ŷ������

“This unusual situation is due to the fact that the tablet omits all outbreaks of the conventional literary structure �� Anu opened his mouth to speak, saying to the lady Ishtar … followed by Ishtar opened her mouth to speak, saying to her father, Anu �� Gilgamesh VI: 87��88; 92��93 �� with which Babylonian narrative literature is, not to put too fine a point on it, slightly tiresomely littered. In fact, I cannot come up with another example of Babylonian mythological or epic literature that is devoid of this characteristic speech-linking device. Its repetitive nature at first sight looks like a remnant of oral literature, where things are repeated more than we would repeat them today, which the modern connoisseur of cuneiform literature just has to accept, or appreciate as atmospheric and authentic. On reflection, however, it is just the opposite. The characteristic dependence on this formula originates in the very transition from oral to written literature, for who is speaking at any one time will always be clear in a storyteller’s presentation, but the process of writing down what has previously been spoken aloud creates ambiguity for the reader unless each speaker is clearly identified.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“…дл�� прочтения клинописного текста надо сначала идентифицировать определенный знак, затем понять, использован ли он как логограмма, силлабограмма, фонетический комплемент или детерминатив, и только после этого окончательно выбрать правильное звучание (если знак распознан как силлабограмма). Начинающие писцы, как теперь начинающие ассириологи, должны были сразу понять, что любой клинописный знак может иметь несколько звуковых значений; и наоборот �� что любой звук может быть записан различными знаками; другими словами, поливалентность �� наше всё. На практике, однако, не всякое использование знаков допускалось традицией. Поскольку слова обычно делятся на слоги, глазами мы быстро научаемся выбирать наиболее гармоничное и грамматически правильное прочтение последовательности знаков, отметая маловероятные или попросту невозможные варианты прочтения.
С самых древнейших времен месопотамские писцы начали составлять списки слов (словники), потребность в которых была связана с необходимостью зафиксировать значения новообразованных знаков, чтобы избежать путаницы и чтобы легче было их заучивать.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“Do not love, sir, do not love. Woman is a pitfall �� a pitfall, a hole, a ditch. Woman is a sharp iron dagger that cuts a man’s throat.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“One Babylonian roué, arraigned before a judge in about 1800 BC, testified, I swear that I did not have intercourse with her, that my penis did not enter her vagina; not, one reflects, the last time someone has got off on that technicality.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“Studying the world's oldest writing for the first time compels you to wonder about what writing is and how it came about more than five thousand years ago and what the world might have looked like without it.

Writing as I would define it serves to record language by means of an agreed set of symbols that enable a message to be played back like a wax cylinder recording.

The reader's eye runs over the signs and tells the brain how each is pronounced and the inner message springs into life.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“Fingers of bitumen Here we have to understand the measure as the Sumerian ideogram ŠU.ŠI (usually written ŠU.SI), standing for the Babylonian ubānu, ‘finger��, one of which comes out at about 1.66 centimetres. Bitumen is thus applied to all ark surfaces to a depth of one finger.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“When it occurs in literary texts šár = 3,600 is conventionally understood as no more than a conveniently large round number. This is evident when a well-wisher writes in a letter, ‘may the Sun God for my sake keep you well for 3,600 years��, or a battle-flushed Assyrian king claims to have ‘blinded 4 × 3,600 survivors��. Assyriologists therefore often translate šár as ‘myriad��, as conveying the right sort of mythological size and feel, although of course the Greek decimal myriad literally means ��10,000��, whereas Mesopotamians naturally thought in sixties, one ŠÁR being 60 × 60. What is truly surprising in the Ark Tablet calculations is that this sign 3,600 does not function just as a large round number but is to be taken literally.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“This field of activity generated a vast literature of carefully assembled one-line omens on this pattern: If A happened, B will happen. Here the sought-for outcome B, known as the apodosis, is deemed to be the consequence of an observed phenomenon, the protasis A. One”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“Cuneiform absolutely cannot be written with the left hand, and any school candidate who manifested that sinister tendency in antiquity would, no doubt, have it beaten out of him, as has often happened since in human history.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

“The characteristic wedge feature is a direct consequence of impressing the signs with a straight-edged writing tool in contrast to drawing with a point, and it is this that led the nineteenth-century decipherers to name the script cuneiform, derived from the Latin cuneus, ‘wedge��. Each application of the edge of the stylus-tip left a line ending in a wedge-head, be it the top of a vertical, the left end of a horizontal wedge, or a diagonal produced by impressing the corner of the stylus.”
― Irving Finkel, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood