In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Use of aspect-tense verbal forms in Akkadian texts of the Hammurapi period (1792–1750 B.C.) by Golda H. Kaplan
  • Magnus Widell
Use of aspect-tense verbal forms in Akkadian texts of the Hammurapi period (1792–1750 B.C.). By Golda H. Kaplan. (LINCOM studies in Afro-Asiatic linguistics 9.) Munich: LINCOM Europa, 2002. Pp. 130. ISBN 389586692X. $46.

This volume investigates various distinctions of time and duration of the Old Babylonian verbal form categories labeled by Wolfgang von Soden in his Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik (Analecta Orientalia 33, Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1952; hereafter GAG) as present (§78), preterite (§79), and perfect (§80). The predicative construction (GAG §77) is not included in the study. These categories should not be understood as ‘tenses’ in the traditional sense. Rather, Akkadian, like other Semitic languages, distinguishes between various punctiliar and durative actions (GAG §76a). The primary function of the categories—rather than merely to express relative distinctions of time—was to determine a number of different aspects of the actions.

The present book represents a most welcome syntactic attempt to clarify the different roles of these categories in the Old Babylonian language used during the reign of Hammurapi. As Kaplan states in her preface, the frequency (and indeed also the general attributes) of the different categories depends not only on the period of time from which the attestations derive, but also on the specific text genre(s) studied within that period of time (4). In order to include only the attestations from the period of Hammurapi, K limits her investigation to the letters of this king (altogether 190 letters) and to the preserved parts of the so-called Codex Hammurapi (i.e. the introduction and the conclusion, §§1–65, 100–261, and 263–82). For the use of the verbal form categories in the Old Babylonian literary texts, the reader is referred to Kai Alexander Metzler’s most recent comprehensive work Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 279, Müster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002).

After an extremely laconic preface (4f.) containing the background, purpose, conventions, and abbreviations of the work, K presents her collected data without further ado. In Ch. 1 (6–27), the attestations in the letters are enumerated and investigated, while the following chapter (28–67) deals with the attestations in the law code of Hammurapi. In Ch. 3 (68–79), the use and functions of the categories in the letters and in the law code are compared. Ch. 4 (80–95) summarizes all the attestations in tabular form and offers brief ‘General conclusions’ (88f.). The book ends with a short—and unfortunately far from exhaustive— list of bibliographic references (96–98), and indices of the texts (99–101) and of the authors (102) cited in the book.

The author concludes that the three categories, present, preterite, and perfect, could denote the action of any time and aspect in the language used during the reign of Hammurapi. Nevertheless, a few general patterns are clearly discernible from the attestations: durative in the past was mainly expressed with present and preterite, while the durative in the present and future mainly appears in the present form. Preterite and perfect were the most common forms used to express punctuality in the past, while punctuality in the future was mainly expressed with the present and perfect forms.

On the whole, K’s book provides a useful and long-awaited study of the aspect-tense verbal forms [End Page 625] in the letters and law code of Hammurapi. Scholars and students interested in the structure of the grammar and the verbal system of the Old Babylonian language will no doubt be grateful for this volume.

Magnus Widell
The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago
...

pdf

Share