Talk:Sumerian literature

Delete non-Sumerian work
This page included a link to an alleged translation of an alleged Sumerian work, Shamhat of Eruk. There IS NO Sumerian work with this title. There is no Sumerian work including a character named Shamhat, which is an Akkadian name not used in Sumerian. It's possible that said "translation" was of the section in one of the Akkadian versions of the Gilgamesh epic narrating the story of Shamhat and Enkidu, in which case it could be moved to a more appropriate section of Wiki. However, the author of this alleged translation, one Colin Lesie Dean, is a notorious self-promoter and sock-puppeteer, who is routinely barred from discussion sites. He claims to have 9 university degrees, though he never includes the issuing university, despite the fact that several of the degrees are identical (2 B.A.s, 2 M.A.s in Psychoanalytic Studies). He further claims to translate works from Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese, and Sanskrit, in addition to Sumerian. I know for a fact that he doesn't know Sumerian, as, when I e-mailed him to inform him there is no work in Sumerian called Shamhat of Eruk, he was totally unaware of this. Therefore, I can only conclude that he either made up this "translation" from whole cloth, or based it on one or more existing English translations of Gilgamesh, without realizing that the Gilgamesh used was written in Akkadian. In any event, it does not qualify as a legitimate translation, but rather more like OR. Unless and until someone can demonstrate, with a citation to the exact source(s), that the translation I deleted does derive from a Sumerian original, this translation should not be included here.--Mother of Otherness 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mother of Otherness (talk • contribs)

Merge
This page is mostly concerned with "Neo-Sumerian" literature. Since "Neo-Sumerian" can hardly be considered Sumerian, making the distinction between Akkadian and Sumerian a hard one and perhaps even arbitrary since they were composed during the same periods, I propose a merge with Akkadian literature to Mesopotamian literature until these articles can be rewritten by someone with a firm(er) understanding of the material at hand.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the obvious linguistic distinction, Sumerian and Akkadian literature reflect very different periods, genres and states of evolution of thought, e.g. the systematic and scientific analysis of omens and divination in Akkadian which is all but absent in Sumerian. I think the merger would generate far too broad an article as there is plenty of material to support two. Oppose.BigEars42 (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all you say. The problem is, none of these distinctions are reflected in these articles, which was the reason why I suggested the merge. Oh well, I guess they can stay as they are.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with both; the literatures in different languages are obviously distinct, and this page needs work, which I’ve started on.
 * —FlashSheridan (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Evidence and Definition of Poetry
I realize footnotes 5&6 (and 7) to some extent contradict 9&10; I’m citing them, not agreeing—I find the literature lacking in rigor. In particular, I was stunned by the lack of a discussion of the evidence. Not that I’m a disciple of Parry and Lord, but even a cursory examination of possible word and phrase positions within lines would tell us something. And even given the orthographic limitations, there are still upper and lower bounds for the syllable length of lines—are there patterns in them?

—FlashSheridan (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction
If the "writing system precludes detection of rhythm, metre, rhyme" then how can we say definitively "it is not rhymed"? 98.143.75.50 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)