Coolest Quote Ever

**Mulceber** · 02-01-2010, 23:07

Gotta say, that quote is pretty bad@$$. Really drives home the fact that the ancients didn't believe in modesty. -M

**Ibrahim** · 02-02-2010, 00:51

it also, once again, proves that the Akkadian language never seems to have evolved all that much-at least in comparison to other languages

seriously, I learned old Babylonian/Assyrian, and mos of the words I recognize in exactly the same form as from then.

**Tudhaliya** · 02-02-2010, 02:52

Dude, tell me about that. I asked in class about it, and apparently they really loved to write conservatively. Of course, what they wrote probably sound nothing like what they spoke (which at that time was definitely Aramaic), but even when there were Neo-Assyrian speakers alive, they rarely wrote in their "barbaric" dialect.

**Ibrahim** · 02-02-2010, 05:02

Originally Posted by Tudhaliya

Dude, tell me about that. I asked in class about it, and apparently they really loved to write conservatively. Of course, what they wrote probably sound nothing like what they spoke (which at that time was definitely Aramaic), but even when there were Neo-Assyrian speakers alive, they rarely wrote in their "barbaric" dialect.

indeed. Aramaic ended up replacing Akkadian as the lingua franca of the area in the 7th and 6th centuries BC. however, even when it was spoken regularly in the region, there is in fact surprisingly little change or divergeance between the dialaects of the language over its 2000 year existance. the main features that have changed are as follows:

1-loss of the final -m in declined and conjugated words
2-loss of the dual (already evident in old akkadian, but completed by its decendants)
3-the loss of weak consonants, and the contraction of most glottal stops. its where the circumflex sign on rabu originated; it used to be raba'u, but the glottal stop was contrated, and the succeeding vowel (the u here) became a long vowel.
4-a few vocab changes, between the dialects and thei ancestors; that's only natural

otherwise, Babylonian and assyrian, the two major dialects, remained both mutually intelligeable to each other, and partly with their past counterparts.

**ziegenpeter** · 02-02-2010, 09:57

Wow! Cool quote. But since I don't know much about ancient oriental languages, I wonder why a greek king hat this written in Akkadian...? And Akkadian is related to Assyrian?

**Mulceber** · 02-02-2010, 10:19

I don't know oriental languages either, but it probably was because he was a Seleucid King and thus was ruling over eastern people - similar to how Roman governors in the east often chose to speak Greek. -M

**Tudhaliya** · 02-02-2010, 13:52

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

Wow! Cool quote. But since I don't know much about ancient oriental languages, I wonder why a greek king hat this written in Akkadian...? And Akkadian is related to Assyrian?

It sure is. They're kinda the same. Akkadian is the oldest form of the language, spoken by Sargon of Akkad. Fast forward a few hundred years, and there's two dialects: Babylonian in the south, and Assyrian in the north. Like Ibrahim said, they were dialects (of Akkadian) that were probably mutually intelligible.

As for the reason Seleukus had this written, the shortest answer is because Alexander did it! We indeed have a few cylinders with his name on it (see the link in the original post). As for why Alexander did it, it's because the Persians did it. Back when the Persians took power from Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, Babylonian culture was very strong compared to the Persians. They continued a lot of the Babylonian traditions, and even claimed to restore them to their rightful glory.

**ziegenpeter** · 02-02-2010, 17:57

Ok, so its the old story: You take over a declining power and implement parts of its culture to legitimate your rule...
Since there are some experts around: How were Akkads, Sumers, Babylonians, Assyrians and Arameans related?