Sumerian language. Sumerian civilization - many mysteries for scientists - Language

Adad, Addu (Akkadian), Ishkur (Sumerian) - in ancient Eastern mythologies (in Sumer, Babylonia, Palestine, etc.) the god of thunder, wind and rain.

Akkadian ADAD, ADDU: From the Ingush language Toa "lightning"/ Toada "wet, humidity"/ T'adam "drop"/ tioadadala v. * get wet

Ingush Yes "father" / Toada-da "father of moisture" / T'adam-da "Drip master"

Sumerian Ishkur - (from Ingush ish, yush, yesha, basha, yours, dasha "wet" / melting)

Ishkur "Ingush language. Wet Horn. ishk n. *croup/ yish n. *voice yisha n. *music *sister/ Yishi "allow"

Aya is an Akkadian goddess, identified with the Sumerian goddess Shenirda. Nickname: The Bride. Goddess of Light.

Ingush language Iay adv. *winter / Iа n. *winter / Ingush Yo "girl", Nus "bride"

Shenyrd. Shenyrd. Shenirda or Aya is the wife of the solar god Utu / Shamash and by association the goddess of light.

Ingush Shenir "calf" / shenir "two-doors" / double morning / shinara n. *Tuesday/ Ingush. shin khan-khannakha adv. *regularly/

Utu in the Ingush language udu "running" / di "day" / utu "set" /

Shamash - in Ingush. Sha "ice", Sho "you" / shei "your own" / Masha "web" / mash "shawl" / Sham-yash "Melting ice" Shi-am-ush "double lake desiccated"

UTU - (Sumerian, "bright", "shining", "day"), Shamash (Akkad., "sun"; common Semitic in the same sense shams, shaps), in the Sumerian Akkadian mythology, the solar god, the son of the moon god Nanna ( accad. Sin), brother of Inanna (Ishtar). His Sumerian wife Shenirda

Nanna in Ingush Mother, Worm

Akkad is a state that existed in the XXIV - XXII centuries BC. e., as well as an ancient region in the middle part of Mesopotamia, on the territory of modern Iraq. The capital is the city of Akkad.

According to the Ingush Akkeit "smash" / Akkoud "get" / Akka "beast" de-create, do, eat, father, master, kill, give birth, day, dey "lose, ancestors"

Akkad from the Ingush language is translated as the Beast-Father. / Ahk-Kad "Summer Cup" / Ahkad "protruded" / Akk-ad "animals run"

Alala (alali) - The call of the plowman, the deity of fertility among the Hurrians

In the Ingush language, Alalai "cry of surprise" / Aleley "the key of the Spartans when calling Ares (Enialiya)

from Ingush Ala-li "Give the flame" / Hala-li "give the cattle" /

Erra (Yrra) - Akkadian god of plague and war

From Ingush. yr, yrra "to kill" / yura "murderer" / yera "doer, killer, creator"

Eghara "evil" / Yaghar "burning" / Yogra "coming"

ENMESHARRA. ENMESHARRA: ENMESHARRA. (Sumerian, “lord of all me”), in Sumerian mythology, the god of the underworld, one of the oldest gods.

From Ingush. Ein "raised" / Yin "shadowy" / Yong "dead" / Anmu "heavenly" Shara "smooth, even" / shera "stretched, wide" / Shaira "own" / Shar "year" Mashar peace, freedom)

From Ing. this is ENMESHARRA (Raised Shadow Dead World)

In Sumerian mythology, the god of the underworld, one of the oldest gods. Enmesharra and his consort Ninmesharra were considered the ancestors of An and Enlil. Enmesharr has seven children

NIN-MESHARA all this Ingush name MOTHER OF THE WORLDS MEANS.

i.e. from the Ingush. EN-MESHARRA / NIN-MESHARA "DEAD WORLD" / MOTHER OF WORLDS" /

Tiamat is the world ocean-chaos of salty waters, from which everything (including the gods) was born in Sumero-Babylonian mythology.

How many words do you need to know to navigate the Sumerian texts? How many of them are there? Not millions. There are 3,064 different words used in Sumerian literary texts. More than a thousand of them are used only 1 or 2 times and can be classified as rare. Others are used much more frequently. Frequency dictionaries are compiled according to this principle. Words that are used most often come first. To understand every fourth word in Sumerian texts, it is enough to know the 23 most used. the words. And every third is only 36. If you imagine that every sentence in any language can be reduced to a tripartite information that "someone" + "something" + "did", then in almost every Sumerian sentence you will understand at least one word out of three. And if you know 172 words, then already 2 out of three ... Knowing only 79 of the most common words, you can say without deceit that you know the Sumerian language "half ..." Of course, this is a joke. It is a rich and developed language, with almost as many words as the Bible. But nonetheless...

#25 The first 25 words make up ©26.7% of all words in Sumerian texts. Sumer: Sumerian language
December 26th, 2010
Occurrence (frequency of use) for every 1,000 words of Sumerian texts:
The list is based on an analysis of 411 original Sumerian literary texts, totaling 131,106 words. This does not include proper names, geographical names, and so on, which are given in a separate list.
****
@arc4 TALK 21.1
@ ki EARTH 18.6
@ shu PALM 15.4
@gal BIG 13.5
@lu2 MAN 13.3
@ e2 HOUSE 12.3
@ gar LAY 12.3
@ step4 HEART 11.5
@ chicken MOUNTAIN 11.3
@ lugal KING 10.8 ("big man")
@ oud DAY 10.8
@igi EYE 10.2
@ kug LIGHT 9.5
@ en SKY 9.4
@ sag HEAD 8.9
@ en LORD 8.7
@ e3 ENTER or EXIT 8.5
@ak DO 8.5
@ lip BET 7.8
@ gene GO 7.7
@gal2 BE 7.7
@ nig2 THING 7.6
@ iri CITY 7.2
@de6 CARRY 7.1
@ zid RIGHT 7.1

#50 ©40.3% Sumer: Sumerian: Dictionary of Sumerian
December 26th, 2010
@ "gi4" RETURN 7.0
@ "max" POWERFUL 6.8
@ "inim" WORD 6.5
@ "me" BE 6.5
@ "dingir" GOD 6.4
@ "a" WATER 6.4
@ "dumu" CHILD 6.4
@"arc3" GOOD 6.3
@ "zu" KNOW 5.9
@ "a2" HAND 5.6
@ "me" LIVING BEING 5.5
@ "noise2" GIVE 5.1
@ "la2" HANG 5.1
@ "us" DESTINY 5.1
@ "sa2" EQUAL 5.0
@"il2" RAISE 4.9
@ "nin" MRS 4.7
@ "du3" RECTIFY 4.6
@ "tar" CUT 4.5
@ "sag9" GOOD 4.4
@"ge26" i 4.4
@ "gu2" NECK 4.3
@ "gu3" VOICE 4.2
@ "kalam" SUMER 4.2
@ "tuku" TAKE 4.0
*** The first #50 words cover 40.30% of the Sumerian texts.

#75 ©49.1% Sumer: Sumerian: Dictionary of Sumerian
December 26th, 2010
@ "gu7" IS 4.0
@ "du8" spread 4.0
@ "ama" MOTHER 4.0
@ "mu" NAME 4.0
@ "de2" LIT 3.9
@ "zig3" INSERT 3.9
@ "dub5" GRAB 3.8
@ "pad3" FIND 3.8
@ "te" CLOSER 3.7
@ "ar2" MEASURE 3.6
@ "ur-sag" HERO 3.6 ("dog's head")
@ "chur9" ENTER 3.5
@ "court" FAR 3.5
@ "for" YOU 3.5
@ "there" BORN 3.4
@ "ah-ah" FATHER 3.4
@ "ka" MOT 3.3
@ "si" ROG 3.3
@ "kettlebell3" LEG 3.2
@ "hul2" JOYFUL 3.1
@ "ug3" PEOPLE 3.1
@ "us2" NEIGHBOR 3.0
@ "ni2" FEAR 2.9
@"nun" PRINCE 2.9
@ "fur coat" FALL 2.7
*** The first #75 words cover 49.14% of Sumerian texts. Sumer * Sumerian * Sumerian

#100 ©55.1% Sumer: Sumerian: Dictionary of Sumerian
December 26th, 2010
@ "gud" BULL 2.7
@ "zag" SIDE 2.7 (literally - "shoulder")
@ "gish" WOOD 2.7
@ "bar" PUT Away 2.7
@ "ri" DIRECTION 2.7
@"ghoul" DESTROY 2.6
@ "sipad" SHEPHERD 2.6 ("branding horns")
@ "mu" YEAR 2.6
@ "tush" SIT 2.5
@ "nu2" LIE 2.5
@ "she" BARLEY 2.5
@ "si" FILL 2.4
@ "mu2" GROW 2.3
@ "and for what? 2.3
@ "dirig" EXCELLENT 2.3
@"sig10" PUT 2.3
@ "gig" SICK 2.2
@ "du7" PERFECT 2.2
@ "hool" EVIL 2.1
@ "til3" LIVE 2.1
@"chick2" DIFFERENT 2.1
@ "bal" Flip 2.1
@ "tag" TOUCH 2.1
@ "tour" SMALL 2.0
@ "hur-sag" MOUNTAIN RANGE 2.0 ("scratch"+"head")
*** The first #100 words cover 55.18% of the Sumerian texts.
©Note: the figurative designation of mountain ranges hur-sañ: "scratching heads" has a correspondence in European languages. Spanish sierra- "saw", Russian "comb, head (mountains)". That and Ukrainian "hmarochosy" - skyscrapers of taksamo. Sumer: Sumerian language

Sumerian Dictionary: #101-125 BEAT-STRONG 59.9% of Sumerian words
December 26th, 2010
@ "ra" BEAT 2.0
@ "ash3" CHAPEL 2.0
@ "za-gin3" LAZURITE 2.0 ("mountain beads")
@ "y2" GRASS 2.0
@ "ed3" UP or DOWN 2.0
@ "oud" STORM 2.0
@ "id2" WATER STREAM 1.9
@ "where" CUT 1.9
@ "dagal" EXTENSIVE 1.9
@ "a-ba" WHO? 1.9
@ "pa" BRANCH 1.9
@ "geshtug2" EAR 1.9 ("robe of hearing")
@ "barag" PLATFORM 1.8
@ "zi" LIFE 1.8 (literally: "breath")
Note: In the Bible texts this word is used in the same sense. "...and breathed into him the breath of life..." ("The Book of Genesis"). The Russian words "spirit", "soul" and "inspiration" contain the same root.
@ "dib" PASS 1.8
@ "guide2" LONG 1.8
@ "bar" OUTSIDE 1.8 (literally: "side")
@ "ma2" BOAT 1.8
@ "ladies" WIFE 1.8
@ "i3" OIL 1.7
@ "munus" WOMAN 1.7
@ "er2" TEAR 1.7
@ "gen6" STRONG 1.7
@ "nam-lugal" KINGDOM 1.7 ("the fate of the king")
@ "kalag" STRONG 1.7

SUMER: THE SUMERIAN LANGUAGE: A DICTIONARY OF THE SUMERIAN LANGUAGE
#150 (63.8% of all Sumerian words)
@ "me3" BATTLE 1.7
@ "he2-gal" ABUNDANCE 1.7 ("let it be!")
@ "shul" YOUTH 1.7
@ "Zal" GO 1.6
@ "e-not" OH, SHE 1.6
@ "shesh" BRAT 1.6
@ "sag3" BEAT 1.6
@ "gaba" CHEST 1.6
@ "nag" DRINK 1.6
@ "hee-lee" BEAUTIFUL 1.5
@ "til" FULL 1.5
@ "sikil" NET 1.5
@ "dili" ONLY 1.5
@ "e2-gal" PALACE ("big house") 1.5
@ "mushin" BIRD 1.5
@ "edin" STEPPE 1.5
@"cache2" LINK 1.5
@ "hush" FURIOUS 1.5
@ "abzu" GROUNDWATER 1.4
@ "nin9" SISTER 1.4
@ "amash" SHEEP PAD 1.4
@ "ku6" FISH 1.4
@ "ball2" MULTIPLE 1.4
@ "tukul" WEAPONS 1.4
@ "ur2" ROOT 1.4

Sumerian Dictionary: #176-200 TIRED - A HORRIBLE SHINE 69.8% of all Sumerian words
December 26th, 2010
@ "kush2" TIRED 1.1
@ "gi6" NIGHT 1.1
@ "am" WILD BULL 1.1
@ "giri17-zal" JOY 1.1
@ "za3-mi2" PRAISE 1.1
@ "gur" TURN 1.1
@ "ki-bal" REBELLION COUNTRY ("inverted earth") 1.1
@ "a-step4" FIELD 1.1
@ "tesh2" CONSENT 1.1
@ "di" SUD 1.1
@ "ki-tush" RESIDENCE ("place+sit") 1.1
@ "sugar" SAND 1.1
@ "y3" AND 1.1
@ "ki-sikil" GIRL ("clean place") 1.1
@ "ab2" COW 1.1
@ "gi" REED 1.1
@ "ni2-bi" SELF 1.0
@ "kar" RUN 1.0
@ "dul" PACK TOGETHER 1.0
@ "kug" PRECIOUS METAL ("brilliant") 1.0
@ "ur5" TOT 1.0
@ "shir3" SONG 1.0
@ "max" ADD 1.0
@ "kig2" SEARCH 1.0
@ "me-lem4" "HORRIBLE SHINE" 1.0

Philologist Martin Worthfington from the University of London has created a special site aimed at bringing together people interested in the language of the ancient inhabitants of Babylon - the Sumerians. On this site you can listen to how Sumerian tales, legends or stories sound.

The language of the ancient Sumerians existed in the 4th-1st millennia BC, and by now there is not a single person left on Earth who would be its carrier.

Sumer is a civilization that existed in the southeast of Mesopotamia (between the Euphrates and the Tigris in the south of modern Iraq) in the 4th-3rd millennia BC. e... It is considered the first civilization on Earth.

In the second half of the 4th millennium BC. e. in southern Mesopotamia, the Sumerians appeared - a people who, in later written documents, call themselves "blackheads" (Sumer. "Sang-ngiga", Akkad. "Tsalmat-Kakkadi"). They were a people ethnically, linguistically and culturally alien to the Semitic tribes who settled northern Mesopotamia at about the same time or somewhat later. The Sumerian language, with its bizarre grammar, is not related to any of the languages ​​that have survived to this day. They belong to the Mediterranean race. Attempts to find their original homeland have so far ended in failure. Apparently, the country where the Sumerians came from was somewhere in Asia, rather in a mountainous area, but located in such a way that its inhabitants could master the art of navigation. Evidence that the Sumerians came from the mountains is their way of building temples, which were erected on artificial mounds or on terraced hills made of bricks or clay blocks.

The Sumerians own the invention of cuneiform writing, possibly the wheel, baked bricks, irrigation and watering systems. The Sumerians invented the world's first irrigation canals. They learned how to drain swamps and bring water to fields several centuries before the Egyptians. There was neither stone nor wood in their country, and they made stone themselves - they burned clay bricks and built houses and temples from them. They built the oldest cities in the world, and the architectural and building techniques developed by their architects entered the practice of peoples who did not even suspect the existence of their teachers.

Today it is known for certain that the first Sumerian cities arose at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. Trade flourished in the cities, artisans made magnificent ceramics and bronze tools. Each of the cities was an independent state, ruled by an ensi king. Cuneiform tablets tell of wars fought over land, water, and slaves. They describe in detail the methods of housekeeping on the royal lands and in the homes of citizens. The Sumerians were engaged in boxing, wrestling and hunting, and also participated in horse racing on light two-wheeled carts pulled by donkeys. Their priests watched the sun and stars from the walls of sacred towers. They counted the number of days in a year, divided the year into twelve months, the week into seven days, determined that there are twenty-four hours in a day and sixty minutes in an hour.

According to Worthfington himself, he himself can communicate on some topics in the Sumerian language, the sound of words in which he managed, one way or another, to reconstruct.

“True, I would still need an interlocutor to understand myself better”, the researcher admitted. To this end, the scientist and a group of his associates created a unique website - Babylonian and Assyrian Poetry and Literature Project (Babylonian and Assyrian poetic and literary project), which posted records of the literary works of the Sumerians, as well as other ancient inhabitants of the interfluve of the Tigris and Euphrates (modern Iraq) - Assyrians, Akkadians, Chaldeans and so on. Each person can try his hand at reading the ancient inscriptions of these peoples that have come down to us.

Judging by the linguistic and toponymic data, the Sumerians were not the autochthons of Sumer. This circumstance, the fact that the Sumerians belong to the Caucasoid race, as well as all the data we obtained above, speak in favor of their possible origin from the territories of Russia (Russian Plain). Since other places of a possible outcome of the Caucasoids of the Sumerians in the 7th - 5th millennium BC. simply did not exist, and a whole nation cannot suddenly flare up as a wonderful civilization - flare up out of nowhere.

Skeptics, of course, may have some doubts, citing as arguments the possibility of the birth of geniuses among a previously uncivilized people, which, supposedly, these geniuses lead to the heights of civilization.

Let's take a special example for this.
Hosted on ref.rf
Imagine: a monkey is sitting on a tree. She had never seen anything more advanced than a banana in her life and did nothing more advanced than poking around with a stick in an anthill. You look at her and talk on a mobile phone. After being distracted for a minute and putting the phone aside, upon returning you notice that the same monkey is sitting on the same tree and holding a mobile phone in its paws. Every normal person understands that there is no place for miracles, and the origin of the mobile phone in the hands of a monkey is clearly defined.

So, returning to Sumer, we must clearly understand that the Sumerians came to the uninhabited regions of Sumer from another country and not only brought Caucasoid racial characteristics, but also knowledge, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ in the areas of their exodus was collected bit by bit over many dozens thousand years. This, in particular, also applies to mythology and language. Or another example.
Hosted on ref.rf
China has the world's only fastest train. But the Germans developed and made it. If the Chinese destroy the designers and documentation, does this mean that they will be considered the inventors and manufacturers of this train?

Of course not! And in this regard, we recall again that both in terms of the density of archaeological sites of the time of the appearance of modern man (50 - 40 thousand BC; see paragraph 6. Chapter IV), and in terms of the spread of worldview cults, in particular , the cult of the Slavic Mokosh (starting from 42 thousand BC, Kostenki, Russia; see the map of the distribution of the cult of the Slavic goddess Makoshi), and by population in 50 - 40 - 20 thousand BC .e. (see paragraph 5. ch. IV), and according to the distribution of language families (see Languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the world), we will not find another center of the Caucasoid Proto-Slavic civilization anywhere except Russia - Russia, located on the ancient Russian platform.

Meanwhile, in a number of linguistic studies, the Sumerian language is defined as ʼʼgenetically isolatedʼʼ. Politics, or more precisely, historical politics, in this case interferes with the conduct of scientific thought. And it intervenes for the reason that the modern democratic world community (see ʼʼDemocracy leads to the death of an egregorʼʼ) is mostly built on the basis of the thesis of the biblical origin of civilization. Even that declared DIFFERENT position of academic science about the adherence to the latest Darwinian theory by its other wing still refers the Darwinian origin of man to places of exclusively biblical events. What is worth at least the adoption by the scientific community of the name of the language family according to the character of the Bible: Sim - Semitic languages: imagine, the Slavs will give names to languages ​​\u200b\u200baccording to the Book of Veles - Veles languages, Svarogov languages, Makoshin languages, Yaril languages, Rusal languages, etc. d. Or another term - praadamites, which defines people who lived before the biblical Adam. Imagine, we will call them praquetzalcoatl - the descendants of the Indian Quetzalcoatl. This, in turn, imposes a rigid framework on historical popularization, semitically pre-establishing that, allegedly:

• firstly, the ancestors of all peoples are Semites,
• secondly, the ancestor of all languages ​​is the Semitic language.

As is known, neither one nor the other is far from the historical reality. As is also known, and as we have shown in Chap. XI, the so-called Semitic community was created by reconstruction (artificially), starting only from the 18th century AD. Two other false (ʼʼhypotheticalʼʼ') families of languages, named after two of the three sons of the biblical Noah, Ham and Japhet, have already died in non-existence - Hamitic and Japhetic. Semitic still clings to life, although it never finds a place on the maps of languages. Unless by direct renaming of existing installed languages ​​and language families.

Despite the data of science, publicly following the strained concept of interethnic tolerance, numerous scientists actually serve the process of long-term historical occupation (see paragraph 8. Chapter IV) of new lands by Semitic-Caucasian settlers who consistently destroyed all known civilizations (with the exception of only one so far - Russian). As you know, the book of the Bible ʼʼApocalypseʼʼ speaks of the massacre that the Jewish messiah / Mashiach / Christ will inflict, destroying the ALL population of the Earth and leaving only 144,000 Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel. It is precisely for this that such scientists, to the detriment of the truth, preach precisely the Semitic (Jewish-Biblical) origin of civilization. Although, we repeat, this, of course, is from the field of mythology and has nothing to do with science.

For this reason, the claimed "genetic isolation" of the Sumerian language actually implies the following: the Sumerians have neither ancestors nor brothers among the known languages ​​of the world. Which, in turn, says only one of two things:

• either the Sumerians were silent (didn’t have a language at all) before they came to Sumer,
• either the Sumerians came to Sumer from another planet.

Because in all other cases, the Sumerians must have linguistic relatives. In this case, the situation is not unique. She repeats exactly the situation with the Etruscan language, the origin of which is also allegedly not established.

The interestingness of these two situations lies in fact in the fact that both cultures - both Sumerian and Etruscan (from Pelasgian) - were the most developed in their regions in their historical time and had an enlightening effect on subsequent cultures and peoples. Both of these cultures were formed by proto-Russian settlers. And since, we repeat, the modern presentation of history in many respects goes exclusively for the sake of the Semitic one-man command, it is unacceptable that at least some other community was historically more advanced than the Semites themselves. And in this regard, this clear setting is also clearly worked out by the relevant researchers - the Sumerian and Etruscan (from Pelasgian) languages ​​\u200b\u200bdo not have (read: they cannot and should not have) their genetic ancestor.

For this reason, the Sumerian language of the early period (pre-Semitic) is not actively studied, and the Pelasgian language is not studied at all - because, if such studies were carried out, the results of these studies would put huge question marks on the works of numerous "researchers" euʼʼ, stating the above-mentioned difficulties in classifying these languages.

At the same time, since pseudo-scientific propaganda has nothing to do with real history that has already taken place once, we are quite capable of finding the ancestors of the Sumerian language (as we did above, finding the ancestor of the Pelasgian language - see paragraph 7.1.2.1. Ch. IV).

The formation of the Sumerian language is attributed to the culture of Uruk (4th millennium BC), which replaced the El-Obeid culture (in the center of the city of Uruk, both the ʼʼRed Buildingʼʼ and the ʼʼWhite Templeʼʼ were excavated).

The accepted periodization of the Sumerian language itself is as follows:

• 2900 - 2500 gᴦ. BC. - archaic period: many ideograms in writing, not all grammatical formants and sounds are recorded; educational and economic texts, building inscriptions, legal documents.
• 2500 - 2300 gᴦ. BC. - the old period: economic texts, building, legal and historical inscriptions.

Further periods of the language of the peoples of the Sumerian territories speak of the Semitic-Caucasoid occupation and the complete destruction of the Caucasoid population of Sumer by the new Semites:

• 2300 - 2200 gᴦ. BC. - transitional period: a small number of written monuments, which is explained by the Sumerian-Akkadian bilingualism.
• 2200 - 2000. BC. – new period: many building inscriptions, long poems, religious texts, archives.
• 2000 - 1800. BC. – late period: epic songs, hymns; a clear influence of the Akkadian language (a Semitic group of the Afroasian language family).
• From 1800 ᴦ. BC. - the post-Sumerian period, when the language ceased to be alive and remained only one of the official ones; from that time bilinguals remained.

The early stage of the Sumerian language, as we noted above, does not seem to correlate with any of the known languages, and the later one correlates with the languages ​​of the Sino-Caucasian family. It was during this period that the Semitic-Caucasian occupation of Sumer took place. Sources speak of this as a process of assimilation of one culture by another, forgetting, however, that the culture of the Sumerians was completely destroyed by the assimilants, reworked by them and later issued as their own (for example, the Chaldean-Arameans ʼʼ inheritedʼʼ astrology from the Sumerians, ʼʼ the ancient Jewsʼʼ ʼʼ inheritedʼʼ from the Sumerians letter, etc., etc.). This is exactly the same as how the conquistadors "inherited" the lands of both Americas from the Indians: many cities and states bear the names of Indian tribes, and the Indians themselves became an excellent fertilizer for the barren prairies of the West.

The first monuments of Sumerian writing date back to 3200 BC. The Sumerian language was spoken in the 4th - 3rd millennium BC. among the carriers of the El-Obeid culture. But since it was historically built on the Hassun culture of the 6th millennium BC, and the similarity of the religious cult of worship of the Slavic Makosh (identical female figurines, ornament, etc., see above) is obvious, we can assume that the language the Sumerians were inherited precisely from this time.

The source, based on the data of linguistics, convincingly shows that at the time of the beginning of the existence of Sumer (5th millennium BC), in general, only six family languages ​​\u200b\u200bexisted on Earth:

1. Austrian - the east of Eurasia,

2. Elamo-Dravidian - east of Sumer,

3. Sino-Caucasian - northwest of Sumer,

4. Russian (general Indo-European) - to the west and north of Sumer,

5. Ural - northeast of Sumer,

6. Afroasian - in northeast Africa,

7. Negroid - in South Africa.

Rice. 4.7.1.3.1.1. Tree of Languages. Fragment 10 - 2 thousand BC

This list is final. Additions to it are not possible. During the period under consideration, the language space has been ʼʼplowedʼʼ far and wide, so that it will not only be impossible, but impossible at all, to find any additional family of languages ​​that was not previously known.

Analyzing the above list, we find that the Sumerians (early stage, before the 5th millennium BC) had no contact with the Austrian, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic and Negroid language families - the delimitation took place by territorial remoteness. In addition, racially, the Sumerians, who belong to the Caucasoid race, could not speak the languages ​​​​of the Mongoloids (Austrian and Uralic families) or Negroids (Afrasian and Negroid families). Also, due to the racial discrepancy, the Sumerians could not be carriers of the Elamo-Dravidian language of the native Negroid population of Elam and India. There can also be no talk of borrowings and possible processing of the latter, since even at the present time the Caucasoid-Indians have not mixed their Indo-European language with the Dravidian language of the local Dravidian Negroid population of India - there are still two ʼʼ languages ​​ʼʼ in India (two streams of languages).

Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, of the seven named families of languages, the Sumerians could only speak:

• either in Sino-Caucasian (Semitic),
• or in Proto-Russian (general Indo-European) languages.

Numerous studies clearly show that the Sumerian language does not belong to the Sino-Caucasian (Semitic) family. Moreover, it was after the Semitic-Caucasian ʼʼstateʼʼ of Akkad, located northwest of Sumer, was created, strengthened and attacked Sumer, that both the Sumerian language and the Sumerian people ceased to exist.

At the same time, this process of forced assimilation took place only from the 2nd millennium BC, which is reflected in the periodization of the Sumerian language given by us above. The conclusions about the belonging of the Sumerian language to the proto-Russian (Indo-European) family are beyond doubt. Although, to clarify our positions, let us turn to the analysis of the language itself.

The structure of the Sumerian language as two basic typological dominants contained:

• agglutinative nature of the organization of morphemes in a word,
• ergative nature of actant-predicate relations.

These two traits have a number of dependent tendencies in the structure of the language. The first of them determines that all morphemes in the Sumerian word have boundaries - they carry one grammatical meaning each. Agglutination consists in the fact that derivative words are formed by attaching affixes that have a certain meaning to the root or base. At the same time, affixes follow each other, do not merge with either roots or other affixes, and their boundaries are distinct. For example, pomorka, where: by - a prefix indicating the location; pest - the root that establishes the meaning of the basis; k - a suffix indicating females formed from the root; a - the ending indicating the feminine gender, singular. The Sumerian language is synharmonism(within a disyllabic stem, only one vowel is possible, for example, milk, parade, good, etc.) and ergative structure (the verb-predicate always closes the sentence, and the actant with the meaning of active action always comes first, for example, I love you, you look at the sky, etc.).

Agglutination as a structural dominant ͵ in terms of opinions suggests that the language should be polysynthetic, especially in the structure of the verb. In the Sumerian language, this is confirmed by the fact that almost all types of actants have agreement in the structure of the verb, and the morphological and syntactic expression of the ergative structure of the language are almost completely correlated.

Moreover, today, according to some linguists, polysynthetism is characteristic only for the languages ​​of America, New Guinea, Oceania, and northern Australia. In Eurasia, polysynthetic languages ​​are distributed only in the Far East, the only geographical exception is the Abkhazian language in western Transcaucasia. For Africa, polysyntheticism is also uncharacteristic. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, we see that polysynthesism is a phenomenon mainly of Mongoloid languages. The Sumerians, as we have shown above, were Caucasoids.

For this reason, to consider the situation around Sumerian polysyntheism, let's give an encyclopedic example: ʼʼPolysyntheism is not an absolute, but a relative characteristic of the language, one of the poles of the continuum ʼʼanalytism - synthesis - polysyntheismʼʼ. Consider the English sentence (1) ʼʼI am trying to sleepʼʼ and its translations into Russian (2) - ʼʼI try to sleepʼʼ and into the language of the Central Yupik (Eskimo family, Alaska) (3) - ʼʼqavangcaartuaʼʼ (example of M. Mitun). The meaning of all three sentences is the same, and the number of morphemes / semantic elements is approximately the same: in each of the three sentences there are about six of them. At the same time, the English language expresses this meaning in five words, of which two, three or even four are auxiliary. English is mostly analytic, and the only productive grammatical affix in sentence (1) is the ϶ᴛᴏ suffix -ing. The Russian language is moderately synthetic. The English particle to in (2) corresponds to the infinitive suffix -т, and the main predicate I try to be expressed in one word (synthetically), and not in an analytical combination with an auxiliary verb, as in English. Central Yupik is a highly synthetic or polysynthetic language: all grammatical meanings in sentence (3) are conveyed by affixes of the verb ʼʼsleepʼʼ, which is semantically main. A morpheme denoting ʼʼяʼʼ also acts as an affix, and even the meaning of ʼʼtryʼʼ, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ in English and Russian should rather be considered lexical. All degrees of synthesis are possible, intermediate between Russian and Yupik, as well as exceeding Yupik's polysyntheticismʼʼ.

Note that the English language belongs to the degrading languages ​​- languages ​​that lose some of their previous achievements. This is the reflection of analytics. Moreover, the English language comes from the Proto-Russian-Common Indo-European, and its degradation is caused by the significant removal of England from the territories of the initial formation of the Proto-Russian-Common Indo-European language, as well as by mixing with the languages ​​of other, less developed language families.

From the Russian language, we will give the following examples of polysyntheism and its translations into analyticism (actant + function words + verb of an indefinite form): I bite. ʼʼYou will jump over.ʼʼ - ʼʼyou can jump to the other sideʼʼ, etc.

For a Russian person who is fluent in his native language, one verb - I'll work, bite, jump - is enough to describe the concept that corresponds to it. For this reason, sentences consisting of one such word are frequent in Russian. Especially in conversation.

It is in connection with this that the idea of ​​the degree of polysynthesism of a particular language fundamentally depends on the criteria for highlighting the boundary of a word. Such boundaries (universal) do not exist in linguistics today. As a result, when ideas about the boundary of a word change, the qualification of the language on the scale ʼʼanalytism - synthesistism - polysyntheticismʼʼ can change radically. For this reason, any little-studied language presents to linguists, first of all, the riddle of its division into words. Polysynthetic languages ​​usually have the ability to convey one or another meaning expressed by means of a verbal affix (for example, ʼʼbite-Yuʼʼ) also using a separate word (for example, ʼʼI biteʼʼ).

Note that in the word ʼʼI biteʼʼ previously the prefix ʼʼpo-ʼʼ was a separate preposition, but now it has merged with the next word. And even duplicate constructions have developed, for example: ʼʼalong-ʼʼ + [ʼʼalong the topʼʼ + ʼʼostʼʼ (is) = ʼʼsurfaceʼʼ] = ʼʼalong the surfaceʼʼ.

For this reason, most linguists, regarding the polysynthetic nature of a particular language, share the formula ʼʼ, it is obvious that this is not a binary sign like ʼʼyes / noʼʼʼʼ. Because when ideas about the boundary of a word change, the qualification of a language on the scale ʼʼanalytism - synthesistism - polysyntheticismʼʼ can change radically. Here is another eloquent encyclopedic example: ʼʼFrench is traditionally perceived as one of the most analytical Western European languages. Meanwhile, such a description is imposed only by the habit of perceiving French in its orthographic form. A more objective approach to living spoken French shows that this language has already gone through the next stage of evolution - from analytic it has turned into polysynthetic(K. Lambrecht). Sentence (5) Il me l'a donne ʼʼhe gave it to meʼʼ, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ we habitually perceive as consisting of five words, actually represents one phonetic word, and if we described this language as some little-studied language of New Guinea or Amazonia, it is likely that just such an interpretation ʼʼ could be offered.

The same applies to the ergativity of the Sumerian language. The structure of ergativity in Sumerian is integral, ᴛ.ᴇ. manifests itself both in the verbal system (personal affixes) and in the nominal (ergative case, expressed by the postfix -e). In our example, you can translate one word ʼʼI biteʼʼ into an ergative sentence, for example, ʼʼI biteʼʼ. Here we get an agreement between the actant ʼʼяʼʼ and the affix ʼʼ-уʼʼ, although from our point of view this is just a common duplication. It was precisely because of the ergativity that the Sumerian language was ranked among the Sino-Caucasian languages: both Abkhaz-Adyghe or Nakh-Dagestan, and Kartvelian. At the same time, they have the nominative nature of the syntax, which is inherent in Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, etc.
Hosted on ref.rf
languages. And ergativity is declared as qualitatively different in relation to nominative languages ​​such as Slavic or Turkic.

From all that has been said above, it becomes clear why attempts by a simple comparison of certain features of the Sumerian language to squeeze it into any family were unsuccessful. It is precisely in this connection that it was not possible to prove that the Sumerian language belongs to the Sino-Caucasian family: not one of the structural or lexical elements found in Sumerian and at the same time finding a parallel in any other Sino-Caucasian should be declared a genetic parallel, since it can turn out to be an ancient borrowing.

From our point of view, based on the analysis of the spatio-temporal classification of languages ​​set forth in, the Sumerian language cannot be related to the Sino-Caucasian languages, since most of the latter in the era of the developed Sumerian language (5 thousand BC) simply did not existed in history. The only Sino-Caucasian language of the 5th millennium BC. is Proto-Kartvelian. At the same time, it was obtained by calculation, that is, the probability of its existence can be either 100% or 0%. Moreover, the Sino-Caucasian archaeological cultures of this time have not yet been found. All cultures of the 5th millennium BC regions of Mesopotamia are Proto-Russian Proto-Slavic (see paragraph 7.1.3. Ch. IV). The obvious complete impossibility of using the language of another race (Caucasian) by the Sumerians, moreover, we repeat, it was after the genocide organized in Sumer by the Semites-Akkadians that Sumer itself, and the Sumerians, and the Sumerian language ceased to exist.

On the other hand, the Proto-Russian - Proto-Slavic - language in the 5th millennium BC. actually attested by the works of Gornung, Rybakov, and others.
Hosted on ref.rf
Moreover, it is attested both archaeologically, and linguistically, and territorially - along the northeastern, northern, northwestern, western and southwestern borders of the Black Sea. From the southwestern border to the southern border, there are only a few hundred kilometers (about 200 km), which, of course, does not present an obstacle for speakers of any language.

Based on the foregoing, we have the right to count on a fairly high percentage of the coincidence of Sumerian and Russian words (yes, despite the difference in age).

Table 4.7.1.3.1.1. Comparison of Sumerian, Russian and other Indo-European words.

Consider some more features of the Sumerian language. For example, in the Sumerian language, plurality is formed by repetition - Sumer.
Hosted on ref.rf
udu-udu, all meaning sheep. In the Russian language, elœe-elœe, we go-go, quietly-quietly, etc. have been preserved. Sumer.
Hosted on ref.rf
udu-xa, rams of various kinds (by the affix -xa, Russian - ksa) in Russian also has an analogue for designating ʼʼdifferent kindʼʼ: sky - heaven-sa, miracle - miracle-sa, body - telœe-sa, etc. .d.

The Sumerians themselves called themselves ʼʼsang-ngigaʼʼ. This is usually translated as ʼʼblackheadsʼʼ from sang, head, ngi(g), blacken. A very controversial statement, since they were not blacks, but white Caucasians. And this means that, unlike the Negroid natives who were present next to them, the Sumerians were by no means black-headed, but rather ʼʼʼʼʼʼʼ.

For this reason, in our opinion, it is possible:

• or the term ʼʼsang-ngigaʼʼ the Sumerians called the autochthonous Negroid population;
• or this phrase should be deciphered differently.

Let's consider several options. Based on the fact that the Sumerian language by its nature has ergative a structure in which the verb-predicate always closes the sentence, and the actant with the meaning of the active action always comes first, we get ʼʼ head + black (schey, shcha)ʼʼ. That is, the active character here is sang, the head, and ngi(g) is the verb ʼʼblackʼʼ, -a is the suffix of the formation of the name, as well as the formation of the participle from the verbs (ngig, blacken - ngiga, blackening). Compounding in the Sumerian name system consisted of a simple addition of roots. Some compound words go back to the typical Sumerian language group ʼʼdefinable - definitionʼʼ, and the definition must be expressed by an adjective, application or noun in the genitive case. That is, ʼʼsang-ngigaʼʼ can be translated like this - ʼʼ blackening head“Near or killing?). But sang can denote not only the head, but also a verb of a similar meaning - as, for example, shu denotes both the hand and the verbs ʼʼtookʼʼ, ʼʼtouchedʼʼ. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, sang can mean Russian. verb ʼʼgolovatʼʼ, ʼʼgolovanʼʼ, chop head = ʼʼhead something (thread, prostrate)ʼʼ. Just like the Russian colloquial ʼʼshtonitʼʼ = ʼʼsomethingʼʼ. If we remake the construction for the Sumerian type (rearranging the function word-morpheme ʼʼthread-somethingʼʼ from the end of the word to its beginning), we get ʼʼnheadʼʼ - ʼʼdecapitateʼʼ, and the self-name of the Sumerians - ʼʼ beheadingʼʼ. We find confirmation of this in French - sang, blood.

There is a second translation option. With the Sumerian spelling sang-(i)gi-g(al)-a, head-eyes-large we get - ʼʼ big-eyedʼʼ in the sense of ʼʼbeautifulʼʼ.

Third option. Sumerian sang-n-gigas is comparable to: French. sang - genus, origin; san - ʼʼnoble bornʼʼ; Greek gigas, pl. gigantes is the name of mythical creatures of enormous stature and superhuman strength. Then we have a translation - ʼʼ giants, noblesʼʼ.

Another option: san-g (i) n (a) - (i) gi-ga (l) - ʼʼ sons of the big-eyed giants who came ʼʼ.

In our opinion, the variants of translations of the self-name of the Sumerians given by us - ʼʼdecapitatingʼʼ, ʼʼbig-eyedʼʼ, ʼʼgiants, noble by birthʼʼ - reflect the essence of the Sumerian people more than the old term ʼʼblack-headedʼʼ, which is not attached to anything. Moreover, the deciphering of ʼʼ the sons of the big-eyed giants who came ʼʼ most correctly shows both the historical appearance of the Sumerians in the lands of Sumer, and their difference from the local native Negroid-Dravidian population.

At the end of our discussion of the Sumerian language, we present one more interesting parallel. The Sumerian self-name sang-ngiga or in one word - sangngiga - is very consonant with the Russian name of the ancient Paleolithic site Sungir - in Latin transcription - sungir.

conclusions

Analyzing the given Sumerian words, their translation, Russian analogues and their transliteration, as well as extensive vocabulary nests of other Slavic-Indo-European languages, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. The coincidence of the Russian and Sumerian languages ​​is almost complete. This is provided that the time difference between the words of these two languages ​​used for comparison is more than 5 thousand years. The data obtained are in full agreement with what is stated in the work ʼʼLanguages ​​of the worldʼʼ, where it is shown that in the period from the 6th to 3.5 thousand BC. the Sumerian language was a departed branch of Proto-Slavic-Proto-Russian. Since the departure of the Sumerian language from Russian (6th millennium BC), the Russian language has not been subjected to any significant influences of other (non-Indo-European) families, and therefore, it has retained its vocabulary arsenal. Naturally, time influenced the Russian language in certain linguistic stages, but the roots, as we have shown, have remained largely unchanged.

2. An extremely high degree of similarity of the Sumerian language with almost all other languages ​​​​of the Indo-European family, common in Europe, was found. This is also in perfect agreement with the data presented in, which shows that European languages ​​in the period from the 6th to 3.7 thousand BC. were the second branch that departed from the Proto-Slavic-Proto-Russian language. Almost all the Indo-European languages ​​of Europe, like Russian, have not experienced significant influences from non-Indo-European families of languages.

3. The comparison showed a high degree of similarity of the Sumerian language with the ancient Indian and Avestan languages. Both of these languages ​​departed from Russian in the period from 3.5 to the 2nd millennium BC. . At the initial stage of this period, from 3.5 thousand BC, the Sumerian, ancient Indian and Avestan languages ​​coexisted in parallel.

4. The analysis revealed an extremely low degree of coincidence of the Sumerian language with Greek. This is explained by the fact that the Sumerian language of the period under consideration (5 - 2 thousand BC), having broken away from the Proto-Slavic-Proto-Russian, was still to a large extent a common Indo-European-Proto-Russian language and did not experience the impact of another, unrelated language family . The Greek language, on the contrary, is not an independent language, but a mixture (Koine) of the languages ​​of two unrelated language families - Pelasgian-Common Indo-European-Proto-Russian and Achaean-

B. Sumerian

Sumerian is an agglutinative language, not an inflectional one like the Indo-European or Semitic languages. Its roots are generally immutable. The basic grammatical unit is a phrase rather than a single word. Its grammatical particles tend to retain their independent structure rather than appear in complex conjunction with the roots of words. Therefore, structurally, the Sumerian language closely resembles such agglutinative languages ​​as Turkish, Hungarian and some Caucasian ones. In terms of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, Sumerian still stands apart and does not seem to be related to any other language, living or dead.

Sumerian has three open vowels, a, e, o, and three corresponding closed vowels, a, k, and i. Vowels were not pronounced strictly, but often changed in accordance with the rules of sound harmony. This primarily concerned vowels in grammatical particles - they sounded short and were not accented. At the end of a word or between two consonants, they were often omitted.

The Sumerian language has fifteen consonants: b, p, t, e, g, k, z, s, w, x, r, l, m, n, nasal g (ng). The consonants could be omitted, i.e. they were not pronounced at the end of a word unless they were followed by a grammatical particle that began with a vowel.

Sumerian roots are mostly monosyllabic, although there are quite a few words that are polysyllabic. The doubling of the roots was used as an indication of the plurality of objects or actions. Substantives often consist of compound words: lu-gal, "king"(big man) oak-cap, "clerk"(filling in the plates) di-ku, "judge"(deciding). Abstract names are formed using us: lu-gal - "king", nam-lu-gal - "kingdom", "reigning". Substances had no gender. Instead, they were divided into two categories: animate and inanimate. Grammatically, animals belonged to the inanimate category.

The Sumerian sentence consisted of: 1) several substantive complexes related to the predicate (predicate) either as a subject, or as a direct or indirect object, or as a dimensional component; 2) grammatical particles that establish the relationship of the components; 3) predicate (predicate) - a verbal root, which is preceded by a thematic particle and which is accompanied by infixes that define the relationship between the root and substantive complexes. A substantive complex can consist only of a noun or a noun with all its definitions, such as adjectives, genitives (indicators of belonging), comparative phrases and possessive pronouns. Particles that establish relationships always stand at the end of the entire substantive complex, therefore they are called post-positions.

The Sumerian language is quite poor in adjectives and often uses genitives instead of them. Links and conjunctions are rarely used. (In this regard, the union "and" should be placed in brackets, but in the translations offered in this book, this feature is not always kept consistently.)

In addition to the main Sumerian dialect, probably known as emegir,"royal language", there were several others, less significant. One of them, emesal, was used mainly in the speeches of female deities, women and eunuchs.

Language I can't say anything about the Swedish language: I just don't know it. But Charlotte Davitt believes that it is expedient and economical. As an example, she cites cases where the same word has different, sometimes opposite, meanings. For example, "hey" depending on