R. Bowman
{"title":"Anu-uballiṭ. Kefalon","authors":"R. Bowman","doi":"10.1086/370540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An interesting Aramaic inscription written on fifteen glazed bricks of the wall of a cult room has been found in the Seleucid temple at Uruk-Warka.1 Two names, Anu-uballit, spelled in Aramaic 0tZ'=Rt, and Ke?phXwv, in Aramaic bSP, form the major part of the inscription, for the names are each written twice, the second time spelled out one letter to each brick. Thus, even though some letters are so damaged as to be almost illegible, there is an adequate check on the spelling. The difficulty of the inscription lies with the two single bricks that serve to connect the names. Each of these has a series of letters forming one long or two or more short words. Kriickmann says of the inscription on these problem bricks: \"Zwischen diesen beiden Namen eine weitere Angabe, die noch gedeutet werden muss.\" He reads the first as (?) [ -] and the second as 11 (?) (?) 1 (?) ] [].2 A comparison of the two bricks, which, like the twicerepeated names, are duplicates, will clear up the reading entirely. Comparison shows that the final I is certain in both examples. In the first problem brick the two letters preceding the i are clearer than those in the second. Immediately before the \" is a 1 or ' which in turn is preceded by the traces of a letter clearly unlike the 1 which is certainly before the X on the second brick. It is not a M but a r1 which can easily be confused with it in some letters of late Aramaic.3 The first brick thus concludes with '11/M. .... The second problem brick contains more letters than the first but needs confirmation from the other to establish the last few letters with certainty. With this second difficult brick the inscription can be picked up where the first brick became illegible. Before the 1r is a clear R which is pre-","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"210 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1939-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在乌鲁克-瓦卡的塞琉古神庙中,人们在一间礼拜堂的15块釉面砖上发现了一段有趣的阿拉姆语铭文两个名字,Anu-uballit,用阿拉姆语拼写0tZ'=Rt,和Ke?phXwv,在阿拉姆语bSP中,形成了铭文的主要部分,因为每个名字都写了两次,第二次在每个砖上拼写一个字母。因此,即使有些字母损坏得几乎难以辨认,也要对拼写进行充分的检查。铭文的难点在于连接名字的两块砖。每一个都有一系列的字母组成一个长单词或两个或更多的短单词。克里克曼谈到这些问题砖上的铭文时说:“Zwischen diesen beiden Namen eine weitere Angabe, die noch gedeutet werden muss。”他把第一个读成(?)[-],第二个读成11 (?)(?)1 (?)][]两块砖的比较,就像两个重复的名字一样,是重复的,将完全澄清阅读。比较表明,在这两个例子中,最后的I是确定的。在第一个问题中,砖块i前面的两个字母比第二个问题中更清晰。紧接在“”之前的是一个“1”或“”,而“1”的前面又有一个字母的痕迹,显然与“1”不同,“1”肯定在第二块砖上的“X”之前。它不是M,而是r1,在后期阿拉姆语的一些字母中很容易与它混淆。3因此,第一块砖以“11/M. ....”结尾第二个问题砖比第一个包含更多的字母,但需要从另一个确认,以确定最后几个字母。在第一块砖难以辨认的地方,用第二块难砌的砖可以刻上碑文。在1r之前是一个明显的R,前面是-
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anu-uballiṭ. Kefalon
An interesting Aramaic inscription written on fifteen glazed bricks of the wall of a cult room has been found in the Seleucid temple at Uruk-Warka.1 Two names, Anu-uballit, spelled in Aramaic 0tZ'=Rt, and Ke?phXwv, in Aramaic bSP, form the major part of the inscription, for the names are each written twice, the second time spelled out one letter to each brick. Thus, even though some letters are so damaged as to be almost illegible, there is an adequate check on the spelling. The difficulty of the inscription lies with the two single bricks that serve to connect the names. Each of these has a series of letters forming one long or two or more short words. Kriickmann says of the inscription on these problem bricks: "Zwischen diesen beiden Namen eine weitere Angabe, die noch gedeutet werden muss." He reads the first as (?) [ -] and the second as 11 (?) (?) 1 (?) ] [].2 A comparison of the two bricks, which, like the twicerepeated names, are duplicates, will clear up the reading entirely. Comparison shows that the final I is certain in both examples. In the first problem brick the two letters preceding the i are clearer than those in the second. Immediately before the " is a 1 or ' which in turn is preceded by the traces of a letter clearly unlike the 1 which is certainly before the X on the second brick. It is not a M but a r1 which can easily be confused with it in some letters of late Aramaic.3 The first brick thus concludes with '11/M. .... The second problem brick contains more letters than the first but needs confirmation from the other to establish the last few letters with certainty. With this second difficult brick the inscription can be picked up where the first brick became illegible. Before the 1r is a clear R which is pre-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信