mostmost probably : epistemic modality in old babylonian probably

8/19/2019 MostMost probably : epistemic modality in Old Babylonian Probably

1/260


2/260

MOST PROBABLY


3/260

LANGUAGES OFT H E A N C I E N T N E A R E A S T

Editorial Board

GONZALO RUBIO, Pennsylvania State UniversityEditor-in-Chief

JAMES P. ALLEN Brown University GENE B. GRAGG The Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago JOHN HUEHNERGARD Harvard University

MANFRED KREBERNIK Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena ANTONIO LOPRIENO Universität BaselH. CRAIG MELCHERT University of California, Los Angeles

PIOTR MICHALOWSKI University of Michigan P. OKTOR SKJÆRVØ Harvard University MICHAEL P. STRECK Universität Leipzig

1. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. and H. Craig MelchertPart 1: Reference Grammar Part 2: Tutorial

2. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background , by N. J. C. Kouwenberg3. Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian, by Nathan Wasserman4. Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian, by Eran Cohen


4/260

Most Probably

Epistemic Modality inOld Babylonian

by

NATHAN WASSERMANThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Winona Lake, IndianaEISENBRAUNS

2012


5/260

© 2012 by Eisenbrauns Inc.All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard forInformation Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wasserman, NathanMost probably : epistemic modality in Old Babylonian / by Nathan Wasserman.

p. cm. — (Languages of the ancient Near East; 3)Includes bibliographical references and indexes.ISBN 978-1-57506-198-6 (alk. paper)1. Akkadian language—Modality. 2. Akkadian language—Verb. I. Title.PJ3291.W37 2012492′.156—dc23 2011045654


6/260

To Hillel-Alexander and Amalia-Helena,the two particles who modified me,

with love.


7/260


8/260

vii

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1What is Modality? A Preliminary Definition 2Sketching the Outlines of Modality: Deontic vs. Epistemic Modality 3

Verbal Modes and Modality in Old Babylonian 5Root Modality in Old Babylonian: Will, Ability, and Obligation 6Mental State Modal Verbs (verba sentiendi) in Old Babylonian 6Deontic Modality in Old Babylonian Expressed Lexically 7Epistemic Modality Expressed Periphrastically 8Modal Polysemy 9Co-occurrence of Modal Expressions 10The Uniqueness of Each Modal System 11Modal Particles in General Linguistic Literature 12Epistemic Modal Particles in Semitic Studies 13The Corpus of the Study 14

1. The Modal Particle pīqat in Old Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 17Previous Studies of pīqat 17A Semantic and Functional Definition of pīqat 18

1. Weak Doubter 182. Disjunctive Construction: Optative 203. Semiconditional Constructions 224. Lowering the Level of Certitude:

from Presumption to Doubt 23

5. Vox populi: pīqat in Public Opinion as Reported Speech 25The Syntactic Profile of pīqat 261. Discourse Domains 26

Excursus: Subjectification and Perspectivization 292. Verbal Tenses 303. Negation 324. Position of the MP within the Clause 325. Phrasal Arrangement 336. pīqat and Other Particles 34

The Etymology of pīqat 37Grammaticalization 38


9/260

viii Contents

The Grammaticalization of pīqat 39List of Attestations of pīqat 41

2. The Modal Particle midde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 44Previous Studies of midde 45A Semantic and Functional Definition of midde 47 Excursus: Unilateral vs. Bilateral Possibility:

The Case of the Latin Modal System 481. midde Between “Probably” and “No Doubt” 492. Quasiconditional Constructions 523. Disjunctive Construction: Optative 53

The Syntactic Profile of midde 541. Discourse Domains 542. Verbal Tenses 553. Negation 574. Position of the MP within the Clause 585. Phrasal Arrangement 596. midde and Other Particles 60

The Grammaticalization of midde 61List of attestations of midde 63

3. The Modal Particles wuddi and anna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 65Previous Studies of wuddi 65A Semantic and Functional Definition of wuddi 66

1. Past Certainty 66wuddi vs. anna: Doubt-and-Denial vs.

Promissory-Declarative Particles 692. Future Certainty: Promissory 713. Conterfactual Certainty 72

The Syntactic Profile of wuddi 73

1. Discourse Domains 732. Verbal Tenses 743. Negation 744. Position of the MP within the Clause 745. Phrasal Arrangement 766. wuddi and Other Particles 78

The Grammaticalization of wuddi 79List of Attestations of wuddi and anna 80

4. The Modal Expression lū ittum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 82Previous Studies of lū ittum 83

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/260

ixContents

A Semantic and Functional Definition of lū ittum 83The Syntactic Profile of lū ittum 85

1. Discourse Domains 852. Verbal Tenses 87

3. Negation 874. Position of the Expression within the Clause 885. Phrasal Arrangement 886. lū ittum and Other Particles 89

The Grammaticalization of lū ittum 89List of attestations of lū ittum 93

5. The Modal Particle tuša . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 95Previous Studies of tuša 95A Semantic and Functional Definition of tuša 97

tuša vs. -man 97The Syntactic Profile of tuša 99

1. Discourse Domains 992. Verbal Tenses 1023. Negation 1044. Position of the MP within the Clause 1065. Phrasal Arrangement 1066. tuša and Other Particles 111tuša vs. tuša-ma 112

The Etymology of tuša 112List of attestations of tuša 114

6. The Modal Particle -man and the Irrealis Constructionsibašši, lū, and ašar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Preliminaries 115Types of Irrealis 116Irrealis and Tense: Future and Past Irrealis 116

Irrealis in Old Babylonian: The Modal Particle -man 118The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 118Previous Studies of the Modal Particle -man 118A Semantic and Functional Definition of -man 119The Syntactic Profile of -man 119

1. Verbal Tenses: Tense Relations Between Protasis and Apodosis 1202. Irrealis and Precative 1253. Position of the MP within the Clause 129

Excursus: A Typological Comparison with the Irrealis Particle

by in Russian 1304. -man and Other Particles 131

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/260

x Contents

Other Expressions of Potentialis and Irrealis 132The Particle lū Expressing Irrealis 133The Conjunction ašar Expressing Irrealis 135

7. The Modal Particle kīša and the Expressions kī ša and kīma ša . . . . . . . 138Synthetic kīša or Analytic kī ša? 138Etymology 141The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 143Previous Studies of kīša 143A Semantic and Functional Definition of kīša 143

1. kīša Denoting Irony and Sarcastic Objection 1442. kīša as a Certifier 146kīša and kī /kīma ša vs. tuša 148

The Syntactic Profile of kīša 1501. Discourse Domains 1502. Verbal Tenses 1523. Negation 1524. Position of the MP within the Clause 1525. Phrasal Arrangement 1536. kīša and Other Particles 153

8. The Modal Particle assurrē . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 154

Previous Studies of assurrē 155A Semantic and Functional Definition of assurrē 156Is assurrē an Epistemic Modal Particle? 160The Syntactic Profile of assurrē 162

1. Discourse Domains 1622. Verbal Tenses 1633. Negation 1664. Position of the MP within the Clause 1665. Phrasal Arrangement 167

6. assurrē and Other Particles 169Special Meaning of assurrē in Royal Lettersand in Governors’ Speech 170

The Etymology of assurrē 172The Grammaticalization of assurrē 175

9. The Modal Particle -mi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179The Attestations: Generic and Geographical Distribution 179Previous Views Regarding -mi 180Direct Speech, Indirect Speech, Style indirecte libre:

Some Clarifications 182A Semantic and Functional Definition of -mi 182


12/260

xiContents

1. -mi in Epistolary Texts: A Spacer 1842. -mi in Literary Texts: Apostrophe 1883. -mi and verba dicendi in Literary Texts and in Letters 1934. A Test Case: -mi in the Code of Hammurabi 196

The Syntactic Profile of -mi 1981. Negation 1982. Position of -mi in the Clause 199

Average number of occurrences of -mi in the Clause 203

10. Conclusions: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . 206Some Less-Attested Modal Particles in Akkadian 206Summary 208An Outline of the Epistemic Modal System in Old Babylonian 215

Axis I: Possibility → Certainty 215Axis II: Refutation ←→ Affirmation 216Axis III: Nonrealization ←→ Realization 216Axis IV: Subjectification → Perspectivization 217

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

List of Texts Cited in the Study (with the MP indicated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240Index of Topics 240

Index of Personal Names and Akkadian Words 243Index of Texts Cited 243


13/260


14/260

xiii

Preface

The journey into the field of epistemic modality that terminates in the present volumebegan with an article on the particle assurrē (Wasserman 1994) written during my post-doctoral stay in Paris. Surprised by the lacunas I blithely traversed while writing thatarticle and the potential scholarly importance of the subject, a more systematic approachto researching modal particles seemed necessary.

Consequently, with the help of a generous three-year grant from the Israel ScienceFoundation (ISF grant 782/98, 1998–2001), the project “Studies in Old-Babylonian

Epistolary Syntax: Modal Particles in the Mari Letters” was launched, allowing me toexamine the entire published body of Mari letters, to analyze the relevant passages syn-tactically, and to create the a database holding the hundreds of passages pertaining tothe research.

In the course of this largely preparatory work, it became clear that the complexity ofthe subject requires a thorough examination of the entire Old Babylonian epistolary andliterary corpora—not only the Mari letters. This led to a wider examination in which theresults of the 1998–2001 research were incorporated into a more extensive and compre-hensive study, which is presented here.

In bringing this work to conclusion, it is a pleasant duty to thank those who helpedme throughout this long period. First among these is Jean-Marie Durand, who set meon my journey by inviting me to participate in the M. Birot Memorial Volume, wherethe assurrē article, the starting point of this study, was published. More than ten yearslater, it was again Durand who, together with Dominique Charpin, provided the neces-sary impetus to conclude this work by inviting me to deliver a course on the subject inthe spring of 2006 at the École pratique des hautes études. This book owes much to Du-rand’s sagacity, generosity, and unwavering readiness to discuss all sorts of problems,both on and off the subject.

Dominique Charpin shared willingly and often his vast knowledge of Old Babyloniantexts and his acute historical understanding of the period.

To both of them—to Durand and Charpin—I am deeply grateful for their scientificsupport, trust, and, above all, for their abiding friendship.

I am happy to acknowledge the help of other colleagues and friends. Marten Stolsent me his list of references of various modal particles, thus helping me to completemy database, and Nele Ziegler discussed various Mari passages with me and allowedme to incorporate them into my study prior to their publication. I also wish to extendmy thanks to the late Dietz Otto Edzard, who supported this research in its early stages.

Regrettably, he did not see it accomplished. Michael P. Streck and Gonzalo Rubio haveboth carefully read the manuscript, offering very valuable remarks. I have also benefited


15/260

xiv Preface

from the assistance of my students, Guy Ron-Gilboa, Rani Shlivinski, and Zhang Bo,who helped me in various technical matters and offered useful remarks. Eran Cohen ofthe Department of Linguistics at the Hebrew University assisted me in the early stagesof compiling the database for this study. As always, Doron Narkiss offered me much

needed help in all editorial matters in an experienced and sensitive way.Last, but not least, I wish to express my deep gratitude to Anastasia Keshman, my true

companion through life, for her perceptiveness, sharp criticism, and enduring patience.

Despite the help I have received, and although striving to present for the first time asystematic examination of epistemic modality in Akkadian, this study does not pretendto answer all questions, leaving not a few of them unresolved. In the slippery reachesof modality, where philology, linguistics, and psychology intertwine, definitive answersare not always attainable. I hope that others will deal with these issues in the future.

NATHAN WASSERMAN, Jerusalem


16/260

1

“Ceux qui veulent combatre l’usage par la grammaire se moquent” — Michel de Montaigne, Essais, Au lecteur III, 5

INTRODUCTION

The focus of this study is to present the main components of the system of epistemicmodality in Old Babylonian (OB), mostly expressed by means of modal particles (MPs).

The aim is to delineate a large, though not complete, set of MPs and other modal expres-sions, one by one, in order to achieve a broad perspective of epistemic modality in OB.The “Introduction” contains preliminary remarks on modality in general and on the

corpus used for this research. Nine chapters follow, each of which is dedicated to aparticular MP or to a MP and related modal sentential expressions. Concluding obser-vations regarding the system of epistemic modality in OB, as laid out in this study, arefound in the last chapter, “Conclusions.”

Something must be said about the nature of the examples used in this book. Thisstudy is corpus-driven. The majority of the examples are taken from epistolary sources,

because this kind of text supplies most of the examples of MPs in OB. In this sense,the present volume intends to shed new light on the syntax, style, and etiquette of OBletters. Nonetheless, nonepistolary genres in which MPs are found are also part of thecorpus, and special attention was given to literary texts, including incantations and royalinscriptions. I tried to find suitable examples to illustrate the employment of the differ-ent MPs. At times, a wide context seemed appropriate; at other times, the citation waslimited to the bare minimum. Following the saying “nur das Beispiel führt zum Licht;vieles reden tut es nicht,” my main purpose was to gain the best insight possible into theuse and meaning of the MP under discussion. Some of the examples are quite opaque,

and I do not claim always to have interpreted them with absolute success. This is, in fact,precisely one of the characteristics of modality: modal sentences are often open to morethan one interpretation, even in real-life circumstances.

This monograph is intended mainly for Assyriologists, fully acquainted with the vari-ous Akkadian genres, especially with epistolary and literary texts. However, philologi-cal commentaries have been reduced to a bare minimum, and the focus of the study isunequivocally linguistic. In many cases, my conclusions regarding the OB corpus areframed with a more general linguistic audience in mind, drawing attention, where pos-sible, to similarities or differences between OB and other modal systems. Thus, at least

some of the discussions will, it is hoped, be relevant also to linguists not specializing inAkkadian.


17/260

2 Introduction

To facilitate the use of this study, which contains about 600 different passages asexamples, 1 all the references relevant to each MP discussed are listed at the end ofevery chapter. A general index of the entire body of the registered examples is found atthe end of the volume. All references, except for text series, are given in social-science

(“author-date”) style. The latter are referred to by their common abbreviation. When apassage is cited from a text series (such as AbB or ARM) or from a text edition wheretexts are numbered consecutively (e.g., Shemshara Letters), the reference, in bold char-acters, relates to the text number and the relevant lines (e.g., AbB 1, 37: 8–10). Whena study is not part of a series and it contains successively numbered texts, the numberof the text is specifically indicated (e.g., Ellis 1972: 67, No. 70: 2′–4′). Finally, when apassage stems from a study that is not part of a series and does not contain consecutivelynumbered texts, then it is the page number that is cited (e.g., Falkenstein 1963: 57: ii13–17). In ambiguous cases, as when a text is found in a series but is not consecutively

numbered, then the page is clearly indicated (e.g., ARM 26/1, p. 383, No. (2): 6–17).Akkadian readings that are confirmed by collation, often changing the readings found inearlier editions, are marked by a small circle (e.g., a°-ka°-aš-ša-ad-ma ṭup°-pa°-tim°).

The English sentences that are used to illustrate general aspects of modality are myinventions. I tried to keep these constructed sentences as simple as possible, without anypretension to hide their artificial character (e.g., John may come on Tuesday).

What is Modality? A Preliminary Definition

Though often described in textbooks, for the sake of completeness, a short general de-

scription of the linguistic category of modality is not out of place. In order to tackle mo-dality in a systematic manner, one turns first to the “doyen of modality studies,” 2 FrankPalmer, and his Mood and Modality (1986), published in the Cambridge Textbooks inLinguistics series. Though first published in the mid nineteen-eighties (and extensivelymodified in 2001), this lucid and balanced cross-linguistic typological study remains, asmany scholars agree, the best available presentation of the subject of modality in mod-ern linguistics. 3 Other studies dealing specifically with different languages and languagefamilies were also consulted: Mitchell and Al-Hassan’s (1994) treatment of modalityin colloquial Arabic, which is helpful in explicating modality in the framework of the

Semitic languages; and Shlomper’s (2005) perceptive monograph, Modality in Hindi,which—although treating Hindi, a language remote from Akkadian by any standard—isalso of much use in its methodological discussions. Both of these studies are especiallyrefreshing because they divert from the ever-present emphasis in linguistic literature onEnglish as the exclusive language used to provide examples of modality. In addition,Hoye’s (2005) review article contains a comprehensive survey of current directions inthe field of modality.

1. Known unpublished texts were analyzed but not presented, nor included in this account.2. Hoye 2005a: 1300.3. See, e.g., Hoye’s evaluation (2005a: 1317).


18/260

3Sketching the Outlines of Modality

Sketching the Outlines of Modality:

Deontic vs. Epistemic Modality

What, then, is modality? Along with the linguistic category of tense, which, broadlyspeaking, captures grammatically the notion of time and aims at placing the action on

the time-axis and the category of grammatical aspect (not to be confounded with Ak-tionsart ), which generally describes different manners in which the action is performed,there is—in all languages 4—the category of modality. These three categories are notseparate or mutually exclusive; ample data proves their interdependence.

As a preliminary definition, I claim that modality concerns personal stances and at-titudes. Where aspect and tense are used to define a specific state of affairs through thecategories of time and manner, modality is used to present the speaker’s attitude(s)toward this state of affairs, toward the addressee, and expectation of the addressee’s at-titudes in response. Hence, a modal statement springs out from some kind of reflection,of introspection of the speaker vis-à-vis a given state of affairs, and aims to convey hisnotion regarding the situation, often trying to affect the addressee’s opinions toward thestate of affairs at stake.

Modality revolves around the individual subject: “Modality . . . [is] concerned withsubjective characteristics of an utterance [. . .], subjectivity is an essential criterion formodality.” 5 A wide range of linguistic means can serve this purpose: specific verbalforms, words, phrases, and certain syntactic formations. In fact, one must rememberthat, in actual utterances, modality is often not encoded grammatically but expressedprosodically: by stress, intonation, gesture, and mimicry. 6 These important means ofexpressing modality are rarely echoed in written form. Hence, they are virtually untrace-able in languages—modern and living, ancient and extinct—that are recorded only inwritten sources. Plene-writing in Akkadian, however, may furnish some indications ofthis almost transparent stratum of modal expression.

Modality will be treated here from a cognitive-pragmatic theoretical perspective. Thisapproach is especially useful when dealing with epistemic modality. Pragmatics andmodality are closely related, since “modality is an inherently pragmatic phenomenon. Itinvolves the many ways in which attitudes can be expressed toward the ‘pure’ reference-and-predication content of an utterance.” 7 Accordingly, the cognitive–pragmatic ap-proach “focuses on the cognitive mechanisms that become activated once speakers ex-press evaluations of given states of affairs. . ..” 8 Specifically, in many cases, epistemicmodality is concerned with “the linguistic expression of . . . [the] concepts of possibility,

probability, certainty, and necessity [and how they] are actually deployed in everydayhuman thought and talk.” 9

4. Palmer 1986: 7; Shlomper 2002: 21.5. Palmer 1986: 16.6. Lyons 1996: 331; Shlomper 2002: 21–22.

7. Verschueren 1999: 129.8. Hoye 2005a: 1295.9. Hoye 2005a: 1298.


19/260

4 Introduction

Historically, modality entered the arena of linguistic discussion, as did other produc-tive concepts, through the gate of philosophical and logical inquiry into language. TheDanish linguist Otto Jespersen’s 1924 study, The Philosophy of Grammar , is a conve-nient starting point for the description of the development and acceptance of the concept

of modality in modern linguistics. 10 Jespersen and others identified a linguistic class,modality, that gathers utterances that do not contain propositions on reality (i.e., Johnis married ) but deal with opinions, evaluations, attitudes, and feelings of the speakerregarding such propositions (i.e., I am afraid John is married , or John is obviously mar-ried , or John cannot be married). Crucial to this dichotomy is the question whether aproposition can or cannot be examined and valued as true or false. Take for instance

John is married . After talking to John himself and even going through the municipal ar-chives, one may say that this nonmodal statement is wrong, since John is still a bachelor.Modal statements, on the other hand, do not yield easily to such true-false examination.

The statement I am positive that John is married cannot be easily classified as true orfalse, unlike the statement John is married (unless one is deliberately lying, an optionthat linguistic mechanisms do not usually account for).

Modality, following Jespersen, is divided into two subcategories: the deontic set,which comprises different elements of will and obligation regarding reality, and theepistemic set, which contains no element of will but of judgments and assessments re-garding reality. 11 Palmer defines deontic modality as including directives—“where wetry to get our hearers to do things,” and commissives—“where we commit ourselves todo something.” 12 Epistemic modality concerns “the speaker’s knowledge and belief.” It

comprises evidentials—“commitment of the speaker to the truth of what he is saying” 13 (i.e., It must be John who broke up the marriage) and judgments—where one presentshesitations vis-à-vis the contents of one’s utterance 14 (i.e., I wouldn’t be so sure that itwas really John who caused their marriage to break up). The definition of the two ordersof modality provided by Mitchell and Al-Hassan (1994: 44) is worth citing in full:

Deontic modality has to do with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by oneselfor others in response to some recognizable source of authority, moral or legal, or simplyto physical or psychological need. It concerns the use of languages to express intentions,wants, desires, needs, etc., all subsumable under the heading ‘desiderative,’ and since one

is unable to intend or will a state of affairs to come about in the past, this modal categoryhas much to do with imperatives and, more generally, with statements of permission andobligation relating to future occurrences. . . . Epistemic modality, for its part, relates towhat one knows to be in fact the case or to what one judges to be possible or likely on thebasis of prior experiential knowledge. It concerns statements which assert or imply that astate of affairs is known to exist or is believed to exist. As deontic modality is concernedwith making a state of affairs possible, so epistemic modality relates to one’s understand-ing of what is or may be assumed to be.

10. Palmer 1986: 9–10. See also Cohen 2005: 10.11. Palmer 1986: 18–20, 96.

12. Palmer 1986: 97.13. Palmer 1986: 21.14. Cf. Palmer 1986: 51–53, 58–61.


20/260


Rubio (2007: 1340), in his introductory remarks on Sumerian modality, mentionsanother partition of the field of modality. Beginning with the traditional distinction be-tween epistemic and deontic modality, he remarks that

[A]lthough very productive in modal logic, the deontic modality has proven to be more

difficult to translate into linguistic categories than the epistemic one. Thus, many linguistsprefer to distinguish three general modal categories instead of two: (a) agent-oriented mo-dality, which expresses the conditions of an agent with regard to the completion of anaction (obligative, desiderative, potential, etc); (b) speaker-oriented modality, in which thespeaker tries to cause the addressee to do something (as expressed with the imperative andoptative moods); and (c) epistemic modality.

Despite splitting the deontic into agent-oriented versus speaker-oriented, Rubio does notfollow this tripartite model, and in his description of Sumerian modality he adheres “forpractical reasons” to the long-established duality of deontic versus epistemic modality.

This approach is taken in this study as well.Verbal Modes and Modality in Old Babylonian

This leads to an associated distinction, the distinction between mood and modality.The term mood, Latin modus, is restricted in Akkadian, as is common in Indo-Europeanand Semitic grammars, to verbal paradigms and involves mainly the contrast betweenthe indicative and other verbal forms, like the subjunctive. 15 With von Soden’s GAG,Edzard (1973), Cohen (2005), and others, the following modi can be distinguished inAkkadian: the Indicative (imḫaṣ: “he has hit”), the Precative (limḫaṣ: “let him hit!,”

“may he hit!,” “so that he will hit,” etc.), the Cohortative (i nimḫaṣ: “let us hit!”), theImperative (maḫaṣ: “hit!”), the Prohibitive (lā tamaḫḫaṣ: “do not hit!”), the Vetitive (ētamḫaṣ: “may you not hit!”), the Positive Affirmative (lū amḫaṣ: “I did hit”) and theNegative Affirmative (lā amḫaṣu: “verily, I did not hit”). In general, the indicative inAkkadian is nonmodal. Yet, in specific circumstances, some indicative forms do carrymodal meanings. The present-future indicative tense imaḫḫaṣ, “he will hit,” bears attimes clear modal functions such as obligation, will, possibility, and eventuality, 16 andin other cases past tense forms are assigned to denote the performative. 17 It is furthernoticeable that in the precative, cohortative, imperative, prohibitive, and in the vetitive,

there is an essential component of will—therefore, they all belong to the deontic set ofmodality. Only two verbal modi in Akkadian belong to the epistemic set of modality:those that denote a strong commitment of the speaker to the validity of a proposition thatwas said or to an action that was done: the positive affirmative (lū amḫaṣ: “I did hit”) andthe negative affirmative (lā amḫaṣu: “verily, I did not hit”).

As Hoye (2005a: 1300) sensibly notes, “it is useful to distinguish between the ‘modalsystem’—the various lexico-grammatical and prosodic means by which modal contrasts

15. See Hoye 2005a: 1486; Mitchell and Al-Hassan 1994: 12 (§2.3.2); and recently Rubio 2007: 1338

n. 21.16. Streck 1995: 94–98.17. For performative in Akkadian, see Wasserman 2003: 168–69 (and further bibliography there).


21/260

6 Introduction

are made—and to contrast this term with ‘mood’, where such contrasts may be signaledthrough verbal inflection.” Furthermore, as suggested by Palmer (2003: 3) and summa-rized by Hoye (2005b: 1486):

[M]ood and modality represent two types of modality and these are mutually exclusive:

languages either opt for the subjunctive (mood) or modality (the modal system, compris-ing the modal auxiliaries). Thus, for instance, whilst Romanian, in line with French andItalian, would tend to use the subjunctive mood as a generalized marker of modality, En-glish deploys a select group of auxiliary verbs.

Where does Akkadian stand in this typological divide? Since the subjunctive in Akka-dian does not function modally (with the clear exception of oath sentences, where it isclearly modal) but as a syntactic marker of subordination, it seems that Akkadian oughtto be placed among the group of languages in which modality is operated through amodal system and modal auxiliaries.

Root Modality in Old Babylonian: Will, Ability, and Obligation

In Akkadian, as in other languages, there is a group of verbs whose basic lexical meaning is modal. These verbs are commonly subsumed under the rubric of root modal-ity. 18 In many European languages, root modality verbs constitute a fundamental triadof will – ability – obligation: e.g., German wollen – können – müssen/dürfen; Frenchvouloir – pouvoir – devoir ; English will – can – must . Such a triad of verbs, it is impor-tant to note, cannot be fully found in OB. The main operative verbs in OB that belong toroot-modality are: leʾûm, “to be able to,” lemûm, “to be unwilling,” and muāʾum (used

with the negation lā), “not to want (to)”—all treated by Veenhof (1986). Other verbsthat generally mean “to wish” are: erēšum, ḫašāḫum, ṣabûm, ṣamārum, and ṣummû. 19 Itturns out that the set of modal verbs in OB is incomplete: there is no direct correspon-dence in OB to müssen / devoir / must . Obligation in OB is expressed only by meansof the imperative and not with the help of a special auxiliary modal verb. The nearestcandidates for root modality verbs denoting obligation in OB are the pair (lā) wasāmum and (lā) naṭû, “to be (un)fitting, (un)suitable for, 20 “to be (in)appropriate,” but these fallshort of true obligation verbs, since their use is restricted and they resemble adverbs.

Mental State Modal Verbs (verba sentiendi) in Old Babylonian Another domain that deserves attention in the field of epistemic modality in Akkadian

is that of mental state modal verbs, or verba sentiendi: “to know, to believe, to doubt, toguess, to suppose, to think,” etc. 21 This set of verbs plays an important role in epistemicmodality in any language. From a bird’s-eye view, it is clear that the OB modal systemleans especially on the epistemic verb par excellence idûm, “to know,” less stronglyon ḫasāsum “to think,” and much less on qiāpum “to believe” and takālum “to trust.”Another set of verbs relevant here are those whose basic meaning is “seeing,” hence

18. See, e.g., Papafragou 1998 and Quattara 2001: 5, who uses the term modalité factuelle.19. See ARM 28, 52: 5.20. E.g., AbB 6, 76: 4; AbB 9, 198: 10; AbB 11, 51: 5.21. See Deutscher 2000: 102–23,


22/260


“understanding,” “assessing,” and “comprehending.” 22 There are sufficient attestationsof amārum, naṭālum, sanāqum, and ṣubbû being employed with modal coloring. To theverbs that designate evaluation one ought to add the verb kânum, whose basic meaning“to be firm, solid,” often carries the meaning of “being reliable, true,” 23 (and in D-stem

“to prove, establish”). 24 The role that these verbs play in Akkadian modality warrants anin-depth lexical exploration, which is beyond the scope of this study.

Deontic Modality in Old Babylonian Expressed Lexically

Modality can be expressed not only by grammatically-marked forms (specific verbalforms, particles, etc.) but also indirectly, by periphrastic means. 25 One may say, e.g.: Ireally want Manchester United to win tonight . Similarly, one could say: If only Man-chester United would win tonight ! Both sentences carry the same meaning, and they areboth modal, reflecting the speaker’s wishes and hopes. Yet only in the second sentence

is there a grammatically-assigned deontic modal form (if only . . . would ). In many lan-guages, nonassigned grammatical ways to express modality are just as productive as, ifnot more than, the grammatically encoded ones. In Akkadian, as was mentioned above,verbal paradigms are the main channels through which deontic modality is expressed,especially when obligation is concerned. However, deontic modality in OB can also beconstructed not by verbal forms but with the help of specific lexical expressions such as,e.g., kīma lā libbi ila, “alas! unfortunately!”, 26 or the interjections aḫulap, “mercy!,” andapputtum, “please!,” “it is urgent!,” to quote to the most common.

Why is OB deontic modality so reliant on verbal paradigms—in fact, integrated into

them—while epistemic modality is expressed mainly through lexical means? The ex-planation may ultimately lie in the natural evolution of human language. It seems soundto assume that in Akkadian, as in other languages, deontic modality developed prior tothe epistemic modality, although this claim is not easy to prove. 27 Yet intuitively it isplausible to imagine that notions that involve will, such as permission (do / don’t do it ! )

22. Often observed. See, e.g., Wittgenstein 1974 (1949): §90: “‘I know’ has a primitive meaning similarto and related to ‘I see’ (‘wissen’, ‘videre’).”

23. A few examples for the epistemic meaning of kânum will suffice. Shemshara Letters 70: 6–7 reads:

ki-na-˹tim˺ a-na [ pi-i] ˹a-wa˺-ti-ka {x} / a-n[a-ku a-na°] li-[i]l-li-im ˹a˺-tu-˹úr˺, “Trusting your words (tak-ing them for solid, true) I turned out to be a fool!”; Shemshara Letters 71: 4′: a-wa-tum ši-i ki-na-at , “thismatter is correct,” or, ARM 1, 47: 9–18: i-na a-wa-a-tim ši-na-ti / 1 a-wa-tum ki-it-tum / [ú]-ul i-ba-aš-ši /[k ]a-lu-ši-na wa-at-ra-[a] / . . . a-wa-a-tum ši-na / ka-lu-ši-na re-qa / mi-im-ma [(1) a-wa-tum k ]i-it-tum /ú-u[l i-ba-aš-ši], “In these words there is even not a single true word, all of them are exaggerated. . . . Thesewords, all of them are empty; there is not even a [single] true [word] (in them)” (cf. CAD R 372 e). Note theexpression ša kinnātim, “for real” (FM 9, 4:19–20), and the term takittum, “confirmation.” The concept oftruth in Mesopotamian was examined extensively in Lämmerhirt 2010.

24. For more on proving verbs (kunnum and burrum) and their syntax, see Deutscher 2000: 54–57;168–69.

25. Palmer 1986: 5.26. For this expression, see now AbB 14, p. 208.27. See, however, Shlomper 2002: 22 and Papafragou 1998. The corollaries of this statement in the

cognitive development of children are complicated and go beyond the scope of this study, see Matsui, Ya-mamoto, and McCagg 2006.


23/260

8 Introduction

and wish ( I want to do it ! ) preceded notions that involve judgment ( I believe that this isso and so), or doubt (is it possible that this is so and so?).

Epistemic Modality Expressed Periphrastically

OB mainly uses specific particles in order to express epistemic modality. But heretoo, as in the case of deontic modality, there are ways to denote evaluations and judg-ments that are not grammatically encoded but periphrastically constructed. A case inpoint is the curious declaration found in some OAkk royal inscriptions: DN1 u DN2 ūma lā surrātum lū kīniš , “I swear by DN1 and DN2: (all this) is not false! It is true!” 28 Analmost identical Sumerian assertion is found in Šulgi’s and Išme-Dagan’s royal hymns:DN1 . . . DN4 lul ba-ra-na ḫé-ge-en, “(By the names of) the gods . . . : this is notfalse! It is true!” 29 I am not convinced by Ludwig (1990: 56) that these statements aredevoid of truth-value meaning and that they were intended only to stress that the specific

text adheres to royal archetypes and writing norms, without referring to external histor-ical facts. Although the exact ideological background of these propagandist statementsis hard to fathom, and even if such periphrastic formulas as “(all this) is not false! It istrue!” function occasionally as “dead” modals, they still derive from and contain thestructure of epistemic modal statements. 30 The origin of these declarations in public his-toriographic records supports the assumption that they had genuine epistemic functions.The Sumerian proverb (SP 13:42) lú -gab-ba ká-dInanna-ka ù-bí- in-gub dumu-munus- a-ni ér in-na a n-na-ab- bé ˹inim?˺ ama-gu10 lul- aš ge-n a-à[m]-e-š e,“When the ecstatic stood at Inanna’s gate, his daughter said: ‘my mother’s word is not

false, it is true!’” points in the same direction. 31 As I understand it, the proverb is sar-castic: the performance at Inanna’s gate receives a support from a woman who presentsherself as the daughter of the goddess, while she is no other than the diviner’s daughterwhose motivation to help her father’s divinatory act is clear. The irony of the proverbonly strengthen the notion that statements like “it is not false, it is true” were meant attheir face value.

A letter of Samsī-Addu bolsters the suggestion that the OAkk and Ur III expressions just mentioned carry modal significance, made deliberate by repetition. In the letter,Samsī-Addu assesses the reliability of another person, making use of clear-cut epistemic

terms:Shemshara Letters 4:3–12:tup-pa-ka ša tu-ša-bi-lam eš-me / a-wa-[t ]u-ka ma-al ta-aš-pu-ra-am sà-an-qa /a-wa-at ia-šu-ub-dIM li-il / qa-at ˹dingir˺ e-li-šu ṭe4-em-šu ma-qí-˹it ˺ / a-wa-ti-šuú-ul i-di / ù ni-iš dingir ša i-za-ka-ru / ú-ul i-di / ki-ma ša i-na šu-ut-ti-šu / ni-iš dingir i-za-ka-ru / i-na-ša li-il-lu ù ṭe4-em-šu ma-˹aq˺-[t ]u,

28. Attestations conveniently collected in Kienast and Sommerfeld 1994: 272 s.v. surrātum.29. E.g., Šulgi B: 319, see Ludwig 1990: 54–55.

30. Liverani’s (1995) discussion is a convenient summary of the problems involved in the “false” state-ments in royal inscriptions.31. Alster 1997: vol. 1, 212. ETCSL 6.1.13 somewhat differently.


24/260


I heard your letter which you have sent to me. Your words, as much as you havewritten to me, are accurate. (As for) the words of Yašub-Addu—he is mad! Thehand of the god (is) on him. His reason has diminished. He doesn’t know his(own) words. Truly he doesn’t know the oath he takes: as if he took the oath in

his sleep—he keeps forgetting (it). A mad man: truly (u) his wits are diminished. 32An interesting case in which the writer raises the hypothetical option of lying to the kingis found in a letter from Mari:

ARM 27, 26:28–29: [a-na mi-ni]m i-na sà-ar-tim an-ni-tam a-na ṣe-er / [be-lí-ia aš]-pu-ra-am . . .

“[Why] would I write such lies to my [lord]? . . .”

Modal Polysemy Modality, therefore, can be elusive. The same form or expression can be interpreted

as modal and as nonmodal, depending on the speech-situation. If we know from a givencontext that John has a wife and that polygamy is illegal in John’s culture, than the verbcan in the sentence John cannot be married may carry a nonmodal—more precisely—aroot-modality meaning: John cannot be married (in the sense of an objection to an ac-tion) simply because he is already married. Can in this case presents an extralinguisticfact, just like dogs cannot fly. But if John is seen in the company of many differentwomen, then the verb can in John cannot be married , carries a modal epistemic mean-

ing, by which the speaker evaluates John’s behavior and commits himself to the unlike-lihood of a particular fact: John’s being married.Moreover, modal forms can carry also different modal meanings. Other mental-state

verbs are also prone to this sort of ambiguity. Let us imagine our John running acci-dentally into a woman whom he dated a year ago:—You wouldn’t believe me, but I wasthinking about you all that time. The woman replies:—You are right. I don’t believe you. Thus, believe is used as an epistemic modal verb in John’s words, an assertion that wasmeant to overcome a possible rejection form the woman, a tactical withdrawal intendedto gain a common ground that would allow a safe advancement in the course of the dis-

cussion. The same verb, believe, in the woman’s response was nonmodal. It was used atits lexical meaning, as a root modality verb—hence the sarcastic effect. 33 Consider alsothe following anecdote, cited in more than one study on modality: 34

Castro visits Moscow and is taken on a tour by Brezhnev. First they go for a drink andCastro praises the beer. ‘Yes, it was provided by our good friends from Czechoslovakia’.Next they go for a ride in a car and Castro admires the car. ‘Yes, these cars are provided byour good friends from Czechoslovakia’. They drive to an exhibition of beautiful cut glass,

32. For ṭēmšu maqit in line 6 (cf. line 12), I follow Stol 2002: 109. i-na-ša in line 12 remains difficult. I

suggest, hesitantly, considering a corrupt form of mašûm, “to forget.”33. See Bhatt 1997.34. See Papafragou 2000: 21.


25/260

10 Introduction

which Castro greatly admires. ‘Yes, this glass comes from our good friends from Czecho-slovakia’. ‘They must be very good friends’ says Castro. ‘Yes, they must’, Says Brezhnev.

Must in Castro’s words is used as an emphatic evaluation, an evidential that belongsto the epistemic set of modality. The same verb must in Brezhnev’s answer carries the

meaning of directive, and it belongs therefore to the deontic set of modality. 35 The hu-morous effect is achieved precisely by this unexpected switch from one modal meaningto another. It is thus clear that modal polysemy does exist and that the same form maybear different modal meanings.

Co-occurrence of Modal Expressions

Modal expressions can be clustered together, augmenting and reinforcing each otheror at times contradicting each other. Some MPs are loners; others associate more eas-

ily with their homologues. Generally, however, one may say that components of thesame section of modality tend not to interact with each other at close range, since suchinteraction risks blurring or even compromising the specific modal meaning carried byeach of them. Hoye (2005b: 1498) quotes a wonderful satirical example of excessiveco-occurrence of modal expressions from the 1986 British comedy Yes, Prime Minister !In this episode (“The Grand Design”) Sir Humphrey, now Cabinet Secretary, tries topersuade the Prime Minister to opt for the Trident nuclear missile:

Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.

Prime Minister: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent!

Prime Minister: It’s a bluff . . . I probably wouldn’t use it . . .

Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.

Prime Minister: They probably do.

Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t but they can’t cer-tainly know!

Prime Minister: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t!

Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probablywouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there’s noprobability that you certainly would!

Prime Minister: What?!

Sir Humphrey: It all boils down to one simple issue. You are the Prime Minister of GreatBritain . . .

Hoye (2005b: 1498) summarizes this scene:

35. Of course, this polysemy is found in other English modal verbs as well. Consider, e.g., you shoulddo it ! (deontic) vs. I should be able to do it (epistemic). For the deontic/epistemic polysemy in colloquialArabic, see Mitchell and Al-Hassan 1994: 43.


26/260


The PM’s initial use of the epistemic frame probably wouldn’t triggers off the modal (andlargely) epistemic flak, which so clearly marks the conflicting views of the two protago-nists and their desire to change the other’s mind. The modal expressions deployed (modallexical verbs, modal auxiliaries, and modal adverbs) exhibit a mix of (primarily) epistemicand deontic functional values: their concatenation, crescendo-fashion, results in strings ofharmonic and non-harmonic combinations . . . the latter, such as They probably certainlyknow, being the source of much of the humour the sketch generates.

In real, not satirical, every-day texts it is hard to find such an avalanche of epistemic ex-pressions. Indeed, most OB MPs tend to be loners. But in one OB letter, a similar spiralof MPs, on a smaller scale of course, is found:

ARM 28, 179:31–41:Perhaps ( pīqat) you will say: “he tried but got tired. (His) units do not carryprovisions, not even for a day.” Had they (šumma) carried many provisions it

is certain (wuddi-man) that I could have walked continuously for one month inmidst of the steppe. I fear (assurrē ) you would say: “Zazia did not go.” I swearby Adad if I did not (šumma lā) go!

I shall return to this passage in the coming chapters.

The Uniqueness of Each Modal System

Each language has its own modal system. The English epistemic modal system, forexample, has only judgments. 36 By contrast, German’s epistemic modality has both

judgments and evidentials. 37

Similarly, English modal verbs (that is, root-modalityverbs) are linguistically more distinguished than French modal verbs, which are less eas-ily discerned from other verbs in French. 38 Methodologically, the principles of a modalsystem attested in one language cannot automatically be applied to another. This weak-ens, if not undermines, the possibility of gaining insight from comparing the Sumerianand Akkadian modal systems. 39 Consequently, Sumerian (directly or through bilingualtexts) remains mostly irrelevant for this discussion.

But the pitfall of translation is unavoidable. When one examines a language differentthan one’s own, one is inevitably armed with the preconceptions of another linguistic

system. Yet, this is exactly what is required: placing millennia-old data into the concep-tual matrix of modern linguistics. Having no other path to resort to—no intrinsic theoret-ical paradigm of Akkadian modality exists, and the relevance of Sumero-Akkadian lexi-cal lists is very limited—we are left with a set of philological tools, linguistic concepts,textual sensitivity, and common-sense to penetrate into Akkadian epistemic modality.

36. See Hoye 2005b: 1500–1501.37. Palmer 1986: 53.

38. Palmer 1986: 5. For the central role of auxiliary verbs in English modality, see Hoye 2005a: 1299;for the inner development of auxiliary verbs in English and German, respectively, see Abraham 2002.39. For Sumerian modality, see Civil 2000 and recently Rubio 2007: 1336–45.


27/260

12 Introduction

Modal Particles in General Linguistic Literature 40

With these general notions of modality in mind, we may ask, what is a particle? Abroad definition can be offered (with Izre'el 1991: 200): a particle is a nondeclinable partof speech that is not a noun, nor an article, nor pronoun, nor a verb. 41 What remains isto differentiate between a particle and an adverb. This problem will be tackled below.

Over the last three decades, particles in general, and modal particles in particular,have been at the center of scientific interest. 42 Nonetheless, few of the resultant studiesbear directly on the study of Akkadian MPs, because the phenomenon of a wide scopeof MPs is very much characteristic of Germanic languages. Semitic languages do notexhibit a wide spectrum of MPs. No statistics regarding the number of MPs in differentSemitic languages are available, so any comparison of Akkadian to Semitic languageswould be imprecise. Nevertheless, Akkadian evidently is not poor in MPs, exhibiting awide range of epistemic MPs. Is this an exceptional phenomenon in Semitics? Should itbe related to the deep and ancient linguistic connection of Akkadian to Sumerian? If so,MPs in Akkadian may analytically mirror some of agglutinative prefixes in Sumerian.But this conjecture deserves a separate investigation.

Another reason for the relatively small relevance that studies in general linguisticsbear for research into Semitic MPs is methodological. In general linguistics studies,which often focus on English as their primary language, treatments of modal adverbsabound. The reason for this is that many of the modal expressions in English are for-mally adverbs (e.g., obviously, certainly, really, honestly, sincerely, etc.). 43 In other lan-guages, expressions of this sort do not necessarily take the form of adverbs and havedifferent morphological constructions. A number of Semitic studies, including somedealing with Akkadian, also tend to classify MPs as adverbs. 44 Consequently, researchon MPs conducted outside the boundaries of the Semitic languages—mainly in the fieldof Germanic languages, where MPs are more common than in English—seems not toapply to Semitic studies. This is not merely a question of linguistic nomenclature. Ad-verbs are normally regarded as influencing only their immediate surroundings, usuallythe verbal component of the sentence, whereas MPs are considered to have a wider anddeeper effect on the whole phrase. As put by Palmer (1986: 2): “modality . . . does not

40. Some of the remarks in this section were published with some modifications in Wasserman 2006:150–151.

41. Cf. also van Baar 1996.42. E.g., “Discourse Particles, Modal and Focal Particles, and All That Stuff. . . ,” conference held at the

University of Groningen, December 8–9, 2000, and a complete list of abstracts of the papers read, see http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Evdwouden/particles/prog02.htm.

43. See, e.g., Capone 2001: 34 and passim. Note Hoye’s (2005b: 1485) interesting observation that “incertain instances, modal adverbs can be treated as ‘modal particles’. This is certainly true of such idiomaticcombinations as may/might + well . . . or couldn’t/can’t + possibly. . . , the adverb has become fully de-lexicalized and integrated within the verb group.”

44. See, e.g., Groneberg 1987: 121. Note also Wilcke 1968: 230 and passim, referring to MPs more as

adverbs than as particles. Last, Reiner refers to tūša as an “adverb” that Benno Landsberger “studied in con-nection with other modal particles for volume M of the CAD.” (Reiner 2002: 8). A discussion of particlesin contrast to adverbs is found in van Baar 1996: 277–85.


28/260


relate to the verb alone or primarily, but to the whole sentence.” Some features in theSemitic languages have been inadequately described or simply ignored because of thisterminological convention. 45

Epistemic Modal Particles in Semitic Studies Several major studies dealing with MPs in the ancient Semitic languages should be

mentioned in the context of the mounting interest in modality in general linguistics inrecent years: Aartun’s (1974) monograph on particles in Ugaritic, Bravmann’s (1977)study on the particle dalmā, “lest,” in Syriac, Ullmann’s (1984) investigation of an MPdesignating “perhaps” in Classical Arabic, and, recently, Novick’s (2009) study of ṣarîk in Tannaitic Hebrew. In addition, for Akkadian, we have von Soden’s (1949) pioneer-ing lexical survey mentioned earlier, “Vielleicht im Akkadischen.” One of the parti-cles treated by von Soden (assurrē ) was taken up by me (Wasserman 1994). Krebernik

and Streck (2001) presented a detailed study of irrealis constructions in OB. The maintopic of their article was the enclitic particle -man, but other MPs, especially tuša, weretreated there as well.

As for modern Semitic languages, we have Mitchell and Al-Hassan’s (1994) exten-sive study of mood, modality, and aspect in spoken (Egyptian and Levantine) Arabic,Kaddari’s (1991) study of the MP wadʾay in rabbinic literature (etymologically con-nected to Akkadian wuddi), and Livnat’s (1999) and Bar’s (2001) studies of epistemicmodality in Modern Hebrew. Modality in modern Semitics allows a glimpse of the dra-matic diachronic changes, but also of the surprising continuity, that Semitic languages

have been subject to throughout the ages.In this study, only the epistemic part of OB modality is examined; the deontic, whichhas been well covered, is not included. Since it was immediately recognized that deonticmodality is part of Akkadian verbal paradigms, this part of Akkadian modality has beenstudied since the early stages of Assyriology and is now relatively well understood. 46 Epistemic modality in Akkadian, in contrast, escaped thorough investigation and stilllacks systematic description. More than half a century has passed since von Soden’s“Vielleicht im Akkadischen” appeared, yet this 1949 paper remains the sole attempt topresent a comprehensive description of epistemic modality in Akkadian. The issue of

epistemic modality has become more acute with the spectacular pace of publication ofepistolary texts, especially those from Mari. Because letters are the main source of at-testation for epistemic MPs in Akkadian, hundreds of attestations of MPs in OB lettershave become available. As long as no systematic analysis of this range of particles isoffered, these MPs are bound to be translated intuitively, ad sensum. This is a troublingsituation that I hope this study will remedy.

45. It must be stressed, however, that in the main Akkadian manual, von Soden aptly dedicated a sec-

tion to MPs, titled “Satzdeterminierende und modale Partikeln” (GAG §121), distinguishing them from hisdiscussion of the various Akkadian adverbs.46. See Edzard 1973 and Cohen 2005.


29/260

14 Introduction

The Corpus of the Study 47

For the sake of clarity and completeness, some remarks on the texts upon which thisstudy is based follow. The available body of texts, the large majority of which are let-ters, reflects the linguistic nature of MPs, which in OB and in other languages as wellare characteristic of conversational situations with particular discursive functions. It isnoteworthy that, more often than not, even when attested in literary texts, OB MPs arefound in the context of conversation between two individuals.

The large and varied body of letters from the OB period (ca. 1900–1500 B.C.E.) canbe roughly divided into four main linguistic and geopolitical subcorpora. 48 The first in-cludes letters from sites in the Mesopotamian plain—from the South (especially lettersfrom Ur, Uruk, Larsa), and the North (Sippar, Babylon, Kiš, Dilbat, Kisurra, Lagaba,and nearby sites). The second group comprises letters originating from the Diyālā re-gion, east of the heart of the Mesopotamian plain (mainly Ešnunna, Ishchali, and Tell-Haddad). The third group is made up of letters from sites from the mountainous fringesof Mesopotamia (like Tell-Rimāḥ and Šemšāra). The fourth subcorpus—especially im-portant for this study—is the group of letters excavated in Tell Ḥarīrī, ancient Mari, thecapital of the Kingdom of Border of the Euphrates. Though strictly speaking located onthe western edge of Mesopotamia, this principal corpus cannot be considered peripheral,since Mari was a major center of Mesopotamian culture from time immemorial. Mariletters show sufficient features pertaining to content and style to allow us to distinguishthem from Babylonian letters. In this corpus, approximately 20,000 different cuneiformtablets and fragments, 49 including about 5,000 letters, were unearthed. These finds com-prise one of the most extensive and best-preserved epistolary corpora of the OB periodand in antiquity in general, second only to the corpus of Old Assyrian documents fromAnatolia that were found in Kültepe, ancient Kaniš, which amounts to about 22,000 ormore. 50 The specific geographic and ethnographic position of the kingdom of Mari—onthe main trading route of the Fertile Crescent, connecting lower Mesopotamia, the Za-gros foothills with the Syrian Desert and the Mediterranean coast 51—is reflected in theMari texts, in which influences of Hurrian and various Amorite dialects can be detectedin the language and in the onomasticon. 52

Compared to the letters from central Mesopotamia, Mari letters include more infor-mal figures of speech and include vivid colloquial idioms and proverbial sayings. To thisrelative informality one may add the morphological characteristics of the Mari docu-ments, their lexical and syntactical peculiarities, and the occasional nonstandard (that

47. Parts of this section have been published in Wasserman 2006: 149–150.48. The most complete and up-to-date list of the extent and the geographical distribution of the OB

cuneiform findings is Charpin 2004a: 403–80. More specifically, for an introduction to OB letters, see Sal-laberger 1999 and recently Pientka-Hinz 2007 and Ziegler 2006.

49. Charpin and Ziegler 2003: 1. Many more tablets are continuously being found at this site.50. Michel 2001: 9 lists 20,000 tablets; Michel 2003: v lists 22,300 (by the beginning of the year 2002).

Veenhof and Eidem 2008: 41, 45 list ca. 23,000 tablets.51. Durand 1997: 41–5652. See, e.g., Charpin 1989; Charpin 1993; Durand 1984; Durand 1988; Durand 1992b; Lambert 1967.


30/260


is, deviating from Babylonian) usage of verbal forms. 53 The explanation for the specialcharacter of the Mari epistolary documents, in comparison to the letters of central andlower Mesopotamia, is manifold. First, one should not underestimate the weight of thediglosia in which Marian scribes were operating, for a number of Amorite dialects spo-

ken in the Syrian Jezirah no doubt interfered with Akkadian, the main linguistic vehicleused for writing in the period. Second, the scribes’ schooling in upper Mesopotamia wasdifferent, probably less rigid and standardized, than in central and lower Mesopotamia,as reflected in the formulaic style of the Babylonian letters and their fossilized patterns. 54 The third reason for the unique character of the Mari documents is that no royal archiveanalogous to that of Zimrī-līm’s chancellery 55 has been found in Babylonia proper,where mainly local archives with predominantly administrative interests have been un-earthed—hence their typical official tone. 56 In the Mari corpus, in contrast, one finds notonly the correspondence of local and royal officials of various echelons of power but

also letters from other strata of society: commoners, men, and women writing petitionsto their superiors; colleagues asking for favors from one another; prophets and ecstaticsreporting their visions and oracular messages in written form to local or central authori-ties; Amorite dignitaries communicating with the king, etc. The abundant body of Maritexts is probably the nearest we will get to what might cautiously be called “colloquial”OB Akkadian. 57 In conjunction with the other subcorpora of Babylonian, Diyālā-regionand peripheral OB letters, this corpus enables, for the first time, thorough research intoOB epistemic modality.

53. To name just a few, see, e.g., the inconsistent use of the subjunctive in subordinated verbal clauses,or just the opposite situation: the unexpected use of the subjunctive in šumma clauses; the different vowelclasses in certain verbs; and the occurrence of certain forms, like the D-stem infinitive, which formally re-semble Assyrian morphology. These and other morphological and syntactic peculiarities of the Mari lettersare beyond the scope of this work.

54. For the question of the Babylonian scribal tradition at Mari, see Charpin 1992 and Guichard 1997.See also Waetzoldt 1990.

55. The records of Sîn-kāšid from Uruk are also an important source of knowledge, but not on the samescale as the archives of Mari.

56. A letter sent by Anam, king of Uruk to Sîn-muballiṭ, Hammurabi’s father, king of Babylon, foundin southern Mesopotamia, shows many features that closely resemble Mari letters (see Falkenstein 1963).

57. For the question of colloquial vs. standardized epistolary language, see the reservations of Salla-berger 1999: 10–12.


31/260

16

“We teach a child ‘that is your hand’, not ‘that is perhaps (or ‘probably’) your hand’.”— Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

Chapter 1

THE MODAL PARTICLE pīqat IN OLD BABYLONIAN

The first MP to be treated in this study is pīqat . It belongs to a quartet of particles thatconstitute the group of INFERENTIALS—expressions by which the speaker expresses hisestimation regarding a particular state of affairs based on the (usually limited) knowl-edge available to him. 1 This foursome includes: pīqat , midde, wuddi, and anna. Each ofthese particles will be addressed separately.

In an OB dialogue, UET 6/2, 414, a pedantic customer enters the cleaner’s shop. He

brings his cloth to be cleaned but, as it turns out, what he really wants is to teach thefuller how to do his job. The dialogue between the annoying client and the fuller reachesa climax when the fuller finally explodes in anger and frustration. The client is drivinghim mad by giving vexing instructions about how to clean the cloths. One of his sugges-tions begins with the MP pīqā, a by-form 2 of pīqat :

Livingstone 1988: 177 (UET 6/2, 414):17: pí-qá sí-im-tam te-me-sú! . . . ù ˹tu-na-[d]a-[ad,

Perhaps you will apply an ornament on (the cloth) . . . and comb (it) . . . ! 3

What is the exact meaning of pīqā, or pīqat , rendered here “perhaps”? A better transla-tions will be offered below. In this chapter, I will explore the meaning and usage of pīqat in OB sources, trying to isolate this MP and define it better against other MPs.

1. Cf. Sanders and Spooren 1997: 96 (evidentials); Shlomper 2005: 121 (inferentials).2. For an analysis of this form, see below, in the discussion of the etymology and grammaticalization

of pīqat .3. For pīqa in this line (translated as “really”), cf. Livingstone 1988: 181. Note that AHw 865 a raises

the possibility that pīqā here is a mistake for minde. It seems that von Soden felt that the MP pīqā(t) is toomellow an expression to come from this tiresome person.


32/260

17Previous Studies of pīqat

The Attestations:

Generic and Geographical Distribution

The particle pīqat is common in OB letters. I have collected some hundred OB ex-amples of this MP. 4 Two-thirds of the examples, about 60 cases, are from Mari. The

other one-third is from central Babylonia. Only four examples come from Šemšāra, atthe fringes of the Mesopotamian linguistic and cultural zone. Only one attestation of

pīqat in nonepistolary sources has been found: the dialogue between the launderer andthe customer just mentioned. This text, however, resembles letters because it records acolloquial conversation about daily matters. Thus, as far as the present data goes, pīqat is restricted to texts of interlocution between two parties in epistolary, or epistolary-like,texts—never in descriptive or narrative speech. Hence, pīqat is a typical EVIDENTIAL, acategory of modality that is “to a considerable extent, if not exclusively, a feature ofdiscourse.” 5

The orthography of this MP varies in accordance with the local chancellery customs:/pi/ in southern Babylonia and /pí/ in northern Babylonia and in Mari, /qá/ in the Southand /qa/ in Mari. In Šemšāra, the spelling is mixed: /qa/ as in Mari, but /pi/ as in south-ern Babylonia, but also /pí/ as in northern Babylonia and in Mari.

There is no OB example in which pīqat is written with a long vowel (* pi-i-qa-at ). Infact, the explicitly long writing of the /pī/ in pīqat is only found in a later lexical list:i-g i-i n-z u = pí-i-qá. 6 This rare spelling is exceptional, and it is not substantiated byOB spellings. The lengthening of the a at the end of pīqā, by contrast, is found explicitlyin a letter from Kisurra: pí-qà-a. 7

Previous Studies of pīqat

Different meanings for pīqat have been offered by various scholars. In 1907, Zimmernrendered pīqat as “fürwahr.” Thureau-Dangin translated it “vraiment,” and “en vérité”;

Jean translated it “sans doute”; Dossin and Durand with “certainement.” On other occa-sions, Durand preferred “il est vraisemblable que. . . .” 8

Ungnad was probably the first to recognize that in some cases pīqat functions as aconditional, similarly to šumma. 9 In “‘Vielleicht’ im Akkadischen” (1949), von Sodenaccepted this meaning but stressed that it is found only in a limited number of cas-es. 10 In 1956, Landsberger suggested, without elaborating further, that pīqat and pīqā,as attested in the lexical list known as Neo-Babylonian Grammatical Texts, mean “it

4. The list of attestations is found at the end of the chapter.5. Shlomper 2005: 124.6. MSL 17, 50 (Erim-ḫuš III):91.7. Kienast 1978: vol. II, 156:24.8. Zimmern 1907: 216–18; see Thureau-Dangin 1935: 308, where a short discussion of this MP is

found; Thureau-Dangin 1943: 111:119; Jean 1942–44: 67:14; Dossin 1938b: 182; Durand in LAPO 16:434,

in contrast with, e.g., LAPO 17:602.9. Ungnad 1928: 71.10. von Soden 1949: 386.


33/260

18 The Modal Particle pīqat in Old Babylnian

does not matter if.” 11 CAD P refers to pīqat as an adverb, defining it as “perhaps, itmay be that (epistolary expression).” 12 In the same way, Heimpel translates pīqat as “perhaps”; and Ziegler as “peut-être.” 13 However, in one place, Durand statesthat “Piqat ne signifie pas «peut-être». . . , mais «à coup sûr »; c’est l’équivalent du

français «sans aucun doute».” 14It is clear that the meaning of this MP has not been firmly established and that it

requires a deeper investigation.

A Semantic and Functional Definition of pīqat

1. Weak Doubter

The main function of pīqat in the OB epistemic modal system is that of a weakDOUBTER, a MP classified under the category of POTENTIALS. This MP is used when

the speaker has only a very limited knowledge of the state of affairs or no informa-tion at all, but he is nevertheless interested, or obliged, to assess some unknown(future or past) event, without committing himself to the possibility raised. To putit simply, pīqat is the basic “perhaps” in OB, used in sentences such as: perhapsit will rain tomorrow, or perhaps he will come on Monday, perhaps on Tuesday.This interpretation is bolstered by common statements of ignorance that occasion-ally accompany pīqat: mannum lū īdi, “who knows?” ul īdi, “I don’t know,” 15 inatašīmātiya, “according to my calculations,” 16 or luṭṭul, “let me see.” 17

By way of anticipation, it can be said that pīqat is placed lower than midde on thescale of confidence of the speaker regarding his assessment of reality. While pīqat is a weak DOUBTER, midde is a SCALAR MP whose semantic range stretches betweenthe functions of a DEDUCTIVE and a CERTIFIER, an epistemic MP by which the speakerevaluates—with some degree of certitude—the likelihood of some state of affairs.The MPs anna and wuddi are higher on the scale of confidence. These MPs arePRESUMPTIVES, presenting an indisputable fact, insofar as the speaker understands it.

Let us examine some examples of pīqat . In a letter from the chief administratorYasīm-sūmu to the king, we read,

ARM 13, 25:5–16: 18 gu4 ša ì r-ì-lí-šu / a-na be-lí-ia ú-ṭà-aḫ-ḫu-ú / i-nu-ma ú-ṭà-aḫ-ḫu-[š]u-ma / ḫa-a-aš ! ù a-na be-lí-ia / a-na qa-bé-e-em / az-zi-iz-ma / um-ma a-na-ku-ma / pí-qa-at

11. MSL 4, 189.12. CAD P 386.13. See, for example, Heimpel 2003: 208 and passim; FM 6, 25:22–29.14. LAPO 18, p. 310, d.15. ARM 26/2, 354:12–20; ARM 26/2, 489:41–44; FM 6, 25:22–29; Shemshara Letters 11:16–22.

16. FM 6, 25:22–29, cf. also ARM 2, 23:15′–16′.17. AbB 6, 125:16–25.18. LAPO 18:970.


34/260

19A Semantic and Functinal Defnitin o pīqat

i-ba-al-lu-uṭ / u4-2-kam u4-3-ka[m l ]i-zi-iz-ma / wa-ar-ka-a[s-s]ú li-ip-pa-ri-ìs / i-na-an-na gu4 šu-ú / iḫ-ta-aš

The bull that Warad-ilišu has given as a present to my lord, just as it was given tohim, got sick, and when I was about to talk to my lord (about it), I said to myself:“perhaps he will get well, so let it stand 2 or 3 days and let its decision be taken.”Now this bull is still sick.

The destiny of this poor bull is a good starting point for the discussion of pīqat . Thewriter uses this MP to express his lack of information regarding the future: will the bulllive, or will it die? Based on his state of NOT-KNOWING, he preferred not to predict.

Another telling example is a letter from Šunuḫra-Ḫalû, the king’s right-hand associ-ate, to Zimrī-līm:

FM 7, 45:42–46:[i-na-a]n-na pí-qa-at a-wa-tam ša-a-ti da-di-ḫa-du-[u]n / [iq-b]i-šum šum-maa-wa-tum i-in be-lí-ia m[a-a]ḫ-[ra-at ] / [a-na] a-ma-ar a-wa-tim ša-a-ti a-na [da-di-ḫa]-du-un / [ke-em lu]-uq-bi um-ma a-na-k [u-m]a [šum-ma a-w]a-tum i-in-kama-aḫ-ra-at / [aš-šum ṭe4-m]i-im ša i-ma-ar ˹ ki˺ a-[na ḫ]a-[m]u-ra-bi lu-uq-bi

Now, perhaps Dādī-ḫadun said to him (Ḫammurabi of Yamḫad) this word. If itpleases my lord, I can talk to Dādī-ḫadun to test this issue, saying: “If it pleasesyou let me talk to Ḫammurabi about the issue of Imar . . .”

This example proves that pīqat renders an open hypothesis. Šunuḫra-Ḫalû’s suggestionthat his assumption be tested proves that pīqat should be classified under the epistemiccategory of SPECULATIVES: assessments of reality that are not based on any deductionfrom previous knowledge or that are based on very limited knowledge. So also in a letterfrom Buqāqum to Zimrī-līm:

ARM 26/2, 491:34–37: 19

ù a-na-ku lú ki- ˹za-am˺ / a-di ši-tu-˹ul-lim˺ ki aṭ-ru-ud um-ma a-na-ku-ma / pí-qa-at iš-me-dda-gan da-ṣú-um-ma i-˹da-aṣ˺ / al-ka ṭe4-em pa-ṭà-ar lú èš-nun-

naki

pu-ur-saSo I sent a groom to Šitullum thinking: “perhaps Išme-Dagan is deceiving uscompletely.” Go and verify the news about the leaving of the Ešnunneans.

The writer uses pīqat to express his lack of knowledge of the real actions of Išme-Dagan.He, too, urges his addressees to verify his assumption, thus proving the epistemic char-acter of pīqat .

One more example comes from a letter of Samsī-Addu to his incompetent sonYasmaḫ-Addu:

19. Heimpel 2003: 388–89.


35/260


ARM 1, 32:7–20: 20 pí-qa-at é šu-ú a-na na-da-nim / ú-ul i-re-ed-du / ù ú-ba-aš-ka-ma i-na a-wa-tim / ki-a-am i-ṣa-ba-at-ka / um-ma-a-mi lugal na-da-nam / [i]š-pu-ra-ak-kum / ùat-ta ú-ul ta-na-ad-di-in / [an]-ni-tam i-qa-ab-⟨bi ⟩-ik-kum-ma / [i-n]a bu-uš-ti-ka

ta-na-ad-di-in-šum / [šu]m-ma é šu-ú a-na na-da-nim / i-ri-id-du-šum i-di-in-šum / šum-ma é šu-ú a-na {la} na-da-nim / la i-ri-id-du-šum / la ta-na-ad-di-in-šum

Perhaps this house is not fit to be given and he will shame you by saying: ‘Theking (Samsī-Addu) has written to you to give, but you do not give!’ This is whathe will say to you and you will give him (the house only) after being put toshame. If this house is fit to be given to him—give (it) to him; if this house is notfit to be {NOT} given to him—do not give it to him.

Using pīqat , Samsī-Addu, who was located in Šubat-Enlil in the north, expresses hisdoubts regarding the situation in Mari: the house may be fit for dwelling, or it may notbe. His state of NOT-KNOWING is amplified by continuation: “if the house is . . . —do onething; if it is not, do another.” Clearly, pīqat presents an open possibility in which thespeaker is not committed to either of the two options he has put forward.

Finally, the letter of a commercial agent charged with a mission to bring grain to thetemple of Šamaš:

AbB 6, 125:16–25:

[má i-na] kar uruki / [š]a [w]a-aš-[b]a-ku ú-u[l] i-ba-aš-ši / um-ma a-na-k [u-ú-ma] / lu-uṭ-ṭù-ul pí-qá-a[t ] / má i-ma-qú-tam-ma / še-am an-ni-a-am ú-ša-ar-ka-ab / [m]á ú-ul im-qú-ta-am / [m]á qá-du-um ra-ka-bi-ša / i-na ka r Sippar ki ag-ra-am-ma / i-di-ša a-na-ku lu-ud-di-in

There is no ship in the quay of the town where I sit. I said (to myself): “let melook (around), perhaps a ship will show up, so that I will load this grain (onit).” (But) no ship has shown up. Hire for me a ship with its crew in the quay ofSippar; I will pay its fee.

This last example demonstrates precisely that pīqat was used to express basic doubt, anopen possibility for which the speaker vouched and vouches no guarantee: perhaps aship will arrive? . . . well, it did not. 21

2. Disjunctive Construction: Optative

Another function of pīqat that derives directly from its role as weak DOUBTER is its em-ployment in the construction pīqat A pīqat B. 22 There can be no doubt—as established

20. LAPO 17, 750.21. Similarly ARM 2, 121:9–12 (with LAPO 16, 434).22. So in ARM 2, 66:12–13; ARM 26/1, 121:18–21; ARM 26/2, 354:12–20.


36/260


by von Soden 23—that in this kind of construction pīqat renders the logical relationshipof DISJUNCTION: “perhaps A, perhaps B,” 24 as in the following letter from an unknownsender to the king Samsī-Addu,

MARI 6, 272:4–17:iš-tu na-a[k-ru-um] i-na i-l[a . . . ki] / iš-[š]e-e-em ṭ[e4-e-e]m-šu mi-im-[ma] /ú-ul eš-me um-ma a-[n]a-ku-ma pí-q[a-at ] / a-na bàd dutu-ši-dIMki / it-ta-la-ak pí-qa-at a-na za-[al-ma-qí-imki] / pí-qa-at a-na tu-ut-tu-ul[ki] / pí-qa-at a-nana-we-˹e˺-[im] / ša-ḫa-ṭì-im it-ta-la-[ak ] / da-lu-um-ma a-da-al / [u4]-um ṭup-pían-né-e-e[m] / [a-n]a ṣe-er be-lí-ia ú-ša-b[i-lam] / [ma-am]-ma-am i-na lú za-al-[ma-qí-im] / [i-n]a mu-uṣ-la-li-[im . . . ] / [im-qú]-ut-ma [ . . . ]

Since the enemy departed from Ila . . . I heard no report about it. (I said tomyself) as follows: “perhaps it went to Dūr-Samsī-Addu, perhaps to Zalmaqum,

perhaps to Tuttul, perhaps it went to plunder the pasture land.” I turn round andround (in vain). But, on the day that I have sent this tablet to my lord, somebodyarrived from the Zalmaqum, at noon-time. . . .

The explanatory remark, “I turn round and round (in vain),” demonstrates that pīqat car-ries the meaning of: “I don’t know which of the various options is correct.” The similarconstruction, pīqat A . . . ūlū-ma, which is also attested in the corpus, 25 confirms thedisjunctive meaning of pīqat A pīqat B:

FM 6, 25:22–29: pí-qa-{x}-at ṣa-b[u-u]m ˹šu-ú˺ / a-na ka-ra-na-aki ú-l[u-ma] / a-na an-da-ri-igki

i-[l]i / ú-ul i-de i-na ta-ši-m[a-t ]i-ia-ma / pí-qa-at aq-ba-ḫa-am-mu {x} / iš-pu-ur-ma ṣa-bu-um šu-ú / a-na ta-re-e aq-ba-ḫa-am-mu / e-le-em

Perhaps this army goes up to Karanā or to Andarig. I don’t know. In mycalculations, perhaps Aqba-ḫammû has written and this army goes up to bringAqba-ḫammû?

It is notable that, based on existing data, all cases of disjunctive pīqat are attested only

in letters from Mari. 26

The disjunctive function in Babylonian letters is not expressedthrough pīqat but through the typical Babylonian construction lū..lū . . . , as in: 27

23. Von Soden 1949: 386.24. In late Babylonian medical texts, the construction pīqa(m) lā pīqa(m) carries another, not disjunc-

tive meaning. Mayer (1989: 153–54) translates pīqa(m) lā pīqa(m) with “occasionally, irregularly.” CADP 384c) renders this construction “sometimes.” This meaning is not known in OB. If this interpretation iscorrect, then at this later period pīqa(m) loses its epistemic modal force and behaves as an adverb.

25. See also ARM 26/1, 84:8–18; MARI 5, 181:9–24.

26. For this construction see also ARM 2, 66: 5–13; ARM 26/1, 84:8–18; ARM 26/1, 121:18–21; ARM26/2, 354:12–20; ARM 26/2, 489:41–44; MARI 6, 272:4–17.27. So also, e.g., in AbB 14, 145:8–25 and AbB 3, 39:12–17.


37/260


AbB 1, 51:23–36:[ pí-qá-a]t l[u]-ú a-bu-ša / [l]u-[ú um-ma-ša] kù-b[abba]r ú-k [a]-a[l]-lu-ni-ik-ki-im / um-ma šu-nu-ma ma-ra-at-ni / ni-pa-aṭ-ṭa-ar la ta-ma-ga-ri / sag-geme

pa-aq-da-ak-ki-im / a-na sag-geme la te-gi-i / pí-qá-at a-wi-lum i-ša-ap-pa-ra-

ak-ki-im / um-ma šu-ú-ma lu-ú sag-geme / lu-ú kù-babbar ú-ka-al-la-ak-ki /la ta-ma-ga-ri / pí-qá-at i-na pí-i-im i-ša-ap-pa-ra-ak-ki / um-ma at-ti-ma a-naa-ḫa-ti-ia / ú-ul ad-di-in a-na ka-a-šum / a-na-ad-di-na-ak-kum

Perhaps either her father o[r her mother] will offer to you silver, saying: “we shallredeem our daughter”—do not agree. I have entrusted you with the slave-girl,do not be negligent about the slave-girl. Perhaps the gentleman writes to you,saying: “I will offer to you either (another) slave-girl, or silver”—do not agree.Perhaps he will send you a message by word of mouth. You will say: “to mysisters I didn’t give (her), shall I give (her) to you?!”

3. Semiconditional Constructions

In some cases, pīqat is found in bi-partite constructions, where it is hard to avoid theconclusion that this construction creates a semiconditional phrase. 28 A good example isfound in a letter from Namratum—a woman, judging by her name—to Bunīnī-abī, whoseems, from the tone of the letter, to be a family member:

AbB 1, 71:18–24:

pi-qá-at la-lu-um / i-ṣa-ab-ba-at-ka-ma / a-na ki-di-im tu-IṢ-ṣi / pa-ga-ar-kaú-ṣú-ur / a-na ki-di-im la tu-IṢ-ṣi / a-na é la te-gi / a-na u4 5-kam ma-aḫ-ri-kaa-na-ku

Perhaps desire takes hold of you and you will go out—watch for yourself! Do notgo out! Don’t be negligent about the house. In five days time I will be with you.

A plausible, even tempting interpretation of the first sentence is: “if (lit., perhaps = pīqat ) desire takes hold of . . . —(then) watch for yourself!.” A more complex syntacticconstruction, in which pīqat follows immediately after šumma, is found in the following

letter.Christian 1969: 18:23–38:šum-ma i-na ˹ki-it˺-tim / a-bi at-ta / a-na larsa ki ṭú-ur-da-šu-nu-ti-ma / i-na bi-it dutu / di-na-am li-ša-ḫi-zu-˹šu-nu-ti˺-ma / šum-ma ḫi-bi-il-ta-šu-nu / i-ba-aš-ši /i-na di-[i]n dutu li-il-qu-ú / ˹la˺ ˹x-la˺-ma a-di-šu am-mi-ni / ḫi-bi-il-ta-am ra-bi-ta-am / i-ḫa-ab-ba-lu / šum-ma pi-qá-at šu-nu a-la-ak-šu-nu / úḫ-ḫu-ur / a-wi-lam li-iṭ-ru-du-nim-ma / šu-nu [i-n]a a-la-ki-im / di-[nam] li-ša-ḫi-zu-šu-nu-ti

28. See AbB 1, 51:23–36; AbB 1, 68:4–9; AbB 1, 71:18–24; AbB 1, 135:25–27; AbB 1, 139:6′–10′;AbB 4, 49:5–13; AbB 4, 50:7–10; AbB 9, 31:10–22; AbB 12, 13:6–18; AbB 14, 145:8–25; AbB 14,164:25–33; Christian 1969: 18:23–38; MARI 8, 383:10–22.


38/260


If you are truly my father, send them [the people with whom the writer has alegal dispute] to Larsa so that they will be sentenced in the temple of Šamaš. Ifthey were wronged, let them take (compensation) according to the judgment ofŠamaš. . . . Why do they commit such a grave injustice? If—perhaps (šumma

pīqat )—they, their departure will be postponed, let them send here a gentlemanand when they depart let them go to trial.”

Because this construction is unique in the entire corpus, it is difficult to pinpoint the ex-act nuance it carries. It is not impossible that šumma pīqat is a scribal mistake: the scribemay have hesitated between the two particles and ended up recording both of them.However, if we accept this text as a legitimate example, the usage of these two particlestogether proves that, although pīqat is used in conditional clauses, it carries a different ,additional meaning to šumma.

Our first example from the dialogue between the fuller and the client (Livingstone1988: 177:17) can also be explained, I suggest, as a semiconditional construction and,consequently, be translated: “If you remove (?) the (laundry) mark, then you must . . .and y

mostmost probably : epistemic modality in old babylonian probably

Documents