P. 1


|Views: 137|Likes:
Published by eikon2112

More info:

Published by: eikon2112 on Dec 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






If only, as before suggested, the Sumerian school would accept the Halevyan
theory that the language of the inscriptions is a concoction of the priests; and
if in return the Halevyans would accept the theory of the Sumerian school
that the inferior dialect is a real language, as I am inclined to regard it, their
views could be reconciled and would fit in with my own that the superior
language was that of Cain (**1) and the inferior that of the pre-Adamites.
Such a mutual concession would not be incompatible with the science of
philology. After carefully discussing both sides of the question, and American
professor writes:

"The Semitic priests and scribes played with and on the Sumerian idioms, and
turned what was originally an agglutinative language into what has almost
justified Halevy and his followers in calling Sumerian a cryptogram." (J.
Dyneley Prince, Prof. of Semitic Languages, Columbia University. Ency. Brit.,
Ed. II. Sumer.) His further remarks show that he would willingly agree with
the Halevyan school that the language of the inscriptions was an
arrangement of the priests for purposes of mystification, were it not for the
fact that he cannot satisfy himself that the inferior part of the language once
spoken in Babylonia. Since he cannot satisfy himself on this point he
practically gives up the problem. It can hardly be denied that if my theory
about Cain and the pre-Adamites is accepted it solves the "Sumerian
problem," and since "the evidence of a theory increases with number

(**1) As we have seen, the language of Sargon resembled Hebrew. See p.22

PG 52

of facts which it explains" there is much to be said in its favor. For my
purpose it matters little whether the inferior language of the Babylonian
inscriptions belonged to the pre-Adamites or was invented by the priests.
That question I leave to philologists. What does matter to me is the
discovery made by both schools that the writers of the inscriptions chose to
mix that inferior language with their own, for by doing this they make their
writings almost unintelligible, thus supporting my theory that they willfully
obscured their meaning.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->