Controversial Akkadian Numbers erbe/erbē/erbê “4” or “40”, šalāšā/ū “30”, teše/tešē/tešê “9” or “90”
Numbers are almost always written by means of special number signs in the cuneiform tradition, so in many cases we are insufficiently informed about the exact form of the individual numbers. There are also some Akkadian numbers that are written phonographically, but these are analyzed inconsistently...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Universidad Nacional de Rosario
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://claroscuro.unr.edu.ar/index.php/revista/article/view/175 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Numbers are almost always written by means of special number signs in the cuneiform tradition, so in many cases we are insufficiently informed about the exact form of the individual numbers. There are also some Akkadian numbers that are written phonographically, but these are analyzed inconsistently. However, a closer examination of the facts leads to findings and conclusions that resolve these ambiguities. Three examples from Old Babylonian texts are examined here. 1. The spelling er-bé-e, in which a duplicate that uses the number “40” in parallel indicates that “40” is meant rather than “4”. 2. The postulated status absolutus šalāšū, which is only attested once, is based on a scribal error and cannot be verified. 3. Based on the context, the spelling te-še-e can only mean “90” and not “9”. |
|---|