-UM Endings on Akkadian Nouns - Why Do Akkadian Words End in "um"?

[@IOSPBITBRNO]

I speak Assyrian Aramaic (Akkadian influenced Aramaic) and it all makes much sense being that I study Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic language and etymology. Our etymological roots all Connect to Akkadian, the first documented Semitic Language.

[@Simon-rz8nz]

Every Aramaic dialect is Akkadian influenced. Not only your dialect. Classical Syriac, Jewish literature Aramaic, and even the maaloula dialect are Akkadian influenced. Because before Aramaic Akkadian was the lingua Franca in the Middle East.

[@IOSPBITBRNO]

@@Simon-rz8nz This is correct, but Assyrian dialects of Aramaic in modern times retain the most Akkadian Influence. Akkadian is Eastern Semitic, as are the Akkadians, and their successors, the Assyrians.

[@IOSPBITBRNO]

@@Simon-rz8nz I see that you identify as Aramean. Many Assyrians Claim we are the same. Arameans are semtic, but they are not Assyrian from my understanding. In modern times rather, we are almost the same.

[@IOSPBITBRNO]

@@Simon-rz8nz If you have time, please tell me about where you come from and some background on the Aramean Community.

[@hassiblahoud8726]

This reminds me of the "tanween OR nunation التنوين" in Arabic at the end words denoting indefinite words eg waladun ولدٌ waladan ولداً waladin ولدٍ

[@bamdadkhan]

exactly what i wanted to say.. i can't believe he missed that

[@عبدالرحمنعبدالله-ز4م]

But nunation serves a different purpose in grammar. It signifies non-definiteness, except in proper nouns which are definite by default.

[@alefbet-kz4rx]

thank you sir

[@ProfessorMichaelWingert]

You're very welcome!

[@baghdade]

in old yemeni arabic the article is AN and its in the end of the word

[@TS-788]

Do you mind giving an example of what exactly old yemen Arabic is ,I'm a fluent non arab speaker of Arabic and know understand all dialects/accents

[@baghdade]

@@TS-788 old Yemeni Arabic or southern Sematic, for example, Himyaritic Sabaic languages had the definite article M or AN at the end. For example, بيتم=البيت زرعم = الزرع, and to this date, you can find different articles in southern weast Arabian dialects like H هرجل=الرجل or اورجل=الرجل.

[@TS-788]

@@baghdade I have read the words but can you be specific are you Saying Arabic or himyarite/sabaic which I think you know early the earliest arabic/islamic scholars called not arabic and unintelligible to arabs example alhamdhani ,and are you using arabic as a geographical term or linguistically I'm guessing you know arabic is evident only after 300ad and later and the so called South semetic are thousands of years old

[@TS-788]

@@baghdade we surely can't pick words that have the exact same root words in many languages and paint them interchangeably with whatever we would like to call them , beit for home and zere"e for planting are examples

[@TS-788]

​@@baghdade it would be good if you can also tell me if you know of distinguishing features of arabic other than ال AL and و wa which is present in other languages either exactly or in a different form according to studies,also if definite articles change in a language because of dialects/accents

[@moro7880]

I thought it corresponded to nunation in Arabic as in abun and nafsun which is a marker for indefinite nouns. It nevered occured to me that mimation in Akkadian behaves like the -a suffix in Aramaic!

[@juliannaruffini]

it is -um =-un with genitiv, accusative: -im, -in

[@SelamGjikolli]

Good Day Sir I have some question about the Aramaic language and I think you are the best one to ask. My first question were what kind of Aramaic is biblical Aramaic, according to Wikipedia you can divide Aramaic according to Klaus Beyer in 3 kinds, old, middle, and modern Aramaic. Klaus Beyer and Aaron Butts into 5. The English Wikipedia says that Biblical Aramaic is Old Aramaic, but the German website says that is middle Aramaic. My second question is what's the differences between all kinds of Aramaic, Old Aramaic, Official Aramaic, Middle Aramaic, Late Aramaic and Modern Aramaic.

[@Tenant156]

Oops! Yes, video states -um indicates nominative case. But I'm still curious about how / if Akkadian -um and Arabic -un are related. Perhaps it is too complex for a short answer.

[@ProfessorMichaelWingert]

They are related... not quite the same though. Since I'm not an Arabic scholar, I want to make sure that I am able to explain the way in which Arabic diverged before I make a video dealing with the topic. Great observation.

[@Tenant156]

​@@ProfessorMichaelWingert Thanks for your response. I do know the Arabic system of case endings is seemingly very simple (NOM -un/-u, ACC -an/-a, GEN -in/-i). Except that there is a second declension (NOM -u, ACC -a, GEN -a) that kind of screws up this otherwise rather simple system. And a proper name like Muhammad[un] is semantically definite - but formally or grammatically indefinite. I can't wait for the video!

[@ganpik]

So, in Babylonian, the emphatic form that means "a dog", or, more commonly, "the dog" would be: KAL-bum. But in the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic, the form that means "the dog" in the nominative is: KAL-bu = kalb + nominative suffix -u. So, the earliest (nominative) form of "dog" is KAL-bu. Arabic preserved this form. Babylonian added -m, then dropped it. Hebrew dropped the -u, and after having segolates and spirantization we get KE-lev. Is this correct?

[@ProfessorMichaelWingert]

The earliest attested evidence is "um". Anything earlier than that is a theoretical reconstruction as far as I'm aware.

[@cengizaltinveturkturanlilartar]

la Civilisation, Akkad ou Chaldèen, Ce Sont Originaire Grand Familles Tourque Touranienne, Nommes Montagnard, leur Divinite Nommes Barbar, Dieus Suprème. laungage Akkad, Turque- Tatares, Ougro Finnios, Sarmates, Mançour - Tounguz, Scyhtes ou Saca, Saha, et Dravidienne ou Tamil. langue Touranienne, Chez les Akkad, Nomme langue Sacrè et Chez les Sumerienne, langue Voyante, Merci Beaucoup.

[@kkKey-py7lk]

In ASSYRIAN tribe language the accents most like a akkidin

[@laurencesuhner7201]

I'm learning Akkadian but soon learning Sureth.

[@brianphillips1864]

You have pried my brain open this evening. Thanks Prof.

[@Tenant156]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, Akkadian napištum can mean "a soul" or "the soul" (i.e. this word is not inherently indefinite or definite). But does the -um suffix indicate case e.g. nominative case (in the same way that Arabic nafsun would indicate nominative case)? The similarity between Akkadian mimation and Arabic nunation is striking: Are they historically connected? Or is the similarity just coincidence? Many thanks for any guidance!

[@mohamedakachat3737]

hi professor , there is a theory made by Dr Bahjate Quobaissi about the "oum" suffix in akkadian and he says that in many cases it is the same as the "tanwine" in arabic التنوين , so "abum" could mean " a father" instead of " the father" , i would like to hear your thoughts about the matter , thanks again Professor Wingert.

[@ProfessorMichaelWingert]

Hi Mohamed. Dr. Quobaissi seems correct in this. The reason being is that there is no specifically definite or indefinite article in Akkadian. When translating Akkadian into languages with definite articles, we find that most subjects are definite, so we describe the -um suffix as a definite article, but in reality, it can be any article or none at all. Hebrew and Arabic developed ways to speak with definitely and indefinitely. It might be a fun video to put together at some point.

[@YeshuaIsTheTruth]

The Akkadians had more Nissans than the Hebrews, who only had one. The Hebrews have way more Mercedes though. Question: Does Akkadian read left to right???

[@eronoera1857]

Sorry, I wanted to ask out off topic. Is "eanna" or "inanna" come down to "jannah" in Arabic? I heard there is a temple with that name in Uruk. This assumption is made because all three have similar meanings regarding "sky/heavens"

[@a.alomaira5122]

The root would be גן/גנן (gan/ganan) in Hebrew and جنه (Jannah) in Arabic meaning garden or an enclosure. It's used colloquially in arabic today to mean green pastures or a thing of beauty. Inanna is not linked to any semitic root as far as I know.

[@Lepumpkino]

No. Inanna is sumerian which is not at all related to semetic languages. Inanna herself in akkadian is Ishtar ( عشتار)

[@royalcreations3970]

Can you recommend a good book on Akkadian?

[@laurencesuhner7201]

Akkadian grammar from Huehnergard

[@cengizaltinveturkturanlilartar]

Akkad, Ce Sont Originaire Grand Familles Tourque Touranienne. la Familles Tourque Touranienne, Ce Sont Montagnard, Nomade, et Amozonienne. Voila la Familles Tourque Touranienne, Tatares, Scyhtes ou Saca, Saka, Saha etc, la Sibèrie, Sarmates, Mongol, Mançour, Tounguz, Ainu, Guril, Kore, Ougro Finnios, lapon, Esquimos, Odin, Thrace, ou Troye, Cimmèrienne, Caucase, Basque, Bèrberes, Kabyle, Assam, Indus Valles, Dravidienne, Ou Tamil, Bengal, Urdu, Tsigane ou Roman, Souryas ou Tourcoman, Nagas, Nadam, Sikkim, Huns, Tangout, Tomhu, Ashkenazi, Khazar, Avar, Alan, Etrusque, Celtique, Massagètes, Birman, Siam, laos Joung, Mekong, Khmer, Mala ou Males, Polonesienne, Maori, Azteque, Tolteque, Inca, Tupis et Carip. etc. la Familles Tourque Touranienne, Ce Sont Parentè et Mix Population. Merci Beaucoup. Bon Continuation.

[@yaseensharawi8034]

مش هو نفسه التنوين بلعربي

[@ahmedabdelwahab7045]

نعم، لكن في اللغة الأكدية ما كان في آداة تعريف مثل ال في العربية

[@astonishing157]

Um what the sigma?

[@陈天雄-i6w]

Prof, would you like to talk about the QCT and Old higazi dialect ❤

[@ProfessorMichaelWingert]

Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to speak on sub-dialects of Arabic. Could you go into more detail? Is it something worth researching?

[@陈天雄-i6w]

@@ProfessorMichaelWingert The Arabic dialect in which Quran is thought to be composed. Recent studies have found this through the Quranic consonantal text and other pre-Islamic Arabic written records in greek letters.

[@TS-788]

​@@陈天雄-i6w can you specify those written records

[@TS-788]

​@@陈天雄-i6w?

[@TS-788]

​@@陈天雄-i6wbro I'm really interested to look into those "written records" kindly specify them so I can check them out

[@bandanaman]

What about what my old Hebrew prof. (in Britain, that means the head of a department) used to call the 'Ugaritic enclitic mem.'? He'd been involved in digging up Ras Shamra and deciphering the Ugaritic tablets, and found Ugariticisms everywhere in the OT (when there wasn't a plausible way of emending it in either the square or archaic alphabets.) I remember in another lecturer's class, coming across what looked like an illogical plural and saying, 'That must the the Ugaritic enclitic mem!' (probably thinking I was being smart) and him explaining as diplomatically as he could that he didn't think there was such a thing in Hebrew.

[@ProfessorMichaelWingert]

Yes! There are a few examples in the Hebrew Bible of mimation. I think these are recognized by Saenz-Badillos and Schniedewind in their texts on the history of hebrew.

[@azharAD]

Thank you

[@emmanuelalbazi8560]

People who are saying that memation in akkadian is the same thing as nunation in arabic lack the basic arabic grammar knowledge regarding this topic. Here are some deferences:- 1-Simply speaking, the process of nunation in arabic is somehow related to the indefiniteness of the nouns in a sentence. And akkadian memation is not related to the definiteness/indefiniteness of the nouns. 2-nunation is never written in arabic language as a suffix but it is written like a mark on the final letter unlike akkadian memation which is written as a suffix.

[@TS-788]

The people you are addressing to are not expressing opinions of history archeology grammar culture, its all about ego at the expense of everything, so what ever academics you share will fall on deaf ears, a certain narrative has to exist for religious/ethnic fantasies

[@Lepumpkino]

They're probably related etymologically speaking, their use would obviously differ but they must've had a shared origin. As for your "nunation is never written point" it's really irrelevant, writing systems are NOT languages and should never be used to compare etymological history especially considering that akkadian and Arabic writing systems are not at all related.

[@emmanuelalbazi8560]

@@Lepumpkino true... my second point is irrelevant thanks for the correction. Of course they had or shared same origin but arabic evolved a definitive article (al-) and nunation is never used when (al-) is used and therefor the nunation in arabic is not 100% like memation in akkadian which does not have definiteness . This is simply my main point and thanks again.

[@Lepumpkino]

@@emmanuelalbazi8560 also I forgot to mention some pre quranic Arabic dialects had mimation instead of nunation. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say “Mimation (Arabic: تَمْيِيم, tamyīm), is the phenomenon of a suffixed -m (the letter mem in many Semitic abjads) which occurs in some Semitic languages. This occurs in Akkadian on singular nouns.[1] It was also present in the Proto-Semitic language. It is retained in the plural and the few remaining dual forms in Modern Hebrew. It corresponds to the letter nun (-n) in Classical Arabic and is retained in the singular (nunation), dual, and plural.”

[@beatryzxayara]

That explains why Portuguese expresses the undefined article with "um" while Galician with "un" like Arabic

[@thetjhproject]

Actually it comes from the Latin word unus una unum and is a common feature in romance languages

[@beatryzxayara]

@@thetjhproject latin is probably a sister language, but not mother. As we can see, the -un as suffix that indicates the indefinite is more ancient than latin.

[@thetjhproject]

@@beatryzxayara Latin is the mother of Portuguese. Akkadian and Arabic are Semitic languages. There is no relation

[@AxelMegaton]

Where is Assyrian on the list? It should come right after Akkadian since it is the first language to develop from Akkadian. Syriac and Aramaic developed from Assyrian thousands of years later.

[@DataBeingCollected]

​@@thetjhproject Not a linguist here, and I had no clue about Akkadian “Um” endings until this video. Latin based Um endings might be 100% coincidence, or it might be a very important clue. I am sure this exact discussion has already happened multiple times by the linguists. I am just working through this to help me establish a threshold of possibility for me personally. While I think it is unlikely that they are directly linked, that does not mean we should automatically discard the possibility either. For a moment, I am going to go against my own assumptions and argue for a pro-Latin-Akkadian connection. A modern example to consider. English is a Germanic language, yet we use a lot of features from Romantic languages, such as the “tion” ending. Since we have the historical context of Roman and later Norman influence, we understand why this is the case in English. Even German has words with Romance language roots. Funktion comes to mind. This is not exactly the same thing, but how much of English in the last 30 years has been adopted wholesale by non Germanic languages, especially in the realm of technology and computers? The first cellphone network ever was established in 1979 in Japan. Yet they use the word スマホ Sumaho, from the longer スマートフォン Sumatofon today, thanks to the American smartphone revolution. South Koreans call a cellphone a hand phone, “haendeupon”. Technically there is a native Korean way to say it “Son-jeonhwa“ which means “Hand-Telephone”, but it is only used in North Korea where there is an official state policy of prioritizing native Korean. You see a similar use case with Russia compared to most slavic nations. Russia officially prefers to use the word sotovyy which refers to “honeycomb cells”, where as most Slavic nations just adopt the phrase “Mobile” straight from the English use. (Mobile originally coming from Latin). The point I am getting at, languages are messy, but they can say a lot about the historical time period. It is helpful to categorize languages into families, but every language plays by its own rules. They don’t go “Oh, that is a Semetic language feature, best to avoid using that.” Cart before the horse situation if you make the mistake of saying what a language can or cannot do off of modern models. The models exist to make sense of the data, not to dictate to the data what it’s supposed to be. If a language does something odd (North Korea or Russian cellphones for example), then that might be a clue about A. How influential the source culture is, and B. How the outliers might have felt about their neighbors/source. Going back to the German word Funktion, it is more likely to enter German after the fall of Rome than during or before based on the political implications of German-Roman relations. We don’t necessarily have much of the historical context for how early Latin formed as compared to English. We also don’t know how far Akkadian influence extended beyond their borders. Yes, all our maps show this neat little space partitioned space in Mesopotamia, but clearly they were interacting and trading as far as Egypt and India. Their furthest economic/political/military reach did not care what our modern maps say their borders were. I’d imagine a thousand years from now, it would be pretty difficult to prove that the British fought multiple wars in Afghanistan during the “Great Game” period without the historical context. The Khyber Pass cottage gun industry would probably be the biggest archeological clue, and future archeologists would be wondering why Afghans were making knock off Martini-Henry rifles. In conclusion, I am not taking this one video and going “Akkadian influenced Latin!” I personally would want to study the topic more. But it would be a mistake to reject data as coincidental without being able to explain why that data is coincidental in the first place. Confirmation bias bites both ways, especially if we are overly reliant models that could be wrong.

[@saadhamid6226]

Um as an ending with nouns in Akkadian is the same as ( tanween al dum) the ending ( un) in Arabic. Because of your Orientalist poor knowledge in Arabic you show in your table for the name ( father ) in Arabic the word ( Al-ab) which is ( the father) not (father). A mistake??? or an attempt to distort the Arabic Morph ?? When a noun is pronounced as leading word or as an object of a verb it is declined with ( un) in the end . So if I am to write ( showing the declention ) the name Muhammad, I should write it Muhammadun. there you have it. Another mistake you make is saying that "Hebrew is Canaan language which is a Hindu-European language" . All wrong because Hebrew is not a Canaani language it is an Aramaic language ( taking a majority of Canaani loan words) and Canaan has nothing to do with Hindu-European. So if this is your speciality professor then what a world that we live in !!!! Akkadian is an exemplary form of Ancient Arabic as Canaani and Ugaritic. Your lot distort intentionally our history trying to twist it to fit an Orientalist / Biblical narrative of history and genealogy. Yet, your nonsense and lack of credibility is a testament of a warped approach to knowledge is well known to the people of the land and culture.

[@ProfessorMichaelWingert]

Historically there is a connection between the Akkadian noun articles and the Classical Arabic -un, though in Arabic the meaning gradually came to reflect the indefinite. The issue I'm highlighting here is the definiteness of the article in Akkadian (and Aramaic) that we see differently in Hebrew and Arabic. As to your other comments, I'm not sure that you watched the video in its entirety or you misunderstood a few things (such as Modern Hebrew absorbing Indo-European loanwords). Watch it again and feel free to point out any of these issues. I appreciate your feedback!

[@saadhamid6226]

@@ProfessorMichaelWingert ٌYou again allow your evident lacking in Arabic and its grammar to lead your argument. What you stated is related to nouns in a non verbal phrase. (tanween al dum) the sound ( un) applies to names as well and they very definite as well as objects in verbal phrases and those are definite too. But the point remains that if you want to depict the word ( father) on its own as it is declined in Arabic it will read ( Abun) not as you wrongly illustrated in your video. I reiterate what I said about alien orientalist and their nonsense as I do on the origins of Canaani and Hebrew.

[@emmanuelalbazi8560]

As a person who studied arabic grammar for 12 years from what I remember, I can say that you are wrong actually. The nunation in arabic (تنوين) is actually not like the memation in akkadian. How? Lets translate this sentence from akkadian to arabic: Akkadian: Mārt-um ša šarr-im atti. Arabic: اَنتِ اِبنَةُ الملكِ Anti Ibna-tu al-malk-i. In english this means "you are the king's daughter". Anyway look carefully, the process of nunation of a noun in arabic is never done when the noun is proceeded with a definitive article + noun ابنةُ وليس ابنةٌ كما في المثال اعلاه لانها مضافة باسم معرفة الملكِ. Ibna-tu and not ibna-tun because it is proceeded with a definitive noun. unlike akkadian which does not have any articles of definiteness. Your example is also kind of confusing because it is sentence dependant!! We simply say muhammad without nunation or marks at the end. So a word like father can simply be ab (اب ) or al-ab الاب. But if i want to illustrate the nunation i can write "father" in many ways:- abun,aban,abin...all of which have a different grammatical positions and one must be careful when he/she uses nunation in arabic. And no hebrew is not aramaic and akkadian is not arabic.

[@saadhamid6226]

for your 17 years of study here this for your lacking information , Father اب is one of the five nouns ( actually six) and its independent form in grammar and in pronunciation is Abun not Ab. You may want to add another 17 years to be passable. Second, all linguistic authorities including Hebrew specialists confirm that Hebrew is an Aramaic dialect ( I know both) with extensive Canaani loan words and with ancient Egyptian phonetic influence. So yes it is as I stated . You may want to add 17 years studying that. As the case with Akkadian which is an old Arabic weather you like it or not.@@emmanuelalbazi8560

[@emmanuelalbazi8560]

@@saadhamid6226 Indeed...it will take much more than 17 years trying to educate a rock minded people like you...