A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian.

AuthorReiner, Erica
PositionReviews of Books - Book Review

A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Edited by JEREMY BLACK, ANDREW GEORGE, and NICHOLAS POSTGATE. SANTAG, vol. 5. Wiesbaden: HARRASSOWITZ VERLAG, 1999. Pp. xxiv + 450. DM 58 (paper).

The Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (CDA) has been praised, orally and in reviews, as a handy and reliable tool for the use of first- and second-year students of Akkadian. I too can have only praise for the authors' success in providing a handy desk reference for the seasoned Assyriologist who needs to refresh his memory as he encounters a rare or elusive word. Especially laudable is the CDA's coverage, which encompasses in time and in geographical reach all the areas covered by the much larger dictionaries, and which includes, as does the AHw (von Soden's Akkadisches Handworterbuch) but not the CAD (Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago), some bound morphemes (suffixes and clitics, but not prefixes and infixes). The CDA also lists some names of gods (Ellil but not Ea), not only the common nouns (e/illilu, e/illilutu, eautu--transcribed Ea'utu) derived from them.

I am also impressed to see that new words, not in AHw--some not even in the much later compiled CAD T (1994) that I checked in galley proof--are included in the CDA, e.g., the Mari word tahtamu, tatamu, also tahsati "ambush," takkalatu "ingenious behavior," while some of the AHw's incorrect entries, such as tahtanu, are not listed. Due to the dictionary's anonymity, we don't know whom to thank for their vigilance and collection of good new words. Regrettably, however, the CDA tends to accept the readings and/or meanings proposed for unique Mari words, not having, of course, the time and means available to test their accuracy (e.g., rimmatum).

My purpose, however, in this review is not to single out or correct mistakes, if any, if for no other reason than she who sits in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. Rather, I question the suitability of putting such a "concise" dictionary into the hands of unseasoned, inexperienced, and at the same time enthusiastic and credulous beginners. I believe that for their purposes what the dictionary contains is less important than what it does not contain, and I will try to substantiate my opinion in the second part of this review. But first, let me list a few detailed comments on the CDA's coverage or lack thereof.

As it is based on the AHw, some of the AHw entries are taken over even if incorrect, e.g., takaku(m) G stat. "is suffering"; pirakum > CAD pirkam; pisil(l)utum > CAD kasilutu; pismatum (or wismatum) is now read as two words: tattakpis matam. This last example, by the way, shows that the compilers of the CDA have also used the Supplement to AHw where this entry appears. When AHw has a "good" etymology (e.g., a tapris form from a D-stem), the word...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT