シュメール語のUDUL, ((牛飼い)) について

概要

論文の詳細を見る
The phonetic value of ÁB-KU was generally given as ‘udul’ or ‘utul (/utullu)’ in the Babylonian syllabaries. These values, however, cannot be accepted as authentic, at least concerning the texts covering the period from the Early Dynasty to the Third Dynasty of Ur.It is true that the word ‘udu (1)’ was attested in such syllabic writings as ú-du/ú-du-1 (e), in Old Sumerian (and Neo-Sumerian) texts, but we have some reasons to believe that ÁB-KU, in those periods, was not read udu (1). The first reason is that a phonetic complementd added to ÁB-KU informs us uhat ÁB-KU did not end in /1/, but in /d/. Secondly, ÁB-KU and udu (1) differed in their office, that is, ÁB-KU took charge of ÁB ((cow)) and gud ((ox)), while udu (1) had udu ((sheep)) and anše ((donkey)) under his charge.On the other hand, ÁB-KU was actually read ‘utul (u)’ in the Post-Sumerian texts. Hence it is quite possible that ÁB-KU became identical with udu (1) in the later period when the syllabaries were composed, although both were originally distinct.If ‘unù’, another phonetic value of ÁB-KU and its Eme-sal value ‘munu’ were related in some way and unù were an older value of ÁB-KU, unù and munu must be derived from *en-u (d) and *umun-u (d) respectively. But the possibility that ÁB-KU was simply read ábku (d) cannot be excluded.
社団法人日本オリエント学会の論文