Tablet of Elamite script
|Native to||Elamite Empire|
|Era||c. 2800-300 BC|
Elamite is an extinct language that was spoken by the ancient Elamites. It was used in present-day southwestern Iran from 2600 BC to 330 BC. The last written records in Elamite appear around the conquest of the Achaemenid Empire by Alexander the Great. Elamite is generally thought to have no demonstrable relatives and is usually considered a language isolate. The lack of established relatives makes its interpretation difficult.
Elamite cuneiform, adapted from Akkadian cuneiform, was used from c. 2500 to 331 BC. Elamite cuneiform was largely a syllabary of some 130 glyphs at any one time and retained only a few logograms from Akkadian but, over time, the number of logograms increased.
Two earlier scripts of the area remain undeciphered but plausibly have encoded Elamite:
Elamite is an agglutinative language, and its grammar was characterized by a well-developed and pervasive nominal class system. Animate nouns have separate markers for first, second and third person, a rather unusual feature. It can be said to display a kind of Suffixaufnahme in that the nominal class markers of the head are also attached to any modifiers, including adjectives, noun adjuncts, possessor nouns and even entire clauses.
The history of Elamite is periodised as follows:
Middle Elamite is considered the "classical" period of Elamite, but the best attested variety is Achaemenid Elamite, which was widely used by the Achaemenid Persian state for official inscriptions as well as administrative records and displays significant Old Persian influence. Documents from the Old Elamite and early Neo-Elamite stages are rather scarce.
Neo-Elamite can be regarded as a transition between Middle and Achaemenid Elamite, with respect to language structure.
Because of the limitations of the language's scripts, its phonology is not well understood.
Its consonants included at least stops /p/, /t/ and /k/, sibilants /s/, /?/ and /z/ (with an uncertain pronunciation), nasals /m/ and /n/, liquids /l/ and /r/ and fricative /h/, which was lost in late Neo-Elamite. Some peculiarities of the spelling have been interpreted as suggesting that there was a contrast between two series of stops (/p/, /t/, /k/ as opposed to /b/, /d/, /g/), but in general, such a distinction was not consistently indicated by written Elamite.
Elamite had at least the vowels /a/, /i/, and /u/ and may also have had /e/, which was not generally expressed unambiguously.
Roots were generally CV, (C)VC, (C)VCV or, more rarely, CVCCV (the first C was usually a nasal).
The Elamite nominal system is thoroughly pervaded by a noun class distinction, which combines a gender distinction between animate and inanimate with a personal class distinction, corresponding to the three persons of verbal inflection (first, second, third, plural).
The suffixes are as follows:
The animate third-person suffix -r can serve as a nominalizing suffix and indicate nomen agentis or just members of a class. The inanimate third-person singular suffix -me forms abstracts: sunki-k "a king (first person)" i.e. "I, a king", sunki-r "a king (third person)", nap-Ø or nap-ir "a god (third person)", sunki-p "kings", nap-ip "gods", sunki-me "kingdom, kingship", hal-Ø "town, land", siya-n "temple", hala-t "mud brick".
Modifiers follow their (nominal) heads. In noun phrases and pronoun phrases, the suffixes referring to the head are appended to the modifier, regardless of whether the modifier is another noun (such as a possessor) or an adjective. Sometimes the suffix is preserved on the head as well:
This system, in which the noun class suffixes function as derivational morphemes as well as agreement markers and indirectly as subordinating morphemes, is best seen in Middle Elamite. It was, to a great extent, broken down in Achaemenid Elamite, where possession and, sometimes, attributive relationships are uniformly expressed with the "genitive case" suffix -na appended to the modifier: e.g. ?ak X-na "son of X". The suffix -na, which probably originated from the inanimate agreement suffix -n followed by the nominalizing particle -a (see below), appeared already in Neo-Elamite.
The personal pronouns distinguish nominative and accusative case forms. They are as follows:
|Case||1st sg.||2nd sg.||3rd sg.||1st pl.||2nd pl.||3rd pl.||Inanimate|
In general, no special possessive pronouns are needed in view of the construction with the noun class suffixes. Nevertheless, a set of separate third-person animate possessives -e (sing.) / appi-e (plur.) is occasionally used already in Middle Elamite: puhu-e "her children", hi?-api-e "their name". The relative pronouns are akka "who" and appa "what, which".
The verb base can be simple (ta- "put") or "reduplicated" (beti > bepti "rebel"). The pure verb base can function as a verbal noun, or "infinitive".
The verb distinguishes three forms functioning as finite verbs, known as "conjugations". Conjugation I is the only one with special endings characteristic of finite verbs as such, as shown below. Its use is mostly associated with active voice, transitivity (or verbs of motion), neutral aspect and past tense meaning. Conjugations II and III can be regarded as periphrastic constructions with participles; they are formed by the addition of the nominal personal class suffixes to a passive perfective participle in -k and to an active imperfective participle in -n, respectively. Accordingly, conjugation II expresses a perfective aspect, hence usually past tense, and an intransitive or passive voice, whereas conjugation III expresses an imperfective non-past action.
The Middle Elamite conjugation I is formed with the following suffixes:
Examples: kulla-h "I prayed", hap-t "you heard", hutta-? "he did", kulla-hu "we prayed", hutta-h-t "you (plur.) did", hutta-h-? "they did".
In Achaemenid Elamite, the loss of the /h/ reduces the transparency of the Conjugation I endings and leads to the merger of the singular and plural except in the first person; in addition, the first-person plural changes from -hu to -ut.
The participles can be exemplified as follows: perfective participle hutta-k "done", kulla-k "something prayed", i.e. "a prayer"; imperfective participle hutta-n "doing" or "who will do", also serving as a non-past infinitive. The corresponding conjugation is, for the perfective, first person singular hutta-k-k, second person singular hutta-k-t, third person singular hutta-k-r, third person plural hutta-k-p; and for the imperfective, 1st person singular hutta-n-k, 2nd person singular hutta-n-t, 3rd person singular hutta-n-r, 3rd person plural hutta-n-p.
In Achaemenid Elamite, the Conjugation 2 endings are somewhat changed: 1st person singular hutta-k-ut, 2nd person singular hutta-k-t, 3rd person singular hutta-k (hardly ever attested in predicative use), 3rd person plural hutta-p.
There is also a periphrastic construction with an auxiliary verb ma- following either Conjugation II and III stems (i.e. the perfective and imperfective participles), or nomina agentis in -r, or a verb base directly. In Achaemenid Elamite, only the third option exists. There is no consensus on the exact meaning of the periphrastic forms with ma-, but durative, intensive or volitional interpretations have been suggested.
The optative is expressed by the addition of the suffix -ni to Conjugations I and II. The imperative is identical to the second person of Conjugation I in Middle Elamite. In Achaemenid Elamite, it is the third person that coincides with the imperative. The prohibitative is formed by the particle ani/ani preceding Conjugation III.
Verbal forms can be converted into the heads of subordinate clauses through the addition of the suffix -a, much as in Sumerian: siyan in-me ku?i-h?(i)-me-a "the temple which they did not build". -ti/-ta can be suffixed to verbs, chiefly of conjugation I, expressing possibly a meaning of anteriority (perfect and pluperfect tense).
The negative particle is in-; it takes nominal class suffixes that agree with the subject of attention (which may or may not coincide with the grammatical subject): first-person singular in-ki, third-person singular animate in-ri, third-person singular inanimate in-ni/in-me. In Achaemenid Elamite, the inanimate form in-ni has been generalized to all persons, and concord has been lost.
Nominal heads are normally followed by their modifiers, but there are occasional inversions. Word order is subject-object-verb (SOV), with indirect objects preceding direct objects, but it becomes more flexible in Achaemenid Elamite. There are often resumptive pronouns before the verb - often long sequences, especially in Middle Elamite (ap u in duni-h "to-them I it gave").
The language uses postpositions such as -ma "in" and -na "of", but spatial and temporal relationships are generally expressed in Middle Elamite by means of "directional words" originating as nouns or verbs. They can precede or follow the governed nouns and tend to exhibit noun class agreement with whatever noun is described by the prepositional phrase: i-r pat-r u-r ta-t-ni "may you place him under me", lit. "him inferior of-me place-you-may". In Achaemenid Elamite, postpositions become more common and partly displace that type of construction.
A common conjunction is ak "and, or". Achaemenid Elamite also uses a number of subordinating conjunctions such as anka "if, when" and sap "as, when". Subordinate clauses usually precede the verb of the main clause. In Middle Elamite, the most common way to construct a relative clause is to attach a nominal class suffix to the clause-final verb, optionally followed by the relativizing suffix -a: thus, lika-me i-r hani-?-r(i) "whose reign he loves", or optionally lika-me i-r hani-?-r-a. The alternative construction by means of the relative pronouns akka "who" and appa "which" is uncommon in Middle Elamite, but gradually becomes dominant at the expense of the nominal class suffix construction in Achaemenid Elamite.
Middle Elamite (?utruk-Nahhunte I, 1200-1160 BC; EKI 18, IRS 33):
(1) ú DI??u-ut-ru-uk-d.nah-hu-un-te ?a-ak DI?hal-lu-du-u?-din-?u-?i-
(2) -na-ak-gi-ik su-un-ki-ik an-za-an ?u-?u-un-ka4 e-ri-en-
(3) -tu4-um ti-pu-uh a-ak hi-ya-an din-?u-?i-na-ak na-pír
(4) ú-ri-me a-ha-an ha-li-ih-ma hu-ut-tak ha-li-ku-me
(5) din-?u-?i-na-ak na-pír ú-ri in li-na te-la-ak-ni
U ?utruk-Nahhunte, ?ak Halludu?-In?u?inak-ik, sunki-k Anzan ?u?un-ka. Erientum tipu-h ak hiya-n In?u?inak nap-ir u-ri-me ahan hali-h-ma. hutta-k hali-k u-me In?u?inak nap-ir u-ri in lina tela-k-ni.
Achaemenid Elamite (Xerxes I, 486-465 BC; XPa):
(01) [sect 01] dna-ap ir-?á-ir-ra du-ra-mas-da ak-ka4A?mu-ru-un
(02) hi pè-i?-tá ak-ka4dki-ik hu-ip-pè pè-i?-tá ak-ka4DI?
(03) LÚ.ME?-ir-ra ir pè-i?-tá ak-ka4 ?i-ia-ti-i? pè-i?-tá DI?
(04) LÚ.ME?-ra-na ak-ka4DI?ik-?e-ir-i?-?á DI?EANA ir hu-ut-ta?-
(05) tá ki-ir ir-?e-ki-ip-in-na DI?EANA ki-ir ir-?e-ki-ip-
(06) in-na pír-ra-ma-ut-tá-ra-na-um
Nap ir?a-rra Uramasda, akka muru-n hi pe-?-ta, akka kik hupe pe-?-ta, akka ruh(?)-irra ir pe-?-ta, akka ?iati? pe-?-ta ruh(?)-ra-na, akka Ik?er?a sunki(?) ir hutta-?-ta kir ir?eki-pi-na sunki(?), kir ir?eki-pi-na piramataram.
Elamite is regarded by the vast majority of linguists as a language isolate, as it has no demonstrable relationship to the neighbouring Semitic languages, Indo-European languages, or to Sumerian, despite having adopted the Sumerian-Akkadian cuneiform script. An Elamo-Dravidian family connecting Elamite with the Dravidian languages of India was suggested by Igor M. Diakonoff[when?] and later defended by David McAlpin.Václav Bla?ek proposed a relation with the Semitic languages, and George Starostin published a lexicostatistic analysis finding Elamite to be approximately equidistant from Nostratic and Semitic, but these ideas have not been accepted by mainstream historical linguists.