唐橋先生(古代史)がスペインの学会で発表なさいます。
唐橋先生がスペインのマドリードの学会(7月22-24日)
で発表なさいます。
"From the 21st Century BC to the 21st Century AD: The Present and Future of Neo-Sumerian Studies"
Hypotactic and Paratactic Complementation in Sumerian ditilla Texts
Fumi Karahashi, Tokyo
Bertrand Lafont and Raymond Westbrook (2003:184) call the ditillas “trial reports”
which “contain an extremely terse account of trial proceedings.” Among the verbs that
occur the most in the texts are dug? ‘say’ and ge-enfl/en° ‘confirm, attest’, often appearing
without the subject and object clearly expressed. Dug? is a verb of communication, and
ge-enfl/en° may also be a member of this class. In this paper I am going to talk about the
complementation of these verbs.
Examples (1) and (2) contain ge-enfl/en° and dug?, respectively:
(1) Nik 2, 447 rev. 2-3
dam ur-ab-zu-ka-ke? in-du° ba-ge-enfl
wife Urabzu-ERG PREF-open PREF-attest
‘(Da?) die Frau des Ur-Abzu ge?ffnet hat, ist bezeugt worden’ (Englund 1990:41)
(2) NG 2, 202:10-12
sag-ki-sag? dam lugal-me-a-ke? ur-∂dumu-zi-da-ke? lugal-me-a dam-gu10 in-gaz
Sagkisag wife Lugalmea-ERG Urdumuzida-ERG Lugalmea husband-my PREF-kill
b?-dug?
PREF-say
‘Sagki?a (= Sagkisag), die Ehefrau des Lugalme’a, hat: “Urdumuzida hat Lugalme’s,
meinen Ehemann, get?tet,” erkl?rt’ (Falkenstein’s translation)
Translating example (1) in German, Englund supplied the complementizer da? in
parentheses. This translation reflects the understanding that the clause preceeding the verb
ge-enfl ‘confirm, attest’ dam ur-ab-zu-ka-ke? in-du° ‘the wife of Ur-Abzu opened’ is
the verb’s semantic complement. This sounds natural and seems logical. Example (2) is
understood as containing direct speech on the ground that the possessive pronoun ‘my’
on dam-gu10 ‘my husband’ is not replaced by ‘her’?a shift that would be expected in
many languages if it were an indirect speech construction.
The aim of the paper is two-fold. First, it will define dam ur-ab-zu-ka-ke? in-du° in
(1) as a paratactic complement of the verb ge-enfl and thus will give theoretical support to
the analysis and translation hitherto done. At the same time, I will argue that analogous
constructions that have been translated without a complementizer can be translated with a
complementizer. Second, it will suggest that example (2) as a whole be considered
reported discourse and that it employs so-called “mixed quotation.”