Bratot
Стоик и Машкртник!
Од Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.02.13
Да погледнеме каков бил правописот (спелингот) на името на Александар во клинестите текстови пронајдени во Вавилон:
[....]
Finally, it is interesting to take a look at the spelling of Alexander's name in the cuneiform texts. The correct rendering of Alexandros would have been A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su, but until now, no tablet has been discovered that uses this Greek name.
Instead, after some first attempts to render the conqueror's name, the Babylonian scribes settled upon A-lek-sa-an-dar. Probably, this only shows that the scribes found it difficult to render a foreign name. On the other hand, it can not be excluded that Alexandar is the Macedonian name by which the conqueror of Asia was known to his courtiers. Cuneiform renderings of Seleucus (Si-lu-uk-ku) and other names may also offer clues for linguists studying the Macedonian language.
[....]
Waldemar Heckel, J.C. Yardley, Alexander the Great. Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History..
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004
гугл превод
http://translate.google.com/
cuneiform или клинестото писмо е најраниот систем на пишување познат во светот чии почетоци засега се протегаат до 34 век п.н.е. кои се пронајдени во јужен Ирак (Месопотамија).
Многу јазици вклучувајќи ги Семитските(Еврејски), Индоевропските и изолираните јазици, напишани се во клинесто писмо, на пр.:
Sumerian
Akkadian/Assyrian/Babylonian (Eastern Semitic)
Elamite
Eblaite
Hittite
Hurrian
Utartian
Ugaritic: This is actually an alphabetic system.
Old Persian: a mostly syllabic system, but there is a bit of logograms.
Значи како што гледаме во текстот постојат индиции за понатамошно проучување на македонскиот јазик од времето на Александар кое несомнено ќе отвори нови погледи и можеби ќе го приближи тогашниот до денешниот македонски јазик.
Во Вавилонските списи со помош на клинестото писмо е испишано името на Александар на начинот кој што денеска го изговараме, а не како што е запишувано во грчкиот јазик.
А-ЛЕК-СА-АН-ДАР
Понатаму во текстот:
There is a problem here. The Babylonian text contradicts the Greek source that is often accepted as the best, Arrian. He says that Darius was the first to turn and run, after which the other Persians followed suit (Anabasis 3.14.3). One way to harmonize these conflicting pieces of information is to render 'The army abandoned Darius' as 'Darius abandoned his army'.
There is a problem here. The Babylonian text contradicts the Greek source that is often accepted as the best, Arrian. He says that Darius was the first to turn and run, after which the other Persians followed suit (Anabasis 3.14.3). One way to harmonize these conflicting pieces of information is to render 'The army abandoned Darius' as 'Darius abandoned his army'.6 Suspending the rules of grammar, however, will not solve the problem. We must accept that either Arrian or the Diary is wrong, and in this case we must prefer the Babylonian source, which was written two weeks after the battle. In my opinion, H & Y should have included the text of the Diary in their book and could have ignored Arrian, who misrepresented the crucial stage of the battle.
The same cuneiform tablet offers an interesting account of Alexander's diplomatic moves before entering Babylon. We read about his offer to rebuild the temple of Marduk and learn how he announced that the houses of the Babylonians would not be looted. These negotiations are not mentioned by Curtius Rufus and Arrian, who state that the Macedonians prepared for battle when they approached Babylon (History of Alexander 5.1.19 and Anabasis 3.16.3). More intriguingly, the Diary makes it clear that Alexander did not send Macedonian envoys, but Greeks. Did he consider it unsafe to send the very soldiers who had recently fought against the Babylonian cavalry?
гугл превод тука
:helou:
Да погледнеме каков бил правописот (спелингот) на името на Александар во клинестите текстови пронајдени во Вавилон:
[....]
Finally, it is interesting to take a look at the spelling of Alexander's name in the cuneiform texts. The correct rendering of Alexandros would have been A-lek-sa-an-dar-ru-su, but until now, no tablet has been discovered that uses this Greek name.
Instead, after some first attempts to render the conqueror's name, the Babylonian scribes settled upon A-lek-sa-an-dar. Probably, this only shows that the scribes found it difficult to render a foreign name. On the other hand, it can not be excluded that Alexandar is the Macedonian name by which the conqueror of Asia was known to his courtiers. Cuneiform renderings of Seleucus (Si-lu-uk-ku) and other names may also offer clues for linguists studying the Macedonian language.
[....]
Waldemar Heckel, J.C. Yardley, Alexander the Great. Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History..
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004
гугл превод
http://translate.google.com/
cuneiform или клинестото писмо е најраниот систем на пишување познат во светот чии почетоци засега се протегаат до 34 век п.н.е. кои се пронајдени во јужен Ирак (Месопотамија).
Многу јазици вклучувајќи ги Семитските(Еврејски), Индоевропските и изолираните јазици, напишани се во клинесто писмо, на пр.:
Sumerian
Akkadian/Assyrian/Babylonian (Eastern Semitic)
Elamite
Eblaite
Hittite
Hurrian
Utartian
Ugaritic: This is actually an alphabetic system.
Old Persian: a mostly syllabic system, but there is a bit of logograms.
Значи како што гледаме во текстот постојат индиции за понатамошно проучување на македонскиот јазик од времето на Александар кое несомнено ќе отвори нови погледи и можеби ќе го приближи тогашниот до денешниот македонски јазик.
Во Вавилонските списи со помош на клинестото писмо е испишано името на Александар на начинот кој што денеска го изговараме, а не како што е запишувано во грчкиот јазик.
А-ЛЕК-СА-АН-ДАР
Понатаму во текстот:
There is a problem here. The Babylonian text contradicts the Greek source that is often accepted as the best, Arrian. He says that Darius was the first to turn and run, after which the other Persians followed suit (Anabasis 3.14.3). One way to harmonize these conflicting pieces of information is to render 'The army abandoned Darius' as 'Darius abandoned his army'.
There is a problem here. The Babylonian text contradicts the Greek source that is often accepted as the best, Arrian. He says that Darius was the first to turn and run, after which the other Persians followed suit (Anabasis 3.14.3). One way to harmonize these conflicting pieces of information is to render 'The army abandoned Darius' as 'Darius abandoned his army'.6 Suspending the rules of grammar, however, will not solve the problem. We must accept that either Arrian or the Diary is wrong, and in this case we must prefer the Babylonian source, which was written two weeks after the battle. In my opinion, H & Y should have included the text of the Diary in their book and could have ignored Arrian, who misrepresented the crucial stage of the battle.
The same cuneiform tablet offers an interesting account of Alexander's diplomatic moves before entering Babylon. We read about his offer to rebuild the temple of Marduk and learn how he announced that the houses of the Babylonians would not be looted. These negotiations are not mentioned by Curtius Rufus and Arrian, who state that the Macedonians prepared for battle when they approached Babylon (History of Alexander 5.1.19 and Anabasis 3.16.3). More intriguingly, the Diary makes it clear that Alexander did not send Macedonian envoys, but Greeks. Did he consider it unsafe to send the very soldiers who had recently fought against the Babylonian cavalry?
гугл превод тука
:helou:
