, it was provided by our good friends from Czechoslovakia’. Next they go for a ride in a car and Castro admires the car. ‘Yes, these cars are provided by our good friends from Czechoslovakia’. They drive to an exhibition of beautiful cut glass, 32. For ṭēmšu maqit in line 6 (cf. line 12), I follow Stol 2002: 109. i-na-ša in line 12 remains difficult. I suggest, hesitantly, considering a corrupt form of mašûm, “to forget.” 33.  See Bhatt 1997. 34.  See Papafragou 2000: 21.

10

Introduction which Castro greatly admires. ‘Yes, this glass comes from our good friends from Czechoslovakia’. ‘They must be very good friends’ says Castro. ‘Yes, they must’, Says Brezhnev.

Must in Castro’s words is used as an emphatic evaluation, an evidential that belongs to the epistemic set of modality. The same verb must in Brezhnev’s answer carries the meaning of directive, and it belongs therefore to the deontic set of modality. 35 The humorous effect is achieved precisely by this unexpected switch from one modal meaning to another. It is thus clear that modal polysemy does exist and that the same form may bear different modal meanings. Co-occurrence of Modal Expressions Modal expressions can be clustered together, augmenting and reinforcing each other or at times contradicting each other. Some MPs are loners; others associate more easily with their homologues. Generally, however, one may say that components of the same section of modality tend not to interact with each other at close range, since such interaction risks blurring or even compromising the specific modal meaning carried by each of them. Hoye (2005b: 1498) quotes a wonderful satirical example of excessive co-occurrence of modal expressions from the 1986 British comedy Yes, Prime Minister! In this episode (“The Grand Design”) Sir Humphrey, now Cabinet Secretary, tries to persuade the Prime Minister to opt for the Trident nuclear missile: Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe. Prime Minister: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe. Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent! Prime Minister: It’s a bluff . . . I probably wouldn’t use it . . . Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t. Prime Minister: They probably do. Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t but they can’t certainly know! Prime Minister: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t! Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there’s no probability that you certainly would! Prime Minister: What?! Sir Humphrey: It all boils down to one simple issue. You are the Prime Minister of Great Britain . . .

Hoye (2005b: 1498) summarizes this scene:

35.  Of course, this polysemy is found in other English modal verbs as well. Consider, e.g., you should do it! (deontic) vs. I should be able to do it (epistemic). For the deontic/epistemic polysemy in colloquial Arabic, see Mitchell and Al-Hassan 1994: 43.

Sketching the Outlines of Modality

11

The PM’s initial use of the epistemic frame probably wouldn’t triggers off the modal (and largely) epistemic flak, which so clearly marks the conflicting views of the two protagonists and their desire to change the other’s mind. The modal expressions deployed (modal lexical verbs, modal auxiliaries, and modal adverbs) exhibit a mix of (primarily) epistemic and deontic functional values: their concatenation, crescendo-fashion, results in strings of harmonic and non-harmonic combinations . . . the latter, such as They probably certainly know, being the source of much of the humour the sketch generates.

In real, not satirical, every-day texts it is hard to find such an avalanche of epistemic expressions. Indeed, most OB MPs tend to be loners. But in one OB letter, a similar spiral of MPs, on a smaller scale of course, is found: ARM 28, 179:31–41: Perhaps ( pīqat  ) you will say: “he tried but got tired. (His) units do not carry provisions, not even for a day.” Had they (šumma) carried many provisions it is certain (wuddi-man) that I could have walked continuously for one month in midst of the steppe. I fear (assurrē) you would say: “Zazia did not go.” I swear by Adad if I did not (šumma lā) go! I shall return to this passage in the coming chapters. The Uniqueness of Each Modal System Each language has its own modal system. The English epistemic modal system, for example, has only judgments. 36 By contrast, German’s epistemic modality has both judgments and evidentials. 37 Similarly, English modal verbs (that is, root-modality verbs) are linguistically more distinguished than French modal verbs, which are less easily discerned from other verbs in French. 38 Methodologically, the principles of a modal system attested in one language cannot automatically be applied to another. This weakens, if not undermines, the possibility of gaining insight from comparing the Sumerian and Akkadian modal systems. 39 Consequently, Sumerian (directly or through bilingual texts) remains mostly irrelevant for this discussion. But the pitfall of translation is unavoidable. When one examines a language different than one’s own, one is inevitably armed with the preconceptions of another linguistic system. Yet, this is exactly what is required: placing millennia-old data into the conceptual matrix of modern linguistics. Having no other path to resort to—no intrinsic theoretical paradigm of Akkadian modality exists, and the relevance of Sumero-Akkadian lexical lists is very limited—we are left with a set of philological tools, linguistic concepts, textual sensitivity, and common-sense to penetrate into Akkadian epistemic modality.

36.  See Hoye 2005b: 1500–1501. 37.  Palmer 1986: 53. 38.  Palmer 1986: 5. For the central role of auxiliary verbs in English modality, see Hoye 2005a: 1299; for the inner development of auxiliary verbs in English and German, respectively, see Abraham 2002. 39.  For Sumerian modality, see Civil 2000 and recently Rubio 2007: 1336–45.

12

Introduction

Modal Particles in General Linguistic Literature  40 With these general notions of modality in mind, we may ask, what is a particle? A broad definition can be offered (with Izre'el 1991: 200): a particle is a nondeclinable part of speech that is not a noun, nor an article, nor pronoun, nor a verb. 41 What remains is to differentiate between a particle and an adverb. This problem will be tackled below. Over the last three decades, particles in general, and modal particles in particular, have been at the center of scientific interest. 42 Nonetheless, few of the resultant studies bear directly on the study of Akkadian MPs, because the phenomenon of a wide scope of MPs is very much characteristic of Germanic languages. Semitic languages do not exhibit a wide spectrum of MPs. No statistics regarding the number of MPs in different Semitic languages are available, so any comparison of Akkadian to Semitic languages would be imprecise. Nevertheless, Akkadian evidently is not poor in MPs, exhibiting a wide range of epistemic MPs. Is this an exceptional phenomenon in Semitics? Should it be related to the deep and ancient linguistic connection of Akkadian to Sumerian? If so, MPs in Akkadian may analytically mirror some of agglutinative prefixes in Sumerian. But this conjecture deserves a separate investigation. Another reason for the relatively small relevance that studies in general linguistics bear for research into Semitic MPs is methodological. In general linguistics studies, which often focus on English as their primary language, treatments of modal adverbs abound. The reason for this is that many of the modal expressions in English are formally adverbs (e.g., obviously, certainly, really, honestly, sincerely, etc.). 43 In other languages, expressions of this sort do not necessarily take the form of adverbs and have different morphological constructions. A number of Semitic studies, including some dealing with Akkadian, also tend to classify MPs as adverbs. 44 Consequently, research on MPs conducted outside the boundaries of the Semitic languages—mainly in the field of Germanic languages, where MPs are more common than in English—seems not to apply to Semitic studies. This is not merely a question of linguistic nomenclature. Adverbs are normally regarded as influencing only their immediate surroundings, usually the verbal component of the sentence, whereas MPs are considered to have a wider and deeper effect on the whole phrase. As put by Palmer (1986: 2): “modality . . . does not 40.  Some of the remarks in this section were published with some modifications in Wasserman 2006: 150–151. 41.  Cf. also van Baar 1996. 42.  E.g., “Discourse Particles, Modal and Focal Particles, and All That Stuff. . . ,” conference held at the University of Groningen, December 8–9, 2000, and a complete list of abstracts of the papers read, see http:// odur.let.rug.nl/%7Evdwouden/particles/prog02.htm. 43.  See, e.g., Capone 2001: 34 and passim. Note Hoye’s (2005b: 1485) interesting observation that “in certain instances, modal adverbs can be treated as ‘modal particles’. This is certainly true of such idiomatic combinations as may/might + well . . . or couldn’t/can’t + possibly. . . , the adverb has become fully de­ lexicalized and integrated within the verb group.” 44.  See, e.g., Groneberg 1987: 121. Note also Wilcke 1968: 230 and passim, referring to MPs more as adverbs than as particles. Last, Reiner refers to tūša as an “adverb” that Benno Landsberger “studied in connection with other modal particles for volume M of the CAD.” (Reiner 2002: 8). A discussion of particles in contrast to adverbs is found in van Baar 1996: 277–85.

Sketching the Outlines of Modality

13

relate to the verb alone or primarily, but to the whole sentence.” Some features in the Semitic languages have been inadequately described or simply ignored because of this terminological convention. 45 Epistemic Modal Particles in Semitic Studies Several major studies dealing with MPs in the ancient Semitic languages should be mentioned in the context of the mounting interest in modality in general linguistics in recent years: Aartun’s (1974) monograph on particles in Ugaritic, Bravmann’s (1977) study on the particle dalmā, “lest,” in Syriac, Ullmann’s (1984) investigation of an MP designating “perhaps” in Classical Arabic, and, recently, Novick’s (2009) study of ṣarîk in Tannaitic Hebrew. In addition, for Akkadian, we have von Soden’s (1949) pioneering lexical survey mentioned earlier, “Vielleicht im Akkadischen.” One of the particles treated by von Soden (assurrē) was taken up by me (Wasserman 1994). Krebernik and Streck (2001) presented a detailed study of irrealis constructions in OB. The main topic of their article was the enclitic particle ‑man, but other MPs, especially tuša, were treated there as well. As for modern Semitic languages, we have Mitchell and Al-Hassan’s (1994) extensive study of mood, modality, and aspect in spoken (Egyptian and Levantine) Arabic, Kaddari’s (1991) study of the MP wadʾay in rabbinic literature (etymologically connected to Akkadian wuddi  ), and Livnat’s (1999) and Bar’s (2001) studies of epistemic modality in Modern Hebrew. Modality in modern Semitics allows a glimpse of the dramatic diachronic changes, but also of the surprising continuity, that Semitic languages have been subject to throughout the ages. In this study, only the epistemic part of OB modality is examined; the deontic, which has been well covered, is not included. Since it was immediately recognized that deontic modality is part of Akkadian verbal paradigms, this part of Akkadian modality has been studied since the early stages of Assyriology and is now relatively well understood. 46 Epistemic modality in Akkadian, in contrast, escaped thorough investigation and still lacks systematic description. More than half a century has passed since von Soden’s “Vielleicht im Akkadischen” appeared, yet this 1949 paper remains the sole attempt to present a comprehensive description of epistemic modality in Akkadian. The issue of epistemic modality has become more acute with the spectacular pace of publication of epistolary texts, especially those from Mari. Because letters are the main source of attestation for epistemic MPs in Akkadian, hundreds of attestations of MPs in OB letters have become available. As long as no systematic analysis of this range of particles is offered, these MPs are bound to be translated intuitively, ad sensum. This is a troubling situation that I hope this study will remedy.

45.  It must be stressed, however, that in the main Akkadian manual, von Soden aptly dedicated a section to MPs, titled “Satzdeterminierende und modale Partikeln” (GAG §121), distinguishing them from his discussion of the various Akkadian adverbs. 46.  See Edzard 1973 and Cohen 2005.

14

Introduction

The Corpus of the Study   47 For the sake of clarity and completeness, some remarks on the texts upon which this study is based follow. The available body of texts, the large majority of which are letters, reflects the linguistic nature of MPs, which in OB and in other languages as well are characteristic of conversational situations with particular discursive functions. It is noteworthy that, more often than not, even when attested in literary texts, OB MPs are found in the context of conversation between two individuals. The large and varied body of letters from the OB period (ca. 1900–1500 b.c.e.) can be roughly divided into four main linguistic and geopolitical subcorpora. 48 The first includes letters from sites in the Mesopotamian plain—from the South (especially letters from Ur, Uruk, Larsa), and the North (Sippar, Babylon, Kiš, Dilbat, Kisurra, Lagaba, and nearby sites). The second group comprises letters originating from the Diyālā region, east of the heart of the Mesopotamian plain (mainly Ešnunna, Ishchali, and TellHaddad). The third group is made up of letters from sites from the mountainous fringes of Mesopotamia (like Tell-Rimāḥ and Šemšāra). The fourth subcorpus—especially important for this study—is the group of letters excavated in Tell Ḥarīrī, ancient Mari, the capital of the Kingdom of Border of the Euphrates. Though strictly speaking located on the western edge of Mesopotamia, this principal corpus cannot be considered peripheral, since Mari was a major center of Mesopotamian culture from time immemorial. Mari letters show sufficient features pertaining to content and style to allow us to distinguish them from Babylonian letters. In this corpus, approximately 20,000 different cuneiform tablets and fragments, 49 including about 5,000 letters, were unearthed. These finds comprise one of the most extensive and best-preserved epistolary corpora of the OB period and in antiquity in general, second only to the corpus of Old Assyrian documents from Anatolia that were found in Kültepe, ancient Kaniš, which amounts to about 22,000 or more. 50 The specific geographic and ethnographic position of the kingdom of Mari—on the main trading route of the Fertile Crescent, connecting lower Mesopotamia, the Zagros foothills with the Syrian Desert and the Mediterranean coast 51—is reflected in the Mari texts, in which influences of Hurrian and various Amorite dialects can be detected in the language and in the onomasticon. 52 Compared to the letters from central Mesopotamia, Mari letters include more informal figures of speech and include vivid colloquial idioms and proverbial sayings. To this relative informality one may add the morphological characteristics of the Mari documents, their lexical and syntactical peculiarities, and the occasional nonstandard (that 47.  Parts of this section have been published in Wasserman 2006: 149–150. 48.  The most complete and up-to-date list of the extent and the geographical distribution of the OB cuneiform findings is Charpin 2004a: 403–80. More specifically, for an introduction to OB letters, see Sallaberger 1999 and recently Pientka-Hinz 2007 and Ziegler 2006. 49.  Charpin and Ziegler 2003: 1. Many more tablets are continuously being found at this site. 50.  Michel 2001: 9 lists 20,000 tablets; Michel 2003: v lists 22,300 (by the beginning of the year 2002). Veenhof and Eidem 2008: 41, 45 list ca. 23,000 tablets. 51.  Durand 1997: 41–56 52.  See, e.g., Charpin 1989; Charpin 1993; Durand 1984; Durand 1988; Durand 1992b; Lambert 1967.

Sketching the Outlines of Modality

15

is, deviating from Babylonian) usage of verbal forms. 53 The explanation for the special character of the Mari epistolary documents, in comparison to the letters of central and lower Mesopotamia, is manifold. First, one should not underestimate the weight of the diglosia in which Marian scribes were operating, for a number of Amorite dialects spoken in the Syrian Jezirah no doubt interfered with Akkadian, the main linguistic vehicle used for writing in the period. Second, the scribes’ schooling in upper Mesopotamia was different, probably less rigid and standardized, than in central and lower Mesopotamia, as reflected in the formulaic style of the Babylonian letters and their fossilized patterns. 54 The third reason for the unique character of the Mari documents is that no royal archive analogous to that of Zimrī-līm’s chancellery 55 has been found in Babylonia proper, where mainly local archives with predominantly administrative interests have been unearthed—hence their typical official tone. 56 In the Mari corpus, in contrast, one finds not only the correspondence of local and royal officials of various echelons of power but also letters from other strata of society: commoners, men, and women writing petitions to their superiors; colleagues asking for favors from one another; prophets and ecstatics reporting their visions and oracular messages in written form to local or central authorities; Amorite dignitaries communicating with the king, etc. The abundant body of Mari texts is probably the nearest we will get to what might cautiously be called “colloquial” OB Akkadian. 57 In conjunction with the other subcorpora of Babylonian, Diyālā-region and peripheral OB letters, this corpus enables, for the first time, thorough research into OB epistemic modality. 53.  To name just a few, see, e.g., the inconsistent use of the subjunctive in subordinated verbal clauses, or just the opposite situation: the unexpected use of the subjunctive in šumma clauses; the different vowel classes in certain verbs; and the occurrence of certain forms, like the D-stem infinitive, which formally resemble Assyrian morphology. These and other morphological and syntactic peculiarities of the Mari letters are beyond the scope of this work. 54.  For the question of the Babylonian scribal tradition at Mari, see Charpin 1992 and Guichard 1997. See also Waetzoldt 1990. 55.  The records of Sîn-kāšid from Uruk are also an important source of knowledge, but not on the same scale as the archives of Mari. 56.  A letter sent by Anam, king of Uruk to Sîn-muballiṭ, Hammurabi’s father, king of Babylon, found in southern Mesopotamia, shows many features that closely resemble Mari letters (see Falkenstein 1963). 57.  For the question of colloquial vs. standardized epistolary language, see the reservations of Sallaberger 1999: 10–12.

“We teach a child ‘that is your hand’, not ‘that is perhaps (or ‘probably’) your hand’.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

Chapter 1 THE MODAL PARTICLE pīqat  IN OLD BABYLONIAN The first MP to be treated in this study is pīqat. It belongs to a quartet of particles that constitute the group of inferentials—expressions by which the speaker expresses his estimation regarding a particular state of affairs based on the (usually limited) knowledge available to him. 1 This foursome includes: pīqat, midde, wuddi, and anna. Each of these particles will be addressed separately. In an OB dialogue, UET 6/2, 414, a pedantic customer enters the cleaner’s shop. He brings his cloth to be cleaned but, as it turns out, what he really wants is to teach the fuller how to do his job. The dialogue between the annoying client and the fuller reaches a climax when the fuller finally explodes in anger and frustration. The client is driving him mad by giving vexing instructions about how to clean the cloths. One of his suggestions begins with the MP pīqā, a by-form 2 of pīqat: Livingstone 1988: 177 (UET 6/2, 414):17: pí-qá sí-im-tam te-me-sú  ! . . . ù ˹tu-na-[d  ]a-[ad  , Perhaps you will apply an ornament on (the cloth) . . . and comb (it) . . . ! 3 What is the exact meaning of pīqā, or pīqat, rendered here “perhaps”? A better translations will be offered below. In this chapter, I will explore the meaning and usage of pīqat in OB sources, trying to isolate this MP and define it better against other MPs.

1.  Cf. Sanders and Spooren 1997: 96 (evidentials); Shlomper 2005: 121 (inferentials). 2.  For an analysis of this form, see below, in the discussion of the etymology and grammaticalization of pīqat. 3. For pīqa in this line (translated as “really”), cf. Livingstone 1988: 181. Note that AHw 865  a raises the possibility that pīqā here is a mistake for minde. It seems that von Soden felt that the MP pīqā(t) is too mellow an expression to come from this tiresome person.

16

Previous Studies of pīqat

17

The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution The particle pīqat is common in OB letters. I have collected some hundred OB examples of this MP. 4 Two-thirds of the examples, about 60 cases, are from Mari. The other one-third is from central Babylonia. Only four examples come from Šemšāra, at the fringes of the Mesopotamian linguistic and cultural zone. Only one attestation of pīqat in nonepistolary sources has been found: the dialogue between the launderer and the customer just mentioned. This text, however, resembles letters because it records a colloquial conversation about daily matters. Thus, as far as the present data goes, pīqat is restricted to texts of interlocution between two parties in epistolary, or epistolary-like, texts—never in descriptive or narrative speech. Hence, pīqat is a typical evidential, a category of modality that is “to a considerable extent, if not exclusively, a feature of discourse.” 5 The orthography of this MP varies in accordance with the local chancellery customs: /pi/ in southern Babylonia and /pí/ in northern Babylonia and in Mari, /qá/ in the South and /qa/ in Mari. In Šemšāra, the spelling is mixed: /qa/ as in Mari, but /pi/ as in southern Babylonia, but also /pí/ as in northern Babylonia and in Mari. There is no OB example in which pīqat is written with a long vowel (*pi-i-qa-at). In fact, the explicitly long writing of the /pī/ in pīqat is only found in a later lexical list: i ‑gi- in- zu = pí-i-qá. 6 This rare spelling is exceptional, and it is not substantiated by OB spellings. The lengthening of the a at the end of pīqā, by contrast, is found explicitly in a letter from Kisurra: pí-qà-a. 7 Previous Studies of pīqat Different meanings for pīqat have been offered by various scholars. In 1907, Zimmern rendered pīqat as “fürwahr.” Thureau-Dangin translated it “vraiment,” and “en vérité”; Jean translated it “sans doute”; Dossin and Durand with “certainement.” On other occasions, Durand preferred “il est vraisemblable que. . . .” 8 Ungnad was probably the first to recognize that in some cases pīqat functions as a conditional, similarly to šumma. 9 In “‘Vielleicht’ im Akkadischen” (1949), von Soden accepted this meaning but stressed that it is found only in a limited number of cases. 10 In 1956, Landsberger suggested, without elaborating further, that pīqat and pīqā, as attested in the lexical list known as Neo-Babylonian Grammatical Texts, mean “it 4.  The list of attestations is found at the end of the chapter. 5.  Shlomper 2005: 124. 6.  MSL 17, 50 (Erim-ḫuš III):91. 7.  Kienast 1978: vol. II, 156:24. 8.  Zimmern 1907: 216–18; see Thureau-Dangin 1935: 308, where a short discussion of this MP is found; Thureau-Dangin 1943: 111:119; Jean 1942–44: 67:14; Dossin 1938b: 182; Durand in LAPO 16:434, in contrast with, e.g., LAPO 17:602. 9.  Ungnad 1928: 71. 10.  von Soden 1949: 386.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

18

does not matter if.” 11 CAD P refers to pīqat as an adverb, defining it as “perhaps, it

may be that (epistolary expression).” 12 In the same way, Heimpel translates pīqat as “perhaps”; and Ziegler as “peut-être.” 13 However, in one place, Durand states that “Piqat ne signifie pas «peut-être». . . , mais «à coup sûr »; c’est l’équivalent du français «sans aucun doute».” 14 It is clear that the meaning of this MP has not been firmly established and that it requires a deeper investigation. A Semantic and Functional Definition of pīqat 1. Weak Doubter The main function of pīqat in the OB epistemic modal system is that of a weak doubter, a MP classified under the category of potentials. This MP is used when the speaker has only a very limited knowledge of the state of affairs or no information at all, but he is nevertheless interested, or obliged, to assess some unknown (future or past) event, without committing himself to the possibility raised. To put it simply, pīqat is the basic “perhaps” in OB, used in sentences such as: perhaps it will rain tomorrow, or perhaps he will come on Monday, perhaps on Tuesday. This interpretation is bolstered by common statements of ignorance that occasionally accompany pīqat : mannum lū īdi, “who knows?” ul īdi, “I don’t know,” 15 ina tašīmātiya, “according to my calculations,” 16 or luṭṭul, “let me see.” 17 By way of anticipation, it can be said that pīqat is placed lower than midde on the scale of confidence of the speaker regarding his assessment of reality. While pīqat is a weak doubter, midde is a scalar MP whose semantic range stretches between the functions of a deductive and a certifier, an epistemic MP by which the speaker evaluates—with some degree of certitude—the likelihood of some state of affairs. The MPs anna and wuddi are higher on the scale of confidence. These MPs are presumptives, presenting an indisputable fact, insofar as the speaker understands it. Let us examine some examples of pīqat. In a letter from the chief administrator Yasīm-sūmu to the king, we read, ARM 13, 25:5–16: 18 gu4 ša ìr-ì-lí-šu / a-na be-lí-ia ú-ṭà-aḫ-ḫu-ú / i-nu-ma ú-ṭà-aḫ-ḫu-[š]u-ma / ḫa-aaš! ù a-na be-lí-ia / a-na qa-bé-e-em / az-zi-iz-ma / um-ma a-na-ku-ma / pí-qa-at 11.  MSL 4, 189. 12.  CAD P 386. 13.  See, for example, Heimpel 2003: 208 and passim; FM 6, 25:22–29. 14.  LAPO 18, p. 310, d. 15.  ARM 26/2, 354:12–20; ARM 26/2, 489:41–44; FM 6, 25:22–29; Shemshara Letters 11:16–22. 16.  FM 6, 25:22–29, cf. also ARM 2, 23:15′–16′. 17.  AbB 6, 125:16–25. 18.  LAPO 18:970.

A Semantic and Functional Definition ofpīqat

19

i-ba-al-lu-uṭ / u 4-2-kam u 4-3-ka [m l ]i-zi-iz-ma / wa-ar-ka-a[s-s]ú li-ip-pa-riìs / i-na-an-na gu4 šu-ú / iḫ-ta-aš The bull that Warad-ilišu has given as a present to my lord, just as it was given to him, got sick, and when I was about to talk to my lord (about it), I said to myself: “perhaps he will get well, so let it stand 2 or 3 days and let its decision be taken.” Now this bull is still sick. The destiny of this poor bull is a good starting point for the discussion of pīqat. The writer uses this MP to express his lack of information regarding the future: will the bull live, or will it die? Based on his state of not-knowing, he preferred not to predict. Another telling example is a letter from Šunuḫra-Ḫalû, the king’s right-hand associate, to Zimrī-līm: FM 7, 45:42–46: [i-na-a]n-na pí-qa-at a-wa-tam ša-a-ti da-di-ḫa-du-[u]n / [iq-b]i-šum šum-ma a-wa-tum i-in be-lí-ia m[a-a]ḫ-[ra-at] / [a-na] a-ma-ar a-wa-tim ša-a-ti a-na [dadi-ḫa]-du-un / [ke-em lu]-uq-bi um-ma a-na-k[u-m]a [šum-ma a-w]a-tum i-in-ka ma-aḫ-ra-at / [aš-šum ṭe4-m]i-im ša i-ma-ar  ˹ki˺ a-[na ḫ]a-[m]u-ra-bi lu-uq-bi Now, perhaps Dādī-ḫadun said to him (Ḫammurabi of Yamḫad) this word. If it pleases my lord, I can talk to Dādī-ḫadun to test this issue, saying: “If it pleases you let me talk to Ḫammurabi about the issue of Imar . . .” This example proves that pīqat renders an open hypothesis. Šunuḫra-Ḫalû’s suggestion that his assumption be tested proves that pīqat should be classified under the epistemic category of speculatives: assessments of reality that are not based on any deduction from previous knowledge or that are based on very limited knowledge. So also in a letter from Buqāqum to Zimrī-līm: ARM 26/2, 491:34–37: 19 ù a-na-ku lú ki-˹za-am˺ / a-di ši-tu-˹ul-lim˺ ki aṭ-ru-ud um-ma a-na-ku-ma / píqa-at iš-me-dda-gan da-ṣú-um-ma i-˹da-aṣ˺ / al-ka ṭe4-em pa-ṭà-ar l ú èš -n u n na  ki pu-ur-sa So I sent a groom to Šitullum thinking: “perhaps Išme-Dagan is deceiving us completely.” Go and verify the news about the leaving of the Ešnunneans. The writer uses pīqat to express his lack of knowledge of the real actions of Išme-Dagan. He, too, urges his addressees to verify his assumption, thus proving the epistemic character of pīqat. One more example comes from a letter of Samsī-Addu to his incompetent son Yasmaḫ-Addu: 19.  Heimpel 2003: 388–89.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

20

ARM 1, 32:7–20: 20 pí-qa-at é šu-ú a-na na-da-nim / ú-ul i-re-ed-du / ù ú-ba-aš-ka-ma i-na a-watim / ki-a-am i-ṣa-ba-at-ka / um-ma-a-mi lugal na-da-nam / [i]š-pu-ra-ak-kum / ù at-ta ú-ul ta-na-ad-di-in / [an]-ni-tam i-qa-ab-⟨bi ⟩-ik-kum-ma / [i-n]a bu-uš-ti-ka ta-na-ad-di-in-šum / [šu]m-ma é šu-ú a-na na-da-nim / i-ri-id-du-šum i-di-inšum / šum-ma é šu-ú a-na {la} na-da-nim / la i-ri-id-du-šum / la ta-na-ad-di-inšum Perhaps this house is not fit to be given and he will shame you by saying: ‘The king (Samsī-Addu) has written to you to give, but you do not give!’ This is what he will say to you and you will give him (the house only) after being put to shame. If this house is fit to be given to him—give (it) to him; if this house is not fit to be {NOT} given to him—do not give it to him. Using pīqat, Samsī-Addu, who was located in Šubat-Enlil in the north, expresses his doubts regarding the situation in Mari: the house may be fit for dwelling, or it may not be. His state of not-knowing is amplified by continuation: “if the house is . . . —do one thing; if it is not, do another.” Clearly, pīqat presents an open possibility in which the speaker is not committed to either of the two options he has put forward. Finally, the letter of a commercial agent charged with a mission to bring grain to the temple of Šamaš: AbB 6, 125:16–25: [má i-na] kar uruki / [š ]a [w]a-aš-[b]a-ku ú-u[l ] i-ba-aš-ši / um-ma a-na-k[uú-ma] / lu-uṭ-ṭù-ul pí-qá-a[t] / má i-ma-qú-tam-ma / še-am an-ni-a-am ú-ša-arka-ab / [m]á ú-ul im-qú-ta-am / [m]á qá-du-um ra-ka-bi-ša / i-na k ar Sippar ki ag-ra-am-ma / i-di-ša a-na-ku lu-ud-di-in There is no ship in the quay of the town where I sit. I said (to myself): “let me look (around), perhaps a ship will show up, so that I will load this grain (on it).” (But) no ship has shown up. Hire for me a ship with its crew in the quay of Sippar; I will pay its fee. This last example demonstrates precisely that pīqat was used to express basic doubt, an open possibility for which the speaker vouched and vouches no guarantee: perhaps a ship will arrive? . . . well, it did not. 21 2. Disjunctive Construction: Optative Another function of pīqat that derives directly from its role as weak doubter is its employment in the construction pīqat A pīqat B. 22 There can be no doubt—as established

20.  LAPO 17, 750. 21.  Similarly ARM 2, 121:9–12 (with LAPO 16, 434). 22.  So in ARM 2, 66:12–13; ARM 26/1, 121:18–21; ARM 26/2, 354:12–20.

A Semantic and Functional Definition ofpīqat

21

by von Soden 23—that in this kind of construction pīqat renders the logical relationship of disjunction: “perhaps A, perhaps B,” 24 as in the following letter from an unknown sender to the king Samsī-Addu, MARI 6, 272:4–17: iš-tu na-a[k-ru-um] i-na i-l[a . . . ki] / iš-[š ]e-e-em ṭ [e4-e-e]m-šu mi-im-[ma] / ú-ul eš-me um-ma a-[n]a-ku-ma pí-q[a-at] / a-na b àd du t u-ši-dIMki / it-ta-laak pí-qa-at a-na za-[al-ma-qí-imki] / pí-qa-at a-na tu-ut-tu-ul[ki] / pí-qa-at a-na na-we-˹e˺-[im] / ša-ḫa-ṭì-im it-ta-la-[ak] / da-lu-um-ma a-da-al / [u4]-um ṭup-pí an-né-e-e[m] / [a-n]a ṣe-er be-lí-ia ú-ša-b[i-lam] / [ma-am]-ma-am i-na l ú za-al[ma-qí-im] / [i-n]a mu-uṣ-la-li-[im . . . ] / [im-qú]-ut-ma [ . . . ] Since the enemy departed from Ila . . . I heard no report about it. (I said to myself) as follows: “perhaps it went to Dūr-Samsī-Addu, perhaps to Zalmaqum, perhaps to Tuttul, perhaps it went to plunder the pasture land.” I turn round and round (in vain). But, on the day that I have sent this tablet to my lord, somebody arrived from the Zalmaqum, at noon-time. . . . The explanatory remark, “I turn round and round (in vain),” demonstrates that pīqat carries the meaning of: “I don’t know which of the various options is correct.” The similar construction, pīqat A . . . ūlū-ma, which is also attested in the corpus, 25 confirms the disjunctive meaning of pīqat A pīqat B: FM 6, 25:22–29: pí-qa-{x}-at ṣa-b[u-u]m ˹šu-ú˺ / a-na ka-ra-na-aki ú-l [u-ma] / a-na an-da-ri-igki i-[l]i / ú-ul i-de i-na ta-ši-m[a-t]i-ia-ma / pí-qa-at aq-ba-ḫa-am-mu {x} / iš-puur-ma ṣa-bu-um šu-ú / a-na ta-re-e aq-ba-ḫa-am-mu / e-le-em Perhaps this army goes up to Karanā or to Andarig. I don’t know. In my calculations, perhaps Aqba-ḫammû has written and this army goes up to bring Aqba-ḫammû? It is notable that, based on existing data, all cases of disjunctive pīqat are attested only in letters from Mari. 26 The disjunctive function in Babylonian letters is not expressed through pīqat but through the typical Babylonian construction lū..lū . . . , as in: 27

23.  Von Soden 1949: 386. 24.  In late Babylonian medical texts, the construction pīqa(m) lā pīqa(m) carries another, not disjunctive meaning. Mayer (1989: 153–54) translates pīqa(m) lā pīqa(m) with “occasionally, irregularly.” CAD P 384c) renders this construction “sometimes.” This meaning is not known in OB. If this interpretation is correct, then at this later period pīqa(m) loses its epistemic modal force and behaves as an adverb. 25.  See also ARM 26/1, 84:8–18; MARI 5, 181:9–24. 26.  For this construction see also ARM 2, 66: 5–13; ARM 26/1, 84:8–18; ARM 26/1, 121:18–21; ARM 26/2, 354:12–20; ARM 26/2, 489:41–44; MARI 6, 272:4–17. 27.  So also, e.g., in AbB 14, 145:8–25 and AbB 3, 39:12–17.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

22

AbB 1, 51:23–36: [  pí-qá-a]t l [u]-ú a-bu-ša / [l ]u-[ú um-ma-ša] k ù -b [ab b a]r ú-k[a]-a[l]-lu-ni-ikki-im / um-ma šu-nu-ma ma-ra-at-ni / ni-pa-aṭ-ṭa-ar la ta-ma-ga-ri / s ag -g em e pa-aq-da-ak-ki-im / a-na sa g-ge me la te-gi-i / pí-qá-at a-wi-lum i-ša-ap-pa-raak-ki-im / um-ma šu-ú-ma lu-ú sa g-ge me / lu-ú k ù -b ab b ar ú-ka-al-la-ak-ki / la ta-ma-ga-ri / pí-qá-at i-na pí-i-im i-ša-ap-pa-ra-ak-ki / um-ma at-ti-ma a-na a-ḫa-ti-ia / ú-ul ad-di-in a-na ka-a-šum / a-na-ad-di-na-ak-kum Perhaps either her father o[r her mother] will offer to you silver, saying: “we shall redeem our daughter”—do not agree. I have entrusted you with the slave-girl, do not be negligent about the slave-girl. Perhaps the gentleman writes to you, saying: “I will offer to you either (another) slave-girl, or silver”—do not agree. Perhaps he will send you a message by word of mouth. You will say: “to my sisters I didn’t give (her), shall I give (her) to you?!” 3. Semiconditional Constructions In some cases, pīqat is found in bi-partite constructions, where it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this construction creates a semiconditional phrase. 28 A good example is found in a letter from Namratum—a woman, judging by her name—to Bunīnī-abī, who seems, from the tone of the letter, to be a family member: AbB 1, 71:18–24: pi-qá-at la-lu-um / i-ṣa-ab-ba-at-ka-ma / a-na ki-di-im tu-IṢ-ṣi / pa-ga-ar-ka ú-ṣú-ur / a-na ki-di-im la tu-IṢ-ṣi / a-na é la te-gi / a-na u4 5-kam ma-aḫ-ri-ka a-na-ku Perhaps desire takes hold of you and you will go out—watch for yourself! Do not go out! Don’t be negligent about the house. In five days time I will be with you. A plausible, even tempting interpretation of the first sentence is: “if (lit., perhaps = pīqat) desire takes hold of . . . —(then) watch for yourself!.” A more complex syntactic construction, in which pīqat follows immediately after šumma, is found in the following letter. Christian 1969: 18:23–38: šum-ma i-na ˹ki-it˺-tim / a-bi at-ta / a-na larsa  ki ṭú-ur-da-šu-nu-ti-ma / i-na bi-it d utu / di-na-am li-ša-ḫi-zu-˹šu-nu-ti˺-ma / šum-ma ḫi-bi-il-ta-šu-nu / i-ba-aš-ši / i-na di-[i]n dutu li-il-qu-ú / ˹la˺ ˹x-la˺-ma a-di-šu am-mi-ni / ḫi-bi-il-ta-am ra-bita-am / i-ḫa-ab-ba-lu / šum-ma pi-qá-at šu-nu a-la-ak-šu-nu / úḫ-ḫu-ur / a-wilam li-iṭ-ru-du-nim-ma / šu-nu [i-n]a a-la-ki-im / di-[nam] li-ša-ḫi-zu-šu-nu-ti 28.  See AbB 1, 51:23–36; AbB 1, 68:4–9; AbB 1, 71:18–24; AbB 1, 135:25–27; AbB 1, 139:6′–10′; AbB 4, 49:5–13; AbB 4, 50:7–10; AbB 9, 31:10–22; AbB 12, 13:6–18; AbB 14, 145:8–25; AbB 14, 164:25–33; Christian 1969: 18:23–38; MARI 8, 383:10–22.

A Semantic and Functional Definition ofpīqat

23

If you are truly my father, send them [the people with whom the writer has a legal dispute] to Larsa so that they will be sentenced in the temple of Šamaš. If they were wronged, let them take (compensation) according to the judgment of Šamaš. . . . Why do they commit such a grave injustice? If—perhaps (šumma pīqat)—they, their departure will be postponed, let them send here a gentleman and when they depart let them go to trial.” Because this construction is unique in the entire corpus, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact nuance it carries. It is not impossible that šumma pīqat is a scribal mistake: the scribe may have hesitated between the two particles and ended up recording both of them. However, if we accept this text as a legitimate example, the usage of these two particles together proves that, although pīqat is used in conditional clauses, it carries a different, additional meaning to šumma. Our first example from the dialogue between the fuller and the client (Livingstone 1988: 177:17) can also be explained, I suggest, as a semiconditional construction and, consequently, be translated: “If you remove (?) the (laundry) mark, then you must . . . and you will have to comb (the fabric).” (More on this text in a forthcoming study.) It is noteworthy that all of the texts—save one, where pīqat is used as a semiconditional marker—come from Babylonia. Only the letter of Samsī-Addu to his son YasmaḫAddu (MARI 8, 383) breaks this rule. As we shall see, the letters of Samsī-Addu contain numerous idiosyncrasies and unique expressions. 29 4. Lowering the Level of Certitude: from Presumption to Doubt The particle pīqat can also be employed to lower the intensity of the speaker’s utterance. Pragmatic reasons stand behind this shift from certitude and presumption to doubt. At times, even though the speaker may have sufficient information about the state of affairs, enough to allow him some confidence in his assumptions, he nonetheless finds it preferable to avoid presenting his assumptions in an emphatic manner or committing himself to his assumptions vis-à-vis his interlocutor, because of the hierarchical difference between him and his addressee. This kind of act could be considered as transgressing the power relations that exist between the speaker and the addressee. 30 An example of this pragmatic use is found in a letter in which Dādī-ḫadūn, a Mariote delegate to Yamḫad, tells Šibtu, the queen of Mari, about his conversation with Ḫammurabi, king of Yamḫad, stressing that he has managed to iron out a past misunderstanding between the queen and the king. In what follows, Dādī-ḫadūn cites his dialogue with the king of Yamḫad: ARM 10, 156:12–30: 31 ša-da-ag-di-im-[ma] / pḫa-am-mu-da-d  [u°-um] / ki-a-am it-ta-aṣ-ba-a[m°] / umm[a] š  [u-ú ]-m[a°] / [be?-lí ?] ˹ḫa˺°-a[m°-mu-ra-bi] / [iš-p]u-ur-ma ki-ma ˹f    °˺[ši29.  See chap. 5 on tuša, §(5): Phrasal Arrangement [of tuša Passages], pp. 106–110. 30.  Some cases of pīqat used in this way are found in ARM 5, 53:6–14; ARM 26/1; 148:5′–14′. 31.  LAPO 18, 1134.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

24

ib-tu] / da-ḫa-as-sú ú-ul i-[ša-lu] / ù li-ib-bi ma-di-iš / iz-zi-iq i-na an-ni-t[im] / pí-qa-at ka-ar-ṣi-[ša] / i-ku-lu-ni-kum-[ma] / li-ib-ba-ka ú-ša-a[z°-zi-qú ] / um-ma ḫa-am-mu-ra-bi-m[a] / ki-na-at an-ni-tum / ka-ar-ṣi-ša i-ku-lu-nim-ma / ú-ṣa-alli-im-ši-im / i-na-an-na li-ib-ba-šu / ut-te-eḫ mi-im-ma ḫi-ṭú-um / ú-ul i-ba-aš-ši In the previous year, Ḫammu-dādun . . . , said that my lord Ḫammurabi wrote that Šibtu pays no heed to him. I (Dādī-ḫadūn, the writer of the letter) became very angry. Concerning this, perhaps somebody slandered her (Šibtu) before you (Ḫammurabi) and vexed your heart. Ḫammurabi (said): “this is true. They have slandered her and I became very angry toward her.” Now I have appeased his heart and there is no grievance. It would have been more rhetorically effective for Dādī-ḫadūn to employ midde, a MP with a higher degree of confidence, to convince Ḫammurabi of the innocence of his queen, Šibtu. (Realizing the special use of the MP in this letter, Durand stresses that pīqat here means “a coup sûr . . . sans aucun doute,” and not “peut-être.”) 32 In fact, the meaning of pīqat is not different here than elsewhere: the writer employs the weak evidential in talking to a foreign monarch about a grave personal and diplomatic matter, wishing to reduce the potential tension by using a neutral doubter pīqat. In a letter from the prince Išme-Dagan to his father, the awe-inspiring king SamsīAddu, we find a similar use of pīqat: ARM 4, 60:5–13: 33 aš-šum ḫu-bu-ur-na-at ˹  ì˺ / i-na pa-[ni-t]im i-na k as k al / pṭà-ab-e-[l ]i-um-ma-nišu / aš-pu-ra-ak-kum / [u]m-ma a-na-k[u]-ma pí-qa-at / [a]-li°-ik°-tum ˹ši°-i°˺ / ut°-ta°-sí°-[ik] šu-ú-ma / {x} it-ta-[ṣí  ]-ma / ú-ul t[u-š ]a-bi-lam Previously, in the expedition of Ṭāb-eli-ummānišu, I have written to you concerning the flasks of oil, saying: “perhaps the caravan was assigned (to carry oil).” He (Ṭāb-eli-ummānišu), however, has left and you did not send (him) to me. Again, out of respect for his august addressee, the writer mitigates his emphatic tone— which in the standard OB epistolary parlance would be expressed by the MP midde or perhaps even wuddi—and uses pīqat instead. In this way, the speaker does not force his assumptions on the high-ranking addressee. (The MP that assumes that the addressee accepts the speaker’s point of view is wuddi, as we shall see.) The same pragmatic approach is found in the correspondence between Išḫī-Addu of Qaṭna and Yasmaḫ-Addu of Mari. The two monarchs, though at odds, try to maintain a polite relationship:

32.  LAPO 18, p. 310 note d. 33.  LAPO 18, 914.

A Semantic and Functional Definition ofpīqat

25

MARI 5, 168:29–41: 34 a-nu-um-ma i-na-an-na / pa-ag-ri al-ta-ma-ad ki-ma a-na a-ḫi-i-im / ù l ú naak-ri-im ta-aš-ku-na-ni-ni5 / ša li-bi-ku-nu a-na-ku i-di / pí-qa-at an-ni-tam i-na li-bi-ku-nu ṣa-ab-ta-tu-nu / um-ma at-t [u]-nu-ma as-sú-ri a-wa-tam an-ni-tam / a-na iš-ḫi-d  IM ni-ša-ap-pa-ar-ma / pa-né-šu a-na su-mu-e-pu-uḫ a-na sa-li-miim / i-ša-ak-ka-an ù i-na bi-ri-šu-nu i-sa-li-mu / an-ni-{  x}-tam i-na li-bi-ku-nu ṣa-ab-ta-tu-nu / ù šum-ma d  utu-ši-d  IM it-ti su-mu-e-pu-uḫ / i-sa-al-lim a-na-ku a-di ba-al-[  ṭ]à-ku / it-ti su-mu-e-pu-uḫ ú-ul a-sa-al-lim Now I realized myself that you (pl.) consider me to be a stranger and an enemy. What is in your heart I know: perhaps you say in your heart as follows: “It is to be feared that we(!) shall write this thing to Išḫī-Addu and he will make peace with Sūmu-epuḫ and that they will make a treaty between them.” That’s what you (pl.) think in your heart. I solemnly declare that even if Samsī-Addu will make peace with Sūmu-epuḫ, I, as long as I live, will not make peace with Sūmuepuḫ! Išḫī-Addu has no doubts about the political calculations of his Mari ally, but he refrains from using a strong certifying MP, such as midde or wuddi, and instead employs the weak doubter pīqat, out of courtesy. 35 (Cases in which pīqat is used instead of the expected volitive MP assurrē will be treated below.) 5. Vox populi: pīqat in Public Opinion as Reported Speech In a small group of letters, all from Mari, pīqat is found in a specific context—in the reported speech of the general public or of a specific person. In all of these cases, the words of the general public or of the individual are negative and upsetting to the speaker who reports them. Note the complaint of the governor Zimrī-Addu: ARM 27, 151:100–104: 36 ma-am-ma-an a-na ṣe-ri-ia / [ú-ul ] i-ṭe4-ḫe-em i-nu-ma uṣ-ṣú-ú ma-am-ma-an it-ti-ia ú-ul uṣ-ṣí / [e-re]-eš-ši-ia-ma ki-ma ta-mi-im at-ta-na-al-la-ak ù ka-lu-šu / [ki-a]-am i-da-bu-ub um-m[a]-mi pí-qa-at zi-im-ri-d IM a-na g al -m ar-t u / [ú]-ul ša-ki-in [No]body approaches me; when I go out nobody goes out with me. I keep going around in my nakedness, like a man cursed, and everybody says: “perhaps ZimrīAddu is not ranked as a general?” A similar use of pīqat is found in a letter of Tamarzi, king of Naḫur, to his lord, Zimrīlīm of Mari:

34.  LAPO 17, 490. 35.  Note the exceptional use of plural verb forms, probably another sign of politeness. 36.  Heimpel 2003: 461–63.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

26

ARM 28, 145:12′–18′: ki-ma i-na na-ḫu-ur ki šu-ṣa-ku / i-qa-ab-bu-ú i-túr-ás-du / ú-[š ]e-[ṣ]í-šu ú-ul i-qa-ab-[bu-ú ] / [  p]i-qa-at! a-na b[e-l ]í-šu mi-im-ma / ú-ga-li-il-ma-mi é-su-mi / i-ki-mu-šu / be-lí li-is-ni-iq They say that I was expelled from Naḫur: “Itūr-asdu expelled him.” Would they not say: “perhaps he committed a sin against his lord and they took his house? Let my lord examine (it).” Another letter from this group is ARM 10, 156:12–30 (cited above, p. 23), where Dādī-ḫadūn manages to debunk a calumny against Šibtu, the queen of Mari, in his interview with Ḫammurabi of Yamḫad. There, too, when the possibility of slander is mentioned, the MP pīqat is employed. 37 All these cases reflect the same chancellery custom: pīqat is used to lessen the harshness or lower the strength of the reported words and to render them more acceptable—to the writer as well as to his addressee. Thus, pīqat functions here as a perspectivizing particle—a term that will be elaborated presently— disassociating the writer from and so reducing his responsibility for the speech reported in his letter. Furthermore, looking at these examples from a wider angle, one cannot fail to recognize that this particular use of pīqat bears similarities to the use of the enclitic particle –mi, discussed in chap. 9. The Syntactic Profile of pīqat The syntactic profile of pīqat will be outlined by checking the following parameters: (1) operative discourse domains, (2) verbal tenses, (3) negation, (4) position of the MP in relation to other components of the clause, (5) the phrasal arrangement of the passage under discussion, and (6) the grammatical elements attached to the MP under investigation. This grammatical protocol will also be used in examining the other MPs discussed in this study. 1. Discourse Domains In an overwhelming majority of the cases—almost 80% of the collected published texts (the examples are listed at the end of the chapter)—pīqat relates to a remote, hypothetical occurrence, or to an individual who is not involved directly in the conversation—that is, a third party, neither the speaker nor the addressee. In the following example, a letter, the governor Zakira-ḫammû presents himself as a connoisseur of good food who is dedicated to the culinary pleasures of his king: ARM 27, 54:6–18: lú- meš a-na ka-am-a-tim le-qé-em / aṭ-ru-ud-ma um-ma a-na-ku-ma / pí-qa-at ka-am-ú i-ta-at a-l [im ki] / i-ba-aš-šu-ú li-il-qú-ši-na-ti-ma / [a-n]a ṣe-er belí-i [a] / [li ]-ša-bi-i [l  ] / il-li-ku-ma gi-ip-i / ta-am-ši-il ka-am-i / ub-lu-nim-ma 37.  See also ARM 2, 40:4–18 (LAPO 17, 602).

The Syntactic Profile o pīqat

27

lú‑meš šu-nu-[ti ] / ú-te-er [u]m-ma a-na-ku-ma / iš-tu gi-ip-ú ib-ba-šu-ú / kaam-i a-ta-am-ma-ra / il-li-ku-ma ka-am-i i-[t ]am-[m]a-ru I sent people to pick truffles thinking to myself: “perhaps there are kamʾū-truffles around the city; let them pick them so that I will send them to my lord.” They went and brought me gipʾū, (which are) like kamʾū-truffles. I made these people return, saying: “since gipʾū were available, find kamʾū-truffles!” They went and found kamʾū-truffles. In about a one-third of this group of texts, in which pīqat refers to a third person, the MP relates to both the addressee and to a third party, namely to the allocutory and the delocutory discourse domains. 38 In this sub-group the speaker expresses, with the help of pīqat, his doubts and hesitations vis-à-vis a certain state of affairs that concerns both his addressee and a third party involved, as for instance in the following letter, which curiously enough contains a request to destroy the tablet after “hearing” it: AbB 14, 112:36–42: ṭup-pí ši-me-e-ma ḫi-pí / ṭup-pí ma-li ú-ša-ab-ba-la-ak-kum / la ta-na-aṣ-ṣa-ar / ù pi-qá-at pdEN.ZU-re-me-ni / a-šar wa-aš-bu a-na é-d u b -b a / a-na ṣe-ri-ka i-re-ed-du°-ni-iš-šu / la te-gi-i-šu 2 sìla kaš li-iš-ti Hear my letter and destroy (it). Do not keep any of the letters I am sending to you. Moreover, perhaps one will bring Sîn-rēmēnī from the place where he stays to the Edubba, to you. Do not be negligent toward him; may he drink two quarts of beer. In less than 20 texts in the corpus, pīqat refers only to the addressee. 39 As in the cases that refer to the delocutory discourse domain, in these cases, too, the speaker transmits his uncertainties regarding the thoughts and actions of his interlocutor. The addressee’s intentions and actions are usually clearer to the speaker than those of a third party, who is not present in the immediate interaction. Nonetheless, at times the speaker is unaware of them, a situation that encourages him to employ pīqat. In other words, pīqat is mainly found in contexts where the actions and thoughts of people and situations are remote from the speaker himself, with reference to another person’s inner thoughts, decisions, or future actions. In these circumstances, the speaker

38.  AbB 1, 51:23–36; AbB 1, 68:4–9; AbB 1, 139:6′–10′; AbB 4, 150:25–38; AbB 7, 42:13–20; AbB 9, 150:5–9; AbB 10, 56:21–25; AbB 14, 112:36–42; AbB 14, 114:24–29; AbB 14, 145:8–25; ARM 1, 32:7–20; ARM 2, 21:1′–7′ (with LAPO 16, 350 n. 256); ARM 2, 66:5–13; ARM 4, 54:8–14; ARM 10, 156:12–30; ARM 26/2, 469:27–35; Christian 1969: 22:11–22; Kienast 1978: 156:16–24; Dossin 1973: 185:28–31; MARI 6, 263–64:4–19; Shemshara Letters 41:17′–20′; CAD P 386 a1′a′ (Susa letter). 39.  AbB 1, 71:18–24; AbB 9, 31:10–22; AbB 14, 37:9–12; AbB 14, 110:36–40; ARM 1, 1:10′–12′; ARM 1, 2:11′–13′; ARM 2, 40:4–18; ARM 2, 23:10′–16′; ARM 5, 53:6–14; ARM 26/1, 78:10–13; ARM 26/1, 84:8–18; ARM 26/1, 148:5′–14′; ARM 26/1, p. 42:7′–11′; ARM 27, 57:9–13; ARM 28, 179:31–41; MARI 5, 168:29–41; UET 6/2, 414:17 (Livingstone 1988: 181); Ziegler 2004: 96:13–19.

28

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

is suspended in epistemic noncommitment and opts to use pīqat, the basic doubter in OB, which conveys his state of not-knowing. Curiously enough, in four texts, pīqat refers to the locutory discourse domain— namely, to the speaker himself. 40 This small subgroup is especially interesting: psychologically, one would not expect to find pīqat used in such circumstances. Isn’t the speaker aware of his own thoughts and actions? Why then is the MP pīqat used in these cases? Let us examine part of this rare group of texts, starting with a letter from Yamṣum, a loyal functionary, to the king Zimrī-līm: ARM 26/2, 302:9–15: 41 ṭe4-ma-am ša ki-ma an-na-nu-um ù an-na-nu-um / e-še-em-mu-ú ù i-na-ia i-imma-ra / a-di wa-ar-ka-at ṭe4-mi-im ša-a-tu la [a-pa-ar-r]a-sú / a-na ṣe-er be-líia ˹ú˺-[u]l ˹a˺-ša-ap-pa-[ra-am] / ˹pí-qa˺-at ur-ra-a[m] še-ra-am wa-ar-ka-[at ṭe4-mi-im] / [ú-ul ap-t ]a-ra-ás-ma mi-im-ma a-wa-tum sà-ar-tu[m ú-ul i-ba-ši sa-ra-ra-am] / [a-na be-l]í-ia ú-ul e-le-i The news that I hear here and there and the things that my eyes see, until I examine carefully this news, I do not write to my lord. Perhaps one day I will not examine the news carefully, but this is by no means a lie! I am not able [to lie] to my lord. We notice first the atypical use of pīqat here: although it can still be translated “perhaps,” it is much closer to “it is to be feared that. . . .” 42 The conversational situation may explain this irregularity. The speaker assumes an unwanted future situation. He detaches himself from this situation by referring to himself as another person. The use of pīqat, therefore, although unusual, is logical and makes sense in its context. A similar case is found in a letter from central Babylonia: AbB 9, 78:20–23: ù pí-qá-at [á ama-apin / ša pma-š  [a]-ta-ni-im / ú-ul e-ri-iš / ù ḪU-it-te-tim šu‑bi-lam And perhaps I did not ask for the plough- . . . of Mašatānum, but (nevertheless) send me the handles. Here the writer states overtly that he did not ask for a specific implement, admitting that the problematic situation he currently is in was his own fault. Consequently, he refers to his own actions in the past as unknowable, thus making a distinction between himself in 40.  AbB 9, 78:20–23; ARM 4, 86:52–54; ARM 26/1, 242:12–14; ARM 26/2, 302:9–15. 41.  Heimpel 2003: 289–90. 42.  Heimpel (2003: 289) also takes pīqat as expressing hopes or fears. He restores [ap-ta-na-a]r-ra-ásma (instead of [ú-ul ap-t]a-ra-ás-ma, as the editor does) and translates accordingly: “I hope that. . . .” Seen from the perspective of the range of usage of pīqat, Charpin’s translation is preferable, because it is unlikely that this MP, which denotes doubt and unknowing, would be used for positive situations.

The Syntactic Profile o pīqat

29

the present circumstances and himself in the past, when he was forgetful. Again, the use of pīqat can be logically explained. But in the next example, a letter to the king from a servant whose name is broken off, the irregular use of pīqat is more difficult to explain: ARM 26/1, 242:6–14: 43 é- geš tin ep-te-[e] / 4 dug-geštin sà-a-mi-im ša ša-te-e be-lí-[ia] / ù 4 d u g geš tin sà-a-mi-im ús / [š ]a ša-te-e be-lí-ia-ma uš-ta-ḫi-iq-ma / a-na sa-g[a-r] a-tim˹ki˺ uš-ta-aš-ši / [b]e-lí ge štin ša š [a]-t[e-šu li-im-ḫu-ur] / [  p]í-qa-at an-née-[em dam-qí-iš ] / [i ]t-ti an-ni-i-im uš-ta-[ ḫi-iq-ma] / ù ka-la-šu be-lí-ma i-[leem-mu] I opened the wine house (and) blended four containers of sāmum wine of my lord’s drinking and four containers of sāmum wine of second quality of my lord’s drinking. I had them ported to Saggarātum. [Let] my lord [receive?] the wine for drinking. Hopefully (lit., “perhaps,” pīqat) I blended this (wine) with this (wine) [well] and my lord will co[nsume] all of it. It is noticeable that in this passage it is more difficult to translate pīqat with the standard translation “perhaps.” Through pīqat, the speaker expresses not his estimations and judgments of an external state of affairs but his wishes and hopes for the future, that the king will perhaps find favor with his actions, thereby retaining some of its honorific rhetorical function. 44 The unavoidable conclusion is that in this letter pīqat is used as a deontic MP. More accurately, pīqat is used here similarly to the volitive assurrē, with which hopes and fears are commonly expressed in OB letters. Is this a mistake, or is this a rare, perhaps nonstandard yet normative use of pīqat? I opt for the latter solution. As I understand it, the writer of this letter refrains from raising the horrifying possibility that he has handled the king’s beverage incorrectly (which might result in accusation of poisoning), and he therefore employs the neutral doubter pīqat, not the expected MP assurrē, which would express his worries but also might raise hypothetical guilt. Excursus: Subjectification and Perspectivization At this point, it is opportune to introduce two terms that will accompany us throughout the discussion: subjectification and perspectivization. When a statement is explicitly connected to the speaker in a given speech-act, we say that subjectification takes place. When, on the contrary, a statement is connected to a concrete or abstract person other then the actual speaker, then we say that perspectivization has occurred. These two terms summarize the status of the subject, of the 43.  Heimpel 2003: 269; Chambon 2009: 183. 44.  Chambon (2009: 183) translates pīqat here with “j’espère que . . .”.

30

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

“I ” involved in the statement 45 (and are clearer than other, less intuitive labels such as vantage point and referential center found in some studies). The close connection between epistemic modality and the notion of the speaking “I” is stressed by Quattara (2001: 3): epistemic modality “prescribes in terms of modes of thinking the degree of adhesion of the I  to his own proposition. The strength of this degree of adhesion is carried out on a gradual spectrum of the concept of knowing.” 46 So a perspective means that the claim of validity that the speaker makes with respect to some element in a given situation is restricted in some respect to somebody else, usually a person other than the actual speaker of the utterance. Perspective ascribes authority for the validity of the statement to a subject other than the current speaker. 47 Subjectification is at the opposite end of the range of adhesion: in it, the current speaker is expressly shown to be the “I” who makes the statement. The current speaker then adds the degree of certainty to his statement. Subjectification and perspectivization are established by various linguistic means. The most explicit means of perspectivization is the use of direct quotation: the speaker puts all discourse in the voice of another subject, thus creating a separate “I” who is the source of the statement. More implicit ways of creating a perspective are to use indirect speech or specific verbal forms (like the Konjunktiv II in German) 48 or different epistemic MPs. 49 The interplay of these two terms is intimately connected to epistemic modality, since a pronounced subjectification involves a greater degree of the speaker’s commitment to his statements, whereas perspectivization diminishes the speaker’s commitment. Hence, if pīqat relates mostly not to the speaker but to a third party that is not involved in the conversation (and is rarely also to the addressee), then we may say that pīqat is clearly a perspectivizing MP. *   *   * 2. Verbal Tenses The MP pīqat takes only indicative verbal forms. 50 Like other MPs, pīqat is part of epistemic modality in Akkadian and as such is incompatible with deontic modal verbal forms (such as the precative, imperative, prohibitive, etc.). Epistemic and deontic modalities in Akkadian are mutually exclusive.

45.  Sanders and Spooren 1997: 86ff.; Smith 2003: 15, 155–184. 46. “[T]raduit en termes de modes de pensée le degré d’adhésion du Je à son propos. La détermination de ce degré d’adhésion est effectuée à l’aune de la notion graduable de savoir” [my translation]. 47.  Sanders and Spooren 1997: 90. 48.  See Palmer 2001: 113. 49.  Sanders and Spooren 1997: 89. The use of the enclitic MP -mi is especially relevant here; see chap. 9. 50.  The form i-ri-šu-ka in AbB 1, 139:9′ is not a subjunctive but a 3 m. pl. form serving as impersonal: “Perhaps they (sic!) will ask you for silver; don’t give him [any]!” The same applies to Dossin 1973: 185:17, where ú-⟨ḫa⟩-as-sí-sú-ma (3 m. pl.) designates the impersonal.

The Syntactic Profile o pīqat

31

There is no restriction on the tense of the main verbal form in pīqat clauses. A clear propensity, however, can be identified: almost half of the examples in the corpus (unpublished examples not included) are in the present-future tense. 51 The other half is divided between past forms, 52 stative, 53 nominal phrases, 54 and perfect forms. 55 The fact that pīqat takes the present-future tense more than any other is because, more than other tenses, the present-future tense expresses contingencies. 56 Other persons’ choices and actions that have still not taken place, or have already happened in circumstances unknown to the speaker, are beyond the speaker’s certain knowledge. The tendency of the doubter pīqat to attract present-future forms is therefore not surprising. Nonfuture verbal forms with pīqat (past tense or perfect forms) refer to events that may have already occurred but of which the speaker is unsure, and because he is unsure, he also does not know their consequences. One example of the perfect will suffice here: AbB 8, 109:34–39: p a-wi-il-d IM ugula mar-tu / ša ta-aš-pur-am ú-ul is-ḫu-ur-ma / ú-ul it-ra-aš-šu / a-na-ku-ma a-la-ak-ma at-ar-ra-aš-šu / pí-qá-at i-na é be-lí-šu / it-ta-ru-ú-šu ṭe4-em-šu šu-up-ra-am. Awīl-Adad, the general, about whom you wrote to me, did not look around for him and did not fetch him—shall I go and fetch him? (Yet) perhaps they have (already) taken him ( perfect) from his lord’s house? Write to me (your) decision about his matter. 57 51.  AbB 1, 51:23–36; AbB 1, 68:4–9; AbB 1, 71:18–24; AbB 1, 135:25–27; AbB 1, 139:6′–10′; AbB 3, 53:19–24; AbB 4, 50:7–10; AbB 6, 125:16–25; AbB 7, 42:13–20; AbB 9, 150:5–9; AbB 10, 56:21–25; AbB 10, 103:3′–8′; AbB 12, 13:6–18; AbB 14, 112:36–42; AbB 14, 114:24–29; AbB 14, 145:8–25; AbB 14, 164:25–33; AbB 14, 37:9–12; ARM 1, 2:11′–13′; ARM 1, 32:7–20; ARM 2, 66:5–13; ARM 4, 54:8–14; ARM 13, 25:5–16; ARM 18, 5:10–19; ARM 18, 7:11–19; ARM 26/1, 78:10–13; ARM 26/1, 80:4′–7′; ARM 26/1, p. 42:7′–11′; ARM 26/2, 408:55–59; ARM 26/2, 469:27–35; ARM 26/2, 483:35–39; ARM 26/2, 491:34–37; ARM 27, 54:6–18; ARM 27, 57:9–13; ARM 27, 77:6–8; ARM 28, 179:31–41; Charpin 1991: 155:iv 21′–23′; Christian 1969: 22:11–22; FM 6, 25:22–29; MARI 6, 263–264:4–19; MARI 8, 383:10–22; OBTR 56:5–9; Shemshara Letters 41:17′–20′; CAD P 386 a1′a′ (Susa letter); UET 6/2, 414:17 (Livingstone 1988: 181); Ziegler 2004: 96:13–19. 52.  AbB 4, 152:14–21; AbB 9, 78:20–23; ARM 2, 21:1′–7′; ARM 2, 23:10′–16′; ARM 5, 53:6–14; ARM 10, 156:12–30; ARM 26/1, 242:12–14; ARM 26/1, 84:8–18; ARM 26/1, 148:5′–14′; ARM 26/2, 328:26–29; ARM 26/2, 489:41–44; ARM 28, 145:12′–18′; FM 7, 45:42–51; Dossin 1973: 185:17–19; MARI 5, 181:9–24; Shemshara Letters 11:16–22. 53.  AbB 9, 145:13–17; AbB 10, 56:21–25; ARM 1, 1:10′–12′; ARM 2, 40:4–18; ARM 2, 49:11; ARM 2, 121:9–11; ARM 4, 86:52–54; ARM 6, 30:7–10; ARM 26/1, 148:5′–14′; ARM 26/2, 354:12–20; ARM 27, 151:100–104; Christian 1969: 18:23–38; Kienast 1978: 156:16–24; MARI 5, 168:29–41; Shemshara Letters 21:10–16. 54.  AbB 3, 39:12–17; AbB 4, 49:5–13; AbB 4, 150:25–38; AbB 9, 31:10–22; ARM 26/1, 121:18–21; Dossin 1938b, 181–182:18–22 (cf. ARM 26/1 p. 160 note b). 55.  AbB 8, 109:33–39; AbB 14, 110:36–40; ABIM 22:25–30 (or: Gt separative past?); ARM 4, 60:5– 13; ARM 26/2, 302:9–15; MARI 6, 272:4–17 (or: Gt separative past?). 56.  See, e.g., Chung and Timberlake 1985: 243: “Any future event is potential rather than actual.” More recently, see Dahl 2006. 57.  See CAD T 246, 1a.

32

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

The stative is neutral with respect to time. Its use is probably motivated by lexical and idiomatic considerations: verbs of state—especially ṣabātum, šakānum, wašābum, bâšum, uḫḫurum, and marāṣum—tend to appear in the stative. 3. Negation The present data show that the negation particle employed in pīqat sentences is exclusively ul, never lā. 58 The absence of the negation particle lā in pīqat clauses conforms to the finding that pīqat does not govern relative but only main clauses. 59 It also shows that this MP, though it may carry a quasiconditional meaning, is different—syntactically as well as semantically—from šumma, “if,” which requires, almost obligatorily, 60 the negation particle lā. 4. Position of the MP within the Clause In an overwhelming majority of the cases (almost 80 out of ca. 100 different cases), the particle pīqat opens the clause it governs. The cases in which pīqat is preceded by inanna, “now,” 61 or u, “and,” 62 do not break this rule. In the cases when pīqat does

58.  AbB 4, 152:14–21; AbB 9, 78:20–23; AbB 10, 56:21–25; ARM 1, 32:7–13; ARM 2, 66:5–13; ARM 4, 54:8–14; ARM 4, 86:52–54; ARM 5, 53:6–14; ARM 26/1, 78:10–13; ARM 26/2, 302:9–15; ARM 27, 151:100–104; Dossin 1973: 185:17–19. Note that in AbB 7, 42:13–20 the negation lā is found in proximity to pīqat: ki-ma a-lam la wa-aš-ba-ta / aq-bi / pí-qá-at ša ṭup-pí luga l / ub-lam / i-sa-aḫ-ḫ[u]-ur-k[a] / la ta-an-na-ku-ud / mi-im-ma ṭup-pu-um / aš-šu-mi-ka ú-ul il-li-[ik?]. But, as Kraus rightly understood, lā tannakkud is not part of the pīqat clause but opens the next clause: “I have said that you are not in town. Perhaps the (one) who carries the letter of the king will look for you. Don’t worry: this letter doesn’t concern you at all.” The sole example where pīqat lā is allegedly found is AbB 14, 186:17–24: šum-ma ši-ṭe4-er ṭup-pí-ni / i-na pa-nu pda m a r-u tu-a-zi-ir / lu-di-in-ma / ˹pí °˺-qa-at i-na bi-ti / [š]a-pí-ri-ia la ! ú-ṣí / [šu]m-ma i-na pa°-ne-ni  ! / i-na ṭup-pí pda ma r-u tu-a-zi-ir / ša-ṭe4-er mi-im-ma la a-di-a-an, which Veenhof translates: “If we have a (relevant) written record, I am ready to confront Marduk-āzir in a lawsuit. But, perhaps he has not yet left the household of my superior. If, contrary to what we assume, he is indeed registered in the records of Maruk-āzir, I can in no way start a lawsuit.” Regarding the use of lā in line 20, Veenhof would take “lā in a main clause, with Stol, OB History 53 n. 30, as ‘not yet’.” But this reading cannot be accepted. First, there is no other example of pīqat accompanied by lā in the entire corpus. The introduction of a pīqat phrase in this context is not warranted and makes no sense. The speaker poses two mutually exclusive alternatives: either a document proving that a certain individual is registered to the estate of his superior is found—or no such document exists. In the first case, a legal process against the man who presently holds this individual may begin; in the latter case, no legal process will take place. Therefore, the sentence, as found in Veenhof’s edition (“but, perhaps he has not yet left the household of my superior”) only interrupts the flow of the speaker’s words. (Furthermore: who—or what—has not yet left the household of the superior? neither the abducted man nor the document fits here.) Hence, Veenhof’s edition calls for correction. If one prefers to keep the MP pīqat in the text, then the following lā is a mistake for ul (probably inspired by the lā in line 24). A smoother solution is to abandon pīqat altogether and read: “I am ready to confront Marduk-āzir in a lawsuit, so that (-ma) he will not get out of the control—indeed, the house—of my supervisor” (˹i-na˺ qa-at i-na bi-ti ša-pí-ri-ia la ú-ṣí. (I wish to thank J.-M. Durand, with whom I have discussed this passage.) 59.  Syntactically, it is not impossible for a relative clause to be embedded in a pīqat clause, as in AbB 1, 68:4–9. Nonetheless, the MP does not affect the relative clause. 60.  In the Mari letters, there are cases where šumma takes ul; see Wasserman 2006: 157 n. 37. 61.  ARM 2, 49:11 and ARM 26/1, p. 42:7′–11′ 62.  AbB 9, 78:20–23; AbB 14, 110:36–40; ARM 2, 21:1′–7′ (with LAPO 16, 350).

The Syntactic Profile o pīqat

33

appear in second position, it is after a topicalized nominal constituent, as in a letter that describes an oracular procedure: ARM 4, 54:8–14: 63 ša-ma !-an li-ib-bi-im / i-mi-tam-ma ta-ri-ik / li-ib-bu-um šu-ú / i-mi-tam / ù šu-me-lam ta-ri-ik / ù ši-it-ḫu-um ša-ki-in / t [e]-ri-ik šu-me-lim / pí-qa-at ú-ul ú-qà-at°-ti°-ka The fat of the heart at the right is dark. This heart is dark at right and left, and there is a protruding scar mark. The dark spot in the left—perhaps (it) did not satisfy  (?) you. 5. Phrasal Arrangement The same principle applies to the arrangement of the pīqat clause in relation to other clauses in the text: the pīqat clause occasionally follows a topicalizing phrase that opens with a topicalizing remark, such as ina annītim, “as for this (issue),” 64 or aššum . . . “because . . . , concerning . . . ,” as in the following examples: 65 AbB 9, 150:5–9: ki-a-am aq-bi-kum um-ma a-na-ku-ma / it-ti pd IM-ri-im-ì-lí / ki-i-ma pa-ni-i-ka / na-an-me-er-ma / aš-šum pdEN.ZU-iš-me-ni iḫ-ḫa-as-sú / pi-qá-at ú-še-lu-ni-kum Thus I said to you: “Meet with Adad-rīm-ilī as before. And because Sîn-išmênni was taken into account, perhaps they will present (him) to you.” Note that the aššum clause, formally a relative sentence, can be inserted into the main pīqat clause. This creates an embedded circumstantial construction: AbB 1, 68:4–9: pí-qá-at aš-šum a-wi-lu [m] / i-na ká-ding i r-raki wa-aš-bu / ù a-na-ku it-ti a-wilim wa-aš-ba-a-[k]u / ma-am-ma-an aš-šum a-šà-im / i-ša-ap-pa-ra-ki / ma-amma-an a-an-nam la [t]a-pa-li, Perhaps—because the gentleman stays in Babylon and I stay with the gentleman —somebody will write to you concerning the field. Do not say “yes” to anybody! Another interesting case is found a letter from Samsī-Addu to Yasmaḫ-Addu concerning three musicians who ran away. The MP pīqat here serves as the apodosis of the šumma clause: MARI 5, 181:9–24: šum-ma a-na ṣe-ri-ka / it-ta-al-ku-nim / ku-su-šu-nu-ti a-na ṣe-ri-ia / šu-ri-šu-nu63.  LAPO 18, 952. 64.  ARM 10, 156:12–30. 65.  See also AbB 3, 53:19–24.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

34

ti / šum-ma a-na ṣe-ri-ka / la i-la-ku-nim / [pí  ]-qa-at a-na ma-a-at / ia-am-ḫa-ad ú-lu-ma / a-na ma-a-at qa-ta-nimki / il-li-ku / sa-ak-bi da-an-na-tim / šu-ku-unma / lú- meš šu-nu-ti / li-iṣ-ba-tu-ma / a-na ṣe-ri-ia / šu-re-eš-šu-nu-ti If they left toward you, bind them and send them (to me). If they did not go to you—perhaps toward the land of Yamḫad, or toward the land of Qatna they have gone. Install strong patrols in order to get hold of these people and send them to me. I believe that this unusual usage reflects Samsī-Addu’s actual speech, because, as I have remarked elsewhere, 66 the royal scribes in Šubat-Enlil did not dare to paraphrase SamsīAddu’s dictation and recorded the king’s words verbatim. Another case where pīqat comes as a response to šumma is found in a letter from Kisurra. The writer complains about his addressee’s incompetence and uses pīqat with a clear ironic tone, probably with an exclaiming intonation: 67 Kienast 1978: vol. II, 156:16–24: ˹ù˺ a-wi-lum at-ta / ˹šum˺-ma ša-pa-ra-am / la te-le-i / qí-bi-am-ma / ma-ma-˹an ša˺ ša-ka-˹ni-ia˺ / ˹a-ša-ak-an-ma˺ / ˹li-ša˺-li-ma-an-ni / šum-ma ma-ar-ṣa-a-ti / pí-qà-a ma-ru-uṣ You are a man (after all)! If you cannot do the job, say it to me and I will install somebody (else) from my recruitment and he will satisfy me! If you suffer (from the work)—perhaps (you think that) he will suffer (too)? 6. pīqat and Other Particles Unlike the MPs tuša and assurrē, which will be treated later on, there are no attestations of the enclitic particles ‑ma, or ‑man attached to pīqat. But pīqat is found at times in the context of other MPs. Note the letter from Zazia, king of the Turrukeans, to Meptum, a high official in Mari. In a strange mixture of boastfulness and abjectness, Zazia explains why he did not carry out his military ambitions in full. He does this by presenting his addressee’s hypothetical inner thoughts and rebutting them: ARM 28, 179:31–41: p[í ]-q[a-a]t / ki-a-am ta-qa-ab-[b]i um-ma-mi / il-tu-kam-ma it-tu-u[ḫ !] umma-na-tum / ninda u4 1-kam [ul ] na-š  [e]-e / šum-ma ṣí-d [i ]-tam ma-dam na-še-e / wu-di-ma-an iti 1-ka m / ˹i˺-na š à-b a ka-ṣí-im / at-t [a-a]l-[l  ]a-ak / as-s [ú ]-u[r-r]i ke-em la ta-qa-[a]b-bi / pza-zi-ia-mi ú-ul i  [l-li ]-ik / dIM at-ma šum-ma a-na-ku-ma [l ]a al-li-ik

66.  Wasserman 2006: 159. 67.  Additional cases of irony expressed by means of pīqat: AbB 1, 51:23–36; AbB 4, 150; AbB 9, 78:20–23(?).

The Syntactic Profile o pīqat

35

Perhaps you will say: “he tried but got tired. (His) units do not carry provisions, not even for a day.” Had they carried much provisions it is for sure (wuddi-man) that I could have walked continuously for one month in midst of the steppe. I fear (assurrē ) you would say: “Zazia did not (really) go!” I swear by Adad if I did not go! In this fantastic string of MPs, we find: the doubter pīqat ; the strong certifier wuddi ; the irrealis particle ‑man; and finally, the semideontic volitive MP assurrē and the enclitic MP ‑mi. 68 The only evidential that is absent here is midde, the MP that holds a middle position between the doubter pīqat (designating weak possibility) and the presumptive wuddi (denoting strong certainty). The semantic difference between pīqat and midde is hard to pin down, but luckily we have a letter in which the two MPs are found one after the other, allowing us to differentiate them semantically. In the following text, a letter from Babylonia sent by a certain Ḫablum to Tayyarat and Šāt-Dagan, two female addressees, the writer severely reproaches them regarding their management of the fields that were put under their care. In the beginning of the text, midde is used: AbB 1, 135:6–12: mi-id-de aš-šum a-wa-tim / ša ta-aš-me-a um-ma-mi ID x [x x] . . . . / ni-di a-ḫiim ta-ra-še20-ma a-šà šuku-si ša AB KI im / ú-ul tu-ka-ma-sa / a-na še-im ku-um-mu-si-im / ni-di a-ḫ[i-i ]m la ta-r  [a]-aš-ši-a, Concerning the matter that you (f. pl.) heard—probably (midde) you will say . . . there is negligence on your part and you will not pile up the field of. . . . Do not be negligent in piling up the barley! And toward the end of the letter we find the MP pīqat: AbB 1, 135:25–27: pí-qá-at aš-šum še-im ú-pa-ra x x [0] / še-a-am li-qé-šu-ma / i-na na-aš-pa-ki-im šu-up-ka Perhaps because of the barley (that?) he . . . —take it and heap (it) up in a silo. The relevant passages of the letter are badly preserved, but what is left allows us to distinguish between midde and pīqat. Ḫablum, the speaker, employs midde when he has some background information, which allows him some confidence in his assumption regarding the state of affairs to which he is referring. By contrast, pīqat is used when no such information is available. Hence, on a scale of the speaker’s commitment to his words, midde designates stronger commitment than does pīqat.

68. For pīqat . . . assurrē, see also MARI 5, 168:29–41 and ARM 18, 7:11–19; for assurrē . . . pīqat, see ARM 26/2, 469:27–35.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

36

Nonetheless, it is important to note that in some cases pīqat is used where one expects to find midde or even wuudi or anna. In a letter to Yaḫdun-līm, Abī-Samar, a vassal of the king of Mari, recounts his political woes to his sovereign. The grateful king declares that he has managed to survive only due to Mari’s help: ARM 1, 1:10′–12′: 69 ù a-la-nu ša ki-ma ú-ḫu-ru ú-še-zi-i  [b] / ù na-pa-áš-ti ú-ba-li-iṭ pí-qa-at ḫazi-r  [a]-at And I have managed to save the towns (those) that were left and (barely) rescued my life. Surely (  pīqat) [sic!] you are the savior. Pīqat in this case cannot be read as “perhaps” but as a certifier, meaning “surely.” The location of Abī-Samar’s tiny kingdom in the northwest corner of the Syrian Jezirah, near Karkemiš and Yamḫad, may explain this exceptional usage of pīqat. It is possible that this usage reflects local speech or even the peripheral scribe’s idiolect. In addition, we have already seen that in some cases pīqat is used in contexts where one expects assurrē, which designates hopes and fears. In these cases, the hypothetically unwelcome situation is normally introduced by the MP assurrē. But sometimes the speaker prefers to minimize this undesirable possibility and the consequences it carries by turning to the neutral “perhaps,” the weak doubter pīqat. Judging by the statistics from the corpus at hand, I suggest that this use of pīqat instead of assurrē, which is attested only twice in each corpus, 70 was not normally considered acceptable in the epistolary style of the period. Are there collocations of pīqat and the irrealis particle ‑man? No such combinations are attested in the OB corpus, but in a bilingual SB proverb the two MPs are found side by side (  pīqat appears in its later form pīqā): BWL, 244–45:iv 42–45: ga- nam ga-ug5-ga-en-dè-en

pi-qa a-ma-at-man

giš-en ga-an-kú lu-ku-ul ga-nam ga-ti-le-dè-en pi-qa a-bal-lu-uṭ giš-en ga-bí-íb-gar lu-uš-kun

Perhaps I (Sum. we) should die—then let me spend; perhaps I (Sum. we) should get well—then let me store (my property). 71 From the standpoint of standard usage as we have seen it in the OB corpus, the presence of the two MPs is redundant and proves that at this late stage of Akkadian either pīqa or ‑man has already lost some of its semantic vitality, so much so that the scribe felt it necessary to provide two MPs in order to achieve the desired modal function. After examining the various pīqat constructions, we can say that this proverb exhibits the 69.  LAPO 16, 305. 70.  ARM 26/1, 242:6–14 and ARM 26/2, 302:9–15, treated above (p. 28). 71.  See Thureau-Dangin 1935: 307–10; Speiser 1947: 323; CAD P 384 s.v. pīqa lex. sec.

The Etymology of pīqat

37

well-attested disjunctive construction pīqa(t) A . . . pīqa(t) B . . . , “perhaps I will die . . . perhaps I will get well. . . .” It is, therefore, the irrealis MP ‑man that seems out of place. The expected irrealis construction, as will be demonstrated in the chapter dedicated to this MP (chap. 6), is amât-man lūkul aballuṭ-man luškun, “had I been dying—I would have spent; had I been getting well—I would have stored (my property).” The amalgamation of the two MPs in this proverbial saying is intuitively understood yet exhibits awkward syntax. The Etymology of pīqat AHw and CDA both derive pīqat from piāqum. 72 This etymology—though not contested here—is worth examining. According to the dictionaries, piāqum is a poorly attested verb; in fact, only a handful of attestations of piāqum are known, the most famous being in a line in the Gilgamesh Epic (George 2003: 176:88 = Gilg. P. iii 4) where Enkidu is said to be looking hard at the bread that has been presented to him, trying to understand what it is. 73 Second, piāqum is mostly used for actions of the eyes, eyeshaped artifacts (such as the holes of a net), and eye-like natural phenomena (such as water sources). Occasionally, it may also refer to actions of another spherical organ, the mouth. 74 It is therefore to be distinguished from siāqum, the verb that generally means “to be narrow.” 75 Piāqum specifically describes a movement of the eye, perhaps “to squint,” or a condition of the eye, probably “screwed-up eye.” 76 Etymologically, piāqum should be connected to late post-Biblical Hebrew √phq, “to yawn” (a physiological action, which to the best of my knowledge is not known in Akkadian lexicography). 77 If so, √phq in late Hebrew describes an involuntary opening of one’s mouth in order to inhale deeply, while the same Semitic root in Akkadian describes a voluntary narrowing of one’s eye in order to see more clearly (but also, twice, opening of the mouth). Semantic shifts from eye to mouth among different Semitic languages are not unknown (an obvious example is Akk. amārum vs. Hebrew √ʾmr  ), as are semantic transformations between narrowness and wideness (e.g., Akk. pašāqum vs. Hebrew √pśq). The CAD refrains from suggesting an etymology for pīqat. However, AHw and CDA both derive this MP from piāqum, “to be, make narrow.” 78 Consequently, pīqat should be analyzed as the 3rd feminine singular stative form of piāqum, “she/it is narrow.” Furthermore, if pīqat is a 3 f. s. stative of piāqum, then pīqā, a rare by-form of pīqat,

72.  AHw 861b; CDA 274a. 73.  A certainly related verb, better attested than piāqum, is puqqu, “to heed, to be attentive to, to be concerned, to be anxious” (CAD P 512). It is mentioned in a synonym list as the equivalent of ṣubbu, bitrû, naṭālum, and dagālum, proving its relation to the faculty of seeing (An IX: 28ff., cf. CAD P 512 lex. sec). 74.  CAD P 394c), s.v. pīqu. 75.  AHw 1039a s.v.: “eng, schmal sein, werden.” 76.  In fact, CDA 274a lists as the secondary meaning of piāqum “screw up (eyes, to see).” 77.  Other Semitic cognates (but not Akk. piāqum) are listed in Militarev and Kogan 2000: 315. 78.  AHw 861b s.v. piāqum, pâqu; CDA 274a s.v. piāqum. Verbal derivation for pīqat was also suggested by Speiser 1947: 322–23.

38

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

ought to be analyzed as 3rd feminine plural stative form 79 or, better, a dual stative form: “they—the two—are narrow.” This leads to the conclusion that the elliptic antecedent of pīqat is very likely īnum, “eye” (f.), and not annītum, “this,” or awātum “word, affair,” as might be thought at first glance. As a result, I suggest that originally the MP pīqat was a verbal predicate in the expression īnum pīqat, “the eye is squinting” (or, in the case of the dual form pīqā: “the two eyes are squinting”). This precise expression is recorded only in physiognomic texts and in topographic designations. But it is possible that in vernacular usage it was used to designate “the eye is examining, considering, surveying,” namely, “it seems that . . . ,” “apparently,” “lo and behold!” or the like (cf. German augenscheinlich). There is ample evidence from many different languages that the eye is an organ that is regarded as not only responsible for the faculty of seeing but also for the epistemic capacity of understanding. This is also the case in Akkadian, where phrases such as awīlum alla awīlim ina ēnēka šakin, “the man is not considered a gentleman” (lit., “in your eyes the man is considered a not-man”), 80 or awīltum ul kâša īnki libbašši, “the lady is not herself, pay attention to her (lit., keep your eye on her),” 81 prove that the eye- and sight-related words were used to construct epistemic expressions. If this hypothesis holds true, then the first, pregrammaticalized stage of the MP pīqat has now been identified. Grammaticalization MPs in many languages tend to acquire their function by a process of grammaticalization (e.g., German etwa, lexically “somewhere,” grammaticalized as “perhaps”; or bloß, lexically “naked,” grammaticalized as “only,” etc.). 82 This complex process by which a formerly autonomous word receives a formative grammatical character can be summarized as a gradual decrease in the lexical value of a noun, verb, or a short phrase and in an increase in their abstract meaning. 83 This often involves a shift from one part of speech to another (as, e.g., body parts that shift from the category of nouns to the category of prepositions). 84 In addition, the syntactic freedom of the given element decreases in the process of grammaticalization, and its bonding to other parts of the sentence increases. 85 Briefly, the grammaticalized unit or structure is divested of its original lexical denotation and assumes a grammatical function. It tends to be connected to a limited set of components, in certain syntactic arrangements, and occupies a specific position in the sentence.

79.  As suggested to me by D. Charpin, private communication. Cf. Mayer 1992: 37. 80.  BIN 6, 119:8–10 (OA letter cited in CAD I/J 156 b1′). 81.  AbB 2, 145:18–20 (OB letter cited in CAD I/J 156 b1′ as CT 29, 15). 82.  See, e.g., Abraham 1991; Lehmann 1995. 83.  See Stevens 1992: esp. 300–302. More generally, see Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991: 1–26, and Hopper and Traugott 1993: 1–17. A detailed discussion of the grammaticalization process that Akkadian quotatives (enma, umma, ummā) underwent is found in Deutscher 2000: 68–91. 84.  Rubin 2005: 46–48. 85. Van Baar 1996: esp. 260–61; Lehmann 1995: 122–69.

The Grammaticalization of pīqat

39

Negation in French furnishes an excellent illustration of the historical process of grammaticalization. Most, if not all, auxiliary particles (or “adverbial complements”) that reinforce ne, the French original negation particle, were initially regular substantives used at first with their lexical meanings: pas, point, mie, goutte, mot, noix, pois, dé, bouton, denier, pomme, grain, cive, fétu, ail (meaning respectively: step, point, crumb, drop, word, nut, pea, die, button, penny, apple, grain, chive, straw, garlic). At some time between the 13th and 15th centuries, through the process of grammaticalization, these lemmas—aside from their basic meanings—began to serve as auxiliary particles of negation: for example, il ne marche pas, “he does not walk at all” (lit., a step); ile ne boit goutte, “he does not drink at all” (lit., a drop); il n’estime noix, “he does not appreciate at all” (lit., a nut); il ne mange mie, “he does not eat at all (lit., a crumb), etc. 86 Rubin (2005: 3) conveniently presents the main stages of this grammaticalization process regarding pas, the main auxiliary particle of negation in modern French. First, a verb of motion is negated by ne and optionally extended by pas: Je ne vais (pas), “I don’t go (a step).” Secondly, pas was reanalyzed and grammaticalized. It lost its lexical meaning and obtained the grammatical function of reinforcing the negation: Je ne vais pas, “I don’t go.” Then pas was used by way of analogy with nonmotion verbs as well: Je ne sais pas, “I don’t know.” Finally, pas went through a second stage of grammaticalization and became the main marker of negation. The original particle of negation, ne, became optional and even redundant: J’sais pas, “I don’t know”; pas encore, “not yet,” etc. It is important to note that a grammaticalized form does not necessarily lose its pregrammaticalized meanings. In fact, the grammaticalized form often stands at some point on a scale of different usages and meanings. This scale is “an arrangement of forms along an imaginary line at one end of which is a fuller form of some kind, perhaps ‘lexical’, and at the opposite end a compacted and reduced form, perhaps ‘grammatical’.” 87 A prime example of this phenomenon, where a specific form synchronically maintains both its pregrammaticalized and grammaticalized meanings (known as “divergence”) is described in detail by Deutscher in his analysis of the quotative umma. 88 Most, if not all OB epistemic MPs, underwent some sort of grammaticalization. However, as we shall see, earlier, pregrammaticalized stages of meanings of certain MPs can sometimes be detected. The Grammaticalization of pīqat I have suggested above that pīqat is to be connected to the verb piāqum. If this suggestion is correct, the initial stage of grammaticalization of this MP is a 3 f. s. stative form of piāqum, “she/it (i.e, the eye), is narrow.” The advanced stage of the grammaticalization process that pīqat underwent is particularly evident from the fact that this MP can follow a preposition. In other words, pīqat, which started as a verbal form, behaves 86.  Nyrop 1930: vol. 6.31–33 (§§22–24); Grevisse 1980: 1071–72 (§2189). 87.  Hopper and Traugott 1993: 6–7. 88.  Deutscher 2000: 76–79.

The Modal Particle pīqat  in Old Babylonian

40

in the end as a substantive. Note the following letter, where first pīqat appears, then is replaced by ana pīqat: AbB 14, 145:8–25: p li-pí-it-ištar dumu ip-qú-ša / ù tap-pu-šu il-li-ku-nim-ma / i-na Sippar ki érenam ša ša-aṭ-ru-šu-nu-ši-im / i-sa-aḫ-ḫu-ru / pí-qá-at a-na ṣe-ri-ka i-il-la-kunim-ma / é na-ap-ṭa-ri-ia ú-da-ab-ba-bu / ki-a-am qí-bi-šu-nu-ši-im / um-ma at-ta-a-ma / a-wi-lum bi-is-sú bi-ti / a-na u4-um tam-li-tim re-eš-ku-nu ú°-ka-a-al / ḫa-al-qú-ti-ku-nu-ma sú-uḫ-ra / ki-a-am qí-bi-šu-nu-ši-im / é la ú-da-ab-ba-bu / ù a-na pí-qá-at i-la-ku-nim / i-nu-ú-ma i-te-er-bu-nim / a-na é na-ap-ṭa-ri-ia qí-bi-ma / ṣú-ḫa-ra-am ù sa g-gé me -meš / i-dam li-ša-aṣ-bi-tu Lipit-Ištar the son of Ipquša and his colleagues arrived, and they are now moving the men who were assigned to them around in Sippar. Perhaps they come to you and annoy you about my residence—(in this case) say to them: “The gentleman—his house is my house. I am ready to comply with you on the day of recruitment, (but first) look for those who are missing!”—tell them so. Let them not bother the house. And in case (ana pīqat ) they arrive and when they actually enter (the house), tell (the men at) my residence that they keep the boy and the slave-girls out of sight. The appearance of ana pīqat is not restricted to Babylonia. 89 It is known in Mari as well, as shown in the following letter from Samsī-Addu to Yasmaḫ-Addu: Ziegler 2004: 96:13–19: ṭup-pí an-né-e-em / [pl ]a-e-em šu-úš-mi-˹ma˺ / ˹an-ni˺-tum lu-ú pa-ḫa-at la-i-im / a-na pí-qa-at at-ta a-na tu-ut-tu-ul ki / ú-lu-ma k as k al a-yi-iš-ma ta-al-la-ak / a-na šu-ta-wi lú-meš su-ti-i  ˹ki˺ / ù kaska l ˹ša˺-a-˹ti˺ ka-ṣa-ri a-˹ra˺-an la-i-im Make Lāʾûm hear this tablet of mine so that this affair will be his responsibility. Perhaps (ana pīqat ), you shall go to Tuttul or to another direction. (Thus), it will be the charge of Lāʾûm to dictate (a letter) to the Suteans and to organize this expedition. The last step in the grammaticalization process is documented in the cliticized form appīqat ( 2)

minimal (average ca. 1)

many times. 69 Thus, more important, and probably more significant, is the discovery that, on average, ‑mi is found in letters (regardless of provenance) twice as frequently as in literary texts (2.3 : 1.1). This discovery also seems to result from the fundamental distinction between the epistolary and nonepistolary texts: since ‑mi in literary texts is used as a discourse particle to mark direct speech and apostrophes, it is usually found only once, at the head of the phrase ( just like the quotatives umma and ummami in letters). In OB letters, where ‑mi is used modally, the particle is more likely to be used repeatedly, reflecting the wishes and emphasis of the writer. Table 8 summarizes these conclusions. Are the different locations of ‑mi an indication that this particle is in fact a grapheme (reflecting scribal conventions, similar to quotation marks in modern practice) and not a fully functioning morpheme? Or does it, on the contrary, hint that the seemingly arbitrary parsing of the text into line-units is not merely technical but carries linguistic meaning? This idea is not new to the consideration of literary texts, but it is less evident for epistolary texts. Whatver the conclusion may be, the particle ‑mi is a fascinating and complex component of the OB modal system. 69.  AbB 10, 190:11–31 (16×); ARM 26/1, 140:1–40 (13×); Shemshara Letters 70: 12–28 (5×).

List of attestations of -mi (passages fully cited and translated are preceded by *) 1. *AbB 1, 27:6–9 (Pientka and Hinz 2007: 30 (10.2)) 2. AbB 7, 8:5′–12′ 3. AbB 10, 57:6–28 4. AbB 10, 190:11–31 5. AbB 11, 172:6–17 6. AbB 14, 217:05–19 7. AbB 14, 217:20–30 8. *ARM 1, 118:4–14 (LAPO 16, 48) 9. ARM 5, 9:5–19 (LAPO 18, 915) 10. *ARM 5, 59:1–21 (LAPO 17, 535)

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

*ARM 10, 129:1–20 (LAPO 18, 1164) ARM 14, 1:17–25 (LAPO 16, 215) ARM 26/1, 12:5′–15′ (Heimpel 2003: 182) ARM 26/1, 13:8 (Heimpel 2003: 182–83) ARM 26/1, 16:4–15 (Heimpel 2003: 184) ARM 26/1, 140:1–40 (Heimpel 2003: 229) *ARM 26/1, 275:5–18 (Heimpel 2003: 281) 18. *ARM 26/2, 303: 7′–17′ (Heimpel 2003: 290)

Average number of occurrences of -mi in the Clause 19. ARM 26/2, 304:37–46 (Heimpel 2003: 291–92) 20. ARM 28, 39:5–11 21. ARM 28, 48:21–34 22. *ARM 28, 145:12′–18′ 23. ARM 28, 147:4–8 24. ARM 28, 179:31–41 25. *Charpin 1986: 327: 26–29 26. Charpin 1991: 161:20–25 (Ziegler 2006: 53–54 (4.1)) 27. Charpin 1991: 161:27–36 (Ziegler 2006: 53–54 (4.1)) 28. *Charpin 2004b: 155: xvi 3–6 29. *Driver and Miles 1952–55: vol. 2: 96–98: rev. xxv: 3–40 30. Durand 1990a: 102:12–24 31. *Farber 1989: 36:15–21 32. FM 1, p. 82:40–50 33. FM 8, 49:5–15 34. Frayne 1990: 669:8–12 35. *George 2003: 178 (Gilg. P): v 175–85 (// George 2003: 174 [Gilg. P: 80]) 36. *George 2003: 180 (Gilg. P.): vi 232–34 (-ma) 37. *George 2003: 200 (Gilg. Y): iv 146–50 38. George 2009: 34:79 39. Goodnick Westenholz 1997: 182: v 1–3 40. Groneberg 1997: 28: ii 4 41. Groneberg 1997: 30: iii 8 42. Groneberg 1997: 36: v 38′ 43. *Groneberg 1997: 81: vii 20–22 44. Held 1961: 8: iii 6–7 45. Krebernik 2003–4: 15: ii 3′–6′ 46. *Lambert 1989: 326: 84–87 47. Lambert 1989: 327:104–5 48. Lambert 1989: 327:112–13

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

205

Lambert 1989: 327:120–21 Lambert and Millard 1969: 50:128 Lambert and Millard 1969: 50:[129] Lambert and Millard 1969: 50:[130] Lambert and Millard 1969: 50:[140] Lambert and Millard 1969: 50:[141] Lambert and Millard 1969: 50:[142] Lambert and Millard 1969: 52:159 Lambert and Millard 1969: 60:246 Lambert and Millard 1969: 62:289 Lambert and Millard 1969: 68:370 Lambert and Millard 1969: 68:376 Lambert and Millard 1969: 80:14 Lambert and Millard 1969: 82:28 *Landsberger and Jackobsen 1955: 14:1 *Landsberger and Jackobsen 1955: 14:9 *Landsberger and Jackobsen 1955: 14:14 *Livingstone 1988: 177:33–34 *Livingstone 1988: 177:39–42 MARI 6, p. 291:15–16 OBTR 144:16–22 Römer 1967: 185–86: i 1–7 Römer 1967: 186: ii 13–16 Shemshara Letters 28 B:4–12 Shemshara Letters 35:5–17 Shemshara letters 42:36–45 Shemshara Letters 70:12–28 Shemshara Letters 70:42–45 *Thureau-Dangin 1925: 172:13–14 *Thureau-Dangin 1925: 174:55–56 *van Dijk 1972: 343–44:1–13 Vogelzang 1988: 97:31–33 Vogelzang 1988: 97:44–48 Whiting 1985: 180:1 *Ziegler 1999a: 57:4–19

“Fashion your weapon from ambiguous words. / Consign clear words to lexical limbo.” Czesław Miłosz, Child of Europe

Chapter 10 Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian The main components of the epistemic modal system in OB that we have encountered are: the quadriad of evidentials pīqat – midde – wuddi and anna; the nongradual triad of committing certifiers wuddi, lū ittum, and kīša; the particle ‑mi, serving as a spacer (in opposition to the certifiers); the irrealis ‑man and the related irrealis constructions lū, ašar, and ibašši; the refuter tuša, which is close to ‑man and can be considered to form a nonreality dyad with it; and the volitive assurrē (see Summary Table 1, p. 207). Before turning to our final task—recapitulating the main characteristics of these particles, looking for general tendencies in their syntactic behavior, and setting them in relation to one another—it is time to outline very briefly some, though not all, of the least-known particles found at the outskirts of OB epistemic modality. Some Less-Attested Modal Particles in Akkadian (1) The particle raʾi/raʾu is rare. CAD rendered it hesitantly as “indeed(?), surely” (CAD R 80 s.v.). CDA and AHw suggested something like “definitely, without question” (CDA 296a; AHw 944a : “etwa unbedingt”). It is attested thus far only in lexical lists, where it is recorded as one of the synonyms of pīqat. (2) A synonym to raʾi is rabtat, which CAD considers to be an adverb, offering no translation (CAD R 27). AHw, followed by the CDA, does not list it as a separate lemma at all (but note that it is mentioned in the list of corrections to the CDA 1). Morphologically, rabtat is a third-person feminine stative form, like pīqat. It could be based on the verb *rabātum, which is not attested in Akkadian, though rapāt/ṭum, “mng. uncert.,” is recorded. It is also possible that the particle is to be derived from rapādum, “to run, to roam,” etc. Whatever the case, the meaning of this particle cannot be established at present; only contexts in which it is actually used will allow its meaning to be determined.

1. http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/cda_archive/default.htm.

206

Some Less-Attested Modal Particles in Akkadian

207

Summary Table 1.  The Main Epistemic Modal Particles, Their Basic English Translations and Modal Functions

Basic English Translation

Main Modal Functions

pīqat

“Perhaps”

Doubter. Optative. Semiconditional.

midde

“Probably” / “No doubt”

Scalar/partial certifier. Speculative. Optative. Semiconditional.

wuddi

“Surely”

Deductive. High certainty. Strong personal commitment.

anna

“Indeed”

Declarative certainty. Strong personal commitment.

lū ittum “Mark that . . . ”

Deductive. Past certainty. Strong personal commitment.

tuša

“It is as if . . . But . . . ” / “Apparently . . . But . . . ” / “Seemingly . . . But . . . ”

Refuter. Counter-assertion.

‑man

“Had it (not) . . . ” / “Were it (not) . . . ”

Irrealis. Counterfactuality.

kīša

“Surely (ironic—non ironic)” / Sarcastic objection. Simple Certifier. “Evidently (ironic—non ironic)”

assurrē

“I am afraid that . . . ” / “I hope that . . . not happen”

Volitive expressing hopes and fears (epistemic and deontic).

-mi

“Allegedly . . .” / “According to him . . . ”

Spacer: distancing the speaker from his own words. Personal Noncommitment.

(3) An additional MP with an unclear meaning is mašištum, which is defined by the CAD as an adverb meaning “again(?), moreover(?)” (CAD M/1 367 s.v.). It is attested only in lexical lists, as a synonym of kīšam-ma, tuša-ma, and pīqa-ma, a collocation that suggests that it is a MP, not an adverb, as understood also by the CDA (202a s.v.). 2 (4) Another particle is šurrumma/šarrumma, which is attested in various Akkadian dialects from the OB period onward. 3 CAD took it to be an adverb meaning something like “promptly(?), forthwith(?), indeed(?)” (CAD Š/3, 361f. s.v.). The adverbial character of šurrumma/šarrumma appears in later dialects. A connection with surri, “immediately, in a moment” (CAD S 410; the lemma upon which assurrē is based), is very likely. OB sources show that šurrumma/šarrumma has a modal function. (5) A related particle is OAkk surramma, “truly,” attested once in an OB copy of an inscription of Rīmuš: Rīmuš šar kiššātim sú-ra-ma šarrūtam dEnlil iddinušum, “Rīmuš is the king of the universe, truly Enlil gave him kingship.” 4 The lemma has the form 2.  See, for example, George 2009: 64:46 (OB love-lyric). 3.  See, on this particle, Hrůša 2010: 83. 4.  Kienast and Sommerfeld 1994: 272: “wahrhaftig”; Frayne 1993: 47: “indeed.”

208

Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian

of an adverb, and its meaning, based on its sole attestation, is that of a strong certifier, amplified by the accompanying asseverative subjunctive. However, due to lack of additional examples, it is hard to pin down the exact nuance that surramma carries, in contrast to other MPs that have a similar function. (6) Yet another rare particle, attested to the best of my knowledge only three times in the Mari corpus, is ūka. 5 The CDA notes that this particle is used to introduce speech but refrains from translating it (CDA 419b). It has been suggested that ūka is composed of u, “and,” and ‑ka, the 2nd-person masculine attached suffix, 6 but judging by the spelling of the late lexical lists, it is ūqa (with /q/). 7 In order to establish a meaning, one must also take into consideration the lexical evidence, where ūKa is found in collocation with midde and tuša. 8 The Mari letters where ūka is found demonstrate that its meaning consists of a blend of “possibly” with a strong coloring of resentment and protest on the part of the speaker, denoting something like: “OK, perhaps it is so, but I am very offended by that.” More examples are required before a solid understanding of this MP can be gained. (7) An interrogative, minsu, “what is it that?, why?,” also carries a modal nuance of protest and an undertone of blame (CAD M/2 89 with note). Again, lexical lists attest to the modal character of this interrogative: in Malku = šarru III 110–11 it is found together with tuša, pīqa as a synonym of kīam. 9 (8) Another particle is ali, meaning “surely” (CDA 12a); it is attested at Mari (see Ziegler 1999b: 162 ad line 24). (8) Finally, the enclitic particles ‑mē, ‑me, ‑māme, and ‑māku, all treated by Adler (1976: 82–91), are found in post-OB dialects: El-Amarna, Mitanni, Boghazkoy, and occasionally also in late Babylonian. In OB sources, these enclitic particles are mostly unknown, but it is important to be aware that they may appear in late OB sources. Some of these particles are very likely to have a modal function. This list of less-known particles or, perhaps, adverbs proves that our data on the system of epistemic modality in Akkadian are only partial and that this field is wider than the surviving written sources enable us to grasp. Future textual discoveries will surely change this situation. Summary It is time to offer an overview of the previous nine chapters. In the following concluding remarks, I want to provide an overview of the mass of details presented in the previous chapters from a more general perspective, providing an outline of the grammatical landscape traversed hitherto. First, let us turn to the syntactic profile of the various MPs, 5.  ARM 1, 58:8 (LAPO 16, 71); ARM 26/1, 397:4–19; ARM 26/2, 404:13–31. 6.  LAPO 16, p. 199 note b; see also Charpin, ARM 26/2, 231 note c; Joannès, ARM 26/1, 262 (referring to Durand). 7.  Reanalyzed, perhaps, as deriving from waqûm, “to wait for, expect”? 8.  MSL 4, 175 (NBGT IX); MSL 13, 165 (Izi V); ZA 9, 159:8. 9.  Hrůša 2010: 366.

Tendency to futurepresent

Mostly futurepresent

Mostly past

Mostly past

Complex. Mostly tense descent (i.e., apodosis leans to past)

Mostly futurepresent

No preference

Mostly past

Mostly 3rd-person domain

Mostly 2nd‑ and 3rdperson domains

No preference

Restricted: 1st‑ and 2nd-person domains

No preference

Restricted: 1st-person domain

No preference

No preference

No preference

pīqat

midde

wuddi

lū ittum

-man

assurrē

tuša

kīša

-mi

No preference

Verbal Tenses

Discourse Domains

lā (1×)

ula/ul,

lā (1× ul)

lā (1× ul)

Complex: ul, lā, or ay

Complex: ul or lā

ul (1×)

ul (1×)

ul

ul

Negation

Tendency to follow a topicalizing phrase.

Complex. Tendency to topicalizing phrase > false assumption phrase > refuting phrase.

Complex. Tendency to split and to encapsulate circumstantial clauses.

Complex. Tendency to be placed on focalized components, spread in intervals over the sentence.

Leads to topicalizing phrase.

Tendency to follow a topicalizing phrase

Tendency to follow a topicalizing phrase

Tendency to follow a topicalizing phrase

Phrasal Arrangement

Split. In letters, mostly No preference. final position. In literary texts, mostly frontal position.

Mostly initial position

Mostly initial position

Tendency to initial position

Free. Mostly protasisapodosis; but also only protasis or only apodosis

Mostly initial position

Tendency to initial position

Mostly initial position

Mostly initial position

Position of MP in Clause

Summary Table 2.  Overview of Grammatical Features of the Various Modal Particles.

Enclitic particles occasionally attached (‑mima; or ‑ma-mi).

Enclitic particles occasionally attached (only ‑ma).

Enclitic particles occasionally attached (‑ma often).

Enclitic particles occasionally attached (only ‑ma).

Mostly not attached to other MPs, but can be attached to lū or lā. (2× tuša-man).

Enclitic particles occasionally attached (only ‑ma).

Enclitic particles rarely attached (1× ‑ma; x1 ‑man).

Enclitic particles rarely attached (2× ‑man: mistakes?)

No enclitic particles attached.

Combination with Other MPs

Summary 209

210

Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian

which has been examined by means of the grammatical protocol employed throughout this study. A synopsis of the features of each MP is found in Summary Table 2 (see p. 209). This table allows us to draw the following conclusions: 1. There are two MPs that present clear-cut cases regarding discourse domains: assurrē is restricted to the speaker’s fears and worries, that is, to the locutory domain; and pīqat, which mostly refers to unknown actions of a third person involved in the situation, that is, to the illocutory domain. Translating this conclusion to the binary concepts of perspectivization and subjectification, we can say that assurrē is the most clearly subjectifying MP, whereas pīqat is the most perspectifying particle. Other MPs have no clear-cut tendencies. 2. With regard to the verbal tenses, the MPs examined here divide into three groups. The first group includes pīqat, midde, and assurrē, with which mostly presentfuture verbs are used (the meager corpus in which anna occurs perhaps points to a preference for present-future verbs for this MP as well). The second group comprises wuddi, lū ittum, and kīša, which mostly are accompanied by past tense verbs. The third group of MPs shows no preference for a specific tense: tuša and the two enclitic particles ‑man and -mi. This tense division reflects a fundamental notional differentiation between possibility (of different intensity), which tends to take open-ended verbal forms, especially the present-future tense, and certainty, which tends to employ delimited verbal forms, especially the past tense. 3. It is important to realize that in the OB modal system MPs cannot themselves be negated; they can only govern a negated clause. In other words, pīqat ul . . . , midde ul . . . , wuddi ul . . . , tuša lā . . . , etc., are all possible and indeed attested, but *ul pīqat . . . , *ul midde . . . , *ul wuddi . . . , *lā tuša . . . , etc., are not attested and simply not possible. In Akkadian, as in other languages, negations of this kind are ungrammatical. The reason for this ungrammaticality is that an epistemic statement results from an actual mental—judgment or evaluation—process. Thus, despite the fact that one may be hesitant, dubious, or uncertain regarding a given state of affairs, one’s mind is nevertheless still actively relating toward it. This positive mental action can be reduced, hindered, or stopped, but it cannot be denied. Capone (2001: 48) treated this point with regard to English modality, saying that “speech act adverbs cannot be negated,” demonstrating this statement with the following two examples, both of which are ungrammatical: “Not honestly Sam rejected the analysis” and “I am not honestly telling you that Sam rejected the analysis.” Furthermore, negation treats MPs and adverbs differently: unlike MPs, Akkadian adverbs can (although rarely) be negated (e.g., lā damqiš). 10 Specifically, the evidentials pīqat, midde, and wuddi all unequivocally employ ul, a fact that makes the semantic and functional relationship between these three gradual MPs explicit. The negation particle lā can modify tuša and kīša. Hence, tuša and

10.  CAD D 68 1. s.v. damqiš.

Summary

211

kīša—two MPs that are paired in the lexical list Malku = šarru—are treated in OB much like the conditional šumma, which also requires the negation lā. 11 4. All of the MPs examined show a clear propensity for location at the front of the sentence. Only ‑mi breaks this rule: in epistolary texts, this enclitic particle is found mostly at the end of the sentence (in literary texts, it conforms to the general rule for MPs, because it is mostly found at the head of the sentence). This conclusion introduces another syntactic criterion that sets MPs apart from other parts of speech, for example, from adverbs, which are rarely found at the head of the sentence, and from interjections, such as apputum, “please, it is urgent,” which tend to be located at the end of the sentence. 5. There is no common phrasal arrangement typical of all the MPs treated in this study. Nonetheless, there is a general preference for epistemic MPs to follow a topicalizing phrase that presents the matter to which the speaker is referring in his evaluation. This foregoing topicalization is expected, as epistemic locutions are typically rhematic in nature. In other words, the gravity point, semantically speaking, is found in the speaker’s evaluation; thus, the matter that is evaluated must first be well-defined and described. 6. MPs tend not to cluster together. The reason for this is clear: each MP renders a specific meaning, too delicate and unique to be interfered with by the presence of another particle. Occasionally, however, enclitic particles, mainly ‑ma, can be affixed to some MPs without any discernible change in meaning. The easy affixation of ‑ma proves that in the OB period this enclitic particle has no modal meaning (if it ever had one in previous layers of Akkadian) and that it functions only at the syntagmatic level of the text. Next, we turn to assess some quantitative aspects of the various MPs in the OB corpus (Summary Table 3, p. 212). This data should be treated with caution. The corpus is constantly growing, and the figures mirror only the present state of knowledge, which new sources may alter dramatically. With due caution, however, some general conclusions can still be drawn. 7. There are significant differences in the number of attestations of the various MPs: assurrē is by far the most frequently attested particle, with more than 200 occurrences. Next come pīqat and ‑man, each with about 100 attestations. The particles ‑mi and midde are next, with 50–70 attestations. Then wuddi, tuša, lū ittum, and kīša follow, with 20–50 attestations. Other MPs mentioned in the course of this study, such as anna and ūka, are much less common, with the count of occurrences about 10. The high frequency of assurrē can be explained by the nature of our sources. The well-documented correspondence of court and local officials, especially from the Mari archives, abounds with concerns, hopes, and fears—emotions that call for the extensive use of the volitive assurrē. 11.  Hrůša 2010: 82:109, 425:114.

212

Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian Summary Table 3.  Some Aspects of the Attestation of the Various Modal Particles.

Total no. of Appearance in Attestations Literary Texts

Geographical Distribution

Equivalence in Lexical Lists (cf. Summary Table 4)

assurrē

ca. 220

-/-

Mari > Babylon

-/- (surru = tukun; a-pa-aš. In Malku: surru = zamar)

pīqat

ca. 100

Few: 1

Mari > Babylon

nam-ga; i-gi(4)-in-zu

-man

ca. 100

Some: ca. 15

Babylon > Mari

giš-en (KI.TA); u4-da

-mi

ca. 70

Widespread: about half of the attestations

In letters: Mari > Babylon In literary texts: Babylon > Mari

e-še

midde

ca. 50

Few: 3

Babylon > Mari

ga-nam; nam-ga; i-gi(4)-in-zu; e-en-te-e-àm

wuddi

ca. 50

-/-

Mari > Babylon

-/-

tuša

ca. 30

Few: 3

Mari > Babylon

ga-nam; nam-ga; i-gi(4)-in-zu

lū ittum ca. 20

-/-

Mari > Babylon

-/- (ittum alone: giskim; á; še-e; zig)

ca. 20

-/-

Babylon > Mari

(In Malku: kīša = tuša)

kīša

Note: The counts in this table are usually higher than those listed in the chapters above where each particle is discussed because the numbers have been rounded up here to take into account unpublished texts that were left out of the discussion.

8. The MPs treated in this study are seldom attested in literary texts, with two exceptions: the obvious case of the particle ‑mi and, to a lesser extent, the particle ‑man. This conclusion confirms what has been stressed more than once throughout this study, namely, that MPs are quintessentially elements of conversation, which in our case means that they are typical of epistolary texts. The case of assurrē is remarkable: of the more than 200 examples, the evidence of our corpus is that none is found in literary texts. 9. Evaluating the geographical distribution of the MPs is difficult, if not impossible. The available data is arbitrary in many ways, dependent on the uneven pace of excavations at the various sites and on the rate of publication of the results of these excavations. Thus, the figures are hardly adequate to support a balanced interpretation. Nonetheless, two MPs can cautiously be pointed out as typical of the Mari epistolary texts: wuddi and assurrē. It is probably not accidental that these MPs have no Sumerian counterparts in the bilingual lexical lists (see the next point). 10. Four of the MPs in our corpus are not found in the bilingual scribal tradition: wuddi, assurrē, lū ittum, and kīša. 12 One could perhaps connect the absence of 12.  Note that ittum, “a sign,” is widely attested in the lexical tradition and that surru, “deceit, falsehood,” a word related to assurrē, is also found in the lexical lists. Likewise, surru and kīša have Akkadian synonyms in the Malku = šarru list (see Hrůša 2010: 364:77, 366:109) but no Sumeran counterparts.

Summary

213

wuddi and assurrē from the lexical tradition to the fact that these two MPs are typical of Mari discourse. This argument, however, is harder to sustain with regard to kīša and lū ittum, because these two are well attested in Babylonian sources. However, it is remarkable that assurrē and wuddi, MPs that are very commonly attested, are not present in the lexical lists. This leads me to suggest that these MPs were doomed to oblivion by the (mainly Babylonian) compilers of the bilingual lists because they were more frequently used outside of Babylonia. Another possibility is that these lemmas attained their status as MPs relatively late, missing, as it were, the train of lexical tradition. The last point leads us to examine the various MPs from the standpoint of lexical tradition (see Summary Table 4, p. 214). 11. In most cases, the MPs appear in the lexical lists in clusters. This is a most valuable datum that vouches for the shared semantic properties behind the various particles—not only according to modern analysis but also in the grammatical thinking of the ancient scribes. Furthermore, there are two groups of MPs according to the lexical lists: (1) pīqat, midde, tuša, ūKa (and also appūna), 13 and another (2) that includes surru, the basis of assurrē, and šumma, “if.” Remarkably, by our modern analysis, assurrē is also to be separated from pīqat, midde, and tuša, because the volitive assurrē is the only epistemic MP that stands on the border between the deontic and epistemic sections of Akkadian modality. 12. It is crucial to realize that the lexical tradition viewed the Akkadian MPs from the Sumerian perspective, not from the Akkadian side. This is evident from the fact that the lexical lists group the various Akkadian MPs around a single, or at most two, alternating Sumerian lemmas. This understanding allows us to reduce the importance of the testimony of the lexical lists as a means of establishing the semantic interdependence of the various MPs. 14 Simply said: because the particles are grouped together according to the Sumerian term, the fact that a certain Akkadian MP is found following another and that both match the same Sumerian lemma does not necessarily mean that they are synonyms. For example: in the list known as Neo-Babylonian Grammatical Texts, midde is found after tuša, both translating Sumerian nam-ga. Does this mean that midde is a synonym of tuša? Examination of the material proves clearly that this is not the case and that the meaning and usage of the two MPs is different. The lexical lists group the two MPs one after the other not because they have the same in Akkadian meaning but because in certain Sumerian contexts they are both possible equivalents of Sumerian n a m - g a. 13.  Landsberger 1936: 73: “Wenn wir den Listen vertrauen, hat appūna aber außerdem modale Funktion, da es ein Synonym von minde ist. . . .” 14.  So already, most perceptively, von Soden (1950: 187): “Da die Adverbien, mit denen zusammen tuša(ma) dort meistens aufgeführt ist (vor allem mindê(ma), piqa(t), appūna . . .), in ihrer Deutung ebenfalls noch unstritten . . . und auch sicher alles andere als bedeutungsgleich sind, ist es zweckmäßig, die Listen zunächst ganz beiseite zu lassen und nur die zusammanhängenden Texte zu prüfen.” See now also the remarks of Hrůša (2010: 234) on this matter.

214

Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian

MSL 4, 160 (NBGT III): ii19–22 ga-nam = mi-[in-de] i-gi-in-zu = mi-[in-de] ga-nam = tu-š[a-ma] i-g[i-i]n-zu = tu-[ša-ma] MSL 4, 163 (NBGT IV):11–15 (see also Civil 2005: 245) i-gi-in-zu = tu-šá-ma nam-ga = MIN (tu-šá-ma) nam-ga = mi-in-de nam-ga = ap-pu-na nam-ga = pi-qá-at MSL 4, 175 (NBGT IX): 265–69 ga-nam = pi-[qa] ga-nam = mìn-[de] ga-nam = ú-[qa] ga-nam = tu-šá-[ma] ga-nam = ap-pu-[na] MSL 13, 161 (Izi V): 29–30 i-gi-in-zu = mìn-de i-gi-in-zu = tu-ša-ma MSL 13, 165 (Izi V): 160–64 ———— gaga-˹x˺-nam = mi-in-de ga-nam = tu-ša-ma ga-nam = ú-qa ga-nam = pi-qa ga-nam-me!-a = pi-qa-ma ———— MSL 13, 184 (Izi D): iv 26–27 e-en-te-e-àm = me-nu-u MIN (ka-a-am) MIN MIN (e-en-te-e-àm) = mi-in-da MIN (ka-a-am) MSL 4, 149 (NBGT II): ii13–14 e-še = mi-i KI.TA giš-en = ma-an KI.TA

ZA 9, 159 (The Berlin Vocabulary): 1–11 i-gi-in-zu = ap-pu-na i-gi-in-zu = mìn-de i-gi-in-zu = ma-an-da i-gi-in-zu = ki-a-am i-gi-in-zu = tu-ša-am i-gi-in-zu = tu-uš-ša-ma-ki i-gi-in-zu = šu-uš-ša-ma i-gi-in-zu = ù-KA-a i-gi-in-zu = la-ma-tar i-gi-in-zu = pi-qa i-gi-in-zu = pi-qat MSL 5, 43 (HAR-gud I):6 ŠU.NÍG.TUR.LÁ = sur-ru = za-mar MSL 13, 203 (Izi G): 240–42 [a]-pa-aš = ṣi-bi-it a[p-pi ] a-pa-aš = za-ma[r ] a-pa-aš = sur-ru MSL 15, 172 (Diri V): 119–120 tu-ku-un = ŠU.NÍG.TUR.LÁ = surrum tu-ku-um-bi = ŠU.NÍG.TUR.LÁ.BI = šum-ma MSL 17, 42 (Erim-huš II): 280–82 tukun = sur-[ru] tukun-di = ki-in-[nu?] tukun-di-di = sur-sur-[ru/tu] Malku=šarru III, 109–11 tu-ša-a-ma = ki-a-a-am mi-in-su = ki-šá-a-[ ] pi-qa-ma = ki-MIN Malku=šarru III, 114–15 mi-in-su = am-mi-i-ni ul-la = mi-in-su Malku=šarru VIII, 114 tu-u-šá = ki-i-šá

Summary Table 4.  Modal Particles in Lexical Lists.

An Outline of the Epistemic Modal System in Old Babylonian

215

Another example of the rationale of the ancient lexicographers is furnished by the appearance of ‑mi immediately after ‑man in the Neo-Babylonian Grammatical Texts, 15 both paralleled to Sumerian e-š e. Evidently what has driven the lexicographer to place these two MPs one after the other is not their modal meaning but the fact that they are both enclitic particles, one of which means “(as) they say . . . ,” 16 which fits ‑mi well, but not ‑man. The conclusion is simple: in order to establish the meaning of a given Akkadian lemma, one ought to turn to the Akkadian sources and not rely blindly on the (Sumerian) lexical evidence. This admonition is true generally in Akkadian lexicography, but it is especially important in the case of modal particles, because modality is a linguistic domain that, perhaps more than any other, is specific to its language and therefore prone to translation hazards. An Outline of the Epistemic Modal System in Old Babylonian After sailing through the many-islands sea of modal particles, providing a map of the archipelago would certainly be beneficial. The main epistemic particles in OB can be divided into four groups, representing, respectively, four conceptual axes. Note that some MPs exhibit a wide range of meaning and consequently are located on more than one axis. The way in which the various axes are arranged in relation to each other creates the notional matrix of epistemic modality in OB. It is sufficient to say here that these axes intersect, which is to say, again, that some MPs are found on more than one axis. Axis I: Possibility → Certainty The first group consists of the MPs pīqat, midde, wuddi, and anna. These MPs belong to the subcategory of inferential epistemic modality, by which the speaker expresses his judgments and assessments of a specific state of affairs against a background of full, partial, or totally lacking information (Shlomper 2005: 12). We may also refer to these MPs as gradual evidentials: expressions that present the “amount and source of evidence a speaker has for a particular statement” (Sanders and Spooren 1997: 96). The notional axis of certainty and doubt is especially relevant in our corpus; hence, Akkadian—more accurately, OB—can be safely labeled as an evidential language (cf. Palmer 1986: 91). From the point of view of the system, the MPs pīqat, midde, wuddi, and anna form a scalar quadrad, a set of graduations, that are arranged along the notional axis the two poles of which are possibility and certainty. 17 This intensifying scale represents the speaker’s confidence in his own assessment of reality, from the weaker MP to the stronger: possibility ( pīqat) → probability, or predictability (midde) → certainty (wuddi and anna). These MPs, in turn, can be assigned to two epistemic categories: a weak certainty, which can be labeled potential (Shlomper 2002: 180–85) or speculative 15.  MSL 4, 149:13–14. 16.  Cf. Alster 1996: 6. 17. Cf. Palmer 1979: 8: “possibility and necessity are central to our discussion; they are the ‘core’ of the modality system.” Certainty and necessity, though related, are surely not identical terms; the former belongs fully to epistemic modality; the latter has much to do with deontic modality.

216

Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian

(2002: 176), and a stronger certainty, which can be labeled deductive (2002: 187) or presumptive (2002: 189). The elusive line that divides the two categories passes through the middle of the semantic realm of the MP midde: this MP is itself scalar. See fig. 2. pīqat possibility

→

midde probability

→

wuddi/anna certainty

(deductive/presumptive)

(potential/speculative) Figure 2.

Axis II: Refutation ←→ Affirmation The second group of MPs consists of tuša, kīša, wuddi, and lū ittum on the other. The MPs located on this axis have no magnitude—that is, their meaning does not develop gradually, as in the case of the triad pīqat, midde, and wuddi; instead, they conglomerate near the two extremes of this notional axis: asseveration or affirmation of a particular event (wuddi, lū ittum, anna, and to some extend also kīša) and the refutation or counter-assertion of a given event or state of affairs (tuša and kīša). See fig. 3. tuša, kīša refutation

ure 1.

wuddi, lū ittum, anna, kīša affirmation Figure 3.

Axis III: Nonrealization ←→ Realization The third group of MPs concerns improbabilty (referring mainly to future events), impossibility, and counterfactuality (referring mostly to past events). It consists of the enclitic particle ‑man and the modal expressions associated with it—ibašši, lū, and ašar, all of which broadly speaking denote irrealis. This axis forms a vector: it begins in reality and evolves in the direction of nonreality. Hence, the MPs on this axis stand apart of the entire field of nonmodality, which in Akkadian is expressed through indicative verbal forms. The notional opposition here is between “that which has been realized (fulfilled, accomplished, brought about) and that which has not.” See fig. 4. Counterfactuality/Improbability

Reality

-man, ibašši, lū, ašar Figure 4.

An Outline of the Epistemic Modal System in Old Babylonian

217

Axis IV: Subjectification → Perspectivization The fourth notional axis along which OB MPs are arranged expresses the gradual degree of participation of the speaker in the state of events to which he refers or, in other words, the level of identification of the speaker with the “I” embedded in his account. This magnitude can be defined by the terms subjectification and perspectivization, which was elaborated in chap. 1 (pīqat). To avoid reiteration, it is enough to say here that, when the actual speaker identifies himself as the “I” in his speech, then one may say that subjectification has taken place. Conversely, when the speaker separates himself from the “I” reported in his speech, perspectivization is at work. The MPs relevant here are on the one extreme assurrē, lū ittum, and, to a lesser extent, also wuddi and kīša, and on the other extreme: the enclitic particle ‑mi and, to a lesser extent, also pīqat and midde. See fig. 5. assurē, lū ittum

→

wuddi, anna, kīša

→

pīqat, midde

subjectification

→

-mi

perspectivization Figure 5.

*  *  *  *  * I cannot conclude this book without mentioning Palmer’s seminal work once more. In his final observations (1986: 224), he concluded that, in spite of some reservations, in many languages modality has been adequately demonstrated as a linguistic category similar to tense, aspect, gender, person, or number. More than twenty years later, this statement seems somewhat banal. No one, it appears, would deny today that modality is a central constituent of most, if not all, linguistic systems. (Interestingly, Palmer cautiously avoided the term general category; therefore, I have refrained from using this term as well, although this is probably overly cautious.) Turning to the language treated in this book, there is no doubt that modality, including its two main types, epistemic and deontic, is an essential category of Akkadian in the OB period and in other layers of Akkadian as well. Focusing on the theme of this volume, it can be safely said that it is impossible to penetrate the subtleties and complexities of Akkadian epistolary (and, sometimes, literary) texts without arming oneself with an array of epistemic notions relevant to the system and familiarizing oneself with the main epistemic categories that were operative at the time. To state this principle positively, the OB epistemic matrix is the playground of epistolary discourse; to ignore it will prevent genuine understanding of these fascinating texts. I hope that this volume offers a gateway to this field, while awaiting further data and new studies.

Bibliography Abbreviations follow the conventions of the CAD and the AHw, with the following additions: FM = Florilegium Marianum; LAPO 16, 17, 18 = Durand 1997, 1998, and 2000, respectively; and Shemshara Letters = Eidem and Laessøe 2001. Studies that are part of a text series (e.g., AbB, ARM) are cited by their series identifications and are not listed in the author-year bibliography below. Aartun, Kjell 1974 Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen. AOAT 21/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Abraham, Werner 1991 The Grammaticization of the German Modal Particles. Pp. 331–80 in Approaches to Grammaticalization, edited by E. C. Traugott and B. Heine. Typological Studies in Language 19/2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2002 Modal Verbs: Epistemics in German and English. Pp. 19–50 in Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System, edited by S. Barbiers, F. Beukema, and W. van der Wurff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Adler, Hans-Peter 1976 Das Akkadische des Königs Tušratta von Mitanni. AOAT 201. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag. Aikenvald, Alexandra 2006 Evidentiality in Grammar. Pp. 320–25 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by K. Brown. 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier. Alster, Bendt 1996 Literary Aspects of Sumerian and Akkadian Proverbs. Pp. 1–21 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, edited by M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Cuneiform Monographs 6. Groningen: Styx. 1997 Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Anderson, Stephen R. 1985 Inflectional Morphology. Pp. 150–201 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III, edited by T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arkhipov, Ilya 2010 Les véhicules terrestres dans les textes de Mari, I: Le nubālum. Pp. 405–20 in Babel und Bibel 4, edited by L. Kogan et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Aro, Jussi 1955 Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. Studia Orientalia 22. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. Bar, Tali 2001 Expression of Temporality, Modality and Perfectivity in Contemporary Hebrew Conditionals as Compared with Non-Conditionals. WZKM 91: 49–83. 218

Bibliography

219

Baar, Tim van 1996 Particles. Pp. 259–301 in Complex Structures: A Functional Perspective, edited by B. Devriendt, L. Goossens, and J. van der Auwera. Functional Grammar 17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bertocchi, Alessandra, and Anna Orlandini 2001 L’expression de la possibilité épistémique en latin. Pp. 47–65 in Les verbes modaux dans les langues germaniques et Romenes, edited by P. Dendale and J. van der Auwera. Cahiers Chronos 8. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Bezold, Carl 1926 Babylonisch-assyrisches Glossar. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Bhatt, Rajesh 1997 Obligation and Possession. Pp. 21–40 in Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, edited by H. Harley. MITWPL 32. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Bravmann, Meir M. 1977 Syriac dalmā ‘Lest’, ’Perhaps’ and Some Related Arabic Phenomena. Pp. 322–37 in Studies in Semitic Philology, edited by M. Bravmann. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 6. Leiden: Brill. Buccellati, Giorgio 1972 On the Use of Akkadian Infinitive After “ša” or Construct State. JSS 17: 1–27. 1996 A Structural Grammar of Babylonian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Capone, Alessandro 2001 Modal Adverbs and Discourse: Two Essays. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. Chambon, Gregory 2009 Les archives du vin à Mari. FM 11. Paris: SEPOA. Charpin, Dominique 1986 Le Clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIX e–XVIII e siècles av. J.‑C.). Geneva: Libraire Droz. 1989 L’Akkadien des lettres d’Ilân-Ṣurâ. Pp. 31–40 in Reflets de deux fleuves: Volume de mèlanges offerts à André Finet, edited by M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Akkadica Supplementum 4. Leuven: Peeters. 1991 Un traité entre Zimri-lim de Mari et Ibâl-pî-el II d’Ešnunna. Pp. 139–66 in Mar­ chands, Diplomates et Empereurs: Etudes sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, edited by D. Charpin and F. Joannès. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1992 De la vallée du Tigre au “Triangle du Habur”: Un engrenge géopolitique. Pp. 97–102 in Recherches en haute Mésopotamie: Tell Mohammed Diyab Campagnes 1990 et 1991, edited by J.-M. Durand. Mémoires de NABU 2. Paris: SEPOA. 1993 Usages épistolaires des chancelleries d’Ešnunna, d’Ekallâtum et de Mari. NABU 1993/110. 1993–94 Compte rendu du CAD volume S (1984). AfO 40–41: 1–23. 2004a Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite (2002–1595). Pp. 5–484 in Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit, edited by P. Attinger, M. Wäfler, and W. Sallaberger. OBO 160/4. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg. 2004b Chroniques bibliographiques, 3: Données nouvelles sur la région du petit zab au XVIIIe siècle av. J.-C. RA 98: 151–78. Charpin, Dominique, and Jean-Marie Durand 1991 La suzeraineté de l’empereur (Sukkalmah) d’Elam sur la Mésopotamie et le ‘nationalisme’ amorrite. Pp. 59–66 in Mésopotamie et Élam: Actes de la XXXVIème Rencontre

220

Bibliography

Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, 10–14 juillet 1989, edited by L. De Meyer and H. Gasche. Mesopotamian History and Environment 1. Ghent: University of Ghent. 2002 “S’il y avait eu des porteurs, je t’aurais offert davantage . . .”: Échanges de présents entre dignitaires d’Alep et de Mari. Pp. 95–104 in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, edited by O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler, and H. Schaudig. AOAT 281. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Charpin, Dominique, and Nele Ziegler 2003 Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. FM 5. Paris: SEPOA. Chernykh, Pavel I. 1999 Istoriko-etimologicheskii slovarí sovremennogo russkogo iazyka: 13,560 slov. Moscow: Russkii iazyk. Christian, James B. 1969 Some Unpublished Old Babylonian Letters at the University of Chicago. M.A. thesis, the University of Chicago. Chung, Sandra, and Alan Timberlake 1985 Tense, Aspect, and Mood. Pp. 202–58 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, edited by T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Civil, Miguel 2000 Modal Prefixes. AS 22: 29–42. 2005 Late Babylonian Grammatical Texts. Pp. 244–47 in Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium b.c. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2, edited by I. Spar and W. G. Lambert. Turnhout: Brepols. Clarke, Jonathan E. M. 2005 Speech Report Constructions in Russian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 52: 367–81. Cohen, Eran 2005 The Modal System of Old Babylonian. HSS 56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cole, Steven W. 1996 Nippur, Volume 4: The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Dahl, Östen 2006 Future Tense and Future Time Reference. Pp. 704–6 in Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, edited by K. Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. Dalley, Stephanie 2001 Old Babylonian Tablets from Nineveh; and Possible Pieces of Early Gilgamesh Epic. Iraq 63: 155–67. Delitzsch, Friedrich 1889 Assyrische Grammatik mit Übungsstücken und kurzer Literatur-Übersicht. Porta Linguarum Orientalium 10/2. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Dercksen, Jan G. 2004 Old Assyrian utḫurum “characteristic, mark” and lū utḫurum “it surely was a sign.” NABU 2004/9. Deutscher, Guy 2000 Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dietrich, Manfried 1969 Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Neu-babylonischen, I: Die neubabylonischen Subjunktionen. Pp. 65–99 in lišān mitḫurti: Festschrift W. von Soden, edited by

Bibliography

221

W. Röllig. AOAT 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Dijk, Jan van 1972 Une variante du thème de ‘l’Esclave de la Lune’. Or. 41: 339–48. Dossin, Georges 1929–30 Sur deux passages de lettres de Larsa. Babyloniaca 11: 199–205. 1938a Les archives épistolaires du Palais de Mari. Syria 19: 105–26. 1938b Signaux lumineux au pays de Mari. RA 35: 174–86. 1956 Une lettre de Iarîm-Lim, roi d’Alep à Iašûb-Iaḫad, roi de Dîr. Syria 33: 63–69. 1970 La route de l’étain en Mésopotamie au temps de Zimri-lim. RA 64: 97–106. 1973 Une opposition familiale. Pp. 179–188 in La voix de l’opposition en Mésopotamie, edited by A. Finet. Bruxelles: Institut des Hautes Études. 1981 Secrets d’etat. . . . Akkadica 25: 1–7. Driver, Godfrey R., and John C. Miles 1952–55 The Babylonian Laws. Ancient Codes and Laws of the Near East. Oxford: Clarendon. Durand, Jean-Marie 1984 Trois études sur Mari. Annexe I: Remarques à propos de la langue de Kirû et d’autres femmes. MARI 3: 174–79. 1988 Les anciens de Talhayûm. RA 82: 97–113. 1990a Fourmis blanches et fourmis noires. Pp. 101–8 in Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran: Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, edited by F. Vallat. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations. 1990b La cité-état d’Imâr à l’époque des rois de Mari. MARI 6: 39–92. 1991 Précurseurs syriens aux protocoles néo-assyriens. Pp. 13–71 in Marchands, Di­plomates et Empereurs: Etudes sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, edited by D. Charpin and F. Joannès. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations. 1992a lû ittum. NABU 1992/35. 1992b Unité et diversité au Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite. Pp. 97–128 in La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idees dans le Proche-Orient ancien: Actes de la XXXVII  e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8—10 juillet 1991), edited by D. Charpin and F. Joannes. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations. 1994 Administrateurs de Qaṭṭunân. Pp. 83–114 in Recueil d’études a la mémoire de Maurice Birot, edited by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. FM 2. Paris: SEPOA. 1997 Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari I. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 16. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 1998 Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari II. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 17. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 2000 Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari III. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 18. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. 2002 Le Culte d’Addu d’Alep et l’affaire d’Alaḫtum. FM 7. Paris: SEPOA. 2009 AbB 4 124 = OECT 3 46:6′. NABU 2009/27. Edzard, Dietz O. 1970 Altbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden aus Tell ed-Der im Iraq Museum, Baghdad. Munich: Beck. 1973 Die Modi beim älteren akkadischen Verbum. Or. 42: 121–41. Eidem, Jesper, and Jørgen Laessøe 2001 The Shemshara Archives 1, The Letters. Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 23. Copenhagen: Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.

222

Bibliography

Ellis, Maria de J. 1972 Old Babylonian Economic Texts and Letters from Tell Harmal. JCS 24: 43–69. Falkenstein, Adam 1963 Brief König Anams an Sînmuballiṭ von Babylon. BagM 2: 56–71. Farber, Walter 1989 Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf! Mesopotamian Civlizations 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1996 qanuʾummi qanuʾum. NABU 1996/80. Finet, André 1954–57 Les médcins au royaume de Mari. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 14: 123–44. 1956 L’Accadien des lettres de Mari. Bruxelles: Palais des Académies. Foster, Benjamin R. 1993 Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Frankena, Rintje 1978 Kommentar zu den altbabylonischen Briefen aus Lagaba und anderen Orten. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East. Frayne, Douglas R. 1990 Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). RIME 4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1993 Sargonic and Gutian Periods. RIME 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Friedrich, Johannes 1960 Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Reprinted, 1974. Garde, Paul 1963 L’emploi du conditionnel et de la particule by en russe. Publication des Annales de la Faculté des lettres, N.S. 36. Aix-en-Provence: Ophrys. Gelb, Ignace J., and Burkhart Kienast 1990 Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. FAOS 7. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. George, Andrew R. 1993 Ninurta-Paqidat’s Dog Bite, and Notes on Other Comic Tales. Iraq 55: 73–74. 1999 The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007 The Civilizing of Ea-Enkidu: An Unusual Tablet of the Babylonian Gilgameš Epic. RA 101: 59–80. 2009 Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 10. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. George, Andrew R., and Farouk N. H. Al-Rawi 1998 Tablets from the Sippar Library VII. Three Wisdom Texts. Iraq 60: 187–227. Gerardi, Pamela 1989 Thus, He Spoke: Direct Speech in Esarhaddon’s Royal Inscriptions. ZA 79: 245–60. Goetze, Albrecht 1958 Fifty Old-Babylonian Letters from Harmal. Sumer 14: 3–78. Goldenberg, Gideon 1991 On Direct Speech and the Hebrew Bible. Pp. 79–96 in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Profesor J. Joftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre–van den Berg, and L. Van Rompay. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

223

Grevisse, Maurice 1980 Le bon usage: Grammaire française, avec des remarques sur la langue française d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Duculot. Groneberg, Brigitte R. M. 1987 Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabaylonischen “Hymnischen” Literatur. FAOS 14/1–2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 1997 Lob der Ištar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin, Tanatti Ištar. Cuneiform Monographs 8. Groningen: Styx. Guichard, Michaël 1997 Copie de la supplique bilingue suméro-akkadienne “Les malheurs d’un scribe” (texte no. 6). Pp. 75–80 in Recueil d’études a la mémoire de Marie-Thérèse Barrelet, edited by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. Paris: SEPOA. 2004 “La malédiction de cette tablette est très dure!” Sur l’ambassade d’Itûr-Asdû à Babylone en l’an 4 de Zimrî-lim. RA 98: 13–32. 2009 Šuduhum: un royaume d’Ida-Maraṣ et ses rois Yatâr-malik, Hammī-kūn et Amudpā-El. Pp. 75–120 in Entre les fleuves, I: Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie Obermesopotamiens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., edited by E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, N. Zieglier, and H. Kühne. BBVO 20. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Güterbock, Hans G. 1938 Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Geschichte bei Baby­loniern und Hethitern bis 1200 (2 Teil). ZA 42: 45–149. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hallo, William W., and William L. Moran 1979 The First Tablet of the SB Recension of the Anzu-Myth. JCS 31: 65–115. Hammond, Nicholas G. L., and Howard H. Scullard, eds. 1970 The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. Hava, Joseph G. 1964 Al-Faraid Arabic-English Dictionary. Beirut: Catholic University Press. Hecker, Karl 1968 Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte. AnOr 44. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. 1989 Der Ischtar-Hymnus des Ammiditana. Pp. 721–24 in Lieder und Gebete I, edited by W. H. P. Römer and K. Hecker. TUAT 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus 1994 Das akkadische Gilgamescsh-Epos. Pp. 646–744 in Mythen und Epen II, edited by K. Hecker, W. G. Lambert, G. G. W. Müller, W. von Soden, and A. Ünal. TUAT III/4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Heimpel, Wolfgang 2003 Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Mesopotamian Civilizations 12. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer 1991 Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Held, Moshe 1961 A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue. JCS 15: 1–26. Hoffner, Harry A. Jr., and Melchert, H. Craig 2008 A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Languages of the Ancient Near East 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

224

Bibliography

Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott 1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoye, Leo F. 2005a “You may think that, I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality Studies: Contemporary Research and Future Directions, Part I. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1295–1321. 2005b “You may think that, I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality Studies: Contemporary research and future directions, Part II. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1481–1506. Hru˚ša, Ivan. 2010 Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru: Eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar. AOAT 50. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Huehnergard, John 1986 On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. ZA 76: 218–49. 1997 A Grammar of Akkadian. HSS 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Hummel, Horace D. 1957 Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially Hebrew. JBL 76: 85–107. Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor 1994 Inu Anum Ṣīrum: Literary Structures in the Non-Juridical Sections of Codex Hammurabi. Philadelphia. Izre'el, Shlomo 1991 Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, With an Appendix on the History of Amurru by Itamar Singer. HSS 41–42. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Jacobsen, Thorkild 1946 Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article. JNES: 128–52. Jean, Charles-F. 1942–44 Lettres de Mari. RA 39: 63–82. Jensen, Peter 1890 Die Kosmologie der Babylonier. Strassburg: Trübner. 1924 Akkadisch mudû. ZA 35: 124–32. Jespersen, Otto 1924 The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. Joannès, Francis 2006 Haradum II: Les texts de las période paléo-babylonienne (Samsu-iluna–Ammiṣaduqa). Paris: Culturesfrance. Kaddari, Menahem Z. 1991 Wad’ay (bewad’ay). Pp. 93–109 in Post-Biblical Hebrew Syntax and Semantics, edited by M. Z. Kaddari. Studies in Diachronic Hebrew 1. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University. Khait, Ilya 2009 The Funerary Inscription at the Pushkin Museum, Moscow. NABU 2009/5. Kienast, Burkhart 1978 Die altbabylonischen Briefe und Urkunden aus Kisurra. FAOS 2. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Kienast, Burkhart, and Walter Sommerfeld 1994 Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königs­inschriften. FAOS 8. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Kienast, Burkhart, and Konrad Volk 1995 Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III Dynastie von Ur. FAOS 19. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner

Bibliography

225

Kouwenberg, Norbert J. C. 2010 The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. Languages of the Ancient Near East 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kraus, Fritz R. 1973 Ein altbabylonischen “i-Modus”? Pp. 253–65 in Symbolae biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae, edited by M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, and J. Ryckmans. Leiden: Brill. Kraus, Paul 1932 Altbabylonische Briefe aus der Vorderasiatischen Abteilung der preussischen Staatsmuseen zu Berlin. II Teil. MVAG 36. Krebernik, Manfred 1991 Schriftkunde aus Tell Biʾa 1990. MDOG 123: 41–70. 2003–4 Altbabylonische Hymnen an die Muttergöttin (HS 1884). AfO 50: 11–20. Krebernik, Manfred, and Michael P. Streck 2001 “šumma lā qabiʾāt ana balāṭim. . . . Wärst du nicht zum Leben Berufen. . .”: Der Irrealis im Altbabylonischen. Pp. 51–78 in Sachverhalt und Zeitbezug: Semitistische und alttestamentliche Studien Adolf Denz zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by R. Bartelmus and N. Nebes. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kupper, Jean-Robert 1992 Lettres “barbares” de Shemshâra. NABU 1992/105. Lacambre, Denis 1997 La bataille de Hirîtum. MARI 8: 431–54. Laessøe, Jørgen, and Thorkild Jacobsen 1990 Šikšabbum Again. JCS 42: 127–78. Lambert, Wilfred G. 1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. 1967 The Language of Mari. Pp. 29–38 in La civilisation de Mari: XV e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale organisée par le Groupe François Thureaud-Dangin, Liège, 4–8 juillet 1966, edited by J.-R. Kupper. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. 1987 A Further Attempt at the Babylonian “Man and his God.” Pp. 187–202 in Language, Literature and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, edited by F. Rochberg-Halton. AOS 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1989 A Babylonian Prayer to Anūna Pp. 321–36 in Dumu-é-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg edited by H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth. Philadelphia: University Museum. Lambert, Wilfred G., and Alan R. Millard 1969 Atra-ḫasîs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood with the Sumerian Flood Story by M. Civil. Oxford: Clarendon; reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Lämmerhirt, Kai 2010 Wahrheit und Trug: Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Begriffs­geschichte. AOAT 348. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Landsberger, Benno 1923 Review of A. Ungnad, Altbabylonische Briefe aus dem Museum zu Philadelphia, Sutttgart, 1920. OLZ 26: 71–74. 1936 Die babylonische Theodizee (akrostichisches Zweigespräch; sog. “Kohelet”). ZA 43: 32–76. 1956 Neobabylonian Grammatical Texts. MSL 4. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. 1964–66 Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen: Exkurs: ana ittišu. WO 3: 62–79.

226

Bibliography

Landsberger, Benno, and Thorkild Jakobsen 1955 An Old Babylonian Charm against Merḫu. JNES 14: 14–21. LAPO = Durand 1997, 1998, 2000 Larreya, Paul 2003 Irrealis, Past Time Reference and Modality. Pp. 21–45 in Modality in Contemporary English, edited by R. Facchinetti, M. Krug and F. Palmer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Larsen, Møgens T. 2002 The Aššur-nādā Archive. Old Assyrian Archives, Studies 1. Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East. Lehmann, Christian 1995 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1. Munich: Lincom Europa. Leong, Tien-Fock 1994 Tense, Mood and Aspect in Old Babylonian. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Leslau, Wolf 1987 Comparative Dictionary of Geʾez (Classical Ethiopic) : Geʾez-English, English-Geʾez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lewy, Julius 1960 Signification and Etymology of assurri and Related Terms. Or. 29: 29–38. Limet, Henri 1996 Le texte KAR 158. Pp. 151–58 in Collectanea Orientalia histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre, edited by H. Gasche and B. Hrouda. CPOA 3. Neuchâtel-Paris: Recherches et Publications. Lipiński, Edward 2001 Semitic Languages: Outline of A Comparative Grammar. Second Edition. Leuven: Peeters. Liverani, Mario 1995 The Deeds of Ancient Mesopotamian Kings. Pp. 2353–66 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribners. Livingstone, Alasdair 1988 “At the Cleaners” and Notes on Humorous Literature. Pp. 175–87 in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987, edited by G. Mauer and U. Magen. AOAT 220. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Livnat, Zohar 1999 Epistemic Modality as Materialized in Modern Hebrew. Pp. 345–54 in Studies in Ancient and Modern Hebrew in Honour of M. Z. Kaddari, edited by S. Sharvit. RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Loesov, Sergey 2004 T-Perfect in Old Babylonian: Current Debate and a Thesis. Babel und Bibel 1/5: 83– 181. Ludwig, Marie-Christine 1990 Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Išmedagan von Isin. SANTAG 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lyons, John 1996 Linguistic Semantics: an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matsui, Tomoko, Taeko Yamamoto, and Peter McCagg 2006 On the Role of Language in Children’s Early Understanding of Others as Epistemic Beings. Cognitive Development 21: 158–73.

Bibliography

227

Mayer, Werner R. 1989 Die Verwendung der Negation in Akkadischen zur Bildung von Indefinit- bzw. Totalitätsausdrücken. Or. 58: 145–70. 2005 Die altbabylonischesn Keilschrifttexte in der Sammlung des Päpstlichen Bibel­instituts. Or. 74: 317–51. Metzler, Kai A. 2002 Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. AOAT 279. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Michel, Cécile 2001 Correspondance des marchands de Kaniš au début du IIe millénaire avant J.-C. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 19. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. 2003 Old Assyrian Bibliography of Cuneiform Texts, Bullae, Seals and the Results of the Excavations at Aššur, Kültepe/Kaniš, Acemhöyük, Alişar and Boğazkoy. Old Assyrian Archives, Studies. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2004 Deux incantations paléo-assyriennes: Une nouvelle incantation pour faciliter la naissance. Pp. 395–420 in Assyria and Beyond. Studies Presented to Møgens Trølle Larsen, edited by J. G. Dercksen. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 2010 Deux Textes atypiques découverts à Kültepe. JCS 62: 71–80. Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan 2000 Semitic Etymological Dictionary, I: Anatmoy of Man and Animals. AOAT 278. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Miller, Cynthia L. 2006 Variation of Direct Speech Complementizers in Achaemenid Aramaic Documents from Fifth Century b.c.e. Egypt. Pp. 119–43 in Variation and Reconstruction, edited by T. D. Cravens. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mitchell, Terence F., and Shahir A. Al-Hassan 1994 Modality, Mood and Aspect in Spoken Arabic, With Special Reference to Egypt and the Levant. London: Kegan Paul. Moran, William L. 1984 Additions to the Amarna Lexicon. Or. 53: 297–302. 1988a Notes on Anzu. AfO 35: 24–29. 1988b Review of Stol, AbB 11. JAOS 108: 307–8. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Morier, Henri 1989 Dictionnaire de poétique et rhétorique (4e édition). Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Novick, Tzvi 2009 The Modality of ṣarîk in Tannatic Hebrew. JSS 54: 149–60. Nyrop, Kristoffer 1930 Grammaire historique de la langue française. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske boghandel. Palmer, Frank R. 1979 Modality and English Modals. Longman Linguistics Library 23. London: Longman. 1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001 Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003 Modality in English: Theoretical, Descriptive and Typological Issues. Pp. 1–17 in Modality in Contemporary English, edited by R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, and F. Palmer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

228

Bibliography

Papafragou, Anna 1998 The Acquisition of Modality: Implications for Theories of Semantic Representation. Mind & Language 13: 370–99. 2000 Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Parpola, Simo 1988 Proto-Assyrian. Pp. 293–98 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla, edited by H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann. HSAO 2. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Payne Smith, Robert, and Jessie Payne Smith 1903 A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon; reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Perminger, Alex, and Terry V. F. Brogan, eds. 1993 The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pientka-Hinz, Rosel 2007 Altbabylonische Briefe. Pp. 21–37 in Briefe edited by B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm. TUAT Neue Folge 3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Poebel, Arno 1947 The “Schachtelsatz” Construction of the Naram-Sin Text RA XVI, 157f. Pp. 23–42 in Miscellanious Studies, edited by A. Poebel. AS 14. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Preobrazhensky, Aleksandr G. 1951 Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language. New York: Columbia University Press. Quattara, Aboubakar 2001 Modalités et verbes modaux dans les écrits de Bernard Pottier. Pp. 1–16 in Les verbes modaux, edited by P. Dendale and J. Van der Auwera. Cahiers Chronos. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Rainey, Anson F. 1976 Enclitic -ma and the Logical Predicate in Old Babylonian. Israel Oriental Studies 6: 51–58. Reiner, Erica 1966 A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. Janua linguarum, Series practica 21. The Hague: Mouton. 2002 An Adventure of Great Dimension : The Launching of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 92/3. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. Reisner, George A. 1894 The Berlin Vocabulary V.A.Th. 244. ZA 9: 149–64. Römer, Willem H. Ph. 1967 Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-episch Texten. Pp. 185–99 in Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient: Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966, edited by D. O. Edzard. Heildelberger Studien zum alten Orient 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rowton, Michael B. 1967 Watercourses and Water Rights in the Official Correspondence from Larsa and Isin. JCS 21: 267–74. Rubin, Aaron D. 2005 Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. HSS 57. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bibliography

229

Rubio, Gonzalo 2007 Sumerian Morphology. Pp. 1327–79 in Morphologies of Asia and Africa, edited by A. S. Kaye. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Sallaberger, Walther 1999 “Wenn Du mein Bruder bist . . .” Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen. Cuneiform Monographs 16. Groningen: Styx. Sanders, Jose, and Wilbert Spooren 1997 Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View. Pp. 85–112 in Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by L. WolfAndreas, G. Redeker and L. Waugh. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sasson, Jack M. 1985 Yarim-Lim’s War Declaration. Pp. 237–55 in Miscellanea Babyloniaca: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, edited by J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations. 1988 Shunukhra-khalu. Pp. 329–51 in A Scientific Humanist: Abraham Sachs Memorial Volume, edited by E. Leichty, M. deJ. Ellis, and P. Gerardi. Philadelphia: The University Museum. 2001 On Reading the Diplomatic Letters in the Mari Archives. Pp. 329–37 in Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites: dix ans de travaux, edited by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. Amurru 2. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations. 2002 The Burden of Scribes. Pp. 211–28 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, edited by T. Abusch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Semeonoff, Anna 1962 Russian Syntax: Being Part III of a New Russian Grammar. London: Dent / New York: Dutton. Semino, Elena. 2006 Possible Worlds: Stylistic Applications. Pp. 777–82 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by K. Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. Shlomper, Genady 2002 Modality in Hindi. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University. 2005 Modality in Hindi. Munich: Lincom. Sigrist, Marcel 1987 On the Bite of a Dog. Pp. 85–88 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, edited by J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters. Smith, Carlota S. 2003 Modes of Discourse: The Local Structure of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Soden, Wolfram von 1933 Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen (II). ZA 41: 90–183. 1949 Zum akkadischen Wörterbuch 31–40: “Vielleicht” im Akkadischen. Or. 18: 385–91. 1950 Ein Zwiegespräch Hammurabis mit einer Frau ZA 49: 159–94. 1952 Zu den Amarnabriefen aus Babylon und Assur. Or. 21: 426–34. 1961 Review of H. H. Figulla, CT 42. BiOr 18: 71–73. 1971 Der grosse Hymnus an Nabu. ZA 61: 44–71. Soldt, Wilfred H. van 1992 A Note on Old-Babylonian lū ittum “Let Me Remind You.” ZA 82: 30–38.

230

Bibliography

Sommerfeld, Walter 2000 Narâm-Sîn, die “Grosse Revolte” und MAR.TUki. Pp. 419–36 in Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anlässlich seines 65. Geburts­tages am 18. Februar 1997, edited by J. Marzahn and H. Neumann. AOAT 252. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Sonnek, Franz 1940 Die Einführung der direkten Rede in den epischen Texten. ZA 46: 226–35. Speiser, Ephraim A. 1947 A Note on the Derivation of šumma. JCS 1: 321–28. Stamm, Johann J. 1939 Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAG 44. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Stevens, Christopher M. 1992 Grammaticalization in Spatial Deixis: A Case Study. Pp. 299–313 in On Germanic Linguistics Issues and Methods, edited by I. Rauch, G. F. Carr, and R. L. Kyes. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 68. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter Stol, Marten 2002 Review of J. Eidem and J. Laessøe, The Shemshara Archives 1, The Letters (2001). BiOr 59: 108–10. Streck, Michael P. 1995 Zahl und Zeit, Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen. Cuneiform Monographs 5. Groningen: Styx Publication. Thureau-Dangin, François 1925 Un Hymne à Ištar de la haute époque babylonienne. RA 22: 169–77. 1934 Encore une fois la tablette de Strasbourg no. 11. RA 31: 70. 1935 Deux proverbs babyloniens. AnOr 12: 307–11. 1943 Le terme šipṭum dans les lettres de Mâri. Or. 12: 110–12. Tournay, Raymond J., and Aaron Shaffer 1994 L’épopée de Gilgamesh. Littérature anciennes du Proche-Orient 15. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Ullmann, Manfred 1984 Arabisch ʾasā “vielleicht”: Syntax und Wortart. Beiträge zur Lexi­kographie des Klassischen Arabisch Nr. 5. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophischhistorische Klasse, Sitzungsberichete 1984, 4. Munich: Beck. Ultan, Rüssel 1978 The Nature of Future Tenses. Pp. 83–123 in Universals of Human Language edited by J. H. Greenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ungnad, Arthur 1922 Zwei neue Veröffentlichungen der Yale-Universität. ZA 34: 15–23. 1928 Das Chicagoer Vokabular. ZA 38: 65–79. Ungnad, Arthur, and Lubor Matouš 1964 Grammatik des Akkadischen. Munich: Beck. Veenhof, Klaas R. 1982 Observations on Some Letters from Mari (ARM 2,124; 10, 4; 43; 84; 114) with a Note on tillatum. RA 76: 119–140. 1986 Two Akkadian Auxiliaries: leʾûm “to be able” and muʾâʾum “to want.” Pp. 235–251 in Scripta Signa Vocis, edited by H. L. J. Vanstiphout, K. Jongeling, F. Leemhuis, and G. J. Reinink. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. 1996 An Old Assyrian Incantation Against a Black Dog (kt a/k 611). WZKM 86: 425–34.

Bibliography

231

Veenhof, Klaas R., and Jesper Eidem 2008 Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period. OBO 160/5. Fribourg: Academic Press-Fribourg. Verschueren, Jef 1999 Understanding Pragmatics. Understanding Language. London: Arnold Villard, Pierre 2001 Les administrateurs de l’époque de Yasmaḫ-Addu. Pp. 9–140 in Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites: dix ans de travaux, edited by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. Amurru 2. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations. Vogelzang, Marianna E. 1988 Bin šar dadmē: Edition and Analysis of the Akkadian Anzu Poem. Groningen: Styx. 1990 Patterns Introducing Direct Speech in Akkadian Literary Texts. JCS 42: 50–70. Voigt, Rainer M. 1995 Akkadisch šumma ‘wenn’ und die Konditionalpartikeln des Westsemitischen. Pp.  17– 28 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherr von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19 Juni 1993, edited by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Waetzoldt, Hartmut 1990 Zu einer Schülertafel aus Mari. NABU 1990/97. Wasserman, Nathan 1994 The Particle assurre/ē in the Mari Letters. Pp. 319–35 in Recueil d’études a la mémoire de Maurice Birot, edited by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. FM 2. Paris: SEPOA. 2001 Review of W. Sallaberger, “Wenn Du mein Bruder bist, . . . ” Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen. Cuneiform Monographs 16. Groningen: Styx, 1999. BiOr 58: 637–39. 2002 The Modal Particle tuša in Old-Babylonian: A Syntactic and Semantic Synopsis. NABU 2002/47. 2003 Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. Cuneiform Monographs 27. Leiden: Brill. 2006 The Modal Particle tuša in Old-Babylonian. Pp. 149–68 in Egyptian, Semitic and General Grammar: Workshop in Memory of H. J. Polotsky (8–12 July 2001), edited by G. Goldenberg and A. Shisha-Halevy. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Watson, Wilfried G. E. 2005 The Prostration Formula Once Again. NABU 2005/16. Wehr, Hans, and J. Milton Cowan 1980 A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Arabic-English). Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick 1997 Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts. Mesopotamian Civilizations 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Whiting, Robert M. 1985 An Old Babylonian Incantation from Tell-Asmar. ZA 75: 179–87. 1987 Old-Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar. AS 22. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilcke, Claus 1968 Das modale Adverb i-gi4-in-zu im Sumerischen. JNES 27: 229–42. Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1949 On Certainty. Edited by Gertrude E. M. Anscombe, and Georg H. von Wright. Reprinted, Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.

232

Bibliography

Worthington, Martin 2006 Clause Grouping in Neo-Assyrian on the Evidence of the Direct Speech Marker mā. Or. 75: 334–58. Wright, William 1874 A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted, 1967. Ylvisaker, Sigurd C. 1912 Zur babylonischen und assyrischen Grammatik: Eine Untersuchung auf Grund der Briefe aus der Sargonidenzeit. LSS 5/6. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR. Ziegler, Nele 1999a A Questionable Daughter-in-Law. JCS 51: 55–58. 1999b Le harem de Zimrî-Lîm. FM 4. Paris: SEPOA. 2001 Zwei Söhne Samsi-Addus. Pp. 493–505 in Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm, edited by K. van Ler­ berghe and G. Voet. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 96. Leuven: Peeters. 2004 Samsî-Addu et la combine sutéenne. Pp. 95–109 in Nomades et sédentaires dans lee Proche-Orient ancien: Compte rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 10–13 juillet 2000), edited by C. Nicolle. Amurru 3. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations. 2006 Briefe aus Mari. Pp. 38–76 in Briefe, edited by B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm. TUAT Neue Folge 3. Gü­ters­loh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Zimmern, Heinrich 1894 Zu ass. mindêma, aram. mindaʾam, meddem. ZA 9: 104–11. 1907 Sumerisch-babylonische Tamuzlieder. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königl.Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 59: 202–52. Zuckermann, Ghilad 2006 Direct and Indirect Speech in Straight-Talking Israeli. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53: 467–81.

List of Texts Cited in the Study (with the MP indicated)

Passages fully cited and translated are marked by * AbB 1, 6: 16 (kīša) AbB 1, 27: 6–9 (Pientka-Hinz 2007: 30 (10.2)) (-mi)* AbB 1, 37: 8–10 (midde) (midde)* AbB 1, 39: 6–15 (midde) (midde)* AbB 1, 46: 8–9 (kīma ša)* AbB 1, 51: 23–36 ( pīqat)* AbB 1, 53: 23–26 (kīma ša)* AbB 1, 68: 4–9 ( pīqat)* AbB 1, 71: 18–24 ( pīqat)* AbB 1, 119: 11′–17′ (midde)* AbB 1, 121: 3′–6′ ( pīqat) AbB 1, 122: 4–18 (kīša)* AbB 1, 135: 25–27 ( pīqat)* AbB 1, 135: 6–12 ( pīqat)* AbB 1, 135: 6–7 (midde) AbB 1, 139: 6′–10′ ( pīqat) AbB 2, 108: 4–12 (kīša)* AbB 3, 11: 46–49 (midde)* AbB 3, 33: 9–12 (-man)* AbB 3, 39: 12–17 ( pīqat) AbB 3, 41: 5–11 (midde) AbB 3, 53: 19–24 ( pīqat) AbB 4, 49: 5–13 ( pīqat) AbB 4, 50: 7–10 ( pīqat) AbB 4, 150: 25–38 ( pīqat) AbB 4, 152: 14–21 ( pīqat) AbB 5, 76: 4–3′ (tuša) AbB 5, 157: 1′–15′ (-man) AbB 5, 232: 23–27 (-man)* AbB 6, 63: 5–7′ (kīša)* AbB 6, 125: 16–25 ( pīqat)* AbB 6, 129: 15–20 (midde) AbB 6, 162: 12–15 (midde) AbB 6, 194: 22–26 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 68 (54)) (tuša)* AbB 6, 194: 25–26 (tuša)* AbB 6, 188: 39′–40′ (-man) AbB 7, 8: 5′–12′ (-mi) AbB 7, 42: 13–20 ( pīqat) AbB 7, 60: 11–16 (tuša) AbB 7, 60: 5–10 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 69 (55)) (tuša) AbB 8, 99: 12–13 (midde) AbB 8, 109: 33–39 ( pīqat)* AbB 8, 109: 9–10 (midde) AbB 9, 31: 10–22 ( pīqat)

AbB 9, 39: 6–21 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 69 (56)) (tuša)* AbB 9, 41: 24–32 (-man) AbB 9, 61: 6–24 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 69 (57)) (tuša)* AbB 9, 63: 8–19 (kīša)* AbB 9, 78: 20–23 ( pīqat)* AbB 9, 83: 15–24 (midde) AbB 9, 145:13–17 ( pīqat) AbB 9, 148: 20–23 (kīma ša)* AbB 9, 150: 5–9 ( pīqat)* AbB 9, 184: 18–25 (kīša)* AbB 9, 240: 21–30 (-man, lū)* AbB 9, 255: 4–15 (-man) AbB 10, 5: 8–22 (-man)* AbB 10, 56: 21–25 ( pīqat) AbB 10, 57: 6–28 (-mi) AbB 10, 103: 3′–8′ ( pīqat) AbB 10, 15: 25–32 (midde)* AbB 10, 16: 16–18 (midde)* AbB 10, 166: 6–12 (midde)* AbB 10, 169: 6–8 (-man) AbB 10, 170: 17–20 (midde) AbB 10, 190: 11–31 (-mi) AbB 11, 17: 4–14 (-man)* AbB 11, 84: 11–17 (midde)* AbB 11, 156: 11–17 (assurrē  ) AbB 11, 172: 6–17 (-mi) AbB 11, 187: 8–28 (kīma ša)* AbB 12, 13: 6–18 ( pīqat) AbB 12, 38: 26–27 (midde) AbB 12, 63: 18–21 (midde) AbB 12, 63: 22–27 (midde) AbB 12, 78: 18–26 (midde)* AbB 12, 113: 17–21 (midde) AbB 12, 145: 31–33 (midde) AbB 12, 160: 1–15 (lū ittum)* AbB 12, 195: 9–18 (lū ittum) AbB 13, 6: 26–27 (-man) AbB 13, 124: 33′–34′ (midde) AbB 13, 136: 11–15 (lū ittum) AbB 14, 37: 9–12 ( pīqat) AbB 14, 58: 5–10 (-man) AbB 14, 59: 18–24 (-man) AbB 14, 61: 4–8 (-man) AbB 14, 63: 4–11 (wuddi  )*

233

234 AbB 14, 63: 4–11 (wuddi  )* AbB 14, 63: 8–19 (assurrē  )* AbB 14, 67: 5–15 (-lū)* AbB 14, 70: 18–21 (midde) AbB 14, 110: 36–40 ( pīqat) AbB 14, 112: 36–42 ( pīqat)* AbB 14, 114: 24–29 ( pīqat) AbB 14, 125: 18–20 (kīma ša)* AbB 14, 140: 5–11 (lū)* AbB 14, 145: 8–25 ( pīqat)* AbB 14, 154: 4–12 (ibašši)* AbB 14, 164: 25–33 ( pīqat) AbB 14, 166: 22–29 (assurrē  ) AbB 14, 182: 8–15 (kīša)* AbB 14, 186: 17–24 ( pīqat) AbB 14, 190: 10–11 (kīma) AbB 14, 190: 6–18 (-man) AbB 14, 204: 13–21 (-man) AbB 14, 205: 19–21 (-šumma lā)* AbB 14, 217: 5–19 (-mi) AbB 14, 217: 20–30 (-mi) ABIM 22: 25–30 ( pīqat) ABIM 26: 20–23 (wuddi  )* ABIM 4: 11–13 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 67, n. 88) (tuša) Arkhipov 2010: 412:15–18 (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 1: 10′–12′ (LAPO 16, 305) ( pīqat)* ARM 1, 2: 11′–13′ (LAPO 16, 306) ( pīqat) ARM 1, 2: 8′–13′ (LAPO 16, 306) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 5: 4–16 (LAPO 17, 517) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 8: 5–10 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 69 (58)) (tuša)* ARM 1, 10: 10 (LAPO 17, 475) (wuddi  ) ARM 1, 14: 19–22 (LAPO 16, 17) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 21: 5–15 (LAPO 16, 418; Krebernik and Streck 2001: 68, (52)) (tuša)* ARM 1, 22: 16–20 (LAPO 17, 476) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 22: 4–9 (LAPO 17, 476) (wuddi  )* ARM 1, 22: 9–11 (LAPO 17, 476) (wuddi  )* ARM 1, 29: 17 (LAPO 17, 474) (wuddi  ) ARM 1, 32: 7–20 (LAPO 17, 750) ( pīqat)* ARM 1, 33: 14–24 (LAPO 17, 624) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 39: 10′–15′ (LAPO 17, 471) (wuddi  )* ARM 1, 39: 4–14 (LAPO 17, 471) (assurrē  )* ARM 1, 52: 36–41 (LAPO 16, 1) (wuddi  ) (anna)* ARM 1, 62: 5′–14′ (LAPO 17, 639; Krebernik and Streck 2001: 69 (59)) (tuša)* ARM 1, 72: 4–5 (LAPO 16, 403) (wuddi  )* ARM 1, 73: 14–23 (LAPO 16, 29; Krebernik and Streck 2001: 70 (60)) (tuša)* ARM 1, 73: 14–23 (tuša)* ARM 1, 75: 27–30 (LAPO 17, 658) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 83: 15–22 (LAPO 16, 255) (wuddi  ) ARM 1, 90: 15–26 (LAPO 17, 497) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 91: 12 (LAPO 16, 321) (wuddi  ) ARM 1, 102: 9–11 (LAPO 18, 907) (wuddi  ) ARM 1, 103: 8–14 (LAPO 17, 469) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 106: 7–8 (LAPO 17, 627) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 109: 44–55 (LAPO 16, 70) (assurrē  )

List of Texts Cited in the Study ARM 1, 112: 5–11 (LAPO 16, 204) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 118: 20′–30′ (LAPO 16, 48) (assurrē  ) ARM 1, 118: 4–14 (LAPO 16, 48) (-mi)* ARM 2, 6: 5–16 (LAPO 18, 1003; Krebernik and Streck 2001: 70 (61)) (tuša)* ARM 2, 13: 8–11 (LAPO 17, 457) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 15: 30–36 (LAPO 16, 61) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 21: 1′–7′ (LAPO 16, 350) ( pīqat) ARM 2, 21: 23–28 (LAPO 16, 350; Heimpel 2003: 472–473) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 23: 10′–16′ (LAPO 17, 590) ( pīqat) ARM 2, 25: 7′–13′ (LAPO 17, 587; Heimpel 2003: 477) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 27: 9–11 (LAPO 17, 687) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 29: 12–14 (LAPO 16, 288) (wuddi  )* ARM 2, 30+: 1′–5′ (LAPO 17, 581; Heimpel 2003: 478–479) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 33: 11′–16′ (LAPO 17, 583; Heimpel 2003: 479–480) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 34: 26–31 (LAPO 17, 582) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 40: 4–18 (LAPO 17, 602) ( pīqat) ARM 2, 49: 11–12 (LAPO 16, 309) ( pīqat) ARM 2, 49: 5′–10′ (LAPO 16, 309; Heimpel 2003: 480) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 66: 5–13 (LAPO 18, 1251) ( pīqat) ARM 2, 69: 4′–10′ (LAPO 16, 412) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 87: 23–34 (LAPO 16, 163) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 106: 15–23 (LAPO 16, 214) (assurrē  ) ARM 2, 117: 4–15 (LAPO 18, 1187) (-man) ARM 2, 121: 9–12 (LAPO 16, 434) ( pīqat) ARM 2, 126: 13–20 (LAPO 18, 1079) (assurrē  ) ARM 3, 3: 4–17 (LAPO 17, 798) (assurrē  ) ARM 3, 11: 7–31 (LAPO 16, 161) (assurrē  ) ARM 3, 15: 9–20 (LAPO 17, 726) (assurrē  ) ARM 3, 18: 5–27 (LAPO 18, 1060) (assurrē  ) ARM 3, 64: 9–16 (LAPO 16, 175; Krebernik and Streck 2001: 70 (62)) (tuša)* ARM 3, 70+: 17–19 (LAPO 16, 75) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 15: 5–13 (LAPO 18, 1288) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 21: 5–17 (LAPO 17, 493) (wuddi  )* ARM 4, 26: 4–8 (LAPO 17, 534) (wuddi  )* ARM 4, 27: 18–24 (LAPO 16, 32) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 27: 29–37 (LAPO 16, 32) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 28: 10–14 (kī ša)* ARM 4, 28: 21–25 (kī ša)* ARM 4, 31: 5–22 (LAPO 17, 32) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 43: 2′–11′ (LAPO 17, 609) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 54: 8–14 (LAPO 18, 952) ( pīqat)* ARM 4, 59: 5–12 (LAPO 18, 962) (wuddi  )* ARM 4, 60: 5–13 (LAPO 18, 914) ( pīqat)* ARM 4, 62: 3′–10′ (LAPO 17, 770) (wuddi  )* ARM 4, 72: 6–12 (LAPO 18, 1282) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 78: 12′–14′ (LAPO 17, 507) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 86: 52–54 (LAPO 17, 772) ( pīqat) ARM 4, 88: 20–26 (LAPO 17, 540) (assurrē  ) ARM 4, 88: 5–10 (LAPO 17, 540) (wuddi  )* ARM 4, 88: 8–19 (LAPO 17, 540) (assurrē  ) ARM 5, 9: 5–19 (LAPO 18, 915) (-mi) ARM 5, 9: 5–27 (ibašši)*

List of Texts Cited in the Study ARM 5, 20: 14–17 (LAPO 16, 256) (-man) ARM 5, 20: 29–35 (LAPO 16, 256) (-man) ARM 5, 25: 5–18 (LAPO 18, 986) (assurrē  ) ARM 5, 52: 5–12 (LAPO 17, 669) (assurrē  ) ARM 5, 53: 6–14 (LAPO 16, 261) ( pīqat) ARM 5, 59: 1–21 (LAPO 17, 535) (-mi)* ARM 5, 67: 14–26 (LAPO 17, 852) (assurrē  ) ARM 5, 81: 8–19 (LAPO 17, 723) (assurrē  ) ARM 5, 85: 9–16 (LAPO 17, 765 (assurrē  ) ARM 6, 18: 9′–17′ (LAPO 16, 319; Heimpel 2003: 483–484) (assurrē  ) ARM 6, 23: 6–12 (LAPO 17, 851) (assurrē  ) ARM 6, 30: 7 -10 (LAPO 17, 565) ( pīqat) ARM 6, 50: 5–6 (LAPO 17, 618) (assurrē  ) ARM 6, 56: 23–25 (LAPO 16, 67) (assurrē  ) ARM 6, 62: 31–35 (LAPO 16, 360; Heimpel 2003: 488–489) (assurrē  ) ARM 6, 76: 5–14 (LAPO 17, 732) (lū ittum)* ARM 10, 3: 17–20 (LAPO 18, 1194) (assurrē  ) ARM 10, 20: 13–19 (-man)* ARM 10, 27: 27–29 (LAPO 18, 1136) (-man) ARM 10, 31: 5–11 (LAPO 18, 1223) (lū ittum)* ARM 10, 73: 6–17 (LAPO 18, 1249) (assurrē  ) ARM 10, 74: 10–37 (LAPO 18, 1242) (-man)* ARM 10, 92: 9–14 (LAPO 18, 1211) (-man)* ARM 10, 97: 10–20 (LAPO 18, 1215) (assurrē  ) ARM 10, 97: 23–27 (LAPO 18, 1215) (assurrē  ) ARM 10, 117: 4–8 (LAPO 18, 1011) (lū ittum) ARM 10, 123: 4–9 (LAPO 18, 1169) (assurrē  ) ARM 10, 129: 1–20 (LAPO 18, 1164) (-mi)* ARM 10, 141: 20–30 (LAPO 18, 1256) (lū ittum)* ARM 10, 152: 10′–12′ (LAPO 18, 1174) (midde) ARM 10, 156: 12–30 (LAPO 18, 1134) ( pīqat)* ARM 13, 9: 19–30 (LAPO 16, 104) (assurrē  ) ARM 13, 25: 5–16 (LAPO 18, 970) ( pīqat)* ARM 13, 36: 9–16 (LAPO 16, 242) (assurrē  ) ARM 13, 104: 1′–5′ (LAPO 17, 725) (assurrē  ) ARM 13, 141: 5–28 (LAPO 18, 1026) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 1: 17–25 (LAPO 16, 215) (-mi) ARM 14, 1: 4–24 (LAPO 16, 215) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 5: 14–19 (LAPO 18, 972) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 5: 20–25 (LAPO 18, 972) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 5: 5–13 (LAPO 18, 972) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 6: 5–29 (LAPO 19, 973) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 14: 5–25 (LAPO 18, 802) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 18: 5–32 (LAPO 17, 808) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 29: 22–28 (LAPO 18, 998) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 51: 28–41 (LAPO 18, 1054) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 70: 13′–18′ (LAPO 17, 698) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 77: 21–25 (LAPO 17, 928) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 78: 4–13 (LAPO 17, 929) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 80: 4–20 (LAPO 17, 742) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 81: 9–17 (LAPO 17, 752) (assurrē  ) ARM 14, 83: 14–19 (LAPO 17, 568) (-man) ARM 14, 112: 24–30 (LAPO 17, 720) (midde) ARM 14, 127: 5–23 (LAPO 16, 430) (assurrē  ) ARM 18, 1: 5–24 (LAPO 16, 109) (assurrē  ) ARM 18, 5: 10–19 (LAPO 17, 666) ( pīqat) ARM 18, 7: 11–19 (LAPO 18, 909) ( pīqat)

235 ARM 18, 8: 4–6 (LAPO 16, 111) (wuddi  )* ARM 26/1, 10: 5–11 (Heimpel 2003: 181) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 12: 5′–15′ (Heimpel 2003: 182) (-mi) ARM 26/1, 13: 8 (Heimpel 2003: 182–183) (-mi) ARM 26/1, 14: 10–15 (Heimpel 2003: 183–184) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 16: 4–15 (Heimpel 2003: 184) (-mi) ARM 26/1, 17: 20–26 (Heimpel 2003: 184–185) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 18: 42–46 (Heimpel 2003: 185–187) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 21: 16′–23′ (Heimpel 2003: 187–188) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 28: 5–12 (-man) ARM 26/1, 37: 10′–20′ (Heimpel 2003: 195–196) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 37: 12–16 (-man) ARM 26/1, 37: 20′–27′ (-man) ARM 26/1, 45: 3–12 (Heimpel 2003: 200) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 57: 5–11 (-man)* ARM 26/1, 66: 1′–4′ (-man) ARM 26/1, 68: 6–8 (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 76: 17–35 (Heimpel 2003: 207) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 78: 10–13 (Heimpel 2003: 208) ( pīqat) ARM 26/1, 80: 4′–7′ (Heimpel 2003: 208) ( pīqat) ARM 26/1, 84: 8–18 (Heimpel 2003: 209) ( pīqat) ARM 26/1, 121: 18–21 (Heimpel 2003: 222–223) ( pīqat) ARM 26/1, 140: 1–40 (Heimpel 2003: 229) (-mi) ARM 26/1, 148: 5′–14′ (Heimpel 2003: 232) ( pīqat) ARM 26/1, 170: 2′–8′ (-man) ARM 26/1, 189: 18′–23′ (-man)* ARM 26/1, 199: 24–28 (Heimpel 2003: 252–254) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 199: 29–34 (Heimpel 2003: 252–254) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 206: 5–12 (Heimpel 2003: 256) (wuddi  )* ARM 26/1, 207: 35–39 (LAPO 18, 1144; Heimpel 2003: 257–258) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 222: 16–25 (LAPO 18, 1220; Heimpel 2003: 263) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 225: 6–12 (Heimpel 2003: 264) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 233: 24–31 (-man)* ARM 26/1, 242: 6–14 (Heimpel 2003: 269) ( pīqat)* ARM 26/1, 247: 5–20 (Heimpel 2003: 271) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 275: 5–18 (Heimpel 2003: 281) (-mi)* ARM 26/1, 275: 7–24 (Heimpel 2003: 281) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, 283: 13′–19′ (Heimpel 2003: 283) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (1): 13–21 (lū ittum) ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (1): 14–19 (kīma ša)* ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (2) : 6–11 (assurrē  ) ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (2): 6–17 (lū ittum)* ARM 26/1, p. 384, No. (3): 4–6 (lū ittum) ARM 26/1, p. 42: 7′–11′ ( pīqat) ARM 26/2, 292: 15–24 (Heimpel 2003: 286) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 298: 29–38 (Ziegler 2006: 72 (6.5) (-man) ARM 26/2, 298: 29–39 (Heimpel 2003: 288; Ziegler 2007: 72 (6.5)) (tuša)* ARM 26/2, 302: 9–15 (Heimpel 2003: 289–290) ( pīqat)* ARM 26/2, 303: 7′–17′ (Heimpel 2003: 290) (-mi)*

236 ARM 26/2, 304: 37–46 (Heimpel 2003: 291–292) (-mi) ARM 26/2, 311: 23–28 (LAPO 17, 554; Heimpel 2003: 295) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 313: 27–31 (-man) ARM 26/2, 315: 53–58 (Heimpel 2003: 298–299) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 315: 64–67 (Heimpel 2003: 298–299) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 318: 26–32 (Heimpel 2003: 300) (assurrē  )* ARM 26/2, 319: 11–16 (Heimpel 2003: 300) (assurrē  )* ARM 26/2, 323: 3–5 (Heimpel 2003: 302) (tuša) ARM 26/2, 328: 26–29 (Heimpel 2003: 304–305) ( pīqat) ARM 26/2, 329: 57′–65′ (-man) ARM 26/2, 354: 12–20 (LAPO 17, 551; Heimpel 2003: 313) ( pīqat) ARM 26/2, 357: 14–18 (Heimpel 2003: 314–316) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 358: 8′–12′ (Heimpel 2003: 316) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 380: 10′–16′ (Heimpel 2003: 329–330) (wuddi  )* ARM 26/2, 380: 5–12 (Heimpel 2003: 329–330) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 388: 19–27 (Heimpel 2003: 335) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 390: 1′′–7′′ (-man) ARM 26/2, 391: 15–18 (Heimpel 2003: 337) (midde)* ARM 26/2, 393: 6–10 (Heimpel 2003: 339) (midde)* ARM 26/2, 402: 25–32 (Heimpel 2003: 343) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 404: 52–55 (Heimpel 2003: 343–346) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 404: 56–59 (Heimpel 2003: 343–346) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 407: 8–11 (Heimpel 2003: 348) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 408: 55–59 (Heimpel 2003: 348–349) ( pīqat) ARM 26/2, 411: 39–42 (-man) ARM 26/2, 411: 62–67 (LAPO 17, 594; Heimpel 2003: 352–353) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 412: 22–24 (-man)* ARM 26/2, 412: 59–65 (-man)* ARM 26/2, 416: 3–11 (Heimpel 2003: 356–357) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 418: 10–14 (Heimpel 2003: 358) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 419: 8–13 (Heimpel 2003: 358–359) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 420: 23–28 (Heimpel 2003: 359) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 426: 6–10 (Heimpel 2003: 362) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 436: 43–45 (Heimpel 2003: 368) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 449: 37–44 (Heimpel 2003: 373) (wuddi  )* ARM 26/2, 449: 37–45 (-man) ARM 26/2, 450: 5–16 (Heimpel 2003: 374) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 464: 28 (Heimpel 2003: 379) (wuddi  ) ARM 26/2, 468: 20′–24′ (-man) ARM 26/2, 469: 10–15 (-man)* ARM 26/2, 469: 27–35 (Heimpel 2003: 380–381) ( pīqat) ARM 26/2, 469: 27–40 (LAPO 16, 287; Heimpel 2003: 380–381) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 475: 6–18 (Heimpel 2003: 382–383) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 480: 4–21 (Heimpel 2003: 384) (assurrē  )

List of Texts Cited in the Study ARM 26/2, 483: 35–39 (Heimpel 2003: 385) ( pīqat) ARM 26/2, 489: 41–44 (Heimpel 2003: 387) ( pīqat) ARM 26/2, 491: 34–37 (Heimpel 2003: 388–389) ( pīqat)* ARM 26/2, 502: 15–28 (LAPO 18, 1179; Heimpel 2003: 392–393) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 511: 12–15 (Heimpel 2003: 395) (midde) ARM 26/2, 511: 3–8 (lū ittum)* ARM 26/2, 515: 4–9 (Heimpel 2003: 397) (midde) ARM 26/2, 521: 14–20 (Heimpel 2003: 400) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 522: 10′–13′ (Heimpel 2003: 401) (midde) ARM 26/2, 533: 2′–8′ (Heimpel 2003: 406) (assurrē  ) ARM 26/2, 541: 5–9 (-man) ARM 26/2, 548: 2′–10′ (Heimpel 2003: 410) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 25: 10–18 (Heimpel 2003: 419–420) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 27: 26–35 (Heimpel 2003: 420–421) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 44: 19–22 (Heimpel 2003: 426) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 54: 6–18 (Heimpel 2003: 429) ( pīqat)* ARM 27, 57: 9–13 (Heimpel 2003: 429–430) ( pīqat) ARM 27, 76: 21–26 (LAPO 16, 240; Heimpel 2003: 437) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 77: 6–8 ( pīqat) ARM 27, 84: 5–20 (Heimpel 2003: 439–440) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 99: 17–28 (Heimpel 2003: 442–443) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 112: 29–32 (Heimpel 2003: 449) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 115: 13–26 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 68 (53)) (tuša)* ARM 27, 116: 28–30 (Heimpel 2003: 450–451) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 116: 33–36 (Heimpel 2003: 450–451) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 116: 37–40 (= FM 2, p. 329, No. 41; Heimpel 2003: 450–451) (assurrē  )* ARM 27, 116: 44–46 (Heimpel 2003: 450–451) (assurrē  ) ARM 27, 132: 5–12 (-man) ARM 27, 151: 100–104 (Heimpel 2003: 461–463) ( pīqat)* ARM 27, 151: 23- 31 (tuša)* ARM 27, 163: 2′–9′ (Heimpel 2003: 468) (assurrē  ) ARM 28, 39: 5–11 (-mi) ARM 28, 48: 21–34 (-mi) ARM 28, 50: 10′–13′ (midde) ARM 28, 51: 6–13 (assurrē  ) ARM 28, 53: 6–15 (wuddi  ) ARM 28, 105: 25–26 (-man) ARM 28, 145: 12′–18′ (-mi)* ARM 28, 145: 12′–18′ ( pīqat)* ARM 28, 147: 4–8 (-mi) ARM 28, 154: 8–11 (wuddi  ) ARM 28, 155: 6–12 (wuddi  )* ARM 28, 159: 10′–13′ (-man) ARM 28, 165: 12–29 (assurrē  ) ARM 28, 179: 31–41 (assurrē  ) ARM 28, 179: 31–41 (-man) ARM 28, 179: 31–41 (-mi) ARM 28, 179: 31–41 ( pīqat)* ARM 28, 179: 31–41 (wuddi  )* CAD M/2 84a (-man) CAD M/2 84a (Unpubl. letter) (midde) CAD P 386 a 1′a′ (Susa letter) ( pīqat)

List of Texts Cited in the Study Charpin 1986: 327: 26–29 (-mi)* Charpin 1991: 151: iii 18–22 ( pīqat) Charpin 1991: 155: iv 21′–23′ ( pīqat) Charpin 1991: 161: 20–25 (Ziegler 2007: 53–54 (4.1)) (-mi) Charpin 1991: 161: 27–36 (Ziegler 2007: 53–54 (4.1)) (-mi) Charpin 1992: 98: 4–12 (assurrē  ) Charpin 2004b: 155: xvi3–6 (-mi)* Charpin and Durand 2002: 95–96: 20–23 (-man) Christian 1969: 18: 23–38 ( pīqat)* Christian 1969: 22: 11- 22 ( pīqat) CT 48, 23:1–15 (-man) Dalley 2001: 164, No. 3: 2′–3′ (-man) Dossin 1938b: 180: 8–15 (assurrē  ) Dossin 1938b: 181–182: 18–22 (cf. ARM 26/1 p.160 n. b) ( pīqat) Dossin 1956: 66: 14–18 (-man)* Dossin 1956: 66: 19–21 (LAPO 16, 251) (wuddi  ) Dossin 1970: 105: 23–27 (LAPO 18, 912) (midde)* Dossin 1973: 184–185: 4–13 (LAPO 16, 230; Krebernik and Streck 2001: 70 (64)) (tuša)* Dossin 1973: 185: 17–35 (LAPO 16, 230) ( pīqat)* Dossin 1981: 3: 23–26 (assurrē  ) Driver and Miles 1955: vol. 2, 96–98: rev. xxv: 3–40 (-mi)* Durand 1990a: 102: 12–24 (-mi) Durand 1991: 57: 29–30 (LAPO 16, 65) (tuša) Durand, LAPO 16, p. 274 n. 42: 45–50 (assurrē  )* EA 7: 69–70 (kīša)* EA 20: 11–12 (kī ša)* Edzard 1970: 97: 14–15 (TIM 2, 129) (midde)* Edzard 1970: 97: 20 (TIM 2, 129) (midde)* Ellis 1972: 66, 66: 4–12 (wuddi  )* Ellis 1972: 67, No. 70: 2′–4′ (lū ittum)* Falkenstein 1963: 56: ii 1–3 (anna) (wuddi  )* Falkenstein 1963: 57: ii 13–17 (-man) Falkenstein 1963: 57: ii 13–17 (midde)* Farber 1989 (OECT 11, 2) 34: 7–8 (kī ša) Farber 1989: 36: 15–21 (-mi)* Finet 1954–57, 135: 25–30 (assurrē  ) FM 1, p. 108: 12–24 (LAPO 16, 25 = FM 11, 187) (assurrē  ) FM 1, p. 115: 4–7 (tuša) FM 1, p. 115–117: 24–30 (-man) FM 1, p. 127: 4–18 (tuša)* FM 1, p. 128: 23–25 (LAPO 18, 855) (midde)* FM 1, p. 82: 40–50 (-mi) FM 2, 118: 24 (assurrē  ) FM 2, 53: 5–8 (assurrē  )* FM 2, 54: 8–15 (assurrē  ) FM 2, 55: 21–26 (Heimpel 2003: 517) (midde)* FM 2, 71: 10′–15′ (-man) FM 2, 82: 16′–21′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, 82: 4′–9′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 321, No. 1: 13′–14′ (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 321, No. 2: 27′–31′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 321, No. 3: 19–24 (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 321, No. 4: 4–10 (assurrē  )*

237 FM 2, p. 322, No. 10: 6′–11′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 322, No. 11: 5–13 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 322, No. 5: 18–23 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 322, No. 6: 34–37 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 322, No. 7: 14–18 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 322, No. 8: 3′–7′ (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 322, No. 9: 11′–18′ (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 323, No. 12: 6′–11′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 323, No. 13: 1′–18′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 323, No. 14: 13′–21′ (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 323, No. 15: 14′–18′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 323, No. 16: 10–17 (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 323, No. 17: 17′–22′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 323, No. 18: 40–41 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 324, No. 19: 10–15 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 324, No. 20: 35–38 (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 324, No. 21: 12–21 (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 324, No. 22: 4′–8′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 324, No. 23: 5′–12′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 325, No. 24: 9′–11′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 325, No. 25: 5–17 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 325, No. 26: 13–21 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 325, No. 27: 25–28 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 325, No. 28: 32–44 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 325, No. 29: 22–34 (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 326, No. 30: 4–15 (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 326, No. 31: 26–34 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 326, No. 32: 59′–61′ (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 326, No. 33: 26–33 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 326, No. 34: 9′–16′ (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 328, No. 35: 23–31 (=FM 2, 50) (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 329, No. 37: 1′–15′ (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 329, No. 38: 15–21 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 329, No. 39: 12–18 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 329, No. 40: 26–32 (assurrē  ) FM 2, p. 332, No. 42: 4–20 (assurrē  )* FM 2, p. 332, No. 43: 4–12 (assurrē  )* FM 2, pp. 328–329, No. 36: 31–39 (assurrē  )* FM 6, 18: 5–15 (lū ittum)* FM 6, 25: 22–29 ( pīqat)* FM 6, 50: 4–9 (assurrē  ) FM 6, 52: 5–10 (wuddi  )* FM 6, 80: 14–17 (assurrē  ) FM 6, p. 71, No. [2]: 29–31 (LAPO 16, 249) (assurrē  ) FM 7, 26: 49–52 (ibašši) (-man)* FM 7, 35: 4′–7′ (wuddi  )* FM 7, 45: 42–46 ( pīqat)* FM 8, 19: 13–22 (LAPO 18, 996) (-man)* FM 8, 19: 4–8 (LAPO 18, 996; Krebernik and Streck 2001: 70 (63)) (tuša)* FM 8, 19: 4–8 (tuša) (-man)* FM 8, 24: 5–12 (wuddi  )* FM 8, 49: 5–15 (-mi) FM 9, 16: 16 (assurrē  ) FM 9, 20: 13 (assurrē  ) FM 9, 41: 6′ (assurrē  ) FM 9, 51: 10 (assurrē  ) FM 9, 56: 3–15 (kīša) FM 9, 57: 15 pīqat)

238 FM 9, p. 57 n. 256: 11–12 (wuddi  ) FM 11, 187; cf. FM 1 p. 108: 12–24 (assurrē) Frayne 1990: 669: 8–12 (-mi) George 2003: 172: (Gilg. P) i17–19 (//174: i83 //178: v186) (midde)* George 2003: 178 (Gilg. P): v175–185 (// George 2003: 174 [Gilg. P: 80]) (-mi)* George 2003: 180 (Gilg. P.): vi232–234 (-ma)* George 2003: 200 (Gilg. Y): iv146–150 (-mi)* George 2003: 278–279 (Gilg. VA+BM): ii 5′–9′ (-man) (tuša) George 2003: 278–279 (Gilg. VA+BM): ii5′–9′ (-man)* George 2003: 636–637 (SB VII): 47–49 (lū) (-man)* George 2009: 34: 79 (-mi) George 2009: 51: 16 (-man) Goetze 1958: 21–22, No. 4: 37–38 (-man)* Goetze 1958: 23, No. 5: 4–9 (anna) (wuddi  )* Goetze 1958: 28, No. 10: 13–19 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 71 (65)) (tuša)* Goetze 1958: 42, No. 19: 5–10 (kīša)* Goetze 1958: 69, No. 44: 5–15 (kīša)* Goetze 1958: 70, No. 45: 6–10 (anna) (wuddi  )* Groneberg 1997: 112: 87–88 (-man) Groneberg 1997: 28: ii4 (-mi) Groneberg 1997: 30: iii8 (-mi) Groneberg 1997: 36: v38′ (-mi) Groneberg 1997: 81: vii 20–22 (-mi)* Guichard 2004: 20: 60–62 (assurrē  ) Guichard 2009: 104: 13′′–18′′ (assurrē  ) Held 1961: 8: iii11–15 (assurrē  ) Held 1961: 8: iii20–23 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 71 (66)) (tuša)* Held 1961: 8: iii6–7 (-mi) Joannès 2006: 60, No. 14: 5–12 (lū ittum)* Joannès 2006: 62, No. 15: 13–18 (lū ittum) Kienast 1978: 174: 14–21 (-man) Kienast 1978: 174: 4–13 (-man) Kienast 1978: vol. II, 156: 16–24 ( pīqat)* Krebernik 1991: 64: 4–11 (lū ittum) Krebernik 2003–4: 15: ii3′–6′: ii3′–6′ (-mi) Lacambre 1997: 446: 9′–12′ (-man) Lacambre 1997: 448: 38′–39′ (-man) Lambert 1960: 244–245: iv42–45 ( pīqat)* Lambert 1987: 192: 50–51 (-man) Lambert 1989: 326: 69–72 (-man) Lambert 1989: 326: 84–87 (-mi)* Lambert 1989: 327: 104–105 (-mi) Lambert 1989: 327: 106 (-man) Lambert 1989: 327: 112–113 (-mi) Lambert 1989: 327: 120–121 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 50: 128 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 50: [129] (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 50: [130] (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 50: [140] (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 50: [141] (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 50: [142] (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 52: 159 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 60: 246 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 62: 289 (-mi)

List of Texts Cited in the Study Lambert and Millard 1969: 68: 370 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 68: 376 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 80: 14 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 82: 28 (-mi) Lambert and Millard 1969: 82: 28 Lambert and Millard 1969: 94: iii48–50 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 71 (68)) (tuša)* Lambert and Millard 1969: 96: iv5 (-man) Landsberger and Jacobsen 1955: 14: 1 (-mi)* Landsberger and Jacobsen 1955: 14: 14 (-mi)* Landsberger and Jacobsen 1955: 14: 9 (-mi)* Livingstone 1988: 176: 17 (UET 6/2, 414) ( pīqat)* Livingstone 1988: 177: 33–34 (-mi)* Livingstone 1988: 177: 39–42 (-mi)* MARI 4, 316: 4–7 (LAPO 17, 478) (wuddi  ) MARI 4, 406: 13–22 (assurrē  ) MARI 4, 410, n.155: 29–34 (assurrē  ) MARI 5, 168: 29–41 (LAPO 17, 490) ( pīqat)* MARI 5, 172: 10 (LAPO 16, 36) (wuddi  ) MARI 5, 181: 9–24 (LAPO 16, 13) ( pīqat)* MARI 6, 51, n. 54: 6′–16′ (assurrē  ) MARI 6, 83, n. 213: 5–15 (midde) MARI 6, 263–264: 4–19 (LAPO 18, 1084) ( pīqat) MARI 6, 272: 4–17 (LAPO 17, 463) ( pīqat)* MARI 6, 291: 4–17 (assurrē  ) MARI 6, 296: 5–32 (assurrē  ) MARI 6, 338: 33–41 (LAPO 17, 545) (tuša) MARI 6, 338–339: 72–76 (-man) MARI 6, 339: 84–87 (assurrē  ) MARI 6, p. 291: 15–16 (-mi) MARI 7, 60, n.93: 25–29 (assurrē  ) MARI 7, 200: 63–68 (assurrē  ) MARI 7, 3: 4–7 (LAPO 16, 439) (wuddi  ) MARI 8, 383: 10–22 ( pīqat) MARI 8, 387: 10–12 (assurrē  ) MARI 8, 448–449: 38′–41′ (-man) OBTR 144: 16–22 (-mi) OBTR 153: 4–10 (lū ittum)* OBTR 161: 8–25 (-man) OBTR 2: 3–5 (wuddi  )* OBTR 56: 5–9 ( pīqat) Römer 1967: 185–186: i1–7 (-mi) Römer 1967: 186: ii13–16 (-mi) Rowton 1967: 269: 20–30 (precative)* Shemshara Letters 4: 3–12 (kīma ša)* Shemshara Letters 8: 12–18 (assurrē  ) Shemshara Letters 8: 48–50 (assurrē  ) Shemshara Letters 28 B: 4–12 (-mi) Shemshara Letters 35: 5–17 (-mi) Shemshara letters 42: 36–45 (-mi) Shemshara Letters 70: 12–28 (-mi) Shemshara Letters 70: 42–45 (-mi) Shemshara Letters 1: 4–5 (wuddi  )* Shemshara Letters 11: 16–17 (mannum lū īde)* Shemshara Letters 11: 16–22 ( pīqat) Shemshara Letters 21: 10–16 ( pīqat) Shemshara Letters 24: 6 ( pīqat) Shemshara Letters 26: 4–12 (anna) (wuddi  )* Shemshara Letters 35: 33–40 (midde)*

List of Texts Cited in the Study Shemshara Letters 35: 9–14 (assurrē  )* Shemshara Letters 41: 17′–20′ ( pīqat) Shemshara Letters 52: 27–34 (midde)* Shemshara Letters 55: 5–23 (midde)* Shemshara Letters 56: 5–11 Shemshara Letters 59: 15–16 (wuddi  )* Shemshara Letters 59: 23–24 (wuddi  )* Shemshara Letters 63: 67–70 (wuddi  )* Thureau-Dangin 1925: 172: 13–14 (-mi)* Thureau-Dangin 1925: 174: 55–56 (-mi)* UET 5, 2: 5–9 (lū ittum)* UET 6/2, 396: 19 (-man) UET 6/2, 397: 16′–19′ (wuddi  )* UET 6/2, 399: 21 (-man) van Djik 1972: 343–344: 1–13 (-mi)* Vogelzang 1988: 97: 31–33 (-mi)

239 Vogelzang 1988: 97: 44–48 (-mi) Westenholz 1997: 62: i10–14 (wuddi  )* Westenhotz 1997: 68–70: 57–59 (Krebernik and Streck 2001: 71 (67)) (tuša)* Westenholz 1997: 182: v1–3 (-mi) Westenholz 1997: 216: 14–17 (-man) Whiting 1985: 180: 1 (-mi) Whiting 1987: 6: 3–14 (ašar)* YOS 11, 24: i12–13 (-man) YOS 11, 24: i7 (-man) YOS 11, 24: ii1–2 (-man) Ziegler 1999a: 57: 4–19 (lū ittum)* Ziegler 2001: 498: 10′–14′ (-man) Ziegler 2004: 96: 13–19 ( pīqat)* Ziegler and Charpin 2007: 61: 12′′ (wuddi  )

Indexes Index of Topics absolute irrealis  116 accumulation 148 addressee’s agreement  67 adverbs 210 affirmation  5, 216 affirmative  5, 148, 216 alas! 7 allocutory  73, 85 anceps vowel  174 apostrophe 188 argumentative 197 assertions 58 assessment  7, 99, 116, 147, 149 assumption  97, 145 wrong 103 assurance  66, 69 attraction 105 background  60, 111 beliefs 97 Biblical Hebrew  135 calumny 26 certainty  3, 43, 45, 66, 74, 80, 125, 210, 215 contra-factual 85 counterfactual  72, 73, 117, 126, 127, 132, 150, 156, 216 future  71, 72, 73, 84 past  64, 66, 68, 73, 83, 84 promissory 84 certifier  18, 36, 51, 80, 144, 146, 148, 149, 152, 206 declarative 43 scalar  47, 52 strong 35 certitude  67, 72 partial  47, 52, 62, 80 clause circumstantial  33, 124, 168, 169, 209 concessive 106 contrastive  106, 109, 110 false assumption  106, 107, 109, 110 nominal 91

clause (cont.) quasiconditional 62 suppositional  97, 139 topical  33, 106, 109 Code of Hammurabi  196 comment, topical  58, 59 commitment  5, 35, 51, 66, 69, 116, 117 commonly-known facts  67 comparison  139, 148 comprehending 7 conditionals  17, 23, 46, 52, 78, 105, 106, 112, 115, 116, 117, 119, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 166, 167, 199, 211 counterfactual  72, 97, 116, 150 quasiconditional  32, 52, 53, 62 semiconditional  22, 23, 43, 52, 207 conditions unreal 116 confidence  23, 24, 35, 49, 50, 66 conjectures 58 construction bi-partite 22 disjunctive  37, 53 numerical  66, 67, 147 content sentences  77, 79, 92, 148, 152, 153 conversational bond  65, 85 counter-assertion  94, 97, 107, 125, 216 counterfactual irrealis  116 counterfactuality  99, 117, 152, 216 Daß-Sätze  148, 152 declarative character  70 deductive  18, 43, 47, 51, 52, 62, 66, 80, 83 delocutory  73, 74, 86 deontic force  79 deontic MP  29 deontic set  4 dictation 34 difference hierarchical 23 of style  110 direct irrealis  116

240

Indexes direct speech  181, 182, 200 cited 181 reported 181 discourse analysis  71 disjunction  21, 62 divergence 39 doubt  20, 74 doubt-and-denial  69, 71 doubter 35 basic 28 neutral  24, 29 weak  18, 20, 25, 36, 43, 80 emphasized, or stressed, word  129 emphatic nuance  112, 145 epistemic set  4 estimation  29, 55, 59 estimations 29 evaluation  7, 56, 65, 66 events, nonactualized  97, 99 eventuality 156 evidential, weak  24 evidential MP  102 evidentials  11, 206 facts, everyday  68 factuality  111, 117 fear  29, 36, 55, 156, 160, 170, 211 functional domain of complementation (FDC)  91 gradation of likelihood  49 grammaticalization  38, 39, 40, 61, 62, 79, 89, 90, 91, 92, 113, 141, 143, 150, 152, 175, 195 hope  29, 36, 156, 160, 170, 211 humorous effect  10 hypothetical proposition  34, 50, 97, 126, 132, 141, 148, 149, 167 ignorance  18, 19, 20, 28, 43, 145, 146 imagination 117 imperative  6, 102, 152 impossibility  117, 125, 216 impossible wishes  156 improbabilty 216 improbable conditions  117 indicative  5, 116 indirect irrealis  116 indirect speech  182 inferential MP  47, 66 inferentials 16 information, background  50 irony  34, 128, 143, 144, 146

241 irrealis  35, 72, 116, 119, 206 Irrealis der Vergangenheit  96 irrealis particle by in Russian  130 irréel du passé  96 irréel du présent  96 it is not false!  8 it is true!  8 it is urgent!  7 judgments  11, 29, 55, 69, 97 knowing  19, 20, 28, 43, 145, 146 knowledge verbs  91, 92 Konjunktiv II in German  30, 184 lā al-nāfiya lil-jins (Arabic)  128, 129 lā-beṭaḥ (Hebrew) 62 locutory  73, 85, 86 mental state modal verbs  6, 9 mercy! 7 metastable assessment  149 modal adverbs  12 modality deontic  156, 160, 161, 162 epistemic  160, 162 in Hindi  117 in Latin  48, 49 in Sumerian  5 modifier, committing  51 monologue 163 necessity 3 negation in French  39 in Arabic  128, 129 negative affirmative  5 nominalization 113 noncommitment 184 nonfactuality  117, 148 nonreality  99, 104 nonrealization 216 nota bene 79 oath  6, 112, 141, 145, 172 objective possibility  49 obligation 6 open-ended actions  55 optative  43, 53 particle inferential 70 negotiating 70

242 particle (cont.) perspectivizing 26 promissory-declarative 69 reactive 70 perfect  123, 124 performative 197 performative force  72 periphrastic means  7, 8 personal epistolary style  108, 170 perspectivization  29, 30, 55, 73, 74, 87, 101, 184, 185, 188, 210, 217 please! 7 plene-writing 3 positive affirmative  5, 216 possibilité bilatérale  49 possibilité unilatérale  49 possibility  3, 117, 125, 215 potentialis  18, 47, 96, 119, 125, 132, 215 potential world  115 pragmatic strategy  65, 67 precative  102, 117, 125, 152 predictability 215 present-future 5 presumptive  18, 35, 43, 216 presumption  23, 51 presuppositions 97 probability  3, 49, 74, 215 strong 43 prohibitive  102, 152 promissory  69, 71 protasis-apodosis construction  52, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 209 proverbial saying  87 public opinion  25 question contrastive  107, 109 rhetorical  58, 62, 87, 109, 110 quotative  39, 195 reality, nonfactual  148 realization 216 reassuring particle  148 referential 59 referential center  30 refutation  94, 216 refuter  93, 94, 97, 197, 206 relative 116 replacement 149 reported speech  25

Indexes retour à la réalité  104 rheme  75, 76, 91 root modality  6 root-modality verbs  11 Samsī-Addu  108, 109, 149 sarcastic effect  9 sarcastic objection  144 scalar MP  18, 48, 80 scale of confidence  18 seeing 6 self deliberation  70 simile 110 slander  26, 113, 143 spacer  179, 184, 185, 187, 188, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207 speculative  19, 47, 52, 62, 80, 215 stative  32, 123, 125 style indirecte libre 182 subjectification  29, 30, 73, 87, 106, 163, 210, 217 subjective 49 subjectivity 101 subjunctive  5, 6, 116, 152 Sumerian  11, 12 Symbolon, Greek  85 tense  73, 125 Tense Axis  124 Tense Descent (TD)  123, 124 Tense Equation (TE)  123, 124 Tense Neutralization (TN)  123, 124 Tense Rising (TR)  123 theme  75, 76, 91 topicalization  75, 76, 211 transition from the hypothetical  148 uncertainty 45 understanding  7, 55 unfortunately! 7 unreal situations  125, 148 vantage point  30 verba dicendi  193 verba sentiendi  6 verb of knowing or hearing  75 verbs of state  32 volitive  25, 29, 35, 156, 160, 206, 211, 213 wishes 29

Indexes

243

Index of Sumerian and Akkadian Words (other than MPs) amārum 37 appūna 213 apputum 211 binna 142 enma 195 ezib 142 ezub 142 g a - n a m  54 ḫiāšum 142 idatumma 83 idûm  83, 90 i- g 4- i n - z u  54, 113 inanna  104, 107, 166 inūma  88, 92 išša 142 kiāšum 142 kīma  77, 139 kīma lā libbi ila 188 kīma ša  89, 139, 140, 141 kī ša  89, 141 lū  133, 206, 216 lū utḫurum 91 lū utḫurum, OA  82 ‑ma  132, 167, 174, 181, 183 ‑mā  132, 183 ‑māku 208 ‑māme 208 -man, Hittite  118 man īde 58

mannum lū īde  61, 62 mašištum 207 ‑me 208 -mē  183, 208 mīn īde  58, 143 minsu 208 -muk 183 na nga-/na mga- 47 piāqum  37, 39 puqqu 37 q/garārum 57 qiāšum 142 rabtat 206 raʾi/raʾu 206 surramma 207 surru 213 šâlum 145 šurrumma/šarrumma 207 tukum-bi 54 tuššum  143, 152 ù 166 ūka  208, 211 ūKa 213 umma  195, 196, 203 ummami  195, 196, 203 wadûm 79 wadûm-D 65

Index of Texts Discussed AbB 1, 27:6–9  187 AbB 1, 37:8–10  50 AbB 1, 39:6–15  51 AbB 1, 46:8–9  139 AbB 1, 51:23–36  22 AbB 1, 53:23–26  139 AbB 1, 68:4–9  33 AbB 1, 71:18–24  22 AbB 1, 119:11′–17′  51 AbB 1, 122:4–18  145 AbB 1, 135:6–12  35

AbB 1, 135:25–27  35 AbB 2, 108:4–12  144, 149 AbB 3, 11:46–49  61 AbB 3, 33:9–12  120 AbB 5, 232:23–27  126 AbB 6, 63:5–7′  151 AbB 6, 125:16–25  20 AbB 6, 194:22–26  110 AbB 6, 194:25–26  150 AbB 8, 109:34–39  31 AbB 9, 39:6–21  100

244 AbB 9, 61:6–24  104 AbB 9, 63:8–19  144 AbB 9, 78:20–23  28 AbB 9, 148:20–23  139 AbB 9, 150:5–9  33 AbB 9, 184:18–25  145 AbB 9, 240:21–30  127, 134 AbB 10, 5:18–22  120 AbB 10, 15:25–32  50 AbB 10, 16:16–18  52 AbB 10, 166:6–12  60 AbB 11, 17:4–14  128 AbB 11, 84:11–17  52 AbB 11, 187:8–28  140 AbB 12, 78:18–26  57 AbB 12, 160:1–15  92 AbB 14, 63:4–11  79, 86 AbB 14, 63:8–19  164 AbB 14, 67:5–15  133 AbB 14, 112:36–42  27 AbB 14, 125:18–20  140 AbB 14, 140:5–11  134 AbB 14, 145:8–25  40 AbB 14, 154:4–12  133 AbB 14, 182:8–15  146 AbB 14, 205:19–21  127 ABIM 26:20–23  66, 75 ARM 1, 1:10′–12′  36 ARM 1, 8:5–10  103, 107 ARM 1, 21:5–15  108 ARM 1, 22:4–9  76, 77 ARM 1, 22:9–11  76 ARM 1, 32:7–20  20 ARM 1, 39:4–14  164 ARM 1, 52:36–41  69 ARM 1, 62:5′–14′  101 ARM 1, 72:4–5  74 ARM 1, 73:14–23  108, 149 ARM 1, 118:4–14  185 ARM 2, 6:5–16  108 ARM 2, 29:12–14  77 ARM 3, 64:9–16  102 ARM 4, 21:5–17  78 ARM 4, 26:4–8  77 ARM 4, 28:10–14  138 ARM 4, 28:21–25  138 ARM 4, 54:8–14  33 ARM 4, 59:5–12  76 ARM 4, 60:5–13  24 ARM 4, 62:3′–10′  68, 76 ARM 5, 9:5–27  132 ARM 5, 59:1–21  186 ARM 6, 19:12–22  168

Indexes ARM 6, 76:5–14  89 ARM 10, 20:13–19  123 ARM 10, 31:5–11  83 ARM 10, 74:10–37  122 ARM 10, 92:9–14  122 ARM 10, 129:1–20  185 ARM 10, 141:20–30  86 ARM 10, 156:12–30  23 ARM 13, 25:5–16  18 ARM 18, 8:4–6  78 ARM 26/1, 57:5–11  123 ARM 26/1, 189:18′–23′  128 ARM 26/1, 206:5–12  72 ARM 26/1, 233:24–31  128 ARM 26/1, 242:6–14  29 ARM 26/1, 275:5–18  187 ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (1):14–19  140 ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (2):6–17  84 ARM 26/2, 298:29–39  111 ARM 26/2, 302:9–15  28 ARM 26/2, 303:7′–17′  201 ARM 26/2, 318:26–32  158 ARM 26/2, 319:11–16  166 ARM 26/2, 380:10′–16′  71 ARM 26/2, 391:15–18  53 ARM 26/2, 393:6–10  58 ARM 26/2, 412:22–24  120 ARM 26/2, 412:59–65  121 ARM 26/2, 449:37–44  79 ARM 26/2, 469:10–15  122 ARM 26/2, 491:34–37  19 ARM 26/2, 511:3–8  85 ARM 27, 26:28–29  9 ARM 27, 54:6–18  26 ARM 27, 115:13–26  98, 107 ARM 27, 151:23–31  102 ARM 27, 151:100–104  25 ARM 28, 145:12′–18′  26, 183 ARM 28, 155:6–12  67 ARM 28, 179:31–41  11, 34, 72 BWL, 244–45:iv 42–45  36 Charpin 1986: 327 (UET 6/2, 402):26–29  189 Charpin 2004b: 155: xvi 3–6  190 Christian 1969: 18:23–38  22 Dialogue of Pessimism  148 Dossin 1956: 66:14–18  121 Dossin 1970: 105: 23–57  50 Dossin 1973: 184–85:4–13  105 Dossin 1973: 185:17–35  40 Driver and Miles 1952–55: vol. 2: 96–98 (CH epilogue): rev. xxv:3–40  198 Durand, LAPO 16, p. 274 no. 42:45–50  171 EA 7:69–70  141

Indexes EA 20:11–12  139 Edzard 1970: 97 (TIM 2, 129):20  55 Edzard 1970, 97 (TIM 2, 129):14–15  54, 55 Ellis 1972: 66, No. 66:4–12  68 Ellis 1972: 67, No. 70:2′–4′  87 Falkenstein 1963: 56: ii 1–3  70 Falkenstein 1963: 57: ii 13–17  60 Farber 1989: 36 (OECT 11, 2):15–21  200 FM 1, p. 127:4–18  100 FM 1, p. 128:23–25  53, 62 FM 2, 53:5–8  165 FM 2, 55:21–26  56 FM 2, p. 321, No. 1:13′–14′  166 FM 2, p. 321, No. 3:19–24  157 FM 2, p. 321, No. 4:4–10  162 FM 2, p. 322, No. 8:3′–7′  167 FM 2, p. 322, No. 9:11′–18′  160 FM 2, p. 323, No. 14:13′–21′  165 FM 2, p. 323, No. 16:10–17  159, 165 FM 2, p. 324, No. 20:35–38  158 FM 2, p. 324, No. 21:12–21  161 FM 2, p. 325, No. 29:22–34  172 FM 2, p. 326, No. 30:4–15  159 FM 2, p. 326, No. 32:59′–61′  162 FM 2, p. 328, No. 35:23–31  158 FM 2, p. 329, No. 37:1′–15′  163 FM 2, p. 329, No. 41:37–40  168 FM 2, p. 332, No. 42:4–20  171 FM 2, p. 332, No. 43:4–12  171 FM 2, pp. 328–29, No. 36:31–39  157 FM 6, 18:5–15  84 FM 6, 25:22–29  21 FM 6, 52:5–10  66 FM 7, 26:49–52  133 FM 7, 35:4′–7′  67 FM 7, 45:42–46  19 FM 8, 19:4–8  109, 131 FM 8, 19:13–22  121, 131 FM 8, 24:5–12  77 FM 9, 56:3–15  150 George 2003: 172 (Gilg. P): i17–19 (//174: i83 //178: v186)  43, 56 George 2003: 178 (Gilg. P.): v 175–85  191 George 2003: 180 (Gilg. P.): vi 232–234  183 George 2003: 200 (Gilg. Y.): iv 146–50  192 George 2003: 278–79 (Gilg. VA+BM): ii 5′– 9′  98, 127 George 2003: 636–37 (SB VII):47–49  134

245 Goetze 1958: 21–22, No. 4:37–38  121 Goetze 1958: 23, No. 5:4–9  69 Goetze 1958: 28, No. 10:13–19  109 Goetze 1958: 42, No. 19:5–10  146 Goetze 1958: 69, No. 44:5–15  147 Goetze 1958: 70, No. 45:6–10  70 Groneberg 1997: 81 (VS 10, 214): vii 20–22  190 Held 1961: 8: iii 20–23  100 Joannès 2006: 60, No. 14:5–12  87 Kienast 1978: vol. II, 156:16–24  34 Lambert 1989: 326:84–87  191 Lambert and Millard 1969: 94: iii 48–50  110 Landsberger and Jacobsen 1955: 14:1–28  193 Livingstone 1988: 177 (UET 6/2, 414):17  16 Livingstone 1988: 177 (UET 6/2, 414):33– 34 183 Livingstone 1988: 177 (UET 6/2, 414):33– 42 192 MARI 5, 168:29–41  25 MARI 5, 181:9–24  33 MARI 6, 272:4–17  21 OBTR 2:3–5  67 OBTR 153:4–10  86 Rowton 1967: 269:20–30  135 Shemshara Letters 1:4–5  71, 75 Shemshara Letters 4:3–12  8, 140 Shemshara Letters 11:16–17  53 Shemshara Letters 26:4–12  69 Shemshara Letters 35:9–14  158 Shemshara Letters 35:33–40  59 Shemshara Letters 52:27–34  58 Shemshara Letters 55:5–23  58 Shemshara Letters 59:15–16  67 Shemshara Letters 59:23–24  68, 75 Shemshara Letters 63:67–70  75 Sigrist 1987: 85:4–7  194 Thureau-Dangin 1925: 172:13–14  190 Thureau-Dangin 1925: 174:55–56  190 UET 5, 2:5–9  87 UET 6/2, 397:16′–19′  64 van Dijk 1972: 343–44 (VS 17, 34):1–13  189 van Dijk 1972: 343–44 (VS 17, 34):7–13  200 Westenholz 1997: 62: i 10–14  64 Westenholz 1997: 68–70:57–59  94, 110, 150 Whiting 1987: 6:3–14  135 Ziegler 1999a: 57:4–19  93 Ziegler 1999a: 57:4–19  199 Ziegler 2004: 96:13–19  40