“Akkadian and Amorite Phonology,”
in A.S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including the Caucasus), Volume 1), Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns, 3-38.
See full text
The first chapter of this volume, signed by G. Buccellati, offers an overview on Akkadian and Amorite phonological system.
Section 1.1 deals with the graphemic base: sub-section 1.1.1 describes the writing (i.e. cuneiform) medium, defined both the aforementioned languages as ‘dead spekers’ (since Amorite ‘died’ around 1600 BC and Akkadian around 600 BC), underlining how A) the system was firstly created by the Sumerians (and then adapted by the Akkadians and the Amorites) and B) the problem in interpreting the actual nature of Amorite system, since we do not have actual Amorite texts of their own, but only personal names in text of other languages. Sub-section 1.1.2 defines the cuneiform system used in Akkadian and in Amorite, presenting some general tendencies: A) strong use of logograms; B) permanence of historical writings (vs. actually spoken renderings); C) occurrence of preponderance orthographic conventions (masking the actual phonetical reading of some words). Sub-section 1.1.3 deals with the relationship of phonology with graphemics, defining a multiverse correspondence between the former and the latter: this topic is further investigated in the following sub-section 1.1.4, offering a graphemic analysis.
Section 1.2 analyses the relationship between Akkadian and Amorite: sub-section 1.2.1 describes their geographical (defining dialects) and chronological distribution, underlining the streaming of Akkadian outwards (to Anatolia, Cyprus and Egypt); sub-section 1.2.2 enquires about the sociolinguistic position of Amorite, regarded as a West Semitic language, envisaging a precise relationship between Akkadian and Amorite as ‘sociolects’ (Akkadian being the urban language, Amorite representing a rural counterpart [at least in the third millennium BC]); sub-sections 1.2.3/4 study the phonology of Akkadian and Amorite, respectively.
Section 1.3 is about phonemics: sub-section 1.3.1 displays the phonemic inventory of both the languages; sub-section 1.3.2 focuses on consonants and semivowels, while sub-section 1.3.3 stresses special problems concerning Amorite; the following sub-section 1.3.4 debates the phonetic position of laryngeal and pharyngeal sounds; conversely, sub-section 1.3.6 discusses vowels in detail, while sub-section 1.3.7 concerns the suprasegmental signs used in transliteration to render the scriptio plena (defining graphically a long vowel) of some words. Sub-section 1.3.8 regards phonotactic phaenomena: word-initial position treatment (sub-section 1.3.8.1), word-final position renderings (sub-section 1.3.8.2), particular clusters (sub-section 1.3.8.3), the syllabic structure (sub-section 1.3.8.4); finally, sub-section 1.3.9 delaines phonetic realizations.
Section 1.4 defines phonetical changes through times and spaces: sub-section 1.4.1/2 are about historical changes affecting individual phonemes or phonotactics, respectively; sub-section 1.4.3 presents a note on morphophonemic alternations, while sub-section 1.4.4 involves free variations.
Eventually, sub-section 1.4.5 concludes in defining a general historical development of the two languages.
Back to top: Giorgio Buccellati 1997