Johannes Friedrich und die Urartäische Sprachforschung

Abstract The “Introduction to Urartian”, from 1933, is a cornerstone of Urartian research. J. Friedrich’s studies of the verb, and more generally of Urartian grammar, are fundamental to all subsequent research, and almost every analysis and meaning suggested in his essays and in the introduction is rightly still correct today. Friedrich clarifies the almost complete identity of the Urartian cuneiform with the Assyrian, but also some epigraphic differences. He mentions his analyzes that differ from Götze and Tseretheli and makes it clear that “the study of Urartian must not use anything other than the purely combinatorial method” and that any etymological attempt with other languages such as Armenian or Hittite or Subaraic should be rejected. Friedrich benefited from the well-edited Urartian inscriptions by Lehmann-Haupt in the 1 st fascicle of the Corpus Inscriptionum Chaldicarum (1928), without sharing many of the old Meister’s interpretations. Since then, contrary to the opinion of Lehmann-Haupt (CICh) and Meščaninov (Chaldovedenie), the language has been called Urartian and not Chaldic. Ninety years later (2023), one must generally state that Johannes Friedrich’s linguistic and philological achievements can be described as unsurpassable, even after the considerable increase in Urartian texts.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Altorientalische Forschungen
Published
2024-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/aofo-2024-0010
Primary Topic
Linguistic research and analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Johannes Friedrich und die Urartäische Sprachforschung

Mirjo Salvini
Altorientalische Forschungen
Linguistic research and analysis
article

Johannes Friedrich und die Urartäische Sprachforschung

Mirjo Salvini
article en

Abstract

Abstract The “Introduction to Urartian”, from 1933, is a cornerstone of Urartian research. J. Friedrich’s studies of the verb, and more generally of Urartian grammar, are fundamental to all subsequent research, and almost every analysis and meaning suggested in his essays and in the introduction is rightly still correct today. Friedrich clarifies the almost complete identity of the Urartian cuneiform with the Assyrian, but also some epigraphic differences. He mentions his analyzes that differ from Götze and Tseretheli and makes it clear that “the study of Urartian must not use anything other than the purely combinatorial method” and that any etymological attempt with other languages such as Armenian or Hittite or Subaraic should be rejected. Friedrich benefited from the well-edited Urartian inscriptions by Lehmann-Haupt in the 1 st fascicle of the Corpus Inscriptionum Chaldicarum (1928), without sharing many of the old Meister’s interpretations. Since then, contrary to the opinion of Lehmann-Haupt (CICh) and Meščaninov (Chaldovedenie), the language has been called Urartian and not Chaldic. Ninety years later (2023), one must generally state that Johannes Friedrich’s linguistic and philological achievements can be described as unsurpassable, even after the considerable increase in Urartian texts.

Altorientalische ForschungenVol. 51(2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Linguistic research and analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.