| Budget Amount *help |
¥13,800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥13,800,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥2,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,900,000)
Fiscal Year 2002: ¥4,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥4,100,000)
Fiscal Year 2001: ¥6,800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥6,800,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The language contact in the Ancient Near East is widespread. Glossenkeil-words in Hittite texts have some Luwian elements such as -i stem, -(a)ssa/i-, -(a)lla/i- and verbal endings of -wi, -ti, or -nti. These forms are regarded as borrowing from Luwian, the phase of which shows evidence of the close contact between Hittite and Luwian. These mutual influences are also understood from some names of Hittite royal family by Luwian genealogy and Luwian Hieroglyphic inscriptions.
One of -ma forms in Sumerian is attested as a conjugation prefix, and the other is as a conjunctive particle similar to -ma in Akkadian. The enclitic -ma in Hittite is similar in function to the conjunctive -ma in Akkadian, though there is no mutual relationship in origin between both forms. The evidence above shows some substrative influence from Hurrian.
The Hurrian had a great influence on the writing system both Emar and Akkadian. In view of the graphemically double writing of consonants, Sumerian cuneiform imposed no linguistic function on -CC- writing, and Akkadian cuneiform adopted the Sumerian writing system and invented a new graphemic rule, which related -CC- writing with gemination.Further, if we assume that the Hittite borrowed cuneiform script from Hurrian and that fortis/lenis were distinctive in Hurrian, geminated consonants (written -CC-) in Akkadian sounded for the Hurrian like their [+fortis] consonants, which in turn were perceived as [-voice] by the Hittites. Thus in the linguistic contact among the Ancient Near East is considered as (1) Sumerian>Akkadian, (2) Akkadian>Hurrian, (3) Hurrian>Hittite. It becomes clear that Hurrian influence increased in Late Hittite kingdom, being indicated by Late Hittite Law version redacted by some king from a Hurrian family.
|
